Talk:Enema

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Medicine: Gastroenterology / Psychiatry Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Gastroenterology task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force.

Parts of the article are misleading. In particular, the term "alternative health therapies" is double-speak. Therapies are either legitimate practices, or they are not therapies. There is no such thing as "alternative therapies." "Alleged therapies" or "pseudoscientific therapies" would be the appropriate term for "therapies" thare are not endorsed by the mainstream scholarly and medical society. 72.89.117.28 (talk) 06:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is far from NPOV to assert that "medical science" has a monopoly over use of the word "therapy". "Alternative therapy" is a term much used and generally understood across the mainstream. There is an alternative view that the medical profession has its own systemic limitations, biases and prejudices - not least due to the profit-maximising actions and influence of pharmaceutical companies. You may not agree, but letting go the use of the term "alternative therapy" is the most balanced thing to do. Cmch83 (talk) 11:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Far wose than tone, references to "phosphate" point to Trisodium phosphate, a highly alkaline and caustic chemical. Phosphate enemas are carefully buffered to present a physiological pH. Trisodium phosphate, given as an enema, is not particularly better than using other caustics like sodium hydroxide (lye). The danger here is not in the factuality, which has been changed, but that someone without the appropriate knowledge might actually try it and hurt themselves. I don't believe that Wikipedia ought to be a nanny, but neither do I believe that erroneous information should be provided that might lead someone to harm. Norm Reitzel (talk) 23:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ritual enemas: from Jared Diamond, The Third Chimpanzee, chapter 11 (at page 201 of the HarperPerennial trade paperback edition of published 1992).

I have added the reference to the article. When I get time I will check the book. Thanks --Sina 00:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted this bit "Enemas can be dangerous if administered incorrectly, so precautions should be taken to ensure the safety of the person being given the enema." It seems rather silly. Brushing your teeth can be dangerous too since you could poke yourself in the eye. --LeeHunter 00:41, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"On my framed picture of Senator McCarthy he wrote, 'Know your enema.'" --Bruce

"Well, if you shove the tube up too far, that can pose a serious problem, as it can become lodged and become very difficult to remove. It may even require the assisiance of a doctor. Know your enema. -- Johnny

Anyone who has hand-made sausages can appreciate the dangers of this "enema at the gates"; it only takes the tiniest bit of imagination. Alternately, a two-minute google search for "ruptured colon" turned up this report from the Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition linking instances of fatal perforations of the intestines to enema use (Constipation, Enema, Disaster!). Jokes aside, when performing an enema you are essentially pressurizing a very thin-membraned organ (think over-filled balloon) which happens to have access to lots of blood. If a rupture was small enough for the internal bleeding to not kill the patient, there's still the myriad microbes inhabiting the intestines (E. coli, anyone?) now provided with a handy doorway to the bloodstream as well as the abdomino-pelvic cavity where they can toxify the patient to death. --Museerouge 17:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is dangerous, and if anyone worked in a hospital, they would know the dangers. It is foolish that medical enemas are sometimes used for non-medical use. Doctors are always advised on the dangers of enema use, as it can rupture, tear or cause internal bleeding of the colon as well as fatal infections, out of all which can result in death in the worst case scenario. LeeHunter, it was unwise to remove the sentence and your analogy with enema administration and brushing yours teeth was incorrect. You need to understand some things are more dangerous than others, and yes, everything in life has dangers, but some have fatal dangers and others have non-fatal, some are high risk and some are low risk; your analogy was the equilavent of saying, crossing the road at a town road is the same as crossing a motorway/highway. It is also worth knowing that during anal sex, there is a high chance of tears in the colon, resulting in blood exposure, and thereon the risk of catching STD's such as HIV/AIDS, and even a higher chance if an enema is used prior to so called anal sex. I will revert back the sentence. --Sina 00:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very old comment but.. please explain how you know so much about the hospital setting, yet foolishly describe anal sex as "so called anal sex" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.211.210 (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article has major flaws of tone. Much of it has been written by someone who is a booster of enemas, and so the article has a "salesman" tone. It is far from neutral, far from objective. There has been no effort even to disguise the salesmanship. "Many males and females learn to appreciate the sensations," indeed. These irrelevant comments do not belong in an encyclopedia article about an established medical practice, and also a practice known to be engaged in recreationally. I don't know how to put the appropriate tags on, but this article needs cleaning up. No pun intended. glasperlenspiel 04:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I just washed up, or else I would... har har harYeago 03:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would support chopping the sections 'Applications' & 'Effects' out completely. The first part of the article makes it clear that enemas as used for many different applications but these sections assume a specific use, are totally unsourced and give advice and provide other irrelevant details, such as prices. Ashmoo 06:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the silly comments in the non-medical section and deleted that WP:NPOV tag. Having an NPOV tag on the article on ENEMAS is absolutely ridiculous. If you want it revised, use a cleanup tag instead. I doubt there are varying 'points of view' on enemas. CaveatLector^Talk 06:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, some water-based enemas are also used as a relieving agent for IBS (Irritable Bowel Syndrome) even though it seems counter-intuitive to add medicines to an already-irritated bowel system. -- Interestingly, it seems... golly.

Your doubt highlights your own biased POV, CL, as my opposite reaction indicates my own biases. Of course there are varying POVs on enemas - as there are with any cultural practice, medical/ethnomedical practice, or sexual practice; and enema administration happens to fall under all three categories. That is to say, it can be interpreted as belonging to one or another - or multiple - categories of apropriateness and use depending on the interpreter's sociological and philosophical/religious profiles.

Regardless, this is still an encyclopedia wether the topic being covered is seemingly cut-and-dry or hyper-controversial: Neutral POV is mandatory, not merely a stylistic element. Without it, this site would merely be a WikiDigest --Museerouge 16:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

100% correct, I got exactly the same notion. The text, particularly in the "non medical use" section is very biased, and written in a glamorizing way marketing non-medical enema use. Many examples are "is the enjoyment of enema applications", "pleasurable sensations experienced by many people", "to enhance the sensations of people who enjoy anal sex activities" "available on the internet in a variety of sizes, styles, and materials." and so on. Another sentence "in cities" is also wrong, which cities? where? which country? The section has no citations at all, and sounds rather it was written by an enema anal user. All of this is non-encyclopaedic and I will change the tone. I will also wait, and if no one can provide a credible source (medical studies, medical journals, science magazines, published books by a credible publishing house) I will remove the whole section.--Sina 00:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Things don't cease to exist because you don't like them, or because there isn't a reference about them. Like most activities conducted in the privacy of one's own home, there's not much written on enema usage in things that fit your narrow defition of credible sources. The only study I've seen, conducted some time in the mid 90's, found that 4% of men and 4.5% of women used enemas for non-health purposes, but I can't recall a citation for it. For an idea of the popularity, a google for "enema equipment", with quotes, finds 41,500 pages, most of which (at least in the first ten pages of results) are stores selling said equipment. Some notable pages might include [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] and many, many, many others. Surely these stores don't sell thousands of products each month to a non-existant segment of the population?

How, exactly, do you expect people to find references to "medical studies, medical journals, science magazines" when the vast majority of them provide either nothing, or only abstracts, without exceptionally expensive fees? Perhaps, if you feel the article needs some, you should open up your wallet and start sending these sites money, so you can add two little footnotes to wikipedia? For example, one article I found on enema usage, the CHEAPEST way to read it I could find was $39.99 for that single article viewable online for 30 days only. Another was only available in Danish, and I couldn't even find the price. If you're rich, please improve the citation status of wikipeda.

I'll be replacing "rarely" back with "many cities", as calling it rare is only your view that such activities couldn't be common. Perhaps you should try a google, finding 446,000 results for "dominatrix enema", with lovely names such as "seattle dungeon", "london enema clinic", "enema bondage colorado", "dominationguide dominatrix locations", "adult guide to london", and so forth? hell, there was even one in .za, showing it's not just an english-speaking thing. Checking the domme.com search engine finds many individual professionals offering said services as well. And, of course, since only a few percent of such professionals have an online presense... Adding "rarely" before something you dislike will not reduce its actual commonality, only bias the wikipedia article. As there are many more people enjoying enemas than voting for _any_ third political party in the united states, perhaps you should go remove every section mentioning them, as such dissenting political opinions are even more rare?

This is just yet another example of the plague of reference-obsession sweeping wikipedia recently, attempting to turn editors into mindless living and breathing search robots, simply catalouging external information and adding it to wikipedia (i.e. WP:NOT!), and the encyclopedia into just a collection of quotes (i.e. WP:NOT!), because anything without a reference is removed by people "improving" articles. Please try to help wikipedia in your further edits. Bushytails 01:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like reverting large edits, but those were just... huh? sentence fragments, missing words, extra words, and blatant factual inaccuracies? I've shortened the section and re-worded it (it didn't read well before at all), hopefully this version is closer to what you wanted. Bushytails 01:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not reference product pages or unreliable websites. Use books, or texts written by professional in the field of enema's or non-medical use of enema's. Until you find your sources, I will revert back the edits. This is not a magazine or a sunday newspaper, its an encyclopaedia. Read the Wikipedia guidelines. Also remember, this is not an article about Klismaphilia, it is an article about enemas. A little section mentioning klismaphilia is enough with a link to the Klismaphilia article. If you're so interested in Klismaphilia, take your text and expand the klismaphilia article. --Sina 01:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your additions are factually wrong, and you are removing large quantities of useful text. This is an encyclopedia, not a list of quotations. And, like all encyclopedias, it needs to have information. Deleting information is contrary to building an encyclopedia. Please stop deleting content, and most certainly stop adding incorrect information to it. (go look up what "sex" means before you type it again!). Bushytails 01:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing was added to the Klismaphilia texts but were simply reworded. The last text was simply non-encyclopaedic with no references. You are confusing this article with the article about Klismaphilia. If you want to detail what Klismaphilia is, please do it in the relevant article. If there was no Klismaphilia article, it would be rendered okay to detail the act here, but since Klismaphilia has become an article on its own, the details should be in its own article, and the enema article introducing Klismaphilia, not detailing it. These are all written in the Wikipedia guidelines. Hope that helps. --Sina 01:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, most articles with a "main article" section have several paragraphs of text about the subject. And, the things you're deleting aren't even about klismaphilia. Klismaphilia is completely unrelated to anal sex. People engaging in anal sex aren't practicing klismaphilia, even if they use an enema beforehand to make sure they're nice and clean. The use of enemas for anal sex preparation is a completely separate activity not related to that article. Yet your text ties them together strongly (with major additions, not just re-wording), in a way that almost seems designed to insinuate only participants in anal sex would use enemas, although I'll AGF on that. "Anal sex users who use an enema call the paraphilia as "klismaphilia"." No, they're not "anal sex users". if that even made sense (you use anal sex?), it would be incorrect. And it's not something just people who use enemas call it, it's an official term. Factually wrong on multiple accounts. "Klismaphilia is the usage of an enema for non-medical use by people who engage in anal sex" redundant with the previous line, AND again factually wrong in multiple ways. "People working in the sex and pornographic trade may offer klismaphilia services." the pornographic trade offers services? "Some inidividuals who engage in anal sex and BDSM may also engage in klismaphilia as part of their sexual activities" Why relate the two again? and the use of "and" is also wrong, anal sex does not imply bdsm. "... or clean the rectum of feces prior to anal sex" again, they're not engaging in klismaphilia if they use an enema to prepare for sex, it's an unrelated use of enemas.

"Improper self administration of an enema by unprofessionals may result in fluid overload, bowel irritation, loss of muscle tone of the bowel and anal sphincter." the "loss of muscle tone of the sphincter" has been repeatedly debunked, and these days is only quoted as outdated studies by people attempting to prove anal sex is harmful. No reputable, non-POV-pushing doctor still believes that. (as millions of anal-sex-enjoying people with perfect bowel function will attest to)

"This leaves the individual exposed to infections from feces, and diseases such as STD's (Sexually Transmitted Diseases) in the case of individuals involved in klismaphilia." there is so much fucked up with that line it's hard to even know where to begin. Let's start with the definition of klismaphilia again. It doesn't invole anal sex. And, the ability to catch STDs from anal sex is already so high (near 100%), that hypothetical, very rare damage would not cause any substantial increase. Feces doesn't cause infections; intestional bacteria do. And usually only ruptures, not slight tears, would allow such infection to start. (colon ruptures being something requiring immediate medical assistance, which you didn't mention!)

"The enema tube and solution may stimulate the vagus nerve, which triggers an arrhythmia such as bradycardia." I've never heard of that, maybe it needs a reference? It's also really beginning to sound like you're trying to scare people away from enemas, deleting anything about it being fun, and adding a whole bunch of overblown claims of danger.

Please stop deleting good information, and adding factually inaccurate crap. Even your precautions are blatantly in error in places. Bushytails 02:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked the reference now? It was there all the time Enema administration by R.N. Mary Elizabeth Martelli B.S. in the Encyclopedia of Nursing and Allied Health Article which is used by many nurses and junior doctors worldwide. Look, I'm not against you or your cause, why are you getting argumentative for. It seems to me that you are taking this personal and see it as a personal attack. I don't care what you do at home or in private, but when you edit an encyclopaedia, try to be factual and see things neutrally, everyone is bound to come in with their own viewpoints, but the strong and wise one is the one who see's things neutrally. #

I'm a consultant with speciality in cardiology and geratrics, and I can bring a whole loads of books and prove to you that frequent penetration of anything larger than the diameter of the colon/rectum can result in loss of muscle tone. This does not happen to everyone, depends on age, condition of the individual and other factors, but does happen, so please don't tell me its debunked. It is still being discussed, and certainly in UK, it is accepted that loss of muscle tone can occur, whether it happens to everyone or not is a different question. Anyway, I'm not here to argue, and one advice I have to you, is when you enter Wikipedia, do not bring your viewpoints unless you know you are 100% right. Im happy with edits now and going to leave out the loss of muscle tone for the sake of you, and hope you are happy with the edits aswell. --Sina 02:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiology and geriatrics is a qualification for sexual enema information, eh?  :)

According to Dr. Sandor Gardos, "The anal sphincter muscle is designed to expand and contract an unlimited number of times. Stretching it will not make it any less able to constrict, just as stretching your hamstrings does not make them weaker. There have even been a number of long-term studies that found that there was absolutely no loss of muscle tone or the ability to contract regardless of the amount of anal sex a person has had." This is, as far as I've seen, the opinion currently held by most competent medical professionals. Usually whenever claims of diminished sphincter control are mentioned, they're from people trying to prove otherwise harmless activities are, in fact, harmful. I've also seen reputable claims that even if it did result in decreased sphincter tone, it would be beneficial for people, and reduce piles and other problems.

"do not bring your viewpoints unless you know you are 100% right" ...! This is from the person trying to impose their viewpoints on major parts of the article, making significant factual errors indicating they have no knowledge of the subject (the constant confusion of anal sex preparation and klismaphilia for example), etc?

As to why I might respond a bit harsher than I otherwise might, the current referenceobsessionism is probably the worst thing I've ever seen happen to wikipedia, even worse than the bouts of chronic deletionism. If we are limited only to direct references from a very narrowly defined list of sources, wikipedia does not deserve to exist. It'll just be a human-edited search engine database of sources, with no original or useful information justifying using it. Editors will lose interest and leave. Visitors will lose interest and leave. Wikipedia is dead. The current referencing activities are contrary to most of the things WP:NOT says wikipedia isn't. A block of text can be 100% perfectly correct and yet not have a single reference. Perhaps it's even impossible to have a reference for it. But that doesn't make it incorrect, or any less worthy of being in an encyclopedia. On the other hand, an article can have every third word referenced to something, and still be 100% completely wrong. Even if a few million people decided that the moon was made of cheese, and all wrote books on it, it still wouldn't be correct to say it, no matter how many references were added. Bushytails 03:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You keep changing the texts writing "in healthy adults" with no reference etc and to me who has read medical books for 7 years just to get where I am, it seems so wrong, people are all different, anyway, I'm not going to argue. There are dangers with sticking things up your ass, and enemas are intended for SEVERE constipation, not pleasure. Anyway, if you want to expand the rectal drug administration here is a good read: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_gGENH/is_/ai_2699003672 and to find out how delicate your colon is: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1370/is_v18/ai_3290527/pg_5 and if you think there is no wrong in having anal sex: The risks of anal penetration and anal sex are well documented within the medical community but very poorly publicized. The delicate columnar epithelium of the rectum makes it highly susceptible to syphilis, gonorrhoea, HIV and other viral infections predisposing to anal cancer. Anal squamous epithelial lesions are now found in 36% of HIV positive gay men . Furthermore breakage and slippage rates for condom use in anal sex are 32% (breakage) and 21% (slippage) (respectively six and three times higher than for vaginal sex)(AIDS 1998; 12(5): 495-503)(Sex Trans Dis 1997; 24:14) The progressive HIV rates in male homosexuals is the highest than any other community. The rectum is the easiest route of HIV infections during intercourse whether in male or females. (BMJ). RAlthough partially irrelevant, research released at a British Psychological Society conference suggested that many homosexuals are tired of constant warnings about their sex lives and feel empowered by rebelling against them (The Times, 20 December 2000). I have nothing against, edit how you want it, I rather reason with someone who is willing to understand facts. Sorry if you were hurt personally. Take out the whole precautions bit if you like, and also list which websites sell enema for klismaphoilia as people coming wikipedia might want to buy one now lol. Yes I agree with you, the referencing guides are harsh but that stops people from arguing, as a reliable source cannot be denied unless a superior source is presented. I just hope you try to understand other people's edits, communicate nicer and try to understand all topics from everyones points of view. I'm going to sleep. Take care --Sina 02:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And there you pushing your POV again. "enemas are intended for SEVERE constipation, not pleasure". "intended", eh? is there an enema administrative board that defines what they're intended for? No, that's simply an opinion. If people find pleasure in them, why do you feel the need to attempt to prove they shouldn't? Please realize you're trying to push a very strong point of view onto the article.

Most cases of ruptured colons and the like happen in unhealthy persons (primarily hospital settings, barium enemas, etc), and intoxicated people. A healthy colon doesn't suddenly rupture. There was another study I read around about the mid 90's, done using cadavars if I remember right, that found the average colon would take approximately 5 psi to cause any damage. Since most enemas are limited to 1psi or less, they are very unlikely to damage a healthy colon. Also consider the hundreds of years during which enemas were standard practice - parents giving them to children at every sign of an upset stomache, etc? All the people who think colonics and "purging toxins" as required for health? Or as mothers were given an enema prior to giving birth, how few had problems? The actual chance of injury to a healthy person is exceptionally low. In a hospital setting, it seems higher, as the very conditions many enemas are meant to diagnose can cause unhealthy, weak areas of the colon, causing the injuries that get reported. Another group of people is those who use small enemas due to spinal injuries, who can't feel when they shove the tip into the side of their rectum. The other higher risk group are intoxicated people. There are several cases of people getting drunk, and taking enemas with unsafe practices ("shower shot" nozzles, etc) while being unable to feel or heed their body's warning signs or use common sense. Each day, millions of people take enemas. How many cases of colon or rectum damage get reported to the hospital each day?

There are of course dangers, but they're very low. you're probably a lot safer taking the enema then getting into the deathtrap called an automobile and driving to the store to purchase the equipment.

And I don't like the "I'm a professional" argument. I'm one too, just in a different field. I believe I have clearly explained the flaws with your edits; please do not re-add them without different reasoning. Bushytails 03:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: edit conflict. I see you changed what you wrote. I'll re-read it and update. Bushytails 03:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed what I wrote, since I thought I came on to harsh, and its seriously against my morals to make anyone feel bad, make them upset or encourage an arguement. So I take some of the tone back. About ruptured colons in unhealthy people, is not really the case. The problem here is, what is unhealthy in relation to the colon. Is it someone who smokes? drinks to much? is obese? has blood deficiencies? there are 100's of reasons why someone is unhealthy. That's why saying in "unhealthy people" is the worst term to describe what you are trying to say. Someone might smoke, but have a perfectly healthy colon. We usually see ruptures in the elderly, an ironically, I heard of an case of an small rupture of the anus in a 25 year old male which supposedly happened when he gave out a large wind. There are so many factors as to what could provoke rectal rapturing. Most enemas used in hospitals are in the case of over-opioid (such as morphine) administration which results in severe constipation particularly in the elderly. The colons outer tissue is more sensitive and thinner than human skin, although its backed by muscles, if you think you can keep sticking something in and out that is not formable (e.g. metal or something that cannot change its shape) then rupturing can easily occur regardless of health. Even when we administer enemas, we are so careful as to do it right, and lubricants are a must. Tearing or rupturing, no matter how small, of the rectum or colon can result in weeks of severe pain for the patient when visiting the toilet.Stick a hammer up your anus, if your healthy, it won't rupture. Or keep brushing your skin with a brush, nothing will happen if your healthy. I hope this sentence clarify what I'm trying to say. Anyway, I rather make friends than enemies, I have to wake up early tomorrow. You take care, leave the information as it is, although in a factual point of view, it was far better before your ammendments. And yes enemas are intended for constipation, its not a POV, its a fact, the same way morphine is intended for pain relief but is used recreationally by so many people. If you think the major pharmaceuatical companies who spent millions on enema designs and manufacturing thought "yeah, lets make something to improve anal penetration and give people anal orgasms" then your wrong. I hope this will be the end of our discussions. I'm happy that whats there now is a result of an discussion and both of our input even though I think it could be better. And I hope you change the "unhealthy" bit to a more appropriate term. Goodnight. --Sina 03:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major pharmaceuatical companies didn't. that's why all those hundreds of smaller companies did.  :)

You can purchase enema nozzles in every imaginable shape and material... Aluminium heats up quickly, giving a much more warm-feeling than plastic, and has a good weight to it. Plastic is much cheaper and lighter. There's rubbers and silicones of every texture imaginable. Inflatable nozzles are made in both latex and silicone, in a wide variety of designs, explicitly for erotic use. (and, of course, cheap hospital inflatable nozzles, while greatly inferior, are used plenty often too)... so, yeah, "yeah, lets make something to improve anal penetration and give people anal orgasms" most definitely happens. And don't forget enemas predate the concept of a major pharmaceuatical company by a few eons or so. And people have been getting off on them since long before there were doctors. Erotic enema usage is something that could easily fill an entire article if someone wanted to take the time to write about it.

Nothing you said there about AIDs is relevant, and actually serves to _support_ the removal of the line that enemas make you more likely to contract an STD. Since anal sex has such a high transmission rate already, having an enema beforehand can't make it any worse. However, I've actually heard two very good arguments as to why an enema beforehand is _safer_. Firstly, for your anal health, it ensures removal of any solid material, greatly reducing the chance of abrasions or injury, and secondly, for STDs, it significantly reduces the rate of condom failures. (being nice and clean and warm and slippery has its advantages!) Objects intended for insertion (be they of the masculine genital variety or the molded rubber variety) are typically smooth, and can rub without causing damage. A little flake of solid material, however...

You're also still ignoring the evidence that millions (yes, millions!) of people a day get enemas with few to no negative health effects. As to said 25 year old male, usually stories like that are of the "don't want to admit what actually happened" variety.  :) Bushytails 04:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You got me wrong about enema production. I'm not referring to now, but in the past, way before this recreational erotic use (not drug administering), when enemas were produced for constipation. If an enema, which is used for klasmiphilia with the intention of anal penetration ruptures the rectum, or even produces the smallest tear, there is a risk of infection and STD's. Its funny how you have written "intestional infections" but ruled out STD's unless the enema use is done solo. The problem is, most tears of the rectum are small, and most of the time, insignificant, too small and heal up very quickly in the matter of days. Many users might not even be aware they have raptured some of their rectum. This still leaves the person vulnerable to infections of any kind if the enema use was intended for anal intercourse. You also seem to think the "Precuation" section is just intended for the recreational use. The only reason I separated the precaution section, is because precautions are important for both medical and any other usages. If you read up on any professional guides on enema administration, you will find a list precautions which all are important when administering enemas. Whether enema's increase the chance of STDs during anal intercourse or not, is not a proven point and to my knowledge speculation, still the best form of protection is condoms. And yes, the male genital or rubber is flexible, but tears are also dependent on the diameter size of the insertion. If something is significantly wide, and depending on the subject, and in females the rectum is generally smaller than males, it will stretch the rectum to the point of ruptures, which might go unnoticed, or cause damage if the insertion is too wide. The rectum can only stretch to a certain point before tissue damage occurs. It's also good to note that the rectum/colon slightly bends to the left (facing a person, right) after 7 or so centimetres, and if something is inserted, that might be soft, but cannot bend, such an erection or a dildo which will stay erected regardless of pressure, damage can occur at the bending depending on position, and its also the area that is most vulnerable to erotic insertion. It also depends on the position of the person upon anal insertion, is she standing? is she laying down? is she on her knees? Other factors that can promote colon damage are diets, if you eat things such as chilis, redmeat etc. all put a pressure on the intestines as well as the colon, POSSIBLY, causing the tissues to become more sensitive. "No negative health effects" is totally irrelevant to precautions. I never said enemas are unhealthy or can cause bad health, infact so many people are relieved from constipation with the help of enemas. But if used incorrectly, without precautions, repetitively, it can cause rectal damage, that is why its important to caution people and professionals on enema administration. As you say your self, that recreational enema users who are drunk often cause rectal damage, proves that the alcohol makes them less vary of precautions or pains to tell them enough is enough. Anyway, I still think the term "unhealthy" or "healthy" is unsuitable. You can cause tears even if you are healthy. Maybe we can write, ruptures "are more common in the elderly". And also remember, the precautions do not state that if enema is used, damage happens, but they state that it "can" happen, not that it "will". I think you are looking at it too personally. It seems we are both fairly happy with the edits, so lets leave the discussion here, otherwise we can go on for a good while still discussing. If you want, send me a private message we can carry on the discussion there. For now, we both achieved fairly well what we wanted.

On the other hand, the "rectal drug administration" part needs alot more information. Some drugs and medicines are administered rectally in the form of chemical bearing enemas, and information about that could be added to the subheading I made. Maybe we could move the "ritual" bit to a section about the history of enemas. The article needs more details about where enemas came from etc. Also, the rectal drug administration section, could be made more detailed using the link I gave above. Also the pictures here are of pretty old enemas. I can bring some newer more advanced models home from the hospital and upload better pictures. We could also work on merging the clyster article with the enema article, writing in the heading "formerly known as Clysters" or "also know as Clysters" or something similar. If you want to give me hand let me know. I might aswell stay awake, have to wake up in a few hours. --Sina 05:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the "rectal drug administration" section needs more information. Besides avoiding digestive processes it can be useful for substances that are not well absorbed from the stomach and/or may be dangerous via IV. I don't know to what extent enema drug administration is current medical practice, but within my own memory a general anaesthetic by the trade name "Avertin", tribromoethanol, was commonly used rectally for childbirth analgesia and minor surgery. I'll add more info when I get time. D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A smaller thing: "These enemas are known to have caused three deaths in the United States, a number miniscule compared to the number of deaths caused by conventional cancer therapies.[10]". This sounds like someone wants to bash cancer therapies. Umma Kynes 18:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ummakynes (talk • contribs)

I have placed a tag on the Clyster page proposing its merger into this article. All it describes are the procedures and popularity of enemas in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, content that hardly warrants an article of its own. If no-one raises any arguments why the articles should stay seperate, I will proceed to merge on 30 May 2007 --Anna512 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article only mentions Irritable Bowel Syndrome once. Thus, saying IBS and then putting the full name in parenthesis is not necessesary.

I was watching Man vs. Wild or Survivorman (I can't remember which,) and it was said that a family had managed to stay alive by using Brackish water in enemas. I was looking through the article and I noticed nothing about this use. I don't understand how the body could be hydrated this way. Is this accurate, and would it work with salt-water from the ocean? --Demonesque 06:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it would not work with salt water from the ocean, and would be very dangerous, just like drinking said salt water. The high salt levels will dehydrate you rather than hydrate you (essentially sucking water out of your body), whether used as an enema or consumed in more normal fashions. Bushytails 07:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats correct, salt water is lethal if consumed daily in large quantities whether from the mouth or rectally. You also have to understand some magazines or TV shows exaggerate or make-up stories to excite viewers. It's not a secret, just as X-Factor admitted to hiring people to put on flawed singing auditions to keep the programmes sense of humour. Anyway, rectal drug administration is possible, and likewise, you can administer normal drinking water rectally which would be near as effective as driking it, providing you lay down on one side until the water is absorbed. Hope that has helped. --Sina 02:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A recent edit by 86.46.51.158 removed a reference to the Man vs. Wild episode where Bear Grylls self administers a nasty concoction of unsterilized water and contaminents. The edit was titled "Took out the fake reality show BS." As much as I support removing this item, it was a real reality show, and proported to show an actual survival technique. I've transplanted the removed text here, since it bothers me to just toss information regardless of how ill-conceived it might be. I'd be interested in hearing thoughts about whether this belongs in the actual article, or not. Norm Reitzel (talk) 21:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

==Survival technique==

According to British television personality Bear Grylls, an enema may be used as a last-resort method for hydration, particularly if the only available water is contaminated and unfit for drinking; the reasoning is that the water would be readily absorbed by the colon while avoiding any gag reflex and vomiting caused by the contaminants. He demonstrates this on an episode Pacific Island - Panama of his TV series Man Vs. Wild.^[1]

It is important to note that this method will not eliminate any poisons or micro-organisms present in the water, and administering an enema with contaminated water can result in infection. The only safe ways of sterilisation are boiling, distillation, or the use of sterilising tablets such as iodine.

I moved text from Colon hydrotherapy and turned that page into a redirect - it's basically an enema, so I didn't think there was a need for a separate page. The text seemed to slot nicely into a the existing subsections too. WLU (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For this article to be truly encyclopedic, it should include a high-quality photograph of enema excreta, either in a toilet or a special container, so that the color, contents, and texture described in the text of the article can be more fully explored. If, after some discussion my suggestion carries, I am willing to provide just such a photograph myself. What say ye? Trollaxor (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the images we have of the equipment required is more than adequate. An enema shit in a bowl would just look like diarrhea, and would be difficult to verify. Plus, your contributions on other pages don't impress me of your sincerity. WLU (talk) 18:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're implying by your last remark about contributions I've made to other entries; Special:Contributions/Trollaxor is plain for all to see and shows a consistent, positive record. Would you indulge me and be more explicit with that statement?

As for the first matter, if the excreta were collected in a special container, such as a hospital urinal or mixing bowl, it would be less ambiguous in form than it might be after contacting the water of a toilet bowl. And a hospital urinal would have the added bonus of showing the volume of feces. I do disagree with your assertion that enema excreta would be identical to diarrhea, however; diarrhea is usually never congealed to begin with and as such would have a much different texture than feces that was impacted and then artificially hydrated -- especially if something such as dish soap were used as a laxative agent. Trollaxor (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way this article needs an image of what comes out of a person's ass after an enema is administered. That is unpleasant, unnecessary, and just plain wrong. A purely academic discussion without the specific pictures of procedures, process, or effect is more than adequate. It would seem to be a slippery slope in term of displaying such pictures. If we show the aftereffects, why not show the procedure? And that leads quickly downhill to goatse being posted as a preparatory step to a proper enema. Seriously people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.84.52.73 (talk) 09:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is a fallacious slippery slope. Furthermore, you are apparently unaware that Wikipedia is not censored. Please educate yourself at the above links. Trollaxor (talk) 05:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An enema releases fecal matter from the last 24 hours. You can purchase an enema bag at the drugstore. A colonic releases fecal matter from years of accumulations. You must make an appointment with a colonic hydrotherapist who uses the latest technology in colonic machines that are attached to the plumbing. Please get your information for Wikipedia from a licensed colonic hydrotherapist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.228.62.230 (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colonics release fecal matter from the last 24 hours. You can have the exact same effect at home without being ripped off by a colonic hydrotherapist. Please get your information for wikipedia talk pages from reality, and/or reliable medical sources. Bushytails (talk) 04:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

colonic hydrotherapy is synonymous with quackery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.135.33.163 (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had to think about this a while before doing this, but decided in the end to remove the photo. I am NOT removing the image because it showed an asshole - I would have left it IF it added anything useful, but it was so out of focus that I find it impossible to believe it was done for any reason other than someones need to stick a photo of their bum where the world could see it. Kinda pathetic. Blurry enough that I am convinced it is a self portrait. Take a decent quality photo that illustrates the process, then add it back. Let me make this clear: I would never remove a photo just because it showed a body part, and can't think of a case when I'd remove a photo just because it showed a body part engaged in something normal, but this was, or at least comes across to me as, gratuitous exposure, which most certainly is inappropriate. A cross section illustration would be great, not because it avoided showing a photo of an ass, but because it would convey more information. What does this show other than the angle of an enema if someone is trying to hold it and a camera at the same time?

fleet enema redirects here but it is never mentioned anywhere in the article. can we get the word fleet to appear somewhere in this article? Tkjazzer (talk) 04:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

or even a product history of the Fleet enema?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.211.132.28 (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that, too. Isn't "Fleet" a trademark? I think I've seen one. If I recall correctly, it's a small, prepackaged disposable enema, available in pharmacies, consisting of a device containing a proprietary liquid, and is considered especially convenient, safe, and sanitary compared to enema bags with home mixed solutions, which may become contaminated during preparation or administrated carelessly in excessive volume. A parent may feel safe handing the package to a child and telling him or her to administer it in private, and adults suffering malaise may benefit from the convenience. Unfree (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but i cant change the reference link, its some how to complicated for me. You dont get to the site of gerson Therapy, this would be the right link : http://gerson.org/GersonTherapy/gersontherapy.htm. Would be great if someone changes it ;-). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.20.252.35 (talk) 21:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See main article, Campaign for "santorum" neologism. It is all well and good to attempt to make a political statement by associating a person's name with aspects of a particular act, but wikipedia is a collection of fact, and not a vehicle for furtherance of a political dispute. No recognized reference defines "santorum" as anything resembling the desired association. Note the lack of article on "malamanteau" which was a neologism popularized by the xkcd comic, widely read among certain technogeek circles. This place is simply not appropriate for such propaganda. Norm Reitzel (talk) 18:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The citation regarding deaths due to a coffee enema [11] is incorrect and I will update it. The article cited does not contain a reference for the claim of 3 deaths and simply states "The US FDA has warned against this regime, which is known to have caused at least three deaths". Without a citation to the deaths the articles claims are dubious — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.171.85.59 (talk) 06:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Enema. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070807002412/http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/8513/34968/358752.html?d=dmtContent to http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/8513/34968/358752.html?d=dmtContent

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to notice that the citation of the 1980 JAMA paper by Eisele & Reay appears twice. While that is superficially a harmless duplication, as a former maintenance guy I can testify that unnecessary duplication can be a maintenance nightmare. This article contains a huge number of references for its length, so if anyone feels like a bit of copyediting, it would be worthwhile checking for any more duplicates and redacting them to one named reference each. D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]