Trends, safety, and efficacy of wearable male sexual devices.

INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of male sexual dysfunction (MSD) increases with age, with >50% of men aged >40 years reporting erectile dysfunction (ED). In recent years, wearable male sex devices (WMSDs) have been increasingly utilized by patients and recommended by sexual medicine clinicians. OBJECTIVES: This study seeks to investigate the safety and efficacy of products currently marketed for the treatment of MSD. METHODS: Available products for WMSDs were reviewed by analyzing product websites, forums, advertisements, and clinical recommendations. Qualitative comparisons were based on patient reviews, cost, and specific features. Investigatory evidence and Food and Drug Administration status were also reviewed. Additionally, Google Trends was used to determine the popularity of devices over time. RESULTS: Eight WMSDs for the treatment of MSD and enhancement of sexual pleasure were reviewed. Constriction bands, such as the Maintain Ring Loop, Eddie by Giddy, and Xialla, have shown significant benefits in clinical trials and were the most popular devices among patients. Smart devices can provide real-time feedback on erectile quality and/or sexual performance. Similar to the RigiScan, the Adam sensor provides feedback on erectile quality while monitoring changes in penile tumescence during sleep with additional analysis available through a mobile application. Neuromodulation devices such as the Morari Patch and vPatch/in2 Patch use electrical stimulation to delay ejaculation and improve sexual function. The FirmTech Performance Ring uses sensors to track the vital signs of erectile fitness with clinical trials ongoing. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this review describes the available investigatory evidence for a range of WMSDs and highlights the potential benefits and limitations of these devices in treating MSD and enhancing sexual pleasure. Further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of these devices and to determine which ones may be the most suitable for individual patients.

"Vagina" Is Not a Bad Word: Historical and Contemporary Censorship of the Word "Vagina".

OBJECTIVE: To characterize instances of censorship of the word "vagina" to better understand perceptions and behaviors surrounding the word. METHODS: Internet and relevant database (PubMed, Academic OneFile, Proquest, Health Business Elite, etc) searches were conducted for the words "vagina," "censor," and related wildcard terms. Search results were filtered by three independent reviewers for relevance. Related articles were summarized and reviewed for common themes. In addition, interviews were conducted with three people who have personal experience with censorship of the word "vagina." Interviews were transcribed and also reviewed for common themes. RESULTS: Examples of censorship of the word "vagina" were compiled, and several themes were identified: (1) Policies surrounding censorship are unclear; (2) Policies appear highly variable; (3) There are differing standards between references to male and female genitalia; and (4) Objections often call the use of "vagina" overtly sexual, profane, or unprofessional. CONCLUSION: The word "vagina" is censored across multiple platforms and policies regarding censorship are inconsistent and unclear. Pervasive censorship of the word "vagina" perpetuates a culture of ignorance and shame about women's bodies. Until we normalize the word "vagina," we cannot make progress on women's pelvic health.