Talk:Paruresis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page was placed on Votes for Deletion in June 2004. Consensus was to keep; view discussion at /Delete. According to some studies, 7% of the population may be suffering from it.
Can we have a source for that figure? Mr. Jones 17:20, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- The 7% figure is probably from http://www.paruresis.org/ --Ben Brockert 22:07, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
The 7% comes from a study undertaken in 1997. Kessler,R.C., M.B.Stein, and P.Bergland. Social Phobia Sub-types in the National Co-Morbidity Study. Boston: Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School. Other similar studies, and anecdotal evidence from urine specimen collection officers working in the military, suggest these figures could be an understatement.
- I have only ever heard of this in relation to men. Can anyone back that up? If so, it should definitely be mentioned that this mainly effects males. Makemi 05:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
This affects both men and women. However, the level of privacy in womens toilets tends to be greater than in mens, and it is thought that this is why fewer women have trouble with it. Another way of looking at it is that there are some men who cannot use urinals but can use cubicles. Women with the same level of paruresis don't have to use urinals, and have no trouble with cubicles. So there is a percentage of men who have a problem, but the corresponding women have no problem.
[edit] Suggestions
I would like to see a reference to the claim that it's likely that most people were eliminated from competitive sport before they get to the Olympics. Given that it's a psyhological condition, it seems possible a number of sufferers involved in sports are able to overcome the condition given the demands that are placed on them (either by themselves or with help). I haven't read up much about it but from the treatments listed in wiki and general reasoning it sounds to me likely something which in many case will probably be treated in by the proper conditioning and 'learning'. I don't see any reason to assume most suffers drop out of competitive sport rather than overcome the condition. I also wonder whether many of those who aren't able to overcome it, might suffer the condition to quite a bad extent and it would seem likely this problem/condition might lead to wider social issues which will disinterest them in sport.
Also the way it's phrased now suggests that that anti doping is the primary problem for sufferers. Presumuably, sufferers may aslo be severely disadvantaged as sportspeople because the inability to urinate is likely to severely affect your training and ability to compete. (During training and competition, facilities which are not that private will presmuably be used a lot, if you can't urinate, your training and competing is likely to be affected).
Furthermore, I wonder whether this conditions could be frequently linked with more general shyness and uncomfortableness around crowds. Presuambly, in many sports these will be a hinderance to training as they may make you feel uncomfortable around and when being touched by the physiotherapists and coaches and will also severely affect your success in competitions (if you can't perform properly in the presence of crowds, how the heck do you compete as a sports person)...
I'm also skeptical about the WADA-Olympic link. AFAIK, WADA coordinate anti-doping testing in quite a number of competitions outside the Olympics and help other countries anti-doping agencies. Presmuably then, it seems easily possible they will receive reports from lower levels of competitive sport.
Finally, perhaps we should elaborate on the WADA urine sample collection procedures a bit more. A search suggests that you basically have to urinate in front of the people collecting the sample. Also, according to the discussion here [1] you don't have to provide it on the spot, you are allowed to provide it later (while this won't necessarily help all people with the condition it should be mentioned since it means it's not an on the spot or you lose thing). A bit more detail on this is needed
Nil Einne 21:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Response: there is a spectrum of severity of paruresis, and it is well known that there are people who have no trouble with using toilets or locker rooms on a day-to-day basis, but who do find it impossible to comply with an observed urine sample demand. The issue is that WADA say they are aware of paruresis, but that they do not cater for it - citing the fact that they have never had any reports of problems with it.
This seemingly mirrors what appears to be happening with workplace testing. Employers with an open policy of observed sample urine testing do not seem to have widespread problems with paruretic job applicants. But if they extend testing to existing employees where there was no testing previously, they do have trouble. The suspicion is that sufferers do not apply for jobs where they know that observed testing will take place, so you don't have the problem. But if you extend testing to areas where it did not previously apply, you start "uncovering" sufferers.
The suspicion is that sufferers avoid indulging in activities where they know they will be tested in this way, and that this applies to a range of areas of life, including sports.
- This is interesting, but a "suspicion" is an awkward thing to have in an encylopedia. So it's something that the author of the article suspects? Does anyone else suspect it? The article would be improved if there were a source for this. If this were a hypothesis put forward by the IPA, for example, instead of a suspicion by who-knows-who, that would be better.
Response:
I think that "inference" would be a better word to use than "suspicion". In any event, that part of the article has been re-phrased to remove the word "suspicion".
[edit] Clean Up, September 22nd, 2006
I have re-arranged the paragraphs, and put them under headings. Some of the statements made are supported by infomration on the IPA and UKPT sites, but were not linked to, so I have put as many in as I could find. Hopefully, all of the issues discussed above which were outstanding have now been addressed. A citation is provided re UK jury duty, so the paragraph here requesting that has been removed.
[edit] Effect of surplus water consumption
Just what will happen if a person with this drinks five glasses of water and is then told to urinate for a drug test after about half an hour? Will this condition still hold true? If yes, can it be risky for the person to subconsciously just hold it for long? If no, it would seem this condition is not as important as it is made out to be. --Amit 10:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- Regardless of how much liquid is ingested, paruresis will still hold a significant bearing on one's ability to urinate. I speak from personal experience. I've had two physicals in my life, and both times I did just that about an hour before I left. I felt the urge to urinate, but failed to produce a sample when asked to, and the physician eventually just gave up and let me take a container home to produce a sample and bring back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.75.73.93 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 15 October 2006.
The pressure of an overfull bladder in some people can of itself cause an inability to urinate - even if the person does not have paruresis. Therefore the assumption that given a full enough bladder, the person can urinate come what may is invalid, and in some people internal organ damage could be caused. This is why many drug testing regimes no longer insist of the subject drinking water - and some impose a limit on how much may be drunk voluntarily. It would appear that someone cannot prove they cannot urinate and claim damages, but they can prove they were told to drink water which then injured them. Which sums up what is really going on.
My personal experience was when I was 21 (it was transient problem from about 20 to 25). I didn't even know I had it until I went to a bar that had a very busy public trough-style urinal. I could not go in the trough. No matter what. It was extremely painful and I thought I had a kidney stone or something. My body would tell me to go but when I got to the trough, I couldn't release it and the feeling would pass until I left the trough. I ended up going in an alley because it hurt so bad (waht wrong with a subconscious that won't let you pee in a urinal but doesn't mind peeing in an alley). It was very strange to come across a subconscious psychlogical impediment that I had never experienced before. It has since passed but for about 5 to 10 years I couldn't use the shared urinals. DOn't know why it started or why it stopped, it just did. It wasn;t a conscious fear at all. I would go up to the public trough, pull it out and I just couldn't pee. There was no avoidance of public urinals or anything but it just didn't work. A private stall or urinal was fine. Just my 0.02. It wasn't auditory or anything as the article seems to allude to. And then it jsut seemd to go away.
- I've also personal experience with the failure of the "overfilling" method. It just leads to more discomfort. I do have one central question about the article/phenomenon altogether, however: what is the benefit of sharing the experience of urination with others? Since paruresis is considered a sort of handicap, it follows that there is derived benefit from sharing the experience of urination with strangers. What is the benefit? I speak not of emergency situations like military bivouacs, but everyday life. I regard the whole attitude as a bit of an imposition.24.165.210.213 06:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
