Enemas are bad!

While I never really subscribed to the health benefits of enemas, this Dr sure has a negative view of them...

https://sexualityresources.com/ask-dr-myrtle/sexual-process-act-4-penetration/why-no-enemas

But I doubt s/he’ll change anyone on Zity’s mind! Interesting to read though

While most of the information is accurate, I was under the impression that the large intestine didn't have villi, which this article seems to indicate it has. Also, while there are changes in the mucosa following most enemas (very little is noted with normal saline or PEG solutions, FYI), the intestine does regenerate pretty fast - although WE DO NOT KNOW specifics of what the long term implications are, though they aren't awful enough to have anything jump out to the study authors.

FWIW use of sennosides or aloe orally seems to be potentially worse with specific suspected long term complications at this point.

Beware when it's a single unduplicated study.

Until someone else, somewhere else conducts the same research and gets substantially the same results it doesn't mean that much

Beware when it's a single unduplicated study.

Until someone else, somewhere else conducts the same research and gets substantially the same results it doesn't mean that much

That isn't a study, it's just an opinion piece. Her bit about permeability and risk of STI transmission has been backed up by studies, but there really aren't studies on long term enema safety - though there are current ones that do show them safe and effective for occasional use.

As I said before some of the things she says (strongly implying that there are villi in the colon, discussing the use of enemas for mothers in labor (I don't think there are any recent studies supporting this, they all say it doesn't make a difference) don't necessarily inspire confidence.

At the core is the issue that we don't know what the long term effects are. They could be harmless, or they could over the long term cause problems up to and including some increase in cancer risk. Since nothing has really been noticed (beyond things caused by errors or existing medical issues) my guess is that they probably aren't too terrible- but you never know until they study it. People used to think that mercury and lead were benign in low doses.

That isn't a study, it's just an opinion piece. Her bit about permeability and risk of STI transmission has been backed up by studies, but there really aren't studies on long term enema safety - though there are current ones that do show them safe and effective for occasional use.

You would probably not get a long term study to learn deleterious effects of enemas to pass the institution's ethics committees in the United States. You would have to do it in a third world country and then the reliability of results would be questionable.

You might get a study to determine positive effects of long tern enemas and then hope you would FIND deleterious effects to get the same information from a study. A histological study would be best and you definitely would not get that to pass an ethics committee for approval. The study should also be prospective randomized controlled and double blind. That's not happening anywhere on this planet.

It would be very difficult to get enough people to participate in the study for a long enough time to make valid determinations.

While I do not see that there is any financial motive for this study, just a caution: Before blindly accepting a study's results, check to see who or which organization paid for the study. Remember the old accounting adage:

Figures lie and liars figure!

You would probably not get a long term study to learn deleterious effects of enemas to pass the institution's ethics committees in the United States.

Not that I doubt you Susie, but why would the ethics committee nix a (any) study?? incompletness, bias, methodology, relevancy????

but why would the ethics committee nix a (any) study?? incompletness, bias, methodology, relevancy????

Too much shit involved. 😉

She admitted there might be occasional benefits to enemas. She didn't think much of them for the obvious reason to use them which is a prep for anal sex. Many people use them so when they do have sex they aren't dealing with a lot of fecal matter. She doesn't address this at all and suggests lube instead. The thing I find interesting is her position that the enema removes the mucous in the lining in the bowel and possible beneficial bacteria as well. I wonder if there is any truth to this or if it is just her opinion. I know the lining of the intestines regenerate faster than any other cells in the body, I think Susie said something like every 2 days. If this is true an enema won't have much effect due to the reproduction of the cells. Interesting topic.

gwhap said

Not that I doubt you Susie, but why would the ethics committee nix a (any) study?? incompletness, bias, methodology, relevancy????

Ethics committees in the US will not allow research on human subjects if they could be harmed during a study.

The Declaration of Helsinki requires that all medical research be submitted to and approved by an ethics committee. It states: The research protocol must be submitted for consideration, comment, guidance and approval to a research ethics committee before the study begins. It is well understood that legal and ethical requirements for research vary from one country to another. Thus, in its review, an ethics committee will take into consideration the laws and regulations of the country or countries in which the research is to be performed as well as applicable international norms and standards but these must not be allowed to reduce or eliminate any of the protections for research subjects set forth in this Declaration.

Why the requirement for ethics review? The answer is straightforward. Research involving human subjects puts people at risk. The risks may be physical, psychological, social, economic, legal, or dignitary; a single study may also pose more than one type of risk to subjects. Of course, people are exposed to risks all the time, whether it is at work, in the doctor's office, or driving a car. The difference in research is that people are exposed to risk in large part for the benefit of others, be they other patients, the health system, or society at large. It is this feature of research that drives the need for independent ethics review. While the integrity of researchers remains an important protection for research subjects, researchers themselves may not be in a good position to make the best judgement regarding the ethical acceptability of a research study. Ethics committees ensure that the liberty and welfare interests of research subjects are protected, and that national and international ethical and legal requirements are upheld.

We understand the Declaration of Helsinki to require that all research involving human subjects be submitted to an ethics committee for review and approval, or to be determined exempt from the need for review. Unfortunately, the Declaration of Helsinki leaves some key terms undefined. Research may be usefully defined as a class of activities designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge. A human subject is a living individual about whom an investigator (whether professional or student) obtains (1) data through intervention or interaction with the individual, or (2) identifiable private information. Therefore, any study that involves intervening upon people (e.g., a complex intervention involving educational sessions), interacting with them (e.g., conducting an interview or administering a questionnaire), or collecting identifiable private data (e.g., abstracting data with identifiers from a medical record) for the purpose of contributing to generalizable knowledge must be submitted to an ethics committee. This applies to studies involving healthcare providers as research subjects just as much as it does to studies involving patients. Therefore studies (with or without a research intervention) require ethics review if they involve interaction with human subjects or the collection of identifiable private information. Research using social, behavioural, or economic research methods may not include a research intervention, but such research exposes human subjects to risk nonetheless. Studies in which people are interviewed may pose psychological risks by asking sensitive questions or risks resulting from a breach of confidentiality. When researchers only collect identifiable information from patient medical records risks from a breach of confidentiality remain.

The Declaration of Helsinki is a set of ethical principles regarding human experimentation developed for the medical community by the World Medical Association (WMA). It is widely regarded as the cornerstone document on human research ethics.

.

Too much shit involved. 😉

That's not an acceptable answer to a serious medical research question.

Figures lie and liars figure!

The correct statement is

Figures don't lie, but liars figure.

That's not an acceptable answer to a serious medical research question.

How reliable are "medical research studies?

just a caution: Before blindly accepting a study's results, check to see who or which organization paid for the study. Remember the old accounting adage:

Figures lie and liars figure!

It depends who is doing the funding and what they may be trying to prove. If the results don't match what they are wanting they can be buried and another study conducted until the results are what they are wanting.

The thing I find interesting is her position that the enema removes the mucous in the lining in the bowel and possible beneficial bacteria as well. I wonder if there is any truth to this or if it is just her opinion.

Feces in NORMAL people is 20-50% bacteria by weight depending on whose study you read.

NO ONE here who takes enemas on a frequent or regular falls into the "normal" category.

Normal people don't take daily or weekly enemas and people who do take frequent enemas have far fewer colonic bacteria than normal people. When you take enemas, especially until clear, the colon has been washed, like washing your hands (almost) and almost all the bacteria have been washed out. The colon is far from sterile, but the vast majority of bacteria is GONE and it takes time for the flora to build back up to normal levels. This can vary according to the person'e diet and transit time through a person's colon. Washing out the bacteria CAN make the person more susceptible to colon infections like C diff because the C diff has nothing to compete against which gives it the opportunity to grow out of control causing infection.

Enemas DO remove the mucus (the slime, NOT the mucous cell type) from the colon. MUCUS IS SUPPOSED TO BE THERE. The colon therapists, and I use that term "therapist" very loosely and NOT without a moderate amount of disdain and disparagement, LIE TO YOU when they tell you the mucus is bad and the colonic irrigation cleans it out. MUCOSA is a tissue type or grouping of cell types that produce mucus.

Plenty of willing volunteers available here! {raising hand}

bburl said

Plenty of willing volunteers available here! {raising hand}

You might not raise you hand so fast if you found out the study included taking rectal and colonic biopsies every so often.

Remember the old accounting adage:

Figures lie and liars figure!

Mathematical restatement of the adage: Statistics never lie but liars use statistics!

Mathematical restatement of the adage: Statistics never lie but liars use statistics!

THAT TOO!

I wasn't saying that we need to have studies right now, just that there aren't any. Thus, "you pays your money and you takes your choice" because it could go either way. Let's face it - based on how many people would be affected a study of the effects of frequent enema use would be a waste of time even if it did pass review in some corrupt country.

Risks very likely go up with frequency of use, and I don't think anyone is arguing against the safest option being having things functioning well on their own, but again we don't know how much safer. It's all risk balancing.

I think we kind of already know the answer to the question.

Many of us here on zity are longtime regular enema users- I have been doing them about once a week for over 50 years. I know how my body reacts to them based on the volume and frequency of the enemas I do.

I think most of us could articulate how our bodies react over many years of use. If you push your body to extremes (high volume, harsh ingredients, overly frequent use), then yes you could do harm to yourself. But most of us here seem to know our body's limits and we stay well within what our bodies can accommodate.

I would say as long as a person can function day to day and not develop any obvious medical issues, regular enema use would not seem to produce any negative effects long term.

It would be nice to have a study on enemas but whatever findings it revealed, I doubt it would change our use of enemas because we already know how they affect us and the benefits they provide- physical and or sexual.

@ProV1, I must agree with you! I've been using enemas on a reasonably regular schedule for over 30 years with no adverse effects at all. But then, I've used some common sense in the process. Only occasionally have I used highly soapy solutions and have only twice tried enemas that might be considered harsh. Those two enemas were Mayo Enemas (essentially sugar and baking soda).

Sometimes that adventurous spirit has come upon us all, but I have resisted the urge to try solutions or humongous nozzles that while they may be thrilling to try could potentially do harm. My watchword is, "All things in moderation"...and that goes for my enemas, too!

Have fun and play safe,

Deb

Interesting discussion. And entertaining! ("Too much shit involved" was a real knee slapper! 😁 ) No reason a serious discussion can't be humorous, too.

Of interest to me was the good Doctor's direction to "look on the internet for..." It brought to mind one of my favorite TV commercials - young woman telling a friend she has a date with someone she met on the internet - a handsome male french model. If it's on the internet it must be true - right? 😜

And the conclusions drawn from that one direction. Amazing!

This is an opinion piece, fairly well written but mostly WRONG. The colon had no villi. Pathology slides from one "bowel prep" is not large intestine slides from one enema. The colon is not going to forget how to function from enemas. It's hard wired in the enteric nervous system.

The original question had to do with taking an enema before anal sex, and the author's opinion seems to be that genitals and sex is natural the way you find them.. She asks why anyone would want to take an enema. Does the questioner think the genitals are dirty?

People have been taking enemas for hundreds if not thousands of years. If you're sane, you should be fine.

I don't think doing a "study" is going to really do much to change anybody's mind. Empirical data would say if not too hot, cold, large or poisonous, you're pretty much ok.

Doc.. Who is actually a real doc and knows about this stuff.

Enemas are BADASS!!

They reduce ME to a child-like state!!

Lisa has it right. There is nothing that makes you revert to childlike begging and pleading than a strong soapy enema or frankly any enema

No they made it easier to have a bm for me. I ended up getting two a week to keep me from getting constipated. The bm were hard and large and I cried to get them out. Mom started giving me enemas twice a week. This started when I was 4 till well today.

If it's on the internet, it's true - right?

Strange that the author of that piece refers to what other 'net sources say, then gives it a good hard spin of the wheel.

Seriously, how can credence be given to any article the author obviously did not proof? “…trauma that can break a hold in the side…” - spill chickens cluck, but don't read.

However, the final conclusion is the most laughable - “Enemas don’t improve anal play.” For me, and probably many others, an enema IS a form of anal play.

Methinks the author doth protest too much. (apologies to The Bard)

Read the article. I will say at the least it was an interesting read, but definitely that doctor seems to be very opinionated. I agree with @Mullanphy , the enema is most definitely a form of anal play!

I am a believer that you need to know yourself and use common sense. Like take a second enema to rinse out the soap or restore the electrolytes. Each of us comes to this like in different ways and for different reasons. Who knows if it's harmful or beneficial. If you are in touch with yourself, you know your needs and limits. I think you go with that. Probably too late to do otherwise for most of us. lol