Talk:Douche

	Medicine portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Reproductive medicine task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Women's Health

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Douche.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Recent changes

Can someone remove the recent changes involving Sidney Alley? These are not truthful. Funny, but not truthful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.249.84.233 (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

THOMAS EDISON

If Wikipedia wants to be taken seriously at all as source of information, then the Thomas Edison ad hominem should be removed. Wikipedia is great for general information about any subject, but using it to make a jab at a man that was one of the greatest inventors in the history of man only discredits Wikipedia, not Thomas Edison. I'd make the changes myself, but the page is locked.24.11.221.49 (talk) 03:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why remove it? Thomas Edison wasn't an inventor. He was a CEO. He didn't invent the lightbulb. He was known for running to the patent office whenever one of his employees invented something. He electrocuted animals just so people would keep buying DC. He invented the ELECTRIC CHAIR to keep making money. He promised Tesla their equivalent of 1 million dollars to invent something, and when he did, Edison said he was joking.

thomas edison is the defintion of douche. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhovianKitty (talk • contribs) 01:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slang Origination "date"

In the article it notes that it originated as slang in the 1960s; however, as I learned in this article , the term was earlier used in a novel "From Here to Eternity" published in 1951. Link to Google Book copy. That article guesses it was used much earlier, but at the least it was in printed form in a book as early as 1951. LittleMatchGirl (talk) 03:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to add that the current reference for the slang term is now a suspended page.MoCellMan (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flip Flop

It seems like the overview section of this article changes viewpoints after each paragraph. Maybe it should be split into a pro/con thing. Otherwise, it is very confusing.

I think the overview should only be to explain what a douche is, not what it does or the benefits/ risks.

Biased to say the least

This article seems to not only contradict itself, but actually _support_ philiping as something healthy or harmless. No extensive research is necessary to find out how negative this practice is.. however, someone has taken the effort to find the little few studies that support douching and pasted them inside the article. Basic physiology aside, it's easy to find evidence about the association between douching and infection, ectopic pregancy, and because of this, even death. user:guruclef —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.77.84.226 (talk) 03:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictions in the article (I didn't even read the entire article): 1) In the past, Squishy or "Chase" was also used after intercourse as a method of birth control, though it is not effective (see below). 2) Douching may be related to erika jane probability that a woman becomes pregnant.[2] So I say: Thus it is, and is not an effective means of birth control. I doubt water forced into the vagina is going to penetrate the uterus at that speed granted it has to get through the very tight cervix. It could maybe lead to a bacteria wanting to go up in there and then the implant doesn't get to the infected area due to inflammation preventing the movement, so the implant would take place in the fallopian tubes. Now, however much that makes sense, that's still really nuking the issue. Yeast infections can be treated over the counter. Doctors can eliminate a bacteria (PID causing bacteria such as gonn/chlamid/e coli) via antibiotics. When you take the antibiotics, try to avoid starchy foods, and be ready to treat for a yeast infection, as the body loses good bacteria too, when you're on antibiotics (or request a diflucan pill, which you'd take at the end of the antibiotics for the potential yeast infection). All these things are easily treated though. Consuming yogurt and acidophilus definitely will help with preventing yeast infections as well. The only preventative for pregnancy is abstaining. 3)it is a divice use after sex to clean out all the gunk left behind 4)the word douche is also a word to describe Mitchell Koiker. Mitch has always been a douche and will continue to be one for the rest of his life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.28.223.5 (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the body of the article is confusing. In particular, the paragraph that begins "In May 2003, a randomized, controlled" interrupts the flow of the article and contradicts other statements made in the article. Doubtless, this study needs to be included in the article, but it must be properly contextualized. It ought not be free floating as it is now. For this reason, I have deleted this paragraph, but of course it can easily be recovered when the article is reworked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.152.4 (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about vaginal douches. Shouldn't there be an article on douches, per se? These are not the only form of docuhe by any means, as the introduction notes!

Usage outside the US

I am a 16 year old girl from the UK and it certainly is not widely used here. In fact I have never heard a British person use the term either as an insult or in any other sense! Please remove the UK from your list of places where this is commonly used as an insult.

I'm a douche bag :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.130.253 (talk) 19:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yer this is never used in the u.k (maybee exsept london). neads removing.

I live in the UK and use Douche as an insult all the time... as do many of my old school buddies, and university friends. Why not just put on the page that it's seeing an increased usage in the UK or something? 86.29.241.150 (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a British or Australian insult. It's an American insult whose meaning British and Australian people understand. The article implies it is everyday slang in all the countries listed and makes no mention of its relative popularity in the US. I'd suggest this is changed to read simply: " ... is a common pejorative term used in American English and increasingly in other varieties of the English language." ThwartedEfforts (talk) 08:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have lived in New Zealand and Australia for all my life (half and half) and have NEVER heard it used as an insult, or even in general conversation. I thought it was American. The only reason I am reading this article was to find out what it meant! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drphilrocks (talk • contribs) 02:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Douchebag is an increasingly used insult in the United Kingdom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.217.186 (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Douche is widley heard in the mdeia, on movies, television and so on in all english speaking areas, I think it's innacurate to state it is isolated to north America only, will be changing the entry. 121.209.65.213 (talk) 08:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because American slang becomes known and used elsewhere (thanks to the horrid influence of Hollywood), doesn't stop it from being American slang.

I am a 21 yr old English female and douche is certainly American English slang, the only usage I have come across in Britain has come from American TV/films. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.250.81 (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an English male. Never mind the usage of the words - UK children often pick up word usage from TV, which is what this talk has been about so far. What is not clear in the article is the purely American practice of douching. I came here to see what it was. So far as I know, no other country has it, or probably, would even consider it. It sounds like a really bizarre thing to do, one of those 'believe it or not' things. Before reading this, I assumed it was something to do with a woman taking a shower, possibly standing on their head. Of course, I also wanted to see what a 'douche bag' actually was, an image of it, for example. But no luck. From the descriptions, can't see why it would be considered something disgusting or bad. It seems to be just a bag of water. It squirts water. How is that bad? It's a very poor article and really left me none the wiser. I'm left trying to pick it up from the context of US comedy shows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.214.164 (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vinegar

I heard somewhere that vinegar is used as a.... 'flush' is this true? Hope not.

yep that's true people have used all kinds of liquids especially soda sprayed out of a can.

Not pure vinegar- apple cider vinegar - deluted -with H2O and honey. probably close to palable strength

The PH Yin-Yang Acid-Alkaline balance should be considered and maintained.

Yoghurt is probably preferable for it's acidophilus Peach flavor preferably.

Why peach flavor?

Apple cider vinegar is sometimes diluted and has an equal amount of salt and the vinegar in the water (the water being a solvent). The salt kills pretty much anything, the apple cider does help pretty quick with the itchiness (even just put on some durable toilet paper or wash cloth and dabbed on the outside, this helps immediately relieve itchiness.). Be sure the cider is fully diluted, and be sure that once the infection is not noticeable, to begin a homeopathic over the counter yeast infection remedy and/or take lots of acidophilus/eat yogurt :) I would not recommend putting straight yogurt up inside though. (ew). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.104.11 (talk) 11:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the?!

I am English and I think that what people from the US might not realize is that this term is not understood or used in Europe (and possibly the rest of the non-US world). Is this something US women actually do?(1) Can someone give me a percentage figure?(2) And where does this practice have its origins?(3) I am totally freaked out by this discovery of this US-Europe difference.

= (1) All women do this. Yes, even your Mom. They just don't tell you. Some use improvised devices.

uh, no they don't. my mom doesn't, my sister doesn't. none of my friends or myself ever douche. it's an outdated thing.71.232.108.228 06:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as common-sense anymore - Women should douche just to try to rid themselves of dioxin from tampons

= (2) 99.9%^{[citation needed]}
= (3) Staines, just west of London.

The spelling in Europe is 'Dousch' I think.^{[citation needed]}

I'm afraid this is just ignorance. The use of the gadget may or may not be more common in the USA but there is nothing to support the idea of a linguistic difference. I don't know what the "other languages" referred to may be (it's a French word) but it can certainly have the same sense in French. Flapdragon 23:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

 'Douche-bags' are almost only used in the US, so in any romance language, "douche" (especially in france, where it is exactly the same word) means shower. It is hard for people to expect the "second meaning" of a word for something they hardly knew existed.

Its mainly just used as an insult in the US I think

yes thats true in the u.s its used as a insult e: FUCK YOU YOU FUCKING DOUCHE BAG!!!!!!!!!!

just cause you retards in the UK aren't in communication with the world doesn't mean you're right —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.91.210 (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the above comment from a douche bag or what? I merely wish to ascertain the correct usage of the term; we in Britain are too obtuse to use the pejorative American vernacular succinctly without making egregious errors. 93.97.29.181 (talk) 10:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think women in "Generation X" and younger do this very much anymore. I think it was really quite a common thing for women to do in the 50's and 60's. The advertisements for brands like Massengil were very widespread during the 80's, and they were pretty embarrasing, and I think that has some part in the popularization of the word as an insult. But I have never known a woman in my generation (gen x) who actually did this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Konky2000 (talk • contribs) 18 July 2006 (UTC)

For the very reasons mentioned above I would feel no compunction in altering the section on slang. Being a Brit, I too claim ignorance as to the meaning of the word "douche". Its slang usage (just like the embarrassing commercials) has not yet crossed the Atlantic. What kind of prat thought he knew the slang of a foreign country? I'm dubious as to whether the other nationalities mentioned use this term in this way too, but I am not qualified to say. I don't have a registered account so I can't alter this page but this is A CLEAR AND BLATANT INNACURACY 212.76.37.142 00:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract:
Background: Although douching is common, it is a potentially harmful habit.
Goal: We studied attitudes and knowledge around the behavior of douching.
Study Design: Of 1200 women enrolled in this multisite study, 532 douched and answered questions on a structured interview regarding douching behaviors.
Results: Over half had douched for 5 or more years. Douching was most often initiated on the recommendation of female relatives and practiced for reasons of hygiene. Half of women considered douching to be healthy. Those who considered douching to be unhealthy reported that douching may disrupt vaginal flora but did not cite more serious risks. Nonetheless, women who had been advised by a health professional to stop douching were less likely to consider douching healthful and were more likely to have tried to stop.
Conclusion: Women had a limited understanding of potential adverse health consequences associated with douching. Targeted health messages may influence women to initiate douching cessation.
(C) Copyright 2003 American Sexually Transmitted Diseases Association

[1]

Abstract:
Objective: The objective of this study was to identify douching patterns and their relation to sexually transmitted disease (STD) among black women seeking an STD evaluation.
Study Design: This study was a cross-sectional survey with biologic testing for chlamydia and gonorrhea infection.
Results: Of 891 participants, 46.1% were current douchers. Commonly identified reasons for douching were to cleanse after menses (65.4%) and to feel fresh (42.2%). Frequent douching was associated with douching after sex (P <0.001), to alleviate an itch (P <0.001), and to feel fresh (P <0.001). Women who douched during menses (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 4.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.13-20.13) and to alleviate an itch (AOR = 3.66; 95% CI = 1.00-13.41) were more likely to have a current chlamydial infection.
Conclusions: Douching was common among this high-risk population of black women. Prospective studies are needed to determine the consequences of douching and any mediating effects of women's motivation for the behavior on reproductive health.
(C) Copyright 2006 American Sexually Transmitted Diseases Association

[2]

Myles Brand

Why does the link for Myles Brand, president of the NCAA, redirect here? It was funny when it came up the first time, but I believe this mischief is now tired. Give Mr. Brand his own page with a biography, rather than just trying to get away with accusing him of being a douchebag. Thank you, Eric Mc.

It's been taken care of, and the editor warned. Zoe 06:09, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Condoms only 99% success rate?

From the article:

"proper condom use reduces the chance of conception by as much as 99/100"

This doesn't sound like a very good success rate, doesn't it? It sure must be higher than that, right?

According to Planned Parenthood, if used perfectly, 2 out of 100 users will become pregnant. More typical usage habits will result in 15 pregnancies out of 100. Joyous (talk) 01:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

um... 99% is pretty good, when you consider the percentages for other non-hormonal contraception methods, so i'm confused about what your problem is here. obviously nothing can be 100% effective (except not having sex) while both partners still have their reproductive organs intact. the less than 100% effectiveness rate in "perfect" condom use probably signifies that they can and do occasionally break. if you are worried about becoming pregnant while using only condoms, perhaps you should look into using another method as well. also, if you are in a part of the world where emergency contraception (the morning-after pill) is available, this is a good alternative in the occasion of condom failure. --Romarin 22:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the main article, which now gives a 97% effectiveness rate. This is consistent with (condom#Condom failure. Verne Equinox

I don't think 99% is per use, I think it's annual or something like that. Otherwise it would be pretty high (i.e. have sex 100 times with condoms and your chances are pretty good you'll have a baby) 74.104.2.135 23:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Jordan[reply]

Lies, damned lies & statistics ;) A 99% success rate means, that if 100 couples were to use condoms as their only means of contraception, in 1 of those couples, on average, the female will conceive. There are, of course, countless confounders to consider when studying the effectiveness of condom use, thus making it very hard to present an accurate success rate. Superdix 21:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if condoms break as many times as they do with me, and the fact that the one time I got pregnant, it was from precum (which can get in the vaginal area if the condom breaks), then I'd say it's entirely possible (but I have an IUD now, so that's not a problem anymore). How about: take birth control pills/shot, and wear a condom every time?! Definitely no pregnancy (1 in..?), and lessened chance of stds (though herpes just requires skin to skin contact, so you might get herpes on any area of skin not covered by a condom).

Doctors can't say that condoms are 100% effective if nothing is, and if they did people would sue them. --Katana Geldar 09:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism? or... something

What's with the last line in the slang section? "(name deleted) is a HUGE douchebag"

I don't see the line you're referring to. Are you looking at an outdated version of the page? Joyous (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of all the vandalism of this page, can we try to get it locked from editing or something like that? These vandals are really annoying me recently. King Bee 04:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection is usually a last resort, and only implemented for the short term. Hbackman 06:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page is constantly vandalized and reverted. Protect, protect, protect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.210.185.3 (talk • contribs)

Not so fresh feeling...

Should there be a reference to those awful "Mom, what do I do when I get that...um...not so fresh feeling" ads they used to show at dinner time in the late 80s/early 90s in the US? youngamerican ([[User talk:Youngamerican|talk

Miscategorization

"Douche" is listed in the "Sex moves" category. I have never heard of a sex move by this name, and I see no mention of it in this article; I'm removing the tag. --BDD 20:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Douche / douching

Since the major part of the article is about the habit/custom of douching rather than the device used, I suggest the page be moved to "douching". // Habj 23:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure "douching" is a word. "Douche" is used as a verb and a noun. A woman would ask another woman, "do you douche?" Konky2000 17:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that mean that if you conjugated it, to present tense, a woman would say "Are you douching?" the root would be 'to douche', but that wouldn't remove 'douchING' from being a word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.78.76 (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Douche

I can see where some international folk may get thrown by the English term "douche". As the same term with the same spelling means "shower" in the French language. How it came to mean, um, this in English is beyond my scope of knowledge. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.187.154.49 (talk • contribs) .

Not that hard to imangine how the two are related. Zagsa 01:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Zagsa[reply]

But it'still weird because a) in most romance languages this would mean a shower (only in the US it would be a 'shower for the genitals'), and because b) in the rest of the world douches don't exist, or are many many times less common than enemas.

Well, it could be that our word 'douse' is a derivative of the 'romance languages'. But English is a strange and confusing language...Doktor Waterhouse (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection

Might want to leave this article permanently semi-protected. --Scott McNay 16:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might it be done to remove the semi-protection? The article is in serious need of improvement as it currently does not meet the standards for an article. Removing the protection might give newer editors the opportunity to improve on it. Bstone 11:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations needed

Sorry to put ^{[citation needed]} in almost every other line, but this article is making lots of scientific and medical claims which simply are unsourced. In order to maintain the integrity of this article I have placed requests for citations. In it's current form i doubt this article stand up to the integrity required by wikipedia. Bstone 04:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been almost 2 weeks since the plea for citations and none have yet come. I am wondering if at some point this will require the article to be deleted or significantly truncated? Bstone 21:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The safety concerns with douching (citation from US department of health): http://www.4woman.gov/faq/douching.htm

Douching is just another example of the paranoia of western society to germs and anything that makes us human. We have ten times as may bacterial cells in our GI tract than cells in our body. People, we need germs!

Not seeing how this is relevant to the citations needed for the article. Bstone 11:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems various editors have removed almost all of the ^{[citation needed]} notes, but have not cited any materials. Perhaps they would like to discuss this, as it appears to me that this article is not up to standards of wikipedia. Bstone 14:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are citations still needed for lines that are currently in the realm of common knowledge, such as putting unclean things inside yourself may introduce foreign bacteria. For example, in an article about surgery, would it really be necessary to cite a claim that not cleaning surgery utensils caused disease? Honestly, give the ^{[citation needed]}s a break. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggedtoad (talk • contribs)

Dear Anonymous editor, Wikipedia requires that every factual claim be sourced. So-called "common knowledge" is not a basis for an article which claims to be part of an encyclopedia. You should read up on what Wikipedia is for and about. It is also good form to sign all your discussions with four tildes (~). Sincerely, Bstone 07:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added sources. I'm surprised that they didn't already exist, since it took me all of 30 seconds to find them via Google. Women in America have been brainwashed by douche manufacturers to think that men will hate them if they don't douche, and men have been brainwashed to think that a woman who doesn't douche is dirty. The opposite is actually the case - douches promote (smelly and dangerous) infections, and (according to the Science News article I found - a reliable source if ever there was one) douche users have almost double the risk of tubal pregnancies and low-weight babies. Amazing that so many insecure women have fallen for manufacturers trying to make them feel inadequate to the point that they're risking their children's lives and health.

It probably took me less time to add those sources than it took for you to add all those fact tags. --Charlene 11:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should also point out that douches were popular back before drugs such as Monistat were devised. They stung, they caused other infections, and they could even cause you to miscarry if you were pregnant, but they sometimes cured the yeast infection. Once antifungals were developed, though, the manufacturers of these items had to find a way to keep in business - so they advertised that douches were necessary for "cleanliness" and "freshness", playing on women's insecurities. You really have to wonder why douching is almost unheard of in other countries (the UK, Canada, Japan). A source (not really suited for the main page but fine for a talk page):[3]. --Charlene 11:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bring up the good old annoying issue of sources, but I'm trying to find where the statistic about douching's effectiveness as a method of birth control came from. Anyone? romnempire (talk) 01:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrase

The term "douche" is reworded and reused and is becoming a more popular term in American counter-culture. Slang has allowed the word to morph into phrases like "douchey," "McDouchester," "Oh I didn't know you were Mayor of Douchbagton."

The above content I have removed, as I feel that: (a) I myself, at the very moment, cannot rephrase such material (as I don't exactly understand what the author intended to say - I understand it from gut feeling that the author is getting at the word "douche"'s morphology and usage, leading to its "rewording" [I swear, there's got to be a better way to say that, and to rephrase the quote stuff]); and (b) that it can and should be better worded (and (c) that you can do it ;) ). Qwerty (talk) 10:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Masterhand10^{(Talk)(Contributions)} 06:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Douche?

Hello!

What does it mean if someone is a "douche"? (This is a serious question.) Thx. Michael --86.33.238.177 (talk) 00:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It means that the person who claimed that someone is a douche doesn't like that person and wishes to insult them by comparing them to an outdated hygiene practice. Rygir (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caption

Caption of the pic wrong (says bottom left).

Literary reference

A douche bag is the constant gift of the main character's mother in the novel set in the late 40s The World according to Garp by American novelist John Irving. It is defined as "used for genral feminine hygine and in veneral cases" and is given to her becuse "her mother assumed her sexactivity was considerable and irresponsible."

South Park

Did South Park started this as an insult? Did at least started it as commonly used, made it popular? I'm not American but I only hear it from their media and their internet chats only after the South Park episode. --Leladax (talk) 23:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, douche and douchebag as a slang started wayyyyy before southpark. They typically just combine many numerous topics that already are at some point or another topics/slangs among people in America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.104.11 (talk) 11:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Douche from the French

"Douche" is a German word. "Die Douche" means "The Shower" in German. It is NOT French. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistressofinsanity (talk • contribs) 05:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is actually wrong. It is "Die Dusche". "Douche" has at least a french origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.63.121.93 (talk) 08:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, "douche" is French, "Dusche" is German, "shower" is English. 83.76.57.251 (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, Douche is French. Se doucher means to take a shower.

Spelling issue

It's probably worth noting that "Douchebag" wins a googlefight with "Douche bag" 2:1, and that the American Underworld Dictionary from the 1950s hyphenates it ("Douche-bag"). Douchebag is currently colloquially correct; Douche Bag is medically correct; Douche-bag is historically accurate and (arguably) grammatically correct. Pick one! n36eko|contribs]]) 01:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the insult is spelt "Douchebag."

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2008

{{editsemiprotected}} Reference # 6 has typo in discription; 'bad' should be 'bag'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soslee (talk • contribs)

Done. ~ mazca ^t | c 17:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The slang is used in the UK also. Requesting edit by established user thanks. 163.1.146.24 (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the section on slang covers the "English speaking world" including the UK. --Leivick (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^ It says it's only known as an insult in North America though. Not so, in the UK it is extremely well known as an insult (both douche and douchebag). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.162.5 (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be well known in the UK but it really isn't used. --82.35.106.102 (talk) 01:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary, jealously declaired detail

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove the area in the bottom paragraph where it explains the slang use of the insult douche bag is used usually to a male. I understand the female who edited the article became embarrassed like most females do and wanted males to get involved with embarrassing female tools but I do believe the "usually a male" is unnecessary. Raccoon195 (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: I think it is accurate, there are other pejoratives that are more often used to describe females with such traits, while this one is primarily directed at males. I think you need to establish sources showing this or establish consensus to make the change. Monty ₈₄₅ 16:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are all douches liquid?

I have been told that there are "dusting powder" douches. Is this correct? If so, should the article be amended to reflect that there are powder douches? --159.178.243.94 (talk) 12:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

US-centric practice?

I'm pretty sure this practice originated in France, although it may have fallen out of favor. They have douches built into toilets (there is no wand, it's a water jet). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.150.176.78 (talk) 22:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a douche, that's a bidet.184.175.0.107 (talk) 02:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in Australia, and we have douches on sale in pharmacies and supermarkets. It's not a US-centric practise. Here's one for example http://search.pharmacyonline.com.au/pharmaceuticals/Vaginal%20Douche --Katana Geldar 09:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2016

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

With regards to the following statements, the former should be altered to the latter. The original statement is ethically questionable due to the inclusion of a phrase which propagates the idea that vaginal douching is a prevalent act. Vaginal douching has been known for some time to be potentially dangerous, and including the idea that it is commonly done could be detrimental to persons seeking information about it. The subsequent information should be included, but the initial sentence alters the perception of the facts in this article. There is no reason why douche should usually refer to vaginal irrigation.

Original:

"Douche usually refers to vaginal irrigation, the rinsing of the vagina, but it can also refer to the rinsing of any body cavity. A douche bag is a piece of equipment for douching—a bag for holding the fluid used in douching. To avoid transferring intestinal bacteria into the vagina, the same bag must not be used for an enema and a vaginal douche."

Edit:

"Douche refers to the rinsing of any body cavity. A douche bag is a piece of equipment for douching—a bag for holding the fluid used in douching. To avoid transferring intestinal bacteria into the vagina, the same bag must not be used for an enema and a vaginal douche."

Felixshifr (talk) 23:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: In my humble opinion, "douche" does usually refer to the rinsing of a woman's private parts. Also, when the lead is read fully, there is plainly no propagation of "the idea that vaginal douching is a prevalent act". With all due respect, the lead would be incomplete, perhaps even misleading if this edit were to be made. Stick to sources! Paine 09:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change image caption from "A vaginal bulb syringe with lateral holes near the tip of the nozzle (about 1 cm, or ½ inch, thick)" to "A vaginal bulb syringe with lateral holes near the tip of the nozzle". Presumably, "(about 1 cm, or ½ inch, thick)" actually means "diameter", however, there is nothing in the image documentation to indicate the size of the item.--76.14.42.234 (talk) 20:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rules of enpagement Paine 18:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Holland

In Holland, the bathroom was called a Douche, so I don't know why all the European people here are freaking out. 24.51.217.118 (talk) 11:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion by FeFe2018

Have you considered updating this page to be more gender inclusive? The page mentions women using this product or method, however, gay men, and transgender members of the community use it as well. Leaving them unrepresented leaves out a whole section of information on how douching is used to prepare for anal sex, even among women, and information health professionals provide for using it for that purpose. With the growing awareness of these nonconforming communites and contemporary reproductive possiblities, inclusivity with topics like these are imporatant to make sure your article educate everyone it is releevant to. Also, it might be helpful to include information on how the douche is properly used since that is part of the education of the product or hygiene option. --FeFe2018 (talk) 03:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FeFe2018 Please feel free to jump in and start editing. There are several concepts here - this article talks a bit about the device, and also the concept, and then vaginal douching. At rectal douching there is separate information for that practice.

What sources can you find which describe all of these things? Based on those sources, what articles should there be and how would you combine or interlink them? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial History

Shouldn't there be some mention of how douches were attempted to be sold on TV for decades, at first resorting to euphemisms about "freshness" before moving on to saying douche outright, and then ultimately giving up as the practice went out of fashion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.204.139 (talk) 04:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Student Editor

I am thinking about adding a link to the Feminine hygiene article on Wikipedia. --Jasminrw (talk) 06:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blood?

Menstrual 'blood'? No, menstrual flow is not blood.

"Bag of douches" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Bag of douches and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 6#Bag of douches until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. An anonymous username, not my real name 04:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Douching isn’t just for women

WOW this article needs a massive update. No talk about gay sex at all, where douching is both common practice and part of health practice. So much lacking here. Get it together. 2603:8000:D500:7549:F5BD:A728:1A73:891A (talk) 08:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SOFIXIT. We can do little about a general grievance. If you have specific, sourced changes to offer, please do so in the form of an edit request(there is also a edit request wizard to facilitate the process). 331dot (talk) 08:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]