Talk:Erogenous zone

Sexology and sexuality Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality 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.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index 1, 2

Conjunctiva can't possible be correctly placed in the listing of erogenous zones ... anyone know either the research behind that or what whoever put that in meant to say but misspelled?

Yes, I was also completely confused by seeing conjunctiva listed as an erogenous zone. It even seems like the person really meant to say conjunctiva, because there is a later section on the eyes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.68.214 (talk) 04:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page needs a lot more links to different areas (I'll try to add some in) and is just generally somewhat unreadable. It refers to a lot of parts of the body that are not well known and reads more like a medical textbook than an encyclopedia entry-- it expects prior knowledge.IMFromKathlene 06:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

> Ears are properly erotic. So stop it.

Some one please correct the section on Ear. it looks wierd !

I think the article may be using "vagina" to incorrectly refer generally to the female genitalia. E.g. "The vagina provides the most erogenous zones on the female body." See entry for Vagina ("strictly speaking the vagina is a specific internal structure") for clarification. I think the references to the vagina should be reworked and I'm not sure that reference to vaginal mucosa under the heading of the clitoris is appropriate. Also, the entry under "prepuce" might be improved if it clarified whether the reference is to both the male and the female prepuce or only to the male. DH

I would put specific serious regard on the statement... "Squeezing of the testicles can sometimes cause a very pleasurable sensation, particularly during ejaculation, "but should be done cautiously"!!!

your welcome guys

Could we get some pictures (pref medical depictions) about the erogenous zones? This article appears too technical without em.

Seconded. If no one puts any up, I'll do it myself. -Iopq 18:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The german "Erogenous Zones" article has a good picture: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Erogenous_zone_german_inscription2.jpg

I could translate the german terms and upload it. -nemini 00:50, January 21, 2007 (UTC)

I've just noticed that the article only cites one source. This is not good. I haven't finished yet, but I have been looking for others. Here is an incomplete list - please could people add to it.

• [1] - brief discussion of ideas of Laplanche and Freud.
• [2] - on Grafenburg zone
• [3] - vaginal testing (does not support Grafenburg zone)
• [4] - more vaginal testing
• [5] - more vaginal testing
• [6] on Halban's fascia
• [7] on the G-spot as a myth
• [8] brief discussion on the mind
• [9] more discussion on the mind

Jakew 12:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added the frenular delta. I left the glans; though, in my opinion, it belongs in some lower category of erogenous sensation. Hopefully, jakew will be OK with the addition. He can't cite the glans. I'm working on finding cites for ... as the French say ... the EYE of the penis (frenular delta).

Until you can find a citation for the "Debate," it should not be in the prepuce paragraph.TipPt 22:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted this change. No studies, as far as I'm aware, have established that the frenulum is erogenous. I have cited the glans in a discussion previously.

As an example of the debate, consider for example Viens' comment that "In one of the papers that is often cited by anticircumcision proponents, the claim that circumcision removes an important component of the sensory mechanism of the penis is based on finding of an extremely small sample size (n = 22) of cadavers.22 Not only is a pathological study not ideal for conclusions concerning the physical sensation and enjoyment of sex in the living, we have no findings that show that sensation transmission pathways of the penis differ substantially between circumcised and uncircumcised men. As it presently stands, there is no convincing evidence that shows that sexual function of circumcised individuals is worsened or damaged as a result of a properly performed circumcision." Jakew 11:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be constructive. "I have cited the glans in a discussion previously" is not helpful. Could you provide the link?

Here are a couple showing innervation likely erogenous to both the glans and frenular region. Don't just read the title: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10037378&dopt=AbstractTipPt 18:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like "sex nerve" dominates as slang in Europe for the frenulum. Sounds erogenous to me.TipPt 18:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to state that the nipple has no Meissner's corpuscles, but the Meissner's corpuscles article lists the nipples as a specific example. 128.119.127.36 04:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The claim in this article is supported by Winkelmann, which would seem to contradict the article in the other. I'll look into correcting it. Jakew 09:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why did they put in "tim love some clit"? that's nasty!!!

From the article: "Kissing a lover's eyes is a common activity in the West."

Really? I have never, ever encountered eye kissing, I really can't imagine it being pleasant. Unless someone can provide a source for this, I'm removing it. Darksun 23:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it means closed eyes. Ketsuekigata (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The claim has yet to be confirmed with a source, though, so I'm removing it. Ketsuekigata (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I favor removing the "Practical Applications" section in its entirety. It's full of weasel words ("Many people enjoy..." and "...very arousing to many people," among others) and the information provided is essentially redundant ( the Anatomy section says, "This area is sensitive," and the Practical Applications section says, "You should touch this area."). Also, it reads like a sex manual, more than like part of an encyclopedia article.

Unless there are serious objections, I plan to delete this section in two weeks. Is there an appropriate template to place on the section? I didn't find any. - DevOhm ^Talk 22:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section in question has been removed. - DevOhm ^Talk 10:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added back some part, but arranged it in proper structure. Orrange cones (talk) 06:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there evidence that permanent breast damage can result from biting (aside from incidents involving nipples such as that described at http://www.straitstimes.com/primenews/story/0,1870,109080,00.html )? I have seen some anecdotal evidence that it can change the consistency of the breasts (making them less firm and causing the consistency of the bitten part to become almost "watery") but a reliable source would be needed for posting here. This source says something to the contrary, but that's not really a reliable source either. Sarsaparilla (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains some suggestions that could be dangerous:

"Applying a firm pressure on it [the perineum] just before ejaculation can heighten the intensity of orgasm". From what I have heard, this is generally done to prevent ejaculation, but it is not always effective and sometimes very painful. Personally, I have never heard it as a way of intensifying pleasure.

"Thus the thicker the object inserted into the anus, the higher the pleasure." This just sounds like an invitation to disaster. This sentence begins with the word "thus" but doesn't logically follow from the technobabble that preceded. For both those reasons, I have removed this sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.68.214 (talk) 04:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed a couple of references to biting, and one about penetrating the ear canal with the tongue! The article said that sticking your tongue in someone's ear was a 'fairly safe' form of penetration. We need to get references before we can claim something like that. Darobian (talk) 08:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be something here about how erogenous zones work e.g. how they affect the body and the brain. I believe skin contact with another person causes the release of oxytocin (a hormone and neurotransmitter), among other things.

It would be good to have some examples of references to erogenous zones in literature and popular culture. Any thoughts? Darobian (talk) 09:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there seems to be no mention of the vagina's Anterior Fornix Erogenous Zone (aka the A Spot) located just above the cervix:

Desmond Morris, The Naked Woman: A Study of the Female Body, Jonathan Cape, London (2004) http://www.heretical.com/miscella/g-spots.html

it appears to be well documented to exist, but I could be wrong --voodoom (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the breast section, there's an assertion that all breasts have the same number of nerve endings. However, there is no citation in this article, or in anything else a brief Google search found that actually provides details or evidence of this. Perhaps someone else can find more than the single oft-repeated but unsourced claim that all breasts "have the same number of nerve endings no matter how large they are". Gmalivuk (talk) 06:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Placing a man's face in between the cleavage and kissing the breasts also increases sexual pleasure and breast size. Pleasure can be increased by the partner exhaling forcefully with pursed lips, creating a "motorboat"-type noise.

As to the first sentence, where is the source for this? Is there no need for breast augmentation anymore if a simply kissing the breasts will increase breast size"? I'm willing to the leave the sexual pleasure comment, but I'm removing the breast size claim. I'm also removing the "motorboat" claim as it is completely subjective. If you want to re-add it, then please include some sources. Thank you. Wperdue (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]

I'm unsure if sentence clairity and sturcture falls under the pervue of this discussion or not. I am unsure and do not feel comfortable changing anything in an article. Still, despite my poor writing ability, grammatical errors bother me so I would like to bring the following to someone's attention: At the deepest point on the anterior (front) wall of the vagina located between the cervix and the bladder. This is the Anterior fornix erogenous zone, or A Spot.

The frist part of this passage is a fragment, not a true sentence. I can understand what was intended but still, it is incorrect. Is this the kind of thing one should call attention to, or is that considered being too picky? Please advise.68.47.103.99 (talk)Modgod

This section should help answer your question. Please feel free to contribute in any way you think will help. Fixes to grammar, sentence structure, tense, etc. are welcome. Happy editing. Wperdue (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]

Per policy: "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented." (emph. in original.)

For this reason I reverted StudioDan's addition of various sources to the article that did not (in many cases) even mention erogenous zones. StudioDan has now restored some of these sources. StudioDan, can you show me where these refer to the subject of the article? Jakew (talk) 10:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I referenced Cold & Taylor's "The prepuce" (1999) under Erogenous_zone#Male because the paper states, "The unique innervation of the prepuce establishes its function as an erogenous tissue."

Meissner's corpuscle and references are added to the nipple, because other nerve types are mentioned, and it was falsely claimed (without citation) that they do not exist.

--Studiodan (talk) 11:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cold & Taylor are already cited in the last paragraph of that section. I cannot see why they need to be cited twice for essentially the same claim.

Regarding the nipple, none of the sources which you added even refer to erogenous zones, so their inclusion here is original research. Policy, as quoted above, requires that sources are directly related to the subject, so these will be removed. I take your point that citations are absent for this material; we can cite Winkelmann, who specifically discusses innervation in the context of erogenous zones. Jakew (talk) 11:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cold & Taylor are cited there because "citation needed" is mentioned afterward, for the complete sentance. We have citations for the prepuce as an erogenous zone. How do you suggest we fix this?

Regarding the nipple, Golgi-Mazzoni, Vater-Pacini and genital corpuscles are mentioned, without citation, and without anything to do with Erogenous zones. I don't see the inclusion of Meissner's as only more inclusive to what is already there. References are given to show that they do indeed exist in that area. How do you suggest we fix this section?

--Studiodan (talk) 11:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Cold & Taylor, I think it would be perfectly acceptable to delete the sentence, if that proves necessary. However, it seems entirely possible that a source can be found that identifies certain parts of the penis as particularly erogenous, and if such a source can be found then it might be cited.

Regarding the nipple, I have now added Winkelmann as a citation for this material. As noted above, Winkelmann's comments are in the context of erogenous zones. Jakew (talk) 12:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The skin of the scrotum (testicles) is very sensitive to light touching and stroking [...]"

The reference to testicles when discussing the scrotum in this context is unnecessary and possibly confusing. Placing "testicles" in parentheses after "scrotum" makes it appear as if "scrotum" and "testicles" are synonymous. Of course, they are not synonymous. (I for one don't know any men who enjoy having the surface of their testicle touched.) Considering that these two terms are often confused, this sentence should be reworded. A suggestion: "The skin of the scrotum, which contains the testicles". Or, remove the reference to "testicles" completely, as "skin of the scrotum" is completely descriptive. 66.9.234.201 (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]