Talk:Erogenous zone/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: Conjunctiva

message: 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)
thread_title: Links

message: 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)
replies: text: I could translate the german terms and upload it. -nemini 00:50, January 21, 2007 (UTC)
Do it Fimbulvintur (talk) 10:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: 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.
*  - brief discussion of ideas of Laplanche and Freud.
*  - on Grafenburg zone
*  - vaginal testing (does not support Grafenburg zone)
*  - more vaginal testing
*  - more vaginal testing
*  on Halban's fascia
*  on the G-spot as a myth
*  brief discussion on the mind
*  more discussion on the mind
Jakew 12:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As can be seen here, there is now information in the article on the G-Spot. I tweaked it some time earlier this year and added text about the doubt regarding its existence at least as a distinct structure. Flyer22 (talk) 15:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Added more on that to be consistent with related Wikipedia articles. Flyer22 (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Meissner's corpuscles and the nipple 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Eyes 

message: 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)
replies: text: The section in question has been removed. - DevOhm Talk 10:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added back some part, but arranged it in proper structure. Orrange cones (talk) 06:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the "Practical Applications" section 

message: 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)
thread_title: Breast biting and damage

message: 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)
thread_title:  Possibly dangerous suggestions in the article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  More Content 

message: 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)
thread_title:  the A Spot 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Innervation of breast tissue 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Breasts 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sentence Structue 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Rewording - scrotum versus testicles 

message: Could someone please explain to me (and perhaps add a section in the article) why some ordinary skin is erogenous and other skin isn't? For example, what accounts for the difference between inner and outer thighs (between legs or outside)? Is this a psychic difference (not/associating it with sex), or anatomical characteristics? This question regards non-specific zones, as this source is clear that "specific erogenous zones, the mucocutaneous zones of man and animal, have special neural and cutaneous anatomic characteristics"--Gulpen (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is some skin erogenous? 

message: the article needs a history of the idea.  who invented the term, "erogenous zone"?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:5600:5AC:1DF7:EC24:AFC6:7FB (talk) 00:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  history of the idea section needed 

message: That sections content talks solely about pheromones. It should definitely include at least something about physical stimulation or sensation. There are definitely lots of nerve endsing, so that could be discussed Fimbulvintur (talk) 10:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armpit 

message: Who thinks these are all retardedly inaccurate? its like people decided to throw psychology into a physiological response and turn every single part of the human body into a "possible psychological fetish arousal triggering nerve" 
By these definitions every single contact sport in the history or man is an act of rape. He touched my ear, she touched me head, I got put in a headock and jizzed my pants...... This is ridiculous.  The EAR is NOT a sex related organ... at all.... The scalp? It doesnt even do anything and sits covered by hair hardly effect by the world your entire life. Armpits? FEET? There is a separate section for fetishes. Please stick to things that are at least connected physiologically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18d:8b80:25d0:91b3:acfb:cba5:e3a1 (talk • contribs)  
:Well, as you can see, the article is currently lacking citations. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Am I the only one?