Talk:Erogenous zone/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Erogenous zone. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Comment by SJC

This does not look very much like an encyclopaedia article to me. One for the deletion queue I would venture unless it can be made more encyclopaedic in nature, assuming anyone knows what a "genital erogenous zone" is, that is? Certainly not a term I have encountered before.user:sjc

Conjunctiva

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)

Links

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)

> Ears are properly erotic. So stop it.

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

Genitalia references

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

Pictures

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)

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)

Do it Fimbulvintur (talk) 10:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Sources?

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)

Please come back and add this yourself. In 8 years nobody else has bothered. I'm not about to begin. Call for Volunteers! NJX — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.235.253 (talk) 13:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

Added more on that to be consistent with related Wikipedia articles. Flyer22 (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Frenular Delta

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)

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)

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=Abstract TipPt 18:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Meissner's corpuscles and the nipple

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)

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)

Eyes

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)

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

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

About the "Practical Applications" section

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)

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

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

Breast biting and damage

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)

Possibly dangerous suggestions in the article

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)

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)

the A Spot

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)

Innervation of breast tissue

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)

Breasts

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

Sentence Structue

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

WP:NOR

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The Cold and Taylor piece needs to go, if you want to maintain the only citation from this article, I suggest citing the original source. Otherwise, one is indicating Cold and Taylor are claiming that their research shows that the prepuce is the main male erogenous zone, while they are just studying the differentiation and quantity of the foreskin. The other study should be cited in its entirety instead. Sloppy citations are no fun and are misleading about the research being done by the cited individuals.----

Rewording - scrotum versus testicles

"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)

Why is some skin erogenous?

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)

history of the idea section needed

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)

The vagina isn't an erogenous zone.

I would like to delete the following: "The vagina also has concentrations of the nerve endings that can provide pleasurable sensations during sexual activity when stimulated in a way that the particular woman enjoys, but the outer one-third of the vagina, especially near the opening, contains the majority of the vaginal nerve endings, making it more sensitive to touch than the inner two-thirds of the vaginal barrel." I refer to the Go Ask Alice page already cited, as well as [10] (pg. 53-54), [11] (pg. 59), [12] (pg. 64-66) and [13] (no page numbers, search term in link returns cited section) to support my proposed edit.

The idea that the vagina has erogenous nerves in it has been thoroughly debunked even though many people still think this due to the indirect stimulation of clitoral nerves during vaginal sex. PolenCelestial (talk) 04:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

PolenCelestial, I am well-versed in the topic of female sex anatomy, and "[t]he idea that the vagina has erogenous nerves in it" has not been thoroughly debunked. Indeed, while the vast majority of the vagina is especially insensitive to touch, various WP:Reliable sources, including Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS)-compliant sources (which are the type of sources that should be used for medical/anatomy information), state that the outer one-third of the vagina, especially near the opening, contains the majority of the vaginal nerve endings, making it more sensitive to touch than the inner two-thirds of the vaginal barrel. This is currently supported by two scholarly sources in the section you dispute, with one of them (the Marshall Cavendish source) noting that scientists believe that orgasms experienced vaginally are caused by the clitoris. The Go Ask Alice! source also states: "In fact, it's generally only the lower third of the vagina that has enough nerve endings to feel any stimulation at all from a penis, finger, toy, or other penetrative object." I added those sources, and the WP:MEDRS-compliant sources I added to the Vagina article also support this information. The fact that the vagina is not generally highly sensitive does not mean that it is not an erogenous zone, any more than the fact that some people have a highly, or barely, sensitive spot on their necks that gets them sexually aroused does not mean that it is not an erogenous zone to those people. Scientists today are generally in agreement that the clitoris and vagina are intricately linked, as noted by that aforementioned Marshall Cavendish source, this 2012 review article on the concept of the G-spot, as noted somewhat by this Discovery Series: Human Sexuality (2013) source (pages 102-103; 134-135 for the URL link), as noted by the aforementioned WP:MEDRS-compliant sources I added to the Vagina article, and various other WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. The sources you have provided above are missing URLs (specific URLs) that show that what you are stating about them is true. Furthermore, this book source you cited above (The Act of Marriage: The Beauty of Sexual Love) is a poor source for the topic at hand. ~~It's also good that you apparently asked about what you should do on this matter here, instead of simply deleting what you disagree with. Flyer22 (talk) 04:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)~~ Struck through that last line because it looks like you were referring to this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 06:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see your argument. Scientific information isn't a matter of opinion. You admit yourself that stimulation commonly attributed to the vagina is actually clitoral, and then you draw a comparison to the neck which is clearly not how the content is worded. It says that the vagina also has concentrations of the nerve endings that can provide pleasurable sensations during sexual activity, which isn't true at all. I wasn't specific enough with "erogenous zone", but I feel a distinction needs to be drawn in the article between physiological and psychological sources of sexual stimulation, physiological being those that aren't based on the psychological experience of sex with a partner. I included the source that you dispute because it refers to experts in the field, not because the work as a whole is scientific, and the other sources back up what I'm saying. PolenCelestial (talk) 04:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

And I don't see your argument. I agree that scientific information isn't a matter of opinion, unless, of course, it's a matter not entirely proven among scientists (like the Big Bang). I did not admit anything about "stimulation commonly attributed to the vagina [actually being clitoral]"; I stated that a source notes that scientists believe that orgasms experienced vaginally are caused by the clitoris; "stimulation" obviously does not automatically equate to "orgasm." I also stated that scientists today are generally in agreement that the clitoris and vagina are intricately linked; that is supported by scientific information, as seen in sources I have provided. You stating that the vagina does not have concentrations of the nerve endings that can provide pleasurable sensations during sexual activity conflicts with what WP:Reliable sources/WP:MEDRS-compliant sources state on that matter; that includes this Exploring the Dimensions of Human Sexuality (2013) source (pages 102–104) and this Human Sexuality: An Encyclopedia (2014) source (pages 229–231) I added to the Vagina article. These sources are attributing vaginal pleasure and "vaginal orgasm" to nerve endings, not to psychological causes, not mainly psychological causes anyway. The way that you are defining "erogenous zone" is not the way that the WP:Reliable sources/WP:MEDRS-compliant sources are defining it. You stated above that "[t]he idea that the vagina has erogenous nerves in it has been thoroughly debunked." And that statement is not true. You have not provided any sources, from what I can tell, supporting you on that statement. I, however, have provided sources showing that statement to be false. Perhaps you want to bring WP:Med in on this matter? Maybe bringing editors in from there will also get this poor Erogenous zone article significantly fixed up. Flyer22 (talk) 05:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore: Although the vagina content in the Erogenous zone article starts out stating "The vagina also has concentrations of the nerve endings that can provide pleasurable sensations during sexual activity," it clearly specifies what part of the vagina soon afterward -- what you refer to as "the neck." I have no issue with making that text clearer on the matter that the vagina as a whole is not sensitive to touch. Flyer22 (talk) 05:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you consider my sources reliable? They're written by MDs or reference such works and they clearly state that the sensation is produced by clitoral nerves. WP:MEDRS includes the clause "Additionally, popular science and medicine books are useful sources". PolenCelestial (talk) 07:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I did not state that I don't consider your sources reliable, though, yes, I pointed out one of them as a poor source for this topic. You have not proven that your sources state that the sensation in the vagina is produced by clitoral nerves; I noted above that "The sources you have provided above are missing URLs (specific URLs) that show that what you are stating about them is true." This means that you should provide the URL page number, if it exists, or type up the exact text, or provide the page numbers, so that I and others can verify that you are presenting the sources accurately. If your sources support what you have stated, all that means is that, per WP:Verifiability, both sides should be presented with WP:Due weight, like I have done with sources at the Vagina article on vaginal sensitivity being connected to sexual pleasure. And again, stating that "vaginal orgasm" is caused by the clitoris, which, as some of the sources I pointed to above show is the general agreement among scientists today, is not the same thing as stating that the vagina has no erotogenic nerve endings and that the vagina plays no part in anatomical sexual pleasure or female orgasm. Non-erotogenic nerve endings are not what cause orgasms; it is the erotogenic ones that do. And sources I pointed to above, including this aforementioned Exploring the Dimensions of Human Sexuality (2013) source (pages 102–104) and this Human Sexuality: An Encyclopedia (2014) source (pages 229–231), clearly note that there is evidence that the lower third of the vagina is an erotogenic area for many women. Does the vagina have enough erotogenic nerve endings to cause female orgasm? Again, scientists generally believe that, as separate from the clitoris, it does not, which is why 70-80% of women cannot have an orgasm via vaginal intercourse and need direct clitoral stimulation to orgasm. But scientists, as is clear by this Clinical Manual of Sexual Disorders, American Psychiatric Association publishing (2009) source (page 258), and the aforementioned Exploring the Dimensions of Human Sexuality (2013) and Human Sexuality: An Encyclopedia (2014) sources, are still debating the nerve endings aspect of the vagina. What scientists these days generally have in common regarding vaginal sensitivity is that they are in agreement that the clitoris and vagina are intimately related.

Even when scientists seem to believe that erotogenic nerve endings in the vagina are all or mostly due to the clitoris, they still state that these nerve endings are a part of the vagina, or something similar to that. For example, if we go by Australian urologist Helen O'Connell, she states, "The vaginal wall is, in fact, the clitoris. If you lift the skin off the vagina on the side walls, you get the bulbs of the clitoris – triangular, crescental masses of erectile tissue." And as made clear by this Biology of Women (2002) source (pages 32-33) and this Sex and Gender (2002) source (page 87), she and her research team state that there is more erectile tissue associated with the clitoris than is generally described in anatomical textbooks. They concluded that some females have more extensive clitoral tissues and nerves than others, especially having observed this in young cadavers as compared to elderly ones, and therefore whereas the majority of females can only achieve orgasm by direct stimulation of the external parts of the clitoris, the stimulation of the more generalized tissues of the clitoris via vaginal intercourse may be sufficient for others. But French researchers Odile Buisson and Pierre Foldès, who published the first complete 3D sonography of the stimulated clitoris, demonstrating the ways in which erectile tissue of the clitoris engorges and surrounds the vagina, and believe that stimulating the vagina without activating the clitoris may be next to impossible, comment on the matter somewhat differently than O'Connell does. As noted by this Issues in Sexuality and Sexual Behavior Research: 2011 Edition (2012) source (page 145) and this aforementioned Discovery Series: Human Sexuality (2013) source (page 103; 135 for the URL link), they state that the "coronal planes during perineal contraction and finger penetration demonstrated a close relationship between the root of the clitoris and the anterior vaginal wall," and suggested "that the special sensitivity of the lower anterior vaginal wall could be explained by pressure and movement of clitoris's root during a vaginal penetration and subsequent perineal contraction." Furthermore, O'Connell stated in this WebMD source (page 3), "It is best to think of the clitoris, urethra, and vagina as one unit because they are intimately related." In this news source, researcher Barry Komisaruk, the lead author of a Rutgers University fMRI study investigating the female brain's ability to register distinct feelings between stimulating the clitoris, the cervix and the vaginal wall, stated similarly: "I think that the bulk of the evidence shows that the G-spot is not a particular thing. It's not like saying, 'What is the thyroid gland?' The G-spot is more of a thing like New York City is a thing. It's a region, it's a convergence of many different structures."

I went ahead and formatted the section in question to make it clearer that the vagina is generally insensitive. If you are wanting us to state that the vagina is completely insensitive, and to leave the text at that, I cannot agree...per the reasons I stated above. And the section is already clear that "vaginal orgasms" are likely caused by the clitoris. I will go ahead and alert WP:Med to this discussion for their input on it. Flyer22 (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Alerted. Flyer22 (talk) 14:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I added page numbers to my citations. PolenCelestial (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a misunderstanding. As far as I can see, the sources PolenCelestial listed at the top of this section don't dispute (or even discuss) the idea that the vagina is an erogenous zone. They dispute the idea that stimulating the vagina itself leads to orgasms (instead, stimulation of the clitoris either internally or externally is credited for vaginal orgasms), but that doesn't mean that the vagina is not an erogenous zone. Body parts can be erogenous zones, and yet not cause orgasms when stimulated. If you look at other areas of the erogenous zone article, you'll see the lips, ears, mouth, etc. listed as erogenous zones, even though touching them (probably) won't lead to orgasm. kyledueck (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I clarified this earlier in the discussion when I distinguished physiological erogenous zones, which produce sexual pleasure by masturbation, from zones which only contribute to arousal in the context of the psychological experience of sex. The term "erogenous zone" is vague and the distinction should be clarified in the article. PolenCelestial (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

And I stated that "[the sources I have presented] are attributing vaginal pleasure and 'vaginal orgasm' to nerve endings, not to psychological causes, not mainly psychological causes anyway." I also was clear that "stating that 'vaginal orgasm' is caused by the clitoris, which, as some of the sources I pointed to above show is the general agreement among scientists today, is not the same thing as stating that the vagina has no erotogenic nerve endings and that the vagina plays no part in anatomical sexual pleasure or female orgasm." I'm not sure what you want from the article on the vaginal aspect, especially since I've tweaked the vaginal text, but I've been clear that we are not going to call the vagina completely insensitive and leave the matter at that. Nor are we going to state that vaginal pleasure is only psychological and leave the matter at that. Flyer22 (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Armpit

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)

Oh and armpits are listed both as a non specific zone and as a zone itself. That should definitely be corrected. I don't have skills other than observation though... Fimbulvintur (talk) 10:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Am I the only one?

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)