Talk:Clitoris/Archive 11

Orgasm
The lede doesn't mention anything about orgasm strength. Are female orgasms stronger than male orgasms? 78.144.249.17 (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that would be within the scope of the article.--Taylornate (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's not lead material, per WP:LEAD. It would need to be a prominent aspect of this article to warrant a place in the lead. But like Taylornate states, it's not really within the scope of this article. A brief mention about it could fit here (somewhere in the Sexual stimulation section), but the bulk of that information should be placed in the Physiological responses section of the Orgasm article. For example, that section (the Females part) already goes over women's orgasms lasting longer than men's. Flyer22 (talk) 04:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Taylornate, what do you mean by this change? I'm not understanding how it's more accurate than my tweak. You said "any number of structures could contribute to producing an orgasm," but, having read the scientific literature over and over again, female orgasm (with the exception of proposed orgasms that have never been clinically proven) is only discussed in terms of the clitoral structure and the G-Spot structure. The debate is about whether or not the G-Spot is separate from the clitoris, is a separate structure capable of producing orgasms in women. Changing the text away from "two separate structures" (when that is the debate in scientific literature) to "a separate structure purely for producing orgasms" is off to me because of that and because the clitoris is thought to be "a separate structure purely for producing orgasms." Flyer22 (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * From your version and from your comment here I'm still not 100% clear on precisely what we should be trying to convey with this phrase, but my problem with the version before my edit is that it seemed to say there are only two structures that can contribute to cause an orgasm. This is dubious because any erotic stimulus should contribute.--Taylornate (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, erotic stimulus creates an orgasm, Tayornate, but, in women, orgasm is still produced in the clitoris (or G-Spot, if you believe it to be distinct from the clitoris), just as it is produced in the penis/prostate in males. A woman who can orgasm from mental stimulation alone is still going to feel the orgasm in her genital region. The scientists are essentially talking about what mechanism gives us the capability of having an orgasm, as clinically defined anyway. In women, they are unanimous that the clitoris does this. They are divided on whether or not the G-Spot does, if the G-Spot is just an extension of the clitoris, and whether or not the G-Spot even exists.


 * As for the wording, look at this report by Kilchevsky in the Journal of Sexual Medicine. He and other researchers use words like "distinct entity, "unique entity," and "distinct structure." Other sources I've included in this article do as well. In the source for the text we've both attempted to tweak, "separate spot" is used. The wording is: Kilchevsky thinks there’s no evolutionary reason why women would have a separate spot capable of generating orgasms. By "separate spot," it is referring to the G-Spot because it's already well-established that the clitoris produces orgasms.


 * Since you didn't like my tweak, maybe we should change it back to the wording before my latest tweak to it? Or keep my tweak and use the word "spots" instead? Or "distinct entities"? If not that, then I feel that it should stay as I originally had it: a separate structure. Which is closer to what the MSNBC source says. The only reason I added "two separate structures" was to be clearer what Kilchevsky is talking about -- the G-Spot as separate from the clitoris. I would think that readers would know that Kilchevsky isn't talking about the clitoris when he's speaking of "a separate spot capable of generating orgasms," given what is stated before that line in the Clitoris article, but I wanted to be clearer because I am sometimes obsessive-compulsive like that. Flyer22 (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Besides that, the line is attributed to Kilchevsky. What he believes. That type of thing -- including what researchers believe, especially in such a hotly debated topic as the clitoris vs. the G-Spot -- is pretty commonplace. And, again, when researchers speak of only two structures producing an orgasm in women, they are speaking of what provides women with the ability to achieve an orgasm. That is what they mean by "two structures," not whether or not touching a woman's breast, for example, is enough to elicit an orgasm. Research has shown that even an orgasm derived from breast/nipple simulation is still felt in the genital region (in that "female genitals mapped onto the sensory portion of the brain" source that's in the article).


 * So are you going to work with me on including a different wording or should I restore the line to before my latest tweak, to what is no doubt supported by the source? Flyer22 (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I will work with you on clearer wording. My issue is the difference between the structure being capable of doing something vs. it existing for the purpose of doing something.  Do you understand what I mean?  Saying there are one or two structures capable of doing something can imply that no other structures have that capability.  If an orgasm can be achieved through nipple stimulation then that is in conflict.--Taylornate (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Taylornate, I'm not quite understanding. Research does say that there are only two structures capable of producing orgasm in women, or that there's just one (the clitoris) that is mistaken for two (or even three) separate structures. An orgasm being achieved through nipple stimulation, which is extremely rare, by the way, is not the nipple producing the orgasm. Is the orgasm a result of the nipple stimulation? Partly. But it's not producing it. It does not have the mechanism to produce an orgasm, in the clinical sense. Do you understand what I'm saying? I have only come across one researcher (or rather just one doctor) who believes that the orgasm is happening in the nipple, and that's Dr. Herbert Otto.


 * Besides, you're missing the point that this wording is used in the scientific literature about the female orgasm all the time, and the wording I'd implemented is what Kilchevsky is saying. We are supposed to go by what the research/researchers say, not what we think they should say, per WP:Verifiability. If "two different structures" is an issue, I'd have to worry about that every time I include information about the female orgasm. Flyer22 (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess I will have to look at the references before I comment much further, but: Yes, we need to say what the research says, but we don't have to use the same words. You can't always take words from a research paper intended for scientists and plunk them down in an encyclopedia intended for the general reader.  You are probably correct about "structures" "producing" an orgasm (and I may be wrong about other structures), but we need to phrase/explain it in a way that the general reader will understand.  I now suspect the phrase produce an orgasm has nuanced meaning to a scientist that the general reader will not appreciate.--Taylornate (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. However, I must say that I know that we don't have to use the same words, and should generally use words that laypeople will understand, but there are no better words for getting across "two separate structures" (unless we go with one of my suggestions) and "two separate structures" is something that laypeople will understand. The reason I object to your current wording, and objected to my original wording as well, is that it seems to sort of contradict Kilchevsky. For example, right now (with your wording), it says "no evolutionary reason why females would have a separate structure purely for producing orgasms," but Kilchevsky does believe that there is an evolutionary reason why females have a separate structure purely for producing orgasms -- the clitoris being homologous to the penis. It's that there are two separate structures purely for producing orgasms that Kilchevsky objects to. Of course, by "separate structure," it should be clear that Kilchevsky is talking about the G-Spot and not the clitoris. But, like I stated, I wanted to make the sentence clearer.


 * How about using "no evolutionary reason why females would have an entity other than the clitoris that is capable of generating orgasms"? It's what Kilchevsky is saying, as clear from the two sources I listed above, and is just as easy to understand. There is also opposition to it in the article, but that opposition comes in the form of saying "the G-Spot, as distinct from the clitoris, is causing orgasms too." Nowhere in the sources, and generally not in scientific literature as a whole, is there a debate about body parts other than the vagina (G-Spot) and clitoris producing orgasms in women (unless you count scarce mentions of "uterine orgasm"). There is no "Nipple orgasm vs. clitoral orgasm," and so on. Whether readers think orgasms can be felt in body parts other than the genitals, or agree with Kilchevsky and most other researchers that orgasms are only genital-based, or just feel that any anatomical stimulation that results in orgasm should be called "a structure capable of producing orgasms" as well, is irrelevant to adding what Kilchevsky and other researchers say. So are you up for my latest suggestion? There are no other ways to get across the fact that Kilchevsky is saying that the clitoris is what produces all orgasms in women. Flyer22 (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I now understand why my change was incorrect and I've reverted it. With your proposed wording above, I think we are very close. I would change other than to in addition to. I am still a bit leery of the phrase generating orgasms for the reason I stated in my last post: It may have a nuanced difference of meaning between a scientist and a general reader. I may change my mind after looking over more of the article.--Taylornate (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your change wasn't exactly incorrect. With the exception of "purely," it's pretty much what I originally had there, and is what is in the MSNBC article. But the point, as mentioned, was about making it clearer. Because, you know, he's taking about the G-Spot and is not saying that there is "no evolutionary reason why females would have a separate structure capable of producing orgasms" at all. I can of course agree to use "in addition to," have it worded as "no evolutionary reason why females would have an entity in addition to the clitoris that is capable of generating orgasms" instead. But as for "generating," it's the same as "producing" of course; I used it in my proposal because it's what is used in the source. I don't know what else to say to convince you that "producing" or "generating" are okay to use. I take it that, like I mentioned above, you feel that any anatomical stimulation that results in orgasm should be called a structure capable of producing orgasms. But I don't really see how it's accurate to say that those structure are producing the orgasm. By "producing," I mean that the orgasm is actually manifesting in that structure. Unless we use "manifesting" or some synonym for producing/generating, then I don't see what words would adequately convey producing/generating. All researchers consider the brain to be a sex organ, too, when it comes to sexual stimulation, Taylornate, because sexual arousal has to start there first. But you will hardly ever see/hear researchers talking about a "brain orgasm." Though the sexual arousal starts there, and there are chemical changes in the brain when the orgasm happens, the male or female orgasm, with regard to structures that produce it, are assigned to the genitals. Flyer22 (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right, generating and producing are fine. How would you feel about changing that is capable of to for?
 * Now I'm thinking this topic would be more appropriate in orgasm.--Taylornate (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's use "producing," since "generating" sounds like we're talking about electricity or something. And, hmm, I would say that I'm okay with using "for" instead, so that it would then be worded as "no evolutionary reason why females would have an entity in addition to the clitoris that is for producing orgasms," but then that would imply that the clitoris's only existence is to produce orgasms. There's also pleasure before orgasms, and, as noted in the Sexual stimulation section, there is some dispute that the clitoris is only for sexual pleasure. Even though it has not been clearly shown that the clitoris is for anything other than for sexual pleasure/orgasm.


 * As for the topic being "more appropriate in orgasm," are you speaking of the "orgasm content" that's included in this article? If so, it's appropriate here and at the Orgasm article, where it's addressed in further detail. It's appropriate here because, like the lead says, the clitoris "has been the subject of extensive sociological, sexological and medical debate." Other than debate about "discovering" the clitoris and accurate descriptions of it, most of the debate has centered on the female orgasm. Any time the clitoris is discussed in scientific research, it's discussed in terms of orgasm in addition to anatomy, and the biggest debate focusing on the clitoris is the "Clitoral orgasm vs. vaginal/G-Spot orgasm" debate. That should definitely be in this article, just like it is also in the G-Spot article. There is no way to adequately tackle the topic of clitoral stimulation and orgasm without mentioning the topic of vaginal/G-Spot orgasm, especially since so many researchers now believe that vaginal/G-Spot orgasms are clitoral orgasms. Flyer22 (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to agree with Flyer22 on this. Been folloing the discussion and I don't see what is so controversial about the wording Taylornate was rejecting. Info about orgasm should most assuredly stay. How can you discuss (note: discusss, not just mention) the clit without discussing orgasm, its rival and its likely relation to its rival? Banking honesty (talk) 00:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not rejecting any wording. We're pretty much in agreement at this point and it's not controversial. The problem with where to put it is that we also have an article for it's rival and an article for orgasm and we aren't supposed to duplicate content/scope.  If we did move the topic, we could leave a targeted summary and a link.--Taylornate (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Taylornate, we are allowed to duplicate content when the content is relevant to more than just the one article. I have seen this countless times. The in-depth information about female orgasm is in the Orgasm article, and everything that needs to/should be addressed in this article about the clitoris and how it relates to the female orgasm is in this article. It's like I (as well as Banking honesty) stated above. And if this information were not in this article, I am certain that this article would not make WP:GA status; GA is what I aiming for with this article, just like I helped get the G-Spot article to GA. Besides, nothing can be moved from here that isn't already found in the G-Spot and Orgasm articles, and these articles are not complete duplicates of each other when it comes to information on female orgasm. Yes, all three articles share some content, but, if you look at how all three are discussing the female orgasm, they are also different. In addition to the "Is the clitoris vestigial?" information found lower, the Sexual stimulation section of the Clitoris article is focusing on how the clitoris causes sexual pleasure and the prominence of clitoral orgasms, the Debates section of the G-Spot article is focusing on the G-Spot even though also noting that it may be related to clitoris, and the In females section of the Orgasm article is tackling both topics among other things. But note that it leaves, for example, most of the in-depth information about the G-Spot to the G-Spot article. So does this article. But information about how the G-Spot is related to the clitoris is here because it is very relevant here, and I agree that it shouldn't just be a note about it. One cannot cover either of these topics without also covering the other. That's my point -- that it would be odd to not have information in this article talking about how clitoral orgasms used to be thought of as immature and how research changed this line of thinking, odd not to discuss that the clitoris is homologous to the penis and why that is, how this affects sexual stimulation in women, why this means that most women achieve orgasm only through direct clitoral stimulation, and any other significant topic/debate regarding the clitoris. All of that is a part of "findings and debates" about the clitoris; it's what I've read in every research topic adequately covering the topic of sexual stimulation via the clitoris, and is why I feel that any section about the clitoris that is titled "Sexual stimulation" should include it. Flyer22 (talk) 02:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * When I replied to Banking honesty, I missed your post before his. I'm pretty happy with the wording you proposed there, although you might consider omitting that is between clitoris and for as I think the meaning and clarity are the same without it. I see what you're saying about for and wouldn't be opposed to changing it back. I think we've reached a point where you can just make a decision on these two points and make the edit. It looks like you know what you're doing regarding scope. Good luck with the GA and let me know if you want another set of eyes for copyediting or something.--Taylornate (talk) 02:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, so you're suggesting the following: "no evolutionary reason why females would have an entity in addition to the clitoris producing orgasms"? Using "that is capable of" or "capable of" still sounds best to me, but maybe that's just because I'm used to the wording. How do you feel about using "that can produce orgasms" in place of "producing orgasms"? But if you like the former, I can go for that. I think it's starting to grow on me anyway.


 * And thanks for the good luck wishes regarding GA. There's still quite a bit of work that needs to be done on this article before a GA nomination could be justified, such as the Structure section, for example. But I have faith that I will get there, and I will definitely consider asking you for help. You're already helping by just being another medical editor who is looking after this article and is willing to work things out on the talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 03:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What I meant was this: no evolutionary reason why females would have an entity in addition to the clitoris for producing orgasms, I think ommitting the for introduced a grammar problem. So the question is for producing vs. that can produce or the equivalent with capable. As we discussed before, there is a difference of meaning and you were saying the latter is more accurate—and I still haven't read any of the literature.  If that is still your thinking, I think we should go with that can produce.  I think your suggestion with capable is more wordy with no benefit.  That would give us: no evolutionary reason why females would have an entity in addition to the clitoris that can produce orgasms.--Taylornate (talk) 04:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will go with the final proposal. Flyer22 (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 March 2012
Please consider changing,

"The tip or glans of the clitoris alone has more than 8,000 sensory nerve endings,[16] as much as or more than the human penis, as well as more than any other part of the human body."

to something along the lines of

"The clitoris is simply a bundle of nerves: 8,000 nerve fibers, to be precise. That’s a higher concentration of nerve fibers than is found anywhere else in the male or female body, including the fingertips, lips, and tongue, and it is twice, twice, twice the number in the penis." ("Woman: an Intimate Geography" by Natalie Angier)

Thank you.

74.244.204.215 (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ❌ That says basically the same thing with excessive wording ("twice, twice, twice"?)-- Jac 16888 Talk 16:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. And the proposed quote doesn't mention that it's the glans that has 8,000 or more nerve endings. I mean, if it's just the glans that has about that number, then this means that the clitoris has more than that when you consider the rest of it. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any source stressing that the "tip or glans alone" has more than (or as much as, if you go by the Go Ask Alice! source) the penis. But I'll be looking for better sources than Rebecca Chalker and Go Ask Alice! that discuss the number of nerve endings in the clitoris. Hopefully, I find them soon. Flyer22 (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Weak...
The clit pictures are weak and stand improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.203.61.179 (talk) 11:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * IP, how do you consider the current pictures to be weak? Flyer22 (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)