Talk:Sexual stimulation

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 8 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KMCC448. Peer reviewers: MAderinsola, Ehernandez14, Mfajardo2.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment
I need help with citations, if anybody sees cross references or runs into articles and other resources on line, please help!~! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.223.61.209 (talk • contribs) Have a look at Foucault's History of Sexuality. It will be of much help in refining this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Why are there no pcitures here..? Nothing at all? This article should be vastly improved.. -Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.48.185.54 (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review
You appear to have made great progress with editing this page! I have some potential alterations for consideration when developing the page further: Overall, the page is well organised and structured. It covers a broad range of topics and incorporates many appropriate citations. This is a very interesting read and a good contribution! --JanWac (talk) 12:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The table within the sex differences in erogenous zones section is a great way to provide and display data. However, it may be a good idea to add more information to explain this table. Perhaps there are further reasons for these differences other than nerve endings? There could also be alternative information provided by Turnball et al (2014) that would be relevant here?
 * Further information and citations about orgasm control could be provided near the top of this page. Such as why and when this occurs. A citation may also be appropriate here.
 * Are there any other images or tables that could be added to further enhance the page? Wikimedia Commons may already have something relevant you could add.
 * The history of sexual stimulation is briefly mentioned within the physical sexual stimulation section, however could this be added to further? It may be easier for readers to digest the information if 'history of sexual stimulation' had its own heading/section incorporating the history of sex toys and role-play use etc.
 * It may be useful to re-word the paragraph on dreams. Currently, the paragraph is hard to follow. It could help to separate the points about males and females more obviously. The points made here are also rather brief. Could more detail from the citations (e.g. Henton, 1967) be added to provide clarity and detailed understanding?

Peer Review

You have done a good job with this page. You may however consider making some alterations to language. Might there be some more objective language you might use? why not replace "fingering" for example with the more neutral "digital stimulation." in this case digital refers to the fingers. You mention the use of sexual pleasure devices, it should be relatively easy to add a picture. You present useful and relevant data on erogenous zones. Might you consider adding a graph of this data? You have done well in providing re-directs to your page. At present you provide author names in citations. Though this fits with APA Style, on Wiki, these should be substituted so only numbers remain.

Good work!

TSKang96 (talk) 21:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for your contributions! We have removed the initials sections involving words such as "fingering" we did not make those contributions in the first place but as you say it does not sound very neutral I think the page would be better without it. The history of sexual stimulation has also been removed. It was also not part of our contributions but we believe the page is more coherent without that section. We contributed to Physical sexual stimulation, Sexual stimulation through alternative routes and mental sexual stimulation. I agree with your comments though. We will look into adding images, I think it would make the page more engaging. Hopefully things are looking better now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayselisa.allison (talk • contribs) 15:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Could you please explain the references to "we" and "our". Thanks  Velella  Velella Talk 06:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, Apologies, my fault for being so unclear! I worked on editing this page with two other colleagues. The first comment was from another colleague who was reviewing our work. I should have been more clear. Hope this clears things up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayselisa.allison (talk • contribs) 13:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Iz Williams (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)== Peer Review ==

Hi, the article is looking really good. It is extremely detailed and covers a wide range of topics. Here are some of my thoughts on it:


 * I think that the use of subheadings has made the page clear to read and very well organised.
 * I particularly like how everything is explained clearly and is understandable to readers who are new to this topic.
 * There are also lots of links to other Wikipedia pages which is really good.
 * The table is definitely a great addition to the page. Are there any images that could possibly be added?
 * I think the Wikipedia guidelines would suggest the citations within the text to be removed and just linked to the references at the bottom.

Overall, the page is extremely organised and clear to read. I found it very had to find criticisms! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iz Williams (talk • contribs) 23:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for your comments! You're right I think it's best to remove the citations. Unfortunately there have been troubles with finding an image that can be publicly shared but that'll be worked on. Thanks:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayselisa.allison (talk • contribs) 13:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on our page! I have made a few edits based on some of your suggestions... I have explained a little more about the sex differences in erogenous zones, made the sex toy section a little clearer with a heading and added some pictures, added a more general explanation of the excitation-transfer model so that its definition is clearer, provided a re-cap in the non-genital stimulation section, removed the name of some of the researchers so as to fit the appropriate format, and corrected a few grammatical errors. Thanks! Lauren Haynes (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review
The overall structure of this article is extremely well organised, allowing for information to be easily accessible by the reader. To develop this further, there are a few suggestions which may be useful:


 * The Non- genital stimulation section under Physical sexual stimulation contains a number of different body parts, such as lips and thighs. It may be helpful to write a short introduction before the content detailing these specific areas. An alternative option is to write a short summary at the end of the paragraph. This allows readers to recap the information within the section.
 * The use of body parts as sub categories in Non- genital stimulation allows for easy comprehension, although for grammatical consistency “lips” needs to have a colon.
 * Throughout the article, numerous credible sources are cited. However, the names of researchers do not need to be included in the main body of text, and instead can be mentioned in the references.
 * The Excitation- transfer theory provides a well- balanced explanation for sexual arousal. However, it may be useful to first explain the general theory, and then apply it to the topic more specifically. For example, it could be useful to explain that the excitation left from a particular stimulus creates the response to another.
 * The use of headings and subheadings are well executed. Pictures and images will further enhance the overall layout of the article.

In summary this article is very well written, with a well organised structure. These are a few minor suggestions to an interesting read. Simi95 (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hello,

I enjoyed reading your page, it really flows and clear and easy to follow the content. Here are some suggestions from me:


 * You included a table under Sex differences in erogenous zones which makes the it very clear, organised and understandable.
 * Maybe include a short subsection of history of sexual stimulation, which might make the article even better and more detailed.
 * It might be useful to include some pictures or images of sex toys to let readers understand it better.
 * There are many links to other Wikipedia pages which is really good, and the subheadings makes the page very clear and easy to read.

Overall I really like the structure of your article and enjoyed reading the content of it, I think it is one of the best Wikipedia articles I've read!

Kkatieeee (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hey, I thought your page was very concise and well put. It has a lot of good content thats both informative and appropriately written in the Wikipedia format. Here are a few of my thoughts:


 * Under the Genital Sexual Stimulation header, the point about sex toys is a great topic to bring in, however, it went on a bit of a tangent about the origins of the sex toy, rather than using the sex toys as a means of talking about genital stimulation. Possibly more about the benefits of sexual stimulation?
 * In the Dreams section, there was a note about male erections accompanying all REM phases. It is said that as sleep nears its end, erections occur without the influence of arousal at all, but rather the result of increased blood flow during REM sleep. If that's whats implied, added detail would be good :)
 * Under the Fantasy section, i liked that you talked about the motivator of transcending the social and safety limits. I thought maybe some additional information about the benefits of fantasy. That could possibly lead into potential costs of fantasy which would fit nicely with your part on Sexual Crimes.
 * Also under the Fantasy section, I enjoyed your point on the evolutionary generalisation of dominant men and submissive women. I saw that there was a mention of cultural influence, but it didn't get as much of a mention as the evolutionary explanation. Maybe an additional sentence or two regarding a sociological explanation?

I thought this article was very well done and I thoroughly enjoyed it :) Hopefully my points help! Oliver Colin Arthur Butler (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review

This is a very interesting article, it is factually well structured and I enjoyed reading it. Some points I made are:

•	This piece seems to follow the wiki style well and follows their rules for grammar and layout.

•	The erogenous zone differences table is good, and is a nice visual representation of data. This provides some interesting gender differences comparison, in clear format. I wonder if this could be expanded too for example, could you add comparisons in physical, psychological and neural changes that occur in men and women from effective sexual stimulation.

•	There is a lot of interesting historical information but also would there be some benefit in linking information to some more evolutionary research i.e. what does sexual stimulation mean for human reproduction and mating strategy? Do bonding, involvement, excitement and joy amplify stimulation and if so why? Are there certain phases of sexual excitement during stimulation?

•	Some kind of picture graphic on the page would add more visual interest.

I think you have done a great job, and I hope that some of this might help.

Regards

FlowerPower46 (talk) 14:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review

This is a a really detailed page, with lots of studies giving examples, which makes it really easy to follow and understand. Well done!!

I just have a few suggestions, mostly regarding punctuation, just to make a few of the sentences flow a little bit better, and break some of the longer sentences up :) Metal stimulation: Fantasy:
 * Possibly reword the first sentence of sexual fantasy: e.g. Sexual fantasy is a form of sexual stimulation which many people engage in. It is where a person imagines a sexual experience while they are awake – possibly flows better?
 * ‘more freedom to experiment or to think’ – add in the other to combine common sexual fantasies with the bit about ‘fantasy can be anything from imagining your spouse naked’ – less repetitive.
 * Add a comma after ‘such as forcing another’ so: ‘forcing another, or being forced, to have sex.
 * remove ‘and is as follows’ in second paragraph (not really needed)
 * (they are often not only the main care givers, but they also have 9 months of gestation prior to birth) – reword slightly to make it flow better
 * ‘and are therefore more likely to want commitment’ – slight word order change
 * add a comma after ‘sexual crimes’
 * full stop after ‘related to their offense’ to break up the paragraph
 * have ‘therefore, fantasy alone cannot be used as a sign that someone will become an offender’ as a separate sentence to provide a nice conclusion to the section

Dreams: Sexual role play: - this section flows really nicely
 * comma after nocturnal orgasms
 * maybe change the second ‘occur’ in the first sentence just so it sounds less repetitive
 * comma after ‘women also experience orgasm during sleep’
 * have ‘however, there may still be copyright or obscenity laws if posted onto a public forum or published’ as a separate sentence

Possibly include another piece of research? Just to improve but already loads of detail, and very informative!

Sexual stimulation through alternative routes: Visual: Olfactory and evolutionary: Auditory: Excitation transfer theory of sexual arousal
 * enclose ‘non-tactile form of sexual stimulation’ in commas to break up the sentence
 * coma after ‘sexual deviation’
 * comma after ‘in one study’ before ‘visual stimulation was tested’
 * reword: ‘their physiological responses to the video also showed characteristics of sexual arousal, such as increased urinary excretions of adrenaline.’
 * Maybe explain what different areas of the brain do that are activated just to add a bit more detail
 * Comma after ‘in one study’ before ‘males rated visual’
 * Flows really nicely!
 * ‘increased breathing rate and occasionally at orgasm – screams of ecstasy’ – possibly change the punctuation to make it flow better?
 * Comma after highly exciting to men and women
 * Comma after 1920s and 30s
 * Comma after ‘in one mood induction study’
 * Comma after ‘in a similar experiment’
 * Really detailed section, and loads of examples of studies which is great!
 * Comma after ‘internal processes in the body’
 * Comma after ‘in one study’

I hope this helps! Again, well done, it's a really great article :) Harrietta 96 (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for Reviews
Thanks everyone for the reviews and feedback we've received. We will be working on your points this week to improve the page. We really appreciate your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sara Jane Sutty (talk • contribs) 16:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on our page! I have made a few edits based on some of your suggestions... I have explained a little more about the sex differences in erogenous zones, made the sex toy section a little clearer with a heading and added some pictures, added a more general explanation of the excitation-transfer model so that its definition is clearer, provided a re-cap in the non-genital stimulation section, removed the name of some of the researchers so as to fit the appropriate format, and corrected a few grammatical errors. Lauren Haynes (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SP23 - Sect 201 - Thu
— Assignment last updated by Lz2605 (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Seminar in Human Sexuality
— Assignment last updated by Zy175311460 (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)