Talk:Stimulation of nipples

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Sexuality (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject 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.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


This is not a disgusting sex article like rusty trombone or urethral play, but it really is quite dicdef-ish and probably would fail AFD.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Is the black one a trany? --Seth slackware 03:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Is that ridiculous picture really necessary? It's not even that good and sort of ridiculous
It does the job by showing the act --Seth slackware 12:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree, it is a rather ridiculous picture. Scarian 15:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay guys, just had a word with an admin, the picture needs to be changed because it is too distracting and just too... ugh... Also, the article is too much like a dictionary entry. It needs to be expanded... but... seeing what the topic of this entry is I don't really see much else that can be done. I'm removing the picture. If you have a problem with that, please do not revert, speak on the discussion page. Or bring it up with the admin. Scarian 18:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
As part of a more extensive edit, I have replaced the pic which imho works very well in the context of this article ... it is in no way "horrible" since it simply demonstrates, in quite an artistic way, the subject matter. I think you will find that the editor you mentioned was simply giving an opinion rather than making a ruling and as such her opinion is no more valid than any editor's ... much as I respect herAbtract 18:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, I don't really wish to argue about such a trivial thing. The article now needs some citations, but I'm washing my hands [thoroughly] of it completely. Best of luck, friend. Scarian 18:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
If someone used "Ugh" and "Vile" as a basis for deleting an imige in Wikipedia, (which by the way is not censored) then they should create a new guideline WP:UGH or WP:VILE and see if it has consensus. It could have been removed on the basis that it was a poorly drawn image which did not add in any to the understanding of the subject. Edison 14:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That is what I meant... it was poorly drawn. Apologies for not saying that more explicity. But now I see the picture has gone... Score one for Wikipedia. ScarianTalk 12:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Vulgar Image Removed[edit]

That image was absolutely Vulgar, badly drawn, and out of place at an "encyclopedia". It's gone. If you MUST have a picture here, make it something less Vile please.

up for deletion[edit]

I put it up for deletion. I read the rules a few times and now know it shouldn't be on hereYVNP 10:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you take time to read the previous AFD les than a month ago? What has change? The overwhelming consensus was to keep it. This is not a "pitch til you win" game. Edison 14:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Just because an article was not deleted the first time means nothing. The article was not listed so most of the people in the discussion were people who go to this article often. It's not suprising that when a deletion review is done by people who read this article often it will be in support of the article. Neither time it was put up for deletion were admins or deletion specializing users told about the review. Until a review is created and admins and deletonists know about it the first and even second review say nothing. ps: I sggest you tone down the aggression.YVNP 04:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
The pic is back again. It has already been explained that it is confusing and not informative enough. Although I think the article should be deleted if the page stays an informative picture is needed.YVNP (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


A new illustration has appeared, a photograph of a young woman licking her nipple while looking at the viewer. I quite like the picture, but think there are problems. We do try to avoid the look and feel of pornography in these articles and this seductive nude pose addressed to the viewer from a photograph is just the sort of thing one might find on a "naughty" web page. Also I would like to see 2 lovers as the 2 person sex act is far more common and an important part of safe sex practice.--Simon Speed (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe reducing the image to focus only on the breasts may solve the problem. No necessity to show the whole-body picture. -- (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've cropped the photo. I have a gut hostility to removing genitals from an artwork, it smacks of fig leaves and silly prudery, but the resulting picture does seem more simply illustrative. However I still think we really need a well drawn illustration of one person erotically sucking another's nipple, a sex act rather than an act of seduction and preferably not a photograph. --Simon Speed (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I have added a picture which I think better illustrates the subject of the article. I have left the previous picture below it as it still illustrates a variant activity that is mentioned. However if editors would like to justify it's removal (or some other course of action that seems reasonable) I'll probably go along with it. --Simon Speed (talk) 11:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The photo has my vote for deletion (the drawing is acceptable, if we must have one). First of all, Wikipedia is a site that children--or, at least, minors--do use very frequently. I don't know the legal minutiae regarding Wikipedia, but I definitely think the idea of putting porn--because if it were anywhere else, that's exactly what it would be called--is shaky ground. Even kids will know what they're about to read when they click on or search for "Oral Stimulation of the Nipples," but I think a picture--especially one that graphic--is too much. Younger kids might even be seriously disturbed. Also, it seriously damages the integrity of Wikipedia and the general public image it has of being a friendly and a source of knowledge, not a source of porn. If other editors insist that this article have a picture, I think we should follow the mold of all the other "sex-position" related articles and put only a drawing (e.g. Missionary position, Oral sex, and 69). The drawing that's there now is acceptable, I would say. Thoughts? Tserton (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge with oral sex[edit]

When lick someone's genitals it's oral sex. When lick someone's anus it's oral sex. This should be treated no different. YVNP (talk) 10:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I refer you to the oral sex article : "Oral stimulation of other parts of the body (as in kissing and licking) is usually not considered oral sex." yayay (talk) 14:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
alrighty then but I still think this article needs vast changes YVNP (talk) 18
26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

labor induction[edit]

In addition to sexuality, nipple stimulation is also common for natural labor induction, is it not? Meonkeys (talk) 02:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Where is the photo?[edit]

When I've seen this some time ago there was a photo of a woman sucking her breast, why is it gone? By the way, there's no need for that terrible quality drawing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

"people of any sex or gender."[edit]

??? PollyWaffler (talk) 06:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


Surely a more useful image would be one of a male sucking a female's nipples. Same-sex sexual arousal is not commonplace, thus does not make so purposeful an image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Does it make a difference really? As for not commonplace, it's hardly rare, merely not as prevalent as the heteronormative version. -mattbuck (Talk) 05:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting to read that one is not as prevalent as another. There is a very good case for changing the illustration because the present use of a female-female image is unfairly weighted away from what, as you wrote, is the prevalent form of sexual arousal. It is a poor choice.

The other image, as poor an illustration as it is, is "an erect female nipple on a large breast". Well, stimulated nipples are most often those of a female. But nobody's complaining about that, presumably because a stimulated nipple is most often a female one. It represents the prevalent, although I am not sure that large breasts are prevalent and believe that a small breast would have illustrated the subject more accurately anyway.

Perhaps prevalence is not so much of a concern. The article includes a citation for the statement that "stimulation of nipples of males are (sic) not as sexualized" (as the stimulation of nipples of females). But the abstract of that source reads that "young adult women and men report that breast stimulation not only induces their sexual arousal but enhances it when already aroused". Surely, then, if both males and females react in such a way, then, there is no basis for choosing a female-female image over a male-male one?

No. Describe all possibilities in the text. The appropriate illustration should represent the most prevalent version. For that reason, the illustration should be one of a female-male couple.

That would also satisfy the notion that an article that is primarily about sexual stimulation must reflect both sexes because both sexes may be sexually stimulated. So the present illustration is not appropriate, and should be replaced with a female-male couple. I suppose it does not matter which one is stimulating the other's nipple. PårWöet (talk) 12:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd be perfectly happy with a male to female image of similar high quality. As it is we have a good illustration of the act, which is something we need to help readers understand what is being discussed. --Simon Speed (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay but do all three images need to be homosexual? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Hard nipple.jpg[edit]

An anonymous user has removed the above photo. Do we want it? Would we prefer an alternative? --Simon Speed (talk) 09:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Does wikipedia promote homosexuality as the norm now?[edit]

This article is disgusting for a supposed educating encyclopedia article. All 3 pictures in the article depict homosexual couples. ALL 3. This is outrageous. Homosexuality is a sexual preference and not part of natural selection and reproduction, as such it should be included in general sexuality articles as a footnote or a secondary reference NOT as an example of the norm. Children experiencing some kind of nipple discomfort by some random stimulation will easily be led in this article from a google search. What will they find? Some very "educational" pictures about homosexuality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

While I will refrain from using the very emotionally-charged terminologies of this message, I will have to express my agreement with the general assertion therein. The topmost image depicts an incestuous relationship, and while "Wikipedia is not censored", this is not an article about incest. From the population of the images in this article, there is a disproprtionate representation. (I will assume good faith, though, and refrain from speculating that this was an intentional act as part of some far-fetched agenda). At present, the selection of images would suggest that homosexual relations hold a majority that entirely eclipses heterosexual relations. It is questionable that any images are necessary for this article, at all. The text is well-written and is able to sufficiently describe the activity without requiring visual aid. (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Lesbian scene?[edit]

What's with that ridiculous image at the bottom of the page? That's nothing but cheap gratuitous porn. How does it add anything educational to the article? I don't see that the page about fellatio includes any gay image of a man sucking another man, or anything similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

IP, I moved your comment down...per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout. As for the image you reverted me on (after I reverted you because you removed the image without an explanation), I don't mind it not being in this article, but others do (as seen above). For Wikipedia image guidelines about this type of thing, see WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:GRATUITOUS...which are also covered by Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Offensive images. And this section on my user page shows my take on this type of image matter.
Also, remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. A bot signed your username for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 04:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and the only reason there is not yet a clear image of male-male fellatio in the Fellatio article is because a WP:Free image of it has not yet been found; see Talk:Fellatio/Archive 2#Balance of images heterocentric (the second comment in that section is now outdated, however). Flyer22 (talk) 04:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I still fail to see the educative value of that image, unless filling the Internet with still more porn for straight men is now an educative goal or something. I doubt the intentions of the person that first uploaded that irrelevant image, and don't understand why it should remain here (specially, when there's already another lesbian scene already). This article should contain either straight pictures only, or at least, one gay, one straight and one lesbian. Right now, the image of this article look as if it had been chosen by some teenager with a "big-boobs" fetish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)