Talk:Body orifice

Anatomy: Gross Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy 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.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to gross anatomy.

Body orifice[edit]

body orifice:the opposite function of skin, to let something into the body and something out. 220.129.73.223 (talk) 08:43, 17 March 2006‎ (UTC)[reply]

Anus[edit]

Anal sex isn't what the anus evolved for, that is just a secondary use. Is it really necessary to have that listed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.234.209 (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same goes for the mouth. With a bit of imagination, you can do all sorts of things with all sorts of orifices, and I'm sure we could have endless fun expanding the list to accommodate them. It doesn't follow that, biologically, that is what the orifices are for. Vilĉjo (talk) 11:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--- The male g-spot negates this argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.131.158 (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with IP 173.54.234.209 and Vilĉjo, and I have reverted one such recent entry.

To IP 96.241.131.158: No, the prostate (male G-Spot) does not negate that argument. While prostate stimulation is very pleasurable to some men, there is no proof that the prostate was intended to be used for rear-entry sexual pleasure. Keep in mind that the prostate is sexually stimulated by sexual stimulation of one's own penis as well. Flyer22 (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes[edit]

Should we call this tear duct? I wouldn't consider eyes being an orifice, but a tear duct is. 66.91.239.39 (talk) 04:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plural[edit]

What is the plural version of orifice? should it not be orifii? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.94.12 (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]