Talk:Nipple/Archive 1

Supernumerary stats

"One in 18 people has a third nipple" Is this notable to be written here? :-) (BBC) bogdan | ^Talk 10:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps that belongs at supernumerary nipple. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 10:52, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Boobies

Well, just to be fair, shouldn't there be a picture of a BIG fat dude with pendulous man-breasts so as to show what a male nipple looks like on a hombre whose breasts are likely larger than a sizable percentage of the female population? -Unsigned

Because it's disgusting. The article also already shows a picture of a 13yo boy and THATS PEDOPHILIA ON WIKIPEDIA! Cuzandor 20:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Omicronpersei8, Why don't you object to the tits and utters and 13 year old pedophilia; yet you revert me? Come on Omicronpersei8, have some MANBOOBS! This second one isn't even gross. How do you know the author could/think something will be "gross"? Do you have a crystal ball? [manboobs for all] 66.114.93.6 04:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Apes

Instead of having TWO pictures of humans, I think we should replace the one of the human torso (which comes from someone which seriously lack muscular mass and is not a real reprentation of a male human) to this one or anything similar. -Unsigned

Agree--Light current 22:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Regeneration

Does the nipple regenerate? I saw, on a different unrelated article that the nipple is the only part of the human body that regrows if it is lost, how come it doesnt say it here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.166.104.26 (talk) 10:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

I've seen this too. If anyone else agrees, this should be added.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.161.57.72 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Please be careful. This is why people at Wikipedia ask for references to reliable sources. Just because a number of people may have heard of something, doesn't mean it is true. See A Tale about a Tiger (a less readable but more informative discussion is Argumentum ad populum, also WP:VERIFY, WP:RS)

I looked around a bit, but the only mentions of the topic easily available were in reference to breast reduction and reconstruction, and I didn't want to dig any deeper into that. Especially as it seemed they weren't claiming _complete_ successes. Shenme 19:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Number statement

The nipple number statement is confusing and misleading: "Other mammals such as cats and dogs develop more nipples along the milk lines, in number generally approximating the average litter size for that species, rounded up to an even number." Should be something like "Most mammals develop multiple nipples along each milk line, with the total number approximating the maximum litter size, and half the total number (i.e. the number on one side) approximating the average litter size for that species."

Here's one reference, but perhaps somebody can find a better one: "Mean litter size is typically one-half the number of available mammaries, while maximum litter size approximates mammary number." From Mammary Number and Litter Size in Rodentia: The 'One-Half Rule', Communicated by Leo M. Hurvich, March 7, 1986. Nick Westgate 04:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Alternate definitions

In plumbing, a nipple is a short piece of threaded tubing used as a coupling. -Unsigned

For bicycles, a nipple is a nut placed at the end of each wheel spoke. -Unsigned

But it appeared as a very racist remark (in any case, nothing to do with nipples). I hope it is ok by now. Francesco

What exactly do plumbing and bicycles have to do with racism?207.157.121.50 07:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)mightyafrowhitey

What on earth do you mean? What rascist remark? Liamoliver 20:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Males

Why do human males have nipples? Its in most mammals but in our evolution it is present. Male dogs have nipples as well. -Unsigned

Check a little closer next time you pet the belly of a male dog :) Anyway, as I understand, the answer is part of evolution. Given the genetic simliarities between males and females (believe it or not), it was not possible for female mammals to develop nipples without a corresponding development in males. Sure other male and female genitals are highly differentiated, but there is a much longer evolutionary history separating those. But genetic differences between the sexes are not different enough for nipples to be able to only appear in the females of the species. Males nipples are a necessary side effect of the development of functional nipples in females. -Unsigned

But don't let people tell you that males don't have an organ whose sole use is for pleasure. -Unsigned

Thats a real good answer, I still believe humans will continue to evolve, even if it's minimal changes. Some suggest larger more complex brains, no hair and other things.--King of the Dancehall 02:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Male horses and male rats do not have nipples. 67.129.136.163 14:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe it to be a question of evolution, but of biological efficiency. Females require the hormones to develop breast tissue. Biologically encoding separate physiological characteristics into genetic structure would be inefficient. Blue Leopard 10:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Males being deviod of nipples wouldn't really give them a biological advantage, and so they were never lost along the evolutionary path. The reason is that all fetuses begin as females, and therefore the nipples (like everything else) develop like the breasts. For reasons of distinction, I don't like to say that males have breasts, I like to say that they have breast tissue and mammary glands. Everything a guy has is because he was a female first. The penis is an enlarged clitoris, the testicles are descended ovaries, and the nipples are because he was a female as a fetus before the formal change to male happened.

The idea that "all fetuses begin as females" is a feminist philosophical argument, not a biological fact. I could just easily say that all fetuses start male, because it is only natural in humans for testicles to descend and a penis to develop, and therefore anyone who is female only became that after first being male when later testicles failed to drop and become ovaries, and a uterus, vagina, and clitoris developed. To simplify: to state that everyone begins as "female" first and later becomes a "male" is a meaningless statement and without any truth value. It all depends on your point of view. I could declare that all humans must come from sperm, and sperm is always male (as it was part of the male body), therefore everyone starts off male. But that would be a meaningless philosophical statement without truth value.

Feminist arguement? It is hardly as simply as that. Your example is indeed a meaningless statement, although it can hardly be described as philosophical. On the contrary, it falls apart instantly. How on earth could the fact that sperm are from men suggest that all children start male? It is hardly comparable with the arguement that you are attempting (poorly I might add) to disprove. I would have thought it obvious that all children start off female; it would certainly explain the horrendous impracticalities that the male body has: external genitalia and the Adam's apple to name two of them. What on earth could be the cause of male nipples if this wasn't the case?

By the way, I am a man. Liamoliver 20:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's the answer given in "Why do males have nipples?", the book written by two MALE doctors. There is medical justification in the book. Though sperm comes from a male's body, it can actually have and X or a Y, which is the determinant of gender, so I wouldn't go so far as to say that sperm IS male. Besides if we go along with your argument, a fetus is just as much from a male's body (sperm) as a female's body (egg) AND it is grown in an environment surrounded by female hormones for 9 months. Which is more likely to influence the fetus? The sperm or the environment as a whole? Walkerb4 04:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Johnathan Sarfati states, "Human embryos contain characteristics of both sexes at first, because they all have basically the same genetic information, and this information is expressed as efficiently as possible as the embryo develops. This is design economy. For example, in all human embryos, at first both the müllerian duct system (female) and the wolffian duct system (male) develop, because both sexes have the genetic information for these structures. Incidentally, this refutes the urban myth that human embryos ‘start off female’. The subsequent differences are the result of designed chemical signals that control the expression of the information. E.g., a gene set usually found on the Y chromosome controls the levels of testosterone and dihydroxytestosterone (DHT) secretion. Above a certain level, these hormones suppress the development of the müllerian duct system and promote the wolffian duct system, so the embryo takes on masculine characteristics. Below a certain hormone level, the opposite happens, and the embryo takes on female characteristics." Also, the clitoris serves NO purpose for the female other than sexual pleasure, so it could also be argued that the clitoris is just an underdeveloped penis, considering the penis' purpose in the male. Another question could be, "Why do females have a clitoris?" -Unsigned

"Starting at conception and lasting until about 14 weeks, all human fetuses look the same, regardless of sex. After 14 weeks, genetically-male fetuses begin producing male hormones such as testosterone. As "female" is the "developmental default" for human beings, by 14 weeks, the nipples have already formed." Could "human fetuses" and "human beings" be changed to "mammalian fetuses" and "mammals"? Or if not all mammals have nipples, then at least say some mammals to include others besides humans (I'm not really sure whether other mammals actually do look the same which is why I'm asking). I'm going to go ahead and change this, after reading the post here about male nipples. Lord mortekai 02:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Male picture

Is there a reason that the human male torso picture is of a man with an unusually large musculature? Shouldn't it be something rather more normal and less inclusive? (The torso could be shown in the torso article. JPBarrass (talk) 08:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the image seems to boast his physical condition rather than an example of what a nipple looks like. Compared to the image of the female nipple we could do better. A closer image should probably be used. No, I'm not taking a picture of mine. :) vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 08:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Complete Agreement: The focus is clearly on the torso and not either of the nipples. I agree that a focused picture on the male nipple would be more appropriate. --LeyteWolfer (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Male stimulation

"Male nipple play (stimulation) - highly pleasurable sexual feeling" A recent study indicates that many men enjoy having their nipples stimulated. Dr. Roy Levin of University of Sheffield in the United Kingdom and Dr. Cindy Meston of the University of Texas at Austin surveyed approximately 300 sexually experienced undergraduate students. The results strongly indicate that men enjoy nipple stimulation as much as women. Source: Nipple Stimulation Arousing for Men, Too. Yahoo Health - Johns Hopkins University -Unsigned

Well I don't know about other guys on here, but I can testify that having your nipples stimulated is very pleasurable. 221.191.14.118 (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

This page needs a picture of a male nipple for comparison. As it is, I think the different photos for an erect vs. unerect female nipple are kind of silly. We should just show the nipples of both sexes in their natural, unaffected states.

Agreed - for there to be four pictures, all of female nipples, seems a bit redundant. I don't think there needs to be any more than one - or two, if demonstration of erection is necessary - plus one of a male nipple. A picture of non-human nipples might be useful for comparison, too. -Unsigned

I have no particular objection to this, but aren't there more pictures of nipples here than are really necessary? What's more, all of them seem to belong to white human females. Garik 14:47, 29 April 2006 (BST)

I think it's informative to demonstrate erect/unerect nipples, but if possible they should be on the same person (the difference in areola size in the current pictures is more noticeable than their state). First commenter above: erect nipples are no less natural than unerect nipples. Re male nipple pictures, that's what I came to the talk page to suggest. Can we source (or take) an image? [Note: I moved the section heading 'A lot of pictures' up two comments to keep the discussion together] Njál 21:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the images around a bit to better show a large range of nipples. If anyone thinks there needs to be any more changes to the images in this article then please discuss here first.--Clawed 22:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I changed them around a litte - tell me if you hate it. For great justice. 17:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I must say that I feel this is a far superior image to either of the examples of female nipples already on this page. I'm interested in what the rest of you think. Kasreyn 04:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I just did a preview, replacing the 2 existing images with the one above, and it looks a lot less cluttered (the existing images are taller). The suggested image is much more interesting and detailed, as well as being slightly better looking.   — Lee J Haywood 11:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm female and would like to see the difference between normal erect and relaxed nipples. I'm tired of seeing people oppose and remove real images because they're offended. It's just a boob! I don't care if someone masturbates to these pictures, but for example, I never knew where the urethra was until I saw a picture. Yes, I'm 23 and only last year I found out where my piss hole really is. My boyfriend laughed his ass off! Anyway, it's 2008, I need boob pics and don't feel like googleing it because I already have enough porn on this thing as it is. And looking at my own boobs isn't going to solve it. How do I know if my own boobs are normal. 22:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC) Puss in Boots —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.201.26.232 (talk)

Puffy

Someone should add a picture of a puffy nipple. I like those. -Unsigned

I am interested as to what they are? I saw on someone's talk-forum from 2007 that the puffy nipple article got deleted, and the admin told him to add it to here or areola. Can someone give me a one-sentence answer as to what puffy nipples are caused by? Or what they are? Thanks 198.70.210.77 (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hair

I think there needs to be a mention of nipple hair - the hair strands, usually few in number that grow on the outer part of the nipple. It happens in males anyway.--86.41.162.151 (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic differences

I started a new section with a single sentence, hopefully someone will find the time to help expand it. I read about this a few years back and was reminded of it when I saw this article today. A quick Google / PubMed search will give the references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.37.159 (talk) 11:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

I had reverted an edit I thought on here was vandalism and was scrambling to change it back so a bot dont nail me :P JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 06:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Picture

Why must there be a woman's nipple? I mean I'm a dude and I'm offended by it! I'm all for talking about nipples but don't show that area of a woman! Just can't we get a dude one!

Just leave the pics of womens nipples on but maybe have a man's nipple as well. How can you be offended by a woman's nipple??--Scorpio95 (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm offended beacuse it's kind of like their personal area, and I find that it should be respected and not posted on the internet for the world to see. Especially not on a sight so official like this.

See WP:NOTCENSORED. JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 06:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Male representation

The article currently lacks a picture of male nipples. It appears to focus more on female nipples. The article should provide both male and female perspectives. -NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits) 01:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Even

"All mammals have an even number of nipples, through which females lactate;" Why have we lost this? -Unsigned

Fixed. - Patrick 17:10 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

A few mammals don't have nipples; zero is an even number.KJ Sam 07:12 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

INAPPROPRIATE! Yash kk 09:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that having nipples was part of the definition of mammal! Which mammals don't have nipples? Also; some mammals have an odd number of nipples but as far as I'm aware this is a freak occurance and no species generally have an odd number. -Unsigned

A number of marsupials don't have nipples. jk 00:36, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Marsupials are not mammals, they are marsupials. boffy_b 23:23, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

"Marsupials are mammals" says the first three words of marsupial. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 23:29, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well it's all lies and a conspiracy. You'l see. boffy_b 23:52, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

Jeremy, I can't find mention of that at marsupial or here. If you have a cite it would make an interesting factiod for both articles. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 00:09, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"I would have assumed that nipples were only available in even numbers had I not learned that female possums, for example, have between seven and 25 nipples. The delightful Virginia opossum, which inhabits the middles of American roads and highways, usually has 13, efficiently arranged in an open circle with one in the center. This information should not tempt you to snicker and point the next time you see a possum: They also have 50 teeth." from Why Do Men Have Nipples by Susan McCarthy 67.129.136.163 14:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

A sectional drawing would be more informative here than a photograph of a nipple, to show, for example, the functional relation of the nipple to surrounding tissues. Also, should there be images of other types of nipples (baby bottle, industrial, cattle, etc.)? Tom Haws 07:05, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Seems appropriate to me. Have any? TIMBO (T A L K) 20:56, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Here's a hint: If the anons are removing the nipple profile continually [drum roll] it might not be a very good image, and the article might be better off empty until something better is found. Sometimes listening to repeated anons is the wisest course. If we are honest with ourselves, we have to admit we can do better. Tom Haws 23:36, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Marsupials are a sub type of mammals and they do have nipples inside the pouch.

Marsupials are the group of mammals commonly thought of as pouched mammals. They give live birth, but they do not have long gestation times like placental mammals. Instead, they give birth very early and the young animal, essentially a helpless embryo, climbs from the mother's birth canal to the nipples. There it grabs on with its mouth and continues to develop, often for weeks or months depending on the species. The short gestation time is due to having a yolk-type placenta in the mother marsupial. Placental mammals nourish the developing embryo using the mother's blood supply, allowing longer gestation times. [1] zen master T 23:27, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that a disambiguation page would make sense here. Monotremes such as Platypus dont have nipples they secrete milk through glands into their fur., Monotremes the the most primitive existing mammals. Marsupials (generally, all have a birth pouch) are a later mammalian grouping, and have nipples inside their pouches --timc | Talk 01:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Still, I agree. Zero is an even number. 67.232.193.190 (talk) 02:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this could all be cleared up if we simply said "placental mammals" and "marsupials". The comments about marsupials having a short gestation period is also inaccurate. Kangaroos suspend gestation during dry periods. The moment the conditions are right, they give birth and fall pregnant again. Kangaroo Does, can have a "Joey" following them, one in the pouch and be pregnant. One in, one out and one pending.Euc (talk) 07:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge

Any objections to merging Teat to here? They're the same topic. Powers ^T 21:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• I guess not. It is done. Powers ^T 12:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Picture of the male chest

Is it really necessary to show a cropped picture of a man in a gay pride parade? Doesn't seem very encyclopedic to me. 67.214.24.45 (talk) 07:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Why hasn't evolution selected for male nipples to develop in the same way as female nipples so that both sexes would be capable of suckling infants?

Gould's and Lewontin’s argument that we should not immediately assume that every trait has an adaptive explanation, as well as other accounts of why males have nipples, e.g. chromatic male/female difference, all prompt a further question: why hasn't evolution selected for mail nipples to develop sufficiently to suckle young? Production of milk is triggered by pregnancy and birth, but, for example, women have been known to lactate at the sound of a baby crying. This seems an imaginable mechanism for the onset of lactation in males, had evolution bestowed functioning nipples on them. One can imagine alternative mechanisms, such as lactation by fathers being caused to begin at the onset of maternal lactation in a mate. Lactation in females is linked to pregnancy and birth, but is also distinct from that, typically commencing at the point that reproduction is completed. What evolutionary disadvantage could there be in both sexes being able to suckle their infants? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbmagill (talk • contribs) 16:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not accept original research. If you can find a reliable source supporting your assertion, then feel free to add the info. David1217 ^{What I've done} 03:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)Kbmagill (talk) 12:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 October 2012

The hair the grows in your armpit. "I've got a lot of nipple growing in my armpit. " 174.252.215.103 (talk) 01:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Not done: vandalism? David1217 ^{What I've done} 01:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

POV of last paragraph of last section

The last paragraph of the section "In male mammals" is written in first-person POV, which afaik is against Wikipedia's guidelines. 103.1.71.138 (talk) 03:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

In fact, it is directly copied and pasted from the source (which is referenced).--24.189.164.50 (talk) 04:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Male mammals

The section "In male mammals" does not clearly state whether all male mammals (all species) have nipples. It could be read as implying that they do, but this is in conflict with other information that I have found on the Internet, which says that males of certain species, e.g. rats, rabbits and horses, do not have nipples. It would be nice if this could be clarified in the article. 86.155.201.128 (talk) 02:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:Preserve

Neelix, how is simply removing information from this article, as you did with this edit, when it can be easily sourced, the best thing for the article? I've mentioned WP:Preserve to you before. It is as much policy as WP:Burden is. Flyer22 (talk) 22:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Nothing in WP:Preserve requires editors to source content rather than removing it; WP:Preserve simply recommends that editors consider sourcing if they find themselves able. I do not have a medical background and do not feel comfortable interpreting medical sources for use in Wikipedia, and I consider it especially important for there to be no unsourced content on medicine-related articles, even more than on biographies of living persons. Neelix (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Neelix (last time WP:Pinging you to this section because I assume that you will check back here if you want to read replies), WP:Preserve is clear that we should be trying to fix the problems if we can. That includes tagging unsourced material. Editors removing easily sourceable content is not a beneficial move, except for in WP:BLP cases where the content shouldn't be included anyway; this has been made clear in discussions at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, which helped build the WP:Burden policy. It's why the WP:Burden policy mentions WP:Preserve. If you don't at least try to fix the easily sourceable content, you should at least copy and paste the removed material to the talk page, explaining why you removed it, or leave a note on the talk page with a diff-link to the removed material. That is preserving the content, especially for those who don't go hunting through the edit history to see what was there. This is obviously not a WP:BLP article; so the sourcing standard is not as strict. It's not strictly a medical article either; I am involved with WP:Med and WP:Anatomy; and while anatomy is a medical aspect, the two fields are not treated exactly the same on Wikipedia when it comes to sourcing, except for in the cases of pure medical claims (such as "Tumors affect the brain in [so and so way]."). See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-09-03/WikiProject report (the part about sourcing). All that stated, I know that you are doing what you think is best; it's just that I disagree with your approach in cases like this. Flyer22 (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

In its most general form, a nipple is a structure from which a fluid emanates.

(first sentence) This is not true, someone who does not get pregnant does not. --93.134.237.205 (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

no, that's why it says: in its most general form..... If it is a nipple on a lactating female, it doesn't cease to be one because the person it is attached to is not/can not lactate. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 12:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2016

A hyperlink should be added concerning the Lateral cutaneous branches of the 4th intercostal nerve, preferably linking it to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercostal_nerves#Branches. More specifically, the text "fourth intercostal nerve" should hyperlink to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercostal_nerves#Branches. Please change the plaintext "fourth intercostal nerve" listed under the #Anatomy header to hyperlink it to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercostal_nerves#Branches. Kaliratra (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Mlpearc (open channel) 21:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Take to talk

per edit summary - this article is about the anatomical structure: Nipple. References that describe all the stuff that goes along with nipple stimulation are better place in the article about nipple stimulation. Best Regards, Bfpage (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm biting my tongue on this since we all have to remember that original research cannot be added to the encyclopedia. Best Regards, Bfpage (talk) 14:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn The sources don't state that the pleasurable physiological/psychological response is rare. Bfpage (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Ref 19 is not a review article and CBS is probably not the best source for medical information. What do you want to do about this reference? Bfpage (talk) 15:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

INTEXT is exactly what I am referring to. The ref states where the info is from and mentioning the source twice is not needed. Heck, if we did that then I would be adding, "According to the CDC..." or "According to WHO..." "According to evidence-based publications...." all the time. I don't get your point. Sure you CAN do it, but why do it? It clutters up things or is an attempt to 'name drop' to establish expertise. Besides you can't prove that only Komisaruk's research supports this content. That's crazy...he had to get the idea from somewhere. It is highly unlikely that his is the only reference. Bfpage (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

What is the source of the irrelevant quote located in the male nipple section? It's unreferenced. Bfpage (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Purported orgasms from breast stimulation

Bfpage, regarding this, WP:INTEXT is important here because it is only Komisaruk's research stating this link between nipple stimulation and "the genital area of the brain." We should not be presenting this matter as a fact, which is what your wording did, and is why I reverted. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Citing sources states, "Wikipedia should concisely state facts about a subject. It should not discuss the underlying literature at any length." But this Komisaruk bit has not been shown to be fact. The CDC and the WHO are authoritative. A single study is not.

Regarding this, this and this in relation to "rare," "in some cases" or "some," you will not find any research definitively supporting the existence of a breast/nipple orgasm, but Komisaruk's research suggests that it may exist. This 2014 "Cultural Encyclopedia of the Breast" source, from Rowman & Littlefield, page 71, states, "Anecdotal reports of women achieving orgasm through breast stimulation alone have long existed. A scientific study published in 2011 confirmed that it is possible." It is talking about the Komisaruk study. And although it states "confirmed," it is only going on that one study. The source goes on to state, "The arousal that many women feel when their nipples are manipulated is enough to cause orgasm in some." This 2013 "The Psychology of Human Sexuality," from John Wiley & Sons, page 120, states, "Some women reported that they can achieve an orgasm by having their breasts and nipples stimulated (Levin, 2006)." So, yes, my use of "some" is validated. It is more accurate than your use of "sometimes," which can make it seem as though any woman may sometimes experience an orgasm this way. The sources quite clearly mean "in some cases," as in the case of some women. As for rare, I'd previously used the word "rare" because the few anecdotal reports of women experiencing orgasm through breast stimulation alone have made it clear that these women are in the significant minority. There is little research on the matter to boot. For example, this 1998 reprint of the "Sexual Behavior in the Human Female" source, from Indiana University Press, page 587, relying on Kinsey's work, states, "There are some females who appear to find no erotic satisfaction in having their breasts manipulated; perhaps half of them derive some distinct satisfaction, but not more than a very small percentage ever respond intensely enough to reach orgasm as a result of such stimulation (Chapter 5)." Lower on the page is the following statement: "Records of females reaching orgasm from breast stimulation alone are rare."

Regarding this and this, I'm not sure why you moved the source, but I moved it back because it supports the Komisaruk research material. I was not trying to source individual statements. I was focused on sourcing the entire paragraph. That bit you removed specifically pertains to orgasm; so I don't find it redundant simply because it mentioned uterine contractions; it was explaining how these supposed orgasms are perhaps possible. But I have not restored that bit.

You stated, "Ref 19 is not a review article and CBS is probably not the best source for medical information. What do you want to do about this reference?" WP:MEDRS does not ban primary sources; it cautions against them and relying heavily or solely on them. The WP:MEDPRI section of WP:MEDRS states, "Primary sources may be presented together with secondary sources." I have included the primary source with book sources. CBS is included within the primary source as a lay source; Template:Citation Style documentation/lay exists for that very reason. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

ok....umm wow. You spend too much time on talk pages. It takes me ten minutes to go through your essay. I'm not even going to read them any more. I find your edit summaries more useful. You have got to relax a bit. Both of us could probably bring this article to good status if you would like. Bfpage (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Bfpage, your comment makes no sense whatsoever. You are the one who challenged my edits. Since I know what I am talking about when it comes to sexuality and especially female sexuality, I responded to everything with reliable sources. Was I not supposed to adequately respond to your comments? If you don't have time to read the sources, follow the literature, and read commentary explaining why reverts or edits were made, you should not be editing such matters. You misinterpret too many things, and my edit summaries clearly do not adequately answer matters. If they did, you would perhaps understand when you are wrong and you would not have suggested I bring the matter to the talk page in the first place. Why do I need to relax a bit? Perhaps you should trust me a bit since I am always right about these matters when challenging your edits. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Never wrong. Well that is interesting and in good faith, I will take your word for it. It doesn't matter if you are right and I am wrong and my lack of enthusiasm for engaging in scholarly discussion is waning. You are free to believe that you are never wrong but like I said, I am here to collaborate on building an encyclopedia. Who told you that you were an expert? I'm not an expert even with all my books and library cards. If you want to build a quality article, then great. If you want to live on the talk page, great. I've got better things to do. And even if you are never wrong, I will be there to help you edit topics that you work on. I'll try to stay out of your way. Best Regards, Bfpage (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Bfpage, "I am always right" is not meant to be anything other than a statement of fact. This always happens. I make some edits based on my knowledge of the research, you object in some way, and then I make my case on the talk page with sources and/or by pointing to a policy and/or guideline. I have tried to collaborate with you time and time again, but you are often stubborn and often do not listen to reason. I have seen you be this way with Jytdog as well. As for your interactions with me, should I point to previous cases in this regard, such as the case where you asserted that the anus is part of the vulva and were adamant about it? You act like I am not here to build an encyclopedia simply because I revert you and/or explain why you are wrong. You act like I spend all my time on talk pages simply because I, unlike you, take the time to explain matters and am not running around creating a bunch of articles that we don't need and are eventually merged. I have been here building an encyclopedia for years, long before you showed up (when taking into account that you were more so a sporadic editor while I was significantly a more active editor). Do you know how dismissive "I'm not even going to read them any more" sounds? It also shows a lack of collaboration. As for my expertise, I've been very clear that I do not reveal my professions on Wikipedia; my work on Wikipedia speaks for itself, which is why I am often the person that people go to for sexuality matters on Wikipedia. I do not have time to waste. When I state something about sexuality, you can bet that it is supported somewhere by a reliable source. None of my statements are WP:OR, which does not mean "unsourced" anyway. As for being there to help me edit topics, I would hope you don't mean WP:Hounding; we went through that before.

And this removal that I reverted does not help your case. If we are going to include information in this article about orgasms from nipples, we should be clear that few women even report them. We should not mislead the reader into thinking that they are more common than they are. And having such content in more than one article is an acceptable form of WP:Content forking. Furthermore, the content was already covered at the Nipple stimulation article; the content you added was essentially a repeat. I fixed that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

More stated here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

"In male animals": significant changes made

I have significantly altered the section "In male animals" because the content does not refer to male animals, and further, as worded, it does not have any obvious connection with nipples, which is what this article is about.

A section on male nipples should be included, but in its present form it is poorly worded, and not related to nipples.

Here's the original text (bold) and my reasons for removal.

Nipples are one of traits that almost all members of the mammals class have. This statement is not about male nipples, but it could be included somewhere else if the grammar is tidied up: "Almost all members of the mammal class have nipples."

Differences among the sexes (called sexual dimorphism) within a given species are considered by evolutionary biologists to be mostly the result of sexual selection, directly or indirectly. For traits where there is no difference among the sexes, evolutionary biologists assume that there has been no advantage to one of the sexes losing the trait.[45][46][47] This statement is about sexual dimorphism, not nipples.

Mammalian fetuses within the same species look the same, regardless of sex.[citation needed] In humans, this lasts for around 6 weeks, after which genetically-male fetuses begin producing male hormones such as testosterone.[48] This statement is about fetuses, not nipples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyburns (talk • contribs) 02:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The content was fine. People wonder why guys have nipples when they don't breast feed - in other words, why is there no sexual dimorphism. This addresses that. It is well sourced. (if you look at the history of the article you will see that content about this has been in the article for years. Jytdog (talk) 03:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2018

Change

"not regulated.A commentator"

to

"not regulated. A commentator"

(missing space after the period) in section In law. 2003:D8:DBD7:C207:7C90:AD13:47:E9A (talk) 14:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 15:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Improved picture suggestion

I uploaded a much more detailed picture of a female nipple on File:Nipple (DSCF4071).jpg, the current one is very low-resolution. Should it be used in the infobox? --Trougnouf (talk) 00:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Men have nipples

If Since nipples change throughout the life span in men and women (as the article states), how is that that the article only defines "nipple" as a female organ ? Shouldn't this be fixed? Kintaro (talk) 12:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean? The article obviously acknowledges that men have nipples. For example, part of the lead currently states, "In humans, nipples of both males and females can be stimulated as part of sexual arousal. In many cultures, human female nipples are sexualized." But nipples don't have a function in males while they do have a function in females. See the Talk:Nipple/Archive 1#"In male animals": significant changes made section above. It seems you are taking issue with the first sentence of the article, which states, "The nipple is a raised region of tissue on the surface of the breast from which milk leaves the breast through the lactiferous ducts." It states that because that is how the nipple is usually defined since nipples have a function in females. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but the very first sentence in the article states The nipple is a raised region of tissue on the surface of the breast from which milk leaves the breast through the lactiferous ducts. No milk is produced by male nipples (unless pathological), thus, the article leads the reader to confusion, as if nipples were exclusively female organs. Houston... we have a problem here... Kintaro (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I see no problem with going with the primary definition first. In many of our Wikipedia articles, we go with the primary meaning first and then note other meanings or aspects. I noted that the first sentence is the way that it is because that is how the nipple is usually defined since nipples have a function in females. The lead notes that men have nipples as well. But the literature is first and foremost about women. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that define "nipple" (meaning that the source gives a definition) in an anatomical way that is not sex/gender-specific? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I see no problem with going with the primary definition first... that's the point!

Please read again: The nipple is a raised region of tissue on the surface of the breast from which milk leaves the breast through the lactiferous ducts. Please note that this capacity (this is, to produce milk) is a secondary aspect of nipples since it only happens in female breasts. You got it, right? as the article starts defining the subject, there's no distinction between primary definition and secondary aspects like milk leaving the breast through the lactiferous ducts. It is all stated in one single semantic unity as a universal definition. Thus, this definition excludes males from having nipples. We cannot leave that definition as it is, we should rearrange the text... don't you agree? Kintaro (talk) 18:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I do not need to read it again. And you do not need exclamation marks to make your point. There are no WP:Reliable sources that state that "to produce milk is a secondary aspect of nipples" and/or "is a secondary aspect of nipples since it only happens in female breasts." That nipples exist in males is nothing but a leftover part of biology. They have no true purpose in males and, anatomy-wise, they are always defined the way that the first sentence of this article defines them, or similarly. I clearly asked you: "Do you have any sources that define 'nipple' (meaning that the source gives a definition) in an anatomical way that is not sex/gender-specific?" That was so that you could propose wording to replace the first sentence. You have offered no reliable sources for any other anatomical definition, one that does not specify sex/gender, and you have not proposed alternative wording. I'm taking this matter to the WP:Anatomy talk page for more opinions. I have nothing else to state on it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

And for the record, I did consider shortening the lead sentence to "the nipple is a raised region of tissue on the surface of the breast," since that applies to both males and females, but it is vague. The only thing I could see doing for the first sentence so that it's not seen to exclude males is stating the following: "The nipple is a raised region of tissue on the surface of the breast from which, in females, milk leaves the breast through the lactiferous ducts." That still doesn't clarify what function it has in males, but, again, there is no noted function of the nipple in males. After that first sentence, we could immediately note that the nipple has no anatomical function in males, or not note that since nipples can aid sexual arousal. But while nipples can aid sexual arousal, to classify sexual arousal as a function of nipples is dubious. Plus, we already note later in the lead that "In humans, nipples of both males and females can be stimulated as part of sexual arousal." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Weighing in per a notification at WikiProject Anatomy, I think there are things to be said for both sides. Looking at some common definitions:

• the dark part of the skin which sticks out from the breast of a mammal and through which milk is supplied to the young [2] (Cambridge)
• the protuberance of a mammary gland upon which in the female the lactiferous ducts open and from which milk is drawn (Mirriam-Webster) [3]
• the small conical projection in the centre of the areola of each breast, which in women contains the outlet of the milk ducts (Collins) [4]
• 1The small projection in which the mammary ducts of female mammals terminate and from which milk can be secreted. (Oxford) [5]

Our lead states: "The nipple is a raised region of tissue on the surface of the breast from which milk leaves the breast through the lactiferous ducts". I think that this is an accurate statement and it is in line with commonly used definitions. Note also that milk can also leave the nipples in men in some disease states (see galactorrhoea) so I worry specifying females here will just lead to further disputes / discussion with other editors down the road. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Tom (LT), we could change the lead sentence to the following: "The nipple is a raised region of tissue on the surface of the breast from which, in females, milk leaves the breast through the lactiferous ducts to feed an infant." Or "to feed an infant" could be changed to "to breastfeed." Male lactation may occasionally happen, but, except for the bat mentioned in the Male lactation article, milk from male nipples usually is not used to nurse infants/offspring. In females, milk for nursing is the very purpose of the nipple. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, Flyer22 Reborn. I'm happy with the current wording and don't think it needs to be changed. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Tom (LT), no worries. Also no need to ping me to talk pages I'm watching. I'm watching this one. I understand that you are okay with the current wording, but my "06:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)" post suggests a compromise that I think works and I suggested it because of one editor's objection to the current wording. Obviously, though, I'm not hard-pressed on making the change. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Suggested changes are done. Thank you. Kintaro (talk) 17:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. Glad we could work something out. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2019

In the caption beginning "Duplessis's portrait...", "18th century" should be hyphenated, per MOS:CENTURY. 213.174.99.147 (talk) 12:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 21:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Nipple censorship did not start in the victorian era

I am not a regular user here but saying that the nipple was socially acceptable prior to the 1800s is FALSE. The cited source (the BBC article) doesn't go earlier than that. I don't have sources right now because I didn't look for them. But I know that at some point in the bible an enemy army sent topless girls to tempt Israelite soldiers. The breast was always sexual in western culture and the nipple was NOT socially acceptable before the 1800s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.72.48.25 (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)