Article

Nipple/Breast Stimulation and Sexual Arousal in Young Men and Women

Journal of Sexual Medicine (Impact Factor: 3.51). 04/2006; 3(3):450 - 454. DOI: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2006.00230.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Introduction. The role of nipple/breast stimulation in influencing sexual arousal in men and women during lovemaking has only been the subject of opinion-based comment rather than evidence-based study. No attempt to question people about such sexual behavior has ever been undertaken.Aim. The study was designed to ascertain the effects of nipple/breast manipulation in young men and women on their sexual arousal.Methods. A short questionnaire about nipple/breast stimulation during sexual activity was administered to 301 (148 men; 153 women) sexually experienced undergraduates (age range 17–29 years, 95% between 18 and 22).Main Outcome Measures. Replies to questions in questionnaire.Results. The major findings in regard to the women were that 81.5% reported that stimulation of their nipples/breasts caused or enhanced their sexual arousal, 78.2% agreed that when sexually aroused such manipulation increased their arousal, 59.1% had asked to have their nipples stimulated during lovemaking, and only 7.2% found that the manipulation decreased their arousal. In regard to the men, 51.7% reported that nipple stimulation caused or enhanced their sexual arousal, 39% agreed that when sexually aroused such manipulation increased their arousal, only 17.1% had asked to have their nipples stimulated, and only 7.5% found that such stimulation decreased their arousal.Conclusion. Manipulation of the nipples/breasts causes or enhances sexual arousal in approximately 82% of young women and 52% of young men with only 7–8% reporting that it decreased their arousal. Levin R, and Meston C. Nipple/breast stimulation and sexual arousal in young men and women. J Sex Med 2006;3:450–454.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
804 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: While popular culture has more frequently depicted women's masturbation in recent years, scholarly attention to women's own meaning making about masturbation remains largely absent. Existing research that emphasizes women's masturbation frequency, health correlates, masturbation as a factor in couples therapy, and masturbation as a substitute for partnered sexual behaviors have dominated the research, largely neglecting social identity correlates and women's subjectivities about masturbation. This study drew upon qualitative interviews with 20 women (mean age = 34, SD = 13.35) from diverse backgrounds to illuminate five themes in women's experiences with masturbation: a) assumptions that most women self-penetrate during masturbation even when primarily using clitoral stimulation; b) masturbation as sexual labor; c) masturbation as a threat to male dominance; d) masturbation as routine tension release; and e) masturbation as a source of joy, fun, and pleasure. Because women revealed such a diverse set of experiences, we explored the advantages and disadvantages of the invisibility of women's masturbation. As a result of the internalization of stereotypically masculine scripts about sexuality-including an imagined penetrative focus, goal-oriented drive toward orgasm, sex as labor, and masturbation as nonemotional-women's masturbation experiences, regardless of sexual orientation, revealed the power imbalances often present in partnered (hetero)sexual dynamics.
    The Journal of Sex Research 04/2013; · 2.53 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Sex is a fundamental pleasure, and crucial to the survival of our species. Though not many people would disagree with the proposition that sexual behaviour depends on the brain, the neuroscientific study of human sex is still relatively taboo and much remains to be discovered. On the contrary, excellent experimental animal models (mostly rat) are available that have uncovered major behavioural, neurochemical, and neuroanatomical characteristics of sexual behaviour. Restructuring sexual behaviour into broader terms reflecting behavioural states (wanting, liking, and inhibition) facilitates species comparison, revealing many similarities between animal and human sexual pleasure cycles, some of which can serve as potential avenues of new human sex research. In particular, behavioural and brain evidence clearly shows that motivational and consummatory phases are fundamentally distinct, and that genitally-induced sexual reward is a major factor in sexual learning mechanisms.
    Nature Reviews Urology 08/2012; 9(9):486-98. · 4.79 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Erogenous zones have paradoxical response properties, producing erotic feelings from body surfaces distant from the genitalia. Ramachandran has suggested an intriguing neuroscientific explanation for the distribution of erogenous zones, based on the arrangement of body parts (such as the adjacent positioning of the genitals and the feet) in primary somatosensory cortex (S1). The present study represents the first systematic survey of the magnitude of erotic sensations from various body parts, as well as the first empirical investigation of the S1 theory of erogenous zones, by analysis of whether evaluations of erogenous magnitude from adjacent S1 sites tend to correlate. A sample of some 800 participants, primarily from the British Isles and Sub-Saharan Africa, completed a survey of 41 body parts, each rated for erogenous intensity. Ratings for the feet were surprisingly low. However, there were remarkable levels of correlation between ratings of intensity, regardless of the age, sexual orientation, nationality, race and, more surprisingly, the sex of our participant sample (R(2) values ranging between .90 and .98). Multiple regression and factor analysis investigated whether body parts nearby in S1 were significantly correlated. The S1 hypothesis appears to lack support, because of the low level of foot ratings, the lack of inter-correlation between ratings for nearby S1 sites, and the previous literature suggesting that cortical stimulation of S1 does not appear to be erotogenic. The consistency across demographic variables is open to multiple interpretations. However, it may be that individual experience or cultural differences (a starting point for some accounts of erogenous zone distribution) are not substantial determining variables. Thus, while S1 does not appear to be the likely site that would support Ramachandran's neural body map proposal, we suggest that the origins of erogenous distribution may derive from a map located elsewhere in the brain.
    Cortex 08/2013; · 6.16 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

View
1,866 Downloads
Available from
May 30, 2014