Talk:Intimate part

Touching and consent

Touching through clothing, or perhaps even not through clothing, without consent certainly wouldn't be sexual assault everywhere. I don't know just how widely it would be, though, so I don't know whether that statement should be narrowed down to "in Western societies", "in most Western societies", "in most societies", or what. (And perhaps that really ought to be "by (whichever) governments" instead?) -- John Owens 08:42 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

Heh, I didn't even realize when I wrote this that The Anome had already just been doing this for the sentence right after that, to which it even more plainly applies. But I still do think it belongs with the sexual assault statement as well. -- John Owens

"In women, the entire body is considered private except for the hands and face." It is a strange statement as whithin every cultural context that we consider the term , the intimate parts are areas of the body "distiguished" from the other parts of body as being private and having a cultural significance as sexual and/or shameful to be seen by others.If we suppose that in Islamic cultures almost the entire female body is considered private the very application of the term would become useless.Besides that the intimate parts are generaly kept hidden from close family members and from strangers of the same sex , which obviousely is not the case with the entire body of a woman in Islamic cultures (either in past or present).Pasha Abd 06:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Moreover , the definition of intimate parts is essentialy social/cultural and not religeous. So I suggest replacing this section by "Intimate parts in Middle Eastern societies " and the appropriate definition seems to me to be something like this :"In these societies the definition of intimate parts is the same as in Western cultures but the social prohibition of their exposure , specialy in women , is considerably stronger due the influence of Islam in some of these societies which demands women to cover their entire body expect face and hands and men to cover the area from knees up to navel from strangers of the opposite sex.In some countries that this religeous law is also part of civil law , the society is extremly sentstive to exposure of intimate parts".Pasha Abd 23:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I replaced the phrase mentioned above with a more factual one, the source of the previous allegation was probably this Fatwa by an extremist cleric.Pasha 23:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Private parts?

The article says that "...hair, shoulders, and neck. ...these parts are likely to arouse excitement in males... should be covered. However, this may not necessarily comprise "intimate" or "private parts," insofar as stimulation is visual and not tactile." So what is different compared to the other mentioned "private parts"? Like, it is necessary to touch breasts to become aroused, while just a sight of shoulders should do the trick? I believe that section should be rephrased, or the mentioned ("stimulation") sentence removed. Moreover, since this is a hairy topic (no pun intended, seriously), I think I'll add the globalize flag. Although it could be removed if it seems unnecessary to someone, I doubt this topic could ever really become truly "global" :) --Arny 04:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Breasts and nipples

"the breasts, especially the nipples"

I think this article should include mention of these being an intimate part for many men as well. Obviously not to the same degree, especially in men who go shirtless often, but to many men they are intimate and it is customary in many places to keep them covered, just as in other places women are allowed to go topless (and it is even customary). In this way, what is intimate is relative to cultural values and fashions. This can't just be added to the list though, since the current one mentions that the list is inclusive only of "parts involved in sexual arousal, procreation, and elimination of excreta and related matter" of which the male nipple does not do, as it excretes nothing.

I think it should also be noted that in the list of inclusive criteria, the female breast/nipple does not obviously satisfy any of them. 'Parts involved in sexual arousal' is vague, because his can theoretically be any part of the body depending on varying erogenous zones. I believe it should be removed from the criteria. If female breasts satisfy this criteria I don't see why male breasts can't. Compared to other areas listed as intimate parts for men, they may be more exciting. Breast milk is certainly not excreta and it is certainly not eliminated.

You might vaguely consider it part of procreation in the sense that it is used to convey nutrients, but that is REALLY vague, like in the sense that you'd also have to call the umbilical cord involved in procreation. It is technically accurate though since parental care is listed as the fourth stage of human reproduction (which is what 'procreation' redirects us to currently). I really doubt it is due to such a nature that the breasts would be considered an 'intimate part' though, considering how the umbilical cord is not in any way described as intimate.

I guess the navel/bellybutton might be considered an intimate part though. Considering taboos regarding its exposure and how people poke at it and how it centrally draws the attention of the abdomen, which is an intimate area to many people. Beyond the navel, the abdomen as a whole be seen as relating to part involved in procreation as well, due to its proximity to the womb. It would explain why (albeit, limited to my own perceptions of people) the navel and abdomen are more inherantly sexualized in women. Abdomens for men are sexualized differently, usually in regards to muscle (which is not listed as intimate, since it's too broadly all over the body).

There would be nothing to object to regarding listing the breasts as intimate procreation parts so long as the belly button is also listed as one. In the case of the belly button, it would be non-functioning, as with the male nipple, but then again unless pregnant or recently pregnant, women do not always produce breast milk either so you could similarly perceive it as vestigial, albeit temporarily unlike the belly button and the male nipple. Tyciol (talk) 04:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Image for vulva showed pubic hair instead

This was only an image of pubic hair. Replaced with the main image used in the Vulva article.--Sum (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

For some reason your image is only shown as a link. I don't know why it's doing that. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I think the existing image was better suited to the context of this article. The article relates more to the visuality of that area of the body, rather than the genitals themselves, if that makes sense. What I mean is, when one sees a woman's intimate part, one is far more likely to see the pubic triangle shown previously, than a shaved vulva as depicted up-close in the new image. For those reasons, I believe the existing image should stay. Your thoughts? −-User:Tbmurray (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Nudists and initmate/private parts

There really needs to be some info on how nudist typically view the terms "intimate parts" and "private parts". Within Western cultures, nudists don't general see their genitals and breast as intimate or private, even if they may cover then while in the general public for pragmatic reasons. --Cab88 (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Such additions would have to be properly sourced. --TBM10 (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Intimate part. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119080421/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go1966/is_3-4_14/ai_n29238305/?tag=content%3Bcol1 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go1966/is_3-4_14/ai_n29238305/?tag=content%3Bcol1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistent Discussion of Islamic traditions and "awrah"

The paragraph is unclear on citations and "majority of scholars" -- who? What majority?

Later in the paragraph a different majority is referenced. How can there be two? It is in conflict with what proceeds it.

Internally within the paragraph, it is unclear and awkward. The paragraph likely needs to be clarified and/or rewritten, but unfortunately, I am not the person to do that editing. I can only identify the inconsistency. 24.251.230.229 (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)