Science desk
< June 16	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 18 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 17

Orgasms

Why are female orgasms produced mainly by stimulation of the clitoris, which is not typically stimulated during sex? Wouldn't it be better for female orgasms to be produced by stimulation of the vagina? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 04:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "better for"? Nature works with what she has to maximize reproductive success, not engineering elegance or male or female pleasure. Men should ride up high on women during missionary style sex to stimulate the woman's clitoris with their montes pubes and give a reach around (or under) when they do it doggy style. μηδείς (talk) 05:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoop whoop is bored again. I'm sure he's heard of the g-spot. Has he not asked his lady what she actually likes? Wickwack05:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.230.236.237 (talk)

Firstly, I am less than fifteen years old and therefore have never had sex with anyone. Secondly, Orgasm#Clitoral and vaginal variabilities states, "Research, including research by Shere Hite, has found that 70–80% of women achieve orgasm only through direct clitoral stimulation". Five references are provided. Need I say more? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 06:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. But the answer is likely to be the one given above. The parts of the anatomy under discussion are multi use and in evolutionary terms surviving childbirth is more critical than the women enjoying sex. Also evolution does not start with a blank sheet of paper; it works by adaptation. --BozMo talk 07:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a template to collapse this discussion? Explicit comments may be necessary, but tact would be appreciated. I'm not asking for censorship, I just find it distasteful. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is often no logic in evolution, which is how women came to be the shape they are. Is there clear evidence that orgasm is required to for a woman to become gravid? There are lots of examples of evolution not developing the most "logical" outcome in human development, check out the vermiform appendix or the recurrent laryngeal nerve. "wouldn't it be better if" only really applies to the survival and improvemment of the funtion of an organism. Orgasm is a pleasurable adjunt, but is it necessary. @Plasma Physics - there is no obligation on your part to read the replies. Richard Avery (talk) 07:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, didn't know gravid was a word in English. Gravidă means "pregnant" in Romanian too. 92.80.39.255 (talk) 10:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well, I can't unread a post can I? If there was such a template, I would have decided not to read it. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the OP could get some information by reading this. He may also find this one interesting. (In order to preserve Plasmic's sensitivities I'll refrain from an explanation here. Quite strange that an older woman finds this topic unremarkable but it makes a younger man blush.) --TammyMoet (talk) 11:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That xx % can accomplish something with the technique A leaves out other techniques not mentioned and that may be possible. It sounds anecdotal from a scientific method perspective. I would say there are a variety of other techniques that doesn't involve the main area mentioned. Some takes longer time but gives better result. Electron9 (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that there's an implicit assumption throughout this discussion that the destination, so to speak, is much more important than the journey. As is the assumption in the initial question that neither of the parties are in possession of hands; I suspect this is just down to a lack of experience on the part of the OP, which is fair enough. Brammers (talk/c) 09:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since I can't imagine what PlasmaPhysics finds offensive here other than "do it doggy style" I will not be offended if someone who knows the technical term for it replaces the phrase in my answering post and provides a link. μηδείς (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can say it in Latin - "coitus more ferarum" (sex in the manner of animals). Our article is at doggy style, though. The reference desk does not censor serious discussions of topics that some people find offensive, so PlasmaPhysics will just have to stay away if he has a problem with it. --Tango (talk) 17:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But when as here the OP is at law a Minor responders do so In loco parentis. Freedom from censorship here in Wikipedia does not grant a carte blanche to hand out gratuitous advice that can shape the OP's future Reproductive health. Sex education is not Wikipedia's business, see WP:NOTHOWTO.

In any case, that is not what I asked. I asked why this is so, not how to circumvent this being so. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 18:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your second question does suggest you have an idea for improving the arrangement. DriveByWire (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)\[reply]

We're not in loco parentis, and mentioning a vanilla sex position is hardly gratuitous sex advice that can have an impact on someone's sexual health. thx1138 (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thx1138 The distinction you draw between what in your mind is a "vanilla" meaning approved, unadventurous and flavourless, sex position, so characterised in contrast to what in your mind are radical alternatives, is arbitrarily imposing some social constraint where there was none. That may be the prerogative of a parent but not of a stranger on the Internet to a minor. DriveByWire (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As to what might be "better" in female biology, a small boy once thought women should have evolved with two depressions in their back at breast height. That improvement would allow women to stand closer together in queues and save standing space. DriveByWire (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]

That small boy obviously had not realised that communism has only been around for ~100 years, and only in certain countries, not enough to have driven any evolutionary change. Wickwack121.215.74.128 (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Why this is so has to do with the fact that developmentally the genitals differentiate from a common starting point development of the reproductive system and the genes that make the genitals have to pass down through both males and females. Biology can't start from scratch in each. The genes that make the clitoris in the mother make the glans penis in her son. So, since sensitivity of the glans in males is so important, it carries over to the female clitoris, which is the homologous organ. Also, the fact that a man has to work at pleasing a woman works as a sort of sexual display indicating that he might be helpful in general as a mate rather than only centered on his own gratification. But that's a side effect, not the reason why the clitoris evolved that way. μηδείς (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the scrotum is the homologous organ of the other parts, thus explaining the comparative insensitivity. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A citation is needed for that alleged side effect. The clitoris provides the male with an externally accessible means of preparing the female before vaginal penetration, see Foreplay. Compare with Doorbell. DriveByWire (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe some apemen were too dumb to do this, yet another of the numerous pressures that select against stupidity. Speaking of intelligence, spatial intelligence is very helpful in both hunting (which was his main job) and sex. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've often thought that the birth control pill introduces a strong selection pressure against women having a good memory. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 01:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 11:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He means that forgetful women are more likely to forget to take the pill and thus have more children. Unlikely. The pill forgetter can fall back on emergency contraception, abortion, IUD, implants. She will have 2.4 children like her careful sister. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Implants and IUDs only work if she wasn't relying solely on the pill in the first place. Emergency contraception only works if she realises early enough that she forgot the pill. Some strange people have a moral objection to abortion. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 23:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pregnant women tend to be more inclined to socialize with relatives, ie less with her partner. The pill that synthesize the same hormones may impact from a physiological standpoint on a relationship. Which in turn affect selective pressure. The real selective pressure probably comes from that people that plan their families makes less children, while those that do not, makes more. But as a result the available resources per child becomes less. Electron9 (talk) 11:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Betadine and hydrogen peroxide

Is it safe to mix Betadine and hydrogen peroxide? I did this and it made this weird smell that made my nose burn.--Wrk678 (talk) 08:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not then :) --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 09:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Betadine is an iodoorganic compound, so peroxide may oxidise iodide and release iodine vapour. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See here. Iodine vapour could cause damage to your eyes and throat.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 11:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're doing something which gives off a gas that makes your nose burn, you should probably be doing it in a fume cupboard. If you have access to a fume cupboard, then you probably have access to people that can give you more reliable answers on this kind of thing than random people on the internet. --Tango (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, betadine contains iodine, not iodide, so the logic of the responses above is questionable. Looie496 (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it contains the triiodide anion which decomposes to give iodine and iodide. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our betadine article agrees. DMacks (talk) 03:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you ask, but if you're doing it for cleaning skin or something [1] seems to suggest it's not a good idea although I'm not sure what the article actually says as it's not available online or in the library for me and I'm not going to bother with a request, in any case I suggest you consult an appropriate health professional. If you are cleaning wounds, I suggest you consult an approproate health professional like a pharmacist as sources like [2] [3] suggest it's not always a good idea to use either product. Speaking generally, note that just because two compounds have similar effects doesn't mean mixing them would generate an even better product, in particular generally it's a bad idea to mix different cleaning products unless you know what you're doing. Nil Einne (talk) 04:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Above it is stated that Betadine contains the triiodide anion. Would Nitrogen triiodide be produced if Betadine were mixed with some common household chemical? Edison (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, because triiodide is not the same as triiodide. The triiodide here, is: Diiodidoiodate(1-). Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

giraffes

There's a line in the Recurrent laryngeal nerve article which says; "The extreme detour of this nerve (about 15 feet in giraffes)[2]". Er.. measurments in giraffes is a thing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.173.200.107 (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the nerve is in a giraffe. They are measuring in feet. --Tango (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And its measurement in giraffes is notable (vs in other species). DMacks (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the best English. I've changed it to "about 15 feet in the case of giraffes". (Please don't ask how many giraffes are in the case.)--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

lump

What is the lump on this gooses head?

That part of the beak is called the cere. In most birds it's not noticeably swollen, and is not always so even in this or closely related species. The colour of the cere is used by some bird species (more obviously in males) to exhibit their physical health and hence sexual desirability, so I'd hazard a guess (but others may know better) that the swelling is an additional seasonal sexual signal in this species. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.109 (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Modified your links a bit. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Goose imprinting

If a goose is raised in a completely sterile environment like a white room, with nothing consistent (ie food bowl, bedding, etc regularly changes appearance) what would it imprint on? Or does it just go mad?

According to Imprinting (psychology), they imprint on moving objects (which can include inanimate objects that are made to move) within the first few hours after hatching, so I don't think regularly changing the contents of the room is necessary. In that situation, I think they just wouldn't imprint on anything. Quite what effect that would have on them, I don't know. Quite possibly none. --Tango (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They experimented that moving inanimate objects work yet didn't try this? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have a hard time getting that past the ethics committee these days. LukeSurl^{t c} 21:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about this? Primate experiments at Columbia University Still I wonder why no one had tried it (non-imprinting a goose) a long time ago. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]