(101) Erogenous Zones of the Head and Neck: A Comparison Study Between Cisgender Men and Women
J Stelmar,M Zaliznyak,D Isaacson,E Duralde,T Gaither,K Topp,S Sandhu,S Mallavarapu,S Smith,M Garcia
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jsxmed/qdae001.097
2024-02-01
The Journal of Sexual Medicine
Abstract:Abstract Introduction Erogenous zones (EZ) of the body elicit feelings of sexual arousal in response to tactile stimulation. While previous studies have defined general whole-body maps and detailed maps of the genitalia, there is limited data that defines extragenital structures and compares findings between cisgender men (CM) and cisgender women (CW). Objective This study aims to describe EZs of the head and neck, and to describe differences in EZs that exist between CM and CW. Methods A total of 403 CM and 451 CW (mean age 47.2 ± 16.8 and 48.9 ± 15.5y respectively, p>0.05) were recruited and administered an anonymous, online questionnaire via Qualtrics. Standardized anatomic illustrations with 11 predefined areas of the head and neck were presented to respondents, who were instructed to select which structure(s) bring them pleasure when touched during sex. For each EZ selected, the respondent was asked to rate its importance to their sexual pleasure on a 10-point Likert scale, from “1-not at all important” to “10-extremely important.” Differences in frequency of selection and importance ratings were analyzed via Qualtrics Stats iQ software using Fisher’s exact test and t-tests, with p>0.05 indicating statistical significance. Results Of the 11 head and neck EZs, the tongue, neck, ear, and lips were the most frequently selected structures (Figure 1). A comparison between CM and CW revealed that CM were significantly more likely to indicate erogeneity of the tongue (51.4% vs 41.3%, p<0.05) and nose (5.2% vs 2.0%, p<0.02). CW were more likely to indicate the posterior neck as erogenous (40.1% vs 30.3%, p<0.01). Statistically significant differences in ratings revealed that CM were more likely to indicate higher levels of importance to sexual pleasure of the cheek (6.3 ± x vs. 5.1 ±, p<0.03) and forehead (5.3 vs. 2.8, p<0.001). Conclusions EZs of the head and neck were centralized around the mouth, neck, and ears. CM were more likely to select structures around the mouth while CW selected the anterior and posterior neck. While some statistically significant differences were found in EZs between CM and CW, the majority of similarly selected and rated EZs indicate a pattern of comparable overall distributions of extragenital EZs. Findings from this study highlight the presence of extragenital erogeneity, and the importance of prioritizing the preservation of tactile sensation in head and neck surgeries (or communicating these risks to patients during preop consultations). These EZ maps may furthermore be used in future studies to compare pre- versus postoperative changes in erogenous sensation amongst patients who undergo head and neck surgery. Disclosure No.
urology & nephrology