Jump to content

Erogenous zone: Revision history


For any version listed below, click on its date to view it. For more help, see Help:Page history and Help:Edit summary. (cur) = difference from current version, (prev) = difference from preceding version, m = minor edit, → = section edit, ← = automatic edit summary

(newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

12 June 2024

24 April 2024

8 April 2024

1 April 2024

31 March 2024

30 March 2024

12 March 2024

29 February 2024

12 February 2024

20 January 2024

16 December 2023

13 December 2023

20 November 2023

13 November 2023

31 October 2023

30 October 2023

28 October 2023

17 September 2023

6 August 2023

26 July 2023

3 July 2023

9 June 2023

24 May 2023

12 April 2023

15 March 2023

13 February 2023

12 January 2023

11 January 2023

  • curprev 01:5901:59, 11 January 2023OntologicalTree talk contribs 18,204 bytes −18 There's been multiple RFC's on this. Saying that circumcised men are missing erogenous zones on their penis is an extraordinary claim. Per Morris: "Those studies found MC has no or minimal adverse effect on sexual function, sensation, or pleasure, with some finding improvements. A consensus from physiological and histological studies was that the glans and underside of the shaft, not the foreskin, are involved in neurological pathways mediating erogenous sensation." undo Tags: Manual revert Reverted Visual edit
(newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)