Breaking down what partners might overlook.
One 2016 study found that the entire body had erogenous potential (happy news for Master and His dievca who love to touch). Note, there are frequent commonalities that are worth exploring.
One 2014 study found that the clitoris and the nipples are the most sensitive to both pressure and vibration (go figure). But, the areas found to be most sensitive to “light touch,” were the neck, forearm, and vaginal margin (the area just at the end of the vaginal opening and at the beginning of the perineum).
A study published in June 2020 used heat maps to show where men and women considered their erogenous zones, based on how aroused they became from appearance alone and then touch alone, as well as how the arousal changed whether they engaged in solo play or with a partner. Women consistently ranked the genital area, breasts, butt, and inner thighs high for touch, though the shoulders, hips, and the back of the neck were also shown consideration.
The study also examined what women consider to be men’s erogenous zones, and vice versa—and while most findings line up, it does show there are areas that might be missed for stimulation. Areas like the neck, inner thighs, and upper back, were ranked erogenous by women in the study, if slightly lower on the scale than the breasts, genitals, and butt.
According to a paper published in 2012, other areas include the mouth, ears, lower back, head and hair, and even—for some people behind the knee.
Maybe we should just take time with our partners and explore their whole bodies to determine their favorite erogenous zones – it won’t be time wasted~
Further Reading – links to related studies in order:
A “Thank You” to Rebecca Decynzski from the Maudern
In a year where some people didn’t have a lot of touches,
a hug in cashmere might not suffice – but its a start.
This limited-edition piece is designed by British illustrator Angelica Hicks.
$575 LERET LERET
“I have 2000 friends on Facebook.”
How do you manage that?
Maybe you don’t. According to some studies, the number of people you can really call “friend” is around 150 to 200. Your brain can’t process more than that. dievca considers Facebook friends, “acquaintances” (see more below). Those studies also say that the number of close friendships you can handle is much lower — around five.
Where did these numbers come from?
British anthropologist and evolutionary biologist Robin Dunbar.
Dunbar argues that you can only keep friendships with about 150 people at any given time, because “this limit is a direct function of neocortex size, and … this in turn limits group size where stable interpersonal relationships can be maintained.” Dunbar says his number of 150 “refers to those people with whom you have a personalized relationship, one that is reciprocal and based around general obligations of trust and reciprocity.”
This number of 150 has appeared in different contexts as the most efficient working system for a Company, a Military Unit, Academics in a discipline’s sub-specialization, etc. The number has also been applied to anarchy and politics ~
Dunbar argues that this number has not, in fact, changed much throughout history and that it applies to social media on the web just as it does in real life. If anything, his research is supported by outlets such as Facebook—according to that site’s official figures, its average user has about 130 “friends.”
The theoretical circle of 150 is not a homogenous social group, Dunbar explains, but rather consists of four layers, or “Circles of Acquaintanceship,” which scale relative to each other by a factor of 3—an inner core of 5 intimates, and then successive layers of 15, 50 and 150. With each successive circle, the number of people included increases but the emotional intimacy decreases.
The concept of usefulness can impact inclusions or exclusion in the group of 150.
dievca applied this to her circle of friends and it seems to work well. she ended up with more people in the “15” circle and less in the 150 zone, but dievca is highly social. dievca also applied it to Master’s circle of friends and His ratios are slightly different, too. And as an introvert, His close circles are smaller.
What is the cut-off for Friend vs. Acquaintance?
Psychologist Mark Vernon, author of The Philosophy of Friendship, argues that everyone likes to be useful to their friends, but feeling that a friend is using you is the first sign of a relationship’s decline.
If you can connect online at any time – doesn’t that allow you to be closer to more people? Isn’t the quality of your friendships better?
The answer, according to Dunbar, is – No. Why? Those connections are missing something very important: Touch.
We’ve all seen David Attenborough-narrated footage of primates picking fleas out of each other’s necks to create social bonds. For all our greater sophistication of language and communication, we still overwhelmingly need that too.
“Just the way you casually touch someone on the arm or the shoulder when you’re having a chat with them is so important,” he says.
“It triggers the release of endorphins in the brain, and it’s these that create this sense of warmth and calmness and contentedness with whoever you’re doing it with.”
We may be connecting more verbally, but without the act of touch – the quality of those connections are superficial. And if you are spreading yourself thin, across a range of Friends/Acquaintances online – you don’t have as much time and attention to spend with your core groups. The quality of your Relationships may be deteriorating and you may be feeling the lack without knowing why. Remember, you have 2000 friends on Facebook!
Please note that humans are always evolving, this might not be a bad thing, but…
Per Dunbar, “Words are slippery, a touch is worth a 1,000 words any day.”
Pieces gathered from Psychology Today, webmd, esquire.com, the New Yorker, wikipedia
dievca is not a big user of Facebook, she apparently has 190 friends – but has never sent a friend request because she doesn’t know how. she doesn’t know if that is a good thing or a bad thing, but she figures that no one really cares a poop about what is going on in her Life except for her top 5. And those people she talks to face-to-face or on Skype.
Just for fun from Wikipedia:
- Malcolm Gladwell discusses the Dunbar number in his popular 2000 book The Tipping Point. Gladwell describes the company W. L. Gore and Associates, now known for the Gore-Tex brand. By trial and error, the leadership in the company discovered that if more than 150 employees were working together in one building, different social problems could occur. The company started building company buildings with a limit of 150 employees and only 150 parking spaces. When the parking spaces were filled, the company would build another 150-employee building. Sometimes these buildings would be placed only short distances apart. The company is also known for the open allocation company structure.
- The number has been used in the study of virtual communities, especially MMORPGs, such as Ultima Online, and social networking websites, such as Facebook (Dunbar himself did a study on Facebook in 2010) and MySpace.
- The Swedish tax authority planned to reorganise its functions in 2007 with a maximum 150 employees per office, referring to Dunbar’s research.
- In 2007, Cracked.com editor David Wong wrote a humour piece titled “What is the Monkeysphere?” explaining Dunbar’s number.
- In the 2012 novel This Book is Full of Spiders, also by David Wong, the character Marconi explains to David the impact Dunbar’s number has on human society. In Marconi’s explanation, the limit Dunbar’s number imposes on the individual explains phenomena such as racism and xenophobia, as well as apathy towards the suffering of peoples outside of an individual’s community.
dievca is a toucher. she learned this from her Master.
Master is a toucher. He learned this from His dievca.
Pandora’s Box is opened, this is something each of them can no longer live without.
This information will guide their futures until the ends of their Lives.
A University of North Carolina study found that women who hugged their spouse or partner often (even for just 20 seconds) exhibited lower blood pressure, possibly because a warm embrace increases oxytocin levels in the brain. Conventional medicine tells us that lower blood pressure may decrease a person’s risk for heart disease.
Neurologist Shekar Raman, MD, in Richmond, Virginia explains: “A hug, pat on the back, and even a friendly handshake are processed by the reward center in the central nervous system, which is why they can have a powerful impact on the human psyche, making us feel happiness and joy. And it doesn’t matter if you’re the toucher or touchee. The more you connect with others — on even the smallest physical level — the happier you’ll be.”
Health Benefits of Human Touch:
- eases pain
- helps with infant growth
- enhances vital signs
- stabilizes body temp
- can communicate positivity
- helps provide better sleep
- reduces irritability
- increases sociability
- strengthens relationships
- strengthens immune system
- helps with depression
- increases proper digestion
- releases serotonin
- enhances a sense of well-being
- stimulates oxytocin – the cuddle hormone
- slows heart rate – lowers blood pressure
- lowers the stress hormone cortisol
- gives comfort and relieves sadness
- can help us feel happiness & joy
- releases tension & tightness
- helps migraine pain