Talk:Prince Albert (genital piercing)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Wrestler?

I believe the theory of the PA being named after a pro wrestler is backwards. The piercing name had been around much longer than the mid to late 90's when the wrestler took the name. Maybe switch the syntax around to accurately show that piercing name came before wrestler name.

Clash of opinions

This article represents a clash of opinions at the moment, neither of them mine, and I know nothing about this subject so I can't edit. Can anyone help?

I'm looking into it. There are some things I cans see for a start that are bad advice and need fixing. Hopefully I'll have it done soon!

kylet

The comment above "I'm looking into it..." was not by me. --kylet 10:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we need pictures.

I have just re-read the article, and I see nothing wrong with it. It appears factually accurate and reasonably complete. As for images, I think a diagram, rather than a photograph, would be most appropriate. Exploding Boy 17:16, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

I don't want to be prudish, but I would agree that a diagram is preferable to the current photograph. While I'm not a Wikipedia contributor (and thus don't know the usual standards Wikipedia uses), I would consider the current photograph to be "not work safe." I'd like to think that even the more risqé Wikipedia articles would avoid this kind of graphic photographry. Just my two cents. Feb 13, 2005

I see nothing wrong with a photograph. It is the best way to describe the situation and a diagram, altough possibly adaquate, would be no less "disturbing" to those of you who think that way. Accept nature for what it is. --Zippanova 00:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sexually function affects

There's no mention of how such a piercing affects the bearer's ability to function sexually, when it is placed and when it is removed. Etz Haim 11:43, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In your experience is there such an effect? For the most part, unless we're talking about very large guage jewellry, there is no effect on sexual function. Exploding Boy 17:36, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

According to my experience, many people who bear piercings are not exactly aware of the potential health hazards. Considerations on sexual health and function should not only include the ability to perform intercourse. It should also be examined if sexuality and fertility are affected in the long term, and how. Etz Haim 09:30, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm concerned by the line "It is safe to wear a condom without removing the jewellery." I don't know if it's valid, as it seems to me to not make sense, and I would like it cited if there's any way to do that. Poesian 00:53, 02 May 2006.

Well, I suppose it would depend on the specific type of jewellery. The types most often worn, barbells, curved barbells and captive-bead rings, are all safe to use with condoms, since they have no sharp edges or points. Exploding Boy 05:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It is certainly safe to wear a condom with the piercing, as any piercer will tell you and as I and anyone else with the peircing can corroborate from personal experience.

I'm not sure who is responsible for the "increased female pleasure is doubtful because of the limited nerve concentration in the vaginal interior" part of this article, but I have never heard anything so ridiculous in my life. Stimulation inside the vagina is central to female sexual pleasure. I replaced it with a more accurate reference to increased G spot stimulation, which is the most common reason for getting this piercing.

- January 9, 2006 5:15 pm Central Time

There's two halves to this anatomical debate: "The vagina, like nearly all other internal body structures, poorly supplied with end organs of touch [nerves]. The internal entodermal origin of the lining of the vagina makes it similar in this respect to the rectum and other parts of the digestive tract. (Kinsey, Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, p.580.)" [[1]] HOWEVER, research in the 1980s shows there is some extension of the clitoral nerves into the anterior (the top) vaginal wall in SOME, but not all, women. So technically doing it missionary would be the same with or without a PA, but the lady might get some improvement (or severe pain, depending) if one does it from behind.Legitimus 23:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Page Re-Design

Unless anyone has an objection, I am going to clean up and re-organise this article to make the information here (which is great) easier to search and read.Glowimperial 16:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Prince Albert bearing personalities

Why not make a list of famous people who bear a Prince Albert piercing? I can think of the singer Fred Durst off-hand, and I'm sure the information is anywhere on the web...

It's not just some kind of sick curiosity on my part, I think that one step on the path of accepting the controversial genital piercings might be to show that many people have them, including famous people. Also, if this information is available elsewhere, why shouldn't it be on Wikipedia?

I just wanted to discuss this, see what others think and not just add some more controversy to an already controversial article!! --IronChris 18:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with it as long as the information is verifiable (eg: the person has admitted to it in an interview). But anything that contains the phrases "is rumoured to have" or "may have" or "when I had sex with him he had" is out. Exploding Boy 18:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Personally I don't think lists like this are a good idea. List articles tend to be poorly cited (if at all) and given that Prince Albert piercings are removable and generally not visible to the public, I'd say that a list article on the subject would be extremely short and not particluarily of use. Also, in my experience, when genital piercings are described in magazine articles, oftentimes the names of the piercings are wrong - every genital piercing becomes a Prince Albert, for example, as that's the only piercing that the writer knows about. When it comes to genital piercings, IMHO, a proper cite requires an image which includes the bearer's face or other identifying characteristics, or at least a link to an image. Glowimperial 19:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed from article

recent addition by anon editor:

Serious infection is a significant risk as the genital area is extremely difficult to maintain as a sterile environment. Several cases of severe infection leading to amputation of the penis have been reported in the medical literature.

This not only contradicts the information in the article, but seems unlikely. Sources, please. Exploding Boy 06:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I've heard Dr. Drew Pinsky say as much on his radio show, "Loveline". Guess that's not much of a citation. 63.25.241.152 00:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Urine Sterile?

I take issue with this recent addition:

Despite that urine is not sterile (it can contain viruses or be easily contaminated by bacteria on the skin), infections of Prince Alberts are relatively rare.

First, urine is usually sterile, and if it's not, it's because of a *bacterial* infection. Regarding viruses, I don't know what to correct first, the fact that they wouldn't infect a wound (even IF the person whose urine was being used WASN'T ALREADY INFECTED WITH THE VIRUS LOL), or the question of whether or not viruses actually *do* live in urine (I've never heard of it), or the question of whether or not urine contaminated with organisms other than bacteria is still sterile (because it's bacterial infection we're concerned with here). Next, the 'contaminated by bacteria on the skin' part: Isn't that the point? The cleaning agent cleans away the bacteria. I think if we're concerned that people with PAPs are going to *store* their urine and use it later, or use *other people's urine* to disinfect their wounds, the above information is pertinent, otherwise not so much.--Anchoress 00:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Urine is normally sterile, I haven't read the change, but many resources state that urine is sterile, and all my training thus far have agreed, unless the individual has a UTI, which is usually cased by bacteria going back up to the bladder from the urethra. --kylet 00:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Spelling

Jewellery was spelt correctly. I do not think it is usual to change British to American spellings and vice versa, but if you do change once instance of a word you should change them all for consistency. Jewellery was changed to Jewelry in the Jewellery section only, co I changed it back. --kylet 11:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Origin of the name

The Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha article says that the story of Prince Albert having a genital piercing was "certainly" originated by Doug Malloy, but this article only says that this is suspected to be the case. How certain is this? Rodparkes 03:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Neither article cites references, so it's more accurate to say that it may have been or probably was apocryphal, which is what this article says. Anchoress 06:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it really "common"?

I question the description of the PA as "a common form of male body piercing". Obviously it's far from common among the general male population. Even among those men with piercings, I suspect other types would be far more frequently found - in years of visiting nude beaches, I have only ever seen one man with a PA. Does anyone have any objection to the deletion of the word "common". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rodparkes (talk • contribs) 08:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

What the article actually says is that Prince Alberts are a "common form of male genital piercing." Exploding Boy 18:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Point taken, but this could still be read as implying "commonly found among men in general" rather than among men with pierced genitals only (like saying lipstick is "a common form of female facial decoration"). Besides, are there any reliable statistics on what is common in this area?Rodparkes 04:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's very clear that the sentence means "a common form of genital piercing among genitally pierced men." PAs are the most common male genital piercing for several reasons: they are relatively simple to perform; they are basically painless; they only pierce a small amount of skin, rather than flesh (all the glans piercings); they are easy to heal (vs: shaft piercings); only one actual hole is required for this piercing, vs 2 or a flesh "tunnel" for all others; and they interfere less with sexual activity (vs glans and shaft piercings). Exploding Boy 20:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

PIcture size

What are the pictures so small? Makes the article looks odd --kylet 14:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Picture placement

Given that the current top Google hit for "prince albert" is this article, it might be a good idea to move the photo down a bit; anyone hitting "I Feel Lucky" might be a bit surprised. For that matter, I followed a Google link after specifically searching for information on the piercing, and was still surprised by the photo. —tregoweth (talk) 00:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

There has been much discussion of this. Please refer to the upper portion of the page, and the archives. Exploding Boy 16:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)