View the h-histsex Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in h-histsex's January 2007 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
View the Next Message in h-histsex's January 2007 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
Visit the h-histsex home page.
Sent: Sun 1/7/2007 12:32 AM I am a physician, not a historian. The lack of medical literature about nipple piercing is not surprising; there are relatively few papers in the modern literature concerning the practice. A Pubmed search of nipple piercing found only 143 articles, most of them have nothing to do with nipple piercing or its complications. Nevertheless, it is a relatively common practice today in San Francisco. Additionally, the "effects" of nipple piercing reported in the Victorian literature is the same as reported in my study (citation below), suggesting that it was not complete fiction. We were also surprised that more people did not encounter infections or other complications. Nevertheless, I would agree that nipple piercing was not common. The jewelry needed is somewhat specialized, so we should see advertisements for that. In addition, I wonder who the piercers were and from where the needles and other instruments came. Take care, Charles Moser, PhD, MD, FACP Moser, C., Lee, J., & Christensen, P. (1993). Nipple piercing: An exploratory-descriptive study. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 6(2), 51-61.