Jump to content

Talk:Vagina

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xchanter (talk | contribs) at 02:10, 30 October 2006 (→‎Female Ejaculation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Vagina Monologues


Why Human?

If, indeed, other animals have a vaginal entrance, why does most of the article focus on Humans? I think the Human Vagina should have one section, while the rest of the article should elaborate on other forms of the vagina in other organisms.

List of vulgar words

I'm going to put my foot down on this one: we are not going to have a list of vulgar words for the vagina or the penis. That's not an encyclopedia article. It might be titillating to children and a pretty shoddy attempt at trolling, perhaps, but in any event, an encyclopedia article it isn't. We're not going to have such lists here on Wikipedia. See what Wikipedia is not. --LMS

Not even cunt?

I agree wholeheartedly --Mathijs

I agree too. - Mark Ryan

Thanks from one of the women! JHK

So what is this talk section, the Vagina Monologues <THORN> BF

I agree too, simply because lists of "naughty words" are not encyclopedia articles. --Stephen Gilbert

Well, I'd say there IS a place for a list of vulgar synonyms, but wikipedia is not a thesaurus. --Bassgoonist

Hmm. I'm not going to weigh in on the particular matter in question here, but I wish to point out that there are a good many pages in Wikipedia that are not "encyclopedia articles". So obviously that is not the criterion for inclusion or exclusion. Have whatever opinion you wish, but at least discuss it honestly. - dcljr 06:38, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC) (latter remark stricken by dcljr 22:34, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC))

I agree in part - maybe a seperate article would be appropriate? I mean, there is some cultural value in the discussion of vulgarity and thus, there is an argument that can be made for inclusion in an encyclopedia. In any case, I'm taking out that little bit about calling the vulva a vagina being like calling a horse a rabbitt [sic]. That's just nonsense. --Nick 00:28, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • And upon seeing that there is, in fact, a page for this, I agree in full. --Nick 00:35, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

There are several vulgar terms in use as an alternative name for the vagina. These are not suitable for use in medical reports.

Although true, I'm tempted to move this to bad jokes and other deleted nonsense. --Brion

And more slang terms have arrived recently. I agree with the above, this is not the place. How about we shunt them off onto a page on slang, or something specific on sexual slang? that will at least keep them off this page -- Tarquin 18:04 Nov 29, 2002 (UTC)

Just going to balance up my comment against prurient edits below with a comment against prudery in Wikipedia here. I disagree with the contention that a listing and discussion of slang words for the vagina does not belong in an encyclopedia. From a lexicological and social attitudes point of view such information is highly pertinent. I do agree however that such a listing or discussion does not belong in this article. Oska 22:27, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

I kind of disagree because people need to see what a penis or a vagina look like if they don't know.Otherwise it is porn a little i guess.Check out my talk and user page

Gemini531 02:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Gemini531[reply]


Since when is "pussy" an accepted medical term for the vagina? Jediryan22 01:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

removed text

From my talk page: Paranoid, I reverted yr edits on purpose. Your edits seemed to be focussed on sexual information relating to the vagina which was mostly trivial. Women in asia or wherever performing tricks with their vaginas is not pertinent information to a general article on the vagina. Same goes for the rest of yr edits. I have no problem with this information being presented somewhere on wikipedia in a relevant context but I don't think it worthy of inclusion in this article. Oska 23:53, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

I do not necessarily insist that all edits that I made to the article are necessary, but I want to ask an honest question (3 questions, actually) - what kinds of sexual information should not be included in this particular article, why shouldn't it and where (in what other article) it should? May be information about tricks performed with vaginas does not belong here (but why not), but then some information about muscles does, but is currently missing. Why the angle of the vagina is important information, but its color isn't? Paranoid 15:04, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Basically no sexual information should be included in this discussion. It's an article about the vagina, not sex. Writing about fisting and double penetration in this article simply demonstrates a prurient interest in the vagina. If you had instead written something about the elasticity of the vagina which can allow the passage of an infant's head when giving birth and the introduction of an adult's hand during sexual play that would have been more acceptable. Finally, I did notice the information on color and thought it more relevant, but as you included it with the other material in a single edit it made it difficult for me to keep that and remove the rest. Oska 22:19, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll keep that in mind when editing this article in the future. Paranoid 17:38, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Image

Vulva Why is it allowed to show male genitalia in photographs but not female genitalia? I have placed an internal photographic view of the vagina and it is constantly removed. I ask why the double strandard, it makes it seem like female genitals are hideous grotesque organ because you fear to show it even for educational purposes. There should be exactly the same amount of vaginals views internal as well as vulvar views as what is shown for male genitalia, even sexual poses as these are also shown on the penis article. Equality means to depict both organs equally since it proves for educational value. Think about it.

Shouldn't the photograph of the vulva only be displayed on the vulva page?

The finger-spread vulvar photo is nothing more than titilation for the kiddies. I don't think that WP is the place for this. Even in medical school, you deal mostly with diagrams-not french manicured nails. If indeed this is for "medical" purposes, the hand should be wearing protective gloves. Is WP so much more high and mighty?

It's an image of the human body ffs. Why do you have a problem with this, you must be an american. Screaming about JJ showing a boob at Super Bowl and saying "protect our children, they can't see boobs, it's porn!" - so damn laughable.

Vagina Shouldn't there be an actual vagina photo to depict how it looks and how it is shapes?

Your image is deleted because it is copyright violation. Not to say that it is useless "for educational purposes" without explanations. Wikipedia is not image gallery.
You are also adding useless external links. If there is useful information these, please add it to the article. Otherwise people can surf web themselves. This is not some obscure topic difficult to find.
Wikipedia is not democracy and woman rights vehicle. "Equality" argument will not be taken serioously. Please write useful information into the article, if you want equality.
Also, please sign your posts. mikka (t) 16:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Photo The first photo does not appear to be properly labelled. It appears as though each label should be moved slightly to the left, so as to clearly distiguish the Labia minora from the Labia majora. I would also note that the photo is of pretty poor quality because it is difficult to distinguish each part. I suggest either removing it completely or putting up a better one.

Thanks PK, October 20, 2005
What kind of an image is this! Just made me stop to think about women! Deliogul 22:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Suggest Removal of a Very Poor Image

I note that Vag1.jpg has been removed from and then put back into this article several times, so I'll post this comment here rather than being just another person to remove it and have my edit reverted.

Does anyone really think that this is a good image (from an encyclopaedic point of view) of a vagina? First of all it's not a picture of a vagina. Second, it is far inferior to Clitoris-Vivero-Becker.jpg, which is much more clearly labelled and the parts of the vulva (including the vaginal opening) are actually visible and distinguishable.

In Vag1.jpg, as PK says, the labels are all misaligned: the clitoral hood is in the general area of where the label points, but I can't see the clitoral hood, and the same goes for the glans clitoris and vaginal opening labels. As for the labia labels -- again, the picture is very unclear, or the creator is confused about which are the minora and which are the majora.

I think the image should be removed from this article. It doesn't even need to be replaced; the existing images are more than adequate.

--Craig 11:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Joy. Seeing no opposition and realising that the image may have been put back only as a result of unrelated vandalism reverts, I have removed it, reworded the title of the picture of the vulva to draw attention to the opening of the vagina, and done some juggling to improve the layout of the page in one of the main browsers out there. --Craig 02:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Let's make this clear. The penis and the vagina are two seperate things. I find it very sexist that many of you think that there should be the same amount of vaginal photographs as penis photographs. The pictures on the vagina page serve their purpose to lable the parts of the vagina and so do the penis pictures. We don't need as many pictures on either of them. Just a sufficient ammount to display what is needed.

Unprotected

(Crosspost to talk:clitoris, talk:penis, talk:vagina) - Ok, the disclaimer idea has been roundly rejected. I have unprotected all 3 articles (Penis, vagina, and clitoris). Let's try to keep it civilized now. →Raul654 00:04, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Disclaimer roundly rejected? I don't think so. --Cantus 02:07, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
Ok, well 25 people oppose it, while only 9 support keeping it. →Raul654 02:09, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Image removal

I'd like to suggest that Image:VaginaEducational.JPG be removed from the page. It's a poor quality image and I'm not convinced that it adds anything significant to the page. It's also (apparently) "for educational use only". chowells 10:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC) *Isn't that what an encyclopedia is for? -Anonymous[reply]

Well, I was actually going to make the image smaller. The page looks OK in Firefox (but only OK, and would look better if the image wasn't so big), but in Internet Explorer everything is way too spaced out. That's my biggest beef. As for the image itself -- well, it is of a vagina (at least, I think it is!) and encyclopedias are educational. At least it's not as bad as the image that I removed yesterday, which wasn't even a picture of a vagina. Let me have a go at improving the page and we'll see how it looks then. --Craig 12:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I have improved the layout of the page considerably, at least for Firefox and Internet Explorer users, although in doing so it causes an almost unnoticeable (unless you're looking for it, of course) problem with the edit link in Firefox for the "Human vagina" section by putting it way down the page. If anyone has any better ideas, please go ahead and implement them, but I think that part of the problem is the number of images on the page is at its limit given the length of the article. As for the image itself -- in the absence of a better one, I think this one might be as good as you're going to get. --Craig 13:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm slightly worried about the copyright status of the image. The uploader has uploaded several images, one of them is obviously under the wrong licence. Unfortunately he has shown little interest in discussing anything with me, so maybe someone else will have more luck. chowells 23:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know what to say about that. Verifying the stated copyright status of images is not my area of expertise. I'm sure there must be someone who does have the expertise though, and is probably already dealing with such issues. I'm still too new here to have figured out the rather unique self-help and assisted-help systems here, so I can't point you in the right direction. Good luck! --Craig 03:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

chowells has me on his watchlist and is out to get me and remove everything and anything I contribute to this encyclopedia; please keep that in mind. eazyz99 13:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take your word for it, but that's between you two. But since I have your attention, perhaps you might consider having a look at the picture tutorial to see how to place image thumbnails into articles when the image is a little to large to be displayed at full size in the article. Thanks. --Craig 15:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

10/31/05 Posted a clearer picture of a human vagina, for educational use. - eazyz99

Hardly looks clearer to me, but at least it doesn't seem to be in danger of being deleted for copyright reasons. Can't see that you're going to get a "clear" image of such an internal organ (if that's the correct word to describe a vagina) anyway. But at least it's an effort! --Craig (t|c) 09:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I rv'd your new image addition, in that there has been so much controversy regarding actual images of this piece of anatomy that a consensus may be approriate before adding new images to prevent an edit war Xaosflux 21:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments unrelated to images

Some general remarks about this article, from someone not embroiled in the image wars. Compared to other articles with such activity and interest behind them, this one is pretty bare. It has no clear structure, and reads like a list of random facts about the human vagina. Obviously it reflects the people who have worked on it and the constant editing and reverting, but it gives information sparingly, reluctantly and in perhaps excessively neutral terms. For example: "Some women have a very sensitive erogenous zone called "the G-spot" inside their vagina, which can produce very intense orgasms if stimulated properly. Not all women have a g-spot that is responsive to stimulation, however.". Also: "The hymen...partially covers the vagina in many organisms, including some human females". I understand the need to be inoffensive, but I think "some human females" is a bit of a strange understatement. Wouldn't something along the lines of "including most women who have not had sexual intercourse" make more sense? More precise information is of course found on the hymen page.

One must ask: why no information on non-g-spot vaginal orgasms? Why no information about non-human vaginas? Why no references to tampons? Why nothing about the cultural significance of vaginas (eg, reference to the Vagina Monologues)?

Cleanup/Re-work?

Suggestion: Restructure the page as follows: 1 Anatomy, 2 Functions: 2.1 Sexual activity (orgasms etc here), 2.2 Menstruation, 2.3 Birth 3 Vaginal health (info on gynaecological visits, pap smears, diseases), 4 Cultural significance. 84.99.234.233 12:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think this could be an improvement. Or possibly some compromise would be an improvement. I am curious about your removal of the text "Providing sexual pleasure to a woman during the sexual intercourse." While this may be inaccurate, would it not be more effective to change this text than to remove it? For instance: "Facilitates (or plays a role in) sexual pleasure for women during the sexual intercourse." or something similar (with better wording). It (i assume) does play a role in sexual pleasure. --Robby 16:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the vagina "plays a role" in sexual pleasure. But that's not the same thing as a "function". The anus can provide sexual pleasure - but that's not what it's there for. Same for the vagina. However, the clitoris *is* there for that. Your elbow may provide with you no sexual pleasure, but others may disagree - take note of nipples, feet, ears, etc.
Every anatomy book I've seen describes the vagina as having precisely three functions: childbirth, coitus, menstruation. Surely we would need a compelling reason to go against the grain on that one. A woman whose vagina does not allow sex, menstruation or childbirth would be described as having a problem. A woman whose vagina brings no particular sexual pleasure would, in general, not. 84.99.234.233 18:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


My reply to 84.99.234.233 is: "Go for it!" You've made some changes already, so while looking for opinions on major edits is laudable, there is no Editor God to which you can or should submit your ideas or questions. Rewrite the article and post it here for comments or suggestions. Some non-human information would be nice too.
As for the removal that Robby comments on -- I think I like his wording much better than either of the previous versions. Sexual pleasure, at least in humans, is obviously a part of the experience of having a vagina. My elbow provides me with no sexual pleasure, but my penis does; while we're not talking about penises, I don't happen to be equipped with a vagina (so can't comment on it first hand), but I don't see a reason to ignore the pleasurable aspect of the genitals.
To clarify: the pleasurable aspect of the genitals should definitely be included! But it's not a primary function.
--Craig (t|c) 06:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a stab at improving the article, but I'm a bit hesitant, knowing that someone will more than likely take offense at some wording and revert the whole thing...

84.99.234.233 18:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I would be surprised to learn that tampons are not used in Asia. I suspect the statement that "in Western societies..." should be removed.

Good point - bad wording. Should it be "modern societies"? Feel free to change it. --84.99.234.161 13:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New diagrammatic image

The image by mimbiser is excellent and much clearer than anything else. It's inoffensive, educational, and clear, without being excessively prudish. I propose we remove the two pornographic photos, as they just seem redundant now. There may be some argument for retaining photographic images (on the basis that a diagram doesn't convey everything), but really, a non-pornographic image would be a lot better.

I would just be bold and remove the images, but that seems a fraught course of action.

Ok, I did it. Btw can anyone verify the copyright status of the schematic? 84.99.234.113 00:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many pornographic PHOTOS of the penis on the penis page, so why is it so horrible to have actual photos of the vagina on this page? What a double standard.

This has been argued so many times it's hardly worth doing again. I should have been clearer. The image I removed was "pornographic" because it was a cropped part of a pornographic image. The image that remains is the same, but at least it does show the vaginal opening. I am quite certain this image was taken with the aim of exciting male viewers, and the fact that the vagina in question appears to be aroused adds to that impression. Take a look at the black and white image on vulva for a non-pornographic example.
There is no double standard. Photos of genitals are totally appropriate, but pornographic ones aren't. However, until some better photos appear...

---There is a double standard. The penis page has an aroused penis in its full erect state. That could and SHOULD be a diagram, not a photo of a sexually excited male. Plus, there is another PHOTO of the glans penis, also aroused. This vagina page and the vulva page have one ugly photo in black and white which is not even that clear. Either allow more photos on the female pages, or please remove some of the ridiculous photos from the penis page.---

I think the basic problem is a lack of good, uncopyrighted images. If you know of any, please feel free. For the penis page, perhaps a good non-photographic hand-drawn/painted image would be better. And to be honest the photo of the glans does look a bit like someone said "There's no photo of that, here, I'll take one!". Anyway this is not the penis page. --84.99.234.161 14:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the the first comment in this section. Its a picture of part of the human body, how can it be "offensive"... If people are prudes and don't want to see a picture of a vagina, then why are they even viewing the article in the first place? If I didn't want to see a picture of a tiger for example, the last thing I'd do is go view the tiger article.

Another vote for a picture of a genuine human vagina (that is what the article is about) - Deathrocker 14:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current picture is excellent. I think it might be appropriate, though, to place it "below the fold" on the page, like for Penis. Thoughts? --Ashenai 19:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

I think this article is vandalized so often that I believe this article needs a rule only logged-in Wikipedians should be allowed to edit it. Any objections?? Georgia guy 16:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, actually. It IS frequently vandalized, but it's also on the watchlist of about a zillion people, so problems get fixed quickly. Joyous | Talk 17:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, but there's still little reason to allow the article vagina open to the public (much less edit). Its the the bane of many a joke, as well as a constant target for adolesent children. So while it is monitered daily and can be reverted constantly, I don't see a clear reason to do so when blocking anons would cease most of the vandalism right then and there.-MegamanZero 19:55 4,December 2005 (UTC)

It may get vandalised alot, but, this is a great public web site, and some one may need this page to do a report or something, and if it is locked up, most people will just go to a different site instead of registering. This is a great site that more people need to know about, so I think that no articles should be locked away. --Cody Morgan-- azenrot@yahoo.com

The page being locked doesn't stop anyone from reading the page and using it for their report. All it does is prevent potential vandalism from occurring while you are trying to write your report. tv316 12:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we need to stop this vandalism. Also, the picture is continously removed, and it is very annoying to revert. I say block edits by non registered users. Lag 22:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orz and dogface, please stop removing the photo. It is perfectly appropriate to show teh real thing. Wikipedia is not censored. Please re-read the policy. Lag 22:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why only human?

I mean - all mammals have vagina, but this article is only about human's. why?

Not a clue. I don't know much myself but maybe animals vaginas are differen't? Good point. The penis article has alittle bit on animal penises. Andrew Northall 07:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who knows about it could add a small section on animal vaginas, but the article should be mainly about human vaginas, as they are much more notable. —gorgan_almighty 15:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The picture labelled "vagina" on this page is currently a picture of a penis. Has the page been vandalized again?

clitoris pretty much not mentioned once?

i think any page describing the vagina needs to mention the clitoris or at least provide a link to it's page (this isn't counting the link to theclitoris.com at the end)

also the giving birth part could do with a bit more elaboration. pretty important topic ya know? ;p

infact the whole page is a little lacking i think.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris 86 (talkcontribs)

Why? The clitoris isn't part of the vagina. Marnanel 03:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This image, which the article uses, has recently been added to the MediaWiki:Bad image list, which prevents the image from being displayed in-line in articles, as a result a recent vandalbot attack. This change will only be temporary, and the image will be back working properly in a day or so. Sorry for the inconvenience. AmiDaniel (talk) 10:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I believe the image of that vagina should be changed, or completely removed. I'm being serious now, it is as if someone went out of their way to find the most grotesque looking picture of the females reproductive organ. Just a thought.User:Wrath_of_Hell

I also think it should be removed. It is NOT encyclopedic - A diagram should be used instead, like any other encyclopedia would do. — Wackymacs 08:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I appreciated it. I always forget the labelling of the diagrams.

@Wrath_of_Hell: No part of anatomy is going to look pretty close up. Especially not this part. 70.128.87.110 07:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored. Anatomy articles often have photos; why should this one be any different? OhNoitsJamie Talk 07:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They also often just have diagrams. WP:NOT doesn't mean we have to bend over backwards whenever there's a chance to show the naked people. --W.marsh 13:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, what's wrong about naked people? Please tell me. And the image is harmless, free your mind.

I'm with the majority of you here, it's just nasty and the diagrams are plenty good enough.

I don't think it is a majority, and I don't think the diagrams are sufficient, in fact I think some of them are creepy, and I don't think the pic is the least bit 'nasty'. Why do you think it is 'nasty'? Anchoress 07:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the picture is fine. Not nasty in the least. Atom 10:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, I can't believe you guys think that looking at the naked human body is ok in any way. We obviously need some kind of camp where we could concentrate you dangerous dissidents! (ps If the two above users get angry at me their sarcasm detector is broken, the rest of you are completely insane. The article is about vaginas, you put pictures of the Washington Monument in the articles about it, so why not a picture of a vagina. Seriously guys, it won't bite you...) ~~Anymouse

I agree aesthetically with Wrath of Hell. That's ...eh... not a pretty pic. There are prettier close-up pics of vaginae.--Loodog 04:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The labium page has nicer pics.--Loodog 14:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And of course pretty pics are what it's all about, right? The labia pics are really nice, but they're pictures of labia. It's frankly tough to get a pic of a woman's genitals that emphasises the vagina (which is the topic of this article) without being less aesthetic than pics that would be suitable to illustrate the vulva, mons, labia or clitoral hood. IMO a picture of a woman's groin in the vein of the labia pics (or the other pic we used to have, of the trimmed bush and not much else) with an arrow pointing in the general direction of where her vagina would be if she had her legs and labia spread, is no better than a picture of a barbie doll with an arrow pointing to where the vagina would be if she had one. Anchoress 15:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Size does matter

The size of the article, anyway. This is barely longer than a stub! It seems to be a great inequality when compared to Penis. Anyone else interested in expanding this article? romarin [talk ] 03:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I ditto the above, and will look at both articles in more detail when I get the chance. --Lenoxus 23:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's get this straight the penis and the vagina are two seperate topics. It seems sort of discrimative to say oh the penis page has more on it so let's get the vagina page up to par. The pages serve their purpose to educate what is needed to know about the topic. Same goes for the photographs. While you all are at it go ahead and compare the vagina and World War 2 pages? Just my 2 cents. --Lostcauses

Functions Pic

The picture of a vulva in "Functions of the vagina" section doesn't even point where the vagina is (it's not visible either). It's just like if in the article for "car engine" there was a picture of the outside of a car with arrows pointing out where the wheels and the doors are. Any good reason for keeping that photo?--Cloviz 01:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC) DONE--Cloviz 17:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gaping vagina

That black and white picture of the unshaven vagina is kinda gross...Can anyone find a nicer one? haha

Idiot 85.235.228.223 19:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! Why is it that the article for "penis" contains a large number of penile photographs in various 'states', while this article on vaginas fails to show even one realistic photograph? Why the discrepancy?

JB 12.34.56.78 15:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is really simple. There are endless men who take photographs of their penis and offer it for Wikipedia. (And to whomever shows the least bit of interest). Women who have advertised on singles site are flooded with penis pictures from men who don't even bother to read their ads. If a half dozen women were to upload their pictures to the Wikimedia commons site, I would put one or more of them on this web site. Look at the breast web site, there are numerous photographs there. Atom 11:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for information on women with double vaginas, not finding it here I followed the link to the Vagina Institute - I'm not sure it should have a link here. Its content seems to be mostly restricted to subscribers and otherwise there is a strong sense it is pushing the idea of plastic surgery of the vulva and so on. Encouraging anxiety about the look of the vagina. I thought it inappropriate, and wanted to know if others agree.203.26.16.67 12:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Annabelle[reply]

I completely agree with what Annabelle said.

g-spot

I have to take issue with 69.44.30.4's addition. Anyone who disbelieves in the existence of the g-spot has never, errm, well, you know, found it?--24.35.78.57 00:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Apparently none of these "scholars" have ever actually touched a woman. --Peter Farago 22:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures, diagrams

I'm all for good photographs in the name of education, however all the diagrams/photos except the one in the infobox show at best the vaginal opening. For the outer female sexual organ I'd rather advise people to look up vulva, which is the correct designation to this part of the anatomy. Using the word 'vagina' to describe the vulva seems to be a common misconseption, and to be strictly encyclopedic, we want to make this difference completely clear. --GSchjetne 23:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I also think the schematic is really creepy and the photo of the labia/mons/clitoral hood is of questionable relevance. Anchoress 08:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uretha

Sorry I am young but can a mans penis go in a uretha?

They look to be in the same spot

No. Look again at the picture, the two are clearly in different locations. Second, the urethra in women is about the same diameter as the urethra in men. The vagina, while normally about as open as a collapse balloon can expand and stretch to accomodate an erect penis. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. The uretha is the hole from which the urine comes. As UtherSRG said, there is not enough space.Jchillerup 19:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Female Ejaculation

Regarding the phrase "the disputed female ejaculation": "the disputed" should be removed. What's to dispute? Some women have them; many don't. Not having been with such a woman is not grounds to dispute that such women or such phenomena exist. Would an article on "headaches" refer to "the disputed headache" because some people get them and some don't, or because the author has never had a headache? How about "the disputed heart attack"? Some people don't get heart attacks, either. I think the point is clear.

Some women, reclining, have ejaculated a good foot or more, in an arc about to their knees, as a man might, or, when on top, practically flood their partner's belly. For those such as the British Board of Film Classification who confuse this with urinating (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_ejaculation), the solution is to inhale it deeply or taste it. It's full of pheromones, quite arousing, and smells nothing like urine, the smell or taste of which would be offensive to non-urolagniacs.

Posted as a personal witness to both experiences. I'll wait the required four days and then attempt the edit--Unimaginative Username 08:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC).--````[reply]

I think removing "the disputed" would be reasonable, though not for the reasons you give. Your own experience, and the potential experience of anyone who follows your suggestion, would count as original research. Rather, "the disputed" should be removed because there isn't any serious doubt among experts about whether the phenomenon exists. (At least, not as far as I'm aware... if I'm wrong and there are more than a fringe few experts who dispute the existence of female ejaculation, then "the disputed" [or some clearer rewording] should stay for the sake of WP:NPOV.) --Allen 06:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. This was my very first contribution to Wikipedia; there are many, many pages of guidelines yet to be assimilated, and I was just trying to prevent someone from claiming that my comment was based on watching a pornographic movie, where, as noted, special effects tricks can simulate such things. It's not as though I claimed to have seen a UFO. (I confess to my previous being colored by some irritation that there is alleged to be "dispute" over something I have personally witnessed. My mistake.)

How about this: The Wikipedia article on female ejaculation makes it clear that this event has been recognized by many authorities since the time of Aristotle, and the only questions presented by modern medical science seem to be the exact nature of the fluid, its source, and the mechanism of its expulsion. A Film Board is not a medical authority, and most denials of this event seem associated with those who are deniers of, or hostile to, female sexuality in general. (I don't have time to research and cite those deniers now. Perhaps someone else will.) I agree with you in placing the burden of proof on the author of the present wording to cite knowledgeable authority that disputes this phenomenon; presently, there are no sources cited for the claim that female ejaculation is "disputed".

If the relating of a personal experience is offensive, I'll be happy to remove it.--Unimaginative Username 08:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, then! Don't worry at all about your original post; I don't think anyone here will find it offensive (we have a pretty high threshold for TMI around here). And in my opinion your revised reasoning is right on target. --Allen 13:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


TAKE THE PICTURE OFF

This is pornography. Take it off this page.

Xchanter 02:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Xchanter[reply]