Talk:Vagina

Pubic hair

Set aside the aesthetics. I think that a picture without hair, hence shaven, is not appropriate: this is not what it looks naturally like. At least the description should mention this particularity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hehiheho (talk • contribs) 22:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It may be for clarity's sake in labeling the parts of the vagina. However I do agree that there should be some amount of hair, representing an average vagina. Obviously a vagina whose hair hinders the view of certain labeled parts should not be used. --72.88.89.243 (talk) 00:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The close up of a vagina.

Resolved

 – Image replaced with diagram.

it actually hurts looking at that picture. can we get a better one lol.

Why would you replace a photograph with a diagram? Surely a photograph is more illustrative? BodvarBjarki (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Holy shit! That is a fucking disturbing picture. Is this an educatonal website or Swank magazine? Remember, kids also frequent this site for research. How about something a little less...hmmm, I don't know...DISGUSTING. There's no other article on Wikipedia with an image so graphic. Someone please repalace this.

Agreed - not only is is vulgar, I would be very concerned about the age of the model —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.160.103 (talk) 02:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I find it ironic that someone complains about a picture possibly offending kids, yet lets loose with a lot of swearing. 210.246.51.185 (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

(btw, is it true that there's a scratch 'n sniff app for the iPhone? Because if there is....) --Jack Meihoffer (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No. Read the "censor" notice at the top of the page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

If you visit a page about a Vagina what do you expect to see? Earth_Worm_Eater (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it will scar a child for life if he or she sees a picture of a vagina in article about vaginas. God forbid a kid learn some basic anatomy.70.30.138.36 (talk) 08:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Its better to see the real picture for understanding... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.75.89 (talk) 20:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyright infringement?

Resolved

 – Image replaced with diagram.

173.7.222.30 (talk) 03:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC) scarily enough, I recognize that image. It's been ripped from a porn site -- the model used tha name "alice" on the site. I actually have an unlabeled copy of that image on my HD. LOL. Don't want to be accused of spamming so I shall not name the site. Simply labelling the parts on it does not do away with the copyright of the orignal image. It needs to be yanked from the wikimedia commons.

you know this how? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.46.27 (talk) 05:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, from looking at explicit images on the Internet, like a zillion other people. Get over it. Wikipedia isn't a place to be condemnatorily prudish, and identifying a copyvio is good, regardless how the identification is made. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

What does the fact that you saw an image on a porn sight have to do with anything? The only way your comment makes sense to me is to presume you believe the fact that you've seen the picture previously on some other site means it can't be used here, and I don't get why you've presumed that. How does the image and the use of the image become at all altered by way of the fact that its on another site besides wikipedia?--Δζ (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Can somebody explain to me

... why this article has exactly one photograph of a shaven vagina, while the penis article has three unshaven photographs? Shaving is by no means the norm for women across the world, especially outside of Western countries.--71.36.41.69 (talk) 00:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read this before you make statements like that. Aar☢n Bruce^Talk/_Contribs 06:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all that section cites no sources, but second of all I think showing a natural vagina should be shown. I always think about it this way; if someone who has never seen a naked woman or a human being would come to Wikipedia, they should be able to see a picture which shows how women are naturally, and then a picture of a shaven vagina should be included maybe with the caption "in the late 20th century, shaving gained popularity in the Western world". But shaving is just a fad like everything else, shaving wasn't popular in the 60's and 70's and it'll stop being popular one day. The first picture in the "human" includes a naked man and a woman. Wikipedia is supposed to educate, so a even if 99% of people in the world would get a navel piercing, the picture at navel should still feature a natural one as the main picture, and then include a picture of a navel piercing somewhere else in the page. --BiT (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Two problems, AB. As BiT says, that section has no citations, and in my own personal experience (which, I'm sure you'll agree, is just as valid as an uncited Wikipedia article), women from the Middle East and Eastern Europe are quite a bit hairer than Americans. Even if it IS the norm in those areas, that's still hardly the whole world. Most of the world's population is in East/South Asia, and I know for a fact that genital depilating is not the norm there. Maybe this is all moot, anyway. It seems that somebody has removed every vagina photograph in the article.--71.37.2.38 (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

White Americans and East Europeans (and likewise West Europeans)have natural bodily affinities: why should east-Europe women be as a rule different (hairier) than other europoids? The Cold War did not intervene in genetics... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.18.7.44 (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed the thing labeling this issue as resolved, since the diagram is no longer there. I think having a photograph of a shaved vagina makes sense, since hair would obscure the vulva. On the other hand, it would also make sense to show female genitalia in its natural state. Perhaps there should at least be an unshaven picture on the mons pubis article? There doesn't seem to be a good one in the commons, but I might be able to supply one, if needed. Ketsuekigata (talk) 00:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I do think the article would benefit from the addition of a photograph illustrating female genitalia with natural pubic hair. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 21:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Since the early days of Islam, Muslim women and men have followed a tradition to "pluck the armpit hairs and shave the pubic hairs". This is a preferred practice rather than an obligation, and could be carried out by shaving, waxing, cutting, clipping or any other method. This is a regular practice that is considered in some more devout Muslim cultures as a form of worship, not a shameful practice, while in other less devout regions it is a practice for the purpose of good hygiene. (See Islamic hygienical jurisprudence.) The reasons behind removing this hair could also be applied to the hair on the scrotum and around the anus, because the purpose is to be completely clean and pure and keep away from anything that may cause dirt and impurities. (Taken from the Vulva article. Stop saying only westerners shave their recreation area...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.54.116.10 (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Pornography and images that have qualities of pornographic images.

The discussions on the talk page are very cyclical- someone posts a pic, people agree its good, then someone objects to it on the grounds that "wikipedia is not pornography" or "the picture is too porno". Could someone educate me as to the relevance of an image being pornographic in nature and the way in which we can identify such pornographic pics? (this assumes the allegations are demonstrably correct for the sake of argument. In practice, the 'Porno-caller"s seem to be unable to offer any argument that the images have a pornographic quality to them.)

It seems to me that the no censorship policy bars consideration of the people's "that's porno" arguments/explanations. How could it not? It is an explicitly value-based judgement as to the suitability of an image based on no criteria shown relevant to the merits of the image's use.

It seems to me that the only valid reason to remove an image would be that the article is better without it. The fact that you allege an image to have pornographic qualities, without more, would seem never to satisfy this requirement.

Isn't it always inappropriate to remove an image on the sole basis of it being porno-like? Shouldn't the numerous comments/actions seeking censorship on the basis of porno-ness be invalid where no effort to tie the pornoness of the image to any improvement of the article is made?

Thanks for any feedback. Numerous examples of the refered to "porno claims" are present on this page of the talk page, and none of them have cited any relevant policy nor offered any argument showing how the article would be improved by the removal of the images--Δζ (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I"m relatively new to this discussion, but have followed it a bit over the past few months. Unfortunately, pornography is *extremely* subjective; for example, one person may find a nude painting or an anatomical diagram pornographic, but to an artist or a doctor they're just diagrams. One often-quoted saying is "I know it when I see it", which came up in a US court ruling about obscenity in film (Jacobellis v. Ohio). For the average person, this is a good rule of thumb; you can look at a picture of a nude individual or a body part and be able to guess fairly well what the intended audience is.

I think Wikipedia should give well-intentioned users the benefit of the doubt when it comes to pictures; an editor shouldn't immediately assume that an uploaded picture is pornography unless there is an obvious pornographic slant to the photo (e.g. the presence of a sex toy in a photo of a vagina is probably pornography) . The only problem I have with your argument that pornography shouldn't be removed is that Wikipedia could become a repository for pornographic images that really don't add to the articles. Generally, the editors on this talk page are pretty good at reminding over-eager photo-removers that Wikipedia is not censored, and the photos that are on the page right now do an adequate job of depicting the subject matter IMHO. Jhfortier (talk) 06:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is an editorial judgment over here. While Commons and Wikipedia may deposit images, that could be considered pornographic, the main issue is the proper selection of useful and pleasant images. There are options to not see an image, so if someone does not want something, then it's up to him/her. Brand[t] 11:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this whole controversy is silly. If you go to a page about a penis, you're there to learn about a penis and one of the most instructive ways is to see a real life picture. Of course some people might be sexually aroused by it, but that is beside the point. Its impossible to separate the learning value from the potential for sexual stimulation, because the very subject is supposed to be stimulating to some degree (i.e. it is a built-in, biological response within all human beings to become sexually aroused by certain stimuli). People should just recognize this and get over it...I mean it would be understandable if there was a picture of an alluring stripper who is showing her vagina, which could distract from the learning value by making it even more sexually charged than it already is. But that isn't the case in any of these pictures, which are just basic photos of sexual organs. 24.150.156.219 (talk) 02:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

mammal vs. human

On the 'Penis' page there is a picture of a horse's penis demonstrating that these reproductive organs are found on animals in addition to humans. Yet, there is no such non-human picture on the vagina page. I suggest we post a comparable picture of the vagina of a horse or likewise animal. 72.255.57.103 (talk) 23:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

 Not done: I don't think anybody wants to see a horse vagina. Someone65 (talk) 08:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone might if they're a horse's ass! I know lots of people who fit that description. TechnoFaye Kane 07:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Vaginal Tightening

It is a very important topic related to vagina, amazingly there is no information about it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.136.0.189 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you looked at Vaginismus? I see there is no link from this article to that, and will put that right in a minute. --Nigelj (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

"Above the vagina is the Mons pubis"

This should be changed to: "Above the vagina is the urethra, and beyond that (outside the the labia minora but within the labia majora) is the clitoris. All of this comprises the vulva. From the front side of a person, the vulva is typically hidden by the pubic hair on the mons pubis."

"the hymen covers the opening of the vagina from birth until it is ruptured during sexual or non-sexual activity."

This can lead to some dangerous misconceptions. I suggest the change: "the hymen typically covers all or most of the opening of the vagina"

 Not done:This needs a source. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 22:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Extremely Inappropriate

so does that mean when I look up "gangbang" on here there will be photos??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.88.237.243 (talk) 02:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a poor excuse for posting pornography disguised as 'Sex education'.

A person can learn just as much with a simple drawing or diagram without having to resort to posting pornography in it's place.

Wikipedia has become a haven for Children who wish to look at the Female body and bypassing content filters that have been set in place.

If the editors wish to look at pornography there are certainly endless ways to find it on the Internet without having to resort to this kind of foolishness.

These pictures are extremely inappropriate and should be replaced immediately.

• In Response to the comment made below - Wikipedia is an open community that caters to all people, including children

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Johanntelemann (talk • contribs) 03:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

See WP:NOTCENSOR. Wikipedia is not written for children. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

More specifically: Wikipedia:Sexual content _noisy jinx ^huh? 03:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Can we have this conversation on one talk page? Either here or Talk:Clitoris. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Also, here's an extremely detailed drawing of the vagina. The source? Encyclopedia Brittanica. You know; the book? HalfShadow 03:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Really? Cut the bullshit about parts of the human body being pornography. You probably don't even care about kids learning about anatomy or looking at pornography, you probably are embarrassed by pictures of the human body. Let's be real here guys, we don't have to be such prudes as to say the human body is pornography. Are we that sexually repressed as a society? Besides, if a kid is looking at scientific close-ups of a vagina on wikipedia, he's probably not going to see a real vagina for a long time, so he should at least have a good idea of what one looks like O.o

More pictures please??

Do anyone here mind if someone can take some more photos of a vagina, no matter if it is shaved or not here?

Also, there is only just 1 vagina photo here, and it is "opened". Can the photo be non-opened? Is this more natual? (just like http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/Female_abdomen_frontal_view.jpg this one)

Even the topic penis has got more than 4 real penis photo, both circumcised and not. So i think it should also applied here. thx!

Although you may think this is a platform for all kids who want sex photos to come, but though wiki, i think, is a dictionary. It should teaches us all the things, including sex. Just with one photo, can we learn?(talk) 07:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you might be confusing vagina with vulva. This is mentioned in both articles. --Nigelj (talk) 12:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Do a google image search for vagina, you'll learn everything you need to know. There's definitely no shortage of images on the web. raseaC^{talk to me} 19:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

hi ther —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.120.191.231 (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No black vagoina?

Isn't that racism? We do have a black first lady! Get with the program, you bunch of backwater hicks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.93.83.77 (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Excuse-me, what do you mean my "WE?" A reminder to all americans, you are NOT alone in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.29.224.2 (talk) 00:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep your shirt on--it was a natural slip-up by someone from the States on a site that is dominated by American users. Yes, lets try to avoid systemic bias but there's no need to make self righteous, self important jabs at someone's nationality. (And if you don't think other nations can be just as self absorbed as Americans at times, you're extremely naive or in denial).70.30.138.36 (talk) 07:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

This is an american based sight. If you don't like it start another website. No one here is under any obligation to be politically correct. If your feelings are that sensitive, leave! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.56.208.236 (talk) 01:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

How ironic is it that you cannot spell properly? This is the "English Language Wikipedia", it's not the "American Wikipeida". Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias for more info. You may also want to see WP:POLITE. --386-DX (talk) 00:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Why?

This is not an article about gorilla vulvas, it is about the science and beauty of the female human reproductive organs. Do not be so foolish as to suggest photographs of primates should be presented in this article. The organs of the ape/primate and the human may appear to be one in the same, but make no mistake they are vastly different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.114.129 (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

PORNOGRAPHIC

The photographs are pornographic thus extremely inappropriate for children. 117.98.111.92 (talk) 09:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:CENSOR. Wikipedia is not censored. The photographs used are for educational purposes because it is relevant to the topic. If the page was full of pictures of Vaginas and nothing else, then it would be inappropriate.Imperial Monarch (D•R) 09:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The only reason the photographs would be inappropriate is if they were just that, inappropriate. For an article about vaginas, pictures of vaginas are appropriate. If it was an article about soccer they would then be inappropriate. Children at school using Wikipedia for porn because it is not blocked is the school's and the parent's problem and responsibility. If they don't want their children using this article for porn then they should get better internet blockers, thus a picture of a vagina in an article about vaginas is appropriate, a child knowing what a vagina even is and surfing the web unmonitored is inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.114.129 (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

100% Agreed. Try searching for "vagina" on Google and see what comes up (If you would, try "vagina close-up" on Images and select "Big Images" for a clear example). Why would a child searching on Wikipedia not search the most commonly used search engine on the whole Internet for the very same word? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.29.224.2 (talk) 01:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Whooooooow

I'm not a prude or a vandal or anything but damn, that was shocking. I am an adult so i can only imagine what kids are thinking. *ponders* Someone65 (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You ARE a prude because the image of a female vagina is just that an image of an vagina,please do not fill in the blanks and empty your mental soil as to why pictures of vaginas are in this article. They are here to educate and enlighten there is no earthy reason why a child should not be educated properly about the reproductive systems of a human.

If you find an image of a vagina offensive I would advise you to discontinue your interaction with the outside world and live in abstract isolation.