Talk:Vagina/Archive 1

message: 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
Why a picture of a vagina? That legal. I'm deeply saddened and offended and horrified. 
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: List of vulgar words

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Image removal 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: * I personally agree. Unfortunately this seems to be against Wikipedia policy. —gorgan_almighty 15:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  why only human? 

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 
:Why? The clitoris isn't part of the vagina. Marnanel 03:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  clitoris pretty much not mentioned once? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Functions Pic 

message: : Idiot 85.235.228.223 19:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: JB 12.34.56.78 15:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gaping vagina

message: 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)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree. Apparently none of these "scholars" have ever actually touched a woman. --April Arcus 22:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  g-spot 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Pictures, diagrams 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Xchanter, please do not make demands of other users. I see nothing inappropriate about this discussion. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uretha 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Female Ejaculation 

message: This is pornography.  Take it off this page.
Xchanter 02:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not. Pornography is media that exists solely to induce sexual arousal. Since (if you look at the numerous posts above) most people consider the picture ugly, it isn't arousing anyone. Anchoress 02:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: [edit conflict] Wikipedia works by consensus, and consensus seems to be that wikipedia is not censored and that photographs of human genitalia are not necessarily pornography.  Please look over the earlier discussions on this talk page about the photograph, and then please restate your opinion as an opinion, rather than as a demand.  It would help to include your opinion about what steps should be taken to fix the problem that you see.  For example, do you feel there should be no photographs on this page?  Or that there should be a different photograph on this page?  --Allen 02:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pornography is determined by context.  Take, for example, National Geographic, or the movie Kinsey, both of which pass United States censors.  We're having a similar attempt at censorship on the penis page. --Loodog 03:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Pornography is almost entirely a matter of opinion. Pictures of vaginaa on a page about vaginas is entirely appropriate. Trollderella 05:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TAKE THE PICTURE OFF 

message: This article seriously shows the wikipedian male pov. Compare the length of this tiny article to penis
:Penis is compensating.--Loodog 00:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparing to [[penis]]