Talk:Labia elongation

message: Confused
Article seems a little confusing to me. On one hand it asserts labia elongation increases sexual pleasure for both parties, but then on the other it says it has no effect on promiscuity. Wouldn't you have sex more if it felt better? I know I'm less interested in sex when the situation requires condom use, personally, for example. It just doesn't feel as good. Well, whatever.
Next it has strong assertions re not affecting HIV transmission, but it seems common sense to me that it would. Circumcision of the penis reduces HIV transmission to males by reducing the amount of HIV infection susceptible inner mucosa of the foreskin. The process in this article basically does the opposite of circumcision. It increases the amount of moist tissue rather than decreasing it. 
Comments about HIV rates and elongation rates in the general population are meaningless because too many other factors are changing at the same time. Circumcision rates in the US are going down while HIV infection rates are going up for example, despite studies proving circumcision decreases HIV transmission. You'd have to do a study that controls the other factors to come to a scientific conclusion either way for elongation. Sure increasing HIV susceptibility is a bad thing, but that doesn't mean you can just wave your hands and claim there is no possible way elongation doesn't do it.
67.189.185.11 (talk) 02:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The claimed link between circumcision and a reduction in HIV infection is tenuous at best.  There's no demonstrable causative link between reduced circumcision rates and increased HIV rates.  Some might say too many other factors are changing at the same time.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.234.204.166 (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

message: I checked out the references and one was a blog that's no longer functional and the other is an article to which the author is clearly reacting.  Neither of the references support any of the claims in the body of the article.  And neither have to do with Zimbabwe.  While I do not doubt that their author's statements are true of his/her own experiences, it doesn't seem like the topic requires its own article as written.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninjasinloaf (talk • contribs) 04:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reactionary Article 

message: I grew up in the western part of Zimbabwe and was interested to note that the article describes the practice almost as we, as girls used to do it. I have worked in the sex industry and have never met a man who is bothered or even knowledgeable about the practice. http://instantmoyo.blogspot.com. I also aknow a lot of women who carry on the practice into adulthood.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Instantmoyo (talk • contribs) 08:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting.  

message: I removed a large portion of the article just now, with this edit. Sorry, but it really was blatant original research, and I couldn't see it'd ever be possible to make it appropriately verifiable and neutral.  Chzz  ►  20:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed a whole heap of stuff 

message: This was nominated for a merger with labia stretching in 2010 by Munci but does not appear to have been discussed. This article's been around since 2006, and even this talk page since 2007. Conversely the 'stretching' article didn't show up until 2008. I think we risk losing content by merging these haphazardly.
Whether to choose 'elongation' (the intended result) or 'stretching' (the process) for a page title is something worth discussing. There are purposes besides longterm intentional elongation for which stretching could be done. One of those things could be to inflict pain, for example, when done too much. Like the difference between microtrauma causing healthy hypertrophy and macrotrauma causing muscular tears.
For that reason I think 'elongation' may be preferable since it focuses on this specific cultural intention for regulated stretching. If we are going to merge anything, it should be the contents of the newer 'stretching' article into this 'elongation' article, based on the phrasing, I think. Ranze (talk) 06:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think merging to Labia elongation makes most sense. There should definitely be only one article. Jamesx12345 (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

text: There was no important content lost by merging/redirecting, and there obviously should not be two Wikipedia articles on the same topic. I don't mind either title. But we should go by a title that satisfies Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Naming conventions. Note: I've alerted WP:MED to this discussion.. Flyer22 (talk) 12:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I also alerted WP:ANATOMY to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 12:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the articles should be merged. I do however have no particular preferences towards the name. JakobSteenberg (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The articles were finally merged, by NickPenguin; see here and here. Glad that he did it, because, like I stated, there should not have been any WP:Content forking on this matter to begin with. I was going to re-post about this matter at WP:MED, but kept putting it off. So thanks again to NickPenguin. Flyer22 (talk) 01:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger discussion