Talk:Clitoral hood

message: Is it or is it not homologous to the male foreskin? The info here and on clit are saying two different things?--Sonjaaa 13:38, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
:It is homologous as far as I can tell. It's clearly the genetic equivalent since the clitoris is the glans penis equivalent. I'll change it. There are many Google references and though I couldn't find a direct link to a  scientific authority, cirp.org cites: Cold CJ, Taylor JR. The prepuce. Br J Urol  1999;83 Suppl 1:34-44. Rls 01:18, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)
::Clitoral and penile prepuces are equivalent. You might find this image helpful: http://www.the-clitoris.com/1r4/netter/net1.jpg Rafał Pocztarski 04:40, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The clitoral GLANS is the equivolent of the penile glans- not the WHOLE clitoris. The clitoral glans is only the tip of the clitoral iceberg. Gringo300 08:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Homologous?

message: One thing I'm curious about is: Are there muscles in and/or attached to the clitoral hood? I've replaced my ISP number with my user name below. Gringo300 11:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Muscles?

message: The article needs to include info on the nerves and blood vessels of the clitoral hood. I'm still having logging in technical difficulties (see above). Gringo300 14:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Nerves and blood vessels

message: According to what I've heard, the clitoral hood has inner and outer layers, somewhat like the male foreskin. The article needs info on this. Gringo300 09:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inner and outer layers?

message: :Female genital cutting is now widely discouraged and in some regions of the world it is illegal, but the removal of the prepuce is still practised in some rural areas because it is thought to inhibit sexual arousal thus keeping women "more pure" according to them.
Who are "them"? The women who get their genitals mutilated? Or the males who set the rules in their society? And is it practiced only in "rural areas"? 4.243.149.218 21:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Poor grammar

message: Is the clitoral hood what's termed a "cutaneous fold"? If so, it needs to be mentioned in the article. And an article on cutaneous folds needs to be started. Gringo300 05:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cutaneous fold?

message: In the sentence that read: "Though much less common, other women opt to have their own hood or that of their daughters surgically trimmed or removed so as to permanently expose part or all of the clitoral head." I removed "or that of their daughters."  Female genital cutting (of children) was already discussed a couple sentences above.  
I also removed the sentence "Such a procedure is akin to male circumcision and is sometimes known as female circumcision, a term that is often confused with the practice of female genital cutting which usually removes extensive amounts of tissue, including the entire exposed part of the clitoris body."  But cutting off the clitoral hood *is* female genital cutting, and in the FGC article it says just that.  It's categorized as "Type Ia" by the WHO.  Also, all forms of (non-therapeutic) cutting of female genitals is illegal in the United States and most Western countries - even genital pricking.  Saying that cutting a girl's clitoral hood is not FGC is a fringe POV and certainly shouldn't be asserted as fact by Wikipedia. -Helvetica (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed text from "modifications" section 

message: Does it bother anyone else that the photograph used shows a hairless vagina? I don't think it's necessary in order to illustrate the anatomy of the clitoris. Further, it could be confusing (perhaps even coercive) to young women who are going through puberty. Wikipedia is a place to get unbiased information.  It shouldn't be a place where cultural trends are presented as totally natural. 173.3.173.186 (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2013‎ (UTC)
:Since an image of a shaved vulva can better show parts of the vulva, I don't mind the image. I understand why some people, such as yourself, would mind it for the reasons you mentioned, however. The post-pubescent vulva naturally having hair is the reason that we include images of vulvas with hair and images of vulvas without hair in the Vulva article. Wikipedia is not trying to be biased with any of these images; we are trying to educate with them and we can only use images that have been provided freely to us, per WP:Non-free; most such images come from Wikipedia:Commons. If there is an image of a vulva with hair that demonstrates the clitoral hood as effectively as the image of a vulva without hair, I don't mind it being added. But keep in mind that wanting an image of a hairless vulva traded out for an image of a vulva with hair can be argued as biased and taking a side as well. Including images of both types of vulvas would satisfy both sides, but, with the size of this article (still relatively small), including images of both types could be considered unnecessary clutter. In the meantime, I added to the text that the vulva is shaven. 
:And remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. I signed your username for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 02:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photograph used 

message: Should this article link to articles on Foreskin and on Male Circumcision ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 10:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It already links to the Foreskin article in the lead; of course such a mention should be in this article...considering that the clitoral hood and foreskin are homologous. I don't care if circumcision is linked in the See also section. See WP:SEE ALSO for what is appropriate to include in the See also section. Flyer22 (talk) 11:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  link ? 

message: this article would benefit from some discussion of clitoral adhesions. These are caused by buildup of smegma and can lead to pain and issues with sexual dysfunction. I can provide sources but frankly I'm lazy and expect anything I write to be reverted anyway.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessicapin (talk • contribs) 01:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: clitoral adhesions

message: Hey, the proximal clitoral hood is clitoral shaft skin and is homologous to penile shaft skin. Only the distal clitoral hood, which retracts, is homologous to the foreskin. This is pretty basic. Why/how would the skin covering the cavernosa of the clitoris derive from different anatomy than the skin covering the cavernosa of the penis? I'm guessing if I provide a source confirming this homology, Flyer22 will just delete my edit because other sources only mention homology with the foreskin. Many people conceptualize the hood as only the retractable portion. This is dangerous and leads to miscommunication of risks and damaging clitoral innervation in clitoral hood reductions. 
But who cares about clitorises getting denervated thanks to physician ignorance? Flyer22 obviously doesn't. She couldn't care less about factual accuracy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessicapin (talk • contribs) 02:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proximal clitoral hood is homologous to shaft skin 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: Specifically in the section modifications, there is the following text "During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, FGM was performed on many children in Western countries, including the United States, to discourage masturbation and reduce diseases believed to relate to it", which is the only mention on this page of a specific region where FGM has occurred. In contrast, on the page Female genital mutilation the following is stated "The practice is found in some countries of Africa, Asia and the Middle East, and within their respective diasporas".
The the page Female genital mutilation seems to suggest it is historically most prevalent in "Africa, Asia and the Middle East" while this page specifically mentioned only "Western countries, including the United States". Why are these two pages so different about this? Wallby (talk) 11:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  There seems to be a significant difference between information here and elsewhere