Talk:Vagina

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?

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.

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

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

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)

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?

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)

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

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)

• I'm going to agree with Craig on this one. The vag1.jpg image is poorly labeled and unclear visually. Even if the alignment of the labels was adjusted, the anatomical parts just aren't easily seen. Joyous (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• 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)

Disclaimer warning people about photographic images

There is currently a very active debate on talk:clitoris about this. Rather than do it again here would people who are interested please comment there. There is also a vote going on that you might like to put your name too. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 14:02, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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)