File talk:Human anatomy.jpg

I know it says don't use this to request corrections to the image, but I don't know where else to do it.

The singular of "calves" is "calf"; the image says "calve". Although I could probably change it myself, I'd rather leave it to Wikipedia experts.

Thanks.

She's not sporting "naturally distributed hair"

I am NOT joking: since the woman depicted here gone Brazilian, she's not sporting a naturally distributed pubic hair... any problem here? --Δ Mr. Nighttime Δ (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Callypenny (talk) 02:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Callypenny

Problem solved.--Lamilli (talk) 10:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Female in standard position as well

what is in the way of getting a picture of a female in standard anatomical position as well. In the current picture the woman's knees are bent and that shifts her spine and it just doesn't represent it correctly

andyzweb (talk) 06:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree here, I was immediately thrown off by the apparent pose of the female in comparison to the neutral male. The latter is probably more scientific. 24.63.133.224 (talk) 03:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. --201.86.220.180 (talk) 03:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's kind of silly (not to mention inconsistent) that the female model takes on the 'model' pose while the male doesn't. There is an advantage in that her pose shows the backs of the hands; but any model could just as well stand like the male one but rotate one wrist 180°. Interestingly, in another of their inconsistencies, these models seem to succeed in avoiding what I'll call 'eye sexiness': men generally are more attracted sexually to photos of women looking into the camera lens than of women looking away, while the opposite is true when women are evaluating photos of men. — President Lethe (talk) 08:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Why no body hair?

It's ridiculous and rather pathetic that neither of these models have any body hair. All Humans have hair on their pubic regions and underarm area. As a result of this omission the picture is a reflection of cultural values, not a depiction of Human anatomy, and should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.183.0 (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Quite true. --Garrythefish (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I second this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.42.70.212 (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, their skin lacks the normal pigmentation found in most humans. These two individuals appear to be presenting the "white" phenotype. Since less than 20% of the animals of this species display this phenotype, I would suggest that a more representative photograph be found. --64.81.96.198 (talk) 04:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The suggestion for "normal pigmentation" is absurd. What's the average human? Do we look for the mean, median, or the mode? Perhaps we should have an African, because they were the first "of this species," a Han Chinese, because they are the most common, or an English person, since this is the English version of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.132.192 (talk) 03:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It's possibly that both models lack body hair, except for scalp, to give a clear view of anatomical features. Hair can obscure certain anatomical features, such as genitals, and mask muscul contour. Also, I don't know of any particular culture with customs that require or suggest hair removal to the extent depicted here, for both sexes. Further, my guess is that the models were simply those available to the photographer, regardless of skin tone. Tonerman (talk) 05:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This picture should have a caption saying that body hair and presumably the man's facial hair have been removed so that non-hair features can be seen more easily. It also would be good if we had pictures showing people with untrimmed hair in the normal places (leg, armpits, crotch, chest, face, scalp, &c.) and with some indication that men's and women's scalp hair can grow to the same lengths and that individual differences are attributable mainly to genes and/or culture. Then comes the race: I suppose the light skin makes it mildly easier to make out some features, and I don't think we must constantly seek out non-white models for 'inclusiveness' all over the place; but, at the same time, in the context of world 'politics', failures at inclusiveness reek of subconscious or intentional exclusiveness; plus, for reasons cultural or otherwise, people with this tone of skin are by far a minority on Earth in 2010 and are pretty near to one extreme of the range of human coloring. Then again, no matter what race(s) is/are used, surely someone's going to feel left out. Still, some obvious notes in the caption about the hair and pigment 'anomalies' are in order. — President Lethe (talk) 08:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Men have breasts, too

Not sure why the "breasts" label points only to the woman. Men have (generally smaller) breasts, get breast cancer (1% of all cases), etc. The label should point to both models. -- Scray (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Women have armpits and shoulders, too, the last time I checked. It seems clear that the labels are not intended to flag every feature on both models. 66.234.36.73 (talk) 05:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

True, but every label down the center points to both models except for "breasts", so that the lack of a pointer to the male is obvious and could easily be interpreted as meaningful. Add to that the common misperception that men don't develop breast cancer etc, and this is a substantive issue. -- Scray (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You're right. ... Well, anybody with appropriate software is free to improve the image. — President Lethe (talk) 08:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)