Talk:Human anus

Shall there be multiple photos?

I have to say, an anus image would be totally appropriate. As things stand now, there isn't even a real picture of an anus. Not that I would enjoy seeing one of course (gross), but it would be appropriate. In fact, the anus should be shown in all its variety: male anus (very hairy), female anus (not too hairy), and the goatse image (yuck... in the section on "sexual" stuff of course) 65.34.186.143 08:57, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Judicious use of a few more photos would indeed be appropriate, since this is supposed to be an encyclopedic entry. The Goatse anus, however, is sufficiently outside the mainstream that including a photo here would be more inflammatory than informative. 70.177.90.39 20:23, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To better illustrate variety in anuses, I am including a photo of a hairy male anus. Eyeon 04:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The anuses are taking over! First we had just one, and we decided that on balance it was a tolerable shock and illustrated the article well... but then we got an ugly hairy arse in a low-res photo in which the anus itself cannot really be seen. I'm not sure that the consensus to allow the other photo also covers this one. — Chameleon 08:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Both images now shown are fine! Thanks for a simple solution Eyeon!. I do stand by my assertion that anatomical photos should not appear to derived from pornography but now agree with 70.177.90.39 that there is room for both 'anatomically correct' and other images types in other articles.195.92.67.75 08:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above comment I made has been pasted in from a separate discussion, "Shall we use a medical photo?". I'd like to remain neutral over this issue please. However, ugliness or hairiness shouldn't be an issue in deciding whether or not to remove one of the images. .195.92.67.75 22:26, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that male anus is particularly unpleasant to look at. Eyeon 07:10, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nor do I, but I don't find it particularly illustrative, either. The female image is an objectively better photo, and there is little enough difference between the two varieties that two images is redundant. Tverbeek 17:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wait, so I could get a picture of my own anus and put in on there? - Anon (read the update log to see)

Referendum on photo of female human anus

Pro-photo

70.177.90.39 09:34, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Djgranados 05:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Boothy443

Asbestos

Xezbeth

Inter

Chameleon 13:11, 30 May 2005 (UTC) (This does not mean that a gallery of anuses can be added. The copyright status also needs to be confirmed)

Karada

Noisy

Thejesterx

I find the current photo reasonable and not particularly offensive. Include it, or anotehr photo if this proves not to be GDFL free. DES 17:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Eyeon 00:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

195.92.67.75 08:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Harro5 - not an offensive photo. Wikipedia doesn't censor what should be told.

Tverbeek

Philosophistry 11:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC) Not being facetious, but unlike other exterior body parts, this is hard to see

Army1987 10:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC) Keep it, as long as nobody proves it to be copyrighted (i.e., finds an URL or a paper publication where an equal image can be found). I wouldn't object to adding a male anus picture, too.

Nick Fraser 15:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC) Definitely pro, the page could use a better quality image though.

--220.238.26.121 05:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

--Greasysteve13 11:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)(When I signed this only the female anus was there...--Greasysteve13 06:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC))

Can never see too many anus'. Log one on for me JayKeaton 19:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Adsims2001 08:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC): Gotta love the anus.

Joffeloff 15:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC): Censorship should be combatted as it is a yoke on the concept of free information.

Caleb 05:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Anti-photo

Jeeves

Nightlark

Fieari

211.128.87.101 01:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Marmot

Mike 23:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I am against the male anus. UGH

Derrill Highly inappropriate. Minors read encyclopedias don't they?

User:Havermayer REally fuggin' against!

Anti referendum

m:Don't vote on everything. It's obviously a useful picture so voting on it is superfluous and only gives scope for pointless grundyism. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Anti Tony Sidaway

Nobody who sets up his own category just so he can use the pompous phrase "give scope for pointless grundyism" deserves to live. 68.97.208.123 10:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Anti Anti

Does anyone really care much about Anti anything? These date back to mid 2005, I set up my anti anti campaign! JayKeaton 10:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Shall there be only medical photos?

As far as anus pictures so, that one isn't too bad. Anything bigger, dirtier, hairier, or more dilated would really be pushing things too far, but that one is just about tolerable, and illustrates the anus well. My one concern is that it is probably a copyvio. — Chameleon 23:44, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Is anyone in favour of replacing this photo with one taken from an anatomy/medical website? I suspect people aren't offended by the anus itself but by the sourcing of the photo from a pornographic image. I support the inclusion of a photo but would prefer that the photo was one taken for eduational purposes with the consent of the individual providing the anus. Appearance (eg. hair etc.) shouldn't matter as long as the relevant anatomy is visible and the image is a fair representation of what anatomists/medical professionals consider 'normal'.--195.92.67.68 20:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, let's first see the proposed alternative and then decide. — Chameleon 21:18, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

The current photo shows a completely normal anus and it is without copyright issues. Substituting a different image is unlikely to placate those who have been deleting it. 70.177.90.39 18:17, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The purpose of substituting a different photo wouldn't be to placate anyone. Any anatomy textbook or other reference work/encyclopedia wouldn't feature the current photo. Anatomists generally follow an international standardised system of representing parts of the body for ease of comparison etc. All other educational media also follow this method. The perineum is usually shown from below with the thighs abducted; deviations from this are reserved for highlighting 'abnormalities'. Although the article covers more than just anatomy I see no reason why Wikipedia should use different criteria. Secondly, an educational photo of any part of the body should probably not be sourced from pornography and certainly not without the consent of the individual.--195.92.67.67 00:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is no 'international standard' for anatomy photography. If there were, none of the articles in Wikipedia currently conform. Nor should they. Wikipedia is not an anatomy textbook and should not strive to be. In addition, there is no evidence that the photo was sourced improperly. 70.177.90.39 02:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you look at an anatomy textbook (Gray's Anatomy is the authority but Snell's/Grant's Atlas or indeed any other such book would be fine). Before we get to any specifics they all describe 'the anatomical position' which is the international standard whose existence you deny. Other articles on body parts feature illustrations or photos which use these criteria (eg.hand, penis, vagina, perineum). Regarding your second point, I fully agree that Wikipedia shouldn't strive to be an anatomy textbook, just as it shouldn't be a biology or chemistry textbook. However, an article cannot ignore the fundamentals of the subject it addresses. An article on, for example, carbon could ignore the periodic table and discuss only coal and diamond, but this would be far from ideal. The anatomical position is equally fundamental to anatomy and can't be ignored by any encyclopedia. Finally, the burden should be on us to prove that photos of intimate body parts are properly sourced. The absence of evidence to the contrary simply isn't enough, particularly where a photo appears to be derived from pornography.--195.92.67.209 21:39, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's funny. My copy of Gray's Anatomy doesn't have a single photograph in it. Which edition are you referring to? In reference to the sourcing of images, are you proposing that Wikipedia adopt a different standard for the documentation of an image if the subject is an intimate body part? 70.177.90.39 23:15, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gray's uses illustrations. Other textbooks use photos for surface anatomy. However, both photos and drawings conform to the same basic principles by which the body is represented in anatomy or any other reference work. These fundamental principles can't be ignored. To do so seriously damages the educational authority of the article. As for your second point the burden of proof rests on us for every image. Images which are obviously derived from a copyrighted source are removed. In this case the angle and position make it highly likely that it is cropped from a pornographic image, in which case we obviously don't have copyright. Copyright aside, for the benefit of the article it is best to have a photo which doesn't appear to be taken from pornography.--195.92.67.75 23:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Inclusion of a Gray's Anatomy illustration would benefit the article. This can be done without deleting the current photo. What fundamental principles of illustration does this photograph violate, can you cite your source for these principles, and should we remove all anatomy images that do not conform to these principles? 70.177.90.39 00:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have edited and rotated the image so that it is now 'shown from below with the thighs abducted.' Ta-da, it now 'conforms to fundamental principles'. If User:195.92.67.209 still complains, it will show that his argument, like Jeeves' arguments, was dishonest. Eyeon 02:33, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Both images now shown are fine! Thanks for a simple solution Eyeon!. I do stand by my assertion that anatomical photos should not appear to derived from pornography but now agree with 70.177.90.39 that there is room for both 'anatomically correct' and other image types in other articles.195.92.67.75 08:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While I like the image, perhaps for the wrong reasons, might I suggest that the photo be converted to a grayscale image. The excessive "pinkness" really does scream pornography. Making it black and white would certainly make it look more medical, at least. N^O^el 07:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Shall there be no reference to sexuality?

Newcomer to this dispute... I believe the photo issue is secondary to the fact that 90% to 100% of this article should be deleted. This article is superfluous and also ridiculously skewed toward the human species. Most animals have some form of anus. Few other species possess anuses resembling the human anus, and in the absence of humans, virtually none of their anuses serve in an erotic capacity. The anus in all its glory is sufficiently described elsewhere on Wikipedia (how many anal erotica articles do we have, again?) Quite frankly, this article should be stripped down to pointers to Freud, anal erotica, and the digestive system, or even deleted altogether. Otherwise, article should be renamed to "Butthole" to accurately reflect the assembled prurient interests driving it. 219.102.32.92 10:51, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The biodiversity argument was earlier exposed as a dishonest one, because those who bring it up here only complain about biodiversity when it comes to this specific orifice. Even if honestly offered, the biodiversity argument fails. The anus is remarkably similar across species. Teeth are different, noses are different...but the wrinkly little anus is almost ubiquitous. And your complaint that anuses don't play a role in animal sexuality, is demonstrably false.[1] In any case, the way to resolve a biodiversity problem is to add information, not to delete it. 70.177.90.39 17:34, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First, kindly do not assert dishonesty; unless you can prove intent, it is merely error. And you have not successfully proven error nor dishonesty. First, anuses are not remarkably similar across species, unless you suffer from a strong bias toward the mammal phylum. The anuses of the reptile, fish, insect, crustacean, amphibian, mollusk do not resemble the human anus in appearance (I could go on and on). Humans and mammals are greatly in the minority in the animal kingdom, if you weren't aware. Also, you offered a photo of same-sex animal mounting as proof of anal eroticism in animals, but this link mentioned nothing about anal penetration. That borders on dishonesty. Mounting is about mounting. You are making assumptions on animal sexuality based on your knowledge of human sexuality, and generally there is no penetration involved. Third, I affirm that most organ articles here violate the concept of "Wikipedia is not a dictionary". If I were to turn the selectivity argument around on you, I'd have to ask why you (or someone like you) aren't going around adding a sexual function clause to every such article. 219.102.32.92 22:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

An argument can suffer from dishonesty without intent, and to dismiss such an argument as 'mere error' would be a mistake. To say the argument is dishonest is not to say that one's position on the argument is wrong, it is to say that the argument itself is wrong. The biodiversity argument has indeed been exposed as dishonest.[2] 1) The way to resolve a biodiversity problem is to add information, not to delete it. 2) I should have cited a better article, but the pictures of dogs humping were just too funny. Animals do indeed penetrate when mounted; it has been observed in animals as diverse as rams and albatrosses. [3] 3) There is nothing inconsistent about my pro-photo views. I'm defending sexuality in only this anatomy article because the issue of sexuality is under attack in only this anatomy article. 70.177.90.39 03:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sexuality is important to this article and should stay. It should also be noted that the anus does play a role in the sexual behaviour of many animals. See "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" by Bruce Bagemihl--195.92.67.75 00:07, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is a disproportionate amount of detail in the "role in sexuality" section. It is one of the longest sections and the only one containing its own image, which implies that this section is the most important aspect of the anus (I think most would agree with me here). There should be no more detail than a 2-3 sentence paragraph. If the reader wishes more detail he can click on the "Anal sex" link that is already there. Another thing that could help the balance of this article is that the other sections be expanded and new sections added.

I'm not a person who is easily offended. In fact, I was rather amused and entertained while reading the section, and send the link to the picture to several of my friends who were also quite amused. However, amusement or offense should not be the impression of the 'majority' of people who read Wikipedia; urbandictionary.com (or other wiki-based site) is a better place for content like that. What’s at stake is reducing the level of credibility of Wikipedia such that it becomes just a big joke. In my opinion, this article does not meet the objective and balanced standard expected for Wikipedia articles and needs to be revised.207.171.180.101 04:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC) by Derrill D.

Shall there be disambiguation for ANUS.COM?

I removed this contribution from User:Iconoclast: "ANUS is an anagram of the American Nihilist Underground Society " Another US high-school graduate who doesn't know his anagram from his elbow, as the saying goes. Consequently, one wonders at the understanding of nihilism in this case: there is no connection with nihilism, for a start. ANUS also stands for Another Nitwit User Surfaces... --Wetman 06:55, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

They're a band of internet trolls; an older version of the GNAA. Today marks their infiltration of Wikipedia, it seems: Check out the contributions of the users listed here (with the exception of Phthoggos, of course). I've already caught one them vandalising (see [4]). They've been trying to add their anus.com links to as many articles as possible. It's sad, really. -- Hadal 06:59, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I disagree: First of all, the "Another Nitwit User Surfaces" shows that Wetman cannot be considered an unbiased source, so what he say has to be disgarded in the name of objectivity. Second of all, a user searching for the Nihilist group may type "anus" but not know how to find the group's page: so I believe a disambiguation page should be created. It happens with bands all the time: see Behemoth and look at the top where it has alternate pages linking to it. I've never claimed that it has links to Nihilism, but it has links to an organization that shares it's name. Now, if the Nihilist organization cannot be linked from ANUS, then all pages such as the ones on Behemoth must be deleted as well. --Iconoclast 19:40, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Iconoclast is quite right. A disambiguation page for ANUS.COM is in order. Eyeon 06:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Uh, no. →Raul654 23:52, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

As distasteful as ANUS.COM is, it is the top ranked page on Google when searching for anus. Eyeon 05:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nope. They used to have an article and it got VfDed. If we're not going to have an article on them, a disambiguation page doesn't make sense either. --W(t) 11:55, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

OK, fine. Eyeon 02:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I dont understand why is not an ANUS.COM redirection in order, and I do not know why was ANUS.COM's article deleted or how is it disgusting. I think their views are, if at some points badly defended by half-assed witt, very much deserving of a second thought on the whole matter. I found many of my own thoughts put into words in that website, if I might have thanked a little less.. let's call it "clicheism".--60.34.1.212 13:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a sex manual for perverts

This article has grown beyond the encyclopedic scope and into the realm of the prurient. Soon, I imagine, Wikipedia will be blocked in public access library net PCs.

[FYI, Wikipedia IS blocked by many libraries for that very reason. Plus, the software company I work for, who makes internet filtering hardware/software blocks in its default settings)

Soon, I imagine, I will ride a fairy unicorn to the land of candy sprinkles and Mommy will be there too. Eyeon 02:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Soon, I imagine, once the aromatic hydrocarbon inhalants wear off, you will actually think of something that is actually clever or amusing to say. 67.127.220.113

I agree. Wikipedia is not an instrument for the liberalisation of faggotry, which the male anus promotes. A female anus will suffice. MARMOT

Thank you for your contribution, Marmot. It was so stupid that anyone who agreed with you has run away and hid in embarrassment. The male anus has stood for a week without being removed. 68.97.208.123 04:14, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is the anus perverted? What, do you spray holy water and perfume on your anus every morning to hide your shame? Should everyone else be ashamed of anus because you are? Because muslim men think womans faces are shameful, should all western woman have to cover up in public too? Is that a fair trade? I mean they think it is offensive, you think this is offensve, let's all conform to you! - by, Point Maker

Image

How about we remove that image? I see there's been discussion about that before but I guess nothing has been done. Wikipedia's goal is to inform but not to shove things in people's faces that we may assume they don't want to see. Everyking 05:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Who comes to this page and does't want to see that? Its a clean and healthy female anus! ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 06:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I think I can safely say that a large majority of people who come to this page don't want to see that. We may be talking about a percentage in excess of 90 or 95%. Everyking 08:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I think your wrong. If their not interested in the subject, why would they come here? I don't get it. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 23:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Maybe they're twelve years old and doing a project on the excretory system in school. --EatAlbertaBeef 02:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

And you think that image would be a diservice to them in that regard? When I was a kid I used to look up naughty things, and was often impressed by the thorough coverage I found in books of reference. Why should we be any more censorous than a health textbook? ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 02:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I cannot believe you voluntarily ventured over to the "anus" page of Wikipedia and were offended when you actually saw a picture of it. Lighten up, geez. What did you expect to see when you came here? 66.36.141.32 22:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see the problem that so many people seem to have with including a photo on this page. There is nothing inherently obscene about any human body part. Nick Fraser 20:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing inherently obscene about anything. But cultures impose standards. Wikipedia is not going to benefit people by posting "gross-out" or potentially offensive images (although if they require a separate click from the article to access it, that's fine, because then the person is making a deliberate choice about it). Instead we will just turn them away. Nor is Wikipedia itself going to benefit. If people avoid us, or at least articles like this one, then we suffer. In some cases it isn't so clear cut. But here we can say with considerable certainty that a large majority of people will be offended/disgusted. We are saying: "If this explicit image bothers you, then you'll just have to go without the information." Everyking 04:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

It's simply not 'gross out' or 'offensive' - it's a human body part and of direct relevance to the page content - if you surf here you can hardly be surprised to find an image like that. Where's you evidence for saying that "with considerable certainty . . . a large majority of people will be offended/digusted"? Are you really saying "I am offended/disgusted" ? Nick Fraser 15:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Need non-copyrighted, preferably medical image

I don't entirely object to the display of a picture on this page. However, it is obvious that the one in this article was taken from a pornographic image, that was probably copyrighted. A good medical image would be much more suitable. A pornographic image is just plain prurient. Wikipedia should be held to the same high standards as any other encyclopedia, even if it can be edited by anyone with a computer. If you wouldn't see it in world book, why should it be here?

Because wp aspires to be more complete than World Book; and because sometimes it is better to have a less-good placeholder rather than nothing at all.

Seconded. I don't think a photograph is strictly necessary, but if one is to be included it ought to be a medical image, or at least one which can be guaranteed to be free. --Jonathan Drain [5] 12:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

arsehole

why does the picture in the article show a stretched anus. i see no need for a photo of someone shitting.

Nobody is shitting and it is not stretched. In fact, it strikes me as a reasonably tight and very pretty anus.

^LMAO that's disgusting

^_^ You guys ^_^

No one knows how to appreciate a pretty pink anusthese days.

Nutrality?

Got to this page via the requests for protection page. Why is the nutrality template up? Is it up because of the debate over the photo or something else? I don't find body parts offensive. But I do understand that some people do. Can't we just create a link to it, or do what some message boards do for spoilers and hide the image unless someone clicks something causing the image to reveal itself? Not sure if wiki allows for fancy html / script like that but it would be the ideal solution to me. Granite T. Rock 05:03, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Neutrality of the article would be an issue separate from inclusion of images. That I can see, there has not a neutrality dispute that is being discussed. The photo is reasonable, people should or ought to expect to find such a photo in an encyclopedia article on the subject. --Mysidia 05:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I was thinking the same thing about the image not being a Neutrality issue. I removed the tag. If there is a dispute, I have no problems with the tag going back up as long as the issue is clearly labeled on the talk page Granite T. Rock 05:18, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Lara Flynn Boyle/Ashlee Simpson and anal bleaching?

Anyone able to cite a source for the comment that Lara Flynn Boyle and Ashlee Simpson have shown an interest in anal bleaching? --81.77.222.147 15:06, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Er, my apologies. I thought that looked like vandalism, but I suppose it's possible that some Hollywood actresses would publicly state an interest in such a thing, (Hollywood is pretty weird, after all). ;-) Func( t, c ) 15:22, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

<joking>

Can we hustle up a fair use photograph of a celebrity's bleached anus for critical commentary?

</joking>

— FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Since I had a hard time believing this, I looked it up. It's true (it is true that it is a rumor, that is) Made a small change to source the claim that Laura Flynn Boyle bleaches her anus. (Never thought I'd type that. Jordoh 00:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Congrats, made it on SA.com

www.somethingawful.com shows this as a "weekend-web" update.

Got Rid of Nasty Stuff

I got rid of all inapropriate texts and images(also removed the male bottom diagram, it also has penis.). Wikipedia is not a place for gross people to leave their stuff on! That guy was right, 12 year olds who are doing a project on the excretory system at school may come here, and the anus is a part of the excretory system. I only revealed 1/4 of the photograph with an anal sphincter. And I followed you guys, I removed the sexual section, its repulsive. If you have any proplems, let me know!

Giant Blue Anteater 00:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

And 12 year olds would have what harm of seeing an anus? They can see their own the mirror, FFS! Wikipedia is not a place for political correctness. Joffeloff 15:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Female anus picture at the top of the article

I notice that an anon has removed the 'male anatomy' diagram from the article and moved the 'female human anus' photo up to replace it. Whilst this may indeed be a better depiction of the anus, I'm certain that this edit is going to prove controversial. I did consider reverting it but I feel that I should ask for the opinions of the other editors on the matter beforehand. --Kurt Shaped Box 23:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind the change, though the anatomy image should be returned to the article somewhere. -- Ec5618 01:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Male anus

I had introduced an image of human male anus (by the bottom of the page), since it is significantly different from female anus (for instance, because of hairs). I did that twice, since an unregistered user keeps removing it. I gave a motivation for my edit in the summary, now I give it also on this page discussion. I am simply merging here images I found on it.wikipedia. Therefore, if somebody still removes the picture giving no explanation for his action, I will consider it censorship. --gala.martin (what?) 13:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, women have hair too if it isn't removed. It is not a sex characteristic. If you look at chest there is one pic because it isn't necessary to show every part both with and without hair. Completely unnecessary. --Howdybob 17:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

why don't we get an unshaven anus of a woman so that we don't confuse people into thinking women naturally don't grow hair around their anuses?

I've returned the male anus. It's encyclopedic, useful, and a very nice image. It shows the anus better than the female one does, which is small, poorer quality and artificial (hair seems removed). The two provide nice symmetry for comparison. It shouldn't be removed just because it's male. --Kinst 23:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy that you did this, because it annoyed me to just see a female anus. I do think it's a serious problem however that the female anus is shaved and the male isn't. This gives the false impression that women don't grow hair there. Surprisingly a lot of people actually believe this. The contrast between the male and female pictures seems to prove this, and it isn't true. Would it be possible to find a picture of an unshaven female anus? Rocketqueen 14:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Possible, but probably very difficult... --Kinst 22:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't be very difficult at all. While it's not as common, it's definately not difficult.

Should we include an animal anus as well? 68.83.71.120 01:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather see a worms' anus to be honest, then that female anus. 218.101.74.188 11:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

One problem I have with the male anus photo is that it is difficult to see where exactly the anus is, with all that hair. 146.6.130.210 01:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

male anus

i see that there is a place to put "pro-photo" or "anti-photo" but i am not opposed to the photo of the female anus. i simply think it's unfair that the actual photo is of a female anus and the diagram is of a male. it seems to me, we are always seeing nicely shaven female anuses. i would like to see a nicely shaven male anus out of respect for fairness. let's not just be typical porn here okay.

Sexist Images

There is absolutely no problem with putting a picture of any normal human body part in anatomy articles, but this pair of images promotes sexist pornographic standards regarding grooming of men and women's anatomy. The woman's anus is clearly waxed, which is not the natural state of the adult female anatomy. The "breast" article should not show a set of obviously altered breasts as the sole image for similar reasons. I would guess that the female image came directly from a porn and I think it should either be removed or replaced by a more correct image.

i completely agree. Rocketqueen 16:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

—I completely agree, also.

WHy don't you provide the hairy female anus, rocketqueen :-)

To quote the Simpsons, "What about the children!?"

If Wikipedia is to be truly an "encyclopedia", it is something to be read by people of all ages. Assuming that wikipedia is to be like a "real" encyclopedia, I think most would agree that a 10 year old flipping through an encyclopedia and finding a picture of two full-color human anuses is highly inappropriate. Now I'm sure most of you are going to say, "oh it's up to the parents to filter what the kid sees and what not to see on the internet" which is a totally fine argument FOR THE INTERNET which is mostly porn anyway. If we're to take Wikipedia seriously, lose the damn pics!

Is it really necessary to start another section for this? We've been over this point, and as Wikipedia is not censored for minors, it is a moot point. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, as illistrated at that. That means including an image of a penis, an anus, a crucifix. We cannot ban what you or anyone else deems offensive, or inappropriate for minors. And please, shouting does not make your point more valid. -- Ec5618 07:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Official policy is that Wikipedia is not censored (for minors), and anatomy articles deserve photographs. The precedent is that sexual organs need photographs too. Don't take it up with poor Monsieur Anus. :-( --Kinst 00:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)