This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I was wondering if we can paraphrase and use Barbara Keesling's statement from here in this article.—Khabboos (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Khabboos, my answer is no. That source is about something Barbara Keesling is calling the Cul-de-Sac; it seems that she is referring to the recto-uterine pouch. She is claiming that the "Cul-de-Sac" is orgasmic, and, judging by the title of her book, that it's "the ultimate pleasure spot" for women. It's just more misinformation for women (and for men) that she's sending out. The G-spot isn't even scientifically proven and is still highly debated by scientists. And now we have Keesling, in an Esquire source from 2009, essentially claiming a new G-spot? No, such unscientific claims about female sexuality are better left out of the Vagina article. In the article, we already mention the G-spot and the debate about that. Flyer22 (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
The Esquire article seems to be rather tongue-in-cheek – lighthearted and certainly not a suitably reliable source. (Actually the article indicates that the "cul-de-sac" is the [posterior] fornix, not the recto-uterine pouch. I am aware that other sources may indicate otherwise.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed that vaginal fornix bit about the article, Axl. But it seemed to me the vaginal fornix bit was the author of the article's wording. And since the recto-uterine pouch is sometimes referred to as the cul-de-sac, I figured that Keesling must be referring to the recto-uterine pouch. For example, our Recto-uterine pouch and Vaginal fornix articles differentiate between the vaginal fornix and the cul-de-sac. Flyer22 (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Facing my computer but looking at it from below my eyes, the vagina picture looks like the face of an ugly baby. The vaginal opening is the baby's mouth and the clitoris is the baby's nose. (I really don't know what to say is the baby's eyes.) Try this illusion yourself. (To make sure you're doing the right thing, scroll the article so that the vagina image is at the lower right corner of your computer screen and you're directly facing the upper right corner.) I'm very sorry to bring up something that might seem offensive, but it's just an interesting illusion. Georgia guy (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Im a little concerned about the photo...It looks like a childs or teems vagina....I would prefer to see a womans...my vagina hasnt looked like that since I was about 13.... Lady Ez (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Lady Ez (talk·contribs). This has been brought up times before; see Talk:Vagina/Archive 5. From what I can tell, the image is of a shaved vulva. Look at the image close-up: File:Vaginal opening - english description.jpg. There are razor bumps or pores that indicate that substantial hair was once on that vulva, which means that the vulva is not prepubescent. I assume it's an adult vulva rather than a teenage vulva. In any case, it's the best image of a vagina (rather of the vaginal opening in its normal state) that Wikipedia has. By that, I mean, an image clearly showing the vagina, without the vaginal opening being concealed by the vulva or artificially spread (meaning fingers stretching the opening). The fingers in the picture are merely stretching areas of the vulva to show the vaginal opening.
On a side note: 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) 12:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I assume you meant "teen?" Nonetheless, the photo is a good one, "good" that it effectively illustrates the detail needed for the article. In other words, with tons of hair down there, it's hard to label it. If it's hard to label, it's hard to explain. If it's hard to explain, men might not understand all of it. Wait...Jimsteele9999 (talk) 01:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)