Talk:Vulva

Picture

Why is there a picture of a mastrubating woman? Especially if you claim the article is for encyclopedia work.

Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED Yestadae (talk) 05:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I swear I opened that page and thought that was child porn. The picture is not medically orientated nor are any of the alternatives. Look at any anatomy textbook. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.220.155 (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC) 174.252.232.67 (talk) 23:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)fyi: my 11 year old daughter was reading an informative article on Kotex.com and the word 'vulva' came up, not knowing what it was, she went to Wikipedia. Imagine her shock & horror at seeing these pictures unwittingly. Has no one stopped to think that young, pre menstrual girls are using Wikipedia to satiate curiosity about their changing bodies? Perhaps a hand drawn diagram would be better?

Perhaps we should censor all of wikipedia just in case it offendes your 11 year old daughter. 109.158.92.110 (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your strawman, 109.158.92.110. I've got to say I'm probably one of the least prudish people out there but the images on this page, while not in any way, shape or form offensive, I don't believe are appropriate for a supposed encyclopaedia. As 150.203.220.155 said, they're not medically or anatomically oriented in the slightest. How can this encyclopaedia be expected to be taken serious when a. you have images like those to illustrate the stories and b. you have people responding by calling those complaining "prudish". Would you see such images in the Encyclopaedia Britannica or any other serious encyclopaedia? We all know the answer would be "no". 59.167.244.81 (talk) 08:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Britannica has the luxury of being able to commission a clinical photograph. If you can procure more suitable free images, by all means proceed. Until that time, these pictures are the best we have available. Powers ^T 15:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Racial Bias

I believe that the pictures on this page impart a racial/ethnic bias by featuring what appear to be exclusively the vulvae of caucasian or east asian women. Women of other races have not only differently colored vulvae, but significantly larger labia. As this population represents a sizable proportion of the world's population of women, the pictures on this page give a disproportionately caucasian/east asian ethnocentric bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.10.26.241 (talk) 09:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you being a half Chinese.I'm incontinent and wear Tena Slip Maxi (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

So what? Does the race of the pictured women change the educational value of the article? No. And I doubt the contributes to this article SPECIFICALLY added only white/east asian pictures in order to be racially biased, its likely because educationally appropriate pictures of female genitals are more readily available in the form of white women. Seriously, try and find an educational picture of any other race... good luck.

So find public domain pictures and add them. Nobody is stopping you. Asarelah (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Why dont you do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amandalu862 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Because I really don't care as much about this issue as you and 134.10.26.241 apparently do. That, and I'm more interested in adding references to articles and tidying categories and wording than I am in hunting down public domain pictures. But hey, if you think it would improve the article, by all means, go for it. Asarelah (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm so sick of the ignorance of people on wikipedia. Since I will probably otherwise face ad hominem attacks, I will say that I'm white, but that I agree that this is a serious problem on wikipedia, especially in depictions of genitals. Having such a limited set of images actually DOES detract from the educational value. There's a lot of variation in appearance of vulvas. Some of that variation is due to the amount of melanin in the skin. People are often ignorant of a lot of this variation and it's important to not present a monolithic notion of what genitalia are (and thus imply what they should be like). Surely, the detractors can at least agree that having only white or East Asian pics here constitutes a form of bias even if they think that's all it is. --Prepuce4Life (talk) 08:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia can only use pictures that its users supply. If you have a suitable picture then please upload it. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. Vulvas from people of various races would probably improve the article. If you own pictures of vulvas from other races that you're willing to release into the public domain, go for it. Asarelah (talk) 23:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I went over to Wikimedia commons out of curiosity and I found three photographs of black woman's vulva, but they aren't terribly good quality because the woman is photographed bent over in two and lying on her side in one rather than on her back. I'll suppose add the side one to the gallery for now, but we really need better quality images of people of color. Asarelah (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

134.10.26.241, that is a stereotype. I was actually under the impression that white women have longer labia, while black women have bigger clitorises. The image Dcp02328.jpg that was in the article is of a white woman, and her labia minora are bigger than average. I believe the variation in vulvas is greater between individuals than between races. Greenhplover (talk) 07:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I also believe there is a need to get photos of vulvas from women of different ethnicities on Wikipedia. Using only photos of white individuals re-enforces that White is the Standard, which is what most of North American society seems to advocate.... Transitional (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the article is biased towards any ethnicity or skin colour (race, whatever it means, is not a valid criteria or category). The only reason that the majority of the pictures feature women of white skin because those were the highest quality images available. That said, adding new pictures of different skin colours are welcome. 209.51.65.4 (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Offensive images

This article (include the talk page) has been filled with offensive vulva photos (exclude diagrams)!Consorveyapaaj2048394 (talk) 08:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

How are these pictures offensive? They're not vulgar or pornagraphic. You don't have a right to not be offended as an individual.--207.118.105.246 (talk) 12:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not CENSORED Arjun^codename024 17:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored; but it does abide by the rule of Common Decency, and Alternatives by consensus should be sought in favour offensive images. Personally, I've never understood why diagrams are not simply used, as a physical photo is clearly gratuitous. The manner in which people fervently and aggressively defend their inclusion indicates that they want physical photos to be there simply for the offence/shock factor.

Articles that are not about sexually explicit parts of the human body mysteriously manage to get by without half a dozen user-contributed images. Wikipedia should not be catering to amateur exhibitionists. Jtrainor (talk) 02:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Why are photos gratuitous? That labial operation is well illustrated by the photos. Unless you get specific, I don't think we have much to discuss here. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
• I have yet to see a "diagram" that does half as good a job of conveying what a vulva really looks like as a photograph does. If a truly representative diagram were created, it'd be just as offensive as a photo, wouldn't it? Powers ^T 12:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. You are making a baseless assertion that a diagram or a drawing is inadequate. That simply is not true. This issue between a photo and an illustration is not a matter of clarity but of taste. You obviously want a photo to be there. That's it. The person at the start of this paragraph is absolutely spot on that the photos (that are on Wikipedia - not necessarily all photos of vulva) are offensive. I do believe it is theoretically possible to have a less offensive photo of a vulva. I'm not a photo expert but I'm pretty sure that there exists more photographs out there that are better suited for an encyclopedia than all the overwhelmingly glossy smutty pics that are constantly uploaded by pervert Wikipedians. Loginnigol (talk) 09:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm with you on this one, the people who are posting pictures like these and the video on the ejaculation page are clearly just exhibitionists getting off to the fact that thousands of strangers are viewing their genitals every day, and it's genuinely depressing to see that two years later, nothing has been done to fix this problem. Master Deusoma (talk) 05:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

If the ejaculation page is depressing to you, then why did you see it so many times? I have never visited that page before and I never will. --BrianJ34 (talk) 13:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The womb is the uterus. the vulva is the door and ability to do

In india the yoni is the word merely for the outter vulva. In fruedian times doctors were prejudical in their obssession with the females interor life denying her external. what a good article on the vulva until you miss associated things. Over emphasizing males external and denying his internal in the case of his prostate. Here you have a chance to break that ignorance. Again the womb is the uteus the intermal abiliity to create life and carry that life . the vulva is the door way, and symbol of woman's external expression and ability to recieve pleasure. Woman's external expression was so feared that clitorectomies were common up until the 1950's. In the victorian era, women were told to remain passive in bed and not to ejoy anything. Another related word is the middle Eastern word cun, a woman's cave, that implies a look at the external structue with an opening. This is what gives us the slur cunt and the phrase cungalingus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.130.182 (talk • contribs)

There are over 21 porny, smutty, glossy genitalia shots on the page - a complete overkill

Clearly this page is popular among Wikiperverts. No surprise I guess. But this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. It has to at least vaguely resemble one. And as such there are standards that that need to apply. I don't believe putting 21 overly glossy pink smut somehow enhances the article. It does not. It is only a distraction.

Also funny how seemingly all of those glossy pics are that of females within a very narrow young age group, not coincidentally roundabout the peak years of a pornographic model.

The issue is not only a matter of quantity though - the problem is also that of quality. I'm pretty sure that a non-glossy, non pornographic, more academic/scholarly/schoolbook-type photo of a vulva exists. It's just that none of the pervs care to put it up here for obvious reasons.

And I also find it ludicrous that not one single historical painting or illustration is prominently displayed, The few that exist are shoved down to the bottom, tucked in a small click-on thumb. The pornographic bias is so blatant to the point of being hilarious. It's like as if Wikipedia has delegated the page-editing directly over to Hustler. Loginnigol (talk) 11:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Loginnigol. have a look at WP:NOTCENSORED. By the way, if you have any pictures of older women's vulvas that you are prepared to upload to Wikipedia, please let us know as it would be good to improve the range of images available. Generally speaking, we try to illustrate Wikipedia articles with pictures of the featured item. There is nothing smutty about the human vulva - half of all humans have one, and this is just what they look like. --Nigelj (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I dunno why you are waving the "notcensored" rule at me like as if I'm advocating for censorship. I obviously am not. You have any problem understanding what I wrote? I'm claiming that context matters. I'm claiming that standard matters. There are no 20 pics of Obama on the US president's page (just to name one example - and that page is huge). Likewise there is absolutely no justifiable need to post, not one, not two but roundabout twenty (!) of these nearly identical (more or less same age, same glossy color, same state of hair growth) pudenda pics on an encyclopedia. That's all I'm saying. Loginnigol (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

spot on. this article is a disgrace and, quite honestly, hugely sexist. Recognizing that this page is offensive doesn't mean you are "prude" or advocate censorship, it simply means that you dont find it acceptable for a Wiki page to become yet another entry in the endless internet porn category — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.134.116 (talk) 01:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The purpose is to show the wide variation of normal. Obama looks the same all the time, but vulvas come in many shapes and sizes and it's important to get this message across. --Bendslikeawillow (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Penises varies a lot. There are 5 different penises on the human penis page, and that's plenty. Also, why all these shaved pussies? --Kiewbra (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Urination

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should a section be created dealing with urination. At present this is only mentioned in passing. As this is a unique function of the vulva, I believe it deserves a section. Sexual arousal has four sections,, art, and slang have seperate sections under "Society and culture", but urination is only mentioned under "structure" as part of "Fluids and odor". I imagine this is due to deliberate exclusion.87.194.46.83 (talk) 05:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Uh, not to put too fine a point on it, but what else is there to say about urination when it comes to the vulva? Powers ^T 21:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Look, there already is an article on urination. First find out whether that article omits anything that should fit into this article. If not, simply link instead of duplicating text. That's what linking is for. If OTOH anything occurs to you that should be in this article instead of the urination article, then expand this article in, or by addition of, a suitable section on urination. Then add a link to this article in the urination article. Duplicating information in parallel articles requires strong justification. If that is what you mean by deliberate exclusion, then do something about it. If not, then get a life! And if you do add anything, then make sure that it is readable, correct, encyclopedic, properly cited, free of POV and OR and all that, or some nasty people are likely to come and say rude things to you. JonRichfield (talk) 12:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment The article includes urine, urinary meatus, urination, etc - the essential for this article are present, but a specific and well-sourced content proposal might sway editors toward inclusion. -- Scray (talk) 18:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment If there's something specific to say about urination related to the vulva that doesn't just concern urination in general, there could be an argument for including it here. Otherwise, just link to urination; there's no need to have the same information on two different pages. Anaxial (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Quite right, in fact I would put it more strongly: it actually is pernicious to have unnecessarily duplicated information, that is to say duplication without special contexts to justify it. There is more to it than just: "Well, what harm can a little duplication do?" JonRichfield (talk) 06:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Why? A brief description linking to the main article is a normal part of Wikipedia, and results in lots of duplicated material. Why is urination so much less worthy of note than sexual functions?87.194.44.183 (talk) 03:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

As a matter of fact intelligent linkage leads to reduction of duplicated material and increased accessibility to material in proper context. Urination, as everyone in this discussion agrees, certainly is worthy of note -- in its place -- so it is no good labouring that weary old nag, because the place for urination is not here; at any rate not until someone discusses urination in text that a) is generally suited to WP's functions and objectives; and b) belongs in this article instead of elsewhere. So far no one has done so, nor even proposed anything of such a type. It would take some doing anyway -- the vulva has at most trivial and passing relevance to urination and both urine and urination have their own articles, to which anyone could economically and constructively link if he chose. So it is no good weeping over the injustice of the majority; we are a sensitive, caring majority; it is just an unfortunate coincidence that we also happen to have a sense of relevance. JonRichfield (talk) 09:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Vulva → Human vulva – I'm not sure if this is the right way, but an analogous situation to Human penis/Penis should be desireable. Opinions? Relisted. MikeLynch (talk) 19:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC) --Kiewbra (talk) 22:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support WP:Systematic bias, we should have a general article on the mammalian vulva -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - gosh darned other mammals want to make their vulvae more important than ours, do they? Well I say screw 'em. Seriously, though, the most common search for information on the vulva is likely to be for the human vulva, so it should remain in the default position. If the mammalian vulva article is created, it should be linked by a hatnote. --Nouniquenames 01:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I support the move IF there is a simultaneous creation of an article Vulva that has a hatnote pointing to the Human vulva article, and the Human vulva article has a hatnote back. UNTIL the general Vulva article has at least enough text to support a stub, I oppose any move. Not many users are likely to begin their search with any term other than just "vulva", so any move should avoid complicating or frustrating searches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonRichfield (talk • contribs)

Whoops! Sorry, never noticed inadvertent omission of signature. JonRichfield (talk) 12:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

A stub can be created easily enough with a section and a {{main}} on it for humans. The first implementation after a move can be done easily enough by writing definitions in and adding stub templates. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 04:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support, IFF under conditions by JonRichfield (talk · contribs), above. — Cirt (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support As an enciclopedia, wikipedia must provide broad range of information, and not limit itself by the "likeness of searches". The term "Vulva" does not only apply to the human species, and there should be a separate article for the mammalian vulva. As is the case with the penis article. At first it might be a stub, but it is a begining, and if that step is not taken, it'll never happen. 187.172.76.179 (talk) 21:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Right, and what is more, the human vulva with its form of the hymen etc is unusual anyway, so our species is not a particularly representative sample subject, as it leaves us with an unbalanced treatment. Mind you, a worthwhile treatment on the comparative anatomy and physiology of the vulva would demand some unusual skills of the author I should think. Some good teamwork might be in order. JonRichfield (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: As I stated elsewhere, most of our articles are human-centric because individuals who read these articles are, as we know, humans (unless one believes that extraterrestrial life is out there studying us) and are usually looking for the human aspects of these topics. In this case, it is more than that: Vulva anatomy and other topics about the vulva have been studied significantly more in humans than in non-human animals. A lot of topics on Wikipedia that are human-centric are mostly that way because the topic has been studied significantly less in non-human animals. As such, we usually keep the non-human animal material in the same article under the heading In other animals, Other animals or as In non-human animals. WP:COMMONNAME is also a reason, despite the redirect factor in cases that don't take readers to a disambiguation page. In other cases, it's also because a term refers more to humans than it does to non-human animals. I'm against splitting this article...until it requires splitting, which may never be the case. An In non-human animals section should be developed before any split is considered. The only reason that the Human penis article was created, as separate from the Penis article, is because there is so much that can be stated about non-human penises and so much human penis material was in the Penis article. Flyer22 (talk) 04:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm going to post a note about this discussion to WP:ANATOMY and WP:MED for wider opinions on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 04:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
• 'support I have both a biology and anatomy background and see these as two separate articles. While mammalian anatomy is similar, we as humans have evolved and take great interest and specialize in our anatomy. 69.159.72.99 (talk) 04:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Humans are mammals as well. There is no need to divide a topic that has mostly been studied in humans, splitting that material away from its common name title, when information on non-human vulvae can be adequately covered in this article. Just one article for all information on vulvae. Flyer22 (talk) 04:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose We are human and thus we simply assume "human" in the title. We do not call are articles "Human tuberculosis", "Human diabetes", "Human common cold" even those these condition occur in other animals. We have a section at the end per WP:MEDMOS called "Other animals" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • To elaborate on Doc James's point, WP:MEDMOS also covers anatomy articles. Flyer22 (talk) 04:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose However, if this article were ever forked because of the addition of large amounts of material on non-human anatomy, I would support this article being the default page and keeping the name "Vulva", but that a disambiguation notice leading to other articles be put at the top here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

  We could have an article called "mammalian vulva" that links from the "other animals" sections. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

  Exactly, to both suggestions. But I don't yet see a separate article as being needed, and I very likely won't ever see the need. Flyer22 (talk) 00:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is almost nothing about animal vaginas in the vagina article. When the human penis article was spun off from the penis article[1] almost a fourth of the article was about animal penis's. Apteva (talk) 06:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Where is all the material that will make up this proposed article on non-human vulvas? (Noting the vulva/vagina distinction too) Surely this couldn't be another attempt at moving 'rude pictures' out of main namespace articles? I wonder if we ought to review the recent removal of human content from the penis page? (It seems to consist mostly of headings and "This section requires expansion" banners at the moment) --Nigelj (talk) 17:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I've never considered the split of that article a good idea. Flyer22 (talk) 18:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• oppose per doc james. Pass a Method talk 22:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: See below for some suggestions as to more important issues. No vote. Andrewa (talk) 23:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

More important issues

I notice that Category:Mammal female reproductive system is a container category but has 126 pages in it currently.

In fact this whole area is rather a mess, and the move or split proposed above isn't all that much progress at best. We have many articles on genitals, both male and female, human and otherwise, and there have been many attempts at organising them, but there's little consistency.

Since there's so much interest, why not fix things up? I'm going to be out of Wikitouch for a few days, interested to see whether there will be any progress in that time.

There is a WikiProject Medicine/Reproductive medicine task force but it's not very active recently [2] and seems to cover (sic) only the female parts (sic).

The first step is discussion. What article and category structure is best, out of the many partially implemented attempts? Andrewa (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 February 2013

"it protects its opening by a "double door": the labia majora (large lips) and the labia minora (small lips)." This should not be said like this because it is wrong information. It should be said like this "The Labia major (outer lips) and the labia minora (inner lips)." Otherwise, you are giving faulty information. 69.114.79.227 (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

 Not done: There is no "wrong" or "faulty information" here. The existing text "large lips" and "small lips" are merely literal English translations of the Latin terms labia majora and labia minora. I see no reason to change to your proposed text unless subsequent consensus overrides my opinion. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 00:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

We could maybe put the parenthesised translations into 'single quotes' to try to show that they are literal translations rather than the normal English terms? --Nigelj (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The whole sentence needs rethinking anyway; as it stands it is twee, crappy and misleading, an embarrassment to our standard of competence. For a start, the configuration in question is not what a double door means anyway. Nor does the statement as it stands properly reflect the function of the vulva and its organs, and nor for that matter does the alternative version. When people can argue about trivial wording you can be sure either that someone's mastery of the language or the subject matter, or of didactics, is woefully deficient, or that harking back to the proper structure of the statement is overdue. If no one else feels up to it, ask me and I'll have a go, but if this is to be a slanging match, I have better things to do. JonRichfield (talk) 11:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Talk:Vulva.2FArchive_Off-Topic_Discussions

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Talk:Vulva.2FArchive_Off-Topic_Discussions. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Template:Z48