Talk:Human anus

Shall there be bigger photos?

The current 140px size is much smaller than the other photos in Wikipedia. I am increasing size to 180px. Eyeon 03:18, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What the hell. Let's do 200px. Eyeon 10:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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)

Shall there be no photos?

I don't think we need a real picture of a human anus, do we? Some people might not like seeing that, and a diagram of human anatomy is sufficient. --Havermayer 19:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, the anatomical diagram is sufficent. Everyone has one, and there's really no need to include an image cropped from a porn photo. Kinda childish IMO. Jeeves 01:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Disagreed. It's ludicrous to say 'some people might not like seeing that.' Only a stark raving hypocrite would SEARCH for an anus, and then claim offense at FINDING one. 'Childish' is when one censors Wikipedia based on prudishness. Do I have to go check to see if the photos in penis and vagina are still there? I am reverting. 70.177.90.39 03:32, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

It's not an issue of offense, it's an issue of whether it adds anything to the article. It doesn't. You're basically saying that we need a picture of the corresponding body part on every article, including mouth, navel, pubic hair, calf, thigh, etc. Is it necessary to have a picture of some porn model's thigh on thigh? No. Is it necessary to have a porno-cropped anus on this page? No. I'm reverting, and the page should be protected. Jeeves 06:02, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Havermayer brought up offense, so earlier it most certainly WAS an issue of offense, but i'm glad to see we're abandoning that silly argument. Now you justify your edit by saying that the picture is simply not 'necessary.' Well, mouth, navel and pubic hair all have photos. Will you now remove those illustrations because they are also not 'necessary'? Of course you won't, because your argument is disingenuous. Incidentally, calf and thigh are stubs. And yes, I believe photos of the corresponding body parts 'adds' to the article. Maybe you just have a problem with porn stars. Reverting. 70.177.90.39 07:52, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

No, no problem with porn stars or anything else. I just don't believe the image is worth including in the article. It adds nothing and is tacky. I'm not advocating censorship, but I imagine a similar attempt to include a picture of someone defecating in the defecation article would meet with resistance. Rather than continue this debate, I'm going to revert again, and ask that you hold off on putting the image back in until we can have a referendum involving other editors. Thanks. By the way, your hostile attitude is not appreciated (referring especially to your "edit summaries". Jeeves 08:08, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I think we are getting to the real issue now - you want the image removed because you think it's 'tacky'. Let's drop your 'necessary' argument, because if it was intellectually honest, you would be stripping photos from the other anatomy pages you carelessly brought up. If those remain, this one should remain. So I revert, and I welcome a referendum. 70.177.90.39 08:57, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I am definitely not going to "drop" the point about the picture being unnecessary. The policy on wikipedia is to include pictures because they are useful, not to throw in whatever picture anyone wants to and allow it to remain because it's "not unnecessary" (sorry for the double negative, but I'm trying to convey the idea that the image policy is more conservative/restrictive than you seem to think it is). There was a discussion on the Village Pump about poetic license in article images: [1], but more to the point here is this discussion on adding a graphic scene of rape to the rape article: [2]. Consensus was not to add it. So, please list a few reasons why this anus picture should be here. How does it contribute to the informative purpose of the article? Jeeves 10:48, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Photos of rape and defecation are patently offensive. The Wikipedia consensus to omit photos of these actions was based on this. Jeeves, when you delete the anus photo, citing those arguments, the truth is revealed - you find an anus offensive. Why aren't you deleting the mouth image, and raving about vomiting and biting? Why aren't you deleting the clitoris image, talking about peeing and rape? Because your 'usefulness' argument is intellectually dishonest. I don't think you are conscious of this, but as a self-proclaimed pedant, you should sense something's off with your argument. When you attack this photo on 'usefulness' grounds, but you leave all those other anatomy pictures up, you are suggesting that all those other photos have illustrative value that this one doesn't. Face it: you brought rape, porn, and poop into the discussion because you think anuses are disgusting. That is why you want the picture to go. As to it's 'usefulness', consensus was reached on the talk pages for clitoris, penis, and vagina: Photographs illustrate, illustrations inform, and anatomy is not offensive. 70.177.90.39 12:31, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I would appreciate it if you addressed the real issue instead of insisting that I'm arguing something I'm not. To repeat what I said earlier and that you seem to have missed: 1) A picture is to be included in any article if and only if it contributes positively to that article 2) I maintain that this picture does not contribute positively to this article 3) You have not given any useful arguments as to why the picture should stay 4) Per the image use policy, in a case like this the burden is on you (and others who want the image included) to give reasons why the image should be here. Instead of actually discussing the issue though, you keep trying to obscure the process by claiming I want to censor the page. That's not the case. If the image is truly useful to have here then I'm sure you can convince us of that fact. How exactly does this illustration inform? What will a user of the encyclopedia find out by it? Jeeves 23:29, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I did address your intellectually dishonest argument, and I repeat my answer: Photographs illustrate, illustrations inform, and anatomy is not offensive. In this case, a reader will find out what an anus looks like. I won't go further in this argument because (a) Wikipedians have already settled the photo question in the clitoris, penis, and vagina articles, and (b) because you are arguing dishonestly. If photographic usefulness was your real issue, you would be applying it to photos of other body parts. Following your line of reasoning, there is even less merit in using photos of the ear, the nose, and the eye, body parts that are a thousand times more visible. As long as you insist that 'usefulness' is really at issue, you are deceiving yourself. I'm sure it's unconscious, but the rest of us see through your hypocrisy; five others have restored your deletions since you started them. I am confident in the strength of my argument, so I will no longer revert your edits. I will watch as others do. Are you confident enough in your own position that you can show the same kind of restraint? 70.177.90.39 00:30, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Your insults aside, you haven't addressed any issues at all. You just keep trying to attack me as a censor. To rephrase again: 1) The position and function of the anus in terms of the digestive system is what is significant to this article, not its position on the body. 2) All living creatures with a tubular gut have an anus of some type. Your desire to include an image of a young woman's ass culled from pornography smacks of prurience and not information. 3) Ears and mouths do not appeal to the prurient interest. 4) You seem to be more interested in winning some kind of technical victory than in actually improving the article. 5) Finally, since this image is under debate, the policy is that it stays out until a consensus emerges. It has not. I'll post this link on WP:RFC and see if we can get more input that way. Jeeves 23:32, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't go into more detail when I said 'photos illustrate, and illustrations inform', so here is more: The photo shows part of a normal human body. Examination and comparison is useful to someone concerned about their own health or the health of a loved one. It can help answer the question 'am I normal' or 'do I have an STD'. In case you missed it, I just told you why the photo is useful. Let me anticipate your next protest: the photo is not representative of all people. I agree, no photo ever could be. But the way to remedy this is by adding more information, not taking it away. For example, a caption explaining variety would be useful, or the judicious use of more photos. Now, you say 'to rephrase again', and you opportunistically bring up some brand new arguments. I'll address each one in the order presented. 1) The position of the anus on the human body is of course significant. (I like mine where it is.) 'Importance of location' is not good criteria to use when including a picture. If it were, then photos of melanoma and hair, which can be anywhere on the body, would be the first ones to go. In reference to that qualifier you added, 'in terms of the digestive system', it is inappropriate to ignore the important role of the anus in human sexuality. 2) You say I'm being human-centric. Yes, I am. I refer you to the articles on the eye, ear, hand, nose, and vagina. The photos in each are human. Why are you only complaining about biodiversity when it comes to this specific orifice? If you have any mouse or sea lion anus pictures, you are welcome to add them. 3) Wikipedia should not be purged of photos for fear they may arouse; if we did, we would lose valuable contributions. There are illustrations far more likely to inspire sexual thoughts on the pages for the penis, buttocks, clitoris, even acomoclitic. If you think these photos are okay, then why do you believe that erotic interest should only be extinguished in the perineum? 4) Number four is an ad hominem attack, not an argument. Or if you were really interested in talking about my interests, they include rock climbing, industrial design and Japanese horror. 5) I'm not reverting your deletions. I don't need to, other people are doing it. You can't demand that people respect your position when all your arguments collapse under scrutiny. 0) Much earlier, you cited the discussion on poetic license as a reason to exclude a photo. I reviewed the entry, and it has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to this discussion. Over there, a Wikipedian was considering the difficulty in selecting photos to illustrate abstract mathematical concepts. There is nothing abstract about an anus, and there is no question that the photo selected illustrates one. And, the consensus over there was that it was okay to include a photo, so why did you bring it up? I'm happy to address any new arguments you bring up next, or go into greater detail on those we've covered, but so far all your arguments fail because they have been dishonest. No, I'm not calling you a liar, this is not an ad hominem attack. I just don't think you're conscious of your real motivation. A review of your past edits on this article suggests that your problem is not just the photo. On April 15, you added, 'In general, the anus is simply the exit point for matter passing through the digestive tract.'[3] This is a terse summation of a complex part of the human body and it completely ignores sexuality. Also that day, the current paragraph on sex was vandalized, but rather than revert, you grudgingly composed what you characterized in the summary as the 'bare minimum of sexuality info'[4]. An encyclopedic entry is supposed to be in-depth and should explore the greater context. 'Bare minimum' is not the goal. The sum of your edits exposes your 'bottom line' - you are trying to suppress anal eroticism, which you earlier spontaneously associated with rapes, pornography, and pictures of people taking a dump. 70.177.90.39 05:48, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Holy smokes, that was a smackdown. Very well said. I don't think we're going to hear from Jeevesie again. Eyeon 09:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Referendum on photo of female human anus

Pro-photo

70.177.90.39 09:34, 28 May 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

Anti-photo

Jeeves

Nightlark

Fieari

211.128.87.101 01:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Marmot

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)

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.[5] 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.[6] 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. [7] 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)

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 [8]). 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.

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)

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)

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?