I may be unaware of what exactly is defined as child pornography, but assuming the person pictured isnt someone who didnt hit puberty until they were 18... isnt this child porn? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.20.160.17|24.20.160.17]] ([[User talk:24.20.160.17|talk]]) 02:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
I may be unaware of what exactly is defined as child pornography, but assuming the person pictured isnt someone who didnt hit puberty until they were 18... isnt this child porn? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.20.160.17|24.20.160.17]] ([[User talk:24.20.160.17|talk]]) 02:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:The use of this image struck me as odd and somewhat suspect as well. It was uploaded recently, and the uploader is apparently Italian. He has had a conversation in user talk pages with someone else about it that I translated in Google Translate, and I can't draw a conclusion of the age of the person depicted, but breach of child pornography laws were drawn into question. I think this image should probably be deleted or at least removed from any pages it is used in, and the uploader should be contacted by a moderator. -- '''''[[User:Ifrit|Ifrit]]''''' <small>([[User_talk:Ifrit|Talk]])</small> 00:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:The use of this image struck me as odd and somewhat suspect as well. It was uploaded recently, and the uploader is apparently Italian. He has had a conversation in user talk pages with someone else about it that I translated in Google Translate, and I can't draw a conclusion of the age of the person depicted, but breach of child pornography laws were drawn into question. I think this image should probably be deleted or at least removed from any pages it is used in, and the uploader should be contacted by a moderator. -- '''''[[User:Ifrit|Ifrit]]''''' <small>([[User_talk:Ifrit|Talk]])</small> 00:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::"Wikipedia is not censored" inDEED.
Revision as of 01:46, 9 April 2011
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vulva article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
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.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and 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.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
If the lead were supposed to present details of the anatomy, the best available picture would be File:Vulva labeled english.jpg, because of the detailed labelling. But this image is used in the Structures section, while the lead is simply meant to show the vulva as it appears to the casual observer. In that case, one should use an image of a vulva with pubic hair such as File:Dcp02328.jpg, because that is the biological default. As a matter of fact, I think the labelling could also have been done clearly on an image with pubic hair, as it is in older anatomy textbooks. People tend to exaggerate the degree to which pubic hair obscures the structures (cf. File:VulvaDiagram-800.jpg, which used to be OK, though more detailed labelled images such as File:Vulva labeled english.jpg have been created in the meantime). But this was the choice of the creator of the image, and I don't intend to make an alternative one, so I'll live with that.--Anonymous44 (talk) 14:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why the "biological default" should outweight the "cultural default". If this is the look that most people prefer for themselves, why not keep it. Besides it's the better picture in terms of photographic quality.--Lamilli (talk) 01:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a big if. How do you know most people prefer it? And which culture are we talking about? It's probably easier to agree on what's the biological default than on what's the cultural default.--JWWalker (talk) 06:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about english-speaking, western readers that - and I'm quite sure about that - make up the main audience here. You wouldn't mind either if a face of a human male has no beard our moustache - because he shaved. Or if, on a photo or a hand or a foot, the fingernails are cut. Biologically it would be "correct" to just let them grow but it's a cultural thing to remove them.--Lamilli (talk) 11:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The latter definitely are "cultural things", but I'm pretty sure pubic hair removal is not even remotely widespread, except perhaps among the subset of women who pose for photographs of their pubic area. PowersT13:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that this "subset" differs in any way from the majority of females ou there. Not only my own experience tells me that this is the standard today, also accourding to sources like this it is widespread.--Lamilli (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Among all women? From puberty to old age? All over the world? I think you need to get out more :-) No, you are basing this on porn stars and their young emulators only, I am afraid. --Nigelj (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My elder sister (age 46) has been shaving hers since she was 18. She has never been involved in such photographic activities - she just doesn't like having hair "down there" as she calls it. An ex-girlfriend (who was a nude model) simply refused to shave for anybody. So, you can't categorise. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My point entirely. So we can't say that the 'majority' of women shave all their lives nor therefore that showing unshaved pubic hair in an encyclopedia is unnatural or unrepresentative in any way. --Nigelj (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but thats also true the other way around. You can't say that the unshaved one is unrepresentative, nor can you say that about the shaved one. If you assume that one half of the population shaves and the other doesn't, than it just doesn't make a difference in terms of representativness. But the picture right now (which was here well established for good reason) is just better in photographic aspects. Besides: why do people bother. If you like to see pubes, there's a picture just underneath it that depicts an unshaved vulva.--Lamilli (talk) 00:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"If I want to see pubes"? This isn't about my, or your, pornographic preferences! I'd like to see some references that back up these assertions. Not just from the porn industry, or a friend or a sister, but some worldwide WP:RSverifiable facts. Until then I maintain that pubic hair is 'the biological default', and therefore is the one for top-level emphasis in any encyclopedia. Based on this, we could have individuals arguing that they prefer to see clitoral piercings, and everybody in their street has one, or that they prefer to see the results of female genital cutting, and everybody in their village has had it done. This is not the way Wikipedia gets written. --Nigelj (talk) 10:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. "...these days, with most female porn stars having their pubic hair removed ... [in Germany] ...50 percent of women between the ages of 18 and 25 admit to shaving their pubic hair ... a secret desire to appear harmless, immature and infantile". It's a urban youth fashion in some wealthy western countries, so let's pretend it's the norm and help the rest of the world to feel inadequate about their normal body? Wikipedia is not in the depilation business ("Even the biggest slaves to fashion can get tired of having to pull out the razor blade every couple of days ... €200-300 ($280-420) per treatment"), so their is no need for us to help publicise this fashion trend for the industry under the guise of education about the human body. We don't need to help people become dissatisfied with their perfectly normal human body (or their girlfriend's): the advertising and porn industries can do that perfectly well without our help. --Nigelj (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with you Nigelj. It seems a nonsense that we are promoting shaving as 'normal'. It's like promoting circumcision or caesarean sections as normal. These are aberations from the norm and whilst important, are not representative. Gillyweed (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I may put my two cents in, that does not really matter if it shaved or not. It only matters if the photograph shows the subject clearly. From this point a photo of a shaved vulva is better, because there is no hair which may hide some details. Same if we were talking about an illustration for labia minora I would not care about hair if they do not interfere with the labia. Ones who like natural view may add additional photo somewhere else in the article. (Currently I am gently trying to convince my GF to make some images for this and other articles, but very unlikely will succeed. If anyone from Asia wishing to be a model, please let me know at my talk page.) Yestadae (talk) 02:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And, since its not about shaving, why is this such an tenacious debate. This article is not about shaving, thus it does not matter if the vulva on the picture is shaved or not. If we have the choice between a low-quality unshaved and a high-quality shaved one, I'd say we just stick to the better image.--Lamilli (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not a whole new argument, that is what I was saying from the beginning on. I allready mentioned a couple lines above that I'm not convinced of the quality of your picture. Why? Because it is inferior to the established one in terms of sharpness, resolution, noise and saturation. The whole argument here went like this: the established imgage was swapped with the not-so-good image of this pubic haired vulva that you just mentioned. I reverted this and now you argued that your picture would be better because it has hair. I said that hair is nit an issue here, if we have a good-quality shaved image and a low-quality hairy one, I'd prefer the first. Your reasoning was that hair is a biological default, I replied that this wouldn't really matter since we're cultural creatures and if it is common to remove them, then it's now problem to display it in that state. Like you would't complain a about a guys face being shaved in an article about "head" or "face" instead of having a huge, untrimmer beard. You said that it wouldn't be common, that only pornstars do that, I said it would be common, you wanted numbers and sources, I gave you that and now you also came to the conclusion, that this article is not about shaving. So why do we give this issue such a focus. Let's stick to the good, old picture. Bides that: what are you actually worried about. That people believe that there is no such thing as pubic hair? There is this picture of a completely untrimmed vulva right below. Isn't that enough to illustrate.--Lamilli (talk) 11:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I love the self righteous crusader types who are fretting that a picture of a shaved vulva is forcing Western names on the supposedly happily hairy women of non-Western countries. It apparently never occurred to them that some nonWestern cultures practice pubic hair removal too, as in the Middle East.
The fact is, few of the images shown to illustrate the human body are completely natural. Most of us cut our finger and toe nails, brush our teeth and wash and comb our hair at minimum. Pubic hair removal has become just another part of many women's regular grooming routines. You can argue ad nauseum whether this is a good thing or not, but this discussion page is not really the place to do so. The question should be, does the picture clearly show the different features of the vulva?--FL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.139.129 (talk) 04:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know where you are getting this idea that being completely shaved is part of a woman's regular grooming. If you're going to make a blanket statement like that, at least back it up with some reliable numbers, and by reliable I do not mean some poll you found in Cosmo. This whole shaving phenomenon is a relatively recent trend that started in the late 90s, anyway. The people here holding it up as some kind of bastion of normality have very short memories. If I had to guess at the majority, I would say most women trim and wax/shave the bikini line but few go completely bald, just like in the instances of hair or nails, people don't normally shave their heads or cut their fingernails down to the nail bed. 98.155.29.185 (talk) 09:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There has been no valid reason for having a picture of a vulva that is not biologically default. Only peoples oppinions on what is more common and the likes. A picture of a vulva is supposed to represent what a vulva looks like; not to be as easy as possible to find all the anatomical details on. That is what diagrams are for. Otherwise I could argue that the picture of a human eye in its coresponding article is inappropriate because the eyelids are obscuring the view of the eye itself. I am going to change the picture now. If you believe that I am wrong in changing it; explain why below before you change it back.
Sopastar (talk) 05:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's been a bizarre edit war drifting on between some (including Sopastar) that want a hairy but poor quality photo of a vulva (File:Asian_vulva.jpg) and a good quality but weird photo of a hairless vulva (File:7-15-07NAP_441.jpg). What I don't understand is why either photo is being argued over. File:Dcp02328.jpg displayed on this page ticks all the boxes. It's a good quality photo, it actually looks like a vulva (!), its hairy (so the 'biological default' people should be happy), but the hair doesn't obscure any of the bits (so the anti-hairies should be happy). Why would anyone object to a picture that doesn't look like either a plucked turkey or 70's porn? —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[]] [[[User:Winkmann99|Winkmann99]] (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that Dcp02328.jpg is currently the best we have. I don't like the fashion for cropping so tightly that the viewer has no idea of scale or positioning (as seen above too), or desaturating the colour. --Nigelj (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What happened was that Lamilli (talk·contribs) fought it back out, twice, telling us to go and read the talk page! [2][3]
To clarify my above post - if there was enough, as in a lot of consensus I would agree to Dcp02328. I don't see enough consensus and the original image should remain. And who is this IP 86.164.246.57 who keeps impersonating Winkmann99? Slightsmile (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just chose a picture at random to raise the question. I am indeed in favour of the picture Dcp02328.jpg. There is now at least five people supporting this image, and I believe that is enough consensus. If you disagree; please point to the overwhelming consensus that you claim to exist for 7-15-07NAP_441.jpg. -Sopastar (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my point of view Dcp02328.jpg is not a perfectly suitable image. Most of all I can't see a reason to swap a good quality image with a bad quality image. Not only that the image quality is comparably low, I don't think that it depicts an "average" vulva. I know that there is no such thing as a standard vulva and you find a huge variation, but the size of the labia minora is certainly above average. --Lamilli (talk) 13:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the objection is that the labia minora are larger than average, wouldn't you also say that about the image that it replaces? I don't claim that Dcp02328.jpg is perfect, just that I prefer it to 7-15-07NAP_441.jpg. --JWWalker (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There we have it: Sopastar asks, "please point to the overwhelming consensus that you claim to exist" and Lamilli replies "In my point of view...". Lamilli has been objecting to this photo for nearly a year here, with varying arguments. First it was that shaved is best, then it was a low quality image, now the labia are too large. On none of these points has there been consensus from others here. --Nigelj (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There we have what? I wasn't answering to the comment above, I was commenting the picture swap. And I'm still behind all of those arguments. What I'm saying is: let's take a high quality image of a "normal" looking vulva. And shaven or not should be secondary.--Lamilli (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You think 7-15-07NAP_441.jpg is 'normal'? The labia minora are just plain weird quite frankly - definitely on the outer edge of the normal spectrum. 86.164.246.57 (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The hairy one you've chosen to put into the article is a bit extreme (!). But both the hairy and shaved are a major improvement on the duck-billed platypus you previously wanted. 86.164.246.57 (talk) 01:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just a visitor here, but I appreciate the hairy vulva photos (last two). Not only are they natural, but beautiful and hot. I don't think the hairiest is "extreme," unless a woman can be "extreme" due to her body. One could argue that a shaved vulva is "extreme," as in not found in nature. But I call for no pictoral discrimination against the best body part ever invented, besides the penis of course.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.119.136 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The right hand image above is the best yet for an unshaved view. The third one above describes itself as 'left in natural state, unshaved and untrimmed for more than a month', which goes to show the difference a few years can make. Showing both the unshaved and the shaved, as we currently do, is probably the best we can do. --Nigelj (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Diagrams vs Photographs
It seems to me that the discussion about diagrams and photographs is overly concerned with offending people. The core concern is the truth. How can we best communicate the truth should be the issue.
Anatomy is a science. Science understands that the whole truth is much too big to pursue as a realistic goal. Scientists do not try to describe the details of every individual human on earth. Scientists try to build a model of the human being, and make that model as realistic as possible, while constantly remembering that it is just a model.
As mentioned by Powers T 14:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC), photographs and diagrams (drawings) serve different purposes. I think that diagrams best illustrate commonalities while photographs emphasize diversity. Where human anatomy is the subject, the very nature of a diagram implies that it is illustrating what humans have in common. So I think that a diagram is appropriate and necessary for any part of the human anatomy that can have significant differences among individuals, or can change as a person ages or has experiences, such as the vulva through child birth. Diversity among individuals could best be demonstrated by a large collection of photographs. In the case of the vulva, the photographs could be labeled by age, pre- or post-puberty, virgin or sexually active, pre- or post- childbearing. Changes due to experiences could best be demonstrated by before-and-after photographs.
Perhaps one day people will volunteer to be photographed throughout their life, including close ups to show how we change through time. Considering how long photography has been around, it seems strange that such a project has not already begun.
This article should definitely include links to 'Design A Vagina' and perhaps other examples of vulva art.
Offending people is a seperate subject. It should be handled at an entirely different level. There are too many people in the world who can be offended by too many different things. It does seem strange to me that when you jump from a search engine page directly into the Wikipedia Vulva article, you are immediately presented with a photograph of a vulva, with no warnings whatsoever. Offending people is bad manners and should be avoided by warnings or similar techniques. The whole issue of offending people should not involve any discussion of censorship; censorship is not needed and is itself offensive to many people.
I'm sorry, but I don't want to see Wikipedia move toward having a splash screen before each page saying "WARNING: YOU MAY SEE A PICTURE OF THE SUBJECT OF THIS ARTICLE." PowersT14:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe someone who is so emotionally fragile that they cannot tolerate looking at a picture of a vagina shouldn't be reading an article about vaginas.--FL
Picture
Why is there a picture of a mastrubating woman? Especially if you claim the article is for encyclopedia work.
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)[reply]
Human centric
This article is so focused on the human vulva you would never know that any other species had one, there is a hugely diverse range of vulval structures among mammals that are not present in humans, each with different functions in reproduction and yet nothing is written about them, never mind any photographs. This is a huge omission in the article, maybe renaming it to "human vulva" would be more appropriate. 90.205.124.243 (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's been a bizarre edit war drifting on between some (including Sopastar) that want a hairy but poor quality photo of a vulva (File:Asian_vulva.jpg) and a good quality but weird photo of a hairless vulva (File:7-15-07NAP_441.jpg). What I don't understand is why either photo is being argued over. File:Dcp02328.jpg displayed on this page ticks all the boxes. It's a good quality photo, it actually looks like a vulva (!), its hairy (so the 'biological default' people should be happy), but the hair doesn't obscure any of the bits (so the anti-hairies should be happy). Why would anyone object to a picture that doesn't look like either a plucked turkey or 70's porn? 86.164.246.57 (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excitement section needs some work
"Vaginal lubrication begins first. This is caused by vasocongestion of the vaginal walls. Increased blood pooling there causes moisture to seep from the walls. These droplets collect together and flow out of the vagina, moistening the vulva."
Lubrication has other mechanisms than vasocongestion. The imagination of droplets seeping and collecting in a pool is pretty amusing. Richiez (talk) 12:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
I may be unaware of what exactly is defined as child pornography, but assuming the person pictured isnt someone who didnt hit puberty until they were 18... isnt this child porn? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.160.17 (talk) 02:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The use of this image struck me as odd and somewhat suspect as well. It was uploaded recently, and the uploader is apparently Italian. He has had a conversation in user talk pages with someone else about it that I translated in Google Translate, and I can't draw a conclusion of the age of the person depicted, but breach of child pornography laws were drawn into question. I think this image should probably be deleted or at least removed from any pages it is used in, and the uploader should be contacted by a moderator. -- Ifrit (Talk) 00:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
.jpg)
