Talk:Vulva

Archives
Off-Topic Discussions Archive 2 (Sep 2003 to Mar 2007)

"Something shameful to be hidden"

Western cultures have commonly viewed the vulva as something shameful to be hidden . . .

I wonder about the "shameful" aspect. Is it not rather an object of modesty -- as opposed to shame? I am not in any way ashamed of my sexual organs, but I'm very reluctant to show them to other people. I avoid group showers, for example.

• sigh* perhaps an article on Modesty is in order?

In my opinion, yes it is. There is propensity in our society to view virtues as shameful, which seems inherently contradictory to me. As a witness to this, I note the almost violent reaction to teaching abstinence by a very vocal group in our society. Perhaps the 'popular' understanding of shame/freudian psychology is the source. I'm not sure.

Um,'Virtues' are relative. Just because you've been raised to believe in certain virtues doesn't mean anything else than that you have been raised to believe in certain virtues. Abstinence for the sake of abstinence (as in religiously motivated) is insanity in my world.

Relativism is popular, not necessarily true. Does the fact that people behave differently discount any objective discussion of morals?

pardon me. but I don't even understand why we're talking about cultural stuff here. Yes. it's true that many cultures around the world think that vulvas should be hidden in public. However, I don't think somebody uploaded the photo to be immoral or offensive but posted it for people who visit this page to learn about it with clear and actual photo, which I think is necessary and helpful. This page isn't about morality or taboo but for human anatomy and it's good to have a photo for subject like this for better understanding it, I believe. davidmj926 16:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

excuse me...but WHY do you take pornographic pictures of woman's bodies and post it on the internet. in my opinion it's disgusting and shameful and personally i think you are criminals.You could be charged by police and i have saved the webpage so you better be careful. thank you.(Please go buy some morals)--Nasty Picture70.53.60.57 22:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Its perfectly legal to put a picture of a vulva on the Internet. And even if it were "pornography", well guess what...Internet pornography is perfectly legal too! Asarelah 17:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, first off, this is not pornography from my standpoint, but that's a fine point and I'll leave it alone. The real answer to you question is: this is an encyclopedia whose goal is to be a repository for human knowledge. That's "human knowledge", not "human knowledge that some particular subset of humans consider acceptable". If you have a picture that better illustrates the subject, please share it with us. -Harmil 05:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

lol --Huffers 02:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I wonder why did you come to this entry if you are so chastise ;) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.39.21.94 (talk • contribs) .

It's what every human female body basically has and the image is just for helping people to understand how it really looks, rather than just a simple drawing. This page is NOT like one of porn sites on the internet since while you're taking it pornographic, others just see it for INFORMATIONAL purpose. You're comment is just clueless and laughable. Police? How pathetic you aredavidmj926 16:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sex is good, but don't go out and have sex with just anyone. If you are married, have sex with your wife/husband. Save sex for marriage. It'll get you good results. You may not even get divorced.

That may be your opinion, but that does not represent Wikipedia's idea of a Neutral Point of View. Laerwen 23:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a page for vulva. not sex or marriage.davidmj926 16:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

And, I just can't stop laughing my ass off at your clueless and brainless comment. hahahahaha. OK, Vulvas are what every human female body basically has and the image is just for helping people to understand how it really looks, rather than just a simple drawing. GET THIS CLEARLY:This page is NOT a porn page on the internet like you think, because while you're taking it pornographic, others just see it for INFORMATIONAL purpose. davidmj926 10:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I suspect a troll. In any case, ironically that IP looks up to Canada which AFAIK has fairly liberal laws on sexuality and pornography compared to, for example, the religious US Nil Einne 16:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

There are some dumb, dumb people in the world (referring to the prude claiming arrests are in order). Also, never having sex with someone until you're married sounds like a recipe for disaster.

Picture update.

The labeled picture of the female genetalia is WRONG! It swaps the clitoris with the urethra. I know, I have one, I know where my pee comes out. This picture is wrong!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.17.79 (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

:( Honest to god, if I hadn't seen the pictures of vaginas here on wiki I still would have thought that my urethra... was my clit. My bf laughed at me. I'm not joking. 00:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC) Ignorant with no images

That picture is revolting!

I replaced the second diagram with a drawn diagram taken from "The Vulvodynia Survival Guide" by Howard I. Glazer, Ph.D. I chose this picture over the other because, for the most obvious reasons, it's better detailed, less questionable, and far less offensive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Massacabre (talk • contribs) 18:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

There was nothing "offensive" about the pictures. If you find these articles offensive either don't look them up in the first place, or please discuss your problems here on the talk page before blanking information. --Nigelj 22:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that there are photos on wikimedia commons under the section Female_genitalia that better show the vulva than the current picture. SophieRachel 17:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article's photograph have pubic hair like that naturally occurring on the human female? Rdr0 00:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

- I agree. It should. DCEvoCE 19:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I just replaced it with an image already in Wikimedia Commons, but if anyone has a better one feel free to replace it. Rdr0 20:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Scent?

Should something perhaps be mentioned about the particular scent of vulvas? From my experience, it's pretty distinct. Do penises also have a certain smell? I dunno. I just thought I'd bring it up. CerealBabyMilk 02:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Jesus, this an encyclopedia, not a porn magazine.--Kamikaze 10:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be something on scent. No, penises dont useually have a smell like vulvas do. I also think the section should include vaginal discharge as from what I understand thease are related and also related to the menstral cycle, as the scent and colour/viscosity of vaginal discharge changes according to the different stages of the menstral cycle and can also indicate infections of the vulva. I dont understand the comment about porn magazine. SophieRachel 17:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I too don't understand how your only contributions are related to vagina or vulva. Probably someone eager to show they're supported ? --Kamikaze 17:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyways, just to be specific, I don't think the scent thing is notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. It's sure not notable enough to be mentioned in medical studies on vulva.--Kamikaze 17:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Kamikaze, I only just started recentley, and I am a student with not much time, and I had to start somewhere, so I started helping here. youll see more of me in other places related to the body and health later when I have more time. SophieRachel 01:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why this wouldn't be considered notable as long as there's a source for the information. There certainly is ample information out there on "abnormal" odours, which is good but makes it harder to find info on "normal" ones. In my experience and reading the penis can also have a distinct smell not dissimilar to that of the vulva. Sebaceous glands glands in the clitoral hood and foreskin seem to play a part in this; sometimes they are removed in circumcision in males. It would be interesting to know which chemical components are contributing the most to genital scents; maybe some of them are pheremones or sex hormones?--Eloil 14:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You should also point out the sources that prove its notability. If you find them, of course.--Kamikaze 18:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Penises do have a certain smell, especially if they're uncircumcised. Also, the scrotum tends to sweat freely so, that adds some smell too. Hope that helps. 156.34.212.227 (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Stolen image

It would seem that the image "Sarahvulva crop.jpg", used in the article, might have been stolen from this amature porn site. see the post at Image talk:Sarahvulva crop.jpg#Possibility that the image was stolen for more information.151.203.184.11 20:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've removed the image from the article. It shouldn't be hard to get a replacement photo. Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 20:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

What about the various versions (labeled/unlabeled/cropped/uncropped) of the image that are still on the on the Wikimedia Commons? shouldn't they be deleted? 151.203.184.11 20:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

They certainly should, but that will have to be discussed on Wikimedia Commons. If there are any other articles here on Wikipedia that include those images, they should have the images taken out as well. Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 21:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Do I get to say "I told you so" now? :-) Nandesuka 21:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the image was probably stolen was broght up on the talk pages of several versions of the image at the Commons see here, but there has been no response...151.203.184.11 22:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm on it :) Speedy deletions at commons aren't all that speedy... patience please :). --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 23:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I knew there was something odd about that user. Who asks random people if they want pictures of his naked wife?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Linkimage

Template:Linkimage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The colour wine?

Does a womans vulva really turn from red to wine at the plateu stage? Hmmm

wtf? --BiT 11:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the exact coloring varies, but it does tend to get darker.CerealBabyMilk 13:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are these edits considered questionable?

In the section about genital alteration I added a link to an existing phrase, a couple of "also known as", and a gloss. I also attempted a more worldwide perspective. All of these were reverted, with the edit summary that they were "questionable". I don't see why. Please could a more detailed discussion be opened up here.

Also, I wish I knew how to do that thing that provides a link to show what the two edits look like. Any helpful ideas for this WikiGnome? BrainyBabe 22:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

remove picture

remove the picture Origin-of-the-World.jpg that thing is just scary

Wikipedia is not censored. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I know but talk about shock images

you do realize it's a 1860s painting, right?--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 04:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The internet is not for the prudish. Conservapedia may be more to your liking. Trollderella 23:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing "shocking" or "scary" about a simple painting of a human vulva, especially not in the context of an article about the vulva. Wikipedia is not censored. Also, please sign your posts using for tildes. Instructions on how to do so are on the top of the talk page when you edit it. Thank you. Asarelah 01:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC).

The scary thing is that the Origin of the World has more pubic hair than an Armenian. Can't we have sexier, more airbrushed illustrations? Perhaps with some captions describing their hobbies...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.167.167.125 (talk) 23:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Airbrushed illustrations would not be realistic. This article is to show how vulvas generally look, not how people wish that they would look. Asarelah 23:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Wouldnt it be nice if they looked nicer in a way tho lol. Origin of the world is quite scary but should be kept as a 19th century painting Stui 19:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

wikipeia is not censored, but that image should be--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 09:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing "scary" about the painting. As for the amount of pubic hair depicted by the artist, it isn't unusual, and since the vulva in the first photograph has very little hair (and the last one none), the painting balances it out quite nicely.Shadowcrow 02:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* And men wonder why women have so many issues with their bodies. A vulva in its natural state is considered "scary" and ugly. Very sad.Asarelah 02:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If anything the pictures of the vulvae with little or no pubic hair should be removed, because they don't portray how vulvae actually look naturally. It's like the article for Human would only include pictures of people who've had a lot of cosmetic surgery and breast augmentations, or people who've suffered disfiguring and deforming accidents. --BiT 03:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about that, BiT...isn't it important to show the Cleft of venus without the hair getting in the way? Would you object to a shaved head in the article about the human scalp? Asarelah 04:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I am a girl, and that image is a painting, it should be a picture--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 12:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

then go take a picture of your vagina and put it up here 64.15.147.181 (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

sure, butwhat is wikipedia's rule on uploading a picture of a 16 year olds vulva?--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 05:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Erm...I wouldn't do that if I were you. People (such as your parents!) would probably react badly if you're under 18, even if it is for clinical purposes. Besides, there are already pictures in the article. Asarelah (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

i was being sarcastic--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 12:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, good. You never can tell on the Internet. (I've heard people say weirder things on talk pages, believe me.) Asarelah (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

same here--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 03:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Some parts of this discussion made me laugh, even though there were valid points. Just reminds me of one of the reasons why I love Wikipedia... Although, it's also a pain, of course, due to vandals. Flyer22 (talk) 05:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is doctor recommended

This article is doctor recommended. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Why the unencyclopaedic tag?

What - an encyclopaedia isn't meant to cover subjects starting with V? I'm tempted to simply remove it, but is that protocol? Gordon Findlay (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:Bold. I removed them. No reason given to include them. Gillyweed (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

List of disorders

Is the list of disorders given in the section on Disorders affecting the vulva worth including? There is a link to the ICD-10 codes, which duplicates them, and is more extensive. I have tried to justify the inclusion by defining the list as "most significant" disorders, but that is just a weasel word. Gordon Findlay (talk) 08:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Vagina-anatomy-labelled2.jpg

This image should be removed:

1) The spelling of "minora" is incorrect 2) Tbe picture displays atypical genitalia (grossly large vagina) 3) Picture appears to have been lifted from a pornography site —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.85.151.177 (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

1) Indeed. You are as free as anyone to change it.

2) I don't exactly carry a Vernier scale to my dates, but then again, does it really have to be typical? No two vulvae look alike. But the picture is good, It shows lots of details. A picture like that is a lot more informative for the layperson than a diagram. Did you ever think "but what does it really look like?" back in sex ed? --GSchjetne (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

1) The text looks as if it were part of the picture, and therefore hard to change. 2) The vagina does seem strangely large to me as well. This article isn't about vaginas, after all, so we don't actually have to see inside it. 3) Is it lifted from a pornography site? It certainly looks rather pornographic, with the woman's fingers and much of the mons pubis visibly (and rather inexplicably), well, wet. Shadowcrow (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I replaced it with the picture from the vagina-page. I think this one fits better.--Lamilli (talk) 11:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I propose to the community this one I made: Image:Vulva labelled no tags.jpg. — STAR TREK Man ^{[Space, the final frontier...]} 13:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored ;D--Anteriormente (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The intent is encyclopaedic and for practical knowledge, not for your sexual excitation. Im not amused. — STAR TREK Man ^{[Space, the final frontier...]} 11:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)