Talk:Human anus

• /Archive 01 -- Archive of this Talk page from November 4, 2002 to August 16, 2006
• /Archive 02 -- Archive of this Talk page from August 16, 2006 through January 9, 2007.

Wise Guy

All right, now who's the wise guy who decided to put "Anus, which uses P2P Caching..." Somebody expurgate that statement out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.152.179.197 (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I laughed and laughed. Still, it needs purging.  :) --Geofferic (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Editorial comment

Someone who has access to editing the page should consider the following. Freud's theory is not the source of the term "anal." That sentence under the "sexuality" section is meaningless. Freud discussed "anal eroticism" and this should be replaced with "anal" in the text of the article. In addition, "anal-retentive" is not only a vulgar or pejorative term. It used to be a way of describing the "anal-retentive" personality style, which is actually a well validated personality type. Despite that many psychology professors derogate Freudean theory, the research on the anal-retentive personality is actually out there (see, for example, Meehl's papers on taxonicity). The point I am trying to make, though, is that someone should edit that sentence in the "sexuality" section as well, to indicate that "anal-retentive" is a psychoanalytic term that describes the "anal character," and that the term secondarily entered the popular culture as a derogatory descriptor for people with obsessional personalities.

Endless image contention

Removing obvious porn image of female booty with shaved labia and simulated sweat. This is not suitable in a medically-oriented article. Also, I want to re-iterate that there is no difference between a male anus and a female anus, all we really need here is an image of a moderately hairy anus labeled "human anus." The Crow 22:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

WRT that female image - how would the contributors here feel if I was to crop it down to the anus alone and use it to replace the current pic? Porn-sourced or not, it is a good, clear picture of the human anus, moreso than the existing image IMO. --Kurt Shaped Box 22:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That would bring it around full circle to where it's been a couple of years. We had a cropped, shaved, bleached porn-anus in this article for a while, it was determined unsuitable (and a copyvio) and replaced with the current hairy man-hole. All we need is a neutral-looking and not-overly-hairy, suitable for an anatomy text. The Crow 22:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I have actually considered taking a photo of my own anus for the article (as far as I am aware, mine is pretty typical) just to put an end to this. Unfortunately, I don't think I'll be able to hold the camera at the right angle to get a decent shot. :( If you take a close look at the 'porn' anus in hi-res, it doesn't actually appear to have been shaved or bleached. --Kurt Shaped Box 22:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the old female anus was unsuitable; it was removed because it was unsourced. I'm not a fan of females, but cropped, that anus looks more useful than the male one we have now. I'd support adding it if you're willing to crop it. The only real problem is that it looks like a copyright violation too. --Kinst 21:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd certainly be willing to do it - but I'll leave it until the image's status is sorted out. As a matter of interest, why was it tagged as a copyvio (there doesn't appear to be any explanation)? --Kurt Shaped Box 01:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think my anus is any less hairy than Ano.jpg and I wouldn't say that my anus is an atypical human anus. In any case, who would you be to state that my anus, or the anus on the picture is atypical. In fact most male anuses that I have come across have a similar amount of hair, although the color of the hair on the picture makes it quite prominent. If we were discussing the anus of any other species than human, hair would surely not be a concern. Furthermore if was the Italian gentleman, who was so generous and kind to contribute the picture, I would be downright offended, if the picture was replaced only because the amount of hair was considered, by other wikipedians, to be unnatural and/or objectionable. BrunOperator 13:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

As for my part, I don't find the present anus photo objectional or abnormal. My issues are (1) it's so hairy that the actual anus isn't very visible, (2) It's a decidedly male-looking anus, so people are going to be tempted to put a shaved anus on there and call it "female" because this is what porn has conditioned them to think. The anus is neither male nor female... the anatomy is exactly the same, and some females have even hairier anuses than men. So I think if we had a slightly hairy anus, it would be both medically illustrative and gender-neutral. The Crow 14:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

While we're at it, why not put up an explicit picture of the anus expelling feces since this is its main function. That would surely be beyond valuable to the reader. And don't forget the "anal sex" page - there should be multiple pictures under anal sex: one of the anus before penetration, one with a penis penetrating the anus, and one of a gaping anus filled with semen. Of course, we should do this for both male and female anuses as to present a neutral POV. In all seriousness, get rid of this picture. No one is coming onto wikipedia to see a close-up picture of an anus. If they want to see what it looks like, they can bend over and look in a mirror. If you insist on associating that picture with this page then make it an external link with a warning. MC24

The article on anal sex contains images, yes. You may wish to see our article on hand, it contains images too. -- Ec5618 11:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You either failed to grasp my point or you fail to see the difference between the drawings/paintings on the anal sex page and the photography used in the image here. User:MC24

What is it about the human anus that you find so strange? As I said, the article on the hand contains images of that part of human anatomy, as do the articles on breasts, the penis, vulva, etcetera. Wikipedia is not censored for minors, and consensus is to use photographs in conbination with medical diagrams in articles on anatomy.

You made two points. Firstly, you suggest that any image of an anus (in the anus article no less) is as vulgar as showing defacation (the article on which, you'll note, contains an image of a defecating cow and feces). Secondly, you suggest that there is no need to include images on parts of human anatomy when everyone can simply look at their own anatomy. Again, consensus disagrees, as evidenced by the articles on the eye, mouth, skin, nose, etcetera. -- Ec5618 11:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I never said I found it strange. Firstly, I agree that a defecating anus is more vulgar than just an anus. I'm glad you can at least see that distinction. Do you mind if I post a picture of a gaping anus? That certainly conforms to your criteria. Secondly, it's funny you mention consensus; the consensus of every nation in the world is that there is a difference between an anus and a nose. Based upon the fact that the vast majority of every civilized society in that world makes a distinction between an anus and a nose, you would have to admit that there are a significant number of users who might use this article for research who don't necessarily want to look at a photograph of an anus. What I don't understand is why you feel that my proposal to provide a link to the photograph instead of directly posting it detracts from the article. User:MC24

Simply put, I object because the anus is not more vulgar than the vulva, or the penis. All of those have images. They are not included to shock people, but to illustrate the topic.

I also object because the only arguments in favour of removing the image are based on prudishness or decency, which are fluid and depend on one's point of view. Some might find images of cows offensive (which would make the image of the defecating cow most heinous indeed). ::::::::::::I'm sure you can see Wikipedia would be in a poor state indeed if people were allowed to remove (or hide) content they found disagreeable. -- Ec5618 13:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

please remove picture of male anus and replace with female anus Fartbarker 22:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC

This arguement is ridiculous....if you don't want to see an anus, be it male or female or hairy or not so hairy...um don't come to this page? Yeah...now if you want to see a female anus to masturbate to for whatever reason, how bout you go find a porn site? The gender of the person with the anus does not matter. An anus is an anus is anus. Deal with it. Don't want to see it, don't go to the anus page... Stetsonblade 19:39, 06 Feb. 2007

Are aliens coming to this page? Anyone from the animal kingdom who isn't human? We don't need photos of anuses, ok? We just simply do not. It's gratuitous, inappropriate, nearing pornographic and quite ridiculous. Everyone has an anus and they know what it looks like. If an image is *absolutely* necessary, i think i diagram or drawing would suffice. 71.232.108.228 07:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I really didn't think I'd weigh in on this, but why not? When I first saw this page, I figured, 'hey, there's a picture of someones anus. I guess I can see the encyclopedic value in that.' But when I saw two pictures, I really think this articles contributers lost some serious street cred. I mean, two pictures? Male and Female? It's not like we're talking about a penis and a vagina. Anuses look the same either way. There is no gender difference. Two pictures is quite simply gratuitous. Not pronographic. Not inappropriate. Just gratuitous. You really only need one picture, if any. IF ANY! When an article has useless information, it is deleted. Useless pictures ahould and DO get the same treatment. Also, look at the ankle page. Hmm... no picture. Why not? We need both a male and female picture. How will readers know what they look like? Heck, save for the gallery, the hand article lacks pictures. Ditch the picture. At least one of them, if not both. It makes the article and its contributors look foolish.

Lastly, in case it hasn't been pointed out, or for what it's worth, the pic of the female anus looks as if she had a bad Episiotomy. Am I wrong? PMHauge 04:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

PMHauge, I'm not as up on this stuff as many others, she certainly has a large skin tag and I while I could see this being caused by an episiotomy, I would suspect some other trauma (or perhaps improper wound care?). Either way, I'm not opposed to changing the image to display more "normal anatomy" I'm not speaking from the perspective of "is she sexy or not." However, I think that the female image displays the anus well enough although the perineum is not "virgin" (i.e., un-scarred). Certainly, this perineum is "normal" by any real standards (skin tags and scar tissue are *very* common in women who have had children).

Daniel Santos 17:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

How would you know? CerealBabyMilk 15:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the topic at hand? Besides... he is right. PMHauge 17:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I re added the male anus picture. It is "normal" by any standards and should be offensive to very few people. One pic is fine and necessary, but two, especially when the second is shaved and has the scar, is not. mrholybrain's talk 18:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm tempted to agree with you about keeping one picture up, but then I try and find the value of any pictures of an anus at all. Perhaps you can explain why this ismage MUST be here. We should have some reasons to keep it up. PMHauge 19:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

this page looks a million times better without the amateur picture. Keep it off. please. there really is no reason for it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.50.73.46 (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

I don't care which picture is used, but any article (especially articles about anatomy) should have at least one photo if possible. These same tiresome "delete that ugly picture" arguments frequently crop up at Penis and Vulva. If you think human anatomy is ugly, don't look at it. Wikipedia is not censored. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm of the opinion that Wikipedia should strive to maintain the highest quality possible. Every article should be striving for featured article status, and amateur images such as these simply degrade their quality. The arguement of "if you don't like it, don't look at" is not valid with something like an encyclopedia because every article should be reviewed, scrutinized and improved whenever possible. I'm not trying to censor anything, I'm simply trying to improve something, and right now, removing or replacing these silly images is the quickest way to get the job done. I've seen little discused on this page that actually addresses the value of these images. You wouldn't find any images like these in an anatomy textbook, so what makes Wikipedia an appropriate repository for them? PMHauge 22:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The current image dosen't look amateur at all. It is a nice, clean image that delivers the point. mrholybrain's talk 00:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Image has been replaced. PMHauge 02:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

To be totally honest, I think both sides of this debate are arguing about nothing, in effect. Not to belittle your concerns of course, but I don't see why it's so important either way. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 04:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The importance is that Wikipedia is not a repository for useless or poor images. It is obvious that people have a problem with a close up of some users anus, so why should it stay? To prove a point? I'm lost here. PMHauge 04:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You should still have a look at /Archive 01, [/Archive 02]]. Among other things, Wikipedia is not censored. That means we don't remove anatomical images only because someone finds them icky. -- Ec5618 07:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The photo being "icky" hasn't once been my arguement. Read the discussion and you will find that the reasons it should be deleted are because it is poor quality, of no encyclopedic value, is contentious, and can/has been replaced by diagrams and sketches that seem to be adequate for medical students, but apparently not wikipedians. Once again, the only reason people seem to want to keep this picture up is so that they can continue to claim that Wikipedia is not censored. This is not a censorship issue. This is a quality issue. Does this users self-made photo of their anus really improve the quality of the article? Would the article somehow be garbage without it? PMHauge 09:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You did argue that the image is icky, as you argued that the image should be removed because some people find it distasteful.

Now, again, feel free to replace the image with an image of superior quality. But removing the only images we have because they are not good enough is ridiculous. You might as well argue that all stubs should be deleted, because they are not yet of excellent quality. -- Ec5618 10:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

YES! Remove all stubs. How right you are! My point exactly!! But seriously... I'm going to swallow my pride and just give up on this one. I still don't get why an image that is garbage should stay up only until it can be replaced with a better one, rather then just taking it down and have nothing but anotomical diagrams befitting of the topic until a better browneye photo comes along. I was really trying to argue quality over quantity, and despite the volume of folks who complained about the image, none of them seem to have chimed in to back me up. Enjoy your anus, people. PMHauge 14:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record PMHauge, other users do see it your way, as demonsrated by User:MC24, 71.232.108.228, and 75.50.73.46. I hope you are not disheartened by the silence (or lack thereof) of those less articulate. (Semantic debates have never been my interest and this comment is not meant to stir the pot, therefore I will ignore responses to this comment and monitor my own user page for vandalism and unsolicited responses similar to that displayed on PMHauge's user page on 12:36, April 24, 2007.) Ryan 16:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

My two cents: an encyclopedia is supposed to be a repository of knowledge. We ought not try to anticipate the motivations of those seeking it. Perhaps someone thinks their own anus is strange looking and wants to see a picture of another for comparison. That may sound trivial but it's still a legitimate reason to want to see a photo. They are using the encyclopedia as a repository of knowledge. The broader the scope the more useful tool Wikipedia is. The intent in having the photo is more important that the possibility that some may find it yucky or worry that some may think lurid thoughts while looking at it. The current photo may not be a work of art but it is functional. So I vote for keeping the photo in. Editdroid 04:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Your arguement that there is only one picture needed since there is no difference between the male and female anus, is true. But to test your true motives, why not remove the male anus and put back the female anus? Agreed, the labia shouldn't be visible. Frankly, who the hell doesn't know what an anus looks like for pete's sake, whether human or animal. And if you didn't know, and thanks to this article you now know, what on earth is that going to do for man-kind? I think a serious case of growing up needs to happen here. Remove all pictures, put a good sketch. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 41.243.137.178 (talk • contribs).

The idea that images should be removed just because people know what the body part looks like has been stricken down, as almost all other anatomy pages have images, including some of the more offensive ones. mrholybrain's talk 23:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

anal sex POV

The article gives the impression that as long as good hygeine is used, there is no risk associated with anal sex. Is this true? Perhaps the part on sexuality should mention the health issues --I don't think any doctors reccomend anal sex-lubrication or not! Puddytang 02:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC) Actually, four out of five doctors recommend anal sex with lubrication.

this always spawns an argument, because people who enjoy anal sex want to think it is basically safe and that the anus is meant to be penetrated, when really it is not. the tissues inside the rectum are very thin and delicate and are very susceptible to irritation and infection. 71.232.108.228 07:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

If the anus isn't meant to be penetrated, why does it have so many pleasurable nerve endings? 76.102.95.213 (talk) 07:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Lmao, you have to admit if you take the proper precautions it reduces the risks dramatically, same as any other type of sex. Big deal.-Your Mother

Could someone rearrange the wording in this sentence: "For the receptive partner, pleasure from anal intercourse is also thought to be related to the shared wall between the rectum and the vagina (for females) as well as the G-spot or prostate (for males). "

I think "as well as the G-Spot" should be moved to BEFORE "(for females)". Right now, it appears that the G-spot and prostate both apply to males. At least, please put a comma after G-spot to break that pesky "and" link between the two. Kmpintj (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Artificial anus

My reccomendation is to remove this section entirely or cut it down to the two sentances that make sense. Puddytang 02:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Why? What do you have against it? There are articles on other artificial devices. I added it because I couldn't find anything about it when I heard on the news that Fidel Castro was given an artificial anus. JohnGaltJr 22:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Does this mean we have a cure for goatse now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.106.104.40 (talk) 04:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ano2

Image is not as good as the original. And, consensus image was changed without discussion first. No offense intended. Be bold, revert, discuss. 02:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Old image was removed for copyright reasons. --h2g2bob 02:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd be in favour of the new image if it were cropped slightly better. At the moment, the image looks badly framed - the skin surrounding the ringpiece is visible at the top of the image but not at the bottom (no pun intended). --Kurt Shaped Box 11:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The skin outside isn't the anus, by any means. The anus is perfectly framed IMHO. 211.30.71.59 21:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Gender differences

I think it's rather peculiar that when showing anuses we show both female and male anuses, where they are waxed and unwaxed respectively. This isn't really showing the subject from a medical standpoint whereas women and men can be just as dasypygal, as well as this could make someone (who might not know better) think that women don't have hair on their bums (which they of course do). It also gives the impression that a man's anus is not as clean/pretty/smooth (what have you) as the female counterpart. --BiT 00:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to photograph a waxed male anus and unwaxed female anus and contribute the images. I'm not convinced that more pictures of anuses are needed. We already have a waxed anus and an unwaxed anus, and I think that provides a complete idea of what anuses look like. --Afed 02:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I just though I'd point it out, because as far as I know the "look" doesn't vary between sexes. --BiT 17:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not the point, someone complained that there was a female anus picture in this article and assumed this was because it was deemed more pleasant to look at; it was then replaced by the most hairy male anus on this hemisphere. Apparently there are now (redundantly) two anus images, presumably for the sake of 'neutrality'. The existence of two anus pictures in this article is not encyclopedic, rather, it is diplomatic. The downsides of this encyclopedia concept, I guess we'll have to live with it. --Joffeloff 02:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the point of Wikipedia? Is it to be the best free encyclopedia on the web, or is it a place for information to be displayed for the sake of diplomacy? This article is a joke as it stands. We all know that the two images are redundant, unecesary and un-encyclopedic. So why are they still there? If someone can make a valid argument for why either pictures NEEDS to be in the article, post it here... otherwise I'll "be bold" and delete them tomorrow and will continue to do so unless I am either forced to stop, or given a valid reason for why they should stay. PMHauge 02:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

See /Archive 01, /Archive 02 and Talk:Anus. Apart from aesthetic and moral concerns, there are no reasons to remove the image. If you would like to find a more pleasant image, feel free. -- Ec5618 22:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, hey, I didn't even notice that you're arguing that since two images is redundant, removing both images is called for. Quite odd. -- Ec5618 22:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

How about just adding captions like "An unwaxed, hairy anus" and "A waxed hairless anus" and forget about the female/male distinction75.72.215.207 20:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Goatse link

I removed the "see also" link to the Goatse.cx article. A general-interest article such as this one should not link to an article about a minute topic of Internet culture. Rhobite 05:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

A request for this article to be semi-protected was recently denied. This article was previously semi-protected; do Wikipedians honestly think that unregistered users are going to contribute valuable information on the topic of the anus? It's experienced heavy vandalism recently and is wasting the time of users who have to revert it.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 21:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC) 29/3/2007 - hey, I am a medical student and a description of the blood supply and lymphatic drainage of the region would be really useful... this area is on each side of the ischorectal fossa (important in abscess formation) and the skin around the anus is supplied by the inferior recal nerve. The superior and inferior rectal arteries supply the area (i THINK). The lymph vessels of the skin drain into the medial group of the superficial inguinal nodes. hope this helps, ignore it if not. (all information from Snell's anatomy)

Yes Wikipedians should honestly think unregistered users are going to contribute on the topic of the anus. For example, think about some Doctor who happens to have a very good anus knowledge seeing the article for the first time and noticing some errors, and correcting them. Rest of the world still have more knowledge on these kind of subjects than "active Wikipedia editors". 88.114.251.167 15:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I know many unregistered users who have made many important contributions to the anus 76.102.95.213 (talk) 07:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Anal Glands

I would like to address the fact that humans also have anal glands. When mentioning "anal glands", almost everybody (who has heard of them) thinks of dogs. Most people don't seem to realize that humans have them as well (possibly most mammals). Anal glands are apocrine sweat glands (as found in the arm pits) that open into the anal crypts, about an inch into the anal canal. In humans, they are more numerous than in dogs and their secretions are mostly odorless. It is speculated that their secretions help lubricate bowel movements.

Given the sensitivity of this page, I thought I was post my intentions a bit prior to making any changes to the section on structure.

Daniel Santos 09:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to fix this page, anal glands and anal fistula all at once (anal fistula because it incorrectly cites blocked/infected anal glands as the sole cause of fistula in ano). Please toss in any input you have here, I'm planning on reworking these this weekend.

Daniel Santos 17:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

What the hell is that yellow crust on that asshole picture?

Wikipedia is not censored

We don't need a link image here for the same reason that we don't need link images at Penis, Vulva, or Spleen or any other anatomical part for that matter. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

They are NOT medical photos, they are photos someone took for a joke, I understand Uncensored but there must be some restraint used when photos add NOTHING to the article and are simply there for shock factor. If they don't add anything to the article (like these ones, the diagrams are must more important and informative) then they should be linkimaged or removed. - Mike Beckham 02:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree; the current photos are pretty straightforward. I see nothing titillating (or shocking) about them. If there are better (or less controversial) photos illustrating the subject, feel free to replace the current ones. Until then, there is no reason to censor these photos. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh, the images serve the purpose of the article just fine, despite their history. Besides, medical photos wouldn't look that different. Just let it go already. Shadowrun 00:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Children do use Wikipedia for school projects and such, and if porn sites have to protect kids from those images, I think wikipedia should to. If its not a chart, then it shouldnt be used. Thats common courtesy and will help protect people from the offensive images such as the ones i had to delete.Nimrauko 00:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• But it isn't porn....it's just a pic of an orifice. Some people really are just dense about their own bodies. Shadowrun 00:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

What's there to protect children from? They even have ani of their own, are they forbidden to look at those now too? — Mütze (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Look I couldn't care less about kids. That's the parent's problem. We can't shut down the internet b/c kids have access to it. Someone put the pictures back up. It's a scientific article, adn if you can't deal with it, you are more than welcome to go under preferences and prevent images from being loaded. Paskari (talk) 16:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

female human anus

shouldn't the other picture thus be indicated as a "male human anus"? it's no big deal, but it's something i would like to change had the page not been locked. 67.172.48.126 18:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

19:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)==Leave the images of the anuses==

As said, don't remove them, they do serve a proper purpose and aren't harming anything. Besides, this typical giggly jitter some have of seeing a butthole is a little old. Shadowrun 00:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said earlier, children and minors do use this site. Using real life pictures does not serve a real benefit. A chart is at the header and if fine. You dont see penis pics at the penis article. I dont want my kid coming to look at this page for a school project or something, and seeing such images. Use some tact people. Nimrauko 00:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

What?? There are no penis pictures in the penis article??? We must fix that immediately!!!

• • And as I'll state again, adults also use this site. I'm willing to bet your kid has more common sense than yourself in realizing what he's looking at. Leave the images. You revert, I'll put them back. Besides, the real life benefit is an outside view of a bodily orifice. If you're worried about corrupting your kid, don't worry, he/she will find out eventually. Shadowrun 00:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I was merely asking. No reason for you to be rude. As I have noticed I havent removed what you put up -_-Nimrauko 00:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• point taken and I'm sorry. Shadowrun 00:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I personally think Wikipedia is not Censored is fine, but in this article the images add nothing, absoloutely nothing. The disagramas are far more informative and the images are most likely took by people wanting to get their jollies off by uploading their asses to Wikipedia - Mike Beckham 01:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

User is making a joke about Ann Coulter, and probably shouldn't be taken seriously. Cool Hand Luke 04:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

They are two perfectly normal images of human anatomy. A look through the archives of the page will give an insight into the vast debates that lead to these being settled on as a compromised. Their inclusion has been uncontroversial for some time and I see no basis for their removal. Wikipedia is not censored and the images are of good quality. WjBscribe 22:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• The photographs should stay, and consensus is clearly against User:Nimrauko; if he insists on having his way, he should be blocked from editing the page. There is nothing wrong with the human body, whether children see it or not. And Wikipedia is not censored for minors. --David Shankbone 04:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is no consensus but your reasoning is flawed. No one is arguing that, what I am arguing at least is that the images do not add anything to the article. The diagrams are informative. The images are not informative in the slightest. - Mike Beckham 04:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

That's your opinion, and people disagree with you more than they agree. Photographic representation that shows the surface area of the anus is very pertinent and appropriate. They add a lot. --David Shankbone 05:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the pictures don't really add anything to the article, but they don't really take away either. People have their hearts set on having photographs, so just let them. The debating about it has gone on long enough. CerealBabyMilk 05:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

DavidShankBone, the concensus isnt against me. Its two people that want the pics of real anus's up. There are more than two people who agree that they detract from the article. I have removed them. They will stay off until we can come to an agreement. Fair enough? (And btw, block me from editing? Really, I am not doing any harm. But as I said I removed the pics and they should remain off until we can as a collective come to some sort of decision. Its not a dictatorship -_-) Nimrauko 19:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, period. We don't need to seek further consensus to establish that. Yes, you will indeed be blocked if you continue removing the images. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you devolpmentaly challenged? I have already said I know its not censored but the picture (Especially the one with part of a vagina and anus) are not needed when there are charts in the verry begining of the article that do a perfectly fine job. It detracts from the article is what I am saying. Censorship? not so much. I am tired of this kind of treatment. remove the second pic or crop it. No reason for you to be a douche about it.!Nimrauko 19:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

One more personal attack and you will be blocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

So you are allowed to abuse your power and I cant say anything about it? Whatever. Its things like this that make wikipedia so laughable. I am not attacking anyone. My previous comment was a bit much but I stand by it. Again I am asking for the second picture to be cropped. Is that an attack? Come on.Nimrauko 19:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop this crap, you can not just use Wikipedia is not Censored for every single thing. Trying to dismiss concerns of editors by just saying that over and over is irritating, inappropriate and missing the message. It's not that I am for censorship, the fact is that the images do not add anything to the article. The diagram does a fine job explaining things. Having photos of some persons ass is hardly going to inform about the topic. - Mike Beckham 01:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

How are the photos here any different from the photos at Penis, Vulva, or Spleen for that matter? They are photographic illustrations of the subject. You still haven't cited a reason why this particular human anatomy article should not have photos. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the real issue here is that there are wikipedia users who are taking pictures of their own assholes just to have in this article. That's disgusting. Jtrainor 19:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL--Oh, is that the "real issue" - well, then you'll be relieved to know there is no issue - the anus photograph I took is not my own. Nice User page, by the way, Jtrainor - if you hate Wikipedia so much, why do you edit on it?--David Shankbone 20:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL. Jtrainor 00:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Completely civil response, and reasonable. Have you considered your page is not civil? "Wikipedia's community is a joke." "Wikipedia is useless crap" The tone of your User page is pretty uncivil, and begs the question I asked. --David Shankbone 03:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

My user page is irrelevant to this talk page. Jtrainor 03:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Remove the disgusting and 'harmful' picture!! This is not a page about porn!! Think about other people, including the children!! XU-engineer 19:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

New Anus

I replaced the old low-res, low-quality male anus with one I shot of a professional model, the same model who now illustrates many of the body part articles. I think we should differentiate the two anuses by gender, and the female anus clearly needs some rotating. --David Shankbone 21:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I know that might sound odd, but some males are not aware of whether the female vagina is vertical or horizontal. The human female anus image in the article should be rotated CCW 90 degrees to that the male and female images are aligned the same way and so as not to propagate this confusion. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 22:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I know this might sound odd too, but some males are also unaware that females ACTUALLY naturally have pubic hair. I personally feel that it'd be a good idea to have a...you know, natural anus as an example of a "female" anus, or at least add a note stating that the anus/vagina shown has been shaven/waxed. 124.177.42.150 05:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I have gone to the Penis site, and I have found pictures of a real penis there..TheLightElf (talk) 19:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"As I said earlier, children and minors do use this site." And, last I was aware, children and minors have anuses just like the rest of us. Perhaps they want to see what one looks like since it is not particularly easy to examine one's own? I'd think you'd prefer them to have a picture to study rather than asking their friends if they can take a peek. Children are curious about the body and there is nothing obscene about a simple photograph of a body part. Splease don't be so Puritanical about it. Kmpintj (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so we could try to contact whoever submitted the pics for the female genitalia, and request to post a cropped version of the image here? Meantime, having them at the top of the page is kind of a "shock factor". Heh. Personally, I'd put the Grey's Anatomy diagrams above, and have the pictures at the bottom(essentially, switch the picture and diagram positions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.182.197.207 (talk) 02:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Switching the two anus pictures.

The shaved and more desirable anus should be the first one to be seen in the article. With the current setup, the only possible way to admire the smooth, clean anus is to have it in the same frame as the hairy anus. Please fix this. --GoatSmoke 20:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The photographs are there as anatomical illustrations, not for your own particular sexual preferences. ExRat 00:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with swapping the photos at all and will do it, but I want to rotate the female one first so it is proper; that said, I take issue that the one is more desirable than the other. But that's neither here nor there. --David Shankbone 20:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope what Goat is getting at is the less-hairy one makes it easier to see the actual anatomy in question. That's pretty reasonable, but the images in the article presently are not obscured by hair (or anything) at all. From where I'm sitting, you can see enough (read: far too much) asshole, thanks. The (ugh) attractiveness of the image in question is truly as you say David, neither here nor there. VanTucky ^(talk) 21:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Although the hairless anus is not a realistic depiction of the anus. --BiT 18:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

That's an opinion, not a fact. Believe it or not, many people shave their anus because it is more sanitary. --David Shankbone 21:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the hair probably protects the skin against contact with fecal matter. Furthermore, the likelyhood of an ingrown becoming infected is probably increased because of contact with fecal matter. Hardly seems sanitary to me. Asarelah 03:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No one cares that the female anus is UGLY--that gross picture keeps cropping up. The bleached anus was unacceptable, so it was appropriately nixed. When the anuses were both viewer-optional hidden links, the bleached female anus photo was re-posted. Now, the male anus has the honor of being a model anus (and a fine photo, indeed)? Where does the male anus rate? That's an injustice! That's inequality! Feminism out the window. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slickpickle (talk • contribs) 05:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• finally, the female anus has been rotated. --David Shankbone 17:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I know my reponse is juvenile..... but this is too funny. This talk page gave me a better laugh than most of the crud that comes out of Hollywood. 24.225.137.164 01:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Being a heterosexual male, I'd quite clearly rather see the female anus in this article than the male anus here - but it's not about my preferences, it's about what makes it encyclopedic, and since this isn't censored we should really have both. There's a fair point being made about the female anal area being hairless, which is misleading given how it naturally is.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleting Revisions

Only Admin/Sysops have the ability to 'hide' a revision so it cannot be reverted. The power is only supposed to be used where it concerns the disclosure of Personal Details PookeyMaster 06:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The female anus photo

I can't edit the article because the page is locked but it should be mentioned in the caption for the female anus that it has been depilated. 156.34.212.234 (talk) 16:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Why? --David Shankbone 17:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

hehe! Well, as much ado as there has been about the pics on this page, I do support that this is a less than ideal picture. The male anus pic appears pretty normal, but the female isn't normal anatomy. First, as anon-ip mentioned, it is depilated, secondly, she appears to have had a bad episiotomy, or some other wound. An encyclopedia article on anatomy should use illustrations of normal anatomy, unless specifically discussing diseases, injuries, etc.. Also, this article is much nicer than it was a year or so ago. Then comes the whole issue of finding a cleanly licensed pic, any volunteers? :) Daniel Santos (talk) 07:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

(Same user) Exactly, David. 156.34.219.85 (talk) 02:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

That is a friggin' PERFECT female anus. Why we need those two pictures, I have no idea, but for heaven's sake, leave the female one up. MG196 18:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mg196 (talk • contribs)

Leav it pleez it is a right tasty bung thankyouuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.88.58.254 (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

hmm.

I don't see what the big deal is about the pictures. If you're so concerned about children coming here and seeing an anus, whoopie. First of all, I HIGHLY doubt that kids are coming here to write a report on an anus. Second, if they ARE coming here at all, it's to actually SEE an anus. I don't understand why this is causing such a fuss. Sure, a very few amount of people find these pictures offensive, but there is something extremely taboo to children about seeing a butt. I think everyone in favor of deleting the pictures is overreacting. The anus is a remarkable muscle. As of 2001, there are roughly 6 billion people on the planet. Assuming each one takes a dump once a day, there are 6 billion times a day at least that the anus does it's work. Truly this is proof of its thorough design and well crafted construction. Unless of course you don't believe anything designed the anus. Anyways. Even more common than dump taking is farting, also done through the anus, that most durable and noble of organs. ElisaEXPLOSiONtalk. 13:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but your message has to be the funniest thing I've read all day. 156.34.221.158 (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Is the anus proof of Intelligent Design? Perhaps it's time for another test in the courts!Bruno23 (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I really wish we could crap by osmosis right now. 208.106.104.40 (talk) 19:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought Lihaas (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

pictures

are you guys predators or just like looking at same sex anus's? can we remove it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.161.152 (talk) 16:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

We can remove it, but we shouldn't. Wikipedia is not censored. Also, how would looking at a picture of someone's anus in the context of an encyclopedia article (or in general, for that matter) make someone a predator? Ketsuekigata (talk) 03:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I AM a sexual predator and I consider what you've just said to be discriminatory.69.41.96.25 (talk) 03:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Predators? Oh, grow up ya big fairy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.88.58.254 (talk) 14:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Images

Hmmm, Why do we need diagrams of the whole reproduction systems on the anus article? It's not even part of them. it makes no sense. Bobisbob (talk) 03:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hair removal note on female photo

I just changed the caption on the female photo from "Female human anus" to "A female human anus from which the hair has been removed". The previous caption, particularly juxtaposed next to the male photo, gave the impression that female anuses are somehow naturally hairless. You can tell by looking closely at the photo that she's had some hair removed. Epukinsk (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't make a habit of taking that close a look at anyone's anus, but so what if it's hairless. It's still real. For instance, wikipedia has a picture of a man's chest that's hairless. Do we need make that point that it's not natural? Men shave their faces, women shave their legs and none of that is anything but fashion. Bruno23 (talk) 01:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You should try looking at anuses, they're super. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.88.58.254 (talk) 15:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Female anus photo

I wish to mimic the sentiments of Daniel Santos in stating the woman pictured has undergone an episiotomy or has some sort of scar tissue from some incident. Although I do agree that the fact it's waxed perhaps presents an unrealistic photo, as the majority of men and women don't regularly wax. --71.167.134.137 (talk) 11:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

How do you know the majority of men and women don't regularly wax? Do you have a citation to.......'back that up', or are you just.......'talking out of your ass'? 68.0.119.139 (talk) 08:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether it's the majority, if there is a picture of the "natural" anus of a female and male they should definitely be used as this article's primary photos. This is not a matter of taste, but rather a matter of first displaying how the object looks naturally, so say aliens could look at this article and see "ok, so this is how the anus of a human looks like and it appears that they sometimes perform epilatory actions to make their anuses smoother". You get the point. --BiT (talk) 04:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

i dont know what kind of girls you're dating, but the girls i've dated do not have hair around their anuses and they dont need to wax either. Get a higher quality of woman in future —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.217.154 (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

A few thoughts on "image" [Edited over 9000 times]

I apologize for the following random, non-logged-in, candor-laden and somewhat sarcastic comment, but I find this article (and particularly this discussion page) to be extremely perplexing. If you find any of my points to be tenuous, useless or too rehashed, please let me know.

After my initial childish giggling ceased, I couldn't help but wonder what prevents the next random person with a penchant for exhibitionism from just submitting his or her own favorite anus to this page? Does Wikipedia maintain a list of Pre-Approved Beautiful Examples of Male and Female Human Anatomy that includes a section pertaining to the qualitites of a truly representative and picturesque anus? Would it be at the very least more fitting to use the anatomy of an adult film actor or actress, considering that its source is actually verifiable and that it has some arguable signifigance to the general public? (Perhaps I've gone too far.)

User Editron in a comment above approximates very well the limit of the current images' potential: "Perhaps someone thinks their own anus is strange looking and wants to see a picture of another for comparison. That may sound trivial but it's still a legitimate reason to want to see a photo." Even this, though, leads into the question of what is exactly appropriate and the statistical implications of how many people will legitimately use the page for this purpose versus how many will use it as fodder for mockery, antipathy or bad publicity for the site in general.

How can the contributors to the page *really* take it seriously, particularly with all of this unnecessary contention? I consider myself to be reasonably "mature", and I don't have a problem with the content of said images per se or their intent (which I on good faith assume is true also of the contributors), but there was only so much staring-at-someone-else's-excretory-organs-in-the-corner-of-my-eye as I scanned the page that I could take before I started begging for a professionally-rendered illustration that actually highlights relevant external anatomical features and that is actually capable of being fairly criticized and improved, which are attributes I hope the rest of you are also more interested in; internet images similar to those currently featured usually find one before he ever thinks to look for them (and usually don't even ask for a credit card!). Even adding to the current images a simple line extending from the center to the label "anus"--or perhaps the less hilarious idea of labeling the anus, perineum, vagina, etc.--would make me feel a bit better about this. Considering Editron's comment, perhaps a scientific diagram and an actual image could be left together if a solution to the problems in my first paragraph were to be found.

Unfortunately, these suggestions themselves are certainly guilty of invoking the highly subjective ethical issues that are the source of this disagreement: what constitutes worthiness of being replaced by a cold, lifeless diagram--and to what degree can it be considered censorship? Discussions such as this one should be foremost reverent to Wikipedia's (apparent) philosophy of utilitarianism and altruism; how far can we dive, headstrong, into the abyss of defining right and wrong and correct and incorrect before the light of reality fails to reach us? We seem to constantly speculate at what Wikipedia's users want or need without ever hearing the thoughts of those who dare not venture onto the Talk pages. I fear to replace these images and in turn make such a bold decision and declaration of my own opinion would be to only contribute to this sound and fury that encourages us to forget that compromise and the occasional concession are unfortunately necessary parts of life.

"So for once in my life / Let me get what I want / Lord knows, it would be the first time" (Wes)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.104.38 (talk) 06:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Moving the old page to 'Human anus'

I think the movement of the old page to 'Human anus' was a mistake. If you look at pages on a variety of other body parts, both digestive and sexual -- stomach, intestine, mouth, penis, vagina -- the major page on the subject is about the human body part. Hence, I have reverted the page to its old form. The editor who moved the page is encouraged to write more about nonhuman anuses within the 'Anus' article, as is the accepted form on the other pages. Neiladri (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

There's an old guideline somewhere about Wikipedia that states "never use the fact that lots of other pages conform to a precedent to suggest that that precedent is correct". An anus is an anatomical feature that is of some importance in evolutionary development, etc, and browsers probably don't want to be confronted with pictures of shaved bottoms and discussion of anal sex. It puts one off one's breakfast somewhat.

I don't have much interest in ani and have no desire to spend my time writing about them, but there is enough content about the human anus to justify its own article. Its inclusion in a general article with sparse other details is somewhat out of place, and a discussion of sexual practises is rather inappropriate on a page about a general anatomical feature.

If there is some strong reason to keep the "Human anus" detail here, let's hear it. Otherwise let's try and make this a good, scientifically accurate article rather than something for schoolboys to chortle at in their lunch hours.

Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 11:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Was this move discussed anywhere? For one thing, it doesn't seem to have been done properly since all of the media people objected to above have silently been removed from the new article (since the images are whitelisted for Anus but not Human anus). If good faith is to be assumed here, then whoever is responsible for the move should at the very least see to it that the images get whitelisted. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 12:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that from the point of view of biology in general and especially of evolution, there is an awful lot to be said about anuses! The quickie text that I put in was a just a high-level map of this. To give you one example:

Most complex organisms are built of repeated "modules". Arthropods and annelids are the most obvious example, but it's also true of vertebrates - fish have repeating vertebrae, ribs and lateral muscle bands. Repeated "modules" must include a through gut, open at both ends, otherwise the modules both starve and get poisoned by in their own waste. That implies that before modules started repeating (probably because a block of genes was copied too often during reproduction) the initial single module must have had a mouth and an anus. Since the most "primitive" true multi-celled animals, cnidarians, don't have separate mouths and anuses, the evolution of the anus was a very significant process in the history of evolution - in fact such a good thing that it occurred twice, in protostomes and deuterostomes.

Now imagine that written in the more formal style required for an article, and with refs. Then add a few more topics in the same formal style and with refs, e.g. summary of the differences in embryological development of the anus between protostomes and deuterostomes, summary of the anatomical differences between anuses in different parts of the animal kingdom (the current bit about cloacas is a very simple summary of just one branch of the animal kingdom, amniotes). The result is a fair-sized article, much too large to fit at all well into a medical article about the human anus. In particular writing an acceptably short lead section that adequately summmarises all the general biology / evolution material and the human material would be virtually impossible - and that means we can both kiss our GAs goodbye. -- Philcha (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

How is this a reply to my post? Are you volunteering to whitelist the images? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Update: I got the issue resolved by taking it over to WP:AN. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 18:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)