Talk:Clitoris/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Clitoris. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Drawing vs. photo in general

I have previously asked “how should the photography of clitoris look like, so it could not be considered ‘a porn picture’” but from the subsequent comments I might conclude that people who are against this photo are not against this one in particular but rather against any photo in general. Is that the case? Also, are people who are against this drawing similarly against any drawing in general, or only against this one? I hope drawing the distinction might help resolve this dispute and also that is why I have added other photo and other drawing to the poll. Are there people who are against only this photo or this drawing? Or those who would like a photo or drawing if only it was different from the one we have now? Rafał Pocztarski 15:30, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My two cents: we're trying to illustrate something that's a little elusive and partly internal. In that sense, a well-done drawing can be much more informative than any photo. The photos proposed so far are more suitable for vulva. I'm not too crazy about Cantus's drawing though, as it still shows just a tiny dot of surface detail, with much more attention given to depicting a big, confusingly spread-open vulva. How about two drawings: external view (with more simplified surroundings) and internal/side view. If I find a good example, or have time to draw something, I'll post it. ←Hob 21:16, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)

It would be great if you could draw the picture yourself and license it for free use, because that would finally end the legal problems we have now. You might take a look at this example: http://www.the-clitoris.com/1r4/anatomy/anatom3.jpg which shows the entire clitoris including the internal not visible parts with a comparison to penis, which is great to illustrate the article on the role and development of clitoris. Such a picture would be an important addition to another one with external view, similar to those we have now, but possibly with better details. Here is a good example of external view: http://www.the-clitoris.com/1r4/anatomy/vulva_1.jpg with some muscles and nerves marked. Here are another examples of good drawings:

and more links:

But please keep in mind that if you decide to find some existing picture, it needs to be properly licensed or in the public domain. Of course it is perfectly possible (and legal) that the author of a picture with “all rights reserved” will gladly release it under some free license, so asking couldn't hurt. I believe that many people who create websites devoted to sexual education would have nothing against their drawings being available on Wikipedia. If you are drawing your own picture, please save it as PNG instead of JPEG. Thanks. Rafał Pocztarski 06:05, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the links! I'll see what I can do, although I can't make it a high priority. ←Hob 20:48, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)

No problem. Take your time. Having seen your website I am more than sure that you could draw something really good. Thanks. Rafał Pocztarski 23:31, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is what I'm talking about! These pictures are MUCH MUCH MUCH more informative than a pornographic picture lifted from the web. These kids just don't get it. They think it's cool and bold to put a real clitoris on display. They think that is more progressive, more advanced thinking. They have no idea what is really necessary on an encyclopedia. Kudos to the person who posted these links, so the unwashed masses can learn something. Ha. --Cantus 04:19, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Cantus. Your message in general and the insulting tone clearly mark you out as the mature one in this debate. --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 19:17, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Protection

Clitoris is “protected from editing until disputes have been resolved on the discussion page.” What exactly needs to be done for the dispute to be considered resolved? Rafał Pocztarski 17:04, 1 Sep 2004

Stability on the picture. It was protected because Cantus has decided the picture is pornographic and insists on revert-warring over it - see the article history - David Gerard 19:50, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I know the history and what was the problem. I was asking what has to be done so we could consider the problem resolved. Do we need explicit agreement of everyone involved with the recent reversions before the article can be unprotected? In any case, I have prepared other versions of the photo hopefully addressing some of the concerns. Rafał Pocztarski 20:18, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The only one now fussing is Cantus, who has incidentally just been blocked for this bit of edit-warring (it's in violation of the arbitration committee decision about him) - David Gerard 22:17, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wrong. Guanaco illegally blocked me because he thought I had violated that rule. Turns out I hadn't violated anything. It took a posting to the Village Pump for him to undo the block. Guanaco is currently RfC'd over this. --Cantus 02:31, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

I can't even look at this page during the day because the screen is visible to people outside. I will have to wait till it's dark enough to comment here. --Cantus 21:16, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Then stop looking at clitorises at work. "Don't do that then." - David Gerard 22:17, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Um, and sorry to break it to you Cantus but your screen will be even more visible in the dark. Indeed, if your plan is to wait in your office until nightfall, no light falling on you other than the glow of several pictures of clitoruses, I feel bound to tell you this is a strategy fraught with downsides.

You may, of course, get away with it. But I would avoid sitting there and struggling to get anything out of your trouser pockets whilst remaining seated, or rummaging in a bag placed between your feet. I'm too embarrassed to tell you why, so you'll just have to trust me. --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 23:56, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

"Dark enough" to close the curtains and use artificial lighting. D'oh! --Cantus 02:35, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

This is so juvenile. If you come to a page entitled 'clitoris', and are shocked by being shown a picture of an actual clitoris, then, well... "Don't do that then"! There is enough confusion about exactly what and where to justify both the diagram and the photo - there is legitimate reason to think that people coming here might want explicit help in finding it. 213.206.33.82 06:38, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have to say I'm in favor of using the photograph. I can remember not all that long ago being quite confused about exactly where and what and I agree drawings just don't quite get it across as well. –Floorsheim 07:55, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The argument isn't over whether to have a photograph, but whether to display it inline in the page, rather than linking to it. In either case the photograph is available for those who want it, there's just a dispute over whether everyone reading the page ought to see it. I'd personally prefer a link, along with other similar "informative but may be shocking" images, such as one on anus (which doesn't yet exist). --Delirium 07:04, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

You're the first one to read the argument that way. I am sure Cantus will agree with you, but I haven't seen anyone else making such a request.--Dittaeva 22:10, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Protection 2

The page has been protected again to prevent repeated unilateral removal of the photo. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 23:58, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Putting this page into protection, with the photo in question still on the page, is tantamount to the admins who did so being in agreement that all of Wikipedia should be listed on sites that are pornographic and inappropriate for children. Is this the message we want to sent to the world? KeyStroke 21:20, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)

Protection 2

Could someone here please explain to me why they put this disgusting picture on a supposedly legitimate encyclopedia? Does anyone that children go on this site? They don’t have the see smut like that. I am blessed with two daughters, and I don’t let them on this website because it contains pictures of a woman’s private parts.--198 23:55, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to ask - why were you looking at the clitoris article in the first place? -- Netoholic @ 01:15, 2004 Oct 2 (UTC)

Half the children vising this site have a clitoris. I too am blessed with two daughters. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 23:58, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Good, I have no problem with the Scientific Drawing it's the ugly smut picture of that private part that I do have a problem with. --198 00:08, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you read the rest of this page, you will see that only cantus agrees with your stance at the moment. Most people seem to think that the photo should stay until we get a better one or a high quality scientific drawing. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 00:12, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What about Cantus' picture?--198 00:22, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's not high quality enough. A picture would have to be very good, very well drawn and clearly labelled to be more informative than a photo to get my vote. Plus Cantus still hasn't said anything about the copyright status. (I'm off to bed now, see you tomorrow) Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 00:32, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's not; it's pretty. You should look at the derivation of "disgusting" or "blessed" to see you wouldn't want to use those terms in this context.lysdexia 07:01, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why is this picture disgusting? It is entirely unhealthy to teach children that naked bodies are disgusting and smutty. Of course it is important to keep nudity and sexual organs in their appropriate context, but an excyclopedia article about sex organs? That seems like appropriate context to me. I respect your right to restrict what your children see, but not you assertion that you should be allowed to control what other people's children see. The Recycling Troll 00:41, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I completely agree with The Recycling Troll, (though I am wary of his user name). If I ever have children, I don't intend to allow them to grow up ignorant of the human body... that's how teenage pregnacy occurs, through lack of knowledge. My only possible problem with the images I see on the page right now is the woman's hand in close proximity, which would no doubt suggest masterbation to those whacky right-wing christian groups who always seem to find smut no matter where they look. I did a google search, and came across a drawing that might be less controversial, (but I don't know anything about all of the copyright rules): http://www.clevelandclinic.org/health/health-info/pictures/vagina.gif. P.S. Why is user 198 worried about his daughters seeing female "private parts"? Are there no mirrors in his home? Do his daughters not have the ability to look down? What is the actual issue here? func (talk) 14:34, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not keeping my children ignorant I want them to learn about their bodies, however that picture is very questionable.--198 02:33, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'll go further: I don't respect anyone's "right" to restrict what "his" children see. Why should children be subjected to the capricious whims of the adults to whose care they happen to be assigned by society? Shorne 02:58, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Concurrence. No being has the right to restrict the free will of another to make an informed choice on what one can view, read or see, irrespective of whether or not they happen to be one's ancestor or not. Also, to user func on his above comment, teenage pregnancy is due to having sex before the age of 20, not due to lack of knowledge. Most mothers under 20 are quite well enough educated and knew exactly what they were doing. Perhaps you assume that they didn't want to be a mother? That all such pregnancies are accidental and unwanted? Perhaps also you're forgetting that for the entirety of the 4 million years since anatomically modern humans started walking around, bar the last few hundred or so in western societies, puberty (at age 12-14 or so) has marked the passage of a girl into womanhood, from which point on she is expected to be sexually active and bear children, but that's a whole different matter. Nicholas

Parents have a right to bring up their children in the way they see fit, as long as that way is subordinate to the laws of the land. This is a matter of TRUST. It is untrustworthy of an encyclopedia to include photographs of actual sexual organs in an encyclopedia unless this site (Wikipedia) is intended only for adults. Parents need to be able to assume that whatever a 12 or 13 yr old boy finds on Wikipedia will be appropriate for the moral values they are teaching their child. We violate that trust by allowing such photographs to be included. The result will be that Wikipedia will become banned by schools, parents, and software meant to exclude porn from children. Wikipedia is too valuable a resource to children to allow it to become banned to children over a handful of photographs. Lets restore the trustworthiness of the site and remove all photographs that would be sexually provocative and stimulating, before the filtering software does it for us. KeyStroke 21:15, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)

Um... to the anon above and to Nicholas... no. I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that there are no images or unpleasentries or complicated aspects of life that children should be protected from. If the picture in question was actual smut, in the sense of a gratuatious sex act, then I would object to it. With regard to Nicholas's comments on teenage pregnacy: what exactly are you advocating here? High school age mothers do not know what they are doing. If they did, they wouldn't be having children that they can't afford to take care of, that they can't help to teach, (because they haven't even finished their own schooling), etc. Find me a 30 year old woman who had a child in high school who claims that she was doing the right thing, then we'll talk. Wow, way off topic. func (talk) 02:41, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The material was not anonymous; I wrote it. The attribution was hidden when Nicholas inserted his paragraph in the middle.

The picture in question is entirely appropriate for an encyclopædia article on the clitoris. I continue to see nothing "vulgar" about it. People who wish to improve upon it are most welcome to post a different photo.

It is patronising and insulting to assert—in bold type, no less—that women in their mid-teens do not know what they are doing. That may be the case for many, but it certainly is not the case for all. The fact that some women later come to regret having had children at a young age is hardly relevant. How about someone who got married at age 40 and later got divorced: did that person not know what she was doing? By that standard, we'll pass our entire lives in a state of immaturity.

And, yes, this is now 'way the hell off topic. Shorne 02:58, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't see anything "vulgar" about the current picture. As for the possibility that having a hand near the female genitalia just might suggest masturbation to the pruriently inclined, it hardly deserves comment. What would be better: a clinical tool? Shorne 19:49, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Creating A New Image

The image currently used is on dubious legal grounds, has many detractors due to it's original 'porn'-like appearance, does not show the clitoris clearly and is of low resolution when magnified in the later versions. I propose a new image be created specifically for Wikipedia which negates all of the above. Sadly it cannot help those who insist any photo is inappropriate, but reading the entire discussion over several pages, it appears this group has been out-voted. (Poll on whether new image would be beneficial removed per 'too premature' comment by David Gerard) Nicholas

Well you can't have a poll for this sort of thing. Why would you need one? It's pretty clear that everyone would vote yes anyway. The point is, we have no other image at the moment, and we cannot force someone to create a new image! Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 05:20, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

its original lysdexia 07:01, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The fact remains, however, that regardless of whether or not we have another image, the use of the present image is of questionable legality, as it shows a clitoris whose owner may or may not approve of this use of her clitoris, and was taken by a photographer who may or may not approve of this use of his or her photograph. We would do well to remove this image, and then discuss (a) what the copyright status of the drawing is; (b) whether the drawing is better than no image; then (c) if and when another image may arise, whether it is better than the drawing. Shimmin 14:59, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

British Humor?

Did you see how your page looks in logs ?
14:37, 2004 Oct 11 (hist) Clitoris (removed protection) (top)
14:13, 2004 Oct 11 (hist) m Wikipedia:Protection log (unprotected Clitoris: It's been pointed out on the talk page that since I have strong views on the matter I shouldn't have protected it. I'm unprotecting it for this reason. ) (top)
Quite frankly, our colleague's action notwithstanding, I don't think wikipedians would appreciate this gem in the antology of British Humor - irismeister 16:05, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)

I don't know what you find so funny about that. Oh btw it's spelled anthology. (Since you follow me around attacking my mispellings, you really should make sure your own are perfect) Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 21:58, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's rather infantile, really... "Clitoris, removed protection"... I'm American and I get it. Pakaran . 03:05, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh I didn't read the first line. Theresa Knott (The torn steak)

Now, why didn't that solution work for everyone?

I think people are putting the porn pic back just to keep the controversy going. I really think the solution I offered should have been sufficient. KeyStroke 02:54, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)

Lets be honest with ourselves, shall we? The only reason for consistantly putting the same photo back (and refusing to accept any compromise, such as the one I provided) is to simply "push the envelope" on what is accepted, morally. The photo doesn't add anything more than the (detailed) anatomical drawng I had linked to. The photo is being added back because it is pornography, and there is a desire to push people of moral character out of Wikipedia, and to claim this "ground" for an amoral humanistic populace.

And.... to be honest.... it is working. I notice that 198 hasn't returned to these discussions (nor to editing the page), most likely because of leaving Wikipedia for good, in disgust. I, too, have considered leaving in disgust. Is this the culture we wish to promote? That the few in number get trampled on? That those without moral standrds drive out those with them?

I have considered leaving, not looking back, but I think I owe it to other people of morals that will come here to see the process through. To see if the process works, and to see if the judgements are fair.

If it were any other conflict (other than sexual) then those who have taken a unilateral position, unwilling to achieve a compromise, would have been seen for that and would have been repremanded for their actions as being vandalism. Yet, I, and others of moral character, have offered compromise, and alternatives, yet it is the position that is unwilling to compormise, the unilateral position, that is upheld by the admins, not the position of those (like myself) who are trying to work within the system and offering compromise.

Let me repeat: If it were any other issue those who unilateraly keep putting the same image back, and ignoring offers of compromise, would have been considerd vandals. KeyStroke 01:09, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)

A compromise should generally not be offered in a manner you did (i.e., by inserting a link with a warning to a new image), especially when a subject turns out to be as controversial as this one seems to be. While your solution might be acceptable, it still goes against the established consensus. The proper way to offer a compromise in this case would be opening of (yet another) survey describing your proposition. The solution you offered was not covered by previous surveys, so a whole new survey should be started. If your solution is accepted by the community, fine. If not, you are expected to comply with the majority (if you are unable to comply and would prefer to leave Wikipedia, this, while regrettable, will be your decision).--Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 16:46, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Also, just to clarify—Schneelocke protected the article not because he was unwilling to compromise, but because policies dictate protecting the most recent version that was established before the revert wars had started (a so-called wrong version). Your accusations of vandalism are thus ungrounded.--Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 16:54, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

I believe User:KeyStroke should not state things like That those without moral standrds drive out those with them and Yet, I, and others of moral character, have offered compromise. Such statements are highly POV and likely to incite hostilities. Remember that everyone here has moral standards, which are neither higher nor lower than one's own, just different, and that tolerance and compromise be the bywords to which one should adhere. Nicholas 21:34, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)