Talk:Clitoris/Archive 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16

Contents

Source for culture and art

This woman is creating clitoris street art to get people talking about female pleasure. It’s certainly one way of persuading people to open up - a BBC round-up of recent art projects. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Carbon Caryatid, in the "17th century–present day knowledge and vernacular" section, we have some clitoris awareness material. A sentence or or a few sentences on what you cited above can be added to that section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I've added from the BBC article, and I've found some other projects that deserve mention as well, so I've folded them all in. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Carbon Caryatid, I initially reverted you, but I then restored most of the material. When it comes to big changes, keep in mind that changes are likely to be contested and this is already a big article. This is why it's best to propose big changes first. I tweaked some of your text. One issue with your edits is WP:REFPUNCT. Punctuation comes before the references. Another issue is WP:Dated wording; we should not state "recent" or "recently." Another issue is WP:Editorializing; stuff like "in fact" is not needed. And another issue is that this article uses a specific reference style, and is why Trappist the monk fixes reference issues at this article. This article doesn't cite the full reference in the main text. A few cases do that at the moment, but they need to be fixed. If I am to have this article be elevated to WP:FA status one day, consistent citation style is a part of that.
I don't feel that a "Contemporary art" section is needed. There's not much on clitoral art, and the art stuff could have continued to be covered in the "17th century–present day knowledge and vernacular" section, but having a "Contemporary art" section makes sense. I cut the first paragraph because it was not specifically about the clitoris. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I am unclear what you mean here. Your first sentence says you "don't feel that a "Contemporary art" section is needed," but then end your comment by saying "having a Contemporary art" section makes sense." Perhaps you meant something different? I strongly believe that the art section improves the article. I also propose that we add a section on the clitoris in literature and poetry. Perhaps the section on art could be combined? e.g. Clitoris in art and literature? AnaSoc (talk) 00:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
How are you unclear? I gave my opinion and then noted that having a "Contemporary art" section makes sense despite my opinion. As for a section on the clitoris in literature and poetry, most of the Society and culture section is about the clitoris in literature. So what do you mean by "literature"? Books? I would need to see a proposed section in your sandbox before agreeing to it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
thanks for the clarification about what you meant about the addition of the art section. I like how the art section is coming together. I want the entries about Judy Chicago and Tee Corinne to be put back in as other examples of clitoral art. These two works are the first feminist representations of the clitoris and therefore should be included. We also might find a reference to the clitoris jewelry, glasswork, prints and paintings, and small sculptures that emerged from the 1970s cultural feminist art scene.AnaSoc (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I have no issue with the Judy Chicago and Tee Corinne stuff being restored as long as it about the clitoris rather than vulva as a whole. Trappist the monk and I can clean up the references for you, but you should be looking at the citation style in the article and trying to format it on your own. Trappist the monk can help you learn if you ask him. As for other stuff, please propose the material in your sandbox first, and then link to it here, so that you and I, and others, can work on it together. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

why compare to penis in the intro summary?

The third sentence of the introductory summary compares the penis to the clitoris. There is no similar statement in the introductory summary for the penis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis I deleted it and added a sentence about the sole function of the clitoris. AnaSoc (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

AnaSoc, it appears you were watching this article since you added a section about art after I was discussing it above with another editor. Whatever the case, as you can see here, I reverted your changes to the lead. You removed important summary material. It is important, which is why we have an entire section comparing the penis to the clitoris. The WP:Lead is meant to summarize the article. As for "there is no similar statement in the introductory summary for the penis," look at the Human penis article. It does mention the clitoris since the two are homologous (equivalent). That is why we compare them -- they are homologous and there is much literature comparing them, including in the case of sexism. And like lower in the Human penis article, there is comparison material lower in this article. This article, however, is better put together because it is WP:GA. The Human penis article is poor, and the Penis article is even poorer. Also, your "In humans, the only purpose of the clitoris is to provide sexual pleasure." addition is not only likely not needed in the lead, it is somewhat challenged in a section lower in the article. Yes, the clitoris only seems to be for pleasure in humans, but it is an aspect that has been challenged and it's not something that needs to be in the lead unless we include it in the "whether the clitoris is vestigial, an adaptation, or serves a reproductive function" paragraph. In that paragraph, we could state the following: "Although, in humans, the only known purpose of the clitoris is to provide sexual pleasure, whether the clitoris is vestigial, an adaptation, or serves a reproductive function has been argued."
When it comes to this "female midwives during the Renaissance knew about the clitoris, believing that orgasm aided women to become pregnant" part you added, it is already in the article. It is in the "17th century–present day knowledge and vernacular" section, which states, "Although 17th-century midwives recommended to men and women that women should aspire to achieve orgasms to help them get pregnant for general health and well-being and to keep their relationships healthy." This is a big article. Whatever you are thinking is not covered in it is likely covered in it. Also, per MOS:MED, we simply call the sections "Society and culture," not "Society, culture, and history." When you see a WP:Hidden note, it is there for a reason. The hidden note that you removed and I restored states, "No History subheading was created, because it is unnecessary/non-beneficial to artificially separate the historical content from the Society and culture section; it's all society and culture." This is true. A "History" subheading is not always needed. Also, this article uses a particular citation style. So your citation style should follow that, although Trappist the monk is here to help.
I ask that you propose/discuss any significant changes before making them to this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Can someone help with an image?

The new section on art lacks any image, which isn't ideal. Common sense tells me that including a logo or advertising material ought to be fair use, but I can't cite WP chapter and verse. I'm thinking of something like this for the ClitArt Festival. Can someone add it, or something else appropriate? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 13:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I've now copied the artwork from Sophia Wallace, but still, one of the "poster" images for the ClitArt festival or Clitorissima film would be a useful addition. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 13:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
check out the cool CC image here: https://theconversation.com/why-the-clitoris-doesnt-get-the-attention-it-deserves-and-why-this-matters-53157 May not work for this article, but an image to keep in mind. AnaSoc (talk) 00:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Citation style

reference info for Clitoris
unnamed refs 2
named refs 189
self closed 336
Refn templates 7
cs1 refs 25
cs1 templates 163
harv refs 162
harv templates 278
uses ldr yes
refbegin templates 2
use xxx dates dmy
cs1|2 dmy dates 22
cs1|2 last/first 154
cs1|2 author 1
explanations

Trappist the monk, when you get the chance, will you fix the instances that have the references directly in the main text and relocate them to the References section instead? Or do you recommend that we finally use a different citation style for the whole article? As you can see with this edit, despite what I stated above, AnaSoc still used a different citation style. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Trappist the monk. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

purpose of clitoris

Scientific and medical debates about the clitoris has for generations rendered the clitoris invisible and/or maligned. Modern scientists agree that the evolutionary purpose of the clitoris is for sexual pleasure. This is well documented and is one of the most important facts about the clitoris. I would like to see this fact in the summary. AnaSoc (talk) 00:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

you mean the part where it says: "The clitoris is the human female's most sensitive erogenous zone and generally the primary anatomical source of human female sexual pleasure" in the second Paragraph, or maybe "Extensive sociological, sexological and medical debate have focused on the clitoris, primarily concerning anatomical accuracy, orgasmic factors and their physiological explanation for the G-spot. Although, in humans, the only known purpose of the clitoris is to provide sexual pleasure" in Para 3? IdreamofJeanie (talk) 00:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
thanks for pointing me to this. But I mean a general statement of the function of the clitoris in the first paragraph, the function that is common to all animals, not just humans. AnaSoc (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
AnaSoc, and per what I stated below, that piece does not belong in the very first sentence. Except for sexual pleasure, anatomists and scientists do not know what the purpose of the clitoris is. They speculate, yes, but they are also clear that they have no definitive answer. We have a whole section about it. And we have Helen O'Connell, one of the main researchers who has advanced the knowledge of the clitoris, stating. "It boils down to rivalry between the sexes: the idea that one sex is sexual and the other reproductive. The truth is that both are sexual and both are reproductive." We also know that the spotted hyena does not only use the clitoris for sexual pleasure, and, according to the "Other animals" section, it seems that the clitoris does not solely exist for sexual pleasure in a few other animals as well. Also, for flow and structure, debate material should stay in the debate paragraph of the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I already replied in the #why compare to penis in the intro summary? section immediately above and below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
good point about sexual pleasure not being the sole function in some animals. But modern scientitists do largely agree that sexual pleasure in humans is the primary biological function. Perhaps we might compromise on the first paragraph in the intro? I provided a good reference, Lehmiller, and there are many other references that could be provided. Although historically there was debate about the function or purpose of the clitoris, there is a solid scientific consensus now. AnaSoc (talk) 05:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
AnaSoc, regardless of modern scientists largely agreeing that sexual pleasure in humans is the primary biological function of the clitoris, I am stating that it is not something that needs to be in the lead paragraph. Why do you think it needs to be in that paragraph? Why would we place it before the "The clitoris is the human female's most sensitive erogenous zone and generally the primary anatomical source of human female sexual pleasure." text that is in the second paragraph? And why not leave it in the third paragraph, where it fits? I compromised by having it in that third paragraph, where it flows best. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
thanks for your comments. If modern scientists agree that the primary (anatomical/biological) purpose of the clitoris is for sexual pleasure, why would we not include it in the lead paragraph? Why do we, instead, say what the clitoris is not through the contrast with the penis? I agree that having a statement of the homologous relationship with the penis should stay in. You have convinced me of this. But I remain unconvinced that this article should reproduce the sexism of the past by giving the penis primacy in the lead paragraph. This article is about the clitoris. The lead paragraph should stick to that topic. No contrast to the penis should be in the first paragraph in my opinion.AnaSoc (talk) 05:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I've explained why I've questioned putting the "primary purpose" or "sole purpose" aspect in the very first paragraph. For the first paragraph, I would change "In humans, the visible button-like portion is near the front junction of the labia minora (inner lips), above the opening of the urethra." to "In humans, the only known purpose of the clitoris is to provide sexual pleasure; the visible button-like portion is near the front junction of the labia minora (inner lips), above the opening of the urethra." if it were not for the fact that we have the "vestigial, an adaptation, or serves a reproductive function" aspect in the third paragraph and the "only known purpose of the clitoris" text therefore fits better there. I don't think that the "vestigial, an adaptation, or serves a reproductive function" aspect should be moved to the first paragraph, which is what you did at one point. That material concerns debate and is better placed in the third paragraph, which talks about debate.
As for the rest, including the penis comparison in the lead paragraph is not giving the penis primacy; nor is it sexism. It has to do with how the clitoris works. The "In humans" text includes "above the opening of the urethra." It's logical and good flow to then note that "unlike the penis, the male homologue (equivalent) to the clitoris, it usually does not contain the distal portion (or opening) of the urethra and is therefore not used for urination." It is one sentence and does not fit anywhere else in the lead. It certainly does not need its own paragraph. Per WP:Lead, the lead usually should be no more than four paragraphs anyway. Furthermore, getting the urination aspect out of the way allows for the "while few animals urinate through the clitoris" text. It doesn't make sense to talk about animals urinating through the clitoris without first making it clear that the clitoris usually is not used for urination, which contrasts the penis's function. And, yes, since the urination aspect is one of the main differences between the clitoris and penis, and is addressed lower in the article, we should note it. There's also the fact that the clitoris concerns other animals as well, of course. And so the lead paragraph is not solely about humans. But given that we are noting the function aspects in the lead sentence, I do think that after the "and is therefore not used for urination" part, we should add "It is also usually absent a reproductive function"...which addresses animals, including humans, as a whole. I'll go ahead and try that as another compromise. The only reason we even mention the spotted hyena case in the lead paragraph is because it's unusual and contrasts the "no urination" and "no reproductive function" aspects.
On a side note: I understand how passionate you are about women's issues, and I am very much aware of the sexism we often face, but we need to edit Wikipedia from more of a detached viewpoint. This is why I pointed you to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS in the #Latest edits section below. WP:Advocacy is another page that comes to mind. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the edit and the addition of this sentence in the first paragraph: "It is also usually absent a reproductive function." Can we wordsmith this sentence a bit so that it is more clear? 137.229.78.131 (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Maybe "It also usually does not serve a reproductive function"? I thought about wording it as "It also usually is not used for reproduction"...but a reproductive function can exist without directly concerning reproduction. For example, in the "Other animals" section, the following is stated: "The clitoris erects in squirrel monkeys during dominance displays, which indirectly influences the squirrel monkeys' reproductive success." Rivertorch might have some wording suggestions. He's much better at grammar than I am. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
How about:

Unlike the penis, its male homologue or equivalent, the clitoris usually does not contain the distal portion (or opening) of the urethra. It is therefore not used for urination and usually does not serve a reproductive function.

RivertorchFIREWATER 18:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
I thought about that wording, River. I debated how to word the sentence when first adding it, but I decided against that wording because it ties the material to urination. I mean, "usually does not serve a reproductive function" is not about urination. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Latest edits

AnaSoc, like I stated above, this article is WP:GA, which means that care needs to be taken with it. Not only has wording for the article been extensively worked out, it follows a particular citation style. Despite me noting that it follows a particular citation style, you did not take the time to try to learn it or ask about it. Instead, you added yet another piece that does not align with the citation style for this article. And despite what I stated on your talk page about WP:Minor edits, you are still marking non-minor edits as minor. I reverted you on this because the "only the button-like portion" is "visible externally" part mainly applies to humans. It clearly does not apply to spotted hyenas, for example. And "this highly complex organ" piece is unnecessary WP:Editorializing on your part. I'm not opposed to changing "well-developed" to "large," and I went ahead and did that. But, again, you are not trying to discuss, even after I asked you to above and noted on your talk page that you should. This is to avoid mistakes, redundancies, guideline issues and WP:Edit warring. And as for this, we follow what the sources state. It is not our job to right the great wrongs. If the source states "pea," so do we. And regarding this, on what grounds are you arguing that this is false? Yes, the clitoris has been subject to much sociological debate. Are you defining "sociological debate" differently? You also returned this "sole purpose" material. You did it in a similar way I suggested, but it does not belong in the first paragraph. So I moved it to the relevant paragraph and used my suggested wording. If you keep editing WP:Disruptively, I will be reporting it.

Johnuniq and Rivertorch, I assume you are still watching the article. Can I get your thoughts on this? We have an editor -- AnaSoc -- who is not listening and seems to sometimes be editing from her own viewpoint. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

please point me to a source that verifies that there has been "extensive sociological... debate... concerning anatomical accuracy, orgasmic factors and their physiological explanation for the G-spot." This is anatomy, not sociology. Thanks. AnaSoc (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
AnaSoc, I am well-aware that this "is anatomy, not sociology." And? It is still a fact that the clitoris has been subject to much social/sociological/societal debate, as the article makes abundantly clear. Why else do you think the "17th century–present day knowledge and vernacular" section speaks of "terminology used by college students, ranging from Euro-American (76%/76%), Hispanic (18%/14%), and African American (4%/7%), regarding the students' beliefs about sexuality and knowledge on the [clitoris]" and "A 2005 study reported that, among a sample of undergraduate students, the most frequently cited sources for knowledge about the clitoris were school and friends, and that this was associated with the least amount of tested knowledge"? And what do you make of the female genital mutilation aspect, which is mentioned in sociology books, such as this 1998 "Modernity, Medicine, and Health: Medical Sociology Towards 2000" source, from Psychology Press, page 117, which speaks of "fierce debate among feminists"? Is none of this sociology in your opinion? What about feminist sociology? What about this 2008 "Sociology for Social Workers" source, from Polity, page 163, which states, "Nymphomania was the medical term given to women who were seen as having unhealthy sexual desires or fixations. The condition was also seen to affect women's genitals, and in some cases led to clitoridectomies (castration of the clitoris). Goldberg (1999) discusses how women were subjected to a range of treatments to cure abnormal sexual desires."? And, yes, this aspect is also already covered in the article. There's also sources like this 2016 "Sociology: The Essentials" source, from Cengage Learning, page 52, which states, "Many have called for international intervention to eliminate [female genital mutilation], but there is also a debate about whether disgust at this practice should be balanced by a reluctance to impose Western cultural values on other societies." Sources on these matters are in the article; I have not falsified a thing. Once again, you need to start discussing first. Adding first and then discussing is not ideal on a high-profile anatomy/medical article such as this. Read WP:ONUS.
IdreamofJeanie, good to see you at this article as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm still watching this article. I see that AnaSoc is keen but so far has not been able to hear your comments. @AnaSoc: To repeat, the WP:LEAD is a summary of, and follows, the article. The article is developed, then the lead. Please engage with the comments on this talk page by responding to their substance. Johnuniq (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
thanks for your comments. Citing sociological data, e.g. statistics, is not documentation of sociological debate. Perhaps a compromise might be to delete the term “debate” and substitute a more neutral term, e.g. “discussion” or “analysis”? AnaSoc (talk) 05:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
AnaSoc, "extensive sociological, sexological and medical debate" flows better than "extensive sociological, sexological and medical discussion," and it's more accurate than "extensive sociological, sexological and medical analysis." It's not as much an analysis (except for certain aspects) as it is a debate. Similar goes for simply calling it a discussion. These aspects of the clitoris have been debated in all three fields. I don't see what is non-neutral by simply stating "debate." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
As for statistics, I pointed to those two studies not because of statistics...but because of their sociological aspects. I also cited two sociology sources that make clear the debate matters and specifically use the term debate. The clitoris has quite clearly been debated within feminist sociology. In addition to the other sources I listed, this 2007 "Sociology: Understanding a Diverse Society, Updated" source, from Cengage Learning, page 57, states, "Understanding cultural relativism gives insight into some controversies, such as the international debate about the practice of clitoridectomy—a form of genital mutilation." The clitoris has been debated with regard to gender inequality, and this includes not only female genital mutilation, but how it has been obscured and does not get the attention it should...which also leads to a lack of knowledge about it. In the #Can someone help with an image? section above, you even cited a source about it not getting the attention it deserves. Even the Kinsey Reports, which challenged the "penis-in-vagina" narrative and Freud's theories on clitoral orgasm, and led to numerous debates, were sociological surveys. Like this 2012 (reprint) "Human Motivation" source, from Springer Science & Business Media, page 54, states, "Research concerning normal human sexuality first began with sociological surveys, such as the famous 'Kinsey Report.' " And we have a whole section in the article concerning these debates as they relate to the clitoris and feminism. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks again for the conversation. Although I agree that there has been extensive discussion in the discipline of sociology about FGM and cultural relativism, I disagree that there has been extensive sociological debate about other aspects of the clitoris. The Kinsey studies were not sociological studies; Kinsey's work is more properly considered to be sexology. [pp. 28-31 in Lehmiller, Justin J. 2014. The Psychology of Human Sexuality. Wiley Blackwell.] While it is true that Kinsey and his colleagues used interviews as a technique to gather data, the use of that particular research technique does not mean that the study itself was sociological. Other disciplines also use the interview technique, e.g. anthropology, ethnography, psychology, history, linguistics, and cultural geography. I just looked in the index of ten introduction to sociology textbooks that I have in my office. All of them are standards in the discipline. Not one of them lists the clitoris as a topic. So I do not see verifiable evidence that supports the claim made in the existing article that "Extensive sociological... debate [has] focused on the clitoris, primarily concerning anatomical accuracy, gender inequality, orgasmic factors and their physiological explanation for the G-spot." I do agree with you that some feminist sociologists have linked the clitoris to gender inequality, but do not agree that there has been "extensive debate" within the discipline of sociology about "anatomical accuracy, orgasmic factors, and their physiological explanation for the G-spot." The texts I examined include: Jon Witt's SOC 2018; John J. Macionis's 2011 Sociology; Richard T. Schaefer's 2012 Sociology; James M. Henslin's 2012's Sociology: A Down to Earth Sociology; David M. Newman's Socilogy: Exploring the Architecture of Everyday Life; Michael Hughes and Carolyn J. Kroehler's 2009 Sociology: The Core; Anthony Giddens, Mitchell Duneier, Richard P. Applebaum, and Deborah Carr Essentials of Sociology; Richard T. Schaeffer Sociology in Modules; Jonathan H. Turner 2006 Sociology; and Kerry Ferris and Jill Stein 2012 The Real World.AnaSoc (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
And thank you for taking the time to discuss. It seems that you take issue with what you think is the implication that "extensive sociological debate" means "with regard to all aspects of the clitoris or all clitoral topics." When it comes to "all aspects of the clitoris or all clitoral topics," however, I was not stating that. I simply stated that there has been extensive sociological debate. The extensive aspect is in a sentence that also includes "sexological and medical debate." There hasn't been sexological or medical debate regarding all aspects of the clitoris either. Until relatively recently, all many people thought existed of the clitoris was the glans. Many still think that. But there is no need to insert "some," which can at times be a WP:Weasel word, and state "There has been extensive sociological, sexological and medical debate with regard to some aspects of the clitoris." Or "There has been extensive sociological, sexological and medical debate with regard to some clitoral topics." There is no need to be vague.
The extensive debates concern "anatomical accuracy, gender inequality, orgasmic factors and their physiological explanation for the G-spot," as mentioned in the article. It seems that you know that these debates are extensive, but you question their extensiveness with regard to sociology. You stated that "some feminist sociologists have linked the clitoris to gender inequality," but sociology sources I listed above state "fierce debate among feminists" and "the international debate." The sociological debates pertain solely to the sociology stuff. Gender inequality is a broad category that covers, among other things, the clitoris topic being obscured (and this includes the term clitoris), women only having incidental orgasms because of clitoral neglect, sexist views about the clitoris, and female genital mutilation. You stated, "The Kinsey studies were not sociological studies; Kinsey's work is more properly considered to be sexology." And yet a source I listed above states, "Research concerning normal human sexuality first began with sociological surveys, such as the famous 'Kinsey Report.'" And this 2009 (reprint) "Sex and Reason" source, from Harvard University Press, page 30, states, "Although Kinsey was a zoologist, not a sociologist, the Kinsey reports, especially when viewed as a contribution to theory rather than as a mere amassing of uninterpreted data, are conventionally and I think accurately viewed as contributions to the sociology of sex, as is the subsequent research output of the Institute for Sex Research." One does not have to preclude or exclude the other; a survey or study can be both sexological and sociological, or categorized as either or both. And, clearly, there are reliable sources that define the Kinsey Reports as sociological surveys. Many sociology sources take the time to mention and/or analyze the Kinsey reports. Also, as noted in the Sociology article, sociology is a very broad category and can include health (sociology of health and illness) and medical aspects (medical sociology) as well. One of the sources I listed above is called "Modernity, Medicine, and Health: Medical Sociology Towards 2000."
All that stated... Given your concern, would you accept simply dropping "extensive" and changing the current sentence to "Sociological, sexological and medical debates have focused on the clitoris, primarily concerning anatomical accuracy, gender inequality, orgasmic factors and their physiological explanation for the G-spot."? Or perhaps "Sociological, sexological and medical debates have concerned the clitoris. These debates may focus on anatomical accuracy, gender inequality, or orgasmic factors and their physiological explanation for the G-spot."? We can also change "sociological" to "societal," but I think it's best to retain "sociological" instead. As for the books you've reviewed, I have many sociology, sexology and medical books that don't mention the clitoris either. We already know that the clitoris gets far less attention than the penis and vagina do; the Clitoris article is very clear about this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
thanks for the discussion. Yes, I think your suggestion of dropping the word extensive would adequately address my concerns. AnaSoc (talk) 06:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I'll go ahead and do that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I keep mulling this over, so I thank you in advance for allowing a re-re-revisitation of this issue. I can find no verifiable evidence that the discipline of sociology has engaged in debates about the clitoris in the ways you claim in the third paragraph. If there were debates in the discipline, then analysis of those debates would appear in introductory sociology textbooks. Please point me to a reliable source that verifies your claim that there has been sociological debate about the clitoris. Also, please point me to a reliable source that verifies your claim that the sociological debates have "primarily concern[ed] anatomical accuracy, gender inequality, orgasmic factors and their physiological explanation for the G-spot." I wonder if your claim about the sociological debates is "an analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources," <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research> and therefore consists of original research. Thanks again for your work on this project. 137.229.78.131 (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
I have requested assistance on the NOR noticeboard.AnaSoc (talk) 02:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
If someone is guiding you, and I assume that someone is, it was poor practice to do that. Premature.
Your "debates in the discipline" categorization is clearly where we are disagreeing, in part at least. You stated, "If there were debates in the discipline, then analysis of those debates would appear in introductory sociology textbooks." That is an unsubstantiated opinion, and the same can be stated of many introductory medical books and enough sexology books lacking or not having clitoris material. You speak of "debates in the discipline," but where are sources noting "debates in the discipline" with regard to the sexological and medical clitoral debates? Sociology books clearly cover this topic; I've provided sociology sources, like this 2012 "Introduction to Sociology" source, from SAGE Publications, page 61, discussing the clitoris in relation to female genital mutilation, showing that it's a sociological issue. I don't engage in WP:Synthesis. There is no source presented for that exact phrasing piece. But I do summarize the literature, and the article per WP:Lead. A 2000 "Essentials of Sociology: A Down-to-earth Approach" source, from Allyn and Bacon, page 254, that I have at home, notes the debate and that "feminist sociologists have been especially effective at challenging female genital mutilation." It also states, "This custom, often called female genital mutilation (FGM) by Westerners, is also known as clitoral excision, clitoridectomy, infibulation, and labiadectomy, depending largely on how much of the tissue is removed."
And regarding this, you are again focused on "sociological" as if "sociological" alone is supposed to cover the "anatomical accuracy, gender inequality, orgasmic factors and their physiological explanation for the G-spot" part. Like I stated, "sexological" and "medical" are also in the sentence. It would be unnecessary and cumbersome to state "Sociological debates have focused on [gender inequality, etc.], while sexological and medical debates have focused on [so and so].", especially since the sexological and medical debates also concern the social stuff. So I would then be repeating just so I don't make it seem like the sociological debates cover something that the sexological and medical debates do not.
I'm not sure why sociology books and the terms feminist sociology and feminist sociologists have not been enough to satisfy your concerns about mentioning that the clitoris has been subject of sociological analysis and debate, but there are also sources like the 2008 "Sociology of the Body: A Reader" source, from Oxford University Press, page 135, which quotes three Harvard surgeons talking about the sociological aspect of clitoral research; they stated, "Evidence that the clitoris is not essential for normal coitus may be gained from certain sociological data. For instance, it is the custom of a number of African tribes to excise the clitoris and other parts of the external genitals. Yet normal sexual function is observed in these females. A modified operation that removes most of the clitoris and relocates a bit of the tip is variously (and euphemistically) called clitoroplasty [or] clitoral reduction." And there are sources like this 2014 "Female Circumcision and Clitoridectomy in the United States: A History of a Medical Treatment" source, from Boydell & Brewer, page 139, which states, "Beginning in the 1970s, some social scientists began questioning the expansion of medicine into many aspects of life that had previously not been under medical purview." And then there are sources like this 2010 "Sex Before the Sexual Revolution: Intimate Life in England 1918–1963" source, from Cambridge University Press, page 319, which states, "The study of sexual pleasure -- historical, sociological and sexological -- has frequently focused on the attainment of orgasm, particularly in women. It notes sexual techniques and instructions, and cites, for example, the following: "Notable here is Van de Velde's description of the 'genital kiss' and his acknowledgment that female orgasm might be roused by digital stimulation of the clitoris if 'genital friction' [i.e. coitus] was not enough; and Helena Wright's insistence that husbands were best advised to initiate their young wives into coital pleasure by first inducing orgasms through digital stimulation." Or maybe you are looking for something like this 2017 "Consumer Sexualities: Women and Sex Shopping" source, from Routledge, pages 68-69, that talks about the clitoral/vaginal/G-spot debate and how the political significance of female pleasure was "first highlighted by feminists who recognised that the cultural primacy of the vaginal orgasm represented the negation of female pleasure in normative heterosexual practice." Or maybe this 2015 "50 Great Myths of Human Sexuality" source, from John Wiley & Sons, page 24, which states, "The ongoing debate is really focused on whether or not the G-spot is separate from the rich network of clitoral nerves that surround it." Or maybe this 2005 "Anatomy of the Clitoris" source by Helen O'Connell, which states, "The anatomy of the clitoris has not been stable with time, as would be expected. To a major extent its study has been dominated by social factors." Or maybe this 2017 "The Clitoris: Anatomical and Psychological Issues" source, which states, "We must consider which factors—psychological, sociological, and anthropological—would lead to the phenomenon of scientific findings being repeatedly distorted or forgotten for more than two millennia." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate the discussion. I fully support the claim that there is significant debate within medicine and sexology about the clitoris in just the ways you describe. And I agree that there are secondary and primary sources that verify this claim. Our disagreement is specifically about the claim that there have been debates within the discipline of sociology about “anatomical inaccuracies,” etc. Sociologists do not debate anatomical inaccuracies. Sociologists leave that up to anatomists and other natural scientists. If the discipline did indeed have that debate, it would be addressed in mainstream introductory sociology textbooks and other secondary sources. We should not keep Wikipedia text that is inaccurate (and not verifiable) just because it reads better. This article is about the clitoris; as we have discussed before, and I think we gained some agreement on this, sociology as a discipline has indeed debated FGM, but mainly as an issue related to cultural relativism. This sociological debate does not extend to other aspects of the clitoris. AnaSoc (talk) 05:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
I already addressed your "introductory sociology textbooks" argument. I have presented source after source making it clear that the clitoris has been subject to sociological dispute. Feminist sociology and feminist sociological debate on the clitoris is sociological. And the sociological aspects are not solely attributed to feminists anyway. You have again stated "within the discipline of sociology," which is vague and is your own wording. You stated, "Sociologists leave [anatomical inaccuracies, etc.] up to anatomists and other natural scientists." Where are your sources supporting you on that? Feminists sociologists have indeed debated the anatomical inaccuracies. What do you think the Federation of Feminist Women's Health Clinics (FFWHC) presenting anatomically precise illustrations identifying 18 structures of the clitoris was about? As for "significant debate," that is not part of the wording, although the debate about the clitoris with regard to feminist sociology was significant. Some of the sources about the feminist sociological debate note anatomical inaccuracies, gender inequality, and the clitoral/vaginal/G-spot orgasm debate. So because of all of this, I still find your objection to "sociological" odd. I already suggested we use the following line instead: "Sociological, sexological and medical debates have concerned the clitoris. These debates may focus on anatomical accuracy, gender inequality, or orgasmic factors and their physiological explanation for the G-spot." You did not go with that, even though I can easily source both sentences. Instead, you simply agreed to dropping "extensive." I will not agree to drop "sociological." So if you want to give the alternative wording I suggested a try, we can go with that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
I changed the wording to the following: "Sexological and medical debate have focused on the clitoris, and it has also been the subject of sociological (including social constructionist) analyses and studies. Such discussions range from anatomical accuracy, gender inequality, orgasmic factors and their physiological explanation for the G-spot." And, yes, it's sourced. I usually don't like using very old sources, but the 1995 "Clitoral Conventions and Transgressions: Graphic Representations in Anatomy Texts, c1900-1991" source goes into medical, sexological and social/feminist debates about the clitoris. I decided to read the whole thing again. I read it years ago. It specifically mentions social construction and sociological studies with regard to the clitoris, and it also states, "Anatomies matter to feminists and others because anatomies create shared images which become key elements in repertoires of bodily understanding toted around by all those who have seen them." Social constructionism is an aspect of sociology, much like medical sociology (which also concerns the clitoris) is, and this therefore further confuses me on your objection to mentioning "sociological debate." Well, there's that and the fact that the female orgasm is very much about the clitoris and many sources note sociological studies on the female orgasm. I repeat: Despite you stating that "Kinsey's work is more properly considered to be sexology," there are sources, like this 2013 "Between Desire and Pleasure" source from Edinburgh University Press, page 72, that refer to the sexual studies by Kinsey and Masters and Johnson on female orgasm (and other matters) as sociological studies. Of course, they are also referred to as sexological studies. I suppose you mainly took issue with wording like "extensive" and "primarily," but, as seen above, I didn't agree with your reasoning on that either. The aforementioned "The Clitoris: Anatomical and Psychological Issues" source by Mark J. Blechner delves into sociological issues (not just psychological issues) concerning the clitoris. And for the record: The "Women and Their Clitoris: Personal Discovery, Signification, and Use" source that is used in the article is also sociological and states, "As an object the clitoris is an anatomical organ—but as a subject it is contested social terrain: an epicenter of female sexuality in which pleasure and repression collide on an embodied fault line that is both private and public, political and existential, symbolic and corporeal. As an organ the clitoris is a source of potentially pleasing sensuality. As an icon, the clitoris is polysemous: its signification is negotiated in a multiplicity of subjective sensations, experiences, and reflexive acts of sense making. Thus, if 'embodiment is the lived experience of the sensual or subjective body" (Turner 2000:492, emphasis added), then the unvarnished sensuality of the clitoris, in the context of its contested subjectivity, presents precarious dynamics of embodiment as well as evocative opportunities for explorations of a truly 'carnal' sociology (Crossley 1995a, 1995b)." "The Incidental Orgasm: The Presence of Clitoral Knowledge and the Absence of Orgasm for Women" source notes "sociological research in this vein". But I didn't want to use these two primary sources to note that sociological analyses and studies have been done with regard to the clitoris. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks again for the discussion. Your latest edit that deletes the term "debate" in relation to the discipline of sociology works well for me and does address my concerns. But since psychology is one of your fields (as you mentioned on my talk page), now I'm curious about why you did not include information about psychological aspects (and debates) about the clitoris. I think some discussion of the contributions of psychology to the study and analysis of the clitoris would improve the article, if you would be willing to do this. AnaSoc (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
The psychological aspects (and this includes Freud as well, of course) are intertwined with the social aspects. How are you distinguishing them? What in terms of psychology do you think is missing from the article? Even the aforementioned Blechner source, which is currently in the article, and mentions that he analyzed psychological issues with regard to the clitoris, touches on so much of what is already in the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
I am not a psychologist, so I do not know what is missing. But if you are fine with the psychological aspects that are already discussed in the article, I'm good to go. AnaSoc (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi AnaSoc. Wikipedia welcomes all editors, and we encourage people to be bold; so, thanks for joining the project, and being bold and knowledgeable enough to tackle the Clitoris article. However, while we want people to be bold, and the community is willing to assist new editors as that is how the project develops, there are times when we ask people to stop being so bold, and listen more carefully to the advice that is being given. The Clitoris article is one of our most viewed, complex, controversial, and sensitive, so editing on it is preferably done with care and thought. We want people to edit on it and improve it, and we want debate on what is best for the article, but when an editor's work is being challenged or reverted, that is the time to stop and listen. I have looked over the changes you have made to the article, and agree with Flyer that the changes on the whole are not helpful. I am unclear on the use of the word "refugees" in this edit for example, as sources usually refer to migration, which is somewhat broader - refugees implies forced migration rather than economic, and numbers of refugee immigrants are generally significantly lower than economic immigrants. I was unable to check your source as you did not use a page number, though I checked other sources which use migration rather than refugee. In editing an article at this level we would prefer people to be consulting a wide spread of sources, and then summarise the general agreement, using one source as the example citation. We want you to edit Wikipedia, but in order to do that effectively you need to be listening carefully to the advice of editors like Flyer, and to only edit this article after your proposals have been looked at, discussed, and agreed. If you wish to discuss this matter with me further, please leave a note on my talkpage or email me. Regards SilkTork (talk) 11:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome. I used the term refugee, and not migrant or immigrant, because the source I cited used that term. I thought I had included the page number, but note that I did not. It's page 270 in the Crawford and Unger text I listed. I agree with you that immigrant would be a broader term that would take into account other reasons for movement of the practice than using the term refugee.AnaSoc (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2018

Can I suggest that the heading / search term be changed from ‘Clitoris’ to ‘Human Clitoris’ and all references to non-humans be removed.

The article is 99.9 % about Humans so referencing other species is confusing for the reader. I note here that the Wikipedia site has both a ‘Human Penis’ & a ‘Penis’ article so makes sense to follow that same format for the female genitalia. A non-human page could be created and a link from this page embedded as appropriate.

Generally speaking the whole tone of the article requires improvement but as a start I have re-worded the opening 2 paragraphs to remove all references to non-humans and the proxy reference to the penis.

Suggested amendments to the FIRST TWO Paragraphs below:

The human clitoris is a female sex organ which contains thousands of nerve endings that make it extremely sensitive. The small mass of erectile tissue is situated near the front junction of the labia minora (inner lips), above the opening of the urethra. It does not usually contain the distal portion (or opening) of the urethra and is therefore not used for urination and it is not generally thought to have an anatomical reproductive function.

The human clitoris is a female's most sensitive erogenous zone and generally the primary anatomical source of human female sexual pleasure.[2] The glans (head) of the human clitoris is roughly the size and shape of a pea, and is estimated to have more than 8,000 sensory nerve endings.[3] The clitoris develops from an outgrowth in the embryo called the genital tubercle. Initially undifferentiated, the tubercle develops into either a penis or a clitoris, depending on the presence or absence of the protein tdf, which is codified by a single gene on the Y chromosome. The clitoris is a complex structure, and its size and sensitivity can vary.

Note: that I have removed the clitoris audio prompts as they are distracting.

Note - there isn't enough room to add the 2 replaced paragraphs BlueSky444 (talk) 11:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Move requests to high-profile articles are not within the purview of edit requests. Such requested moves require a consensus among involved editors. I suggest reading the Article Titling Policy and following the instructions at the Requested Moves page. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Eggishorn. BlueSky444, I assume you are related to one of these student classes...or something. The article is mostly about humans because, like the "Other animals" section states, "Although the clitoris exists in all mammal species, few detailed studies of the anatomy of the clitoris in non-humans exist." We don't unnecessarily create spin-off articles and unnecessarily make readers go to separate articles. See WP:Spinout, WP:No page and WP:No split. Per WP:MEDMOS#Sections, we create an "Other animals" section in cases like this. You can also see this done with the Vagina article, or with medical articles like Cancer and Mental disorder. Removing the "Other animals" section from this article would be unnecessary and would make the article less comprehensive.
As for your wording suggestions, "small mass"? No, because of confusion, we should avoid calling the clitoris a small mass although a lot of sources still do. People will think we only mean the glans when the clitoris is much bigger than that. Why would we state "It does not usually contain the distal portion (or opening) of the urethra" without first mentioning the penis? Why would the clitoris contain the distal portion of the urethra? Noting that the clitoris and penis are homologous explains why. Furthermore, per WP:Lead, the penis should be mentioned in the lead since it is significantly noted lower in the article. Use of "is not generally thought to have an anatomical reproductive function" is WP:Weasel wording. "Not generally thought by whom?" is what an editor will ask, and that editor might tag such a line with Template:According to whom. Your use of "anatomical reproductive function" indicates to me that you have read the previous recent discussion above about how to word this material. We usually don't get editors coming to this article editing it or proposing to edit. Regarding your second paragraph suggestion, I think it makes more sense to have the "its size and sensitivity can vary" go along with the "glans (head) of the human clitoris is roughly the size and shape of a pea" material. You also removed "other mammals." Again, the lead is supposed to summarize the article, and include mention of other animals in this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to the discussion, BlueSky444. I agree with BlueSky444 that the reference to the penis's urinary function in the lead is unnecessary for an article about the clitoris. A simple statement about the homologous relationship between the clitoris and the penis is sufficient information in the lead. When I read the statement contrasting the functions of the clitoris and the penis, I understand the statement to be a negative comparison between the two organs. A negative comparison that may be interpreted as meaning that the clitoris is an inferior organ because it is not as multifunctional as the penis is a sexist idea, and therefore is not a neutral point of view. This could be fixed simply by editing the statement to read: Unlike the penis, the male homologue (equivalent) to the clitoris, it usually does not contain the distal portion (or opening) of the urethra and is therefore not used for urination. It is also usually absent a reproductive function. The penis is homologous to the clitoris. AnaSoc (talk) 23:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
I stand by what I stated in the #why compare to penis in the intro summary? and #purpose of clitoris sections above in response to you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I also think it's a great idea to split the article to human and non-human but understand that this would be a monumental task.AnaSoc (talk) 23:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

It would not be a monumental task, but it would be a completely unnecessary task per my statements above. We have guidelines that we follow. In addition to that, we use WP:Common sense. Common sense, when analyzing what is available on the clitoris in other animals, tells us that a separate article is not needed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
  • If "few detailed studies of the anatomy of the clitoris in non-humans exist", as Flyer22 Reborn states (and she knows whereof she speaks on such topics), it would not be a good idea to split this article because the content of the resulting Clitoris article would necessarily be drawn mostly from the new Human clitoris article, and such redundancy would be inappropriate. I know there's a separate article for human penis, but Wikipedia bases its content on the sources that are available, not the sources that should be available.

    As for the question of whether to mention urinary and reproductive functions, I think such mention is appropriate. We need to keep in mind that the article is written for a diverse readership, many of whom may be quite ignorant of both anatomical structure and anatomical function. If we're going to say that the clitoris and the penis are homologous to one another, then it seems reasonable to specify that at least some of their functions differ. Noting that the clitoris lacks some of the functions of the penis is hardly sexist; it's simply stating a reality that at least some of our readers may be unclear on. (Incidentally, I think that the parenthetical "equivalent" after "homologue" may be undesirable because it may be seen to imply similar function. If we remove "equivalent", it's still a good idea to mention the difference in functions, since some readers will be unfamiliar with the concept of homologues and not realize they don't necessarily involve identical functions. As long as it's there, such mention is more than a good idea; it's absolutely necessary.) RivertorchFIREWATER 03:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Per the explanation given by Flyer22, there is no reason to split this article. The lead contains "the tubercle develops into either a penis or a clitoris" which is an important point that should be retained. That means the homologue statement is also needed, but mentioning that requires the distinction regarding urinary function for readers with little relevant knowledge. The lead could be tweaked in various ways, but that is the wrong approach for article development. Instead, develop the body of the article. When that is settled, the lead will follow from the body. Johnuniq (talk) 04:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Rivertorch and Johnuniq, thanks. I'm open to any improvements for the lead you have in mind. I've always let the "equivalent" part come after "homologue" because so many readers don't know what "homologue" means. It was discussed when building the article. There was concern that readers would not understand some of the anatomical terms. And a couple of WP:Anatomy editors have been concerned with simplifying anatomy text for readers per WP:Technical. You can see that in the "Development" section, the text currently states "this shared embryonic origin makes these two organs homologous (different versions of the same structure)." The lead used to state "Unlike the penis, the male variant of the clitoris," but an IP objected; see Talk:Clitoris/Archive 13#Male variant. I also didn't think about it before, but I'm sure "male variant" upset some men. I ended up changing the lead per discussion with the IP. After the change, Nigelj weighed in on the discussion and stated that the wording "Unlike the penis, the male homologue (male equivalent) to the clitoris" was fine. It seems that "equivalent" was "male equivalent" at one point. Anyway, Nigelj also stated, "and I understand about non-technical readers. But on the other hand, homologue is the exact right word, and trying to redefine such a concept concept using only one word, whether it's equivalent, variant, counterpart or whatever, is bound to be fraught. If there was another word that meant the exact right thing, specialists wouldn't have used homologue. So, I would actually stick with homologue, remove the parenthesis, and rely on the wikilink to inform readers for whom it's a new word, or an unfamiliar one. I don't think it was anywhere in the Wikipedia guidelines, but somewhere I was told something like, 'We should assume our readers are infinitely ignorant of the subject, but also infinitely intelligent and willing to learn.' We need to tell them everything, but only once." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Our articles on anatomy emphasis human anatomy and than have a section for "other animals". That section, if or when it becomes really large can be split into its own article called "X in other animals. Section currently is not overly large. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Doc James, on that note, the Penis and Human penis split should be revisited. I've been thinking about this for sometime. People who visit the Penis article are clearly most often looking for the human penis topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes would support that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I know it's not the topic of this discussion, but too would strongly support renaming the penis articles to Penis and Non-human penis, or something like that. I think the present titles were chosen for all the wrong reasons (e.g. to stop children looking up rude words from seeing explicit pictures etc). Flyer22 Reborn, I am amazed at your ability to find quotes from me from way back when! I stand by the points made, and also do not think this article should be split. --Nigelj (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Nigelj, I do have a good memory, but archives also help. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree there should be separate pages for human and non-human clitorises Jessicapin (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the human clitoris has 8000 nerve endings. That claim comes from a study of cows referenced in The Clitoris, by Thomas Lowry.

This entire page is a joke. Jessicapin (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

If reference to “other animals” is going to be made in the heading, it should be clarified that the clitoris is common to all female mammals. Jessicapin (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The Cult of the Clitoris

I was reminded of this by a chance mention on BBC Radio 4; I worked on the relevant article some years ago. During WWI there was a high profile maverick MP named Noel Pemberton Billing; among other strings to his bow, he published a weekly magazine to air his conspiracy theories. An article that got him a lot of attention was entitled "The Cult of the Clitoris", in which he alleged that Margot Asquith, the wife of the PM, was engaged in "unnatural acts", and that the actress Maud Allan was associated with Germans who were were blackmailing "47,000 highly placed British perverts" to "propagate evils which all decent men thought had perished in Sodom and Lesbia." He attracted more attention to himself, triggered a libel trial, and eventually was re-elected because of this.

The reason I mention it here is because the case has been repeatedly drawn upon by modern scholars. The scandal and trial form a large part Philip Hoare, 1998. Oscar Wilde's Last Stand: Decadence, Conspiracy, and the Most Outrageous Trial of the Century, but also in journal articles e.g. "The Cult of the Clitoris": Anatomy of a National Scandal. in Modernism/modernity January 2002 by Jodie Medd. "The libel achieves its impact by forcing a convergence of deviant activities that amplifies concerns over national vulnerability, while enlisting the most undefined realm of danger, “The Cult of the Clitoris,” as the rhetorical gathering point for all other anxieties. It is precisely the language of the female body — the female nonreproductive but desiring body — that simultaneously demands and refuses interpretative attention, inciting scandal through its very resistance to representation." (Jodie Medd, Lesbian Scandal and the Culture of Modernism, monograph 2012.)

So, how best to work in a sentence about this? The name of the anatomical organ bears heavy cultural weight. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Carbon Caryatid, well, I definitely don't think it needs its own section. It would fit "17th century–present day knowledge and vernacular" section. And you also suggested a sentence. So a sentence or a small paragraph on it is fine. Do you mind proposing the material (a sentence or small paragraph) here first so that I and others can weigh in on it before it's added? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Within that section, it would fit well after "Freud's 1905 theory about the immaturity of clitoral orgasms". How about something along these lines:
Towards the end of World War I, a maverick British MP named Noel Pemberton Billing published an article entitled "The Cult of the Clitoris", furthering his conspiracy theories and attacking the actress Maud Allan and Margot Asquith, wife of the prime minister. The accusations led to a sensational libel trial, which Billing eventually won; Philip Hoare reports that Billing argued that "as a medical term, 'clitoris' would only be known to the 'initiated', and was incapable of corrupting moral minds".[1] Jodie Medd argues in regard to "The Cult of the Clitoris" that "the female nonreproductive but desiring body [...] simultaneously demands and refuses interpretative attention, inciting scandal through its very resistance to representation."[2]
Improvements welcome. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree to having the text placed there. While doing that, the "From the 18th – 20th century" sentence should be moved to the start of the next paragraph. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Done (and thanks for re-moving the sentence which I moved on a misunderstanding). Carbon Caryatid (talk) 10:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

___

References

  1. ^ Philip Hoare, 1998. Oscar Wilde's Last Stand: Decadence, Conspiracy, and the Most Outrageous Trial of the Century
  2. ^ Lesbian Scandal and the Culture of Modernism by Jodie Medd. 2012, Cambridge University Press . 9781107021631

Another example of cultural impact

Clitoria (253000626)

Lots of words derive from the penis or phallus, but not many from the clitoris. Imagine my delight when I discovered a genus of flowers that is: the Clitoria. How can we incorporate this? Suggested wording:

A 17th century employee of the Dutch East India Company named a newly discovered tropical flower after its resemblance to the clitoris.[1] The analogy drew sharp criticism from botanists in the first half of the 19th century on the grounds of good taste, but the name stuck, and a genus of flowering pea vines is still known as the Clitoria.[2] Many vernacular names of these flowers in different languages are similarly based on references to female external genitalia.[3]

Amendments? Where would it best fit? And please let's include an image as well, either this one, which is the main photo for Clitoria, or another. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 11:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Carbon Caryatid, I've known about Clitoria. It's why it's in the See also section. I never added any information on it to this article because the Clitoria article is very small and readers can simply read about the matter there by being pointed to that article. I don't see a need to repeat almost half of what is in that very small article in this article. If we were to add material on it to this article, it would obviously go in the "17th century–present day knowledge and vernacular" section, but I don't see it flowing well in that section. It comes across more so as trivia. As a compromise, we could move the Clitoria See also link from the See also section, and place it at the top of the "17th century–present day knowledge and vernacular" section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

___

References

  1. ^ Paul R. Fantz, Nomenclatural notes on the genus Clitoria
  2. ^ Fantz, Paul R. (1991). "Ethnobotany of Clitoria (Leguminosae)". Economic Botany. New York Botanical Garden Press. 45 (4): 511–20. doi:10.1007/BF02930715. JSTOR 4255394.
  3. ^ Clitoria ternatea

Jessicapin's comments

Copied from above

I agree there should be separate pages for human and non-human clitorises Jessicapin (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the human clitoris has 8000 nerve endings. That claim comes from a study of cows referenced in The Clitoris, by Thomas Lowry.

This entire page is a joke. Jessicapin (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

If reference to “other animals” is going to be made in the heading, it should be clarified that the clitoris is common to all female mammals. Jessicapin (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Multiple errors on this page

There are errors throughout the wiki page for the clitoris. The clitoral glans should not be described as any more button-like than the penile glans. Describing it as “button-like” leads to ignorance about the descending clitoral body (shaft), which is palpable under the non-retractable portion of the clitoral hood.

I was going to rewrite this entire page based on Lepidi and Di Marino’s Anatomic Study of the Clitoris and Bulbo-Clitoral Organ. Is there any way I can get permissions to do this? Jessicapin (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The entire introduction needs to be rewritten. There should be more precise anatomical wording. How can I do this? Jessicapin (talk) 16:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

“8000 nerve endings” is a myth

This literally comes from a study of cows. A higher level of information quality should require that all claims cite a PRIMARY SOURCE. Jessicapin (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The clitoris is obviously important for pair bonding

“Only for pleasure” is bullshit. The neurochemistry of orgasm serves an obvious function in pair-bonding. It also provides reward incentives for reproduction and is a mechanism for mate selection. Jessicapin (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Clitoral function

Saying the clitoris has no reproductive function is equivalent to saying that male pleasure and orgasm has no reproductive function either. Jessicapin (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Clitoral development/homology incorrect

“The clitoris forms from the same tissues that become the glans and upper shaft of the penis, and this shared embryonic origin makes these two organs homologous (different versions of the same structure).[20]”

This is incorrect! The clitoris forms from the same tissues that become the penile cavernosa, spongiosum, bulb, and crura.

This is how the homology works: Clitoral glans = penile glans Clitoral body (ascending and descending) = penile shaft Clitoral crura = penile crura Clitoral/vestibular bulbs = penile bulbs Clitoral spongiosum (not mentioned) = penile spongiosum Labia minora = ventral shaft skin/spongiosum urethra Distal, retractable clitoral hood = foreskin Proximal clitoral hood = shaft skin

Jessicapin (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • proximal clitoral hood = dorsal penile shaft skin Jessicapin (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The frenulum is not part of the glans!!!!

“It consists of the glans (including the frenulum of clitoris, which is a frenulum on the under-surface of the glans and is created by the two medial parts of the labia minora).”

This is not correct. The entire part in parentheses should be removed. Jessicapin (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The clitoral hood not part of or formed by labia minora

The clitoral hood should not be described as formed by the labia minora!! This is a separate structure. Obfuscating these anatomical terms leads to clitoral hood reductions performed without patients’ consent, which is a big problem, as clitoral hood reductions carry risk of dorsal nerve injury. Jessicapin (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect description of body

“The clitoral body is commonly referred to as the shaft (or internal shaft), while the length of the clitoris between the glans and the body may also be referred to as the shaft (or external shaft) because, like the shaft as a whole, it supports the glans, and its shape can be seen and felt through the clitoral hood.”

This is very wrong. The clitoral body has both an ascending and descending segment. What defines the body is two paired clitoral cavernosa, just as in the penis. This is not complicated. Jessicapin (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Beware many factual errors in medical literature

There are a lot of errors in this article that appear to come from errors in medical literature, which are frequent. I have personally been asked by Dr. Irwin Goldstein to write a review of these errors, as they are so prevalent and are a threat to patient safety.

It would be best if the information in this article were only pulled from reliable, primary sources. Claire Yang has done a number of studies on clitoral anatomy. Her findings can be trusted. If she says the glans is erectile, it is erectile. Di Marino and Lepidi are absolutely the best source for clitoral anatomy. Jessicapin (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The average glans is obviously not 1.5-2cm long!!!

Do you realize how crazy this is? Look at your own clitoris. Unless you have adhesions, you should be able to retract the hood back to the point of the neck or corona (not well defined so called a “neck”). You can easily see the clitoral glans is not much longer than it is wide and is similar in morphology to the penile glans. The average length of the glans is about 5 mm, depending on source. Jessicapin (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Misquoting of Verkauf

Reported range is not that reported by reference cited. Jessicapin (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Poor information quality = Gender inequality

It is not right that this page contains so many errors. This is very depressing. The entire page needs to be completely rewritten. Jessicapin (talk) 16:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Starting over - request for human clitoris

The clitoris is the most important organ for female sexual response and orgasm in humans. While it serves no direct reproductive function, it carries the same importance to sexual function as the male penis [1] (*note there are errors in this article, which I have discussed with editor Irwin Goldstein*). The main parts are the glans, body, bulbs, crura, and the clitoral hood (which proximally is clitoral shaft skin). The glans, most of the descending body (shaft), and the clitoral hood form the external portion of the clitoris, which sits anterior to the labia minora. The ascending segment of the body, crura, and bulbs are internal [2].

New Contents:

References

  1. ^ Mazloomdoost, Donna; Pauls, Rachel (2015). "A Comprehensive Review of the Clitoris and Its Role in Female Sexual Function". Sexual Medicine Reviews.
  2. ^ Di Marino, Vincent; Lepidi, Hubert (2014). Anatomic Study of the Clitoris and the Bulbo-Clitoral Organ (1 ed.). Springer International Publishing. p. 152. ISBN 978-3-319-04894-9.

Gross anatomy/Structure

  *current sections on anatomy are very bad, of primary concern

Glans

Body

  • should suspensory ligament be mentioned here?

Crura

Clitoral hood

Neurovascular anatomy

Innvervation

  • I'm having trouble figuring out how to upload images from textbooks and journal articles

Vasculature

Development

Physiology/function

Role in female sexual response

Discuss evolutionary purpose here

  • as a biomedical engineer, I think the design of the clitoris and vulva is actually awesome. if I were challenged with the design of a better structure to allow for the vagina's function/purpose and provide incentive and reward for sexual intercourse, I could not think of one. That some stimulation of the clitoris always occurs with penetration is a simple matter of physics. Whether that level of stimulation is sufficient is another issue. The need for extra attention to female pleasure via the clitoris functions to filter out males not adequately devoted to the female's well-being. We are designed to bond more with the men who are invested in our pleasure. People who don't see an evolutionary point of female sexual pleasure are straight up rapey.

Society and Culture

  • current section good, though I have not checked in detail

Etymology

History of understanding/representations

Art

FGM/modification

Activism

  • discussion of projects Cliteracy, Cliterosity, etc.
  • the article on *non-human* clitorises can include the part about 8,000 nerve endings. That comes from a study of cows cited in The Clitoris, by Thomas Lowry.

Jessicapin (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The vestibular bulbs are homologous to the penile bulb, not spongiosum

Both the penis and the clitoris have spongious and cavernous structures. The vestibular bulbs are spongy structures homologous to the penile bulb. The infra-corporeal spongy part of the clitoris, which connects the glans with the bulbs, is homologous to the male corpus spongiosum.

Responses to Jessicapin's comments

Recent complaints

Jessicapin, you need to slow down. What you call multiple errors in this article are supported by WP:Reliable sources, including WP:Secondary sources. The "8,000 nerve endings" aspect has been discussed before; numerous reliable sources, including the "Di Marino's Anatomic Study of the Clitoris and Bulbo-Clitoral Organ" source you've cited above (and which is used in this article), supports the "8,000 nerve endings" aspect with regard to humans. It states, on page 81: "It should be noted from the start that although the clitoral glans has the same number of sensory 'terminations' and genital corpuscles as the penile glans, assessed at around 8,000, the density of these receptors, with respect to the size of each of these organs, is 50 times higher for the female glans." Where is your proof that the "8,000" aspect is from a study done on cows? As for the "only for pleasure" aspect, except for certain non-human animals, the only role researchers have found for the clitoris is for the woman's sexual pleasure; this was recently discussed in the "purpose of clitoris" discussion. In the "Vestigiality, adaptionist and reproductive views" section, the article obviously addresses the clitoris from more than just "for pleasure" angle. I'm addressing your other claims with bullet points below:

  • You said that the "clitoral development/homology" part is incorrect. You argued that "the clitoris forms from the same tissues that become the glans and upper shaft of the penis" text is incorrect. I'm not sure that I understand your complaint. The entire passage in the article states, "The clitoris develops from a phallic outgrowth in the embryo called the genital tubercle. Initially undifferentiated, the tubercle develops into either a clitoris or penis during development of the reproductive system depending on exposure to androgens (primarily male hormones). The clitoris forms from the same tissues that become the glans and upper shaft of the penis, and this shared embryonic origin makes these two organs homologous (different versions of the same structure)." Do you take issue with the "upper shaft" part? If so, I wouldn't strongly object to removing it since many or most sources just stick with stating "the glans," but there are sources that state "shaft" as well. For example, this 2011 "Biomedical Science" source, from John Wiley & Sons, page 245, states, "The genital tubercle elongates and forms the shaft and glans of the penis. The urogenital sinus becomes continuous with a groove that develops on the caudal face of the genital tubercle and this groove closes to become the penile part of the urethra while the fused urogenital folds enclosing the sinus becomes the prostate part of the urethra. [...] The genital tubercle forms the glans and shaft of the clitoris."
  • You said that "the frenulum is not part of the glans." This 2015 "Anatomy and Physiology - E-Book" source, from Elsevier Health Sciences, page 1068, states, "On the inferior surface of the glans clitoris there is a thin midline frenulum that is the female equivalent of the frenulum visible on the undersurface of the glans of the penis." This 2016 "Medical and Advanced Surgical Management of Pelvic Floor Disorders: An Issue of Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America" source, from Elsevier Health Sciences, page 32, states, "The external component of the clitoris consists of the glans, which is covered by the prepuce anteriorly and bordered by the frenulum posteriorly." It also states that the glans is "covered by the prepuce, which connects to the labia minora bilaterally and by the frenulum, the demarcation of the labial skin, and the skin of the clitoris." How are you defining "the frenulum not being part of the glans"? I am open to rewording any text if it's validly argued that the current wording will be taken to be in error. The "including the frenulum of clitoris, which is a frenulum on the under-surface of the glans" wording was my way of working in mention of the frenulum and its relation to the glans. I've gone ahead and changed the format for that part. Minor followup edit here.
  • You argued that "the clitoral hood [is] not part of or formed by labia minora." WP:Reliable sources state otherwise. This "Women's Gynecologic Health" source, from Jones & Bartlett Learning, page 83, states, "The clitoris is capped externally by the glans, which is covered by a clitoral hood formed in part by the fusion of the upper part of the two labia minora." This 2017 "A Practical Guide to Vulval Disease: Diagnosis and Management" source, from John Wiley & Sons, page 3, states, "The glans is covered by the clitoral hood, formed by the fusion of the anterior portions of the labia minora."
  • You argued that there is an "incorrect description of body" in the article. The description you took issue with (found in the "General structure and histological evaluation" section) first said that "the clitoral body is commonly referred to as the shaft (or internal shaft)." A number of sources are clear that the clitoral body is also sometimes called the clitoral shaft. Sources occasionally differ on how they describe "clitoral shaft," however. The text also states "while the length of the clitoris between the glans and the body may also be referred to as the shaft"; this is supported by this "Our Sexuality" source, from Cengage Learning, which describes the shaft as "[t]he length of the clitoris between the glans and the body." It has images. This 2010 "Human Sexuality in a World of Diversity" source, from Allyn & Bacon, page 104, states, "The body of the clitoris — the clitoral shaft — is about 1 inch long and lA inch wide. The shaft consists of erectile tissue that contains two spongy masses called corpora cavernosa ('cavernous bodies') that fill with blood (become engorged) and become erect in response to sexual stimulation." This 2017 "Aesthetic and Functional Labiaplasty" source, from Springer, page 8, states, "The section running inferiorly from the elbow is the descending part of the clitoral body, also referred to as the clitoral shaft." The passage seems to be based on Di Marino's research. As for your "what defines the body is two paired clitoral cavernosa" argument, the section also states that the clitoral body "is composed of two erectile bodies known as the corpora cavernosa." I did change the wording for the paragraph, though.
  • In the #Beware many factual errors in medical literature section above, you stated, in part, "There are a lot of errors in this article that appear to come from errors in medical literature, which are frequent." You feel that there are errors, in part, because researchers state different things. So this is where I ask you: Whose authority are we to go by? On Wikipedia, we go by the WP:Verifiability policy, which states that "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. [...] When reliable sources disagree, maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight." As should be clear by the article, I've kept in mind that researchers differ on some anatomical aspects of the clitoris. This is seen, for example, in the case of the study of the clitoral glans. This is why the clitoral glans material in the article includes views of different researchers. You argued that "Claire Yang has done a number of studies on clitoral anatomy. Her findings can be trusted. If she says the glans is erectile, it is erectile. Di Marino and Lepidi are absolutely the best source for clitoral anatomy." Who says that Claire Yang, who is cited a number of times in this article, is more of an authority on the clitoris than others? Same goes for Di Marino and Lepidi? Also, in this source in the article, it's Ginger and Yang arguing that the glans is composed of non-erectile vascular tissue. This seems to contrast what is stated in this Claire Yang source. I'm not sure if she changed her mind, the book source is citing her inaccurately, it's a terminological issue, or what; it's been sometime since I've read that source. Changed the text to this for now.
  • You argued "[t]he average glans is obviously not 1.5-2cm long." The text in the article is supported by this 2016 "The Vulva: Anatomy, Physiology, and Pathology" source, from CRC Press, page 4. The text in the article states, "The adult clitoral glans usually has a width less than 1 cm, with an average length of 1.5 to 2 cm." We can obviously challenge this with other sources if you have them. This 2017 "Women's Health Care in Advanced Practice Nursing, Second Edition" source, from Springer Publishing Company, page 117, states, "The length of the clitoral body (consisting of glans and shaft) varies markedly. The size of the clitoral glans may vary from 2 mm to 1 cm in healthy women and is usually estimated at 4 to 5 mm in both the transverse and longitudinal planes."
  • In the #Misquoting of Verkauf section, you stated, "Reported range is not that reported by reference cited." If it's true that Verkauf is misquoted in the "Glans and body" section, it needs to be fixed. I didn't add that text.
  • You argued that "[t]he vestibular bulbs are homologous to the penile bulb, not spongiosum." As should be clear from the article, sources differ on the vestibular bulbs. For example, although they are typically described in the literature as being situated on either side of the vaginal opening, Ginger et al. argue that they do not surround the vaginal opening, and are more closely related to the clitoris than to the vestibule. And "et. al" includes Claire Yang too. Anyway, the "corpus spongiosum is homologous to the vestibular bulbs" part was in the "Clitoral and penile similarities and differences" section. "Penile bulb" is additionally called "bulb of the corpus spongiosum penis." So what the text in the article meant is "bulb of penis." It, however, was linked to the wrong article for years, which was an oversight on my part. I've gone ahead and changed it. That stated, like years ago, I do see a lot of sources describing the vestibular bulbs as homologous to the corpus spongiosum of the penis, without mentioning "the bulb of the penis." This 2015 "DC Dutta's Textbook of Obstetrics" source, from JP Medical Ltd, page 3, goes a step further and mentions both, stating, "They are homologous to the bulb of the penis and corpus spongiosum in the male." And so does this 2016 "Female Genital Plastic and Cosmetic Surgery" source, from John Wiley & Sons, page 81, which states, "The vestibular bulbs (Figure 3.10) are homologous to the bulb of the penis and adjoining part of the corpus spongiosum of the male [...]." This is why I struck through the "what the text in the article meant" and "oversight" lines in this paragraph.

Pinging SilkTork, Tom (LT), Axl, Rivertorch, Johnuniq, Doc James and Nigelj for their thoughts. Just see the bullet points above and/or look at the sections created on the talk page by Jessicapin. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Jessicapin, I'd also like to go ahead and point you to WP:Conflict of interest (COI). If you have a COI with Irwin Goldstein, Di Marino, or any other researcher, you are not impartial when it comes to stating that Di Marino or another researcher is "absolutely the best source for clitoral anatomy." Who is the best is an opinion regardless, especially given the different descriptions or views among some of them. I've read a lot of Goldstein's research, including his commentary on the much debated G-spot. If he has issues with this article, you can tell him to get in contact with me. The medical literature having been a problem for clitoral anatomy is sufficiently noted in the article, but I've been sticking to modern sources and with WP:Due weight. Some researchers/sources don't agree with Goldstein. And if you reply to my points above, do not cut into my text; this is per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing others' comments. Reply in your own paragraphs, separate from mine. I also see that Rivertorch has left a message on your talk page about how things work at Wikipedia. Thank you for that, River. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

did you just delete all my comments on everything you said? Okay I give up. You obviously don't care about facts, accuracy, or evidence. It is extremely alarming that you believe there is "support" for any claim that the clitoris is 1.5-2 cm long. Try finding a single photo of a human clitoris where the length of the glans is more than twice the width. This does not exist in nature lol.71.11.216.114 (talk) 06:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Because Editor Jessicapin is a new editor who may not yet understand how to easily discover what it is that you changed with this edit, perhaps closer adherence to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing own comments is in order.
Trappist the monk (talk) 11:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Although I didn't follow all of the suggestions noted at "Editing own comments," I indicated my change to that paragraph with a strike through my text and by noting that I struck through it. I also updated my double signature. Having a double signature in such cases is one of my preferences. The only thing that would clue Jessicapin in is if I'd pinged her, but I was not particularly interested in doing so considering her hostility and that she's not taking the time to listen when it comes to how Wikipedia works and that sources not aligning with her viewpoints doesn't mean we should treat them as wrong or invalid. SilkTork explained the matter well in the #Yes Silk, you got it section below, where he's pinged her. What she has done is similar to Vincenzo Puppo (a researcher she cited when cutting into my post) going on about anatomists' inaccuracies, as well as inaccuracies by gynecologists and sexual experts, while trying to have his views of the clitoris and G-spot dominate. If we go by Puppo (who has also posted on forums to get his views across), then there is no anatomical relationship between the vagina and clitoris. But most other researchers state just the opposite. I did figure that Jessicapin is the type to re-read previous comments and eventually spot my strike-through, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw the strike-through; I was thinking more of this bullet point:
  • Any inserted text should marked with <u>...</u> or <ins>...</ins>, which renders in most browsers as underlined text, e.g., inserted.
Trappist the monk (talk) 12:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I figured you were, but most editors do not do that when adding in text and that bullet point is described as "best practice" rather than as something you should generally do or as mandatory. I do not see that it would have signaled Jessicapin to the change any more than the strike through. Furthermore I haven't seen any concern (until now) about following that bullet point. I have seen much concern about cutting into people's posts; we had a big RfC on it last year. It's why the guideline now says "Generally, you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving your own replies to individual points." It's why people wanted stronger wording for it than "generally, you should not." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Also, she didn't simply interleave. She added her text directly into my paragraphs. When it comes to what is the bigger or actual talk page problem, we'll have agree to disagree on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Don't you think that experienced editors should follow 'best practice' when interacting with inexperienced editors? Isn't that 'best practice' even more important when the interaction involves conflict? The issue is not what most editors do or do not; is not whether there has been debate about underscoring added text; is not about other editors modifying your posts. The issue here is your edits to your own posts and the application of appropriate markup so that even the least experienced editors among us can see what and where you have modified your original post.
It really is simple and quick to add <u>...</u> markup and doesn't use up near as many words as this conversation has done.
Trappist the monk (talk) 13:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
(Here because I was pinged) Assuming good faith, I left what I hoped were some words of helpful advice on Jessicapin's talk page yesterday. Since then, I see that she has either ignored my suggestion to read WP:TPG or else decided to disregard what it says. The style in which she has chosen to make comments on this page is confusing and disruptive, and frankly I can't imagine what the "best practice" would be to respond to it. Since she also has resorted to making personal attacks on other users, I think the most productive thing to do at this point is to hat the many sections above this one and ignore any further comments from the OP. I've got lots of patience for new users, but not so much for those who do the angry mastodon routine from day one. RivertorchFIREWATER 23:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

8,000 nerve endings

Jessicapin says that the notion that the clitoris has 8,000 nerve endings comes from research done by Thomas P. Lowry on a cow and published in his 1976 work. I find that interesting. That notion has been repeated many times over the years in various reliable sources as being relevant to humans, but I'm not seeing in a quick trawl through those sources any reference to the actual study which determined that the human clitoris has 8,000 nerve ends. Is it possible that a writer took Lowry's study, and applied it to humans, and people have since accepted it as a fact and repeated it without checking it? I think that's worth looking into. SilkTork (talk) 02:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I can't access Lowry's book. Was he really, seriously, talking about a cow? This is very bizarre. The tone of Jessicapin's comments is unhelpful and inappropriate, and means it is difficult to take what they say seriously. It feels like some kind of disruptive wind-up. However, I am curious, and I think it is worth looking into this cow claim to see how true it is. SilkTork (talk) 02:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes go to a medical library and look 71.11.216.114 (talk) 06:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Jessica Pin has written about this in a blog in which the relevant page from Lowry's book is shown: [1]. SilkTork (talk) 02:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
See below. We obviously can't use her blog source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
but you can use some basic judgment and maybe decide that if "8000 nerve endings" is true, it must be supported by some scientific research. so shouldn't you maybe be able to find that research? and if you need to go to a library to find a primary source, maybe isn't that an option? in this case, the clitoris by lowry is the most primary source you will find for this information (though maybe the original cow study is published somewhere?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.11.216.114 (talkcontribs)
You claim it comes from Lowry. Another editor feels that it comes from Natalie Angier. We have no reliable source noting where the original assertion comes from. I've obviously replied below. I'm not going to debate this in two different sections. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes Silk, you got it

8000 nerve endings comes from a study of cows not done by Lowry, but discussed by Lowry. Just because a claim gets published in one reputable journal or textbook or even repeatedly countless times in medical literature unfortunately does not mean it is correct. When it comes to vulvar anatomy, there is a lot of false information, like I said before. Pervasive ignorance in medicine makes peer review inadequate in this case. But actually, this problem has been observed elsewhere in the medical literature as well and I have a paper on how that happens. That’s why I specifically said there is a need for people to cite PRIMARY SOURCES. Otherwise what happens is akin to a game of telephone. That is how information gets distorted. You know all it takes is for one person to get lazy and misread something, or for one bad study to pass through peer review. You’ll always see claims that the clitoral glans is 1-2 cm even though that is false.

If you try tracking down a PRIMARY SOURCE for the “8000 nerve endings” claim, all you will be able to trace this back to is The Clitoris by Thomas Lowry. You’ll also see that, though I am a fan of Di Marino and Lepidi, not everything they print in their textbook is correct. For example, their definitions of the prepuce and clitoral hood as separate structures are bizarre and problematic. However, they provide the best photographs of cadaver dissections of the clitoris ever published. For that reason alone, this textbook is essential and ground-breaking. Their measurements are also more reliable because they describe the anatomy and methodology more clearly.

I am having trouble trying to figure out how Wikipedia works. The point is simply that we should try to avoid continuing to propagate false information as fact. “8,000 nerve endings” is fake news. It is not supported by any research on humans. I do, however, think it would be great if people could find studies that do look at the number of nerve endings in humans. I have found a couple. They are not very good. Often in cases like this, you have to look at all the research that has been done and look at the methodology critically as often there are problems. For example, while people normally claim the clitoris (or clitoral glans - claims vary) has twice as many nerve endings as it’s male counterpart, one recent study indicated that the penile glans had 5 times as many nerve endings. Jessicapin (talk) 02:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Jessicapin, again, we go by WP:Reliable sources, and some researchers differ on their anatomical descriptions of the clitoris. You first stated that "Di Marino and Lepidi are absolutely the best source for clitoral anatomy." And now you are stating you are "a fan of Di Marino and Lepidi, not everything they print in their textbook is correct." Either way, they support the "8,000 nerve endings" report. There are no WP:Reliable sources stating that the "8,000 nerve endings" aspect is a myth and/or is based on cow anatomy. I've yet to see the study concluding that the clitoris or its glans has 8,000 nerve endings (whether a human or cow study). In the past, we discussed the description possibly originating from Natalie Angier. Whatever the case, the medical and anatomical literature, including the aforementioned "Di Marino's Anatomic Study of the Clitoris and Bulbo-Clitoral Organ" source, states it as fact. So we can't challenge what the overwhelming abundance of literature states and leave mention of it out of the article or use unsupported POV-wording such as "claimed" or "theorized" for it. I have been careful to state "estimated to have" in the article, though.
What you are essentially arguing is that we can't go by any WP:Reliable sources, or that we must select which sources to go by, because they are wrong or conflict with each other. In your aforementioned blog, you argued, "Unfortunately, even the gross anatomy of the clitoris in Cambpell-Walsh is incorrect. So realistically, no medical specialties can be trusted to know the clitoris." So what is left to go by? I already stated to you above: "Whose authority are we to go by? On Wikipedia, we go by the WP:Verifiability policy [and] when reliable sources disagree, [we] maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight." I also noted that, as should be clear by the article, I've kept in mind that researchers differ on some anatomical aspects of the clitoris. Who is to way that "[so and so] researcher" is more accurate, unless we are going by WP:Due weight? We cannot go by your words; you are not a WP:Reliable source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
It's nice that you have a sense of humor, though (at least I'm assuming you were joking). If you weren't joking, I'm not judging. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

You cannot trust any single authority. Why is that difficult for you to comprehend? Previously you talked about proof. So, when evaluating whether a source is accurate, look for proof. For example, Campbell Walsh Urology incorrectly states that the suspensory ligament attaches to the glans. I personally have been exchanging emails with the author. Believe it or not, mistakes do happen, and there are much worse mistakes than this in other textbooks otherwise considered to be authoritative. This is where evidence comes in. Di Marino and Lepidi is the best source because 100+ photos of the anatomy are provided for verification. Their photos and accompanying descriptions, interpreted critically, give a more reliable account of the anatomy of the suspensory ligament of the clitoris. Get it?

Back to "proof" that 8000 nerve endings comes from a study of cows. Academic rigor actually places the burden of proof on the person making a claim. Simply quoting "8000 nerve endings" because you read it somewhere (where likely no primary source was cited), without citing a primary source, which I believe we were all taught to do in middle school, is not legit. If you want to say the clitoral glans (or entire clitoris - claims vary) has 8000 nerve endings, you need to cite a study where the authors find that the clitoris has 8000 nerve endings. That said, it looks like someone found the screenshot I took of Lowry, which is not available online. You'd have to go to a library and take a look yourself, like I did, after making the effort to find where exactly this claim comes from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessicapin (talkcontribs) 03:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:Verifiability policy is horrible. For something to be treated as correct, there should be evidence to support it. Majority opinion is not evidence. One example is how the glans is claimed to be 1-2 cm long in multiple journal articles. This is 100% incorrect and appears to come from a misquoting of an original source (likely Verkauf, but I'd have to go back and check), and we should not give increasing validity to an incorrect claim by continuing to publish it. I realize you, Flyer22, probably do not come into contact with many real clits, but next time you do, take a look at the glans and tell me you think it's 1-2 cm long. Lol

Due weight should only be given when there is varying evidence that supports different sides. Get it? For example, some authors will say the vestibular bulbs are separate from the clitoris while others will say the vestibular bulbs should be called "clitoral bulbs" and seen as part of the clitoris. The latter position has gained in popularity because this is what makes sense from an anatomical, observational standpoint, as the bulbs are continuous with spongy tissue connecting to the glans, as with the penis. But traditionalists argue the vestibular bulbs should still be called the vestibular bulbs because this is what they have always been called. This is a case where due weight should be given to both sides.

However, in the case where the clitoral hood is defined as "part of the labia minora" this mislabeling is actually dangerous and leads to miscommunication in relaying surgical risks and in a lack of consent regarding what surgery will be performed. The proximal clitoral hood is actually shaft skin and is functionally and histologically different from the labia minora. The clitoral hood is more aptly described as part of the clitoris itself, as most of it is skin overlying the clitoral cavernosa. Not acknowledging the proximal clitoral hood as shaft skin is also dangerous and leads to accidental mutilations of the clitoris, which is a very serious problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.11.216.114 (talkcontribs)

Jessicapin, I do not see what is left to state to you on this matter. You argued, "You cannot trust any single authority." I clearly understood your comment, which is why I asked why we should trust Yang or Di Marino over any other source. It's why I essentially asked you: "What sources should we go by then?" How do we judge what sources to go by? How do we even have an accurate article? You call Di Marino and Lepidi "the best source," and yet that source supports the "8,000 nerve endings" text. You are wanting us to take your claim that the "8,000 nerve endings" aspect comes from a study on cows, when there are no reliable sources to support that. That claim is your original research, which is not reliable for Wikipedia's purposes. Understand? As for burden of proof, have a look at WP:Burden. Wikipedia has its rules and it has them for a reason. I am well-aware that mistakes happen. I am well-aware of inaccuracies when it comes to anatomical literature. I know that a false claim can become "fact" if repeated often enough. Not that long ago, we addressed a claim widely being reported as fact with regard to female hysteria. In the case of the female hysteria discussion, we had sources challenging the claim. We can only follow what the literature states with WP:Due weight. We cannot do our own research and then use that to support material in the article, unless we are published -- reliably published. And even in that case, we must still adhere to WP:Secondary sources, WP:Due weight, and WP:COI. As for your WP:Personal attack, where you state "I realize you, Flyer22, probably do not come into contact with many real clits, but next time you do, take a look at the glans and tell me you think it's 1-2 cm long. Lol," sorry to disappoint you, but I'm female. If you must know, I've studied clitoral anatomy back and forth and have dissected clitorises. An abundance of reliable sources disagree with you on the clitoral hood not forming from the labia minora; I see no reliable sources disputing that description of the clitoral hood. All I see is your argument. I do, however, see sources like this 2010 "Glenn's Urologic Surgery" source, from Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, page 772, stating, "The goal of labioplasty is to create a normal-appearing and normal-functioning female perineum and introitus. The shaft skin and dorsal prepuce of the clitoris can be utilized to form the labia minora and to fashion a clitoral hood." Also, I only have your word that you have been in discussion with certain researchers, just like you only have my word about my knowledge of this topic and that I've been in discussion with researchers in the past about clitoral anatomy as well. But, hey, why should discussion with them matter if most or are all of them are wrong? I await other editors to comment on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't put too much effort into this because it is clear that Jessicapin is not yet aware of how Wikipedia works. The section heading ("Yes Silk, you got it") is not appropriate—please use something meaningful based on article content. The arguments are, well, arguments aka original research—not permitted. It's fine to mention some opinions or original research on a talk page, but they cannot be used as the basis for article content. Wikipedia is not perfect—if reliable sources have incorrect information then the article will have the same information. Johnuniq (talk) 06:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Why can't you choose to cite only correct information from reliable sources? Do you have a brain capable of basic critical thinking skills? Do you not value facts? Do you really think the claim that the clitoral glans is 1.5-2 cm long is reasonable? If "reliable sources" claimed that the penile glans was 9-12 cm long, would you publish that, or would you, stop, think, and realize an error was made somewhere, and that that 9-12 cm length was obviously intended to refer to the shaft? 71.11.216.114 (talk) 06:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Reverted here, here and here because you broke into my text even though I asked you not to, are screaming, are going by your personal opinions (some of which are emotionally-charged), and are engaging in personal attacks. Regarding the clitoral hood, the sources are quite clearly stating that it is formed in part by the labia minora; that is not me putting words into the sources mouths. Whether you feel that the description is inaccurate and is "a figure of speech used to illustrate the continuity of these structures," numerous reliable sources state that the clitoral hood is formed in part by the labia minora. You have offered no sources showing this to be incorrect. Your interpretations need to be explicitly supported by sources. Regarding the external aspect of the shaft, this is what the article stated. It noted two different descriptions of the shaft -- the clitoral body being called the shaft (yes, it's called that, whether you disagree or not), and an external portion being referred to as the shaft. As for "upper shaft," you could have simply specified that you wanted "upper" removed. I'll remove it now. As for where "upper" came from, it came from one of the sources. The article doesn't cite the "John Wiley & Sons" source I used to point out the "genital tubercle elongates and forms the shaft and glans of the penis" and the "genital tubercle forms the glans and shaft of the clitoris" parts above in response to you. Lastly, my knowledge of the clitoris is not simply based on what I've read, but we go by sources here, not personal experience. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
And as for you "correcting" the experts, we obviously can't go by that. I don't see why you think your word should be counted as more reliable and/or authoritative than the experts' words. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Jessicapin's manner and attitude are inappropriate for discussing this topic, and I initially wondered if the multiple posts were an attempt to get auto-confirmed to get around the semi-protection; so my first instinct on reading the posts were to block the user for being abusive and disruptive. However, no matter how naive and irritating a person is, sometimes they offer an insight or information that can be useful, and there is some meat in the postings that appear worth chewing, and enough fact to see that this is not mindless trolling. There is, though, a limit on how many abusive posts we can accept from any user, and Jessicapin appears to me to have reached the limit of our patience and good faith in that regard, so I will be issuing a formal caution. Given Jessicapin's general hostility and clear misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies and protocol, it would be inappropriate for her to be editing the Clitoris article, so I will be advising her to confine herself to posting on the article talkpage for the moment.

@ Jessicapin. It can be tiresome to explain to new users how Wikipedia works, especially when the new user is being so unpleasant; however, that is what User:Flyer22 is doing. Wikipedia doesn't work on truth, it works on widely accepted published beliefs. We cannot change or even challenge the accepted beliefs of experts in the field. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia. It may help to read this: Wikipedia:Wikipedia in brief and this: Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. The most we can do in this case is for the main editors of this article to discuss the pros and cons of mentioning Lowry's 1976 publication. It would help the argument in favour of mentioning it, if there were a recent reliable publication (not a blog) which discussed it in relation to the 8,000 nerve ends. Another thing that could be discussed is if the wording in our Clitoris article leaned not so much toward presenting the 8,000 nerve ends as a fact, but as an accepted belief. But, again, Wikipedia has to be careful not to challenge accepted belief. That is not our role. If anyone wishes to present "truth" to the world which is not currently accepted, then Wikipedia is the last place to come. It is always suggested to such people that they must first publish their views in reliable sources. But, as we are even hesitant about accepting fringe views, they would need to get their views accepted by a range of reliable sources before we would include them in Wikipedia. We will - up to a limit - read your views and opinions, and give you feedback, but if you continue to behave in a hostile and insulting manner, we will cease responding to you as we are all volunteers, and are not giving up our free time to be attacked and insulted. SilkTork (talk) 09:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Our article currently states "estimated to have more than 8,000 sensory nerve endings." This is referenced to Janell Carroll and Vincent Di Marino. Jessicapin, do you dispute the verification of this statement in those sources? Or do you dispute the reliability of those sources? What is the name of the book/paper by Lowry? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
The book is The Clitoris by Thomas P. Lowry and Thea Snyder Lowry, published Dec 1976 - the relevant material is "It may more probably indicate that the innervation of the penis is less than that of the clitoris for it agrees with our published findings in the bovine species (loc. cit.), where the comparable figures were 4,033 (total of both sides) in the male to 7,733 in the female." The next publication to cite a number (other than to say "rich with nerve endings") appears to be Woman: An Intimate Geography by Natalie Angier, published in 1999, in which she says: "The clitoris is simply a bundle of nerves: 8,000 nerve fibers to be precise. That's a higher concentration of nerve fibers than is found anywhere else on the body, including the fingertips, lips, and tongue, and it is twice the number in the penis." Which is remarkably close to what Lowry and Lowry said, though she doesn't cite her source. In my current trawl of sources I am finding general encyclopedias and social/society books using the 8,000 nerve ends (without a source), while medical books don't give a precise number, but say "rich". Vincent Di Marino in Anatomic Study of the Clitoris and the Bulbo-Clitoral Organ, which we use as a source in our Clitoris article, says "It should be noted that clitoral sensory corpuscles have been observed on animals (studies conducted by J. F. Tello on female mice, rats and ewes and by D. Ohmori on females rabbits, bitches and cats). However, these authors acknowledge that the genital corpuscles of the females under study are infinitely simpler than those of the human clitoris!" When Vincent Di Marino discusses 8,000 he says: "It should be noted from the start that although the clitoral glans has the same number of sensory "terminations" and genital corpuscles as the penile glans, assessed at around 8,000, the density of these receptors, with respect to the size of each of these organs, is 50 times higher for the female glans." I have looked at our sources supporting 8,000 nerve endings for the human clitoris, and I haven't yet found that actual statement in the sources. The main source, Di Marino, as indicated above, says the studies were done on animals. I think it is worth looking into this a little closer. In my little trawl I came upon several mentions of the Federation of Feminist Women's Health Centers' book A New View of a Woman's Body published in 1981 - which is seen as one of the first books to concentrate on the clitoris. Some truly remarkable illustrations by Suzann Cage. There seems to be some renewed interest in her work - see this article. That also may be worth digging into. SilkTork (talk) 10:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
The Carroll source, which is one of the two sources, used to support the statement, does support the 8,000 aspect; it's on page 111. It cites Angier. You can see in this 2018 "Sexuality Now: Embracing Diversity" reprint version that the 8,000 nerve endings aspect is supported on page 108. It cites Angier. The Di Marino source doesn't state that the 8,000 finding comes from non-human animals. It first notes the 8,000 finding, then makes the "50 times higher for the female glans" argument, then says "this means that that sensitivity of the clitoral glans is extreme compared to that of the male glans," and then mentions that "clitoral sensory corpuscles have been observed on animals" (which I took to mean "also observed on animals") and that the ones observed on non-human animals "are infinitely simpler than those of the human clitoris." If Di Marino and Lepidi were asserting that the 8,000 estimation comes from non-human animals, I think that they would have been clear about that and that Jessicapin would have pointed this out. Instead, Jessicapin argued that Di Marino cites this without evidence. And I can find no sources at all saying that cows have 8,000 clitoral nerve endings. I do think we should use the Di Marino source to state "the density of these receptors, with respect to the size of each of these organs, is 50 times higher for the female glans" as long as we use WP:In-text attribution to attribute it to Di Marino. When I first added Di Marino back in 2014, you can see from the edit summary that I intended to add more from that source. I never got around to doing that. I'll get around to doing it this year. Hopefully, this month or next month.
I have looked into the 8,000 aspect. I did this in 2012 when working on the article and bringing it to GA with you. And I did it back into 2014 after the aforementioned discussion with an editor saying that he (or she) could only trace the 8,000 aspect back to Angier. I looked over my past notes, research papers, my own personal books, and went to the library, and I saw sociology, biology, anatomy, and media sources asserting or still asserting 8,000. For example, this 2003 "The female reproductive system anatomy and physiology" book source, from Taylor & Francis, which is focusing on humans, states, "This little organ has 8000 nerve fibers—double that of the penis." And this 2011 "Aesthetic Surgery of the Female Genitalia" source, from Seminars in Plastic Surgery, states, "The clitoris is the embryonic equivalent of the male penis and is packed with 8000 nerve endings, twice the number of its male counterparts." It cites The Esybron Institute (2007) and "Measurement of the thickness of the urethrovaginal space in women with or without vaginal orgasm" (from Gravina et al.) for the statement. I can't find much on The Esybron Institute, except for this (appears defunct), and I'm not sure who Gravina et al. cite or if they cite anyone. Point is...the 8,000 assertion is in biological and medical works. And it's being retained by sex educators and artwork meant to educate people on the clitoris, as is clear by this 2017 The Irish Times "The clitoris has 8,000 nerve endings (and nine other things we learned from a new artwork)" source. Even this 2018 "Discovering Anatomy: A Guided Examination of the Cadaver" source, from Morton Publishing Company, page 374, states, "It is richly innervated with sensory nerve endings sensitive to touch (~8,000 nerve endings—more than any other tissue in the body)." As you've noted above, if the 8,000 aspect is in error, that is not our fault and we can't really challenge this unless reliable sources do so; in the 2014 discussion, I also gave this reasoning for mentioning the 8,000 aspect. Because of its prevalence and unchallenged state, we can't just not mention it, or state "claimed to have 8,000 nerve endings." We can state "estimated to have," which is what I've done. We could also attribute the matter to Angier in the text, as in "According to Angier," but doing that would seem like WP:Undue weight and inappropriate use of WP:In-text attribution, given the various other sources that state this without even mentioning her. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

but it is challenged in studies of nerve ending concentrations in actual humans. I guess this doesn’t really matter and it helps support my agenda to say it’s true. But if the glans has so many nerve endings, why don’t people ever seem to care about the distal course of the dorsal nerve being excluded from nearly all GYN literature and general anatomy textbooks? It’s a huge disconnect. I want to edit the page for the dorsal nerve but I can’t figure out how to add photos. Is it okay to upload cadaver dissections from Lepidi and Di Marino? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessicapin (talkcontribs)

Jessica, which studies are you referring to? Research by Di Marino and Lepidi? Whatever the case, what I always keep in mind, as noted to you before, is that the research on clitoral anatomy is not always the same. So I present research that conflicts unless it happens to be research that violates our WP:Due weight policy. At this point in time, all we can go by is what reliable sources state on the nerve endings. Like you, I hope that we get some research on this aspect in the future addressing the 8,000 nerve endings claim. We can't use photos to make our own arguments, as this would be a WP:Synthesis violation. But we can upload photos to show clitoral anatomy. The images need to align with our Wikipedia:Non-free content guideline. The images must be free. For how to upload images, see.Wikipedia:Uploading images. Cadaver dissections from Di Marino and Lepidi would be a great addition to the article. And like I noted above, I intend to add some of their research to this article. On a side note: It seems you think that the human clitoris has a significantly fewer nerve endings than 8,000? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for giving the references. These seem to imply that the number is "about 8,000" rather than "more than 8,000"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 03:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Axl, you mean the references I provided? I'm not sure if it's about 8,000 or more than 8,000 since we have no studies to refer to on the matter. Sources differ, but it seems that most simply state 8,000. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I have changed our article's text in line with these references. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The glans is not 1.5-2 cm long

I wrote to the author of the cited source for that claim and she confirmed it was a typo. So I think we should remove that and replace it with the real dimensions. Thank you. Jessicapin (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

We only have your word. And she is not the only author to describe the clitoral glans as 1.5-2 cm long, although most other sources simply describe the clitoris as a whole as that long because they are only considering the glans as the clitoris, when, today, researchers know that the clitoris is significantly more extensive than its glans. Mentioning the length typically given for the glans is fine as long as we provide the other estimations. Since you were last here, the other size/length that you've praised as more accurate has been added to the article: "The size of the clitoral glans may vary from 2 mm to 1 cm in healthy women and is usually estimated at 4 to 5 mm in both the transverse and longitudinal planes." But as for a typo, what length did she mean if not the one clearly given in the source? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
okay well I could forward you the email. Does that mean you took that part out? I like what you replaced it with but it might be good to clarify that the 4-5 mm measurements are the averages for the two measurements taken while 2 mm - 1 cm is the normal range (for longitudinal or transverse? Should be about same for both). However, there are women who have clitorises bigger than 1 cm who aren’t unhealthy (just atypical). I forget how rare this is. I’ve been talking to a reporter who covered a story on “intersex” women who had surgery without consent as children and it makes me kind of sad, so it might be good to recognize clitoromegaly as rare but not unhealthy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessicapin (talkcontribs)
I can't go by emails for these things, though. I can only go by what reliable sources state. I'm also uncomfortable trusting a forwarded email on this matter. As for the rest of what you stated, yes, I'm aware of the clitoromegaly literature. Just keep in mind that anything we state in this article must be based on reliable sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The frenulum is not part of the clitoris any more than the labia minora are part of the clitoris

Not a single reliable source says that. Flyer22 is simply misinterpreting the wording of sources due to poor reading comprehension. Jessicapin (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I haven't misinterpreted. The frenulum of clitoris is a clitoral component (if defined broadly), which is all the article says. Do you want us to ignore the frenulum of clitoris in this article? If so, I don't see any valid reason to do so. I mean, do you also want the frenulum of prepuce of penis to not be mentioned in the Human penis#Structure section of the Human penis article? Even this page (36) of the aforementioned "Anatomic Study of the Clitoris and the Bulbo-Clitoral Organ" source states the following: "Overall, each of the labia minora (or nymphs) is formed at its juxta clitoral section, by the contribution of two homolateral components: infero-lateral part of the clitoral hood and clitoral frenulum. Therefore, there exists a functional nympho-clitoral unit whose physiological importance will be demonstrated in another chapter." If you want us to mention the frenulum of clitoris in some other way than currently presented in the article, I am open to suggestions, but it should be mentioned in this article. Do you want the "the frenulum of clitoris" part moved to the end of the first paragraph to simply state "The frenulum of clitoris is a frenulum on the undersurface of the glans and is created by the two medial parts of the labia minora."? And we've already been over the labia minora aspect; sources consistently state that it partly forms the clitoral hood. It's also common for sources to not describe the clitoral hood as part of the clitoris (with the glans cited as the only external part of the clitoris), but it is a clitoral component since it covers the glans.
On a side note: There is no need to create a section for each potential issue you want to address, especially when the section consists of only a couple or few sentences. And, again, when you reply to my posts, do not break into them. Reply in your own paragraph(s) separate from mine. By this, I mean reply under my posts and sign your comments. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes I think that definition of the clitoral frenulum is good. Maybe I am being too picky. I agree it makes sense to discuss the clitoral frenulum in this article. I guess it might make sense to refer to the clitoral frenulum as part of the clitoris. Really it connects the clitoris to the labia minora.
I still think it is a mistake to say the clitoral hood is part of the labia minora, as the potential result of this is dangerous to patients. Base on previous citations, it seems like you interpret literature as saying the clitoral hood is part of the labia even when it doesn’t say that. You could say the legs unite to form the pelvis but the legs are part of the pelvis. It makes more sense to consider the clitoral hood part of the clitoris. The clitoral hood forms both shaft skin and a retractable portion that is equivalent to the foreskin of the penis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessicapin (talkcontribs)
I've moved the definition near the end of the paragraph. As for misinterpreting the clitoral hood as part of the labia minora, I'm not misinterpreting, Jessica. I've repeatedly stated that sources state that the labia minora partially forms the clitoral hood. It doesn't take much to see that this is what sources state. Let's see, our Wikipedia Clitoris article states that the clitoral hood "is partially formed by fusion of the upper part of the external folds of the labia minora." This 2000 "Clinical Forensic Medicine: A Physician's Guide" source, from Springer Science & Business Media, page 85, states that "the labia minora meet anteriorly and form the clitoral hood." This 2006 "Women's Gynecologic Health" source, from Jones & Bartlett Learning, page 85, states, "The clitoris is capped externally by the glans, which is covered by a clitoral hood formed in part by the fusion of the upper part of the two labia minora." This 2009 "Pediatric Urology E-Book source, from Elsevier Health Sciences, page 476, states, "Gentle outward and lateral traction on the labia majora should expose the mucosal lining of the labia minora, which form a partial hood over the clitoris." This 2013 "Human Physiology" source, from OUP Oxford, page 666, states, "The labia minora meet at the top of the vulva to form the clitoral hood, beneath which lies the clitoris itself." This 2016 "Medical and Advanced Surgical Management of Pelvic Floor Disorders, An Issue of Obstetrics and Gynecology, E-Book" source, from Elsevier Health Sciences, page 29, states, "The superior folds unite in the midline to form the prepuce, or clitoral hood." This 2017 "A Practical Guide to Vulval Disease: Diagnosis and Management" source, from John Wiley & Sons, page 3, states, "The glans is covered by the clitoral hood, formed by the fusion of the anterior portions of the labia minora." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Sociology and the clitoris

The article makes an incorrect claim that the clitoris "has also been the subject of sociological (including social constructionist) analyses and studies.[4]" Neither of the citations are sociological, so these sources do not provide the verifiable accuracy Wikipedia articles require. The Moore & Clark (1995) article was published in Feminist Studies, and the words "sociology" or "sociological" do not appear in the text of the article. While it is true that Moore is a sociologist, the article that is cited does not take a sociological approach, nor does it use sociological theory. [1]

The other article that is cited, Blechner (2017) is also not sociological. Blechner is a psychoanalyst, and the article analyzes the clitoris from a psychological/psychoanalytical approach, not a sociological approach. In a later statement, the article also makes this incorrect claim: "Mark J. Blechner analyzed sociological and psychological factors involved in the repeated discovery and suppression of the full anatomy of the clitoris.[143]" The journal article cited does not analyze "sociological... factors" as claimed. A search of the text of the article reveals only this statement regarding sociology: "We must consider which factors—psychological, sociological, and anthropological—would lead to the phenomenon of scientific findings being repeatedly distorted or forgotten for more than two millennia." [2] Although Blechner says that "We must consider which factors--psychological, sociological, and anthropological...", the journal article does not accomplish that task, nor does it seek to. Blechner is upfront from the beginning that the journal article takes a psychological approach.

I know that this topic has been discussed previously, and it was my impression that consensus had been reached, and the text of the article had been changed to downplay the incorrect claims about sociology, if not to totally eliminate them. But the incorrect claim is now back in the article, so I am raising the issue again.

I searched the database Sociological Abstracts using the search terms "clitoris" as "subject heading" in "peer-reviewed journals" in "English." There were zero returns. This means that there is no peer-reviewed journal article published in English in sociology journals that analyzes or studies the clitoris. Additionally, the word, "clitoris" does not appear in the index of twelve contemporary introduction to sociology textbooks.

Because no reliable, verifiable, accurate sources have been cited to justify the claim that the clitoris" has... been the subject of sociological... analyses and studies," I am deleting the two incorrect statements. AnaSoc (talk) 01:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

AnaSoc, as seen at Talk:Clitoris/Archive 15#Latest edits, I extensively debated you on this matter. And given how "sociological," including "social constructionism," is defined, and the reliable sources that make clear the feminist sociological/social constructionism viewpoints, I have reverted you on this. I am not up for debating you again. I suggest you go to WP:Third opinion or start WP:RfC about it. Do not WP:Edit war. I fail to see how you've concluded that the 1995 "Clitoral Conventions and Transgressions: Graphic Representations in Anatomy Texts, c1900-1991" source does not goes into social/social constructionist debates about the clitoris, but it does. Like I stated before, with my "21:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)" post, "it specifically mentions social construction and sociological studies with regard to the clitoris." You stated that "the incorrect claim is now back in the article," but I specifically pointed you to the fact that I had included that text. You moved on afterward. Now that you are back, I stand by suggesting that you refer to WP:Third opinion or WP:RfC, and be neutral about it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
And in that discussion, I also pointed you to this 2005 "Anatomy of the Clitoris" source by Helen O'Connell, which states, "The anatomy of the clitoris has not been stable with time, as would be expected. To a major extent its study has been dominated by social factors." Now "social factors" does not mean the same thing "sociological debate," but social factors are an aspect of sociology, and I listed enough sources in that previous discussion showing that feminist sociologists and other social scientists have debated the clitoris with regard female genital mutilation and female orgasm. In that previous discussion, I also suggested changing "sociological" to "societal," but said that I think it's best to retain "sociological" instead. You didn't get back to me on that. So, again, I'm not debating this all over again. I'd rather just go through an RfC and we both we make our arguments and let others decide. I'll be sure to list sources showing my points if we do that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing me to 15 Archive. I was just reviewing that when you pinged me. I reviewed the WP:Third opinion materials (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion) which state that a request for a third opinion can be made only after the dispute has been "thoroughly discussed" on the article Talk page. Since you state that you are unwilling to engage in further discussion, I do not see that asking for a third opinion is feasible. At this point, I think that I prefer to use another idea from the dispute resolution materials and insert a Needs citation template at the disputed point. Perhaps you or another editor can find a reliable source to verify the claim that there has been sociological analysis of the clitoris. And by sociological, I mean analysis, terms, concepts, and theory from the discipline of sociology, not just social scientists in general. And also not specifically about FGM, but about the clitoris itself. Thanks for your work.AnaSoc (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
AnaSoc, you stated, "And by sociological, I mean analysis, terms, concepts, and theory from the discipline of sociology, not just social scientists in general." And that is where we are mainly disagreeing. There is no rule that says that in order to state "sociological debate," I need sources that state that "the discipline of sociology has analyzed the clitoris," or something like that. Not when there are sources talking about scholars debating the topic on sociological, including social constructionist, grounds. The sources don't refer to a medical discipline either, but "medical" is there because of the noted medical debate. I did see that you had added "feminist." I could go with "feminist social constructionist views." Or how about we go with "has also been debated by social scientists," like I did with this edit? As for "psychological," I considered it covered by "medical," but I re-added it since people might not consider it when thinking of "medical. As for "psychoanalytical," sources usually do not state that, and I don't see why we should add "psychoanalytical"...other than the Freud aspect. As for WP:Third opinion, we'd already thoroughly discussed it. I don't see that a new thorough discussion is needed for a listing at WP:Third opinion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
This 2013 "Human Sexuality: Self, Society, and Culture" source, from McGraw-Hill Higher Education, page 18, which addresses the clitoris, says something I essentially stated to you before. It states, "What might surprise you is that sex research cuts across several scientific and social scientific disciplines. [...] Because human sexuality holistically involves all aspects of the body, mind, heart, and experience, the study of sexuality involves biological, social, psychological, and health sciences. These disciplines provide an interdisciplinary perspective that helps integrate all aspects of the field of human sexuality." Similarly, this 2015 "Philosophizing About Sex" source, from Broadview Press, page 225, and which is a source I have at home and recently added to the article, states, "Today, sexologists represent a wide array of fields (including biology, neurology, medicine, psychology, sociology, and anthropology) and deploy diverse methodological approaches. [...] So sexology fits both positivist and social-constructionist models of how science works and is an interdisciplinary field of science, much like cognitive science." What these two sources state and what I've stated before is why I do not understand your objection to "sociological" on this matter. But like I noted above, I've again tried compromising with you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the conversation. I added feminist, psychological, and psychoanalytical because the sources that were listed used those terms. I'm trying to stay true to what the sources actually say.
I disagree with you that there is no rule that requires citation to a reliable source to claim that there is sociological debate (or analysis, in this case) about the clitoris. This from the WP:OR "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented" As I understand this policy, when material is challenged, or is likely to be challenged, a reliable source must be cited or the challenged material should be removed. I have challenged the claim that there is sociological analysis on the clitoris based on the two sources that are currently provided for the claim because neither of them back up the claim that there is sociological analysis.
I do appreciate that you are still willing to discuss and seem open to further compromise.AnaSoc (talk) 02:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I would be fine with using the term social scientific instead of sociological analysis. But Blechner--a psychoanalyst--is not a social scientist, but a behavioral scientist. How about this: "...analyzed by social and behavioral scientists." Note that I am also suggesting going back to using the term analyze, not debate here. I'm fine with debate remaining in the first part of that sentence. Thanks again for your work.AnaSoc (talk) 02:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Your claims of WP:OR are not valid when, like I stated above, we have "scholars debating the topic on sociological, including social constructionist, grounds," and sources noting this. You have been objecting on flimsy separatist grounds, when two sources I just provided above are explicitly clear about the discipline range that sexology covers. That range, like the two sources I cited above note, includes sociology. I studied sexology, among other fields, which is the first reason I do not understand your "the discipline of sociology has not analyzed or debated the clitoris" argument. Besides other sources I've referred to, I repeat that the 1995 "Clitoral Conventions and Transgressions: Graphic Representations in Anatomy Texts, c1900-1991" source goes into social/social constructionist debates about the clitoris. I changed the text to "analyzed and debated by social scientists." I see no need to add "behavioral." And given what I've previously argued and the latest source I added, I see no need to remove "debate." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm okay with using the term social sciences. However, the Blechner article does not use social science analysis. It uses psychological and psychoanalytical analysis. Both of these disciplines are behavioral sciences, not social sciences. I do not have access to the new source you added, the philosophical source. But as long as you will agree to not make the inaccurate claim about sociology, I'm good for now. As always, thanks for the conversation.AnaSoc (talk) 04:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
The Blechner source, like other sources in the reference bundles, clearly is not covering only one aspect of the sentences it's cited to. Throughout my discussions with you, I have not made inaccurate claims about sociology. You have limited your view of sexology and sociology, as made very clear -- in non-synthesis words -- by sources I've provided on the matter. Even in the previous discussion, you claimed, "The Kinsey studies were not sociological studies; Kinsey's work is more properly considered to be sexology." I contradicted this with a source that states, "Research concerning normal human sexuality first began with sociological surveys, such as the famous 'Kinsey Report.' " I also pointed to another that states, "Although Kinsey was a zoologist, not a sociologist, the Kinsey reports, especially when viewed as a contribution to theory rather than as a mere amassing of uninterpreted data, are conventionally and I think accurately viewed as contributions to the sociology of sex, as is the subsequent research output of the Institute for Sex Research." I'm glad you're "good for now." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Update: I changed the wording back to "and it has also been subject to sociological analyses and studies," except for the addition of "including social constructionist." I see no need to add "social constructionist" when "social constructionist" is an aspect of sociology. I re-added the disputed text because, like I stated before, the "Clitoral Conventions and Transgressions: Graphic Representations" source does present itself from a social/social constructionist viewpoint. And I came across this 2015 "It Hurts Down There: The Bodily Imaginaries of Female Genital Pain" source, from SUNY Press, page 19, confirming it. I also included that source for backup. I don't see why I would need to include it, however, when anyone who has read the "Clitoral Conventions and Transgressions: Graphic Representations" source should know that it argues from a social/social constructionist viewpoint. It even uses the words "social," "constructed," "socially constructed," "anatomical constructions," "constructionisms," and so on. Did you not read the source? Further, in the previous discussion, I directly pointed you to two sociological studies on the clitoris. One of those is the 2005 "The Incidental Orgasm: The Presence of Clitoral Knowledge and the Absence of Orgasm for Women" source. It was already in the article, but I stated that I decided against including it for "sociological analyses" or similar because it's a primary source. But I've included it now, especially since it is cited in so many other sources. Just in case you don't have access to it (although you should be able to find a free copy online), here are some of the things it states confirming its sociological perspective: "The survey was administered in three introductory level sociology courses: Survey of Sociology, Criminology, and Human Sexuality. Each of these courses fulfills a general education requirement and draws a wide range of students. [...] Our approach was social constructionist in that we understood sexuality to be historically and culturally contingent instead of biologically determined (Foucault, 1978; Weeks, 1985). Heterosexuality is a 'political institution' in that it serves to enforce gender hierarchy with pre- scribed rules of femininity and masculinity (Rich 1980, p. 637; see also Connell, 1987; Weeks, 1985). The institution of heterosexuality operates, in part, through the social construction of the sexual body, the 'nature' of sexuality, and the manifestation of these ideas in our bodies and bodily processes (Connell, 1987; Laqueur, 1990). If a pattern in sexuality emerges, we interpret it as a product of social, instead of biological, forces because of the different socialization and structural positions of women and men and the tendency to emphasize gender difference over similarity (Laqueur, 1990; Tiefer, 1995; Weeks, 1985)." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. I think the main problem is that you misunderstand what the discipline of sociology is about. For example, you conflate the words social and social constructionism with the discipline of sociology. In the "Incidental Orgasm" article, you are using the fact that the study's sample came from sociology classes to claim that this then means the study is sociological. The Wade et al. study is done by sociologists, but it is not published in a sociology journal. Additionally, the study is not about the clitoris per se; it is about clitoral knowledge, how the sample learned that knowledge, and the link between the knowledge and orgasm.AnaSoc (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
No, I don't "misunderstand what the discipline of sociology is about." It could be said that you thought similarly at the Sexism article because you were focused on your view of sexism and what sources you think should pertain to covering it despite the fact that not all sociology sources define sexism the same way, and that other fields also address sexism. You talk about conflation, but I specifically stated above, "Now 'social factors' does not mean the same thing 'sociological debate,' but social factors are an aspect of sociology." Let's see where you are going wrong this time: To start off with, our very own Social constructionism Wikipedia article states, "Social constructionism or the social construction of reality (also social concept) is a theory of knowledge in sociology and communication theory that examines the development of jointly constructed understandings of the world that form the basis for shared assumptions about reality." You talk about conflating social constructionism with the discipline of sociology, and yet social constructionism is a part of that discipline. It is a subfield of it. This 2006 "Sociology" book, from Polity and British sociologist Anthony Giddens, page 152, states, "Within sociology, many different theoretical frameworks are used to explain social reality. These theories differ in their explanation of social phenomena, yet they share the assumption that social reality exists independently of people's talking it or living in it. This assumption has been challenged by a broad body of sociological thought known as social constructionism." Social constructionism is sociological. And I can list numerous reliable sources right here making that clear, but I don't see the point of doing so. Going by that book's quote alone, and the rest of what that page states (although, unlike that source, Wikipedia differentiates between social constructionism and social constructivism), it's easy to see why I pointed out the words social, constructed, socially constructed and constructionisms. Similar to what our Wikipedia articles state and what the book states, the SUNY Press source on "Clitoral Conventions and Transgressions" states, "Moore and Clarke's tracking of clitoral representation invites us to examine [...] the role of representation in constructing anatomical -- and therefore clinical -- reality (Prentice 2012); how, in other words, 'aesthetc and scientific paradigms, not empirical or experiential facts, determine understandings and even illustrations of genital anatomy (Frueh 2003, 139)."
Above, you stated, "While it is true that Moore is a sociologist, the article that is cited does not take a sociological approach, nor does it use sociological theory." That is your opinion, and it is a flawed opinion since it is clear as day that the article takes a sociological approach. It's an article by sociologists and it examines the topic from a social constructionism viewpoint, as made clear by the article itself and the source I listed above confirming this. You stated that the article was "published in Feminist Studies," as if that makes it any less sociological in its approach or as if feminist sociology (which I've noted to you before) does not exist. With regard to Wade et al., the reason that I quoted the authors stating that "the survey was administered in three introductory level sociology courses: Survey of Sociology, Criminology, and Human Sexuality" and that their "approach was social constructionist" is because you've gone on about the word clitoris "not appearing in the index of twelve contemporary introduction to sociology textbooks" (as if that has any bearing on whether or not the topic has been analyzed/studied sociologically), and you have given your opinion on what the authors' approaches are. Here, with Wade et al., we have them specifically telling us that their study is from a social constructionist viewpoint and that, because of this, the survey was administered in three introductory level sociology courses. The study is without a doubt sociological, and the authors make that explicitly clear. Your objection on the basis that the study "is not published in a sociology journal" holds no weight when we have the authors stating that their intent and approach was sociological. They state that "Embedded within all research premised on a social constructionist framework is a contradiction between the belief that reality is plastic and that reality is measurable. We acknowledge this contradiction, a general epistemological feature of sociological research in this vein, and we have tried to negotiate it in this manuscript." Your "the study is not about the clitoris per se" argument also holds no weight. Your views on what the discipline of sociology entails matters not (especially since you have stated things about sociology that are contradicted by what reliable sources state). But, again, you can take this to WP:Third opinion or start an RfC on it. I'd be more than happy to point editors to what the sources themselves state instead of a lone editor's interpretation. Or I could change the wording to "and it has also been subject to social constructionist analyses and studies." It matters not to me, except that "sociological" is easier for readers to understand/is more familiar to them than "social constructionist" is. But when they click on that social constructionist link, they will see that social constructionism is a part of sociology. So the end result is not much different. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
As always, thanks for the conversation. Removing "sociological" and replacing it with "social constructivist" would be a satisfactory resolution to me.AnaSoc (talk) 00:10, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
I had changed it to "social constructivist," but then I quickly changed it to "social constructionist" per the sources used. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I the "v" was a typo, so thanks for catching that.AnaSoc (talk) 23:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Way too much on hyenas

The section on hyenas is comically long and out of proportion with its significance to the overall subject. It should be shortened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.28.105 (talk) 05:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Considering that it appears that the spotted hyena clitoris has been studied the most out of all the other animal clitorises, those five paragraphs are fine. This is the clitoris article and they have the most unique clitoris. Probably better that most of that content be here and summarized at the spotted hyena article, which it already is, instead of have most of that clitoris content at the spotted hyena article. 72.216.61.218 (talk) 10:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

____

References

  1. ^ Moore, Lisa Jean; Clarke, Adele E. (April 1995). "Clitoral Conventions and Transgressions: Graphic Representations in Anatomy Texts, c1900-1991". Feminist Studies. 21 (2): 255–301. doi:10.2307/3178262.
  2. ^ Mark J. Blechner (2017) The Clitoris: Anatomical and Psychological Issues, Studies in Gender and Sexuality, 18:3, 190-200, DOI: 10.1080/15240657.2017.1349509, p. 192.