Talk:Labia minora

Anatomy: Gross Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to gross anatomy.

Women's Health Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

questions

is it possible to have a labia minora that is protruding, such as is shown in one of your pics? how come? does that mean that the labia minora of a woman may also have different sizes, as is stated in the page? why? how come? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.213.95.228 (talk • contribs) 07:05 (UTC), February 16, 2007.

Thank you for your comment. You should know that Talk pages are not intended for discussion on the topic of the article, they are intended for discussion of the article itself. Please see Talk page guidelines if you would like more information. Now, is there a change that you would like to suggest for the article? Joie de Vivre 18:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not only are protruding labia minora possible, they're commonplace. And labia minora is PLURAL. The singular is labium minus. Also, I have a suggestion for a change to the article- a lot more detailed info. Gringo300 03:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up this page to find out about the evolutionary/biological function of the labia monira. Does anyone know and could fill in the biological function? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.18.219 (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same thing. -kotra (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking same thing too. Feels good I'm not the only one being tortured in M1 embryo right now.Boonshofter 10:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boonshofter (talk • contribs)

Cutaneous folds

There needs to be an article on cutaneous folds. Gringo300 05:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

The penis article has six photos. Why are there so few photos here? Okay, the penis article shows penises erected and unerected and circumcised and uncircumcised. But still... The female genitals are as important as the male, right?

I imagine that there's probably a lack of free pictures of labia minora. Also, please sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes. Instructions on how to do so are on the top of the talk page when you edit it. Asarelah 03:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, there are 5 images on penis, 7 on this article, and 10 on vagina (which is a more accurate equivalent of the penis). The number of images fluctuates according to many factors. Availability is one, but someone's idea of which genitals are more important probably isn't. -kotra (talk) 09:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6 images are present for two paragraphs of text. Something tells me this isn't for educational enlightenment. Jachin (talk) 10:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of the images is a photograph, so I doubt they're being used for titillation. Besides, most of the articles on body parts have a large number of images. Armpit, for example, isn't a particularly sexy body part, and it has eight images. -kotra (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone here think it's silly that the photo chosen for labia minora has almost none at all?

What are the sympton's for this?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.16.153 (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain. What are the symptoms for what? -kotra (talk) 23:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is something rather bizarre about the lack of pubic hair on the two imagines. As if it's somehow the natural state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.135.89 (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's easier to see the labia minora if there's no hair 108.212.109.237 (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose linking to FGM, labia majora, labia piercing, and forchette piercing in See Also section.

Wow, this article has so much room for improvement. I was surprised to see the article for such a major body part is not more developed. I have a number of suggestions, but I will start with the simplest first. I propose we link to the following internal pages under the 'See Also' section:

FGM (Female Genital Mutilation, involving the removal of the labia minora, still widely practiced in a number of cultures. Timely linking to this page also coincides with the featuring of the Wikipedia Female Genital Mutilation page on 01062015.

Labia majora (for comparison/disambiguation; the terms labia minora and labia majora are often confused)

Labia piercing

Fourchette piercing (piercing of the pinchable flap present in some females, where the labia minora meet at the perineum, or in anatomical terms, posterior commissure of the labia minora)

Any objections/suggestions? Fetters of ennui (talk) 04:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Labia majora article is already linked in the lead and lower in the article. Linking it in the See also section would therefore be at conflict with WP:Overlinking and WP:See also. Furthermore, we have the File:Vulva labeled english.jpg in the article; it shows where the labia majora and other parts of the vulva are. Flyer22 (talk) 04:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in total agreement that this article needs to be improved. I would very much like to work on it, but alas... I have so many pressing issues in my own life at present.

I'd suggest linking to the Labia article as well (or perhaps instead of some of the proposed "see also" links), because it's a little more complete than this one. kyledueck (talk) 12:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Flyer22 Ahhh yes, I see what you mean. That makes sense. Scratch the labia majora link idea then.

So do you all think that linking to FGM and piercings of the labia are appropriate links? Considering that labiaplasty is in the 'See Also' section, it seems logical to me to include what I would consider a cultural contrast to the notion of removing or surgically altering labia.

Perhaps these links would ultimately be better included in the body of the article with detailed explanations one day? Until then though, I'd at least like to see them mentioned. Or is it sufficient that FGM links to labia minora? I would think not because readers would not think to go to FGM unless they were directed to labia minora from a link on the FGM page.

If the rest are acceptable links, Labia piercing and Fourchette piercing should each have their own bullet points, yes?

There are just so many rules and guidelines, some more tacit or open to interpretation than others, and editorial judgement and common sense are subjective. I'm still getting the hang of the more technical elements, and just trying to make sure I do everything in an agreeable fashion. Fetters of ennui (talk) 04:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

development

the following is not a summary of what is in the body, and the specific content is not supported by the source provided. parking it here for now while a related discussion is worked out at Talk:penis. The relevant page in the book is here which says: "The labia minora (homologue of the penile urethra and the skin of the penis in the male) are thin folds of stratified squamous epithelium that arise from the urethral folds. These folds are continuous with the epithelium of the vestibule lying between the vaginal orifice and the labia majora, The labia minora vary greatly in size and shape. They split anteriorly to enclose the clitoris, forming its prepuce anteriorly and frenulum posteriorly. The labia minora contain sebaceous glands and are rich in blood supply, but are devoid of hair follicles. They fuse posteriorly into the fourchette or posterior ring of the vaginal introitus".

They are homologous to the male foreskin, frenulum, urethra but no other penile skin.^[1]

References

^ Manual of Obstetrics. (3rd ed.). Elsevier. pp. 1-16. ISBN 9788131225561.

- Jytdog (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Jytdog means this discussion at Talk:Human penis. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Ausprägung der Labia Minora.jpeg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Labia majora

Why does it comes out and how can it be reduced/normal 2409:4042:4E0B:60ED:E4BF:C360:12F2:60D4 (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Hairy vulva of a young woman 2.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the frequent portrayal of the pudendal cleft without protrusion in art and pornography

Quite possibly. I am rather the porn aficionado and I must say that the female pudenda are portrayed in all their variation and glory. And before the patriarchate gets blamed for this, men generally love the inner lips in all their variation and glory. My source for the second statement is that lips in porn are so variegated; and my source for the first statement is a cordial invitation, to all who may question its veracity, to google for vulvae and surf for a few minutes.

(I must concede the point for sculpture; inner lips are rare in that domain.) 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:79A8:4CEC:EB5F:5455 (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[:0-1] Manual of Obstetrics. (3rd ed.). Elsevier. pp. 1-16. ISBN 9788131225561.

[1]