Talk:Vulva

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Anatomy (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article has not yet been associated with a particular anatomical discipline.
 
WikiProject Sexuality (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Offensive images[edit]

This article (include the talk page) has been filled with offensive vulva photos (exclude diagrams)!Consorveyapaaj2048394 (talk) 08:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

How are these pictures offensive? They're not vulgar or pornagraphic. You don't have a right to not be offended as an individual.--207.118.105.246 (talk) 12:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not CENSORED Arjuncodename024 17:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored; but it does abide by the rule of Common Decency, and Alternatives by consensus should be sought in favour offensive images. Personally, I've never understood why diagrams are not simply used, as a physical photo is clearly gratuitous. The manner in which people fervently and aggressively defend their inclusion indicates that they want physical photos to be there simply for the offence/shock factor.

Articles that are not about sexually explicit parts of the human body mysteriously manage to get by without half a dozen user-contributed images. Wikipedia should not be catering to amateur exhibitionists. Jtrainor (talk) 02:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Why are photos gratuitous? That labial operation is well illustrated by the photos. Unless you get specific, I don't think we have much to discuss here. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I have yet to see a "diagram" that does half as good a job of conveying what a vulva really looks like as a photograph does. If a truly representative diagram were created, it'd be just as offensive as a photo, wouldn't it? Powers T 12:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. You are making a baseless assertion that a diagram or a drawing is inadequate. That simply is not true. This issue between a photo and an illustration is not a matter of clarity but of taste. You obviously want a photo to be there. That's it. The person at the start of this paragraph is absolutely spot on that the photos (that are on Wikipedia - not necessarily all photos of vulva) are offensive. I do believe it is theoretically possible to have a less offensive photo of a vulva. I'm not a photo expert but I'm pretty sure that there exists more photographs out there that are better suited for an encyclopedia than all the overwhelmingly glossy smutty pics that are constantly uploaded by pervert Wikipedians. Loginnigol (talk) 09:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm with you on this one, the people who are posting pictures like these and the video on the ejaculation page are clearly just exhibitionists getting off to the fact that thousands of strangers are viewing their genitals every day, and it's genuinely depressing to see that two years later, nothing has been done to fix this problem. Master Deusoma (talk) 05:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
If the ejaculation page is depressing to you, then why did you see it so many times? I have never visited that page before and I never will. --BrianJ34 (talk) 13:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Most boys know what their penis looks like and often during urination, showering after sports etc they see other boys penises and they compare and as a result know that some are similar to theirs and some are different. Women don't as a general rule see another woman's vulva and therefore have no way of knowing if theirs is normal. Photographs show us that they are the same and yet different and that my vulva is "normal." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2014‎ 92.21.233.127 (talk) 15:53, 1 November

That's a rather feeble premise to argue showing an excessive number of photos prominently showing 24 different women's vaginas, compared to one human male penis 3/4 of the way down the page on the equivalent article for male genitalia. This demonstrates the overwhelming male bias in editorial content on Wikipedia. 86.13.182.103 (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The article isn't showing vaginas, it's showing vulvas. This is an important distinction that must be considered in an encyclopedic discussion. A more meaningful comparison might be human penis, which includes several images, including in the lead. While there is indeed a male bias in editing Wikipedia, it seems like showing a diversity of images, rather than implying that all vulvas are similar, is a good thing. In the past there has been a lot of debate about which images to use (how much pubic hair, skin color, etc.) and the result has been to include multiple images. The images could definitely stand to be more diverse; they are still mostly white, mostly relatively young, mostly skinny, and piercing seems to be over-represented, but the article has to work with what's both encyclopedic, and available in commons. I agree that the "showering after sports" bit is not useful, though, because neither article should assume that the reader has prior familiarity with such things. Grayfell (talk) 20:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Yep, Grayfell. But I do acknowledge here that 2014‎ 92.21.233.127 is correct about girls/women not being as familiar with their genitalia as boys/men are familiar with their own; this is addressed in the Vagina article. Flyer22 (talk) 03:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The womb is the uterus. the vulva is the door and ability to do[edit]

In india the yoni is the word merely for the outter vulva. In fruedian times doctors were prejudical in their obssession with the females interor life denying her external. what a good article on the vulva until you miss associated things. Over emphasizing males external and denying his internal in the case of his prostate. Here you have a chance to break that ignorance. Again the womb is the uteus the intermal abiliity to create life and carry that life . the vulva is the door way, and symbol of woman's external expression and ability to recieve pleasure. Woman's external expression was so feared that clitorectomies were common up until the 1950's. In the victorian era, women were told to remain passive in bed and not to ejoy anything. Another related word is the middle Eastern word cun, a woman's cave, that implies a look at the external structue with an opening. This is what gives us the slur cunt and the phrase cungalingus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.130.182 (talkcontribs)

"Possible" this and that[edit]

I don't agree with this edit. I think a more workmanlike contribution would have been to add {cn} tags. But looking at the images, and the one on the right with the phallus, it seems obvious enough to me. I've tried googling the information from the image page including the museum names and so on, and find that the images appear to be catalogued as 'vulva' images, but it's hard to say because they are also 'restricted', so you can't check that you have the right image. (Whether they are restricted due to copyright or supposed obscenity is not clear). No doubt the dig, or whatever research uncovered them, is written up somewhere (though probably in French). How do you call an archaeology expert here to the page to rid us of these turbulent 'possibles'? --Nigelj (talk) 15:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

An archaeology expert would, or at least should, make it clear that there is no way to be certain about these images. With almost all of these sorts of images there is considerable debate about what they were meant to represent, and without written records or a time machine we can never know. A fact tag would be useless. Please see this YouTube video by someone which challenges this interpretation.[1] The researcher here is just an undergraduate so not a source we can use.[2] But she does show these two images. By the way, we should also replace "rupestrian" with cave art I think. Dougweller (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I assume that you are familiar with WP:FRINGE? Even the young lady in the video admits that her personal views are insufficient to challenge the professors. "Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence." If this is the extent of the significance of your view, I don't think it deserves coverage. Your arguments about time machines being necessary for archaeological knowledge to exist may be of interest in an article about the nature of knowledge or the philosophy of science, but again, we normally report views in proportion to their prominence in scholarship, and most archaeologists are not waiting for time machines before writing papers and text books on their subject. Or if they are, let's see the citations, not undergraduates getting a few laughs about "No sex please". --Nigelj (talk) 21:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Please add to this paragraph:{The labia minora are two soft folds of skin within the labia majora. While labia minora translates as "minor (or small) lips", often the "minora" are of considerable size, and may protrude outside the "majora". Much of the variation among vulvas lies in the significant differences in the size, shape, and color of the labia minora.}According to a study(Ref:BJOG: an International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology May 2005, Vol. 112, pp. 643–646)width of labia minora,after clitoral length,is the second most variable part of vulva. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collaborator2014 (talkcontribs) 05:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for one less shaved vulva pic in the lede gallery[edit]

What is the estimated percentage of women who shave their vulva? One 2009 study says 50% of 18-25 year old women shave their pubic hair (another study says 88% shave, but it had a small sample size, and the sample all came from a university hospital).[1]So if we go with the more reliable 50% figure for 18-25 year old women, what is the shaving rate for women aged 26-106? Even if this group had a shaving rate of 50%, too, (which I doubt, given that shaving is more of a young people's trend), then that would suggest that two of the four lede gallery photos should be shaven. Having three of four lede gallery photos be shaven gives the reader the impression that most women shave their vulvas.OnBeyondZebraxTALK 23:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmm... I guess I agree in theory, but I'm not sure. Since the image is about showing a wide variety, rather then showing a proportional sample, over-representing one group isn't necessarily all that bad. Pubic hair can also conceal other details, which makes it potentially less useful for illustration purposes. One thing the current lede image has going for it is that the pictures are all photographically very similar, which is helps underscore that it's about anatomical variation. Replacing some of those images, or added to it, might be difficult for that reason. Grayfell (talk) 00:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

References

This is the lead image; from what I see, two of the images have the vulva completely shaved, one has the vulva partially shaved (unless we are supposed to believe that the woman barely grew any pubic hair), and the other one has a woman with full pubic hair. Although a woman having a shaved pubic area, in one way or another, is very common these days (which some sources have attributed to women competing with female pornographic stars because it's so common for men these days to watch pornography and come to think of what they see in pornography as the norm and/or more desirable), I understand OnBeyondZebrax's point about subtracting one of the shaved vulva images and adding another one with full pubic hair. But at the same time, I understand what Grayfell means about a shaved vulva showing the anatomy better. Flyer22 (talk) 12:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)