This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
It seems to me that the discussion about diagrams and photographs is overly concerned with offending people. The core concern is the truth. How can we best communicate the truth should be the issue.
Anatomy is a science. Science understands that the whole truth is much too big to pursue as a realistic goal. Scientists do not try to describe the details of every individual human on earth. Scientists try to build a model of the human being, and make that model as realistic as possible, while constantly remembering that it is just a model.
As mentioned by Powers T 14:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC), photographs and diagrams (drawings) serve different purposes. I think that diagrams best illustrate commonalities while photographs emphasize diversity. Where human anatomy is the subject, the very nature of a diagram implies that it is illustrating what humans have in common. So I think that a diagram is appropriate and necessary for any part of the human anatomy that can have significant differences among individuals, or can change as a person ages or has experiences, such as the vulva through child birth. Diversity among individuals could best be demonstrated by a large collection of photographs. In the case of the vulva, the photographs could be labeled by age, pre- or post-puberty, virgin or sexually active, pre- or post- childbearing. Changes due to experiences could best be demonstrated by before-and-after photographs.
Perhaps one day people will volunteer to be photographed throughout their life, including close ups to show how we change through time. Considering how long photography has been around, it seems strange that such a project has not already begun.
This article should definitely include links to 'Design A Vagina' and perhaps other examples of vulva art.
Offending people is a seperate subject. It should be handled at an entirely different level. There are too many people in the world who can be offended by too many different things. It does seem strange to me that when you jump from a search engine page directly into the Wikipedia Vulva article, you are immediately presented with a photograph of a vulva, with no warnings whatsoever. Offending people is bad manners and should be avoided by warnings or similar techniques. The whole issue of offending people should not involve any discussion of censorship; censorship is not needed and is itself offensive to many people.
I'm sorry, but I don't want to see Wikipedia move toward having a splash screen before each page saying "WARNING: YOU MAY SEE A PICTURE OF THE SUBJECT OF THIS ARTICLE." PowersT 14:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Maybe someone who is so emotionally fragile that they cannot tolerate looking at a picture of a vagina shouldn't be reading an article about vaginas.--FL
Maybe someone can tell me why there are half a dozen photos of women with their legs spread on this article & discussion pages, and absolutely NO photos of actual men on the Penis page? Maybe if you think on it for awhile, you'll understand why some people are offended by this, and realize that it has nothing to do with "prudery".FlaviaR (talk) 09:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I believe the article you were looking for was Human Penis, which does contain images of actual men. kyledueck (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
If the idea is to illustrate anatomy, an anatomical diagram with the various parts labelled would be ideal. If the idea is to get maximum shock value and then to snigger about how "prudish" people are when they expect medical information and instead get pornography, then yeah, "pussy shots" are the way to go.
Human centric
This article is so focused on the human vulva you would never know that any other species had one, there is a hugely diverse range of vulval structures among mammals that are not present in humans, each with different functions in reproduction and yet nothing is written about them, never mind any photographs. This is a huge omission in the article, maybe renaming it to "human vulva" would be more appropriate. 90.205.124.243 (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, "this article deals with the vulva of the human being." Yestadae (talk) 03:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
There's been a bizarre edit war drifting on between some (including Sopastar) that want a hairy but poor quality photo of a vulva (File:Asian_vulva.jpg) and a good quality but weird photo of a hairless vulva (File:7-15-07NAP_441.jpg). What I don't understand is why either photo is being argued over. File:Dcp02328.jpg displayed on this page ticks all the boxes. It's a good quality photo, it actually looks like a vulva (!), its hairy (so the 'biological default' people should be happy), but the hair doesn't obscure any of the bits (so the anti-hairies should be happy). Why would anyone object to a picture that doesn't look like either a plucked turkey or 70's porn? 86.164.246.57 (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll add a third vote to the "human-centricity" of this article. Compared to the article on the penis which gives examples from all kind of animals, it seems to be written by completely different standards. I'm not for any kind of censorship but the focus on human vulvae and all the fashions and trends surrounding them begins to seem like an excuse for gratuitous pornography rather than the delivery of balanced, relevant information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.45.103 (talk • contribs) 3 April 2013
Excitement section needs some work
"Vaginal lubrication begins first. This is caused by vasocongestion of the vaginal walls. Increased blood pooling there causes moisture to seep from the walls. These droplets collect together and flow out of the vagina, moistening the vulva."
Lubrication has other mechanisms than vasocongestion. The imagination of droplets seeping and collecting in a pool is pretty amusing. Richiez (talk) 12:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Pre-Puberty Vulva?
I may be unaware of what exactly is defined as child pornography, but assuming the person pictured isnt someone who didnt hit puberty until they were 18... isnt this child porn? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.160.17 (talk) 02:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
The use of this image struck me as odd and somewhat suspect as well. It was uploaded recently, and the uploader is apparently Italian. He has had a conversation in user talk pages with someone else about it that I translated in Google Translate, and I can't draw a conclusion of the age of the person depicted, but breach of child pornography laws were drawn into question. I think this image should probably be deleted or at least removed from any pages it is used in, and the uploader should be contacted by a moderator. -- Ifrit (Talk) 00:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is not censored" inDEED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 01:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea what picture you are talking about, but I would like to point out that nudity and pornography are very different things. Nudity is not a requirement for child pornography and not all pictures of nude children constitute child pornography. One could easily see photos of nude children (along with their parents etc.) on nudist sites, and these sites are the first to point out that they are protected even by american laws. The first commenter sounds like a YouTube commenter that sees breastfeeding videos on YouTube and calls it child abuse, since he sees breasts as sexual objects.
I don't know if is should be included or not, but fear that it might be pornography isn't a valid reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.45.87 (talk) 11:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the fact that nudity and pornography in regards to both adult and child are not the same, and the law agrees with me. The fact that the human body is shunned in a society of humans is beyond belief. I find it very confusing to think how many people in the world have sunk low enough to even hate who they are... Human.
I think that an image of a child would not be inappropriate for educational use, although there are only minor differences to the appearance. This whole discussion is like how people cannot use the proper terms for the penis and vagina to their children leaving them confused, ill-informed and frankly in my opinion uneducated. --Nikolai508 (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
SV/LtPowers
Re [1]: I agreed with Slim's changes. (1) The plastic surgery image is somewhat misleading, as the vulva shown on the left is really quite normal, and not a typical candidate for such surgery. (2) That File:Vulva with tiny labia minora.jpg is not a suitable lead image should be clear from its image description – we should have a more typical image. (3) I don't find the captions in the image Slim put in particularly off-putting, but educationally useful. All in all, I advocate reverting to Slim's version. --JN466 19:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it's a good idea to start dissecting whether or not a particular vulva is "normal" or not. I also don't quite see what relevance that has to a picture depicting labiaplasty. By all means, if you know of a better image, I'd be happy to review it. PowersT 22:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Teenage girls reading this article have no idea what the filename of a particular image is. But even so, if the filename is a concern, that can be changed; it's no reason to remove the image entirely from the article. And the labiaplasty image is very valuable; why would you want to remove it without any replacement image? PowersT 14:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
The filename is an accurate description of what the image shows (and the image may indeed show a surgically altered vulva; unfortunately, it is the only image uploaded by that user, and no further detail is given). The labiaplasty image is potentially misleading, as the "before" image shows an entirely normal vulva that would not be a prime candidate for plastic surgery. --JN466 14:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
If the filename is accurate, then what's the problem? And who says the "before" image shows an "entirely normal vulva"? Are you a plastic surgeon? PowersT 15:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Why should we show an image depicting "tiny" labia minora as the lead image, rather than one with normal labia? For reference, here are some statistical data. If we want to have an image illustrating the plastic surgery section, there are more appropriate examples in Commons; e.g. File:Dr._Placik_Labiaplasty.JPG or File:Labioplasty_and_Clitoral_Hood_Reduction.jpg. Cheers, --JN466 15:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's not the lead image; we have two. The two should show a range of features, and I don't think we should have one with labels and one without (labeled images will work better farther down the article). Thanks for providing some alternative labiaplasty suggestions; I think the first one will work well. I wish SV had replaced rather than simply removed the previous image if it was unsuitable. PowersT 15:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
No objection to your adding either of these images for the PS section; glad we've come to an agreement. If you object strongly to having the labelled image in the infobox, couldn't we just move it further down? The labels are useful. (I'm pretty sure we have labelled images in other infoboxes.) Cheers, --JN466 16:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I have no problem with the labels per se; I just think if we're going to have two pictures in the infobox (which is probably a good idea), they ought to be comparable. I prefer the introductory images to be free of extra accoutrements. PowersT 17:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I think the objections are right in a way. Still, the new images were not perfectly suited as well, so I put up these as a compromise solution.--Lamilli (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Clumsy opening sentence
"The vulva is the external genital organs of the female mammal."
This doesn't sound right to me; "is" = singular, whereas "are" = plural.
I would suggest that the vulva is the external genital something, but not organs.
I dunno. I don't even like Swedish cars.
TheMadBaron (talk) 01:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I've changed "is" to "consists of", moving the plural predicate into a prepositional phrase. PowersT 02:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
'Depictions of Vulva' Section
A minor critique regarding this line- "Sheela Na Gig, grotesque figurative sculpture with exaggeration of vulva." It is very common for depictions to show an exaggerated vulva and breasts as a sign of fertility; see Venus of Willendorf and her prominent pudendal cleft for a very famous example. Why, then, is this sculpture deemed "grotesque?" That commentary is certainly POV and shows ignorance as to other exaggerated depictions common in art representing fertility or revering the vulva. From the Sheela Na Gig page- "Much of the disagreement about the figures is based on determining exactly what they are meant to represent." Perhaps the original artist meant for it to be a beautiful sign of fertility, not anything "grotesque?" Who are we to assume the meaning behind these figures?
Also, shouldn't this section be called "Depictions of Vulvae," plural, or maybe "Depictions of the Vulva?" 69.112.123.68 (talk) 02:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. I've incorporated the changes you've suggested. kyledueck (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Is this image beneficial to the article, or the reader?
Is this image beneficial to the article, or the reader?
These are an artist's impression - while I know that variation is discussed in the article, this particular image seems to be a selection of caricatures rather than anything of any educational or informative intent. (disclosure - I don't think that they are very well drawn, either but I realise that this is subjective) pablo 20:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
File:Variation of female genitalia.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
The womb is the uterus. the vulva is the door and ability to do
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 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
A Vulva.jpeg
I can tell you with extreme certainty that the vagina shown in 'A Vulva.jpeg' is underage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.3.222 (talk • contribs)
Unless it happens to be yours, I highly doubt you can tell just by looking. Regardless, so what if it is? PowersT 14:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Genital Entry Consistency
The entries related to genitalia should be similar for both sexes. The penis entry leads first to the penises of all animals that have them, and then links to the human penis. The vulva entry should be similar.
On the human penis page, there is a helpful drawing of the stages of development of the penis. The vulva entry should contain something similar.
On the human penis page, there are fewer photos than on the vulva page. This should be corrected one way or the other to avoid the appearance of bias or problematic subtext.
All of the photos on the penis page show pubic hair, although some men remove all or part of their pubic hair. Including so many pictures of female genitals with hair removed is imbalanced, and unnecessary for educational or informational purposes.
On the vulva page, there are many images of different types of vulvas, but the penis page does not include a similar gallery. This should be corrected one way or the other. Additionally, if the vulva page includes a photo of pierced genitals, the penis page should be similar, showing piercing, tattoo, or some other adornment.
When showing variations in external genitalia, I agree with other readers that it is important to include pictures of people from various races. Both the vulva and penis pages are currently in danger of appearing biased toward providing information to a mostly white, male audience.
One other thing to consider is that there are not many representations of “abnormal,” diseased or ambiguous genitalia on either page. If one is going to include a gallery of variation in human genitalia, one should be less concerned with “attractiveness” and more concerned with accuracy in representing variation.
Most people are looking for human vulvas and human penis's than those of animals - why blindly copy the penis? I do not understand why there should be parity between vulva and penis, nor do I understand why one would want to reduce the pictures in synergy. The vulva is not equivalent to the penis - and the argument seems weird to me.93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Importance of Urination
Currently this article neither describes urination, nor links to Urination. I think that a short illustrated description should be included, linking to Urination.93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 26 July 2012
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Several photos on this page are unnecessary and appear to have been uploaded for prurient purposes:
Please remove the photo "Vulva with hair trimmed" because it is not necessary to the page.
Please remove the photo "Variation in the appearance of women's external genitalia" because it is not necessary.
Please remove the photo "In the left image female genitalia are in the resting state. In the right image the female is sexually aroused, the vulva is moist and the labia are slightly swollen" because such a graphic photo is not necessary.
Please remove the photo "Pubic hair removal is practiced in many cultures and has been common in the western world since the end of the 20th century" because it is not necessary.
Please remove the photo "Labiaplasty: Reduction of the labia minora" because it is not necessary.
Not done: Necessity isn't the operative criterion in deciding whether to include a given image. All of the images you mention appear informative and educational in nature. Keep in mind that prurience is subjective (you have offered no evidence concerning the uploaders' purposes), and Wikipedia is not censored. Rivertorch (talk) 08:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Human vulva with natural pubic hair
This label to the first foto should be changed in the absence of any fotos of unnatural or artificial pubic hair. It might be untrimmed pubic hair, but I don't know if it is, or how one could tell, so "Human vulva with pubic hair" would be the best label I think.93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Done -- Brangifer (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Lead image and hair
If the lead were supposed to present details of the anatomy, the best available picture would be File:Vulva labeled english.jpg, because of the detailed labelling. But this image is used in the Structures section, while the lead is simply meant to show the vulva as it appears to the casual observer. In that case, one should use an image of a vulva with pubic hair such as File:Dcp02328.jpg, because that is the biological default. As a matter of fact, I think the labelling could also have been done clearly on an image with pubic hair, as it is in older anatomy textbooks. People tend to exaggerate the degree to which pubic hair obscures the structures (cf. File:VulvaDiagram-800.jpg, which used to be OK, though more detailed labelled images such as File:Vulva labeled english.jpg have been created in the meantime). But this was the choice of the creator of the image, and I don't intend to make an alternative one, so I'll live with that.--Anonymous44 (talk) 14:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the lede image should not be shaved. 'The biological default' is a good phrase for the best reason why. --Nigelj (talk) 14:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't mind some hair, as long as the structures of the vulva can be clearly seen. PowersT 19:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't see why the "biological default" should outweight the "cultural default". If this is the look that most people prefer for themselves, why not keep it. Besides it's the better picture in terms of photographic quality.--Lamilli (talk) 01:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
That's a big if. How do you know most people prefer it? And which culture are we talking about? It's probably easier to agree on what's the biological default than on what's the cultural default.--JWWalker (talk) 06:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm talking about english-speaking, western readers that - and I'm quite sure about that - make up the main audience here. You wouldn't mind either if a face of a human male has no beard our moustache - because he shaved. Or if, on a photo or a hand or a foot, the fingernails are cut. Biologically it would be "correct" to just let them grow but it's a cultural thing to remove them.--Lamilli (talk) 11:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
The latter definitely are "cultural things", but I'm pretty sure pubic hair removal is not even remotely widespread, except perhaps among the subset of women who pose for photographs of their pubic area. PowersT 13:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that this "subset" differs in any way from the majority of females ou there. Not only my own experience tells me that this is the standard today, also accourding to sources like this it is widespread.--Lamilli (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Among all women? From puberty to old age? All over the world? I think you need to get out more :-) No, you are basing this on porn stars and their young emulators only, I am afraid. --Nigelj (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
My elder sister (age 46) has been shaving hers since she was 18. She has never been involved in such photographic activities - she just doesn't like having hair "down there" as she calls it. An ex-girlfriend (who was a nude model) simply refused to shave for anybody. So, you can't categorise. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
My point entirely. So we can't say that the 'majority' of women shave all their lives nor therefore that showing unshaved pubic hair in an encyclopedia is unnatural or unrepresentative in any way. --Nigelj (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but thats also true the other way around. You can't say that the unshaved one is unrepresentative, nor can you say that about the shaved one. If you assume that one half of the population shaves and the other doesn't, than it just doesn't make a difference in terms of representativness. But the picture right now (which was here well established for good reason) is just better in photographic aspects. Besides: why do people bother. If you like to see pubes, there's a picture just underneath it that depicts an unshaved vulva.--Lamilli (talk) 00:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
"If I want to see pubes"? This isn't about my, or your, pornographic preferences! I'd like to see some references that back up these assertions. Not just from the porn industry, or a friend or a sister, but some worldwide WP:RSverifiable facts. Until then I maintain that pubic hair is 'the biological default', and therefore is the one for top-level emphasis in any encyclopedia. Based on this, we could have individuals arguing that they prefer to see clitoral piercings, and everybody in their street has one, or that they prefer to see the results of female genital cutting, and everybody in their village has had it done. This is not the way Wikipedia gets written. --Nigelj (talk) 10:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Here you'll have some numbers [2]--Lamilli (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Precisely. "...these days, with most female porn stars having their pubic hair removed ... [in Germany] ...50 percent of women between the ages of 18 and 25 admit to shaving their pubic hair ... a secret desire to appear harmless, immature and infantile". It's a urban youth fashion in some wealthy western countries, so let's pretend it's the norm and help the rest of the world to feel inadequate about their normal body? Wikipedia is not in the depilation business ("Even the biggest slaves to fashion can get tired of having to pull out the razor blade every couple of days ... €200-300 ($280-420) per treatment"), so their is no need for us to help publicise this fashion trend for the industry under the guise of education about the human body. We don't need to help people become dissatisfied with their perfectly normal human body (or their girlfriend's): the advertising and porn industries can do that perfectly well without our help. --Nigelj (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I completely agree with you Nigelj. It seems a nonsense that we are promoting shaving as 'normal'. It's like promoting circumcision or caesarean sections as normal. These are aberations from the norm and whilst important, are not representative. Gillyweed (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
If I may put my two cents in, that does not really matter if it shaved or not. It only matters if the photograph shows the subject clearly. From this point a photo of a shaved vulva is better, because there is no hair which may hide some details. Same if we were talking about an illustration for labia minora I would not care about hair if they do not interfere with the labia. Ones who like natural view may add additional photo somewhere else in the article. (Currently I am gently trying to convince my GF to make some images for this and other articles, but very unlikely will succeed. If anyone from Asia wishing to be a model, please let me know at my talk page.) Yestadae (talk) 02:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
There's nothing obscured in the photo that started this discussion. (copy now displayed in this section for easier ref) --Nigelj (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Personally I cannot exactly tell where the clitoral hood starts because of hair on that photo. Yestadae (talk) 08:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Maybe two pictures side by side, one natural, one shaved? If the photographer can persuade the same model to pose for both, ie "before and after" (as with File:Wiki clitoral hood reduction before & After.JPG), even better. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
If this was an article about shaving, then I'd agree. But it's not. --Nigelj (talk) 12:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
And, since its not about shaving, why is this such an tenacious debate. This article is not about shaving, thus it does not matter if the vulva on the picture is shaved or not. If we have the choice between a low-quality unshaved and a high-quality shaved one, I'd say we just stick to the better image.--Lamilli (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
What, precisely is low quality about File:Dcp02328.jpg (displayed in this section)? That is a whole new argument. --Nigelj (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Thats not a whole new argument, that is what I was saying from the beginning on. I allready mentioned a couple lines above that I'm not convinced of the quality of your picture. Why? Because it is inferior to the established one in terms of sharpness, resolution, noise and saturation. The whole argument here went like this: the established imgage was swapped with the not-so-good image of this pubic haired vulva that you just mentioned. I reverted this and now you argued that your picture would be better because it has hair. I said that hair is nit an issue here, if we have a good-quality shaved image and a low-quality hairy one, I'd prefer the first. Your reasoning was that hair is a biological default, I replied that this wouldn't really matter since we're cultural creatures and if it is common to remove them, then it's now problem to display it in that state. Like you would't complain a about a guys face being shaved in an article about "head" or "face" instead of having a huge, untrimmer beard. You said that it wouldn't be common, that only pornstars do that, I said it would be common, you wanted numbers and sources, I gave you that and now you also came to the conclusion, that this article is not about shaving. So why do we give this issue such a focus. Let's stick to the good, old picture. Bides that: what are you actually worried about. That people believe that there is no such thing as pubic hair? There is this picture of a completely untrimmed vulva right below. Isn't that enough to illustrate.--Lamilli (talk) 11:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I love the self righteous crusader types who are fretting that a picture of a shaved vulva is forcing Western names on the supposedly happily hairy women of non-Western countries. It apparently never occurred to them that some nonWestern cultures practice pubic hair removal too, as in the Middle East.
The fact is, few of the images shown to illustrate the human body are completely natural. Most of us cut our finger and toe nails, brush our teeth and wash and comb our hair at minimum. Pubic hair removal has become just another part of many women's regular grooming routines. You can argue ad nauseum whether this is a good thing or not, but this discussion page is not really the place to do so. The question should be, does the picture clearly show the different features of the vulva?--FL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.139.129 (talk) 04:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I do not know where you are getting this idea that being completely shaved is part of a woman's regular grooming. If you're going to make a blanket statement like that, at least back it up with some reliable numbers, and by reliable I do not mean some poll you found in Cosmo. This whole shaving phenomenon is a relatively recent trend that started in the late 90s, anyway. The people here holding it up as some kind of bastion of normality have very short memories. If I had to guess at the majority, I would say most women trim and wax/shave the bikini line but few go completely bald, just like in the instances of hair or nails, people don't normally shave their heads or cut their fingernails down to the nail bed. 98.155.29.185 (talk) 09:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Why not have a composite image showing unshaved vulva in the left and shaved vulva in the right side? --Eleassarmy talk 21:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
To add more heat to this discussion, we could argue that it's not a "perfect" looking vulva as well. It has exposed labia minora. 142.167.169.164 (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
i did it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.50.96.238 (talk) 01:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
There has been no valid reason for having a picture of a vulva that is not biologically default. Only peoples oppinions on what is more common and the likes. A picture of a vulva is supposed to represent what a vulva looks like; not to be as easy as possible to find all the anatomical details on. That is what diagrams are for. Otherwise I could argue that the picture of a human eye in its coresponding article is inappropriate because the eyelids are obscuring the view of the eye itself. I am going to change the picture now. If you believe that I am wrong in changing it; explain why below before you change it back.
Sopastar (talk) 05:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
There's been a bizarre edit war drifting on between some (including Sopastar) that want a hairy but poor quality photo of a vulva (File:Asian_vulva.jpg) and a good quality but weird photo of a hairless vulva (File:7-15-07NAP_441.jpg). What I don't understand is why either photo is being argued over. File:Dcp02328.jpg displayed on this page ticks all the boxes. It's a good quality photo, it actually looks like a vulva (!), its hairy (so the 'biological default' people should be happy), but the hair doesn't obscure any of the bits (so the anti-hairies should be happy). Why would anyone object to a picture that doesn't look like either a plucked turkey or 70's porn? —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[]] [[[User:Winkmann99|Winkmann99]] (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I also agree that Dcp02328.jpg is currently the best we have. I don't like the fashion for cropping so tightly that the viewer has no idea of scale or positioning (as seen above too), or desaturating the colour. --Nigelj (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm okay with Dcp02328. Slightsmile (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
What happened was that Lamilli (talk·contribs) fought it back out, twice, telling us to go and read the talk page! [3][4]
To clarify my above post - if there was enough, as in a lot of consensus I would agree to Dcp02328. I don't see enough consensus and the original image should remain. And who is this IP 86.164.246.57 who keeps impersonating Winkmann99? Slightsmile (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I just chose a picture at random to raise the question. I am indeed in favour of the picture Dcp02328.jpg. There is now at least five people supporting this image, and I believe that is enough consensus. If you disagree; please point to the overwhelming consensus that you claim to exist for 7-15-07NAP_441.jpg. -Sopastar (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
In my point of view Dcp02328.jpg is not a perfectly suitable image. Most of all I can't see a reason to swap a good quality image with a bad quality image. Not only that the image quality is comparably low, I don't think that it depicts an "average" vulva. I know that there is no such thing as a standard vulva and you find a huge variation, but the size of the labia minora is certainly above average. --Lamilli (talk) 13:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
If the objection is that the labia minora are larger than average, wouldn't you also say that about the image that it replaces? I don't claim that Dcp02328.jpg is perfect, just that I prefer it to 7-15-07NAP_441.jpg. --JWWalker (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
There we have it: Sopastar asks, "please point to the overwhelming consensus that you claim to exist" and Lamilli replies "In my point of view...". Lamilli has been objecting to this photo for nearly a year here, with varying arguments. First it was that shaved is best, then it was a low quality image, now the labia are too large. On none of these points has there been consensus from others here. --Nigelj (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
There we have what? I wasn't answering to the comment above, I was commenting the picture swap. And I'm still behind all of those arguments. What I'm saying is: let's take a high quality image of a "normal" looking vulva. And shaven or not should be secondary.--Lamilli (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
You think 7-15-07NAP_441.jpg is 'normal'? The labia minora are just plain weird quite frankly - definitely on the outer edge of the normal spectrum. 86.164.246.57 (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, maybe there both not optimal. What's with these ones ?--Lamilli (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
The hairy one you've chosen to put into the article is a bit extreme (!). But both the hairy and shaved are a major improvement on the duck-billed platypus you previously wanted. 86.164.246.57 (talk) 01:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
"Duck-billed platypus?" Really? As someone who has no idea what a normal vulva can looks like, do you believe you have any right to be suggesting edits to this page? Please keep your derogatory comments to yourself in the future.--Bendslikeawillow (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Just a visitor here, but I appreciate the hairy vulva photos (last two). Not only are they natural, but beautiful and hot. I don't think the hairiest is "extreme," unless a woman can be "extreme" due to her body. One could argue that a shaved vulva is "extreme," as in not found in nature. But I call for no pictoral discrimination against the best body part ever invented, besides the penis of course.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.119.136 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
The right hand image above is the best yet for an unshaved view. The third one above describes itself as 'left in natural state, unshaved and untrimmed for more than a month', which goes to show the difference a few years can make. Showing both the unshaved and the shaved, as we currently do, is probably the best we can do. --Nigelj (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I'm new to this discussion, but I think it's pretty amusing how big an issue this seems to be. I think vulvas come in all different shapes and sizes, and there is no "average" vulva. That's like asking, what is the "average person"? I dunno, it varies by culture, by age, etc. There is NOTHING "wrong" or "weird" about 7-15-07NAP_441.jpg, nor is the current image, or any other image. They all look like vulvas. I think the article should have more than one picture of a vulva to reflect the diversity of them. 7-15-07NAP_441.jpg, the current image, and Asian_vulva.jpg are all good candidates. Because it is a decision made for vanity, and not biologically determined, shaved or unshaved should make no difference at all, except that the hair may obscure the parts. But in the images I mentioned, this is not a concern. 75.252.133.240 (talk) 06:54, 4 May 2011 Greenhplover (talk) 06:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)(UTC)
This statement is silly and should be removed
I suggest that this sentence be removed, as it has no basis in science whatsoever, and puts the credibility of the entire article into question.
The labia minora sometimes change considerably in color, going from pink to red in lighter skinned women who have not borne a child, or red to dark red in those that have. --Bendslikeawillow (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree. This article's credibility has been compromised. Wait-it already was! I would nominate this article for deletion as it is filled with child porn and images that would make some Americans bend over and puke, but of course...
Wikipedia is NOT censored.
KazLabz 23:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin12xd (talk • contribs)
Picture
Why is there a picture of a mastrubating woman? Especially if you claim the article is for encyclopedia work.
I swear I opened that page and thought that was child porn. The picture is not medically orientated nor are any of the alternatives. Look at any anatomy textbook. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.220.155 (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)174.252.232.67 (talk) 23:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)fyi: my 11 year old daughter was reading an informative article on Kotex.com and the word 'vulva' came up, not knowing what it was, she went to Wikipedia. Imagine her shock & horror at seeing these pictures unwittingly. Has no one stopped to think that young, pre menstrual girls are using Wikipedia to satiate curiosity about their changing bodies? Perhaps a hand drawn diagram would be better?
Perhaps we should censor all of wikipedia just in case it offendes your 11 year old daughter. 109.158.92.110 (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your strawman, 109.158.92.110. I've got to say I'm probably one of the least prudish people out there but the images on this page, while not in any way, shape or form offensive, I don't believe are appropriate for a supposed encyclopaedia. As 150.203.220.155 said, they're not medically or anatomically oriented in the slightest. How can this encyclopaedia be expected to be taken serious when a. you have images like those to illustrate the stories and b. you have people responding by calling those complaining "prudish". Would you see such images in the Encyclopaedia Britannica or any other serious encyclopaedia? We all know the answer would be "no". 59.167.244.81 (talk) 08:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Britannica has the luxury of being able to commission a clinical photograph. If you can procure more suitable free images, by all means proceed. Until that time, these pictures are the best we have available. PowersT 15:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Urination
Per a request at WP:RFC, this discussion is closed with a result of eh. There was only a vague request that urination should have its own section without any details. Several people agreed that one might be good idea if there was enough unique information presented that did not duplicate the urination article. I would advise the anon who started the RfC to gather sources and make a specific proposal as a way forward. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should a section be created dealing with urination. At present this is only mentioned in passing. As this is a unique function of the vulva, I believe it deserves a section. Sexual arousal has four sections,, art, and slang have seperate sections under "Society and culture", but urination is only mentioned under "structure" as part of "Fluids and odor". I imagine this is due to deliberate exclusion.87.194.46.83 (talk) 05:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Uh, not to put too fine a point on it, but what else is there to say about urination when it comes to the vulva? PowersT 21:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Comment. Look, there already is an article on urination. First find out whether that article omits anything that should fit into this article. If not, simply link instead of duplicating text. That's what linking is for. If OTOH anything occurs to you that should be in this article instead of the urination article, then expand this article in, or by addition of, a suitable section on urination. Then add a link to this article in the urination article. Duplicating information in parallel articles requires strong justification. If that is what you mean by deliberate exclusion, then do something about it. If not, then get a life! And if you do add anything, then make sure that it is readable, correct, encyclopedic, properly cited, free of POV and OR and all that, or some nasty people are likely to come and say rude things to you. JonRichfield (talk) 12:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment The article includes urine, urinary meatus, urination, etc - the essential for this article are present, but a specific and well-sourced content proposal might sway editors toward inclusion. -- Scray (talk) 18:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment If there's something specific to say about urination related to the vulva that doesn't just concern urination in general, there could be an argument for including it here. Otherwise, just link to urination; there's no need to have the same information on two different pages. Anaxial (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Quite right, in fact I would put it more strongly: it actually is pernicious to have unnecessarily duplicated information, that is to say duplication without special contexts to justify it. There is more to it than just: "Well, what harm can a little duplication do?" JonRichfield (talk) 06:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Why? A brief description linking to the main article is a normal part of Wikipedia, and results in lots of duplicated material. Why is urination so much less worthy of note than sexual functions?87.194.44.183 (talk) 03:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
As a matter of fact intelligent linkage leads to reduction of duplicated material and increased accessibility to material in proper context. Urination, as everyone in this discussion agrees, certainly is worthy of note -- in its place -- so it is no good labouring that weary old nag, because the place for urination is not here; at any rate not until someone discusses urination in text that a) is generally suited to WP's functions and objectives; and b) belongs in this article instead of elsewhere. So far no one has done so, nor even proposed anything of such a type. It would take some doing anyway -- the vulva has at most trivial and passing relevance to urination and both urine and urination have their own articles, to which anyone could economically and constructively link if he chose. So it is no good weeping over the injustice of the majority; we are a sensitive, caring majority; it is just an unfortunate coincidence that we also happen to have a sense of relevance. JonRichfield (talk) 09:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In fact this whole area is rather a mess, and the move or split proposed above isn't all that much progress at best. We have many articles on genitals, both male and female, human and otherwise, and there have been many attempts at organising them, but there's little consistency.
Since there's so much interest, why not fix things up? I'm going to be out of Wikitouch for a few days, interested to see whether there will be any progress in that time.
The first step is discussion. What article and category structure is best, out of the many partially implemented attempts? Andrewa (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Requested move
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Vulva → Human vulva – I'm not sure if this is the right way, but an analogous situation to Human penis/Penis should be desireable. Opinions? Relisted.MikeLynch (talk) 19:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC) --Kiewbra (talk) 22:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - gosh darned other mammals want to make their vulvae more important than ours, do they? Well I say screw 'em. Seriously, though, the most common search for information on the vulva is likely to be for the human vulva, so it should remain in the default position. If the mammalian vulva article is created, it should be linked by a hatnote. --Nouniquenames 01:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Comment I support the move IF there is a simultaneous creation of an article Vulva that has a hatnote pointing to the Human vulva article, and the Human vulva article has a hatnote back. UNTIL the general Vulva article has at least enough text to support a stub, I oppose any move. Not many users are likely to begin their search with any term other than just "vulva", so any move should avoid complicating or frustrating searches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonRichfield (talk • contribs)
Whoops! Sorry, never noticed inadvertent omission of signature. JonRichfield (talk) 12:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
A stub can be created easily enough with a section and a {{main}} on it for humans. The first implementation after a move can be done easily enough by writing definitions in and adding stub templates. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 04:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Support As an enciclopedia, wikipedia must provide broad range of information, and not limit itself by the "likeness of searches". The term "Vulva" does not only apply to the human species, and there should be a separate article for the mammalian vulva. As is the case with the penis article. At first it might be a stub, but it is a begining, and if that step is not taken, it'll never happen. 187.172.76.179 (talk) 21:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Right, and what is more, the human vulva with its form of the hymen etc is unusual anyway, so our species is not a particularly representative sample subject, as it leaves us with an unbalanced treatment. Mind you, a worthwhile treatment on the comparative anatomy and physiology of the vulva would demand some unusual skills of the author I should think. Some good teamwork might be in order. JonRichfield (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Oppose: As I stated elsewhere, most of our articles are human-centric because individuals who read these articles are, as we know, humans (unless one believes that extraterrestrial life is out there studying us) and are usually looking for the human aspects of these topics. In this case, it is more than that: Vulva anatomy and other topics about the vulva have been studied significantly more in humans than in non-human animals. A lot of topics on Wikipedia that are human-centric are mostly that way because the topic has been studied significantly less in non-human animals. As such, we usually keep the non-human animal material in the same article under the heading In other animals, Other animals or as In non-human animals.WP:COMMONNAME is also a reason, despite the redirect factor in cases that don't take readers to a disambiguation page. In other cases, it's also because a term refers more to humans than it does to non-human animals. I'm against splitting this article...until it requires splitting, which may never be the case. An In non-human animals section should be developed before any split is considered. The only reason that the Human penis article was created, as separate from the Penis article, is because there is so much that can be stated about non-human penises and so much human penis material was in the Penis article. Flyer22 (talk) 04:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to post a note about this discussion to WP:ANATOMY and WP:MED for wider opinions on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 04:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
'support I have both a biology and anatomy background and see these as two separate articles. While mammalian anatomy is similar, we as humans have evolved and take great interest and specialize in our anatomy. 69.159.72.99 (talk) 04:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Humans are mammals as well. There is no need to divide a topic that has mostly been studied in humans, splitting that material away from its common name title, when information on non-human vulvae can be adequately covered in this article. Just one article for all information on vulvae. Flyer22 (talk) 04:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Oppose We are human and thus we simply assume "human" in the title. We do not call are articles "Human tuberculosis", "Human diabetes", "Human common cold" even those these condition occur in other animals. We have a section at the end per WP:MEDMOS called "Other animals" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
To elaborate on Doc James's point, WP:MEDMOS also covers anatomy articles. Flyer22 (talk) 04:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Oppose However, if this article were ever forked because of the addition of large amounts of material on non-human anatomy, I would support this article being the default page and keeping the name "Vulva", but that a disambiguation notice leading to other articles be put at the top here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
We could have an article called "mammalian vulva" that links from the "other animals" sections. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Exactly, to both suggestions. But I don't yet see a separate article as being needed, and I very likely won't ever see the need. Flyer22 (talk) 00:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. There is almost nothing about animal vaginas in the vagina article. When the human penis article was spun off from the penis article[6] almost a fourth of the article was about animal penis's. Apteva (talk) 06:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. Where is all the material that will make up this proposed article on non-human vulvas? (Noting the vulva/vagina distinction too) Surely this couldn't be another attempt at moving 'rude pictures' out of main namespace articles? I wonder if we ought to review the recent removal of human content from the penis page? (It seems to consist mostly of headings and "This section requires expansion" banners at the moment) --Nigelj (talk) 17:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I've never considered the split of that article a good idea. Flyer22 (talk) 18:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
oppose per doc james. Pass a Methodtalk 22:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Comment: See below for some suggestions as to more important issues. No vote. Andrewa (talk) 23:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Racial Bias
I believe that the pictures on this page impart a racial/ethnic bias by featuring what appear to be exclusively the vulvae of caucasian or east asian women. Women of other races have not only differently colored vulvae, but significantly larger labia. As this population represents a sizable proportion of the world's population of women, the pictures on this page give a disproportionately caucasian/east asian ethnocentric bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.10.26.241 (talk) 09:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
So what? Does the race of the pictured women change the educational value of the article? No. And I doubt the contributes to this article SPECIFICALLY added only white/east asian pictures in order to be racially biased, its likely because educationally appropriate pictures of female genitals are more readily available in the form of white women. Seriously, try and find an educational picture of any other race... good luck.
So find public domain pictures and add them. Nobody is stopping you. Asarelah (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Because I really don't care as much about this issue as you and 134.10.26.241 apparently do. That, and I'm more interested in adding references to articles and tidying categories and wording than I am in hunting down public domain pictures. But hey, if you think it would improve the article, by all means, go for it. Asarelah (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm so sick of the ignorance of people on wikipedia. Since I will probably otherwise face ad hominem attacks, I will say that I'm white, but that I agree that this is a serious problem on wikipedia, especially in depictions of genitals. Having such a limited set of images actually DOES detract from the educational value. There's a lot of variation in appearance of vulvas. Some of that variation is due to the amount of melanin in the skin. People are often ignorant of a lot of this variation and it's important to not present a monolithic notion of what genitalia are (and thus imply what they should be like). Surely, the detractors can at least agree that having only white or East Asian pics here constitutes a form of bias even if they think that's all it is. --Prepuce4Life (talk) 08:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia can only use pictures that its users supply. If you have a suitable picture then please upload it. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Precisely. Vulvas from people of various races would probably improve the article. If you own pictures of vulvas from other races that you're willing to release into the public domain, go for it. Asarelah (talk) 23:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I went over to Wikimedia commons out of curiosity and I found three photographs of black woman's vulva, but they aren't terribly good quality because the woman is photographed bent over in two and lying on her side in one rather than on her back. I'll suppose add the side one to the gallery for now, but we really need better quality images of people of color. Asarelah (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
134.10.26.241, that is a stereotype. I was actually under the impression that white women have longer labia, while black women have bigger clitorises. The image Dcp02328.jpg that was in the article is of a white woman, and her labia minora are bigger than average. I believe the variation in vulvas is greater between individuals than between races. Greenhplover (talk) 07:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I also believe there is a need to get photos of vulvas from women of different ethnicities on Wikipedia. Using only photos of white individuals re-enforces that White is the Standard, which is what most of North American society seems to advocate....
Transitional (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the article is biased towards any ethnicity or skin colour (race, whatever it means, is not a valid criteria or category). The only reason that the majority of the pictures feature women of white skin because those were the highest quality images available. That said, adding new pictures of different skin colours are welcome. 209.51.65.4 (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Edit request on 21 February 2013
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
"it protects its opening by a "double door": the labia majora (large lips) and the labia minora (small lips)." This should not be said like this because it is wrong information. It should be said like this "The Labia major (outer lips) and the labia minora (inner lips)." Otherwise, you are giving faulty information.
69.114.79.227 (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Not done: There is no "wrong" or "faulty information" here. The existing text "large lips" and "small lips" are merely literal English translations of the Latin terms labia majora and labia minora. I see no reason to change to your proposed text unless subsequent consensus overrides my opinion. —KuyaBriBriTalk 00:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
We could maybe put the parenthesised translations into 'single quotes' to try to show that they are literal translations rather than the normal English terms? --Nigelj (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
The whole sentence needs rethinking anyway; as it stands it is twee, crappy and misleading, an embarrassment to our standard of competence. For a start, the configuration in question is not what a double door means anyway. Nor does the statement as it stands properly reflect the function of the vulva and its organs, and nor for that matter does the alternative version. When people can argue about trivial wording you can be sure either that someone's mastery of the language or the subject matter, or of didactics, is woefully deficient, or that harking back to the proper structure of the statement is overdue. If no one else feels up to it, ask me and I'll have a go, but if this is to be a slanging match, I have better things to do. JonRichfield (talk) 11:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Talk:Vulva.2FArchive_Off-Topic_Discussions
There are over 21 porny, smutty, glossy genitalia shots on the page - a complete overkill
Clearly this page is popular among Wikiperverts. No surprise I guess. But this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. It has to at least vaguely resemble one. And as such there are standards that that need to apply. I don't believe putting 21 overly glossy pink smut somehow enhances the article. It does not. It is only a distraction.
Also funny how seemingly all of those glossy pics are that of females within a very narrow young age group, not coincidentally roundabout the peak years of a pornographic model.
The issue is not only a matter of quantity though - the problem is also that of quality. I'm pretty sure that a non-glossy, non pornographic, more academic/scholarly/schoolbook-type photo of a vulva exists. It's just that none of the pervs care to put it up here for obvious reasons.
And I also find it ludicrous that not one single historical painting or illustration is prominently displayed, The few that exist are shoved down to the bottom, tucked in a small click-on thumb. The pornographic bias is so blatant to the point of being hilarious. It's like as if Wikipedia has delegated the page-editing directly over to Hustler. Loginnigol (talk) 11:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Loginnigol. have a look at WP:NOTCENSORED. By the way, if you have any pictures of older women's vulvas that you are prepared to upload to Wikipedia, please let us know as it would be good to improve the range of images available. Generally speaking, we try to illustrate Wikipedia articles with pictures of the featured item. There is nothing smutty about the human vulva - half of all humans have one, and this is just what they look like. --Nigelj (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I dunno why you are waving the "notcensored" rule at me like as if I'm advocating for censorship. I obviously am not. You have any problem understanding what I wrote? I'm claiming that context matters. I'm claiming that standard matters. There are no 20 pics of Obama on the US president's page (just to name one example - and that page is huge). Likewise there is absolutely no justifiable need to post, not one, not two but roundabout twenty (!) of these nearly identical (more or less same age, same glossy color, same state of hair growth) pudenda pics on an encyclopedia. That's all I'm saying. Loginnigol (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
spot on. this article is a disgrace and, quite honestly, hugely sexist. Recognizing that this page is offensive doesn't mean you are "prude" or advocate censorship, it simply means that you dont find it acceptable for a Wiki page to become yet another entry in the endless internet porn category — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.134.116 (talk) 01:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
The purpose is to show the wide variation of normal. Obama looks the same all the time, but vulvas come in many shapes and sizes and it's important to get this message across. --Bendslikeawillow (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Shaved ones are better.Aielen (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Penises varies a lot. There are 5 different penises on the human penis page, and that's plenty. Also, why all these shaved pussies? --Kiewbra (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
"Possible" this and that
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.[7] The researcher here is just an undergraduate so not a source we can use.[8] 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 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Offensive images
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; 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? PowersT 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)
Proposal for one less shaved vulva pic in the lede gallery
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.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 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)
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)
Major editing needed
There is a large quantity of unreferenced material in the article. Since it is concerning anatomy and medical procedures, the references should meet MEDRS and the MOS for medical and health articles. Best Regards,
Not done: Necessity isn't the operative criterion in deciding whether to include a given image. All of the images you mention appear informative and educational in nature. Keep in mind that prurience is subjective (you have offered no evidence concerning the uploaders' purposes), and Wikipedia is not censored. Rivertorch (talk) 08:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Talk:Vulva.2FArchive_Off-Topic_Discussions. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
