Talk:Vagina/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Why not just make picture roll-over?

Simple solution - make a roll over section so the picture is viewable if you want to see it.

Why Human?

If, indeed, other animals have a vaginal entrance, why does most of the article focus on Humans? I think the Human Vagina should have one section, while the rest of the article should elaborate on other forms of the vagina in other organisms.

List of vulgar words

I'm going to put my foot down on this one: we are not going to have a list of vulgar words for the vagina or the penis. That's not an encyclopedia article. It might be titillating to children and a pretty shoddy attempt at trolling, perhaps, but in any event, an encyclopedia article it isn't. We're not going to have such lists here on Wikipedia. See what Wikipedia is not. --LMS

Why a picture of a vagina? That legal. I'm deeply saddened and offended and horrified.

Not even cunt?

I agree wholeheartedly --Mathijs

I agree too. - Mark Ryan

Thanks from one of the women! JHK

So what is this talk section, the Vagina Monologues <THORN> BF

I agree too, simply because lists of "naughty words" are not encyclopedia articles. --Stephen Gilbert

Well, I'd say there IS a place for a list of vulgar synonyms, but wikipedia is not a thesaurus. --Bassgoonist

Hmm. I'm not going to weigh in on the particular matter in question here, but I wish to point out that there are a good many pages in Wikipedia that are not "encyclopedia articles". So obviously that is not the criterion for inclusion or exclusion. Have whatever opinion you wish, but at least discuss it honestly. - dcljr 06:38, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC) (latter remark stricken by dcljr 22:34, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC))

I agree in part - maybe a seperate article would be appropriate? I mean, there is some cultural value in the discussion of vulgarity and thus, there is an argument that can be made for inclusion in an encyclopedia. In any case, I'm taking out that little bit about calling the vulva a vagina being like calling a horse a rabbitt [sic]. That's just nonsense. --Nick 00:28, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

• And upon seeing that there is, in fact, a page for this, I agree in full. --Nick 00:35, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

---

There are several vulgar terms in use as an alternative name for the vagina. These are not suitable for use in medical reports.

Although true, I'm tempted to move this to bad jokes and other deleted nonsense. --Brion

And more slang terms have arrived recently. I agree with the above, this is not the place. How about we shunt them off onto a page on slang, or something specific on sexual slang? that will at least keep them off this page -- Tarquin 18:04 Nov 29, 2002 (UTC)

Just going to balance up my comment against prurient edits below with a comment against prudery in Wikipedia here. I disagree with the contention that a listing and discussion of slang words for the vagina does not belong in an encyclopedia. From a lexicological and social attitudes point of view such information is highly pertinent. I do agree however that such a listing or discussion does not belong in this article. Oska 22:27, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

I kind of disagree because people need to see what a penis or a vagina look like if they don't know.Otherwise it is porn a little i guess.Check out my talk and user page

Gemini531 02:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Gemini531

Since when is "pussy" an accepted medical term for the vagina? Jediryan22 01:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think a list or page of terms be it slang or otherwise about the Penis and the Vagina is just fine. There are several lists of things on wikipedia that are rather, for lack of a better word, obscene, though that is debatable, as long as the article states that they are vulgar and not very well accepted in society as a whole. Also certain terms for the vagina are not that offense anymore several women, including feminists, have no problem with them which would include Eve Ensler who wrote the book The Vagina Monologues which contains a scene with just such a topic. Really it's all relative and your personal beliefs on the matter are just censorship. Why not make the list and then see if anybody can find any merit in it. be it use or otherwise. i do agree with previous posters in that such a list would not belong on this page. Stellrmn 00:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty much against too much of the potty mouth merging into intelligent discusions but wouldn't the many slang terms be a part of how the vagina is commonly refered to? I mean I know alot of them are ommited from the dictionary but so was the word "Ethernet" Up untill last year. Slang terms for vagina are very common in ways not at all vulgar especially when being intimate.75.33.58.115 04:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

removed text

From my talk page: Paranoid, I reverted yr edits on purpose. Your edits seemed to be focussed on sexual information relating to the vagina which was mostly trivial. Women in asia or wherever performing tricks with their vaginas is not pertinent information to a general article on the vagina. Same goes for the rest of yr edits. I have no problem with this information being presented somewhere on wikipedia in a relevant context but I don't think it worthy of inclusion in this article. Oska 23:53, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

I do not necessarily insist that all edits that I made to the article are necessary, but I want to ask an honest question (3 questions, actually) - what kinds of sexual information should not be included in this particular article, why shouldn't it and where (in what other article) it should? May be information about tricks performed with vaginas does not belong here (but why not), but then some information about muscles does, but is currently missing. Why the angle of the vagina is important information, but its color isn't? Paranoid 15:04, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Basically no sexual information should be included in this discussion. It's an article about the vagina, not sex. Writing about fisting and double penetration in this article simply demonstrates a prurient interest in the vagina. If you had instead written something about the elasticity of the vagina which can allow the passage of an infant's head when giving birth and the introduction of an adult's hand during sexual play that would have been more acceptable. Finally, I did notice the information on color and thought it more relevant, but as you included it with the other material in a single edit it made it difficult for me to keep that and remove the rest. Oska 22:19, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll keep that in mind when editing this article in the future. Paranoid 17:38, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Unprotected

(Crosspost to talk:clitoris, talk:penis, talk:vagina) - Ok, the disclaimer idea has been roundly rejected. I have unprotected all 3 articles (Penis, vagina, and clitoris). Let's try to keep it civilized now. →Raul654 00:04, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Disclaimer roundly rejected? I don't think so. --Cantus…☎ 02:07, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, well 25 people oppose it, while only 9 support keeping it. →Raul654 02:09, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Yes their should be the same amount of vagina pictures as penis pictures, and when showing a diagram of the vagina just as the penis is shown show it a frontal view. It is more informative.

Image removal

I'd like to suggest that Image:VaginaEducational.JPG be removed from the page. It's a poor quality image and I'm not convinced that it adds anything significant to the page. It's also (apparently) "for educational use only". chowells 10:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC) *Isn't that what an encyclopedia is for? -Anonymous

Well, I was actually going to make the image smaller. The page looks OK in Firefox (but only OK, and would look better if the image wasn't so big), but in Internet Explorer everything is way too spaced out. That's my biggest beef. As for the image itself -- well, it is of a vagina (at least, I think it is!) and encyclopedias are educational. At least it's not as bad as the image that I removed yesterday, which wasn't even a picture of a vagina. Let me have a go at improving the page and we'll see how it looks then. --Craig 12:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I think I have improved the layout of the page considerably, at least for Firefox and Internet Explorer users, although in doing so it causes an almost unnoticeable (unless you're looking for it, of course) problem with the edit link in Firefox for the "Human vagina" section by putting it way down the page. If anyone has any better ideas, please go ahead and implement them, but I think that part of the problem is the number of images on the page is at its limit given the length of the article. As for the image itself -- in the absence of a better one, I think this one might be as good as you're going to get. --Craig 13:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm slightly worried about the copyright status of the image. The uploader has uploaded several images, one of them is obviously under the wrong licence. Unfortunately he has shown little interest in discussing anything with me, so maybe someone else will have more luck. chowells 23:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what to say about that. Verifying the stated copyright status of images is not my area of expertise. I'm sure there must be someone who does have the expertise though, and is probably already dealing with such issues. I'm still too new here to have figured out the rather unique self-help and assisted-help systems here, so I can't point you in the right direction. Good luck! --Craig 03:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

chowells has me on his watchlist and is out to get me and remove everything and anything I contribute to this encyclopedia; please keep that in mind. eazyz99 13:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it, but that's between you two. But since I have your attention, perhaps you might consider having a look at the picture tutorial to see how to place image thumbnails into articles when the image is a little to large to be displayed at full size in the article. Thanks. --Craig 15:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

10/31/05 Posted a clearer picture of a human vagina, for educational use. - eazyz99

Hardly looks clearer to me, but at least it doesn't seem to be in danger of being deleted for copyright reasons. Can't see that you're going to get a "clear" image of such an internal organ (if that's the correct word to describe a vagina) anyway. But at least it's an effort! --Craig (t|c) 09:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I rv'd your new image addition, in that there has been so much controversy regarding actual images of this piece of anatomy that a consensus may be approriate before adding new images to prevent an edit war Xaosflux 21:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

I think this article is vandalized so often that I believe this article needs a rule only logged-in Wikipedians should be allowed to edit it. Any objections?? Georgia guy 16:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, actually. It IS frequently vandalized, but it's also on the watchlist of about a zillion people, so problems get fixed quickly. Joyous | Talk 17:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed, but there's still little reason to allow the article vagina open to the public (much less edit). Its the the bane of many a joke, as well as a constant target for adolesent children. So while it is monitered daily and can be reverted constantly, I don't see a clear reason to do so when blocking anons would cease most of the vandalism right then and there.-MegamanZero 19:55 4,December 2005 (UTC)

• I personally agree. Unfortunately this seems to be against Wikipedia policy. —gorgan_almighty 15:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It may get vandalised alot, but, this is a great public web site, and some one may need this page to do a report or something, and if it is locked up, most people will just go to a different site instead of registering. This is a great site that more people need to know about, so I think that no articles should be locked away. --Cody Morgan-- azenrot@yahoo.com

The page being locked doesn't stop anyone from reading the page and using it for their report. All it does is prevent potential vandalism from occurring while you are trying to write your report. tv316 12:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we need to stop this vandalism. Also, the picture is continously removed, and it is very annoying to revert. I say block edits by non registered users. Lag 22:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Orz and dogface, please stop removing the photo. It is perfectly appropriate to show teh real thing. Wikipedia is not censored. Please re-read the policy. Lag 22:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

"Its the the bane of many a joke, as well as a constant target for adolesent children." This may be true, but taking the page off of the site will only redirect these children to google images. Jokes will continue to be made and images will continue to be viewed. Besides which, there's nothing wrong with displaying unclothed human figures. Many people are far too disgusted by our own bodies, which is ridiculous, and by trying to hide naked bodies away from people only heightens that sense of immorality of viewing naked men or women. And whether you realize it or not, once you try to censor one part of the internet, then the next thing you know there's a group of people trying to censor more and more of the internet, which is impossible to do. Just as someone else previously said; don't allow non-registered users to edit articles and there won't be vanadlism. It's that simple.

why only human?

I mean - all mammals have vagina, but this article is only about human's. why?

Not a clue. I don't know much myself but maybe animals vaginas are differen't? Good point. The penis article has alittle bit on animal penises. Andrew Northall 07:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone who knows about it could add a small section on animal vaginas, but the article should be mainly about human vaginas, as they are much more notable. —gorgan_almighty 15:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The picture labelled "vagina" on this page is currently a picture of a penis. Has the page been vandalized again?

clitoris pretty much not mentioned once?

i think any page describing the vagina needs to mention the clitoris or at least provide a link to it's page (this isn't counting the link to theclitoris.com at the end)

also the giving birth part could do with a bit more elaboration. pretty important topic ya know? ;p

infact the whole page is a little lacking i think.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris 86 (talk • contribs)

Why? The clitoris isn't part of the vagina. Marnanel 03:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Sarahvulva.jpg

This image, which the article uses, has recently been added to the MediaWiki:Bad image list, which prevents the image from being displayed in-line in articles, as a result a recent vandalbot attack. This change will only be temporary, and the image will be back working properly in a day or so. Sorry for the inconvenience. AmiDaniel (talk) 10:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe the image of that vagina should be changed, or completely removed. I'm being serious now, it is as if someone went out of their way to find the most grotesque looking picture of the females reproductive organ. Just a thought.User:Wrath_of_Hell

I also think it should be removed. It is NOT encyclopedic - A diagram should be used instead, like any other encyclopedia would do. — Wackymacs 08:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I appreciated it. I always forget the labelling of the diagrams.

@Wrath_of_Hell: No part of anatomy is going to look pretty close up. Especially not this part. 70.128.87.110 07:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Anatomy articles often have photos; why should this one be any different? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 07:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

They also often just have diagrams. WP:NOT doesn't mean we have to bend over backwards whenever there's a chance to show the naked people. --W.marsh 13:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

So, what's wrong about naked people? Please tell me. And the image is harmless, free your mind.

I'm with the majority of you here, it's just nasty and the diagrams are plenty good enough.

I don't think it is a majority, and I don't think the diagrams are sufficient, in fact I think some of them are creepy, and I don't think the pic is the least bit 'nasty'. Why do you think it is 'nasty'? Anchoress 07:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the picture is fine. Not nasty in the least. Atom 10:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, I can't believe you guys think that looking at the naked human body is ok in any way. We obviously need some kind of camp where we could concentrate you dangerous dissidents! (ps If the two above users get angry at me their sarcasm detector is broken, the rest of you are completely insane. The article is about vaginas, you put pictures of the Washington Monument in the articles about it, so why not a picture of a vagina. Seriously guys, it won't bite you...) ~~Anymouse

I agree aesthetically with Wrath of Hell. That's ...eh... not a pretty pic. There are prettier close-up pics of vaginae.--Loodog 04:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a picture of a normal, regular women's vagina. The "prettier" pictures are probably the pornographic ones, wich are hairdressed and wearing both regular and digital makeup.

The labium page has nicer pics.--Loodog 14:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

And of course pretty pics are what it's all about, right? The labia pics are really nice, but they're pictures of labia. It's frankly tough to get a pic of a woman's genitals that emphasises the vagina (which is the topic of this article) without being less aesthetic than pics that would be suitable to illustrate the vulva, mons, labia or clitoral hood. IMO a picture of a woman's groin in the vein of the labia pics (or the other pic we used to have, of the trimmed bush and not much else) with an arrow pointing in the general direction of where her vagina would be if she had her legs and labia spread, is no better than a picture of a barbie doll with an arrow pointing to where the vagina would be if she had one. Anchoress 15:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Size does matter

The size of the article, anyway. This is barely longer than a stub! It seems to be a great inequality when compared to Penis. Anyone else interested in expanding this article? romarin [talk ] 03:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I ditto the above, and will look at both articles in more detail when I get the chance. --Lenoxus 23:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's get this straight the penis and the vagina are two seperate topics. It seems sort of discrimative to say oh the penis page has more on it so let's get the vagina page up to par. The pages serve their purpose to educate what is needed to know about the topic. Same goes for the photographs. While you all are at it go ahead and compare the vagina and World War 2 pages? Just my 2 cents. --Lostcauses

Functions Pic

The picture of a vulva in "Functions of the vagina" section doesn't even point where the vagina is (it's not visible either). It's just like if in the article for "car engine" there was a picture of the outside of a car with arrows pointing out where the wheels and the doors are. Any good reason for keeping that photo?--Cloviz 01:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC) DONE--Cloviz 17:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Gaping vagina

Idiot 85.235.228.223 19:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed! Why is it that the article for "penis" contains a large number of penile photographs in various 'states', while this article on vaginas fails to show even one realistic photograph? Why the discrepancy?

JB 12.34.56.78 15:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason is really simple. There are endless men who take photographs of their penis and offer it for Wikipedia. (And to whomever shows the least bit of interest). Women who have advertised on singles site are flooded with penis pictures from men who don't even bother to read their ads. If a half dozen women were to upload their pictures to the Wikimedia commons site, I would put one or more of them on this web site. Look at the breast web site, there are numerous photographs there. Atom 11:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

External Links

I was looking for information on women with double vaginas, not finding it here I followed the link to the Vagina Institute - I'm not sure it should have a link here. Its content seems to be mostly restricted to subscribers and otherwise there is a strong sense it is pushing the idea of plastic surgery of the vulva and so on. Encouraging anxiety about the look of the vagina. I thought it inappropriate, and wanted to know if others agree.203.26.16.67 12:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Annabelle

I completely agree with what Annabelle said.

g-spot

I have to take issue with 69.44.30.4's addition. Anyone who disbelieves in the existence of the g-spot has never, errm, well, you know, found it?--24.35.78.57 00:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Apparently none of these "scholars" have ever actually touched a woman. --April Arcus 22:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Pictures, diagrams

I'm all for good photographs in the name of education, however all the diagrams/photos except the one in the infobox show at best the vaginal opening. For the outer female sexual organ I'd rather advise people to look up vulva, which is the correct designation to this part of the anatomy. Using the word 'vagina' to describe the vulva seems to be a common misconseption, and to be strictly encyclopedic, we want to make this difference completely clear. --GSchjetne 23:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I also think the schematic is really creepy and the photo of the labia/mons/clitoral hood is of questionable relevance. Anchoress 08:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Uretha

Sorry I am young but can a mans penis go in a uretha?

They look to be in the same spot

No. Look again at the picture, the two are clearly in different locations. Second, the urethra in women is about the same diameter as the urethra in men. The vagina, while normally about as open as a collapse balloon can expand and stretch to accomodate an erect penis. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No. The uretha is the hole from which the urine comes. As UtherSRG said, there is not enough space.Jchillerup 19:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

ASK YOUR MOTHER, MISS or SIR. And STOP TALKING ABOUT SEX WITH CHILDREN UtherSRG/Jchillerup.

Xchanter 02:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Xchanter

Xchanter, please do not make demands of other users. I see nothing inappropriate about this discussion. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I would rather someone ask before they try....

Female Ejaculation

Regarding the phrase "the disputed female ejaculation": "the disputed" should be removed. What's to dispute? Some women have them; many don't. Not having been with such a woman is not grounds to dispute that such women or such phenomena exist. Would an article on "headaches" refer to "the disputed headache" because some people get them and some don't, or because the author has never had a headache? How about "the disputed heart attack"? Some people don't get heart attacks, either. I think the point is clear.

Some women, reclining, have ejaculated a good foot or more, in an arc about to their knees, as a man might, or, when on top, practically flood their partner's belly. For those such as the British Board of Film Classification who confuse this with urinating (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_ejaculation), the solution is to inhale it deeply or taste it. It's full of pheromones, quite arousing, and smells nothing like urine, the smell or taste of which would be offensive to non-urolagniacs.

Posted as a personal witness to both experiences. I'll wait the required four days and then attempt the edit--Unimaginative Username 08:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC).--````

I think removing "the disputed" would be reasonable, though not for the reasons you give. Your own experience, and the potential experience of anyone who follows your suggestion, would count as original research. Rather, "the disputed" should be removed because there isn't any serious doubt among experts about whether the phenomenon exists. (At least, not as far as I'm aware... if I'm wrong and there are more than a fringe few experts who dispute the existence of female ejaculation, then "the disputed" [or some clearer rewording] should stay for the sake of WP:NPOV.) --Allen 06:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. This was my very first contribution to Wikipedia; there are many, many pages of guidelines yet to be assimilated, and I was just trying to prevent someone from claiming that my comment was based on watching a pornographic movie, where, as noted, special effects tricks can simulate such things. It's not as though I claimed to have seen a UFO. (I confess to my previous being colored by some irritation that there is alleged to be "dispute" over something I have personally witnessed. My mistake.)

How about this: The Wikipedia article on female ejaculation makes it clear that this event has been recognized by many authorities since the time of Aristotle, and the only questions presented by modern medical science seem to be the exact nature of the fluid, its source, and the mechanism of its expulsion. A Film Board is not a medical authority, and most denials of this event seem associated with those who are deniers of, or hostile to, female sexuality in general. (I don't have time to research and cite those deniers now. Perhaps someone else will.) I agree with you in placing the burden of proof on the author of the present wording to cite knowledgeable authority that disputes this phenomenon; presently, there are no sources cited for the claim that female ejaculation is "disputed".

If the relating of a personal experience is offensive, I'll be happy to remove it.--Unimaginative Username 08:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, then! Don't worry at all about your original post; I don't think anyone here will find it offensive (we have a pretty high threshold for TMI around here). And in my opinion your revised reasoning is right on target. --Allen 13:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

TAKE THE PICTURE OFF

This is pornography. Take it off this page.

Xchanter 02:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Xchanter

No, it's not. Pornography is media that exists solely to induce sexual arousal. Since (if you look at the numerous posts above) most people consider the picture ugly, it isn't arousing anyone. Anchoress 02:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Wikipedia works by consensus, and consensus seems to be that wikipedia is not censored and that photographs of human genitalia are not necessarily pornography. Please look over the earlier discussions on this talk page about the photograph, and then please restate your opinion as an opinion, rather than as a demand. It would help to include your opinion about what steps should be taken to fix the problem that you see. For example, do you feel there should be no photographs on this page? Or that there should be a different photograph on this page? --Allen 02:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Pornography is determined by context. Take, for example, National Geographic, or the movie Kinsey, both of which pass United States censors. We're having a similar attempt at censorship on the penis page. --Loodog 03:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Pornography is almost entirely a matter of opinion. Pictures of vaginaa on a page about vaginas is entirely appropriate. Trollderella 05:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

So "penis" has several pics and vagina doesn't. I think vagina is feeling sad. 66.30.14.122 10:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

lol

Comparing to penis

This article seriously shows the wikipedian male pov. Compare the length of this tiny article to penis

Penis is compensating.--Loodog 00:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

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.