Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:29, 6 October 2014

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Anatomy High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has not yet been associated with a particular anatomical discipline. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sexology and sexuality Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Misplaced Pages is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

If you find some images offensive you can configure your browser to mask them.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: "The 50 most-viewed Misplaced Pages articles in 2009 and 2008". The Daily Telegraph. August 17, 2009.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: "Misplaced Pages's penis and vagina pages: Their colorful history and popular present". Slate (magazine). January 8, 2014.

Archives

Archive 1 (2002 to March 2007) Archive 2 (March 2007 to Aug 2008) Archive 3 (Sept 2008 to Jan 2012) Archive 4 (November 2010 to August 2012) Archive 5 (November 2012 to April 2014)

G-spot

I was wondering if we can paraphrase and use Barbara Keesling's statement from here in this article.—Khabboos (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Khabboos, my answer is no. That source is about something Barbara Keesling is calling the Cul-de-Sac; it seems that she is referring to the recto-uterine pouch. She is claiming that the "Cul-de-Sac" is orgasmic, and, judging by the title of her book, that it's "the ultimate pleasure spot" for women. It's just more misinformation for women (and for men) that she's sending out. The G-spot isn't even scientifically proven and is still highly debated by scientists. And now we have Keesling, in an Esquire source from 2009, essentially claiming a new G-spot? No, such unscientific claims about female sexuality are better left out of the Vagina article. In the article, we already mention the G-spot and the debate about that. Flyer22 (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Flyer22!—Khabboos (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The Esquire article seems to be rather tongue-in-cheek – lighthearted and certainly not a suitably reliable source. (Actually the article indicates that the "cul-de-sac" is the fornix, not the recto-uterine pouch. I am aware that other sources may indicate otherwise.) Axl ¤ 18:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that vaginal fornix bit about the article, Axl. But it seemed to me the vaginal fornix bit was the author of the article's wording. And since the recto-uterine pouch is sometimes referred to as the cul-de-sac, I figured that Keesling must be referring to the recto-uterine pouch. For example, our Recto-uterine pouch and Vaginal fornix articles differentiate between the vaginal fornix and the cul-de-sac. Flyer22 (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Optical illusion

Do any of you notice this optical illusion:

Facing my computer but looking at it from below my eyes, the vagina picture looks like the face of an ugly baby. The vaginal opening is the baby's mouth and the clitoris is the baby's nose. (I really don't know what to say is the baby's eyes.) Try this illusion yourself. (To make sure you're doing the right thing, scroll the article so that the vagina image is at the lower right corner of your computer screen and you're directly facing the upper right corner.) I'm very sorry to bring up something that might seem offensive, but it's just an interesting illusion. Georgia guy (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Photo

Im a little concerned about the photo...It looks like a childs or teems vagina....I would prefer to see a womans...my vagina hasnt looked like that since I was about 13.... Lady Ez (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2014‎ (UTC)

Hello, Lady Ez (talk · contribs). This has been brought up times before; see Talk:Vagina/Archive 5. From what I can tell, the image is of a shaved vulva. Look at the image close-up: File:Vaginal opening - english description.jpg. There are razor bumps or pores that indicate that substantial hair was once on that vulva, which means that the vulva is not prepubescent. I assume it's an adult vulva rather than a teenage vulva. In any case, it's the best image of a vagina (rather of the vaginal opening in its normal state) that Misplaced Pages has. By that, I mean, an image clearly showing the vagina, without the vaginal opening being concealed by the vulva or artificially spread (meaning fingers stretching the opening). The fingers in the picture are merely stretching areas of the vulva to show the vaginal opening.

On a side note: Remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Misplaced Pages talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. I signed your username for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 12:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I assume you meant "teen?" Nonetheless, the photo is a good one, "good" that it effectively illustrates the detail needed for the article. In other words, with tons of hair down there, it's hard to label it. If it's hard to label, it's hard to explain. If it's hard to explain, men might not understand all of it. Wait...Jimsteele9999 (talk) 01:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I've read with amusement some of the archived threads about the so-called "pornographic" nature of photographs of the female anatomy. Defending the article's photograph must be exhausting at times. Perhaps this image will be a little less contentious and more of a compromise: https://en.wikipedia.org/Pelvic_examination#mediaviewer/File:Skenes_gland.jpg

• The photo is very clear.
• The labels are nearly the same as the one in current use.
• This difference is that this photo includes a gloved hand, encouraging the idea that this is part of a bona fide medical exam and not a random image uploaded by the...gasp!...randy. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 01:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Wordreader, as you may know, we use that image as the lead image for the Skene's gland and Bartholin's gland articles. I wouldn't mind using it as the lead image for this article as well, though doing so would add a redundancy factor considering that it is the lead image at those other articles. However, people will still complain about showing a real-life image of the vagina, and, in some cases, a drawn or other non-real-life image of the vagina, even if less complaints result from the use of the image you have proposed above. Flyer22 (talk) 01:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

If you like the image, I don't see how using it in other articles signifies. If it fits here, it fits. For those people who want a photographic image of an actual vagina showing the tubular structure, the only way that's going to happen is if someone uploads a photo of a sagittal section of a female cadaver. That would add another layer of headache! Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 03:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Wordreader, the image is okay. I feel indifferent to any of the image choices for a lead image of the Vagina article...unless they only show the vulva and not the vagina or unless they show the vagina in some stretched state instead of a relaxed state. As for redundancy, I'm not big on redundancy (even when I'm being redundant). I don't like it when we are demonstrating a structure with a lead image and then point to a different article for people to learn about a different structure...but what we are pointing to has the same lead image. If you want to change the lead image to your above proposed image, go ahead and do so. Flyer22 (talk) 03:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe the current image is clearer. the proposed image stretches the skin far beyond normal appearance.IdreamofJeanie (talk) 08:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

When it comes to these two images of the vagina, they look pretty much the same. And both stretch the vulva a bit. I noted on my talk page that since Wordreader's proposal will undoubtedly help decrease the complaints about that vagina image being a prepubescent child's vagina, or what Naomi Wolf considers to be abnormal, as noted in this discussion, or the vulva of a porn star, changing the lead image to his suggestion would help. But again, I don't care too much about which image is used. Flyer22 (talk) 10:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• I had not realised that there is a discussion about the images in the infobox. I think that it would be better to replace a vulva image in the infobox with a lateral diagram of the structures, because it shows the internal anatomy better and goes well with the AP image above. This one would be suitable - File:Female_reproductive_system_lateral_nolabel.png. A vulva image would be better placed in the section "Vaginal opening and hymen". Snowman (talk) 12:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I reverted you here because, given the misinformation and misconceptions about the vagina, and that it is such a big factor in both female and male sexuality, I think that we should show an actual vagina for the lead image or at least Wordreader's proposed image, so that readers see exactly what it looks like upfront. Sure, the two initial proposed images above show the vaginal opening rather than the vagina as a whole, but showing more of a real-life vagina (or an image that looks like it's a real-life vagina) would require stretching the vagina open, almost as though in an act of fisting (and we certainly shouldn't show the vagina in that unnatural state as the lead image), or it would require a scope/instrument looking into the vagina (which also is not ideal for a lead image). And the lead image is already accompanied by a diagram anyway. I also don't like your proposed image because it includes the much debated/disputed G-spot. Yes, I know that it's an image used elsewhere on Misplaced Pages, such as at the Cervix article, but I think that using that image can be highly irresponsible since it is presenting the G-spot as some valid entity, when, in reality, it is not valid to the vast majority of researchers (at least as far as categorizing it as some distinct entity that exists at the very spot that the diagram shows it to be at for every human female). Flyer22 (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

There are similar diagrams that do not include the G-spot in the labeling; such as File:Blausen_0400_FemaleReproSystem_02.png, which would make a very good infobox image. I think that medical illustrations that showed the anatomical relations of the vagina would be more informative for the infobox than an AP view of the vulva. Snowman (talk) 14:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Diagrams without the G-spot would certainly be better. But I still think that we should use one of the aforementioned images of the vaginal opening as the lead image, whether we use the current diagram with that or a diagram you have proposed with that (minus the G-spot). I have alerted WP:Anatomy and WP:Med to this discussion, as seen here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Images

Why do the articles on both vagina and vulva have pictures of women's genitals yet the article on penis is full of animal pictures? Motion to have a different mammalian vagina as the main picture. 80.43.91.138 (talk) 09:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC) I mean, the whole article is mainly focussed on humans, whereas the penis article is all about different animals. Why is this? Why the human focus when so many species have vaginas?80.43.91.138 (talk) 10:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

This topic was discussed at this talk page before; see Talk:Vagina/Archive 5#Human-centric. The Vagina article is mostly about humans because humans are the WP:Primary topic for this subject, and because the vagina is not well studied in other animals; in other words, there is not a lot to state about vaginas in other animals. The same applies to the vulva, and the clitoris (which is a part of the vulva), though there is significantly more to state about the clitoris than the rest of the vulva or vagina in other animals. By extension, there are not as many images of the clitoris, vulva as a whole or vagina in other animals as there are images of the penis in other animals. Because of these reasons, this article follows the WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy format of having an "Other animals" section in an article that is primarily about humans.

On a side note: I moved your comment down, per Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines#Layout. Flyer22 (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I also changed your section title from "Image" to "Images" because this discussion is not about one image. Flyer22 (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Archives 5

This section of the Archives is listed in the info-box above, but not in the smaller box below it with the filing cabinet drawing. (Sorry, I haven't read about wrangling archive listings.) Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 01:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed that; it clearly needs fixing. Flyer22 (talk) 01:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. This page is archived manually. --NeilN 01:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Genital vs. urogenital

As can be seen with this and this edit, Snowmanradio emphasized "urogenital" over "genital" in the lead. There are two reasons that I don't think that this is a good idea. The first reason is because it is not often that the vagina is referred to as urogenital; when it is referred to as that, at least in my experience, it is usually in the context of vaginal abnormalities regarding the urogenital sinus. See, for example, what this laysource states. Of course it's not the best medical source to use, but I'm using it as the laysource that it is for this point: It states, "The urethra and vagina are separate anatomical entities in normal females. But in rare instances, they are joined in what urologists call a urogenital sinus anomaly... ...A urogenital sinus anomaly is a defect present at birth in which the vagina and urethra open into a common channel, rather than separately. There are two general types of urogenital sinus anomalies. In a low confluence urogenital sinus anomaly, the common channel is short, the urethral opening is close to its normal location and the vagina is almost normal in length. In a high confluence urogenital sinus anomaly, the common channel is long, the urethral opening is internal and the vagina is quite short. This type is sometimes associated with an anus that is located too far forward."

And this scholarly book source (Dewhurst's Textbook of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2012, page 423), which I will soon use for the embryonic development material of the Vagina article, states: "The debate which continues concerns that portion of the vagina formed from the Müllerian ducts and that from the urogenital sinus by the growth of the sinovaginal bulb. Some believe that the upper four-fifths of the vagina is formed by the Müllerian duct and the lower fifth by the urogenital sinus, while others believe that sinus upgrowth extends to the cervix displacing the Müllerian component completely and the vagina is thus derived wholly from the endoderm of the urogenital sinus. It seems certain that some of the vagina is derived from the urogenital sinus, but it has not been determined whether or not the Müllerian component is involved."

The other reason that I don't think that we should use "urogenital" for the lead or lower in the article is because far too many people, especially boys and men, think that human females urinate out of the vagina. Google it, and you will see that it's true if you don't believe me. This has been true for some of our male Wikipedians or their relatives as well, as seen at Talk:Urination/Archive 1#Appropriateness of photo and Talk:Urination/Archive 1#Consensus about the picture; take a look at the comments by David Shankbone at 22:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC), 05:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC) and at 08:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC) in that first discussion, for example. Calling the vagina "urogenital" only further confuses people and makes the ones clueless as to how human females urinate think that human females urinate out of their vaginas. As noted by the laysource above, the vagina and urethra usually do not open into a common channel. So unless we explain that in the lead, I will remain against referring to the vagina as urogenital in the Vagina article. Simply calling the penis and vagina "genital" is enough anyway.

I will alert WP:Anatomy and WP:Med to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Alerted, as seen here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Urogenital is incorrect. Support revert. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 17:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Originally the lead implied that the urethral orifice in the female is a genital orifice, which is incorrect. The word urogenital is useful. I have amended the article and removed one iteration of the word urogenital and kept the other in. Snowman (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Vulvovaginal subarticles

With this edit, Mikael Häggström broke out the vast majority of the vaginal infection/disease material and made it into an article called Vaginal disease. I see the validity in that, but, per WP:Content fork, we should strive to keep aspects of a topic in one article instead of causing readers to go to multiple articles...unless necessary. I don't think that it was necessary to break that material into its own article. I'm not too opposed to its existence, but I do want to point out that with the Vulva disease and Vaginal disease articles existing, there is not much left to cover in the Vulvovaginal health article, and I really don't see the Vulva disease article as being needed; that bit of material can more than adequately be covered at the Vulva article.

I will alert WP:Anatomy and WP:Med to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Alerted, as seen here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Anatomy articles
• High-importance Anatomy articles
• Anatomy articles about an unassessed area
• WikiProject Anatomy articles
• B-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• Top-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
• Misplaced Pages objectionable content
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press