Jump to content

Talk:Vagina: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
SineBot (talk | contribs)
m Signing comment by 119.152.75.89 - "The close up of a vagina.: "
Line 74: Line 74:


== Pornography and images that have qualities of pornographic images. ==
== Pornography and images that have qualities of pornographic images. ==
i think that because wikipedia is an american creation we should have american vaginas!

The discussions on the talk page are very cyclical- someone posts a pic, people agree its good, then someone objects to it on the grounds that "wikipedia is not pornography" or "the picture is too porno". Could someone educate me as to the relevance of an image being pornographic in nature and the way in which we can identify such pornographic pics? (this assumes the allegations are demonstrably correct for the sake of argument. In practice, the 'Porno-caller"s seem to be unable to offer any argument that the images have a pornographic quality to them.)
The discussions on the talk page are very cyclical- someone posts a pic, people agree its good, then someone objects to it on the grounds that "wikipedia is not pornography" or "the picture is too porno". Could someone educate me as to the relevance of an image being pornographic in nature and the way in which we can identify such pornographic pics? (this assumes the allegations are demonstrably correct for the sake of argument. In practice, the 'Porno-caller"s seem to be unable to offer any argument that the images have a pornographic quality to them.)



Revision as of 19:40, 17 December 2009

Pubic hair

Set aside the aesthetics. I think that a picture without hair, hence shaven, is not appropriate: this is not what it looks naturally like. At least the description should mention this particularity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hehiheho (talkcontribs) 22:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be for clarity's sake in labeling the parts of the vagina. However I do agree that there should be some amount of hair, representing an average vagina. Obviously a vagina whose hair hinders the view of certain labeled parts should not be used. --72.88.89.243 (talk) 00:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The close up of a vagina.

Resolved
 – Image replaced with diagram.

it actually hurts looking at that picture. can we get a better one lol.

Why would you replace a photograph with a diagram? Surely a photograph is more illustrative? BodvarBjarki (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holy shit! That is a fucking disturbing picture. Is this an educatonal website or Swank magazine? Remember, kids also frequent this site for research. How about something a little less...hmmm, I don't know...DISGUSTING. There's no other article on Wikipedia with an image so graphic. Someone please repalace this.


(btw, is it true that there's a scratch 'n sniff app for the iPhone? Because if there is....) --Jack Meihoffer (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Read the "censor" notice at the top of the page. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


If you visit a page about a Vagina what do you expect to see? Earth_Worm_Eater (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Its better to see the real picture for understanding... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.75.89 (talk) 20:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved
 – Image replaced with diagram.

173.7.222.30 (talk) 03:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC) scarily enough, I recognize that image. It's been ripped from a porn site -- the model used tha name "alice" on the site. I actually have an unlabeled copy of that image on my HD. LOL. Don't want to be accused of spamming so I shall not name the site. Simply labelling the parts on it does not do away with the copyright of the orignal image. It needs to be yanked from the wikimedia commons.[reply]

you know this how? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.46.27 (talk) 05:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, from looking at explicit images on the Internet, like a zillion other people. Get over it. Wikipedia isn't a place to be condemnatorily prudish, and identifying a copyvio is good, regardless how the identification is made. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What does the fact that you saw an image on a porn sight have to do with anything? The only way your comment makes sense to me is to presume you believe the fact that you've seen the picture previously on some other site means it can't be used here, and I don't get why you've presumed that. How does the image and the use of the image become at all altered by way of the fact that its on another site besides wikipedia?--Δζ (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody explain to me

... why this article has exactly one photograph of a shaven vagina, while the penis article has three unshaven photographs? Shaving is by no means the norm for women across the world, especially outside of Western countries.--71.36.41.69 (talk) 00:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should read this before you make statements like that. Aar☢n BruceTalk/Contribs 06:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all that section cites no sources, but second of all I think showing a natural vagina should be shown. I always think about it this way; if someone who has never seen a naked woman or a human being would come to Wikipedia, they should be able to see a picture which shows how women are naturally, and then a picture of a shaven vagina should be included maybe with the caption "in the late 20th century, shaving gained popularity in the Western world". But shaving is just a fad like everything else, shaving wasn't popular in the 60's and 70's and it'll stop being popular one day. The first picture in the "human" includes a naked man and a woman. Wikipedia is supposed to educate, so a even if 99% of people in the world would get a navel piercing, the picture at navel should still feature a natural one as the main picture, and then include a picture of a navel piercing somewhere else in the page. --BiT (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two problems, AB. As BiT says, that section has no citations, and in my own personal experience (which, I'm sure you'll agree, is just as valid as an uncited Wikipedia article), women from the Middle East and Eastern Europe are quite a bit hairer than Americans. Even if it IS the norm in those areas, that's still hardly the whole world. Most of the world's population is in East/South Asia, and I know for a fact that genital depilating is not the norm there. Maybe this is all moot, anyway. It seems that somebody has removed every vagina photograph in the article.--71.37.2.38 (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

White Americans and East Europeans (and likewise West Europeans)have natural bodily affinities: why should east-Europe women be as a rule different (hairier) than other europoids? The Cold War did not intervene in genetics... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.18.7.44 (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the thing labeling this issue as resolved, since the diagram is no longer there. I think having a photograph of a shaved vagina makes sense, since hair would obscure the vulva. On the other hand, it would also make sense to show female genitalia in its natural state. Perhaps there should at least be an unshaven picture on the mons pubis article? There doesn't seem to be a good one in the commons, but I might be able to supply one, if needed. Ketsuekigata (talk) 00:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do think the article would benefit from the addition of a photograph illustrating female genitalia with natural pubic hair. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 21:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pornography and images that have qualities of pornographic images.

i think that because wikipedia is an american creation we should have american vaginas! The discussions on the talk page are very cyclical- someone posts a pic, people agree its good, then someone objects to it on the grounds that "wikipedia is not pornography" or "the picture is too porno". Could someone educate me as to the relevance of an image being pornographic in nature and the way in which we can identify such pornographic pics? (this assumes the allegations are demonstrably correct for the sake of argument. In practice, the 'Porno-caller"s seem to be unable to offer any argument that the images have a pornographic quality to them.)

It seems to me that the no censorship policy bars consideration of the people's "that's porno" arguments/explanations. How could it not? It is an explicitly value-based judgement as to the suitability of an image based on no criteria shown relevant to the merits of the image's use.

It seems to me that the only valid reason to remove an image would be that the article is better without it. The fact that you allege an image to have pornographic qualities, without more, would seem never to satisfy this requirement.

Isn't it always inappropriate to remove an image on the sole basis of it being porno-like? Shouldn't the numerous comments/actions seeking censorship on the basis of porno-ness be invalid where no effort to tie the pornoness of the image to any improvement of the article is made?

Thanks for any feedback. Numerous examples of the refered to "porno claims" are present on this page of the talk page, and none of them have cited any relevant policy nor offered any argument showing how the article would be improved by the removal of the images--Δζ (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I"m relatively new to this discussion, but have followed it a bit over the past few months. Unfortunately, pornography is *extremely* subjective; for example, one person may find a nude painting or an anatomical diagram pornographic, but to an artist or a doctor they're just diagrams. One often-quoted saying is "I know it when I see it", which came up in a US court ruling about obscenity in film (Jacobellis v. Ohio). For the average person, this is a good rule of thumb; you can look at a picture of a nude individual or a body part and be able to guess fairly well what the intended audience is.

I think Wikipedia should give well-intentioned users the benefit of the doubt when it comes to pictures; an editor shouldn't immediately assume that an uploaded picture is pornography unless there is an obvious pornographic slant to the photo (e.g. the presence of a sex toy in a photo of a vagina is probably pornography) . The only problem I have with your argument that pornography shouldn't be removed is that Wikipedia could become a repository for pornographic images that really don't add to the articles. Generally, the editors on this talk page are pretty good at reminding over-eager photo-removers that Wikipedia is not censored, and the photos that are on the page right now do an adequate job of depicting the subject matter IMHO. Jhfortier (talk) 06:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is an editorial judgment over here. While Commons and Wikipedia may deposit images, that could be considered pornographic, the main issue is the proper selection of useful and pleasant images. There are options to not see an image, so if someone does not want something, then it's up to him/her. Brand[t] 11:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

mammal vs. human

On the 'Penis' page there is a picture of a horse's penis demonstrating that these reproductive organs are found on animals in addition to humans. Yet, there is no such non-human picture on the vagina page. I suggest we post a comparable picture of the vagina of a horse or likewise animal. 72.255.57.103 (talk) 23:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vaginal Tightening

It is a very important topic related to vagina, amazingly there is no information about it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.136.0.189 (talkcontribs) 05:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Have you looked at Vaginismus? I see there is no link from this article to that, and will put that right in a minute. --Nigelj (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]