Talk:Mons pubis/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Eroticism

Uh, I don't mind eroticsm – even when it's bad taste – but I can't see the relation that may exist between mons pubis and an erotic website "dedicated to exploring the cameltoe". Could someone explain? --Valmi 03:00, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(note that I'm not the person who added the link to which you refer, nor do I express an opinion as to whether that link in particular is the most appropriate link for this article). My understanding is that there is a non-trivial sub-genre of pornographic imagery which celebrates (hmm, is that quite the right word?) the erotic value of the mons pubis when viewed through tight clothing (such as lingerie or swimwear). This indeed gives the appearance of a camel's toe (apparently: I don't believe I've ever looked at a camel's feet), perhaps rather more so than the naked mons pubis does. A quick google (for "cameltoe", all one word) shows there is quite an amount of interest in this type of imagery. I don't know if this topic merits an article in its own right (lord knows I'm not going to write it) but I think it's sufficiently notable to warrant a sentence or two (and dare I say an external link or two) somewhere (maybe here, maybe in some pornography-specific article). Urgh, there also appears to be interest in the "male cameltoe" - did I really need to see Yasser Arafat's? - Dave

It's an interesting and relevant link, but it was just floating in the middle of the article; I moved it into the "camel toe" paragraph and added an explanatory sentence. --LostLeviathan 22:06, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(I didn't add that link either). While most cameltoe related websites are pornographic in nature (as a quick Google will testify), the site liked here is sarcastic rather than erotic, making fun of the accidental rather than the intentional cameltoe. The site describes itself accurately as a sarcastic look at an all too common genital affliction that occurs when tight, two-legged garments ride up into the crotch area to create a cleft or cloven effect reminiscent of a camel's toe.

Even if it is neither non-trivial or non-objectionable, does it have to be presented as a mainstream, crucial aspect of the subject? In other words, usually colloquial, surely sub-culture terminology as if it were typical of descriptions of the subject, is this true to WP? ~ Dpr 07:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image

Is such explicit/eroticizing imagery as the current photo necessary to illustrate the anatomic area? An image may need to be "explicit", but it does not need to be eroticizing. ~ Dpr 07:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think you can't have a less erotic explisit image showing reader what is ment by "Cameltoe".

It still might be a good idea to add another, more anatomic, image. --Easyas12c 10:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The new image (image:Mons_veneris.jpg) is great for the purpose. --Easyas12c 17:25, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

that cameltoe image doesn't belong on this page because it's a poor example of Mons pubis, regardless of issues with its caption.

whether or not a better picture should be used here, i submit the caption shouldn't mention cameltoe. the cameltoe mention/link is just someone's prurient projection into more mainstream realms of this wiki, and doesn't need to be tolerated. a case could perhaps be made for mention of the cameltoe effect somewhere down the bottom of the article, i suppose, though even that should probably proove itself.

-:)65.78.25.17 21:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Note that my comments in this section are from time when this was the Cameltoe-article. Since then this article was moved from Cameltoe to Mons pubis. It has changed a lot since. After this a new Cameltoe article has been created. --Easyas12c 23:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the current pic is awesome, shows the subject well, is kind of sexy, and bikinis are fantastic. I like it, that woman is lovely, and has contributed to wiki in an inspired way. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.165.104 (talk) 08:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

A more anatomic photo would be better suited to the nature of wikipedia, but this unexpected image did have me laughing out loud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.36.216 (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a totally shaven or waxed mons pubis is appropriate or encyclopedic. Surely an adult mons pubis should be shown in it's unaltered state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.64.156.1 (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Pioneer plaque

I think this is a bit out of context. It's just too random to be in this article. I'm removing it, but if anyone can find reason to keep it, feel free to post here. Recnilgiarc 02:56, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Another pornographic picture

The user User:Philwelch tries to show a pornographic picture in this article. This picture is now listed for deletion. See here Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2005 October 2. Bozo fr 01:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia defines pornography as "the representation of the human body or human sexual behaviour with the goal of sexual arousal". If you really find that image arousing I'm rather surprised. — Phil Welch 02:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, whoever took the photo (perhaps you?) probably did. >:) Wahkeenah 02:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

No, not really. — Phil Welch 02:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

That's surprising. I had it figured for an aim-and-shoot. >:) Wahkeenah 04:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I meant I don't find the image arousing in the slightest. I'm not commenting on how the picture was taken. — Phil Welch 04:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Roger that. Wahkeenah 04:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

A quote from Wikipedia states: "...the information about sexual topics will probably be more neutral and factually accurate than what young teens hear from their peers, and no more erotic than the material of North American or European sex education classes; that is, articles on these topics are kept to facts and are not meant to incite or titillate the reader. Articles on human reproduction may contain anatomical, non-pornographic photographs of sexual organs, which certain cultures may find inappropriate for small chidren."

I'm curious as to whether or not the author is of the opinion that the photographs depicted here would be acceptable within this context? Quakerfangirl (talk) 03:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

A: You're resurrecting a 5 year old topic - the subject of which was deleted also 5 years ago - [1]

B: Neither author has edited this page in either four or five years, which suggests that they are either happy or not bothered with the current selection of images.

C: Even Assuming good faith with regard to your single (so far) edit, I am worried that I may have just fed the troll.

D: Wikipedia is not censored - if you find the images offensive, that's an issue for you to deal with personally, not Wikipedia.

F: Wait a minute - what happened to "E"?

E: Oh - here it is.

a_man_alone (talk) 08:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

A. A search for "Mons Pubis" gives THIS page (an old page) as the default definition result. Since this is the case, the date of the original article is obviously irrelevant.
B. I did not know the authors were not here any longer. Are discussions discouraged on posts where the authors are no longer active? If so, how do I go about finding out about the membership of article authors?
C. I am not a troll -- I have been informed that posting in the Discussion area is the place to have questions answered.
D. I did not state that I find the image offensive.
E. I am curious as to the usefulness of a "tease shot" in the classroom of small children for the purposes of sex education. My question is more about Wikipedia's generalized statement of it's usefulness as an "educational tool", not about offensive images.
In hindsight, posting this discussion under a different header may have been a better idea, but I am new here so please be patient with me.

Quakerfangirl (talk) 00:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)QuakerfangirlQuakerfangirl (talk) 00:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Fat of the mons pubis

more info needs to be given on the fat of the mons pubis. for example: is it any different from fat elsewhere in the body? Gringo300 05:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

It's different in that it's directly over the pubic bone, as opposed to being in the belly, for example, and thus is part of the subject at hand (pardon the graphic metaphor). Wahkeenah 06:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Frontal image useful?

Is the frontal image really useful? If a reader don't understand what the article is talking of when seeing the clearly protruding part in the side view (excellent image by the way!), I don't know what to believe. The frontal image doesn't even show the area well exactly because it's taken directly from the front. If you know where a woman have her pubic hair above her genitals and you have even that side view picture to assist, I don't see a need for the frontal one. The reason I'm questioning it isn't because I dislike these "naked" pictures (then I'd comment on both of them), but because I dislike superfluous pictures of any kind. -- Northgrove 15:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Have to agree, and having not one but two almost identical (and not very useful) images in an article which itself is only half a page long seems extremely gratuitous. Dosflores (talk) 06:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)DF

Inaccuracy

This article says that Mons pubis is present in both genders, whereas I believe most standard medical textbooks write that Mons pubis is only present in the female. Could someone please cite the source that says that Mons pubis can be found in the male? -Unsigned

Mons veneris and Mons pubis are used interchangeably in most books. -Unsigned

Thanks. (from anon, jan 20)

Here's one source that defines it in gender-neutral terms. --Arcadian 06:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It may define it with gender neutral terms, but the area it describes doesn't exist in males, so that makes it irrelevant. Or so I figure, since it has long since been removed from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trlkly (talk • contribs) 17:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I changed the part of that lead that uses the word genders...and instead put the word sexes, considering that gender is not the same thing as biological sex, and even as it is sometimes argued that it can be the same thing, it is more accurate, in cases such as this, to state the words...both sexes. Flyer22 23:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Pubis versus Veneris

This inquiry is sort of an inquiry of the last, but more specifically. Firstly, how was it decided which term was going to be used in the main article title? My guess is that it is because Pubis is more properly used whereas Veneris is a slang term. It is conveniantly ahead in the alphabetical order as well. In fact, Pubis has a disambig page, and Veneris did not. I have created a Veneris disambig page to point here and to Venus. Secondly, there is a confusing statement here:

"In humans, the mons pubis divides into the labia majora (literally "larger lips") on either side of the furrow, known as the cleft of venus, that surrounds the clitoris, vaginal opening, and other structures of the vulva. The fatty tissue of the mons veneris is sensitive to estrogen, causing a distinct mound to form with the onset of puberty."

The beginning of the second senence describes the veneris, whereas the first uses the term pubis as it does for the rest of the article. I was unsure if I should change 'veneris' to 'pubis' due to them having the same meaning as the article implies in its introduction, or if possible this difference in use of terminology implies a slight difference in definition I am unaware of that should perhaps be recognized in the article? Does anyone know, like the one who added this phrase in the first place, with the separate terms being used? I think it is confusing to readers and needs to be resolved somehow. Tyciol (talk) 02:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if the term mons pubis is used in a strictly scientific context, while there might be more appropriate terms in common speech. A native English speaking man talking to his wife, would he use the term mons pubis? Libido (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Hair

Do we rreally have to portrait the mons pubis according to a recent fashion tendency? I think the shaven vertion is useful as ti ilustrates the skin under the hair and therefore it should be kept somewhere in this article, but the main picture should be more accurate and should not portait an unfear (and only subjetively aesthetical) tendency as if it were the rule.-- ([[20-dude (talk)|talk]]) 04:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is this image:

200px|mons pubis

but I can't make it work.--20-dude (talk) 05:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, if the article is trying to depict the development of the mons pubis after puberty naturally and realistically, then a freshly shaven one is not appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.64.156.1 (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the presence of hair makes it difficult to ascertain the outline, shape and development of the mons pubis, hence a bare one is more appropriate - current fashion dictation has nothing to do with it. I know that citing other wikipedia pages is no proof, but witness the head page - the only image of a human head is that of a bald one. Can't make out a shape when it's covered in hair. a_man_alone (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

- If you find it hard to ascertain the outlines of the mons pubis of a full grown woman, that might indicate your own lack of ability to see instead of supposed scientific clearness. The shaven one is ok to post later in the article, but why make it the first picture, and make people think this is the norm?? That's not up to wikipedia, which should be a neutral source of knowledge, not ideologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.249.147.139 (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

We're not defining the norm - we're defining what it is, and what it looks like. That requires being able to see the anatomical structure, not the hair that covers it. If you wish, you may add the other image later on in the article with a caption along the lines of "The mons pubis obstructed by hair", it's not showing the mons pubis - so please clarify how your prefered image illustrates what the mons actually is - but if you really insist. Oh, and please comment on contributions, not contributor. a_man_alone (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

the current picture perfectly illustrates the shape of the region, hence why it is called the "mons pubis" and not just "pubis". IdreamofJeanie (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

wtf? the picture is inappropriate

I'm a med student and frequently reference wikipedia to check things. The current picture is erotic and inappropriate. It needs to be changed to be the dry encyclopedic version please, not a girl on the beach in a bikini. If people wanna masturbate, they can look at porno! lets keep wiki clean plz and free of distraction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.8.246.53 (talk) 14:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Already discussed, and you're not bringing anything new to the discussion I'm afraid. Also, bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so you should be inherently wary of anything you read and the validity of it. a_man_alone (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You miss the point here somewhat. WP is not a reliable source in an scholarly sense, but it nevertheless strives to be reliable. So you can't use that line for justifying the inclusion of "inferior" material. If it is indeed clearly inferior (editors largely agreeing on that), then it is supposed to be replaced.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I did not miss the point. The OP clearly states "I'm a med student and frequently reference wikipedia to check things" which most definitely suggests a scholarly sense. Also, editors do not agree that the image is inferior, quite the opposite in fact - removal of the image has always been reverted - by several different editors - instead suggesting that not only is wikipedia is not censored, but that the image is a perfectly acceptable example of the Mons Pubis. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Lolmao, wiki is an encyclopedia of the people, it doesn't matter if it is reliable or not. It should not have images from porn sites on it. Your either pulling a prank by maintaining that photo because it's funny or you wish to impose your thoughts about sexuality on the rest of the populace. We are the people! Please support changing the photo to something like a free picture from an anatomy book 100 years old (which is what they have for most other things). Otherwise, you are a filthy, FILTHY dog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.176.140.34 (talk) 03:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You have not been on any "porn sites" lately . ---Dana60Cummins (talk) 05:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)