Talk:Clitoral hood

Various discussions
Dachshund, you made the following changes to the article:
 * Though the term "female circumcision" has historically been applied to this procedure, it should not be confused with forms of female genital mutilation in which the clitoris is removed (clitoridectomy).

The indisputable reality is that removal of the hood is very much comparable to male circumcision, which is why the term "female circumcision" was used by doctors practicing it. It is the application of the term "female circumcision" to more invasive procedures that may be criticized. We should not discourage the use of the term female circumcision for clitoridotomy by putting it in scare quotes.


 * At the turn of the century, some doctors advocated clitoridotomy as a means to reduce masturbation in pre-pubescent females, by removing the means for irritations or infections to stimulate the clitoris.

None of this is true. Please read The Ritual of Circumcision by Karen Paige, which sheds some light on the history of masturbation control in the US, which goes far beyond "reducing masturbation in pre-pubescent females", or "removing the means for irritations or infections to stimulate the clitoris". This may have been the rationale for those who continued the procedure into the 1950s and possibly later, as society became more sex-permissive -- and eventually the rationale shifted, and now it's about "enhancing sensitivity". Yeah, right. I read a post on Circlist by one female who wanted to have the procedure done. She said she had her son circumcised, and her husband too, but she wanted it done so badly on herself and hadn't found a doctor to do it yet. She wrote she really believed it would enhance her sexuality. It all sounded very reasonable, until she started blabbing about how she would also like to have her clitoris and her labia minora removed .. Bet she would do it to her daughters, too, if offered the option .. reminds me of these people. --Eloquence 20:30 May 7, 2003 (UTC)


 * To me, trepanation actually seems sensible compared to these surgeries. These people are removing things that are there since birth, at least trepanners have a vaguely logical purpose behind things, they notice learning and energy is higher amongst the young and they think it's related to brain blood supply so they re-open their soft spots. It's jumping the gun a bit, but at least they're only trying to become youthful in some weird way, not removing an essential gland protector that developes in the fetus. Tyciol (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Regardless of previous uses of the term "female circumcision", in its modern usage the term has come to be associated with the very unpleasant practices of clitoral-removal or infibulation. It therefore merits a very strong note to the reader that this sort of operation is not the same thing as either of those practices.  The quote, which you called "inaccurate" above, is nothing more than a bit of disambiguation.  I've read it ten times now and I fail to see how it represents an inaccuracy.


 * Any properly written article will clearly distinguish this procedure from the monstrosity that the term "female circumcision" has come to represent in our society. It will also clearly indicate the medical acceptance and prevalance of these procedures in the US in recent history, rather than making blanket (and partially inaccurate) statements like "Until the 1950s, it has been practiced not to enhance, but to control female sexuality".  The article you cite doesn't give a single number for the number of female circumcisions actually performed, though it does for males.  It would also be nice to re-insert the word "masturbation" (which you removed) at least somewhere in the core of the article.


 * From the article as written, I'm given the impression that the entire medical profession colluded to not only remove the clitoral hood to control females sexually, but also followed up every such operation with a clitorodectomy and removal of the labias minor. My guess is that this is a gross exaggeration of what was probably a very rare technique practiced by an increasingly non-mainstream set of doctors.


 * Furthermore, I can tell by the last few lines of your post that you have very strong feelings on this subject, and for that reason I question your ability to maintain NPOV. I'm not pro or anti-circumcision to any particular degree, and I don't spend a great deal of time perusing sensationalist anti-circumcision web sites. Dachshund 22:39 May 7, 2003 (UTC)


 * 1) You accuse me of lack of neutrality -- yet it was you who inserted the POV term "female genital mutilation" into the article, and it was you who called other types of "female circumcision" a "monstrosity". I am merely interested in properly describing the procedure from a technical POV. Clitoridotomy is closest to male circumcision, and has always been referred to as such. Your change made it sound as if the use of the term "female circumcision" for clitoridotomy was merely historical, which is simply inaccurate, as any Google search shows. In fact, many pages refer to female circumcision specifically as " infibulation, clitoridectomy, clitoral circumcision and piercing" (clitoral circumcision being the procedure described herein). Nevertheless, I have added a passage to the article to the effect that this is a different procedure, so as to not only have this information, which I agree is significant, in the female circumcision article.


 * 2) I agree that it is unfortunate that we do not have a statistical discussion of the number of clitoridotomies practiced over time within this article. I would hope that you are correct in that those who still performed the procedure after WW II were outsiders and not part of the scientific mainstream. However, I cannot accept any statement like "though those groups and their practices were never considered a part of the medical mainstream". When masturbation phobia swept through society, males and females were considered to be at risk of "self abuse". Everything I know points to them being treated fairly equally, until a split in treatment happened, beginning in the 1930s and lasting perhaps until 1960. This was the time when Abraham Wolbarst and others started to advocate new "medical benefits" of the massive genital mutilation of boys, commonly referred to as routine neonatal circumcision. No similar medical trend happened regarding females. This was what stopped female circumcision from being practiced as widely as the author of the 1959 paper hoped it would be -- and possibly from being a routine procedure today. This is my personal view which I will not posit in the article, but if you wish to argue otherwise, back it up with hard data.


 * 3) If you read the article to state that the "entire medical profession" practiced clitoridotomy and clitoridectomy, then you're reading something which is not there. For the reasons noted above, the article does not make any statements about how often female circumcision was practiced. It does specifically note that the procedure was advocated together with clitoridectomy until 1925 -- it does not state that it was never advocated after that point, but that is probably when the tide started turning.


 * 4) Yes, I do have a point of view, on many subjects I write about for Wikipedia, and on most subjects I know something about. The human brain stores memories encoded with emotion, a function performed by the amygdala, which means that we are likely to have feelings regarding everything we know something about. Wikipedia has no rules against "thought bias", which would mean that only the ignorant could work on articles (a process as part of which they might become educated, which would mean that they would have to be replaced). Articles need to comply with NPOV, and if they do not, they need to be edited accordingly. However, I will always be open about my opinions on discussion pages. You note that you "don't spend a great deal of time perusing sensationalist anti-circumcision web sites". Neither do I. However, I sometimes peruse sensationalist pro-circumcision web sites (I haven't found any non-sensationalist ones), which is where the pro-female circumcision story came from. --Eloquence 01:06 May 8, 2003 (UTC)


 * Regarding masturbation: It is not clear whether it was the only reason for female circumcision -- certainly not only of prepubescent but of adolescent females in any case. Clitoridotomy may have an effect on female masturbation, but within "Victorian" America, sexual enjoyment in general was taboo. It took decades for the existence of the female orgasm to be widely acknowledged, vibrators were prescribed by doctors in the belief that they had nothing do with sexuality. Certainly clitoridotomy impacts female sexuality, adult and prepubescent, in one way or another, and the doctors of the time understood at least that. I have expanded a bit on this issue and hope it is now clarified. --Eloquence 01:32 May 8, 2003 (UTC)


 * It used to say "..but should not be confused with more extensive forms of female circumcision which is a more radical and extensive amputation of parts of the genitals, usually including the clitoral head.", now it just says "female circumcision", without any reference to the ambiguity of the term. This has to be fixed! Pro, con, sensationalist...totally irrelevant, the term clearly has multiple meanings and has to be defined properly in the text. 81.83.186.45 12:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Homologous?
Is it or is it not homologous to the male foreskin? The info here and on clit are saying two different things?--Sonjaaa 13:38, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * It is homologous as far as I can tell. It's clearly the genetic equivalent since the clitoris is the glans penis equivalent. I'll change it. There are many Google references and though I couldn't find a direct link to a scientific authority, cirp.org cites: Cold CJ, Taylor JR. The prepuce. Br J Urol  1999;83 Suppl 1:34-44. Rls 01:18, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)
 * Clitoral and penile prepuces are equivalent. You might find this image helpful: http://www.the-clitoris.com/1r4/netter/net1.jpg Rafa&#322; Pocztarski 04:40, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The clitoral GLANS is the equivolent of the penile glans- not the WHOLE clitoris. The clitoral glans is only the tip of the clitoral iceberg. Gringo300 08:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Muscles?
One thing I'm curious about is: Are there muscles in and/or attached to the clitoral hood? I've replaced my ISP number with my user name below. Gringo300 11:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

sadly, no. 2601:192:8800:6C4:458:12E5:C480:36A6 (talk) 03:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Nerves and blood vessels
The article needs to include info on the nerves and blood vessels of the clitoral hood. I'm still having logging in technical difficulties (see above). Gringo300 14:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Paragraph on masturbation off topic
To be more precise, any sections regarding the clitoral hood's effect on clitoral stimulation should be written without preference to the method of stimulation (masturbation). Why masturbation is mentioned specifically is beyond me. Cunnilingus and intercourse are also valid means with which to produce clitoral stimulation. Intercourse is not the best way to stimulate the clitoris. -Unsigned

Inner and outer layers?
According to what I've heard, the clitoral hood has inner and outer layers, somewhat like the male foreskin. The article needs info on this. Gringo300 09:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Poor grammar

 * Female genital cutting is now widely discouraged and in some regions of the world it is illegal, but the removal of the prepuce is still practised in some rural areas because it is thought to inhibit sexual arousal thus keeping women "more pure" according to them.

Who are "them"? The women who get their genitals mutilated? Or the males who set the rules in their society? And is it practiced only in "rural areas"? 4.243.149.218 21:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Cutaneous fold?
Is the clitoral hood what's termed a "cutaneous fold"? If so, it needs to be mentioned in the article. And an article on cutaneous folds needs to be started. Gringo300 05:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Grammar!
"One possible modification of choice that exist are to have" is totally ungrammatical. -Unsigned

Removed text from "modifications" section
In the sentence that read: "Though much less common, other women opt to have their own hood or that of their daughters surgically trimmed or removed so as to permanently expose part or all of the clitoral head." I removed "or that of their daughters." Female genital cutting (of children) was already discussed a couple sentences above.

I also removed the sentence "Such a procedure is akin to male circumcision and is sometimes known as female circumcision, a term that is often confused with the practice of female genital cutting which usually removes extensive amounts of tissue, including the entire exposed part of the clitoris body." But cutting off the clitoral hood *is* female genital cutting, and in the FGC article it says just that. It's categorized as "Type Ia" by the WHO. Also, all forms of (non-therapeutic) cutting of female genitals is illegal in the United States and most Western countries - even genital pricking. Saying that cutting a girl's clitoral hood is not FGC is a fringe POV and certainly shouldn't be asserted as fact by Wikipedia. -Helvetica (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Photograph used
Does it bother anyone else that the photograph used shows a hairless vagina? I don't think it's necessary in order to illustrate the anatomy of the clitoris. Further, it could be confusing (perhaps even coercive) to young women who are going through puberty. Wikipedia is a place to get unbiased information. It shouldn't be a place where cultural trends are presented as totally natural. 173.3.173.186 (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2013‎ (UTC)


 * Since an image of a shaved vulva can better show parts of the vulva, I don't mind the image. I understand why some people, such as yourself, would mind it for the reasons you mentioned, however. The post-pubescent vulva naturally having hair is the reason that we include images of vulvas with hair and images of vulvas without hair in the Vulva article. Wikipedia is not trying to be biased with any of these images; we are trying to educate with them and we can only use images that have been provided freely to us, per WP:Non-free; most such images come from Commons. If there is an image of a vulva with hair that demonstrates the clitoral hood as effectively as the image of a vulva without hair, I don't mind it being added. But keep in mind that wanting an image of a hairless vulva traded out for an image of a vulva with hair can be argued as biased and taking a side as well. Including images of both types of vulvas would satisfy both sides, but, with the size of this article (still relatively small), including images of both types could be considered unnecessary clutter. In the meantime, I added to the text that the vulva is shaven.


 * And remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia 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) 02:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

link ?
Should this article link to articles on Foreskin and on Male Circumcision ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 10:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It already links to the Foreskin article in the lead; of course such a mention should be in this article...considering that the clitoral hood and foreskin are homologous. I don't care if circumcision is linked in the See also section. See WP:SEE ALSO for what is appropriate to include in the See also section. Flyer22 (talk) 11:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

clitoral adhesions
this article would benefit from some discussion of clitoral adhesions. These are caused by buildup of smegma and can lead to pain and issues with sexual dysfunction. I can provide sources but frankly I'm lazy and expect anything I write to be reverted anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessicapin (talk • contribs) 01:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Proximal clitoral hood is homologous to shaft skin
Hey, the proximal clitoral hood is clitoral shaft skin and is homologous to penile shaft skin. Only the distal clitoral hood, which retracts, is homologous to the foreskin. This is pretty basic. Why/how would the skin covering the cavernosa of the clitoris derive from different anatomy than the skin covering the cavernosa of the penis? I'm guessing if I provide a source confirming this homology, Flyer22 will just delete my edit because other sources only mention homology with the foreskin. Many people conceptualize the hood as only the retractable portion. This is dangerous and leads to miscommunication of risks and damaging clitoral innervation in clitoral hood reductions.

But who cares about clitorises getting denervated thanks to physician ignorance? Flyer22 obviously doesn't. She couldn't care less about factual accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessicapin (talk • contribs) 02:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ausprägung der Klitorisvorhaut.jpg

There seems to be a significant difference between information here and elsewhere
Specifically in the section modifications, there is the following text "During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, FGM was performed on many children in Western countries, including the United States, to discourage masturbation and reduce diseases believed to relate to it", which is the only mention on this page of a specific region where FGM has occurred. In contrast, on the page Female genital mutilation the following is stated "The practice is found in some countries of Africa, Asia and the Middle East, and within their respective diasporas".

The the page Female genital mutilation seems to suggest it is historically most prevalent in "Africa, Asia and the Middle East" while this page specifically mentioned only "Western countries, including the United States". Why are these two pages so different about this? Wallby (talk) 11:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)