Talk:Human anus

Leave the images of the anuses
As said, don't remove them, they do serve a proper purpose and aren't harming anything. Besides, this typical giggly jitter some have of seeing a butthole is a little old. Shadowrun 00:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said earlier, children and minors do use this site. Using real life pictures does not serve a real benefit. A chart is at the header and if fine. You dont see penis pics at the penis article. I dont want my kid coming to look at this page for a school project or something, and seeing such images. Use some tact people. Nimrauko 00:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What kind of school project is your kid doing if it involves the Wikipedia page for the human anus? Do I want to know? Is it possible that you are just offended because it gets you attention? 205.118.123.65 (talk) 02:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

What?? There are no penis pictures in the penis article??? We must fix that immediately!!!


 * And as I'll state again, adults also use this site. I'm willing to bet your kid has more common sense than yourself in realizing what he's looking at. Leave the images. You revert, I'll put them back. Besides, the real life benefit is an outside view of a bodily orifice. If you're worried about corrupting your kid, don't worry, he/she will find out eventually. Shadowrun 00:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I was merely asking. No reason for you to be rude. As I have noticed I havent removed what you put up -_-Nimrauko 00:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * point taken and I'm sorry. Shadowrun 00:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I personally think Wikipedia is not Censored is fine, but in this article the images add nothing, absoloutely nothing. The disagramas are far more informative and the images are most likely took by people wanting to get their jollies off by uploading their asses to Wikipedia - Mike Beckham 01:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * User is making a joke about Ann Coulter, and probably shouldn't be taken seriously. Cool Hand Luke 04:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

They are two perfectly normal images of human anatomy. A look through the archives of the page will give an insight into the vast debates that lead to these being settled on as a compromised. Their inclusion has been uncontroversial for some time and I see no basis for their removal. Wikipedia is not censored and the images are of good quality. WjBscribe 22:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The photographs should stay, and consensus is clearly against User:Nimrauko; if he insists on having his way, he should be blocked from editing the page. There is nothing wrong with the human body, whether children see it or not.  And Wikipedia is not censored for minors.  --David Shankbone 04:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that there is no consensus but your reasoning is flawed. No one is arguing that, what I am arguing at least is that the images do not add anything to the article. The diagrams are informative. The images are not informative in the slightest. - Mike Beckham 04:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion, and people disagree with you more than they agree. Photographic representation that shows the surface area of the anus is very pertinent and appropriate.  They add a lot.  --David Shankbone 05:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the pictures don't really add anything to the article, but they don't really take away either. People have their hearts set on having photographs, so just let them. The debating about it has gone on long enough. CerealBabyMilk 05:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

DavidShankBone, the concensus isnt against me. Its two people that want the pics of real anus's up. There are more than two people who agree that they detract from the article. I have removed them. They will stay off until we can come to an agreement. Fair enough? (And btw, block me from editing? Really, I am not doing any harm. But as I said I removed the pics and they should remain off until we can as a collective come to some sort of decision. Its not a dictatorship -_-) Nimrauko 19:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not censored, period. We don't need to seek further consensus to establish that. Yes, you will indeed be blocked if you continue removing the images. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 19:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you devolpmentaly challenged? I have already said I know its not censored but the picture (Especially the one with part of a vagina and anus) are not needed when there are charts in the verry begining of the article that do a perfectly fine job. It detracts from the article is what I am saying. Censorship? not so much. I am tired of this kind of treatment. remove the second pic or crop it. No reason for you to be a douche about it.!Nimrauko 19:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * One more personal attack and you will be blocked. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

So you are allowed to abuse your power and I cant say anything about it? Whatever. Its things like this that make wikipedia so laughable. I am not attacking anyone. My previous comment was a bit much but I stand by it. Again I am asking for the second picture to be cropped. Is that an attack? Come on.Nimrauko 19:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Stop this crap, you can not just use Wikipedia is not Censored for every single thing. Trying to dismiss concerns of editors by just saying that over and over is irritating, inappropriate and missing the message. It's not that I am for censorship, the fact is that the images do not add anything to the article. The diagram does a fine job explaining things. Having photos of some persons ass is hardly going to inform about the topic. - Mike Beckham 01:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How are the photos here any different from the photos at Penis, Vulva, or Spleen for that matter? They are photographic illustrations of the subject. You still haven't cited a reason why this particular human anatomy article should not have photos. OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the real issue here is that there are wikipedia users who are taking pictures of their own assholes just to have in this article. That's disgusting. Jtrainor 19:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL--Oh, is that the "real issue" - well, then you'll be relieved to know there is no issue - the anus photograph I took is not my own. Nice User page, by the way, Jtrainor - if you hate Wikipedia so much, why do you edit on it?--David Shankbone 20:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:CIVIL. Jtrainor 00:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Completely civil response, and reasonable. Have you considered your page is not civil?  "Wikipedia's community is a joke." "Wikipedia is useless crap"  The tone of your User page is pretty uncivil, and begs the question I asked.  --David Shankbone 03:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My user page is irrelevant to this talk page. Jtrainor 03:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Remove the disgusting and 'harmful' picture!! This is not a page about porn!! Think about other people, including the children!! XU-engineer 19:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Pornography: Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal. Unless you are aroused or the pictures are meant to arouse they are not porn. Are you going to blame a porn site if a kid types 'porn'? If your kid wants to look up 'anus' then he should expect graphic material. Wikipedia is not censored (meaning we do have naked pictures of genitals and organs). Please look up 'nudity'. Everyone wants all the naked pictures removed because of the children. But if wikipedis is not censored and your kid looks up anus she/he should expect a picture--207.68.235.128 (talk) 04:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC).

(talk) The problem with this notion is that in the United States, it is the subjective intent of the photographer, not the use-case that is the determinate of whether or not a given photo is pornography. If a photo was taken for the purpose of appealing to the prurient interests, it is pornography, regardless of how it might be used. There is also the technical legal issue of whether or not a model release is required to be on file for these kinds of photos. 98.178.179.240 (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

New Anus
I replaced the old low-res, low-quality male anus with one I shot of a professional model, the same model who now illustrates many of the body part articles. I think we should differentiate the two anuses by gender, and the female anus clearly needs some rotating. --David Shankbone 21:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I know that might sound odd, but some males are not aware of whether the female vagina is vertical or horizontal. The human female anus image in the article should be rotated CCW 90 degrees to that the male and female images are aligned the same way and so as not to propagate this confusion. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 22:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I know this might sound odd too, but some males are also unaware that females ACTUALLY naturally have pubic hair. I personally feel that it'd be a good idea to have a...you know, natural anus as an example of a "female" anus, or at least add a note stating that the anus/vagina shown has been shaven/waxed. 124.177.42.150 05:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have gone to the Penis site, and I have found pictures of a real penis there..TheLightElf (talk) 19:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You probably go to the Penis site all the time.

"As I said earlier, children and minors do use this site." And, last I was aware, children and minors have anuses just like the rest of us. Perhaps they want to see what one looks like since it is not particularly easy to examine one's own? I'd think you'd prefer them to have a picture to study rather than asking their friends if they can take a peek. Children are curious about the body and there is nothing obscene about a simple photograph of a body part. Splease don't be so Puritanical about it. Kmpintj (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Banning children from seeing pictures of anus and penis is completely meaningless, and there is no justification for this censorship. If a child searches for "penis" or "anus", he certainly doesn't want to see the opposite. Just puritanism, complete disrespect for children's freedom. Sot2018 (talk) 11:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, so we could try to contact whoever submitted the pics for the female genitalia, and request to post a cropped version of the image here? Meantime, having them at the top of the page is kind of a "shock factor". Heh. Personally, I'd put the Grey's Anatomy diagrams above, and have the pictures at the bottom(essentially, switch the picture and diagram positions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.182.197.207 (talk) 02:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No one cares about "what you feel" we are trying to make an inormative article. Keep the images.--207.68.235.128 (talk) 04:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with feel, but this is probably Obscene under Miller Doctrine. If you don't know what a butthole looks like, then you would have to be seriously sheltered. The intent of including these photos is to shock the senses and appeal to the prurient interest, in my opinion, which makes it obscene under the proper standards. 98.178.179.240 (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2021
Remove pornographic image of anal sex (e.g. "File:Penile-anal intercourse sex.jpg|thumb|Man performing anal sex on a woman"). This does not belong on a page about human anatomy that most would reference for non-prurient reasons. 24.61.45.247 (talk) 18:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

But it does belong on the talk page? Tildey McTildeface (talk) 18:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:6581:BC01:8FAB:64EE:7EF1:138C (talk)


 * Have removed it from the talk page XxLuckyCxX (talk) 00:27, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2022
Hello, may I please add an image to this article? CEO of Sex 2 (talk) 07:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: seriously? (@CEO of Sex 2) ああ、またか.  晚安.  08:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 01 Oct 2023
Under the "Microanatomy" section at the very end the apocrine glands are mentioned. I don't have enough permissions to edit this page but that phrase could be linked to the wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrine_sweat_gland — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gekitsuu (talk • contribs) 21:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

In the Hygiene section it's mentioned that there are cultural differences. This section should point to the main article/page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_hygiene which covers this topic in depth, including some of the cultural differences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gekitsuu (talk • contribs) 21:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ HouseBlastertalk 22:09, 2 October 2023 (UTC)