Talk:Human anus/Archive 3

A few thoughts on "image" [Edited over 9000 times]
I apologize for the following random, non-logged-in, candor-laden and somewhat sarcastic comment, but I find this article (and particularly this discussion page) to be extremely perplexing. If you find any of my points to be tenuous, useless or too rehashed, please let me know.

After my initial childish giggling ceased, I couldn't help but wonder what prevents the next random person with a penchant for exhibitionism from just submitting his or her own favorite anus to this page? Does Wikipedia maintain a list of Pre-Approved Beautiful Examples of Male and Female Human Anatomy that includes a section pertaining to the qualitites of a truly representative and picturesque anus? Would it be at the very least more fitting to use the anatomy of an adult film actor or actress, considering that its source is actually verifiable and that it has some arguable signifigance to the general public? (Perhaps I've gone too far.)

User Editron in a comment above approximates very well the limit of the current images' potential: "Perhaps someone thinks their own anus is strange looking and wants to see a picture of another for comparison. That may sound trivial but it's still a legitimate reason to want to see a photo." Even this, though, leads into the question of what is exactly appropriate and the statistical implications of how many people will legitimately use the page for this purpose versus how many will use it as fodder for mockery, antipathy or bad publicity for the site in general.

How can the contributors to the page *really* take it seriously, particularly with all of this unnecessary contention? I consider myself to be reasonably "mature", and I don't have a problem with the content of said images per se or their intent (which I on good faith assume is true also of the contributors), but there was only so much staring-at-someone-else's-excretory-organs-in-the-corner-of-my-eye as I scanned the page that I could take before I started begging for a professionally-rendered illustration that actually highlights relevant external anatomical features and that is actually capable of being fairly criticized and improved, which are attributes I hope the rest of you are also more interested in; internet images similar to those currently featured usually find one before he ever thinks to look for them (and usually don't even ask for a credit card!). Even adding to the current images a simple line extending from the center to the label "anus"--or perhaps the less hilarious idea of labeling the anus, perineum, vagina, etc.--would make me feel a bit better about this. Considering Editron's comment, perhaps a scientific diagram and an actual image could be left together if a solution to the problems in my first paragraph were to be found.

Unfortunately, these suggestions themselves are certainly guilty of invoking the highly subjective ethical issues that are the source of this disagreement: what constitutes worthiness of being replaced by a cold, lifeless diagram--and to what degree can it be considered censorship? Discussions such as this one should be foremost reverent to Wikipedia's (apparent) philosophy of utilitarianism and altruism; how far can we dive, headstrong, into the abyss of defining right and wrong and correct and incorrect before the light of reality fails to reach us? We seem to constantly speculate at what Wikipedia's users want or need without ever hearing the thoughts of those who dare not venture onto the Talk pages. I fear to replace these images and in turn make such a bold decision and declaration of my own opinion would be to only contribute to this sound and fury that encourages us to forget that compromise and the occasional concession are unfortunately necessary parts of life.

"So for once in my life / Let me get what I want / Lord knows, it would be the first time" (Wes) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.104.38 (talk) 06:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing ethical about it, it's just an anus. Old medical texts used diagrams only because easily reproducible colour photography did not exist. Certainly if they could print textbooks like we do today, they would go with photos of real anuses. Preapproved anuses would first of all be any anus that is in the open domain, so anyone who has a huge collection of pornographic anus photos would likely not be able to use any of them (except the ones they have taken from the wikimedia commons). What qualifies for a good anus for the lead photo? Probably the anus of a young, legal aged person who has a typical body shape (not obese, more like the peruvian man kind of thing). You would want it to be clean and you would also want the anus to be very visible, so a big bush of hair obscuring the anus wouldn't be desirable I should think. You would also want the anus to be in a "closed" state as that is how an anus typically would be found. A good clear photo, preferably high resolution, no photoshopping the shape or size of it, focus on the anus itself, you would want some ass cheek in the photo so you can see how proportional the anus is the the rest of the ass. If you want to know what makes for a good or suitable photo, it's all just common sense. Anatomy photography 101 is what you should be thinking about, rather than ethics. SmallEditsForLife (talk) 04:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

hmm.
I don't see what the big deal is about the pictures. If you're so concerned about children coming here and seeing an anus, whoopie. First of all, I HIGHLY doubt that kids are coming here to write a report on an anus. Second, if they ARE coming here at all, it's to actually SEE an anus. I don't understand why this is causing such a fuss. Sure, a very few amount of people find these pictures offensive, but there is something extremely taboo to children about seeing a butt. I think everyone in favor of deleting the pictures is overreacting. The anus is a remarkable muscle. As of 2001, there are roughly 6 billion people on the planet. Assuming each one takes a dump once a day, there are 6 billion times a day at least that the anus does it's work. Truly this is proof of its thorough design and well crafted construction. Unless of course you don't believe anything designed the anus. Anyways. Even more common than dump taking is farting, also done through the anus, that most durable and noble of organs. Elisa EX PL OS i ON talk.  13:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but your message has to be the funniest thing I've read all day. 156.34.221.158 (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Is the anus proof of Intelligent Design? Perhaps it's time for another test in the courts!Bruno23 (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I really wish we could crap by osmosis right now. 208.106.104.40 (talk) 19:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought Lihaas (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right - if 6 billion people take a dump once a day (on average) then why not put some movie showing defecation on wiki? Perhaps a few seconds from 2 Girls 1 Cup? 14:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.222.87.41 (talk)

I DID come here to do a report on the human anus and all I got was a lousey tshirt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.238.173 (talk) 02:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Hair removal note on female photo
I just changed the caption on the female photo from "Female human anus" to "A female human anus from which the hair has been removed". The previous caption, particularly juxtaposed next to the male photo, gave the impression that female anuses are somehow naturally hairless. You can tell by looking closely at the photo that she's had some hair removed. Epukinsk (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't make a habit of taking that close a look at anyone's anus, but so what if it's hairless. It's still real.  For instance, wikipedia has a picture of a man's chest that's hairless. Do we need make that point that it's not natural?  Men shave their faces, women shave their legs and none of that is anything but fashion. Bruno23 (talk) 01:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You should try looking at anuses, they're super. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.88.58.254 (talk) 15:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I looked, I cried, it was better than Cats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.238.173 (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Endless image contention
Removing obvious porn image of female booty with shaved labia and simulated sweat. This is not suitable in a medically-oriented article. Also, I want to re-iterate that there is no difference between a male anus and a female anus, all we really need here is an image of a moderately hairy anus labeled "human anus." The Crow 22:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * - Well, there is a bit of a difference that is medically important. The anus is much closer to the urethra in female humans than in male humans (and most likely in many other mammals). Because of this, there is a greater chance of urinary infections in females. I'm not sure that the photos are completely necessary, but this point could be underscored with the photos (assuming someone wants to find the source!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.94.56.173 (talk) 02:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * WRT that female image - how would the contributors here feel if I was to crop it down to the anus alone and use it to replace the current pic? Porn-sourced or not, it is a good, clear picture of the human anus, moreso than the existing image IMO. --Kurt Shaped Box 22:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That would bring it around full circle to where it's been a couple of years. We had a cropped, shaved, bleached porn-anus in this article for a while, it was determined unsuitable (and a copyvio) and replaced with the current hairy man-hole.  All we need is a neutral-looking and not-overly-hairy, suitable for an anatomy text.   The Crow 22:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have actually considered taking a photo of my own anus for the article (as far as I am aware, mine is pretty typical) just to put an end to this. Unfortunately, I don't think I'll be able to hold the camera at the right angle to get a decent shot. :( If you take a close look at the 'porn' anus in hi-res, it doesn't actually appear to have been shaved or bleached. --Kurt Shaped Box 22:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think the old female anus was unsuitable; it was removed because it was unsourced. I'm not a fan of females, but cropped, that anus looks more useful than the male one we have now. I'd support adding it if you're willing to crop it. The only real problem is that it looks like a copyright violation too. --Kinst 21:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd certainly be willing to do it - but I'll leave it until the image's status is sorted out. As a matter of interest, why was it tagged as a copyvio (there doesn't appear to be any explanation)? --Kurt Shaped Box 01:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think my anus is any less hairy than Ano.jpg and I wouldn't say that my anus is an atypical human anus. In any case, who would you be to state that my anus, or the anus on the picture is atypical. In fact most male anuses that I have come across have a similar amount of hair, although the color of the hair on the picture makes it quite prominent. If we were discussing the anus of any other species than human, hair would surely not be a concern. Furthermore if was the Italian gentleman, who was so generous and kind to contribute the picture, I would be downright offended, if the picture was replaced only because the amount of hair was considered, by other wikipedians, to be unnatural and/or objectionable. BrunOperator 13:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As for my part, I don't find the present anus photo objectional or abnormal. My issues are (1) it's so hairy that the actual anus isn't very visible, (2) It's a decidedly male-looking anus, so people are going to be tempted to put a shaved anus on there and call it "female" because this is what porn has conditioned them to think.  The anus is neither male nor female... the anatomy is exactly the same, and some females have even hairier anuses than men.  So I think if we had a slightly hairy anus, it would be both medically illustrative and gender-neutral. The Crow 14:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * While we're at it, why not put up an explicit picture of the anus expelling feces since this is its main function. That would surely be beyond valuable to the reader. And don't forget the "anal sex" page - there should be multiple pictures under anal sex: one of the anus before penetration, one with a penis penetrating the anus, and one of a gaping anus filled with semen. Of course, we should do this for both male and female anuses as to present a neutral POV. In all seriousness, get rid of this picture. No one is coming onto wikipedia to see a close-up picture of an anus. If they want to see what it looks like, they can bend over and look in a mirror. If you insist on associating that picture with this page then make it an external link with a warning. MC24
 * The article on anal sex contains images, yes. You may wish to see our article on hand, it contains images too. -- Ec5618 11:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You either failed to grasp my point or you fail to see the difference between the drawings/paintings on the anal sex page and the photography used in the image here. User:MC24
 * What is it about the human anus that you find so strange? As I said, the article on the hand contains images of that part of human anatomy, as do the articles on breasts, the penis, vulva, etcetera. Wikipedia is not censored for minors, and consensus is to use photographs in conbination with medical diagrams in articles on anatomy.
 * You made two points. Firstly, you suggest that any image of an anus (in the anus article no less) is as vulgar as showing defacation (the article on which, you'll note, contains an image of a defecating cow and feces). Secondly, you suggest that there is no need to include images on parts of human anatomy when everyone can simply look at their own anatomy. Again, consensus disagrees, as evidenced by the articles on the eye, mouth, skin, nose, etcetera. -- Ec5618 11:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I never said I found it strange. Firstly, I agree that a defecating anus is more vulgar than just an anus. I'm glad you can at least see that distinction. Do you mind if I post a picture of a gaping anus? That certainly conforms to your criteria. Secondly, it's funny you mention consensus; the consensus of every nation in the world is that there is a difference between an anus and a nose. Based upon the fact that the vast majority of every civilized society in that world makes a distinction between an anus and a nose, you would have to admit that there are a significant number of users who might use this article for research who don't necessarily want to look at a photograph of an anus. What I don't understand is why you feel that my proposal to provide a link to the photograph instead of directly posting it detracts from the article. User:MC24
 * Simply put, I object because the anus is not more vulgar than the vulva, or the penis. All of those have images. They are not included to shock people, but to illustrate the topic.
 * I also object because the only arguments in favour of removing the image are based on prudishness or decency, which are fluid and depend on one's point of view. Some might find images of cows offensive (which would make the image of the defecating cow most heinous indeed). ::::::::::::I'm sure you can see Wikipedia would be in a poor state indeed if people were allowed to remove (or hide) content they found disagreeable. -- Ec5618 13:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

please remove picture of male anus and replace with female anus Fartbarker 22:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC

This arguement is ridiculous....if you don't want to see an anus, be it male or female or hairy or not so hairy...um don't come to this page? Yeah...now if you want to see a female anus to masturbate to for whatever reason, how bout you go find a porn site? The gender of the person with the anus does not matter. An anus is an anus is anus. Deal with it. Don't want to see it, don't go to the anus page... Stetsonblade 19:39, 06 Feb. 2007

Are aliens coming to this page? Anyone from the animal kingdom who isn't human? We don't need photos of anuses, ok? We just simply do not. It's gratuitous, inappropriate, nearing pornographic and quite ridiculous. Everyone has an anus and they know what it looks like. If an image is *absolutely* necessary, i think i diagram or drawing would suffice. 71.232.108.228 07:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I really didn't think I'd weigh in on this, but why not? When I first saw this page, I figured, 'hey, there's a picture of someones anus. I guess I can see the encyclopedic value in that.' But when I saw two pictures, I really think this articles contributers lost some serious street cred. I mean, two pictures? Male and Female? It's not like we're talking about a penis and a vagina. Anuses look the same either way. There is no gender difference. Two pictures is quite simply gratuitous. Not pronographic. Not inappropriate. Just gratuitous. You really only need one picture, if any. IF ANY! When an article has useless information, it is deleted. Useless pictures ahould and DO get the same treatment. Also, look at the ankle page. Hmm... no picture. Why not? We need both a male and female picture. How will readers know what they look like? Heck, save for the gallery, the hand article lacks pictures. Ditch the picture. At least one of them, if not both. It makes the article and its contributors look foolish.

Lastly, in case it hasn't been pointed out, or for what it's worth, the pic of the female anus looks as if she had a bad Episiotomy. Am I wrong? PMHauge 04:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. Perineal raphe explains it well enough for my purposes. 174.134.176.182 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC).


 * PMHauge, I'm not as up on this stuff as many others, she certainly has a large skin tag and I while I could see this being caused by an episiotomy, I would suspect some other trauma (or perhaps improper wound care?). Either way, I'm not opposed to changing the image to display more "normal anatomy"  I'm not speaking from the perspective of "is she sexy or not."  However, I think that the female image displays the anus well enough although the perineum is not "virgin" (i.e., un-scarred).  Certainly, this perineum is "normal" by any real standards (skin tags and scar tissue are *very* common in women who have had children).


 * Daniel Santos 17:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * How would you know? CerealBabyMilk 15:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with the topic at hand? Besides... he is right. PMHauge 17:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I re added the male anus picture. It is "normal" by any standards and should be offensive to very few people. One pic is fine and necessary, but two, especially when the second is shaved and has the scar, is not. mrholybrain 's talk 18:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm tempted to agree with you about keeping one picture up, but then I try and find the value of any pictures of an anus at all. Perhaps you can explain why this ismage MUST be here. We should have some reasons to keep it up. PMHauge 19:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * this page looks a million times better without the amateur picture. Keep it off. please. there really is no reason for it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.50.73.46 (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC).


 * I don't care which picture is used, but any article (especially articles about anatomy) should have at least one photo if possible.  These same tiresome "delete that ugly picture" arguments frequently crop up at Penis and Vulva. If you think human anatomy is ugly, don't look at it. Wikipedia is not censored. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 22:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm of the opinion that Wikipedia should strive to maintain the highest quality possible. Every article should be striving for featured article status, and amateur images such as these simply degrade their quality. The arguement of "if you don't like it, don't look at" is not valid with something like an encyclopedia because every article should be reviewed, scrutinized and improved whenever possible. I'm not trying to censor anything, I'm simply trying to improve something, and right now, removing or replacing these silly images is the quickest way to get the job done. I've seen little discused on this page that actually addresses the value of these images. You wouldn't find any images like these in an anatomy textbook, so what makes Wikipedia an appropriate repository for them? PMHauge 22:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The current image dosen't look amateur at all. It is a nice, clean image that delivers the point. mrholybrain 's talk 00:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Image has been replaced. PMHauge 02:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

To be totally honest, I think both sides of this debate are arguing about nothing, in effect. Not to belittle your concerns of course, but I don't see why it's so important either way. --Deskana (fry that thing!)  04:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The importance is that Wikipedia is not a repository for useless or poor images. It is obvious that people have a problem with a close up of some users anus, so why should it stay? To prove a point? I'm lost here. PMHauge 04:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You should still have a look at /Archive 01, [/Archive 02]]. Among other things, Wikipedia is not censored. That means we don't remove anatomical images only because someone finds them icky. -- Ec5618 07:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The photo being "icky" hasn't once been my arguement. Read the discussion and you will find that the reasons it should be deleted are because it is poor quality, of no encyclopedic value, is contentious, and can/has been replaced by diagrams and sketches that seem to be adequate for medical students, but apparently not wikipedians. Once again, the only reason people seem to want to keep this picture up is so that they can continue to claim that Wikipedia is not censored. This is not a censorship issue. This is a quality issue. Does this users self-made photo of their anus really improve the quality of the article? Would the article somehow be garbage without it? PMHauge 09:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You did argue that the image is icky, as you argued that the image should be removed because some people find it distasteful.
 * Now, again, feel free to replace the image with an image of superior quality. But removing the only images we have because they are not good enough is ridiculous. You might as well argue that all stubs should be deleted, because they are not yet of excellent quality. -- Ec5618 10:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * YES! Remove all stubs. How right you are! My point exactly!! But seriously... I'm going to swallow my pride and just give up on this one. I still don't get why an image that is garbage should stay up only until it can be replaced with a better one, rather then just taking it down and have nothing but anotomical diagrams befitting of the topic until a better browneye photo comes along. I was really trying to argue quality over quantity, and despite the volume of folks who complained about the image, none of them seem to have chimed in to back me up. Enjoy your anus, people. PMHauge 14:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record PMHauge, other users do see it your way, as demonsrated by User:MC24, 71.232.108.228, and 75.50.73.46. I hope you are not disheartened by the silence (or lack thereof) of those less articulate. (Semantic debates have never been my interest and this comment is not meant to stir the pot, therefore I will ignore responses to this comment and monitor my own user page for vandalism and unsolicited responses similar to that displayed on PMHauge's user page on 12:36, April 24, 2007.) Ryan 16:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My two cents: an encyclopedia is supposed to be a repository of knowledge. We ought not try to anticipate the motivations of those seeking it. Perhaps someone thinks their own anus is strange looking and wants to see a picture of another for comparison. That may sound trivial but it's still a legitimate reason to want to see a photo. They are using the encyclopedia as a repository of knowledge. The broader the scope the more useful tool Wikipedia is. The intent in having the photo is more important that the possibility that some may find it yucky or worry that some may think lurid thoughts while looking at it. The current photo may not be a work of art but it is functional. So I vote for keeping the photo in.

Editdroid 04:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Your arguement that there is only one picture needed since there is no difference between the male and female anus, is true. But to test your true motives, why not remove the male anus and put back the female anus? Agreed, the labia shouldn't be visible. Frankly, who the hell doesn't know what an anus looks like for pete's sake, whether human or animal. And if you didn't know, and thanks to this article you now know, what on earth is that going to do for man-kind? I think a serious case of growing up needs to happen here. Remove all pictures, put a good sketch. —The preceding


 * Picture actually educational: I am female and found the female picture educational. Now I know how the skin between anus and vagina may appear after having a child. I've heard of tears from vagina to anus, and now I have a better idea about that distance, and how the skin may look after scarring. It is not offensive to me in this context.

unsigned comment was added by 41.243.137.178 (talk • contribs).
 * The idea that images should be removed just because people know what the body part looks like has been stricken down, as almost all other anatomy pages have images, including some of the more offensive ones. mrholybrain 's talk 23:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

On behalf of the users at CollegeHumor.com, I thank you all for being such filthy perverts. Scott C. 's talk 09:1, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The entire Encyclopedia that is called Wikipedia rests upon a philosophy that enables an image of the Human Anus to be shown in public in a scientific and objective manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.210.125 (talk) 11:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreeing with Scott C above. The seriousness of this whole discussion is beautiful. It reminds me of Talk:Lateral coital position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.201.38.111 (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Deleted the image
There is no need of a photograph. It is better to use a drawing/sketch. Other users: Please justifyMx000f (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, per WP:NOTCENSORED. If you continue to remove it, you will be blocked. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course there is a need for a photograph: It's better to use a photograph rather than a drawing in order to promote freedom from stupid cultural taboos, and to support our educational mission by showing exactly how a human anus looks like rather than show an inaccurate approximation which is going to be culturally-depended anyway. I remember reading somewhere that anatomy textbooks show a standard drawing of a vagina with standardized features, while in reality there are a lot of kinds, with bigger or smaller labia, etc..  So, any drawing is going to be affected by cultural factors and end up making people believe that there one single type of correct anus, while a photo shows reality as it is and a series of photos can show all its variations.  Just like vaginas, anuses come in varieties too, there is, for example, the brown butthole;) Also, Wikipedia is not censored. Cogiati (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, reading the posts here and the history is a good source for a laugh! But really, I agree about keeping the polished porn photos out.  The male anus looks pretty normal, but the female pic, while much better than the one a few years ago, has still had hair removed.  btw, I'm not 100% certain, but I think the male pic is actually one of our editors. =) Daniel Santos (talk) 06:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request: add link to Anal cleansing
This article currently does not link to anal cleansing. I suggest that the final sentence of the section Defecation be amended to read, "A rinse with water from a bidet or a wipe with toilet paper are often used for this purpose, though anal cleansing practices vary greatly between cultures." (Also note the addition of the link to bidet.) -- 203.82.91.133 (talk) 14:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * - seems reasonable - ✅ - Youreallycan (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

How stretchy is the colon during anal sex?
I read the Sandusky allegations and it seems bogus. There is no way a full sized cock would fit inside a child's anus. But maybe it can stretch? I did not see any data on the encyclopedia page regarding how stretchy the colon is during sex nor did I find data on the size of children's colons.

Could someone with knowledge in this area please add the appropriate content? It would be much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.88.143 (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Child sexual abuse of this sort happens all the time, as the anus most assuredly can be stretched. Flyer22 (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

female anus
the female image is obviously from a porn, someone zoom in on the anus to make it less obvious where the picture was culled from 70.171.0.91 (talk) 22:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeahh, don't you think an administrator should deal with this, I tried it once, it got reverted... (Slurpy121 (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC))


 * The IP is referring to a different image that used to be up, not to the current one. This is the image that was up at the time that the IP made that comment. And Tepi reverted you because of WP:NOTCENSORED. As you've likely seen already, Moscowsky tweaked the image soon after that. Flyer22 (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Goatse link
I removed the "see also" link to the Goatse.cx article. A general-interest article such as this one should not link to an article about a minute topic of Internet culture. Rhobite 05:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not "a minute topic of Internet culture". This meme has at least 11 years. 13:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.73.51.3 (talk)
 * HELLO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.201.227.165 (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

more illustrations and photos please
It is quite weird for this article to not feature any medical illustrations (cross sections etc).

And also very wimpy-pathetic that in fact the only photos in the current article are of closed ani. Yes, this is the standard default state -- yet not the only state by any means, and minimizes-hides the actual anus.

This article is about an OPENING! But it is not brave enough to show an actual picture of said opening, open.

This article is so afraid of the subject that it relies on the reader to already know what it is about, and fill in the blanks for themselves. An alien without personal experience with human bodies would have a tough time getting the basic concept/picture.

And in the end this reader and most readers will leave as unclear as they came about exactly what is the formal, geographical-topological extent of this anatomical part -- is it just an external surface plane? Does the anus formally extend into the mouth of the opening? How far? -71.174.175.150 (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out, IP 71.174.175.150. As stated at anal canal please feel free to create an account and join, Wikipedia is created by volunteers like ourselves. The reason that there are no open pictures is because the anus is a muscular sphincter, which means that it's closed in its resting state. I've added an image as requested and added a line about the relevance of the pectinate line. I'd encourage you to have a look into this, create an account, and make some edits yourself, too! Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Perfusion of the anal area.
I don't see anything about the circulatory system in the anal area. I was told by a colo-rectal surgeon that the area has relatively poor perfusion and that when the internal sphincter goes into spasm, the area become downright ischemic. This is the main reason that twice-daily Sitz baths are prescribed, to relax the sphincter so that the circulation remains as robust as possible for the healing of anal conditions (hemorrhoids, inflammation, anal fissures, radiation injury, etc). Is there a plan to add circulatory information to the article? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 03:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

"In some ethnicities"
Ethnicity is cultural (if a han chinese couple adopts and raises a "white" baby, that baby will be ethnically han). Instead, it should say "in some genetic populations." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.191.13.204 (talk) 06:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Citation neededLitch (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Is 'anal' (retentive) derogatory?
Edited "derogatory, vulgarism" to "informal" in order to both have a more NPOV and reflect my experience that the term is not particularly derogatory and is often used in a neutral descriptive sense. Litch (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, QC fans!
I didn't even know there was a "Human_anus" page until Jeph Jacques mentioned it on today's Questionable Content strip. Wow. Wait, I should say something Wikipedian, like, "Suggested merger with Anus," or "Suggested merger with Uranus (your anus)." Hahahahaha, no, I don't care. Ventifax (talk) 10:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Jeph was right about this being hilarious. Legomationer (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen this much nitpicking and arguing about a bunch of assholes since the last political convention.

The two pictures & gender confusion about perineal raphe
According to the current text below the top picture of the two anuses, the female one displays "perineal raphe", and there's a link to an article on that subject. However, that article describes "perineal raphe" as being exclusively male. So either the reference is wrong, or the article linked is in error. We should figure out which, so we can make the appropriate edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.249.185.2 (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human anus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100329122100/http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/2246.html to http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/2246.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Gender differences
I think it's rather peculiar that when showing anuses we show both female and male anuses, where they are waxed and unwaxed respectively. This isn't really showing the subject from a medical standpoint whereas women and men can be just as dasypygal, as well as this could make someone (who might not know better) think that women don't have hair on their bums (which they of course do). It also gives the impression that a man's anus is not as clean/pretty/smooth (what have you) as the female counterpart. --BiT 00:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel free to photograph a waxed male anus and unwaxed female anus and contribute the images. I'm not convinced that more pictures of anuses are needed.  We already have a waxed anus and an unwaxed anus, and I think that provides a complete idea of what anuses look like.  --Afed 02:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I just though I'd point it out, because as far as I know the "look" doesn't vary between sexes. --BiT 17:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not the point, someone complained that there was a female anus picture in this article and assumed this was because it was deemed more pleasant to look at; it was then replaced by the most hairy male anus on this hemisphere. Apparently there are now (redundantly) two anus images, presumably for the sake of 'neutrality'. The existence of two anus pictures in this article is not encyclopedic, rather, it is diplomatic. The downsides of this encyclopedia concept, I guess we'll have to live with it. --Joffeloff 02:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What is the point of Wikipedia? Is it to be the best free encyclopedia on the web, or is it a place for information to be displayed for the sake of diplomacy? This article is a joke as it stands. We all know that the two images are redundant, unecesary and un-encyclopedic. So why are they still there? If someone can make a valid argument for why either pictures NEEDS to be in the article, post it here... otherwise I'll "be bold" and delete them tomorrow and will continue to do so unless I am either forced to stop, or given a valid reason for why they should stay. PMHauge 02:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See /Archive 01, /Archive 02 and Talk:Anus. Apart from aesthetic and moral concerns, there are no reasons to remove the image. If you would like to find a more pleasant image, feel free. -- Ec5618 22:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, hey, I didn't even notice that you're arguing that since two images is redundant, removing both images is called for. Quite odd. -- Ec5618 22:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * How about just adding captions like "An unwaxed, hairy anus" and "A waxed hairless anus" and forget about the female/male distinction75.72.215.207 20:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Several women have told me that there is so much more room inside the male rectum than the female one. Additionally there are videos of evidence on the internet that males can fit true-sized equine strap-on dildos fully inside of them. Is it that the male orifice is actually designed to be up to 6 times larger by volume or is it due to other reasons? Is the female rectum designed differently to accomodate for reproductive organs and childbirth? Why would the difference be so enormous? 37.201.227.165 (talk) 17:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * However, the two photos illustrates two typical differnce between male and female that most literature disputes: The female "puckers" tend to (A) converge circularly (B) to a point or "X", while males' tend to (A) converge horizontally to (B) a vertical line. Perhaps >80-90% of the time. This is easily tested/verified with an image search: "Anus closeup nude." The literature claims they are identical. Cheers!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:69C3:69D9:302E:A7E9 (talk) 09:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Vague writing
We all know what they are. But this is vague to the point of being meaningless: "The human anus (from Latin anus meaning "ring", "circle")[1][2] is the external opening of the rectum. Two sphincters control the exit of feces from the body during an act of defecation, which is the primary function of the anus. These are the internal anal sphincter and the external anal sphincter, which are circular muscles that normally maintain constriction of the orifice and which relaxes as required by normal physiological functioning. The inner sphincter is involuntary and the outer is voluntary."

While an opening can have size, it has no mass. Perhaps "exit," "valve" or some such? "Internal" as in layers of an onion, or like tongue to tonsils? And that crappy, vague, inappropriate hemorrhoid wall poster is of no help. But it's pretty. That paragraph appears to be yet another example of an expert (or student) who thinks a list of truisms is an explanation (or that communication is effortless). It makes so much sense when one already knows the topic.

Seemingly it's function is to control the size of the opening. There is room in the lead to describe the functioning of the two sphincters in relation to overall functioning of the organ. Manual of Style (lead section) Is it an organ? We already know what one is and what it does. And the lead adds very little to that.

Finally, since the anus is part of the rectum, the lead is a good place to connect them, make them part of an interacting system(s). (I find the utter separation of the two as utterly artificial.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:1DD4:F5FC:1EF5:91BB (talk) 03:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored
We don't need a link image here for the same reason that we don't need link images at Penis, Vulva, or Spleen or any other anatomical part for that matter. OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * They are NOT medical photos, they are photos someone took for a joke, I understand Uncensored but there must be some restraint used when photos add NOTHING to the article and are simply there for shock factor. If they don't add anything to the article (like these ones, the diagrams are must more important and informative) then they should be linkimaged or removed. - Mike Beckham 02:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree; the current photos are pretty straightforward. I see nothing titillating (or shocking) about them. If there are better (or less controversial) photos illustrating the subject, feel free to replace the current ones. Until then, there is no reason to censor these photos. OhNo itsJamie Talk 05:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Eh, the images serve the purpose of the article just fine, despite their history. Besides, medical photos wouldn't look that different. Just let it go already. Shadowrun 00:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Children do use Wikipedia for school projects and such, and if porn sites have to protect kids from those images, I think wikipedia should to. If its not a chart, then it shouldnt be used. Thats common courtesy and will help protect people from the offensive images such as the ones i had to delete.Nimrauko 00:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * But it isn't porn....it's just a pic of an orifice. Some people really are just dense about their own bodies. Shadowrun 00:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What's there to protect children from? They even have ani of their own, are they forbidden to look at those now too? — Mütze (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Look I couldn't care less about kids. That's the parent's problem. We can't shut down the internet b/c kids have access to it. Someone put the pictures back up. It's a scientific article, adn if you can't deal with it, you are more than welcome to go under preferences and prevent images from being loaded. Paskari (talk) 16:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?" - Check this out and then find something else to complain about. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSORED. Not for children, not for the faint of heart who get the vapors at the sight of an anus or an anvil or a penis or a penguin. The argument has already been decided, and not in your favor. The fact that Wikipedia is NOT CENSORED trumps all. What's so damn difficult about that? Having said that, what the hell kind of $@#!&$%-up school assigns children a report on the anus? Some people.  PacificBoy  04:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

To children protector: it they won't find it on wiki, they will find it somewhere else. So I'd prefer that my daughter learns from wikipedia than from porn site.14:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.222.87.41 (talk)

The problem with this, is that this is in fact pornography, if the purpose the photograph was taken was for the prurient interest. We also note that Wikipedia isn't a medical anatomy textbook or a scientific journal, so the argument that this mess has serious scientific value is meritless on its face, and the content is obscene (and thus unlawful) in my opinion. The mere fact that you're using it for a certain contextual purpose doesn't make it not pornography. For those reasons, these photos need to be removed, because this questionably could be considered illegal obscenity. 98.178.179.240 (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

female human anus
shouldn't the other picture thus be indicated as a "male human anus"? it's no big deal, but it's something i would like to change had the page not been locked. 67.172.48.126 18:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Editorial comment
Someone who has access to editing the page should consider the following. Freud's theory is not the source of the term "anal." That sentence under the "sexuality" section is meaningless. Freud discussed "anal eroticism" and this should be replaced with "anal" in the text of the article. In addition, "anal-retentive" is not only a vulgar or pejorative term. It used to be a way of describing the "anal-retentive" personality style, which is actually a well validated personality type. Despite that many psychology professors derogate Freudean theory, the research on the anal-retentive personality is actually out there (see, for example, Meehl's papers on taxonicity). The point I am trying to make, though, is that someone should edit that sentence in the "sexuality" section as well, to indicate that "anal-retentive" is a psychoanalytic term that describes the "anal character," and that the term secondarily entered the popular culture as a derogatory descriptor for people with obsessional personalities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.151.171 (talk) 02:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)