Talk:Pudendal cleft

Protrusion?
In the uplinked image, the cleft-of-venus is clearly visible from an anterior (frontal) view, while the model is standing. In most images of undressed women, no part of the vulva is visible in an anterior view, [even if the model's bikini-area is perfectly shorn]; and it is only visible when she is sitting, or lying down, with her legs spread.

My question for the creator of this article is, "Is the 'cleft of venus', a phenomenon that is in any way correlated to the age of the model, (pre- or post-pubescent), and/or to the integrity of her hymen?

In virtually all images of undressed children, the genitals clearly protrude and are visible in an anterior view. In images of undressed women, however, the opposite seems almost universally the case. Since the model in the uplinked image is clearly a post-pubescent woman, this cannot be the sole explanation.

Please respond at your earliest convenience, since it could result in significantly more content for this article.Pine 04:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * IANADoctor but I think it has to do with the percent body fat of the individual not age. The larger thighs would tend to block the view. Let me check my skinny wife... --vossman 14:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you are confused, Pine and Vossman. If the pubis is shaved, the cleft of venus is always visible in an adult woman just as it is in a child. You are only partially right that the vulva itself is not visible from the front. This purely depends on how fleshy the clitoris and labia minora are. If they are very fleshy, they will protrude slightly from the cleft of venus and be visible and a small piece of flesh.Bobble2 15:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)Bobble2


 * Yes, I have often seen where the clitoral hood and the labia minora protrude from between the labia majora and can be seen from a frontal, standing viewpoint. I've also seen females where the clitoral hood and labia minora are NOT visible from a frontal, standing viewpoint. I've often heard and read that anatomy varies somewhat from person to person, and apparently this is true. Gringo300 05:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * And now illustrated Fishies Plaice 02:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Why has Pine seen so many pictures of naked children, in sufficient detail to make a close comparison between a child's genitals and an adult's? Is Pine a paediatrician or a specialist in genito-urinary medicine? It would be reassuring to know that his or her activities are lawful and what would generally be accepted as moral.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 09:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. 98.225.230.65 (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Worth noting, my obese girlfriend has a prominent cleft of venus. She's 40. So really neither age nor body fat per se determine the mons landscape. 98.225.230.65 (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Pudendal cleft
The term "pudendal cleft" is referred to in this link: . i see no reason in the world why there should be two different WP articles for the exact same subject, so I am completing the merge by having Pudendal cleft redirect to this article. 71.161.201.133 03:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Protruding labia minora image
I think is useful. Because it illustrates the part of the article that says "In some women the clitoral hood and labia minora protrude through the Cleft of Venus, in others they do not", and also because it illustrates part of the conversation above. Sometime the Cleft of Venus has protruding labia minora, sometimes it doesn't. Having two photos showing the natural variation is, IMO, useful for an article about the Cleft of Venus. Which is why I added Image:Vulva15Cropped.jpg. Could we discuss it here before just going into an rv cycle Fishies Plaice 16:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there any percentage to how many have protruding labia minoras and how many do not? Or How does it work?

"cameltoe"
is the second paragraph really needed?

"When tight clothes are worn, the fabric of the tight garment may be pulled into the cleft (often because of a central seam, as in jeans), resulting in a situation best known as the cameltoe, "beetle bonnet" or "moose knuckle" "moose hoof" in slang terms." 66.92.0.36 22:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * what? you mean the cameltoe discussion wasn't informative or medically pertinent to you?  i happen to appreciate the depth that the cameltoe description brings to the article.  i'd say it's just as relevant as the spread-eagle and pierced vulvas included in the gallery... 24.11.187.34 (talk) 03:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

While i understand including cameltoe and mooseknuckle as synonyms i think perhaps "axe-wound" and "puddle of joy" better describe the old cleft of venus. Also, while the photos were certainly stimulating, they fell short of the mark. A few penetration shots would certainly be welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.200.24 (talk) 02:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Latin term?
Is there a Latin term for the Cleft Of Venus? Is so, it needs to be added to the article. Gringo300 06:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Offensive?
Perhaps a drawing could be used as a picture instead of the photo. I was looking at random articles and I was a little taken back when the page came up. I could be wrong just thought I'd express my opinion.
 * I can understand why you might be surprised, but honestly I think the photo illustrates what it is better than a drawing or picture could. It's not like it is pornographic. It's just a picture of someone standing there...


 * I agree with the thread parent. Yes, it is just a picture of a crotch. Yes, not all crotches are pornographic. But, when it's more likely than not that the picture was taken by an exhibitionist getting kicks from having her genitals on a highly trafficed site, we should be wary. Also, doesn't wikipedia have a SFW policy?Agnamus (talk) 04:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, Wikipedia does NOT have a SFW policy. Wikipedia is not censored. See WP:NOTCENSORED. Furthermore, you shouldn't assume that she's just an exhibitionist, you have no way of knowing her motives. Asarelah (talk) 06:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTCENSORED only tells us "some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content." This does not mean that (1) real photos are best for the purposes of the article, or (2) that in the event of a tie we should go with the real picture.


 * I think that we should go with a diagram. In addition to my aforementioned concern about exhibitionism, we can make an argument about openness. There are reasons why most anatomy books use diagrams and drawings rather than photographs. Using real photographs may be offensive to some readers. If a reader takes offense, they are excluded from learning. The opposite is not true--there is no way that drawings could be more offensive (and therefore exclusionary) than real pictures. Unless someone can conjure up an argument that real photos facilitate learning in a greater degree than comparable diagrams would, why should we exclude?
 * yes it dose, When I first click on the window i seen a virgina I automatically click the back bottom. and yes i think it's wired and uncomfortable for me to read articales and a virgina is in my face. then i feel the pivts can easily save or copy thse photo.;
 * In re the image's creator: I have no way of knowing her motives. However, there is strong evidence for inferring that she's an exhibitionist. The WP:GOODFAITH commandment doesn't preclude the possiblity of bad faith on behalf of editors. Given the totality of the circumstances, we should at least question her motivations. This isn't a court of criminal law, and we don't have to hold her motives to a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. The burden of proof can go on either party and the standards of proof can vary as justice demands. I personally think that given the immense opportunity for exhibitionism inherent in the current system, users who submit self-created photos should have the burden of proof placed on them. But, this is the wrong forum for debating wikipedia policies in general.


 * Also, please don't talk down to me by telling me what I should and shouldn't assume. Let's keep it civil. Agnamus (talk) 01:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I usually don't get involved in this type stuff but I had a few criticisms that needed to be mentioned about your opinion that the pictures should be replaced with a diagram. What follows is my opinion.  Firstly, it is wrong to assume the people photographed are exhibitionists (what is an "exhibitionist" anyway?  A lot of people have snapped pictures of themselves that you might find offensive), but even if they were so what?  Explain how it is inherently wrong to take an image of your body?  Even if it was somehow wrong (which is not possible to defininately show through logic) Wikipedia is not concerned with what is right and wrong.  Secondly, in response to your comment: "There are reasons why most anatomy books use diagrams and drawings rather than photographs(Agnamus)."  I would like to say that these books are the property of an author/publisher and they make the decisions about what content goes into their book (if you owned Wikipedia, you cold presumably do the same thing, although it would fly in the face of the larger Wikipedia goal).  Textbooks must be marketed to a wide variety of buyers some of whom would not buy that book for their district if it had more authentic images in it.  So the reasons are economic, mostly.  In addition people who go to this page presumeably have a demonstrated interest in the topic and have specificially sought this article out.  Third, the statement "Using real photographs may be offensive to some readers. If a reader takes offense, they are excluded from learning." does not logically follow.  To say just because you are offended you are prevented from learning is not necessarily true. Sure it is a distraction, but, in this case at least, set aside your prejudices and you will learn about the subject matter better than you woulc have with a drawing, which is an interpretation of the subject and inherently less detailed.  Of course in this instance either a drawing or a picture could work.  Not much would necessarily be lost in a drawing, and this brings me to my third point-why not just put both a picture and a drawing?  In this way both images would be available for a reader to choose.  If you have an image you like, I say post it.  But I wouldn't mess with the other pictures there, they elucidate the subject better than any one picture or any number of drawings could.  Dmcheatw (talk) 14:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I apologize if I sounded like I was talking down to you. However, I think that a photo of something is far more informative than a diagram. If you wanted to learn about the World Trade Center, what would be more informative, a photograph, or a drawing? In regards to your inference that the model is an exhibitionist, well, like you said, this isn't a court of a law. And since this isn't a court of law, she doesn't have to prove or defend anything to you, or anybody. Furthermore, while I am admittedly not a doctor or medical professional, I have seen medical textbooks with photographs of people's genitals as well as diagrams. I think that it should be kept, and there is a well-established precedent for nudity in articles (see the talk pages and talk page archives of Penis, breast, and vulva) that has already been set. Asarelah (talk) 02:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * A drawing may be more useful. As was mentioned in the publicity for the new exhibition of botanical drawings at the Royal Botanical Garden at Kew, botanists find drawings more useful than photographs because they more faithfully represent the essential features of the flower or plant they are studying. Anybody who has studied just a little artistic theory of the Renaissance and beyond will know that an artwork has the capacity to attain higher standards of perfection than nature itself. It might be more useful to have what we might call an "idealised" vulva (anatomically ideal that is, not aesthetically). There are presumably about 2 billion adult females on this planet. It seems a little misguided to use a photograph of one woman's genitals to illustrate an article about female genitals in general. In the case of the World Trade Center it is the World Trade Center, not a world trade centre, so the analogy is false. Of course in an article about HM The Queen you would want a photograph of her and not just a drawing, but in an article about an ant an idealised drawing, showing all the essential features of the ant, would be be useful. You could, of course, have both.
 * On a related point, I wonder about the wisdom of having a photo of a woman who has no pubic hair. The natural state of the adult female human is to have the area around her genitals covered in hair and I believe the large majority of women do have pubic hair. Arguably the feature with which this article is concerned is more clearly visible without pubic hair. However, I think the hair could be brushed aside to make it more visible or the woman in the photograph could naturally have rather little pubic hair. Also, it makes more sense, to me, to display the woman's genitals as they actually are in life, and not as a minority of women choose to make them appear. Further to which, I am sure somebody better versed in feminism could make the argument that it is not a good thing to be reinforcing the notion already so popularised in pornography than pubic hair is, perversely, almost unnatural. Of course, if a drawing were to be used the case for leaving out pubic hair would perhaps be stronger as there would be no claim to representing a real woman. Alternatively, it could include a small amount of stylised pubic hair, thus illustrating that in its anatomically ideal form the vulva does have pubic hair, while not allowing it to obscure the rest of the drawing.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 09:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you've got a better image where it is visible and there is hair, then go ahead and put it up. If you've got a drawing, go ahead and put that up too. Asarelah (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a long thread, so I'm not sure if this has been said already. It makes sense to have a photo in the infobox for anatomical demonstration, but the gallery at the end of the article seems a little excessive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.45.90 (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I partially agree with the comment above. I think the "pubic hair" and "piercings" images are a little unnecessary but I the others are helpful.  Simply by looking at the image in the infobox and the image of the girl with legs spread I was able to determine what the Cleft of Venus is without even reading the article.  I'm not sure you could get that kind of clarity by using drawings.  And just an observation... it seems the less hideous medical pictures are... the more people find them offensive.  Weird. 69.14.29.207 (talk) 03:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say that basically all of the pictures other than the main image are superfluous and I can't believe it's resulted in this much discussion. The gallery pictures come across as smut.  I'd be extremely surprised to find images like this in a paper encyclopedia, and that seems like the best 'rule' to apply.  Also, I can't see how a picture of a woman on a beach is 'medical'. The open-legs photo is just pornography - it does nothing to illustrate the cleft of venus that the main picture doesn't already show. As for pubic hair, the article is about the cleft of venus, not the entire female genitalia.  The photo is illustrative.  Is it really necessary to point out that women have pubic hair? --81.156.177.239 (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone explained: a) what the motivations of the subject of the picture has to do with anything, b) how a crotch is neccesarily pornographic, c) how the pornographic quality of an image impacts its suitability in an article?  I don't get it.  People just declare random things like "that's pornographic" and then claim that leads to the conclusion that the image should be removed, but they never connect the two.  Last i checked, wikipedia wasn't censored.  If an image is goingn to be removed, it should be because the article is better without its.  Rather than just making a conclusory claim of unclear relevance to the desirability of the image (i.e. that's pornography!) it would seem necessary to claim the article would be improved by removing the image and then demonstrating such if controversial.  --Δζ (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it a hilarious commentary on our society that people are getting offended over a picture of a mons... in an article about mons features! It's not required that you come here, obviously you are all researching the topic or interested in it, so you can't really claim you were "taken aback" by it.  It's just an organ, 50% of the population have this organ, it's not a big deal. 98.225.230.65 (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I just came here to say that I find our current picture surprisingly tasteful. Vranak (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

POV template
Please see the discussion at Talk:Human height. 68.163.233.173 21:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And this is relevant to this article how?  •  Maurog   •  22:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It was important to point out that the unsourced slang terms you have now twice insisted on inserting are being inserted by one who has taken personal offense with me. You really have an uncooperative attitude, don't you see that?  Are you depressed or something?  Seriously, please back off: you slapped a vandalism warning on me, amidst what was OBVIOUSLY a content dispute.  The person from 3O didn't say "well, the anon is obviously a vandal, let's ignore them", no, they said "hmm, you both have made a good point here, and here's my opinion."  That is not how the 3O would respond to a vandal.  So your repeated reference to me as a vandal shows you have some sort of personal umbrage against me.  Why this is, I don't know.
 * Does anyone think it's appropriate to list other terms usually reserved for the vagina or vulva, in this article? Maurog has twice reinstated them: 1, 2.  I don't think they should be included as none are sourced to refer specifically to the cleft of venus.  68.163.233.173 10:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Did I revert them after you finally provided some reasoning beyond "don't know" and "don't like" for what seemed like blatant deletionism? I didn't, complying to the link provided. This article is not POV disputed, and adding a POV tag does not make it so.  •  Maurog   •  11:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

"Cleft of venus" or "Cleft of Venus"?
The current capitalization of the article looks weird to me - I think that "Cleft of Venus" is a better capitalization. Other similarly named organs (following the pattern "something of someone" or "someone's something) have a capitalized eponymous part, e.g. "Darwin's tubercle' (not "darwin's"), "Skene's gland" (not "skene's"), etc. This way, the article name might be interpreted as named after an object called "venus", rather than a person (in this case, a Roman goddess) named "Venus". --NetRolller 3D  23:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, that's why I've just linked Cunt to Cleft of Venus, which then redirects here to Cleft of venus which I consider a typo. Swapping them round would make sense, are there any other views?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  10:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Making the hairy version into the article's primary picture
I was wondering whether if would be suitable to make this picture the primary picture of the article. It's not completely natural, but it's closer that the one currently being used, although that one does show the cleft of Venus in more detail. My thought is that it might be smart to display the picture which looks more like what you'd find in nature as the primary picture and then letting the current one follow later in the article since shaving isn't really the 'natural state', I hope I'm not being too pedantic here. --BiT (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. This article is not about the vulva, it is about the cleft itself, and its counter intuitive to show it partially obscured by hair in the lead image. Asarelah (talk) 06:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think any of the pictures are particularly great. Consider the fact that of four images they contain respectively the words "obscured," "obscured" again, "visibility affected," and "not visible." What kind of example pictures are those if it doesn't even depict accurately what you're trying to explain? I suggest removing all of those examples and either finding another single picture or diagram that demonstrates the concept of the article. 98.145.193.123 (talk) 02:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Gray's Anatomy
Can somebody please explain why Gray's Anatomy is referred to in this article? What relevance does it have? It seems to me like some idiot decided it was "cool" or "funny" that it is mentioned in Gray's Anatomy and just HAD to put the link there.

Is anyone going to complain if I remove it? Because it's stupid... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.162.169 (talk) 04:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Gray's anatomy is an actual medical reference book, not just a TV show...c'mon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.68.202 (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh man, that was just perfect! Some people.... ;-)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.252.16.10 (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL! I hope they were kidding...98.225.230.65 (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Etymology
Does anyone know the etymology of this phrase? I think it would be something relevant to add to the article, and I am curious. I think it is in some way related to ancient goddess Venus, but I wonder if there is a story. Paulish (talk) 05:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Cleft of venus → — "Venus", as a proper noun, is capitalized. — the Man in Question (in question)  07:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Exactly right, in fact I came here to check if it was still incorrectly capitalzed. oknazevad (talk) 05:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The inclusion of common, but vulgar, synonyms to pudendal cleft and the linkage to the same.
First of all, I was not around during the discussion to change the name to the current with a capital "V". Big deal. (Or as Garfield would say "Big, fat, hairy deal" but that is another discussion for this article, entirely.) The common technical name is pudendal cleft and that should be the primary name of the article and "Cleft of Venus" or "Cleft of venus" should redirect to that, not the other way around.

For the purposes of common English usage, the vulgar slang terms should be included and wikilinked to those words so that new English speakers can conveniently explore the context, usage, and possibly the etymology of the particular vulgar slang word. User:Oknazevad claims, with no justification whatsoever, that such linkage is pointless. He or she points to WP:OVERLINK as support, but indeed, that legitimate WP policy does not support the position at all. To wit:


 * Provide links that aid navigation and understanding, but avoid adding obvious or redundant links. An article is said to be underlinked if words are not linked that aid understanding of the article. However, overlinking should be avoided, as it can make it more difficult for the reader to identify and follow those links which are likely to be of value.
 * *Do not link to a page that redirects back to the page the link is on.

The links do not do that except Cunt makes one backward reference in addition to references to many other pages.
 * *Do not be afraid to create links to potential articles that do not yet exist (see Red links below).

N/A
 * *Think before removing a link—it may be useful to other readers.

User:Oknazevad, did you actually read this??
 * *If you feel that a certain link does not belong in the body of the text, consider moving it to a "See also" section at the bottom of the article. (Remember that links can also be useful when applying the "What links here" feature from the target page.)

User:Oknazevad, did you do that?
 * Some editors feel that the lead section is a special case. It may be desirable to have a smaller proportion of links in the lead section than in the main text;...

The key word is "may". On the other hand, it may not be desirable.
 * ...while some links make it easier to scan a lead by highlighting key terms, too many make it harder. On the other hand, in technical articles that use many uncommon terms in the introduction, a higher-than-usual link density in the lead section may be necessary to facilitate understanding.

User:Oknazevad, please read and understand the policy you cite to justify your actions that actually reduce the usability, utility, and convenience of the encylopedia. Your rationale makes no sense at all and is not justified by either the facts nor WP policy.71.169.191.64 (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not all the links are good, though. "Slit" and "snatch" are links to disambiguation pages that say nothing more about the terms in this context other than they can be used as slang terms for female genitalia, merely restating what this page already says. They are content-free links and, like "box", shouldn't be linked. "Pussy" is borderline; it does restate the word's relevant usage (one of three), but it also contains some content regarding the words use as a double entendre. I do think the links to "twat" and "cunt", which cover the etymology of the terms, are highly relevant.
 * PS, Thinking on it, I agree that "pudendal cleft" should be the article title if it is more common that "Cleft of Venus" (but there's no question that should be capitalized.)oknazevad (talk) 21:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

slang synonyms
Most of the listed synonyms are for the vagina, not the cleft of venus: cunt, pussy, twat, snatch, and box (and perhaps the others as well). In fact, the footnote for "box" points to the urbandictionary.com definition of box which defines it as the vagina, not the cleft of venus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.Urban (talk • contribs) 16:06, October 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point, many of the slang terms listed are for the female genitalia as a whole, and not necessarily for this cleft. Therefore, most of the terms are misplaced, and belong at female genitalia, not here.oknazevad (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Female Genetalia link?
Why does the "Female genetalia" link redirect back to the page it is on? I think the link should be removed or redirected somewhere esle or else it is just useless. A Word Of Advice From A Beast:   Don't Be Silly,   Wrap Your Willy!  22:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Because that link was redirected here a couple of months ago, which was a bad redirect, as the term "female genitalia" is a broad term describing multiple external parts collectively, and shouldn't point at just one if them. The previous phrasing of this article was probably a contributing factor, as it also was incorrect, which is why I fixed it. oknazevad (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Paedophile?
"In virtually all images of undressed children, the genitals clearly protrude and are visible in an anterior view."

What??! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosey Burns (talk • contribs) 22:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your guess is as good as mine. The anterior view would be if you opened your pants and looked down.  So... as if you were taking your own picture.  Sounds dubious to me. 98.225.230.65 (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Lolz, you know it! He's 100% up to something dodgy involving kids and photographs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.95.112 (talk) 05:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * From vulva:

''In preadolescent girls, the vulva appears to be positioned further forward than in adults, showing a larger percentage of the labia majora and pudendal cleft when standing. During puberty the mons pubis enlarges, pushing the forward portion of the labia majora away from the pubic bone, and parallel to the ground (when standing). Variations in body fat levels affect the extent to which this occurs.'' --this might be what he meant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.173.37.123 (talk) 01:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

More clarity
It was unclear previously as to what the article was referring to with the primary image and overall description being largely unhelpful in that regard. As such, I have added a labeled photo as the primary image instead and added a sentence explaining that the pudendal cleft is "the opening between the labia majora" (cited from Merriam-Webster) as I believe this will help bring a great deal of clarity to the article. TiffyWiki (talk) 04:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)