Talk:Vagina/Archive 2

new pic
What about this one Image:TwilaB 0814.jpg, it seems natural enough, I also think that a picture of an unstretched vulva would be usefull, if anyone has one. maybe this Image:Vulva 05.jpg or maybe this Image:Vulva description.jpg

Joke?
is it someones idea of a joke, saying "The black vaginas get more moist than white vagines." ? Not only is the word misspelled, it's not referenced, and probably cannot be scientifically proven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A7777 (talk • contribs) 06:27, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your concern. That statement was probably vandalism, and the edit was reverted. Ketsuekigata (talk) 03:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There's more vandalism -- the last sentence of the opening paragraph! Heavenlyhautbois (talk) 23:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Look, if you see vandalism, you don't have to point it out here. Just go right ahead and remove it. Asarelah (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Image
I don't think a picture of a vagina is really necessary with good and accurate diagrams. A platform that allows objectionable material to be viewed by everyone should be more responsible. I understand the 'People can see porn elsewhere on the internet.' argument, however I do not believe that is good enough reason to lower the standards here. Diggitydan16 (talk) 17:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is the picture asymmetric? One leg is raised up and another no. Pictures of vagina for educational purposes usually are symmetric. Replace the image by a symmetric one or a diagram, or it looks like a bit pornographic image. Tamokk 11:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Vulva

That picture of the vagina is nasty...just pure show. and get cleaner pussy up on ehh?

YAY the vagina is back!! this one isnt spread open though like the old one... oh well. Todaytoo 16:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is it allowed to show male genitalia in photographs but not female genitalia? I have placed an internal photographic view of the vagina and it is constantly removed. I ask why the double strandard, it makes it seem like female genitals are hideous grotesque organ because you fear to show it even for educational purposes. There should be exactly the same amount of vaginals views internal as well as vulvar views as what is shown for male genitalia, even sexual poses as these are also shown on the penis article. Equality means to depict both organs equally since it proves for educational value. Think about it.

Shouldn't the photograph of the vulva only be displayed on the vulva page?

The finger-spread vulvar photo is nothing more than titilation for the kiddies. I don't think that WP is the place for this. Even in medical school, you deal mostly with diagrams-not french manicured nails. If indeed this is for "medical" purposes, the hand should be wearing protective gloves. Is WP so much more high and mighty?


 * It's an image of the human body ffs. Why do you have a problem with this, you must be an american. Screaming about JJ showing a boob at Super Bowl and saying "protect our children, they can't see boobs, it's porn!" - so damn laughable.

I agree, I'm sure on the Wikipedia page for the human ear, there are photos of the external and the internal part. Stop being such a prude. Tommyhaych 11:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That makes sense for the ear, which has internal and external parts. It makes a lot less sense for Vagina, however, since it is fundamentally an internal organ.  Such a small fraction of the current picture (Vagina,Anus,Pereneum-Detail.jpg) is actually occupied by the vaginal opening that the picture is arguably not a picture of a vagina at all, any more than a picture of a random crowd is a photograph of a particular person.  This article needs a closeup, the kind that would be used for any other object on any other article.  The issue is not prudishness.  This article could also use a lot less name-calling.  Grow up and realize that your point of view, however modern, is not automatically superior. Redhookesb (talk) 10:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Vagina Shouldn't there be an actual vagina photo to depict how it looks and how it is shapes?


 * Your image is deleted because it is copyright violation. Not to say that it is useless "for educational purposes" without explanations. Wikipedia is not image gallery.


 * You are also adding useless external links. If there is useful information these, please add it to the article. Otherwise people can surf web themselves. This is not some obscure topic difficult to find.


 * Wikipedia is not democracy and woman rights vehicle. "Equality" argument will not be taken serioously. Please write useful information into the article, if you want equality.


 * Also, please sign your posts. mikka (t) 16:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Photo The first photo does not appear to be properly labelled. It appears as though each label should be moved slightly to the left, so as to clearly distiguish the Labia minora from the Labia majora. I would also note that the photo is of pretty poor quality because it is difficult to distinguish each part. I suggest either removing it completely or putting up a better one.


 * Thanks PK, October 20, 2005


 * What kind of an image is this! Just made me stop to think about women! Deliogul 22:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I personally don't feel that any photographic representation is necessary for educational purposes. The anatomically correct drawing is satisfactory. Since sexuality is stimulated visually as well as tactfully, your real life photos of the penis and vagina are erotic by nature. I know it was not the intent of the author to post a pornographic image, but unfortunately for adolescents and even adults these images are very sexually provocative. Humans are designed to be aroused by even just a photograph. I don't think it's appropriate to bring a nude woman into a sex education class, spread her legs, and have all the students look inside - even if it's just for educational purposes. Would it be educational? Absolutely. But what does it teach that was so necessary to learn before marriage? Those parents who don't want their children to have sex before marriage believe that the penis and vagina are to be discovered together between man and wife. It is through this discovery that they are to bond with their spouse and make an intimate connection that can't be made any other way. This process of learning and bonding is vital to a happy and long lasting marriage. It's not to say it is the only way or the right way, but if you are keeping the values, beliefs, and wishes of Wikipedia's readers in mind then you should want to remove these photographic images. They just don't serve enough educational purpose worth offending the many religious or sexually sensitive target audience.

It's worth offending the religious because I don't need to be deprived of an image because you fools are hugging a book that you don't even know who wrote it. you religious people need to learn that the world doesnt revolve around you, get off my internets

This is an Encyclopedia, not a site about religious education! If kids want to look at porn, they won't go to WP. If someone wants to learn about the human anatomy I'm more than happy to let them learn. I found it amazingly educational, more than any diagram I saw in school. + Thanks, Kevin (Nov 22, 2006)


 * See discussion below.--Loodog 03:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggest Removal of a Very Poor Image

I note that has been removed from and then put back into this article several times, so I'll post this comment here rather than being just another person to remove it and have my edit reverted.

Does anyone really think that this is a good image (from an encyclopaedic point of view) of a vagina? First of all it's not a picture of a vagina. Second, it is far inferior to, which is much more clearly labelled and the parts of the vulva (including the vaginal opening) are actually visible and distinguishable.

In, as PK says, the labels are all misaligned: the clitoral hood is in the general area of where the label points, but I can't see the clitoral hood, and the same goes for the glans clitoris and vaginal opening labels. As for the labia labels -- again, the picture is very unclear, or the creator is confused about which are the minora and which are the majora.

I think the image should be removed from this article. It doesn't even need to be replaced; the existing images are more than adequate.

--Craig 11:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm going to agree with Craig on this one. The vag1.jpg image is poorly labeled and unclear visually. Even if the alignment of the labels was adjusted, the anatomical parts just aren't easily seen.  Joyous  (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks Joy. Seeing no opposition and realising that the image may have been put back only as a result of unrelated vandalism reverts, I have removed it, reworded the title of the picture of the vulva to draw attention to the opening of the vagina, and done some juggling to improve the layout of the page in one of the main browsers out there. --Craig 02:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Let's make this clear. The penis and the vagina are two seperate things. I find it very sexist that many of you think that there should be the same amount of vaginal photographs as penis photographs. The pictures on the vagina page serve their purpose to lable the parts of the vagina and so do the penis pictures. We don't need as many pictures on either of them. Just a sufficient ammount to display what is needed.

THE IMAGE IS NASTY. All we need is a diagram.

No way that pic is hot, I wish I had a girlfriend.

personally the real problem with the image is that it doesn't add any overall value to the page and its article. it definitely needs something better. Stellrmn 00:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding diagrams and photos:

The diagram Image:Fem_isa_2.gif seems adequate though the lines labelling the clitoris, vagina and g-spot don't seem quite long enough. Perhaps the owner of this diagram could edit it a little.

The only photo currently on the page (Image:013.JPG) is inadequate for this article. It displays only the vulva and not the vaginal opening. Also, a diagram alone is inadequate for this article because of the complex folding and three-dimensional aspect to the anatomy.

I think a clearly labelled picture of the vulva with the vaginal entrance clearly indicated (as to discriminate it from the urethra and other surrounding anatomy) would be an asset. I suggest several pictures would be better than just one. Vaginas and vulvas vary greatly in appearance and so to have three or so different non-airbrushed clearly labelled photos (with different sizes, races, hair stylings, etc) would be very educational. Unfortunately, I am not brave enough at this time to provide a photo of my own vulva or vaginal opening but perhaps there are other users who might be (as I read above that photos have been removed due to copyright issues).

I would be happy to help flesh out this article when I have some time (which may not be until the summer). Transcending 19:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Transcending

PS, I also find http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Clitoris-Vivero-Becker.jpg inadequate as you can't the vaginal opening although this is the closest picture I have found to what I'd be looking for. However, a similar picture with the vaginal opening visible and perhaps an errect clitoris so you can see what it looks like would be perfect.

I retract my earlier statement about being willing to flesh out the article... from reading the rest of this discussion I feel like my hard work would just be removed due to people who disagree with being open about human sexual organs and human sexuality. I think I will encourage people I know to look at real books instead.

I was given a book at 8 years old all about sex, genitalia, (including a list of slang and offensive words for all the body parts so I would know what people meant if they used such a word - a topic I found being discussed below), and I'm shocked at how many adults here can't deal with this stuff.

So I am no longer going to visit this page because it just hurts that some consider pictures of vulvas and vaginas not appropriate for kids (even though 50% of them have one) or think they are "nasty" and have other views which hinder real information being posted and shared. It's too bad... this could be a really good page otherwise.

Transcending 20:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Transcending


 * No one seems to be offended by images of penises, why is it offensive to show a vagina? How come no one finds it sexist to have a vagina not shown and having a penis shown?  -Kanaru 00:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

EXACTLY!!! If you think the vagina picture is nasty and replaces it with a diagram why won't you replace the penises pictures with diagrams? I agree with you Kanaru 100%.Willie512 04:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking around Wikimedia commons, I found what i think would be a better photo if it was labeled,. I think photos are better than diagrams as they are more realistic, and would like to see more used, especially in education as, having been educated with diagrams, having now seen photos i believe that if i had been useing photos i would have had a better understanding of the topics. I would like to see more infomation on this topic but unfortunatley lack the knowledge to do it. SophieRachel 14:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, Sophie...I'm not a prude, but that picture is a little extreme. I'm still trying to figure out why there are 12 pictures of penises on the Penis page. All of the reasons seem like rationalizations...--Art8641 20:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, Art8641... I am not a prude, and I think Foto076.jpg is in fact
 * somewhat "puritan": the actual vaginal opening is concealed by hymeneal
 * tissue. A speculum gyno pic would be highly-recommended.
 * KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.143.1.33 11:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The picture that I said was extreme had probably been removed by the time I had posted my comment. It was pretty extreme with the vagina spread by a woman with painted manicured nails. --Art8641 16:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"So I am no longer going to visit this page because ..." Let me get this straight; you aren't going to visit the page again because you're offended at a discussion of what is and isn't offensive? Seems a little hypocritical, doesn't it?

Sometimes they develope with boney protrusions similar to teeth, watch out or they'll bite your wang off —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.30.86 (talk) 07:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I am quoting the text from the top of this discussion page... "This topic may attract censorship. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not censored.

Articles may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Images or details contained within this article, in particular, may be graphic or otherwise objectionable in order to ensure complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to our content disclaimer regarding objectionable content." ...Stop trying to employ censorship. 12.152.161.32 (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments unrelated to images
Some general remarks about this article, from someone not embroiled in the image wars. Compared to other articles with such activity and interest behind them, this one is pretty bare. It has no clear structure, and reads like a list of random facts about the human vagina. Obviously it reflects the people who have worked on it and the constant editing and reverting, but it gives information sparingly, reluctantly and in perhaps excessively neutral terms. For example: "Some women have a very sensitive erogenous zone called "the G-spot" inside their vagina, which can produce very intense orgasms if stimulated properly. Not all women have a g-spot that is responsive to stimulation, however.". Also: "The hymen...partially covers the vagina in many organisms, including some human females". I understand the need to be inoffensive, but I think "some human females" is a bit of a strange understatement. Wouldn't something along the lines of "including most women who have not had sexual intercourse" make more sense? More precise information is of course found on the hymen page.

One must ask: why no information on non-g-spot vaginal orgasms? Why no information about non-human vaginas? Why no references to tampons? Why nothing about the cultural significance of vaginas (eg, reference to the Vagina Monologues)?

Cleanup/Re-work?

Suggestion: Restructure the page as follows: 1 Anatomy, 2 Functions: 2.1 Sexual activity (orgasms etc here), 2.2 Menstruation, 2.3 Birth 3 Vaginal health (info on gynaecological visits, pap smears, diseases), 4 Cultural significance. 84.99.234.233 12:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think this could be an improvement. Or possibly some compromise would be an improvement.  I am curious about your removal of the text "Providing sexual pleasure to a woman during the sexual intercourse."  While this may be inaccurate, would it not be more effective to change this text than to remove it?  For instance: "Facilitates (or plays a role in) sexual pleasure for women during the sexual intercourse." or something similar (with better wording).  It (i assume) does play a role in sexual pleasure. --Robby 16:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course the vagina "plays a role" in sexual pleasure. But that's not the same thing as a "function".  The anus can provide sexual pleasure - but that's not what it's there for.  Same for the vagina.  However, the clitoris *is* there for that.  Your elbow may provide with you no sexual pleasure, but others may disagree - take note of nipples, feet, ears, etc.


 * Every anatomy book I've seen describes the vagina as having precisely three functions: childbirth, coitus, menstruation. Surely we would need a compelling reason to go against the grain on that one.  A woman whose vagina does not allow sex, menstruation or childbirth would be described as having a problem.  A woman whose vagina brings no particular sexual pleasure would, in general, not. 84.99.234.233 18:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * My reply to 84.99.234.233 is: "Go for it!" You've made some changes already, so while looking for opinions on major edits is laudable, there is no Editor God to which you can or should submit your ideas or questions. Rewrite the article and post it here for comments or suggestions. Some non-human information would be nice too.


 * As for the removal that Robby comments on -- I think I like his wording much better than either of the previous versions. Sexual pleasure, at least in humans, is obviously a part of the experience of having a vagina. My elbow provides me with no sexual pleasure, but my penis does; while we're not talking about penises, I don't happen to be equipped with a vagina (so can't comment on it first hand), but I don't see a reason to ignore the pleasurable aspect of the genitals.


 * To clarify: the pleasurable aspect of the genitals should definitely be included! But it's not a primary function.


 * --Craig (t|c) 06:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll have a stab at improving the article, but I'm a bit hesitant, knowing that someone will more than likely take offense at some wording and revert the whole thing...

84.99.234.233 18:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I would be surprised to learn that tampons are not used in Asia. I suspect the statement that "in Western societies..." should be removed.
 * Good point - bad wording. Should it be "modern societies"?  Feel free to change it. --84.99.234.161 13:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

This article is highly lacking in information it needs both social and medical information. it's PC neutrality is far too overreaching and is more a detriment than an aid. honestly, and without humour, this article needs more meat. and to reiterate what others have said it needs better structure. Stellrmn 00:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

In regards to tampons not being used in Asia, I can say from personal experience that they are extremely hard to find in Japan.

In regards to terminology and organization, I'm confused as to why vagina seems not to be part of a bigger topic. Perhaps the topic should be "female sexual genitalia" or "female reproductive organs" with things like "vagina" "vulva" and others being part of said topic.

Transcending 19:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Transcending

New diagrammatic image
The image by mimbiser is excellent and much clearer than anything else. It's inoffensive, educational, and clear, without being excessively prudish. I propose we remove the two pornographic photos, as they just seem redundant now. There may be some argument for retaining photographic images (on the basis that a diagram doesn't convey everything), but really, a non-pornographic image would be a lot better.

I would just be bold and remove the images, but that seems a fraught course of action.

Ok, I did it. Btw can anyone verify the copyright status of the schematic? 84.99.234.113 00:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

There are so many pornographic PHOTOS of the penis on the penis page, so why is it so horrible to have actual photos of the vagina on this page? What a double standard.


 * Photographs of genitalia are not inherently pornographic. Pornography is an explicit depiction of eroticism, presented with the intention of sexually exciting the viewer.  None of the images on vagina, penis, or any of the related articles qualify as such.  Thatdog 22:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * This has been argued so many times it's hardly worth doing again. I should have been clearer.  The image I removed was "pornographic" because it was a cropped part of a pornographic image.  The image that remains is the same, but at least it does show the vaginal opening.  I am quite certain this image was taken with the aim of exciting male viewers, and the fact that the vagina in question appears to be aroused adds to that impression.  Take a look at the black and white image on vulva for a non-pornographic example.


 * There is no double standard. Photos of genitals are totally appropriate, but pornographic ones aren't.  However, until some better photos appear...

---There is a double standard. The penis page has an aroused penis in its full erect state. That could and SHOULD be a diagram, not a photo of a sexually excited male. Plus, there is another PHOTO of the glans penis, also aroused. This vagina page and the vulva page have one ugly photo in black and white which is not even that clear. Either allow more photos on the female pages, or please remove some of the ridiculous photos from the penis page.---
 * I think the basic problem is a lack of good, uncopyrighted images. If you know of any, please feel free.  For the penis page, perhaps a good non-photographic hand-drawn/painted image would be better.  And to be honest the photo of the glans does look a bit like someone said "There's no photo of that, here, I'll take one!".  Anyway this is not the penis page. --84.99.234.161 14:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Frankly I think the real photograph is better. The illustrated one just isn't as realistic and thus isn't as useful.  Thoughts?  --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 16:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I feel the real photograph mentioned above was much better than the current photo. It CLEARLY showed the vaginal opening, and was not labeled "clitoris" as this pic is.  Also, this pic is used on the "clitoris" article already.  I vote we go back to the last vaginal opening photo.  Any others feel this way?  --EaZyZ99 16:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)EaZyZ99
 * Already? You just added it to the article... —Locke Cole 16:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

In regards to the the first comment in this section. Its a picture of part of the human body, how can it be "offensive"... If people are prudes and don't want to see a picture of a vagina, then why are they even viewing the article in the first place? If I didn't want to see a picture of a tiger for example, the last thing I'd do is go view the tiger article.

Another vote for a picture of a genuine human vagina (that is what the article is about) - Deathrocker 14:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the current picture is excellent. I think it might be appropriate, though, to place it "below the fold" on the page, like for Penis. Thoughts? --Ashenai 19:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The penis image is no longer "below the fold", because Wikipedia is not censored. If anyone doesn't wish to see the image, they should see Options to not see an image. Also, Vagina-anatomy-labelled2.jpg is a clear, informative image. If this is the image you were referring to, then I agree. Ketsuekigata (talk) 03:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Please name the photos when you discuss them. I'm not sure for instance about which photos people say are pornographic and which they call educational. There was a good photo up a month ago or so which was picture a man took of his wife's vulva showing the vaginal opening but this seems to have been removed. Transcending 19:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Transcending

Replace PHOTO with DIAGRAM
I'm quoting another user here, but whole heartedly agree with this statement:

"The finger-spread vulva photo is nothing more than titilation for the kiddies. I don't think that WP is the place for this. Even in medical school, you deal mostly with diagrams-not french manicured nails."

I'm a 20 year old male... so this picture doesn't offend me one bid..... but this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA people. Lest try and keep up the respect level. Just because it doesn't offend YOU doesn't mean it is appropriate for EVERYONE of ALL AGES. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.39.21.249 (talk) 03:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
 * The picture IS appropriate for everyone of all ages 76.85.197.151 (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. This vulgar picture should be taken off and replaced with a diagram or a professional photograph from a medical textbook. Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic, and I can guarantee that one would not find an image of this sort in an encyclopedia. --MosheA 04:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT Anyone who can find, scan and upload a better, more illustrative drawing or photograph that is suitably licensed may do so, and I am sure the people who edit this article will accept it. A less-illustrative drawing uploaded only to satisfy puritans will not do. A photograph from a medical textbook is undoubtedly not licensed for use by Wikipedia. Find something better that is freely licensed. Until then, please stop complaining. Anchoress 04:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the key word above is better. I wouldn't want people to think that we're putting up with second best here just because these licencing issues are so onerous!  They're not.  The good features of the current image include that it is completely realistic, not stylised; it shows all the relevant detail; it has enough context that it is easy to see the scale; it shows natural colouring, not de-saturated or tampered with in any other way etc. --Nigelj 21:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, good point. My emphasis on better wasn't to imply that the one we have is inferior, but to hammer home that one that is of comparable quality but inferior illustrativeness or licensing isn't acceptable. I actually think it'll be difficult to find a higher quality, equally or more illustrative, free photo or drawing, which is why none of the complainers have yet taken us up on our suggestion. Anchoress 02:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Another photo and or diagram would be good, but in addition, rather than replacing. Given the wide variation in morphology, more illustrations are justified. I agree, we should strive for quality - and quantity where it adds descriptive ability to the article. Trollderella 05:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * How about these? [[Image:Female pubis with hair.jpg]], [[Image:Shaved pubic area.jpg]], [[File:Female pubic hair (2).jpg]], ? They give at least an indication of the range of variation, although more are clearly needed. Trollderella 07:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, the article is about the vagina, and the current picture gives a better view of the actual topic of the article. If it's just a picture of a bush or the mons, it's closer to porno than the pic we currently have. Anchoress 07:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What is 'porno' is clearly a matter of opinion, and several of the images in the gallery do not display the full vagina. A range of images showing the range of variation, internal and external elements, are advantageous. I'm not suggesting replacing, but augmenting the existing one. Trollderella 07:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What exactly are the external variations of the vagina? How do the pictures you provided illustrate them? Anchoress 07:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, I think you are making the argument that this page should be strictly reserved for the vaginal canal, with anything external definitionally not being relevant? Trollderella 07:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not at all. I'm just curious as to how the photos you provided show the external variations of the vagina? Anchoress 07:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * well, the one that shows there shows a different morphology of the labia - which is, in common usage, part of the vagina. If you are not arguing that only the internal canal should be shown on this page, then I'm not sure I understand where you're going with this. Trollderella 07:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm... well if you're correct about the 'morphology' of the vagina, then you should get some references for it and change the second paragraph of the vagina article, which says: "In common speech, the term "vagina" is often used inaccurately to refer to the vulva or female genitals generally; strictly speaking, the vagina is a specific internal structure and the vulva is the exterior genitalia only." My point is that there are already articles on labia, mons pubis, pubic hair, vulva, genitals, pubic mound, etc, and if people are interested in seeing variations thereof they can check the numerous illustrative photos of those pages. I don't have any objection to photos of female genitalia, but I don't see the use of photos that don't even begin to show where the vaginal opening even is. Anchoress 07:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So you you are making the argument that this page should be strictly reserved for the vaginal canal, with anything external definitionally not being relevant? Trollderella 07:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, as I said before when you asked me before, that's not what I'm arguing lol. ;-) Anchoress 07:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps you could explain in some other way what you are saying, because it sounds startlingly similar. Additionally, I don't think it would be appropriate at all to add this photo to mons. Trollderella 07:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, no harm no foul. I think that photos of the pubic mound and labia that don't even give a vague indication of where the vaginal opening is add nothing to this particular article. But a) it's clear to me that you have much deeper feelings about this issue than I do, and I make a point of never arguing with feelings; b) I'm not convinced by anything you've said so far that these pics are adding to the quality of the article; but c) you don't need to convince me of anything in order to add something to the article; and d) I certainly won't be reverting you if you do add the images. And if you're looking for someplace to add pics, I noticed when I followed my own wikilinks that there are currently no pics on the genitalia page, so maybe you could add them there? Good luck, and happy editing! Anchoress 08:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the polite reply! I don't have strong feelings about it, I'm just trying to understand your objection - you might well be right. Remove it if you think it's not appropriate. Trollderella 08:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No probs. I have no plans at present to remove or revert any of your additions. Have a nice nite and a good weekend. Anchoress 08:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but some of you guys are pretty ridiculous. Wikipedia is on the Internet. If someone wants to get a cheap thrill, I seriously doubt this is the first place they'll look. Not when you can go onto any search engine, look up the subject of this article, and get tons and tons of porn links. Anyone who can't handle a couple of natural close up shots of the female anatomy really shouldn't be working on this article.

Sorry, can't help it. I just wanna say this is one of the most hilarious discussion pages I've ever read. A vagina sure can cause chaos. LOL. Moonwalkerwiz 03:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

If this were an article on the internal combustion engine, would anyone seriously be suggesting that we not have a photo of the article's subject? UrsusMaximus 11:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you have a picture of a car with the hood up, pointing to the engine, along with other important parts pointed out? (Because the picture is of the entire vulva area, not just the vagina) Maybe, maybe not. But this is hardly an apples to apples comparison. Bassgoonist 17:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

There is definatly nothing wrong with the current photo. It isn't pornographic, or vulgar. Like one of the above users said... this is an encyclopedia. We are all mature and we can all handle it. ALSO given this is an internet encyclopedia if someone was looking for pornographic pictures there is an infinate digital expanse they would be doing so before here.XXLegendXx 04:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I also think that the picture should be removed and a diagram should take it's place I know that the picture is good for learning and is very detailed but please unless someone actually knows this female can we actually know this wasn't meant for pornographic nature i mean the un-symmetric leg shaved pubic hair which yes I know now that many female do shave it but come on people I know we are all mature but really do you think this picture was meant for educational purposes--Zach-- March 28th 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.25.174.230 (talk) 03:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose this is something Wikipedia will always have to deal with - crazy people who can't stand pictures of certain body parts. Anyway, I am in favor of using a photograph, and some smaller pictures which shows the insides - like it is now, 2008-06-21 23:51 UTC. Image:Vagina-anatomy-labelled2.jpg is good. It shows the different parts. Ran4 (talk) 23:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

removed image
I removed the image "Image:Sarahvulva crop.jpg" from the article because it was identified at talk:vulva as being a copyyio stolen from an amature porn site. MasterGreenLantern 19:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe someone on wikipedia can take a picture of their vagina and donate it.


 * Try commons. RubberGlove 07:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

spyware in external link

 * All About My Vagina - A website devoted entirely to the vagina, from the perspective of its "owner", who identifies herself only as "Sarah".

According to my virusscanner/firewall, this site tries to load spyware into the viewers browser. Suggest it be removed. RubberGlove 07:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I had no problems with the link. SophieRachel 16:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Can RubberGlove let me know what spyware was suspected? As it was me who added the link, I'll contact the owner of the site concerned and try to find out what's happening. From the tone of her site, the deliberate spreading of spyware would be pretty out of character. UrsusMaximus 10:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey folks. I'm Sarah at myvag.net. I've never run any spyware on purpose, and I just double-checked that the site hasn't been hacked. Looks all clear to me. I'm assuming it's poor form to re-post my own site to the external links, so I'll just leave it at this. Cheers. 24.68.251.67 22:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Human Anatomy
Since there was not a single source for the anatomy, I have tried to clean it up and actually add some sources. Well, just the first paragraph. Nbbs 02:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

And when you think about it, "this" section should be Human Anatomy. Correct me if I'm wrong. Nbbs 02:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Copulin
It's a feromone that is produste by the vagina.It sexually arouses the male(all mamales,humans included).Somebody add this please--80.201.75.157 20:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Article needs development
It just seems too short. Anyone agree?71.232.108.228 03:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * YesEthan Mitchell 18:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

yess —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumbutahguy420 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Current Photo is no good
I'm all for having a photo, but the photo in question sucks. In the first place, the model in question is partially shaved, which is about as NPOV as showing someone with a clitoredectomy or a piercing or a tatoo as the model for a vagina. It clearly connotes pornography, which exactly what we are not trying to do here. In the second place, and perhaps even more importantly, the photo is in lousy focus, and the labia are sort of smunched over to one side so you can't even see the vaginal opening, which is what the article is about. We have at least one better image (Clitoris-Vivero-Becker), and there are doubtless lots of folks happy to provide us with more. It is a sad note if this page devolves into a sort of edit war between censors and pornographers...oy vay. Ethan Mitchell 18:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this one? [[Image:Vulva11.jpg]] Bassgoonist 12:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Also shaved, right? Is it impossible to find a picture of unmodified female genitalia? Ethan Mitchell 19:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. It is proving unexpectedly difficult to get just an ordinary picture of an ordinary vulva, showing some realistic, ordinary detail - yet at times you can't move for the male equivalents on the the Penis page! What a shame the "Sarah" one turned out to be a copy-vio. We live on in hope. --Nigelj 19:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A lot of people shave in this day and age, not just porno actors. It is actually very common to shave JayKeaton 07:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * People assume shaving is pornographic as much as an erect penis...as if no man has ever had an erection without being sexually stimutated...Bassgoonist 15:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I see no reason for a shaved specimen to be unacceptable. Hair, if left untended, will obscure the anatomical representation of the vagina.  The choices are either a graphic representation from an anatomy textbook, or a photograph of a shaved vagina.  Shaving has no pornographic connotations other than that female pornstars tend to do it for aesthetic reasons.  In medical texts, it is common to have hair removed from external features for clarification; the sexual abilities of the vulva should not be used as a reason to obscure its appearance in a scientific reference.  Would you insist that the entry for stereotypical male facial strucure be obscured by facial hair on the merit that it grows there naturally? The Great Attractor 02:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Theoretically, I suppose hair might indeed obscure the view, but I don't think it does on the available pictures such as the current illustration at vulva ([[Image:HumanVulva-NewText-PhiloViv.jpg]]). --Anonymous44 23:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Water lung?
An antiquated article from the 1837 states that doctors believed vaginas could allow women to breath underwater. Thinking that it could difuse oxygen from water.


 * Perhaps that might explain the association with fish, eh? The Great Attractor 02:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * jesus you're a virgin. it's the smell that does that. 24.143.151.115 06:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The big problem
Quite unfortunately, most Wikipedians still believe the stupid and ignorant puritans do deserve some consideration. Pffft...

signed: KSM-2501ZX - IP address:= 200.143.1.33 00:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Pictures
There is four picturs on the penis page, so there should be more vaginas here or less penises there, to balance it out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.185.41.88 (talk) 09:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
 * No problem, just take a picture of your vagina and slap it here. --BiT 08:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * this is assuming they have a vagina--Tim30 (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Piercing
Shouldn't we have a pierced vagina pic on the article?User:Willie512 00:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Lol Diagram!
This may be useful http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/623/1179778918954kp3.jpg

Actually, I agree with this. Most women are not familar with the fact that there are many different shapes and forms of the vagina itself. 70.69.37.102 08:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

"Biological Unction?"
What is the definition of unction? the article mentions biological unction but I have no idea what unction means.

Unclear labels in current image
I'm no expert, but I think the place of the labia majora on the picture remains unclear, or maybe even incorrectly indicated. Compare the much clearer picture in vulva, where the difference between labia majora and labia minora is obvious. --Anonymous44 12:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I see someone has already said precisely the same thing back in 2005! Suggest Removal of a Very Poor Image

I note that has been removed from and then put back into this article several times, so I'll post this comment here rather than being just another person to remove it and have my edit reverted.

Does anyone really think that this is a good image (from an encyclopaedic point of view) of a vagina? First of all it's not a picture of a vagina. Second, it is far inferior to, which is much more clearly labelled and the parts of the vulva (including the vaginal opening) are actually visible and distinguishable.

In, as PK says, the labels are all misaligned: the clitoral hood is in the general area of where the label points, but I can't see the clitoral hood, and the same goes for the glans clitoris and vaginal opening labels. As for the labia labels -- again, the picture is very unclear, or the creator is confused about which are the minora and which are the majora.

I think the image should be removed from this article. It doesn't even need to be replaced; the existing images are more than adequate.

--Craig 11:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm going to agree with Craig on this one. The vag1.jpg image is poorly labeled and unclear visually. Even if the alignment of the labels was adjusted, the anatomical parts just aren't easily seen.  Joyous  (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

So if nobody objects, I will replace with  (or rather, with, which appears to be the most recent version) in a couple of days. --Anonymous44 13:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do. You can't even see the anatomical parts in the current image.  Joie de Vivre 21:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Bah, did it myself. Joie de Vivre 23:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Poes
I just tried to look up Edgar Allen Poe by typing "Poe," but I accidentally typed "Poes," which then redirected me to VAGINA. Why????????? Why am I looking at a clitoris instead of Poe's grizzled continence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.200.32 (talk)


 * "Poes" is apparently a South African slang term for the unmentionable.--Anonymous44 23:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Unmentionable"? Call it a or a vagina or pussy for heavens sake, don't use any of that euphemistic crap.

.--Daddy2kyra 23:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not apparently... Tis true. I'm South Africa and poes is used regularly, especially by the young thug type kids... Pathetic. A more common saying they say is "Jou ma se poes" which is in Afrikaans, and directly translated is "Your mothers poes", which is supposed to be offensive. Dear god don't we love South Africa.

That's only make people think the word 'vagina' is shameful which was exactly what people tried to counter with Vagina monologues. --BiT 09:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's funny because you referred to the vagina as a pussy and then told somebody else to cut the euphemism crap. Laugh. Anyway, get a grip, BiT. This isn't the place to play soapbox. Professor Ninja 09:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please note that the author's name is Edgar Allan Poe. Also, I agree that it doesn't make much sense for that to direct here unless an explanation is given on the page-- redirecting to the List of South African slang words would make much more sense, since the word actually shows up on that page. Oskay (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

error in vagina length?
why is it that the length of the vagina is stated as 15-18cm (6-7 inches), when most sources I find state 6-10cm(3-4 inches)? http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/sex_relationships/facts/penissize.htm http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/2067.html


 * Well, there are the sources in our article (I only checked the HTML one; I don't feel like downloading a PDF at the moment). And the sources you mentioned are kind of unclear.  GoAskAlice says 5-7 inches when aroused.  Netdoctor says 4 when aroused, but also says the vagina will lengthen in reponse to an inserted object, so presumably the 4 means "when aroused, but with nothing inserted".  My guess is that length of vagina is even harder to define and measure than length of penis, leading to this confusion.  --Allen 17:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * According to the book "Human Sexual Response" by Masters & Johnson, the average length of the vagina is 7cm&#0151;8cm while not aroused, and 9cm&#0151;10cm when aroused. KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.143.28.18 16:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

THIS OFTEN SEEMS A TRICKY QUESTION BECAUSE NOBODY WILL JUST BUCKLE DOWN AND DO THE RESEARCH ON AROUSED OR STRETCHED STATES. HOWEVER, I HAVE READ OF AT LEAST ONE PERSONAL EXPERIMENT PERFORMED BY A WOMAN AND THE RESULTS WERE THESE: ABOUT 4 INCHES UNAROUSED. ABOUT SIX INCHES AROUSED WITH THE ABILITY TO STRETCH TO EIGHT INCHES BEFORE IT GETS PAINFUL. I FEEL THIS IS PRETTY ACCURATE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.170.134.65 (talk) 00:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The post immediately above is correct according to any statement I've ever heard or read that came from an actual woman. Anything more than 8 inches was bound to hurt and, potentially, even cause damage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.170.134.65 (talk) 18:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: a better didactical picture
http://au.geocities.com/rashojin_mizuki/etcoetera/vulva_exam-000.jpg

KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.143.28.18 16:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC) SWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEET! YES! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.82.78.103 (talk) 05:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I feel that this is a little too distorted and will give a poor deception of the vagina itself. 70.69.37.102 08:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 70.69.37.102 wrote:

I feel that this is a little too distorted and will give a poor deception of the vagina itself.


 * You don't want to be taken seriously, alright?
 * signed: KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.155.188.4 (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Length of the vagina
according to several textbooks i've read, the lengh of the vagina should be 3-4 inches long (7-10cm) (ref: Tim Chard, Basic Sciences for Obstetrics and Gynecology)Golfcrazie 03:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah. From several studies and articles I've read the unaroused and unpenetrated vagina is from 2-4 inches long (3" on average). Measurements are slightly different depending on whether you're measuring across the anterior or posterior wall, and position women is in (e.g. sitting, standing, etc...).


 * The articles current reference of the vagina being 6-7 inches long is in my opinion a reference to potential space, such as when very highly aroused and/or being penetrated. If that was the unaroused size (6-7"), the vagina would not need to "stretch during intercourse" for the vast majority of men (at least length wise which is what's being talked about in article).


 * This needs to be fixed. Either by explaining that stat as potential space, or giving the smaller unaroused statistic. Better references (which give more details on method of measurement, whether aroused, etc...) on length need to be given in any case. Wits 10:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The unaroused statistic just confuses people because they know full well that vaginas can handle more than 4 inches. The potential space is, in fact, the stat they're looking for, so that should be given. I know this is tremendously blunt, but people are asking how far something can be pushed into a vagina before it would rupture or be ridiculously painful. From everything I've read, that's somewhere between 8 and 10 inches.

Vagina in popular culture
I am going to add this again, for the THIRD time and hopefully some idiot bot/person doesn't come by and delete it within 6 minutes. (who the hell are these people who patrol every article on wikipedia to delete things without even investigating their content within MINUTES??!). Millions of people know what vagina power is. It's a book, CD, TV Show, and website. It's newer than the vagina monologues, so it hasn't reached the entire GLOBE yet - but it is extremely popular and well known. Just because it came out of a poor southern girl in Atlanta and is not on broadway - written by Ms. Eve Ensler New York socialite - does not mean it is not worthy valid content and an example of vagina in popular american culture. Furthermore, clips of Alexyss Tylor's vagina power TV show are on YouTube...each have been watched hundreds of thousands of times. This is a huge thing. (If you must delete it again - i want a damn explanation.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelatomato (talk • contribs) 20:49, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Oh - and "ohNoItsJamie" - I have posted on wikipedia for months so stop sending me your damn condescending "good job! your wikipedia post worked - next time, please use the sandbox" messages or the "welcome to wikipedia" form letter. Yea - great. How about 1. stop deleting my stuff w/o a valid explanation and 2. stop spamming me with your form letter crap when you neither read what I added nor investigate it to see it is not spam and it is real. VAGINA POWER!!!! Angelatomato 20:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have removed this info because it is not notable enough for inclusion. Please read Notability and Verify.  If you disagree, please create an article for Vagina Power that meets all of the requirements of those guidelines, then link that new article from here.
 * And please do not call other editors "idiots". That is a violation of our Civility guideline. Thank you, Satori Son 21:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I didnt call anyone an idiot personally, did I? You people and your little handbook of wikipedia rules.  "wp:civil"  cry me a river  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelatomato (talk • contribs) 21:30, August 26, 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep both of your drama between the two of you and take it up with the higher powers. I don't like the idea of people throwing the "civility" book at each other in order to excuse deleting people's opinion or comments if it warrants discussion. If it was a post filled with information irrelevant to the topic (in this case, the vagina. vagina power is related to the vagina). This is the frustration that I have had with Wikipedia for a long period of time. 70.69.37.102 08:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Human Bias
This entire article should be forked off to "Human Vagina" or some such title, with this main article becoming a general description of what a vagina is, what purpose it serves, and which branches of the animal kingdom have them.

I found previous mention of this proposal in the talk archives, but the only real response was that the human vagina is somehow the most notable of all vaginae; clearly a ridiculous statement. Every vagina performs the same functions, and equally well. If this were an article about anatomy which was uniquely to or clearly superior among humans, then a human bias would be well-founded. This is not the case here.

I hope I've made a convincing argument for a restructuring of this article. An alternative would be to substantially expand the present article, but this could eventually become unwieldy. I am aware of the human slant in most WP anatomy articles and feel the same about them all, but have singled this one out as one of the worst offenders (along with Penis). Please see Eye/Nose/Ear for some examples of a more encyclopedic approach (although none of those are perfect, either). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.198.109 (talk) 11:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Considering that the "guardians" of this article will never want to take the time to read the books on human anatomy by Testut, I guess it is quite improbable they will ever want to take a look at the works of Pierre-Paul Grassé. KSM-2501ZX, IP adress:= 200.155.188.23 04:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This article mostly addressing the human female vagina is no different than what you would find in most offices of doctors or articles on the topic of vagina, meaning that I don't feel that most people come to this vagina article or most vagina articles looking for discussion on the non-human vagina, but if so, this article does address the topic of non-human vagina. We, of course, should not and cannot list thorough detail on every vagina there is...monkey vagina, the horse vagina, etc. Considering that this article isn't too large at this time, it mentions the non-human vagina, while understandably giving more focus to the human one. And if "every vagina performs the same functions, and equally well", then there really is no need to state the same thing over and over again, except with different titles. Not when it is basically shown by the topic of the human vagina. The "guardians" of this article may take the time to read various books on the human anatomy, and all do have their own knowledge on this topic. If it is deemed to include a little more non-human vagina in this article, then that will be so. Flyer22 05:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "If it is deemed"? Who, pray tell, shall do such deeming, milord? WikiPedia was a collaborative effort. If and when additions are made to an article, the official policy is to make every possible effort to incorporate that material as seamlessly as possible -- not to block it. Reverting an article to maintain prior consensus is explicitly discouraged. "Guardians," indeed! I won't insult your intelligence by citing the WP rules, of which I'm sure you are well-versed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.198.109 (talk) 13:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I forgot all about this discussion. I mentioned nothing of block or reverting an article to maintain prior consensus. I used the word "deemed" because it fit, seeing that it is the collaborative effort that comes together, and, yes, deems what should and shouldn't be in an article, what can and won't improve it. I also don't need your condescending talk. If you are sure that I am well-versed in the Wiki-ways, then don't cite to me what Wikipedia is supposed to be, as if I'm some random IP address without a clue. You showed up acting as if this article should be half about the human vagina and half about the non-human vagina, even though if "every vagina performs the same functions, and equally well", then there really is no need to state the same thing over and over again, except with different titles (meaning this vagina, that vagina, that vagina, etc.). What should we state about the non-human vagina, since "every vagina performs the same functions, and equally well" and we cannot possibly include a section on every non-human vagina there is? Which non-human vagina should we focus on? Do we choose one, and if not, as asked before, what should the section on the non-human vagina state? Because, really, all we need is one section in this article devoted to it, if we are going to include further topic of non-human vaginas. Flyer22 (talk) 07:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

ok, seriously, the image "Skenes gland.jpg" i think age should be questioned here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.207.61.207 (talk) 05:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Image Part 2
All images are shown are streched ones, vulva showing vginal opening in its normal state is removed. One streched vulva image should be enough. Also among all streched images one added by User:Anything I don't like looks most educative. I suggest to replace first image with these 2 images, since wikipedia is not censored. Guest mediator 15:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As I touched on ealier, on my talk page, I removed the image added by User:Anything I don't like because I didn't/don't see the need for it in the upper body of this article. There were three images back to back, with that addition, not too different in what they are informing the reader of. There were/are already two pictures within the upper body of this article that are sufficient enough. The picture Anything I don't like added has been removed more than once, not just by me. I didn't/don't see how it adds to the article in the place it was put in. If I felt that it did, I would not have removed it. If this article were bigger and I really felt that that picture was needed, I would not have been opposed to how it was added. But it just screams overkill, especially given the small size of this article. It was not about censorship, especially considering that this article has other images of real vaginas that are not censored.


 * That said, you have found a place for it, where I feel it is better suited. It fits fine in the gallery section of this article. We most likely should only show one stretched version within the upper body of this article, as you suggest. I'm more for keeping one of the stretched vagina images where it is above in this article and add the unstretched image that's in the gallery to instead be an above display next to it. Flyer22 19:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That image shows anus and mons pubis, clearly shows things better image than too close-up. It also shows labia menora and majora clearly and best image of the lot. 2 images shown currently repeat same thing all over, so either of this image(Anything I dont like) or unstreched would be best choice. Best, Guest mediator 04:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If we're deciding between which of those two images (the one added by Anything I don't like) and the unstretched image to trade out one for in the upper body of this article, I'm still more for the unstretched image out of those two. But I also see your point about the one Anything I don't like added. Flyer22 08:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Consider young boys who haven't seen inside clothes, it is very educative. But encyclopedia is not to teach as such, but that Anything I don't like's image looks good option. But currently there is no difference between 2 images used, which repeat the same thing. Guest mediator (talk) 04:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, we both agree that the unstretched image would be a good addition to the upper body of this article, considering that the two images that are there now are not too different from each other, so let's work from there first. Instead of, at this time, dragging out talk of adding the stretched image added by Anything I dont like, which we are not in complete agreement on, let's discuss the two stretched images up there at the moment. Which of those two stretched images in the upper body of this article should we take out and trade for the unstretched image? Flyer22 (talk) 06:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * About that "artificially altered" image Image:Skenes_gland.jpg, i wish to point you that another image from same uploader in article hymen was deleted from :commons, recently. You can follow through this image's uploader's contributions in :commons. I cant say how much he has fabricated, but it is not reliable for sure. Guest mediator (talk) 04:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know about that. That's the image I'll trade out for the unstretched image then. Flyer22 (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry guys but there's no vagina at all in the picure you put up here. It doesn't even show the vaginal opening - nothing at all. All you could see was the labia but that's not the topic of this article. So we might as well use the image from which the first one was cropped. Now we got a vulva which clearly shows the vagina. Satisfied? --Lamilli (talk) 11:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that image is awesome. Though it is only one, an image of a stretched vagina, instead of an unstretched vagina next to it as well, it suffices. Flyer22 (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

over the top
That picture with an actual image of a vagina should be removed. It seems like more of a porn picture then anything. Little kids really don't need to look at real pictures, a diagram of that same real image would be much better. If you agree please respond, and we can remove that image.RYNORT 05:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Little kids really don't need to look at real pictures,"
 * That's just your stupid and obscurantist opinion of course.
 * KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.155.188.4 (talk) 12:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really. If anything the current picture is one of the clearest so far. It's certainly a good compliment to the diagram above. --81.151.44.234 (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Can't stand these kind of people.. It's not a gratuitous picture, it's only showing a picture of a body part. Why is the vagina any worse than e.g. the calf or ear? stfu and gtfo... --BiT (talk) 12:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Why? It does a good job here. --Lamilli (talk) 12:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sexist and Offensive Language Ought to be Removed
Regarding the hymen: Everything after "The hymen may rupture during sexual or non-sexual activity" is unnecessary and focuses the topic on heterosexual intercourse and the possible shame of not being a virgin. Discussion on the hymen is directed toward whether or not it is intact, and if it isn't, then why it isn't. The hymen becomes synonymous with issues of virginity, which implies that the vagina and women ought to be virginal, at least until men are ready to fuck them or stick some large object in them, as the section on sexual activity presupposes.

Regarding menstruation: "Modern societies" is a loaded and unnecessary addition.

Regarding sexual activity: Everything after "...the vagina tents (last ²⁄₃ expands in length and width) while the cervix retracts" is very, very sexist and highly offensive. Everything here regarding the vagina's ability to accommodate the male penis makes it seem as if the very function or purpose of the vagina, or of women particularly, is to be penetrated by penises or other objects of men's desire. I hope the harmful and disgusting nature of what is now posted is simply erased as it is unnecessary and hurtful.

Jimisullivan (talk) 06:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, Jimisullivan. I do not find any of what you stated about this matter to be sexist and offensive. Some other thoughts on this from other editors would be great. Flyer22 (talk) 08:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm a woman and a feminist and I simply do not understand what is so offensive about the hymen section. It merely states facts about the hymen, it does not imply that it must be intact. I also do not understand what you find so awful about the sexual activity section. The vagina refers to the interior canal of the genitals, as opposed to the vulva, which is the external genitals. What would you use the interior canal for in sex if not to penatrate it? Besides, the mention of using objects to penatrate it does not automatically mean "objects of men's desire". Plently of women masturbate using objects, and plently of lesbians penatrate each other with objects during sexual activity. I'll change "Modern societies" to "industrial societies" if that makes you feel better, but I think everything else should remain as it is. Asarelah (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, i would say that im not against feminism (not at all, its very important to stop sexism) but against this kind of stupid crap "is to be penetrated by penises"

YES, the evolution theory shows that the vagina was created to give birth to children AND to be penetrated by penises in order to "launch" the fabrication of those children The vagina is a critical component of humanity survival. This is not something nature created for women pleasure only, even if the pleasure is "packed" in, to incit the women to use it. Please remember that every part of your body has a plan, a goal, and that the unnecessary or useless part are gone for long. Maybe its a bit cold and mechanical, and im not against homosexuality, dildos and every non-standard sexuality but it is clear that is this "standard"("standard" not "normal"!) that modelled the sexual parts of the human body. If you find it "hurful" im sorry your partner Your body has a goal and was created for specific purposes You can do wathever you want with it and your mind is totally free, but the scientific truth cant be discussed "for your pleasure" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.196.65.91 (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what else to state on this matter anymore, but I will say that I highly doubt that vaginas having been created to give birth to children is just a theory. That's obviously a big part of its function. Flyer22 (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Current Picture
The stretched vulva picture in the additional pictures would make a much better primary picture.

The current primary picture needs some sort of specification that something of significant size has recently stretched this vagina out and that this is not what a vagina looks like normally. My guess is that this vagina has just been "fisted" that is had an entire hand inserted into it and that a picture was quickly taken before the vagina had a chance to return to a normal less stretched state.

So I just feel that this should not be the primary picture and that it can be used but it should be specified how or why this particular vagina is so stretched. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.29.38.7 (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I like this current picture as the primary picture. I feel that the hand on it is showing why it is stretched. Flyer22 (talk) 08:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I also noticed the hand on the vagina is wet and is most likely what stretched it out. I do not think that all viewers will catch this and definitely think the picture needs an explanation and that it really should not be the primary pictures as this is not the natural state of the vagina.

Just think about it if a viewer had never seen a vagina before and this was the first they saw they would be left with a distorted view of what one really looks like. For educational purposes the picture is misleading. It is great in that it shows the inside of the vagina but it definitely needs an explanation and should not be the primary picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.29.38.7 (talk) 04:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you have a problem with it being the primary picture, if it had an explanation? Or better yet, would you prefer that the unstretched vagina (or rather vulva) image in this article's image gallery to be placed beside that stretched image? Flyer22 (talk) 05:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Placing the two pictures side by side (or on top of each other) would juxtapose (contrast) the two vaginas (or states of vagina). This would give viewers an idea of just how a vagina can stretch to accommodate large things such as penises, hands and even babies. I think this is a great idea. Maybe there should be a note in the main article that even points this out, such as note the stretched state of the vagina in figure 1 (or 2 depending on where it is placed). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.29.38.7 (talk) 03:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. We had two images on top of each other as the primary images for this article before, but those weren't really too contrasting. We probably had two contrasting images on top of each other before as well, and now we do again. I thought that the unstretched human vulva image was still in this article's image gallery, but I found it in the edit history, and, as said before, it's now up there as one of the primary images again. Flyer22 (talk) 06:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

That works I guess. But I was actually thinking of the other vulva that is being stretched open but doesn't have the vaginal opening so open or stretched. This would provide the contrast I was talking about.
 * You're talking about the stretched vulva image that's in this article's image gallery at the moment, right? I'm not so sure that would be the best to contrast with the stretched image that's being used as a primary image now, considering that with the two images that are up there now as primary images, one is completely unstretched and the other is stretched in both ways. If we put both stretched images up there, then it's not too different, except that one has the vagina not too stretched (rather it's the vulva that is stretched). But if you mean trading the stretched image that is a current primary image with the stretched image that's in the image gallery, I prefer the stretched image that we are currently using as a primary image. Flyer22 (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Flyer22 - I think the images are about as good as we can do at the moment, and that's pretty good. I think it's a shame that people, around the time that it was first uploaded I recall, persuaded the uploader of the unstretched image to crop it and desaturate the colours to the point where now it looks a bit unnatural next to a normal image. I think it was prudishness at the time that made them think it was less harmful to their nation's young (?) if any vulva image was out-of-context and grey. Trouble is, I don't think the un-touched original survived in any WP upload.
 * I also wonder what was originally meant by the caption "Image showing stretched vulva with surrounding." in the gallery. It looks like some words have gone missing - does anyone know what they were? --Nigelj (talk) 14:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't. I'm not even sure that there was more of a description than that, Nigelj. Also, I wasn't aware of that whole backstory you just told. I'm glad to be informed about it. Flyer22 (talk) 19:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that anyone cares what I have to say anymore but all of my previous comments were an attempt to have the "stretched vulva with surroundings" posted as the primary picture. When Flyer22 offered to place a second picture next to the current stretched vulva with stretched vaginal opening I thought this was an excellent idea but apparently I miscommunicated which picture I had been talking about the whole time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.29.38.7 (talk) 05:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 71.29.38.7, of course we care what you have to say. You've been great to work with. And the article looks better now, with those two images up there than it did before, as Nigelj agrees also. When it comes to the alternative you cite, however, I'm more content with the two images up there now. And since you stated that it works as well, we all agree so far, even though you do prefer the other way you cite concerning these images. Flyer22 (talk) 05:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't make any sense to put up a picture which doesn't even show what this article is about. No matter if the old one was stretched or not. This one is surely not stretched. --Lamilli (talk) 11:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't get what you're saying. The current pictures were fine, and were/are very much what this article is about. It doesn't matter if one was stretched or not. One showed the vagina in one form, and the other in another form. It would have been better if you would have discussed the change you wanted to make here at the talk page first before changing those two images that were agreed upon here "as good as we can do" for now. Instead of that one image you changed it to. But, sigh, I have other things to attend to at this time. Flyer22 (talk) 13:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

There's obviously a difference between vulva and vagina. We had two vulva pics here, in the first one you could see the vagina, in the other one you couldn't. And if you can't even see the thing which the article is about, then there's no purpose for the picture here. Regarding the first picture: I had no objections with that one. Someone claimed that it would be in an unnatural state and that's why it doesn't fit. --Lamilli (talk) 11:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I see your reasoning for changing the pictures. I wouldn't say you couldn't see the vagina in one of those pictures, but I get that you mean that it wasn't the picture's focus, and you could only see a small opening where a line was pointing to and there was more vulva than vagina. Anyway, thanks for explaining your reasons. Flyer22 (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the picture " Vagina-anatomy-labelled1.jpg " is not adequate because in it the vaginal opening is greatly hidden by the posterior commissure of the outer lips and by the hymeneal tissue and the periurethral folds. Why not to choose a photograph that is as explicit as any decently-drawn schematic diagram? KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.155.188.4 (talk) 03:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Vaginal Lubricant does not originate from Bartholins Gland ?
The vaginal mucosa has no glands, thus it cannot secrete anything. The lubrication is probably a combination of greater vestibular gland mucus & cervical mucus. (Patrickrwilliams (talk) 05:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC))

source: http://health.discovery.com/centers/sex/sexpedia/bartholins.html

It might be beneficial to the accuracy of this article regarding vaginal lubrication to look more into the research discussed about on the following Discovery Health website article:

Bartholin Gland small text large text Bartholin's Glands are part of a woman's internal genitals. They are located on each side of the labia minora (inner lips of the vaginal opening; see vulva), and they secrete small amounts (a drop or two) of fluid when a woman is sexually aroused.

The small drops of fluid were once thought to be important for lubricating the vagina, but the research of Masters and Johnson demonstrated that vaginal lubrication comes from further within the vagina. The fluid may slightly moisten the opening of the vagina (labia), making contact on this sensitive area more comfortable.

The Bartholin's glands can become irritated or infected, resulting in swelling and pain. This unusual condition can be easily treated by a qualified medical professional.

Copyright 2002 Sinclair Intimacy Institute —Preceding unsigned comment added by Civilstudy888 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Unexplainable
The page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulva does contain a picture that really shows the vaginal opening("Vagina-anatomy-labelled2.jpg"), whereas the article about the human vagina does NOT. KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.155.188.4 (talk) 02:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Terminology
I think a section on Vagina Euphemisms is in order. Here is a small list to get started.

Beaver, Bermuda triangle,  Birth cannon, Bone yard, Bush, Camel toe, Catcher's mitt, Chuff, Cooch, Coochie, Cookie, Crotch taco, cunt, Dick dock, DNA dumpster, Easy bake oven, Fluffy sausage wallet, Fur pie, Glory hole, Gravy boat, Honeypot, Jellyroll, Juice box, Kit-Kat, Kooter, Lobster claw, Love muscle, Moose knuckle, Mud flaps, Muff, Mutton flaps, Na (as in vagin"na"), Panocha, Panty hamster, Pink stink, Pink taco, Pookie, Poontang, Promised Land, Puna, Pussy, Quivering mound of love pudding, Receptacle, Roast beef curtain, Sausage wallet, Snack box, Twat, Two fingered fish mitten, Vadge, Whooha, Wizard's sleeve, Ya-ya, Yeast cake, etc.

Mrjphillip (talk) 02:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

So... does anybody have any objections if i add a new section on euphemisms for the vagina?

Mrjphillip (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:NOT. -- Neil N   talk  ♦  contribs  21:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No. This serves no academic or clinical purpose. It only serves to get a 6th Grader into detention. Grow up. 66.215.153.240 (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the worst article I have seen on Wikipedia yet.
Worst. Article. Ever. This article is the worst I've seen in a long time. It should be rewritten by someone who knows what they are talking about eg. actually gynocologists. The photo should be removed as it is not representative of normal women. It seems very small and I wonder if it is even an adult woman as it doesnt even have any pubic hair at all. Failing that more photos of what normal/natural more average women look like should be added. Otherwise you are going to get teenagers coming on here hoping to be reassured they are normal and finding this crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.139.129.86 (talk) 04:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the worst article with the worst photo ever. Wikipedia should get an actual doctor/gynocologist to write it. If young teenagers come on this site it would be a shame. The photo is pornographic and I think a diagram with average proportions should be added instead. The photo is NOT representative of ADULT woman. It has no pubic hair and seems pretty small all over. The wording throughout needs editing.


 * I agree this picture is of juvenile and should be taken down immediately!EraserGirl (talk) 05:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So sign up for an account and do some editing. We're all volunteers here. -- Neil N    talk  ♦  contribs  05:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not censored. I feel a diagram, as you suggest does not do the job of a photograph. Take a look at any fine medical textbook. There you will find plenty of, what many consider, disturbing photographs. I don't know that the juvenile claim can be verified. I know a woman well into her twenties with a similar looking vagina. It seems appropriate to have a picture without pubic hair since it offers a better view of vaginal anatomy.
 * Wikipedia is written collaboratively by volunteers from all around the world. Visitors do not need specialised qualifications to contribute, since their primary role is to write articles that cover existing knowledge; this means that people of all ages and cultural and social backgrounds can write Wikipedia articles. 2nd and 3rd paragraph. It would be great however if a gynecologist were to contribute. this may be falsely assuming that they have not.
 * It seems that it would be an honor to any contributor if teenagers were to come on here to learn about vaginas. This seems far better than going to questionable pornography sites that are just as available. Mrjphillip (talk) 07:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so you say it cannot be verified that it is a juvenile, can it be verified that it is an adult, can we add one that is verifiably an adult?? Perhaps a variety or normal vaginas like there are on the penis page?


 * Why do you care about that? Either a) The image [[Image:Vagina-anatomy-labelled2.jpg]] is considered pornographic and should thus be removed (whether juvenile or adult) or b) the image is not considered pornographic, in which case it should not be removed (whether juvenile or adult). I don't see why it should be objectionable to include an anatomic non-pornographic image of a juvenile. So it's not a question of juvenile/adult but pornographic/non-pornographic. I personally think the image above is mildly pornographic. It would be better to include an image where the vulva is being held apart by a gynaecologist's pincers, instead of hands. Cambrasa (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, it's a photo of a vulva anyway, not vagina!
 * Plenty of adult women have shaved vaginas these days, whether with some hair left or completely shaved. This most certainly is not the worst article on Wikipedia, and certainly not for having a shaved vagina. And even though Mrjphillip has been banned, he is correct about Wikipedia not being censored and shaved vaginas or rather vulvas, to be more precise, offering a better view of vaginal anatomy. Anyway, the issue of that image seems to have been taken care of from what is posted below. Flyer22 (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * A photo of a vagina, absent of any context, is not pornographic. To assume otherwise is more of a moral argument than an objective one.  They exist, this is what it looks like.  End of story.  I also agree that this article would only benefit from the input of a professional.  Any gynecologist's input on this page would be greatly appreciated (once more, if it hasn't been done already.)  Cambrasa: And by pincers, you mean speculum, right?  This site is done by volunteers, if this is the only shot they got, it'll do.  (It's not pornographic in my opinion, since nothing is touching it in anyway.  The fingers are outside of the vulva opening it with pressure on the skin. If something was touching the vulva, then I'd agree.)  66.215.153.240 (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Replaced one image with another from the gallery.
There was some discussion on Vulva that one of the photos on that article (and this one) looked underage. Guessing the age of a model based on a photo is a tricky business, and easily gotten wrong. I was all set to ignore this issue, but when I looked at the contributor's other photos at Commons I see that at least one of them was deleted due to concerns about the model possibly being underage. This concerns me. For now, I have removed the image in question and replaced it with an image from the Vagina gallery that is more clearly of a (shaved) adult. Nandesuka (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good looking out, Nandesuka. Flyer22 (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I presume that there in the North America/"First World" the books about pediatric gynecology are not allowed to show photographs of the vulvas of the female children. Yes, the bourgeois legislators are ridiculous, and the ones who like to obey them without an explicit protest are even more ridiculous. KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.155.188.4 (talk) 04:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Again with this horrible picture. I find it very misleading. It might be more appropriate for an article of what a vagina would look like after being fisted.

Disambiguation link
The disambiguation link for this page is preceded by "Cock goes here" and the page is locked. Someone change this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Absurdatheist (talk • contribs) 06:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's been fixed. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

photo text error
The photograph text incorrectly spells labia minora as labia menora. Bart (talk) 13:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

"foreign bodies inserted by curious children"?
The article says that one of the causes of vaginal discharge is "foreign bodies inserted by curious children". I'm not sure what was intended by this but I don't think it belongs in the article. 75.68.246.87 (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You know how it is, your just sat there minding your own business, then a curious child comes in and inserts an objects in your vag. lol 88.107.201.172 (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

In constructing a scientific article one makes the mistake of assuming that excessive explanation will be unnecessary but I am aware that this will be read by unsophisticated persons. In my own previous gynecological practice I found this to be a relatively common finding especially in the intellectually handicapped (or challenged for the PC types). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizzard01 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no neeed to be patronizing, Gizzard01. Asarelah (talk) 01:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * But foreign objects inserted into vaginas are not generally inserted by "curious children." 75.69.39.95 (talk) 03:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * And your evidence for this is? So far, we have Gizzard who says he/she encountered it during gynecological practice, not a reliable source by any means but seems to carry more weight then you just saying 'it isn't so'. Nil Einne (talk) 11:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, whose word you decide is more reliable than whose is up to you, but if the "curious children" statement is going to stay in the article it needs to be verified. (WP:V). 75.69.39.95 (talk) 01:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This may need some elaboration. It is most unlikely that a comprehensive study has been done on children who insert things into their vagina and even if a learned paper where published it would simply reflect the anecdotal observations of the clinician who published it. To reduce to basics, there was two principle sources of foreign bodies in the vagina, tampons and other non sanitary objects. By far the most common is the retained tampon which occurs in adults. There are iatrogenic sources of foreign bodies, examples of which include swabs left in the vagina after surgery or proceedures carried out on the cervix. As the patient has not inserted these things she may not be aware they are present until signs and symptoms present. Intellectually handcapped adults and children may present with similar signs and symptoms and one presumes that foreign bodies encountered here are self inserted or inserted by some other party for what ever reason. In children who present with symptoms of vaginal discharge, if the cause is not sexual abuse or if this can be eliminated, then the examiner often discovers a small toy or bead the exact origins of which may be unknown but are mostly attributed to the child herself.

Just a Group Discussion on Images
Hi all, I just want to add that I check back to Wikipedia articles from time to time like "Vagina", "Penis" or "Mammary Intercourse"(aka Tit F**k) etc or any sight having to do with pictures of sexual reproduction or human anatomy and I always notice one thing. The edit histories and/or discussions have to almost always do with the addition or deletion of AN IMAGE. Seems more attention is paid to what image is included as opposed to the text. With me I'm moderate enough to tolerate an explicit photo of a vagina or penis or an animation of a vagina or penis so long as the text is in order. That's just me. But I noticed when it comes to the issue of sexual images there are two camps on the subject here on Wikipedia. 1.Those that don't approve of graphic image or animation. 2.Those that acquiesce to images so long as they're in a clinical manner.

I'd like to know other's opinions on this issue & if they notice the kinds of edit traffic that almost always pays attention to images as opposed to text. Thanks. Koplimek (talk) 11:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The reason there are so many edits is becuase self-appointed moral crusaders keep unilaterally deleting images. We don't pay that much attention to images. To us they are no big deal. It's mostly the vandals who are obsessed with them.  Cambrasa  14:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Need a pic of the vagina without the fingers!
Can anybody upload one? I know the is'nt a picture gallrey, but I think one would be useful. 139.55.40.209 (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)till
 * The vagina is the inner part of a woman's genitals, and thus cannot be seen without opening it. The vulva is the external genitals. Asarelah (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Word. It seems we are always debating pictures on this article. Flyer22 (talk) 02:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Other terms
For Vagina - why arnt dey mentiund? TheAlfmeister (talk) 11:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you drunk? 75.68.246.87 (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

nasty vagina?
can someone please remove the pic of 'nasty vagina'? it's a pic of a nasty vagina ferchrissakes!!! 66.235.9.15 (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not censored. See WP:NOTCENSORED. Asarelah (talk) 00:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Even though I agree that this vulva is not exactly beautiful, I think that's not the point. I also recommend to removed or change this pic but for a different reason: it does not show a vagina. It shows a vulva and there is quite a difference between these things. --79.206.1.36 (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Vagina Picture

Yes I am a male, but I do think a "generally" attractive vagina would be more suitable as representation on this page rather than the rather unattractive one that is currently up. Understandably, we don't want the picture to be pornographic, but it shouldn't scare people either and that one is pretty scary. If you scroll to the top of the talk page, the very first pic was among the best. It was held open so the ACTUAL vagina can be seen and it was fairly attractive Morgan Cohen 19:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I personally think its a little distracting for the article. I believe that most people who insist on the more explicit pictures on wikipedia are just being silly. Decen't Illistrations and Diagrams pull the reader away from the text less then diagrams and are often just in general concidered to be in better taste. I agree with the diagram arguments in general. Personally it would be nice if Wikipedia had a click for live image option for biological articles and a general standard for having only illistrations on articles.

I can't tell you how many times I have clicked on some article to learn about what another article was describting to be hit by a image in the top of the picture that I found a little distrubing. Yes Wiki isn't censored but a comprimise like this article of not putting the live shots on the top of the page is just nicer then the autofalicio article. I do not find the current image that distracting and am not opposed for it staying on the article, but I would propose having a second article that was relevant pictures of the human vagina that the site linked to. That way Wikipedia still has the images, but people doing research projects can choose what they want to see. Not being censored is the right to show something not the right to force it IMO.

Now on another topic. Where is the general vagina article that covers the various other species that have one? Obviously most humans will be looking up the human vagina but what happens when you want and overview of the typical species sexual organs.(74.183.38.88 (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC))


 * Anachronous moralist crusaders always try to hide their outdated biases and Weltanschauungen
 * behind lame rationalizations. Invariably they fail. KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.155.188.3 (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am in favor of removing the current picture (Vagina,Anus,Pereneum-Detail.jpg). If the article is about the vagina, then show a vagina, not a vulva.  Or at least add a label pointing to the vaginal opening.  The current image looks like an excuse to show spread legs on what should be an encyclopedic article or to provide a platform for debating free speech (neither of which should be purposes served by Wikipedia images), and proponents of that excuse call anyone in opposition "moralist crusaders" or worse.  Name calling instead of rational argument.  So much for objectivity.  Can someone here acknowledge that there could be reasons for deleting a picture other than moralism?  I would remove the picture myself (knowing that I can freely edit articles), but apparently there is a lot of history about removing pictures from this article, and I don't want to enter the fray.  I also lack a replacement picture. Redhookesb (talk) 10:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Topic
why is this vagina being spread by ungloved-hands?! also, since it is shaved, it does not represent a 'natural' looking vagina. though it represents the anatomy well, should a more normal picture not be found?

I agree, this image is a complete turn-off. The vagina itself looks like it is partly shaven regrowth and they appear to have developed some sort of rash. 81.157.83.220 (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't here to be a "turn-on." The picture is meant to demonstrate the subject. Movingboxes (talk) 15:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not what I meant. These genitals are misformed, poorly shaven and the woman has some sort of a rash on her legs. Also the picture has no labels so it's not clear which is the vagina and which is the anus. Since the vagina is internal an boroscope or photo of dissected vagina would be more appropriate. 81.157.83.220 (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You must be somewhat inexperienced in such matters - just like every part of the body, vulvas come in all shapes, sizes and colours, and often get airbrushed in any sort of "artistic photography" that you may have perused. This is actually a fairly typical caucasian vulva, hair-styles notwithstanding. When you start shaving in a few years, you'll no doubt get razor-rash from time-to-time as well (albeit on your face instead). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.183.201 (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The picture is not that bad, but I wonder why one of the labelled-vulva pictures isn't being used instead. See clitoris for example. 128.146.172.91 (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to be the one to say this: But the picture is really bad. It's not representing an avarage vagina. Please bear in mind that young people might use wikipedia as a source of sexual education. They and everyone using Wikipedia as an source of information deserves to see a good picture that represents an avarage vagina when they read this article. 94.191.159.22 (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Time to learn: puritan narrowminds don't like to see vaginas (I mean the holes themselves) --- probably because they all are closet gays. ^_~ KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.226.23.170 (talk) 07:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Change granny vagina picture Portillo (talk) 09:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * So... a shaven vulva is a medically-accurate depiction is it? Personal tastes and aesthetics aside, this really isn't the appropriate image for an encyclopedia. What next, should we censor foreskins on the penis article because many women prefer a circumcised willy?