Talk:Vagina/Archive 3

The Real Vagina's Picture
This is a taboo thing in Indonesian Wikipedia. Is this also taboo in English Wikipedia?

 Relly Komaruzaman   Talk   09:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be real hard to get a picture of a vagina... --arny (talk) 16:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

http://xkcd.com/631/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.216.102 (talk) 07:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a common element in other wikipedia languages. French, German, Spanish, pick your choice. And most notably that is legal as an educational photography is never considered pornographic in most jurisdictions across the world. Guidod (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Cultural references
I notice other articles have "cultural references" sections. Wouldn't it be good to have one for this articles. 90.202.140.209 (talk) 13:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I suspect "Cultural Referencses" would rapidly become an endless list of everyone's favourite. Best avoided. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 13:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Where is the real vagina?
The real photo of vagina is gone!

Would you mind if I make the new one?

The vagina picture is Indonesian's vagina. Do you love it?

 Relly Komaruzaman   Talk   03:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was wondering the same thing. Why doesn't this article show a photograph? One has to visit vulva to get any sense of what a vagina looks like, which seems odd. -- Ec5618 23:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes there should be a picture of the vagina, you dont see drawings on the lion page do you?--203.192.91.4 (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

PH of vagina
I hope to add this information once my account is confirmed sufficiently to edit this page. Regarding the acidity of the vagina, the normal PH is about 3. Infections can affect vaginal PH - for example, anaerobic vaginosis can raise it to PH 5 or 6, whilst candidiasis (thrush) can lower it to around PH 2. I've obtained this information from http://www.chestersexualhealth.co.uk/bacterial.htm - I hope this is an authoritative enough source? I want to include the information because I was looking for it here! I would also like to find out more about the alkaline nature of cervical secretions during sexual arousal. Do you think it appropriate to include this infomation? Crinoline (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This seems good to me. Go for it. --Nigelj (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is important 88.114.245.207 (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Put a real picture up or is this run by religious zealots?
Put a real picture up or is this run by religious zealots?--Meiamme (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We're not censored, but we're not a porn site either. This is supposed to be educational. Glass  Cobra  02:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Which explains why penis shows several pictures of a penis. Because a vagina is porn, but a penis is good clean fun.
 * Where is the picture of a vagina? Was there ever one? -- Ec5618 07:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, there used to be several pictures of real vaginas in this article. I don't know what happened to them.
 * Look at the gallery --Ender The Xenocide | ( Talk | Contribs) 22:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A picture of a real vagina labeled should be on the top of the article, not a drawing. The article penis shows a real penis labeled which is fine. --Juan D. (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There used to be a picture either here or in the Vulva article that showed a relatively open vaginal opening, but I think it was deleted because of that. A shame, really, seeing that's what the article is about. --90.231.34.215 (talk) 00:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Pornography: Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal. By no means is it arousing or has any means to arouse. --207.68.235.128 (talk) 04:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

One question
I haven't really been keeping track of all these discussions here so I wanted to ask why the primary photo in the article is a diagram, but not this photo. Although an articles primary photo should not have text on it (e.g. you don't see the Pioneer plaque pointing out where the head and hand is on the human article), the actual photo is in my opinion far better than that diagram. Could anyone point out why the real photo isn't at the top, as Wikipedia isn't censored. --BiT (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like the diagram is more encyclopedic with the photo remaining below so far. brandспойт 22:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I still do not see how the hiding of the subject of this article can be considered "encyclopedic". KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 187.31.0.180 (talk) 08:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree; at penis, the first image is a photo, and at similar human anatomy articles, I believe there is consensus that photographs are preferred over anatomical diagrams, especially of the external anatomy. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 00:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If the consensus is to use photographs for external anatomy then why not use a one when it's available? --BiT (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The drawing, whilst anatomically accurate, is also completely misleading, and gives no idea of the appearance of a real vulva and vaginal opening unless you already know what one looks like. I've clarified the caption to the image; the image is of a vulva, and only the vaginal entrance is visible, not the whole of the vagina. Ideally, we should also have an internal view, including the cervix. -- Karada (talk) 09:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Link to www.myvag.net
Have reinserted this link (I added it sometime in 2008 and it was removed because a user thought the site was offloading malware or something). The site's "claim to fame" (and hence the value of having a link to it) is that it is devoted entirely to the vagina and is completeley non-pornographic. An unusual combination! And it's not as if we've got dozens of links and have to trim the list down or anything :-) UrsusMaximus (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You may want to review the policy on external links, specifically #11 in this section. DP 76764  (Talk) 22:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The policy entirely supports your action, but it's a shame you've decided to sacrifice usefulness to a policy. You're clearly determined to delete this link every time I insert it and I have better things to do than engage in an edit war with someone like you. You win. The user loses. UrsusMaximus (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no need to attack another editor for abiding by Wikipedia policy, UrsusMaximus. Wikipedia policy demands reputable sources, and for good reason. Don't make this personal. -- Ec5618 (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, WP:CIVIL. And I believe I have only removed it one time and then deferred to discussion on the Talk Page.  No need for martyrs here, thank you very much.  DP 76764  (Talk) 00:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Function of vagina during intercourse
This has been brought up before, but nothing was done, and the page is still locked. Some mention needs to be made of the vagina's role in stimulating the male's penis during intercourse. Please add this. 98.28.115.135 (talk) 05:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Missing terms
The terms "vaginal vault" and "vaginal canal", which are used quite frequently on shows like CSI: Crime Scene Investigation and Law & Order: Special Victims Unit are not covered in this article, but obviously should be. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 23:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Appropriate Image
I choose to add an appropriate image that could not be misconceaved as anything else other than a doctors veiw of a vagina. The picture is labeled and even the doctors hand is in sight. I would hope this not cause any problems as it is a doctor examinig a vagina and nothing else so it defies no wikipedia guidline or otherwise.--Sharpterov (talk) 12:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Sharpterov, I think the image is appropriate for the subject, its not porn but it lets a person know what a vagina is. There are plenty pictures of penises on the page about the penis so atleast one picture about a vagina is appropriate, most importantly because the article is about the vagina.--Anastasia23 (talk) 13:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * A much better illustration of what the vagina actually is than the previous images. Dan D. Ric (talk) 13:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Much better. A picture of the vagina, rather than the vulva. UrsusMaximus (talk) 13:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I like the new image up there. It's very detailed & isn't all stretched out like some of the other pictures are. (I'm no prude, but some of the pictures looked as if the girl or someone else had been giving a "helping hand" before the picture was taken!) I think this new image should stay up as the first picture seen & any other pictures can go into the gallery. It's honestly the clearest picture of a real vagina that I've ever seen up here. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Tokyogirl79


 * I've returned the image to the one Sharpterov put up. I wish I could say this better, but the other one was too porno. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizz612 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If this image purports to legitimacy, then the hand should be wearing a glove. If that is actually a medical professional, it would be malpractice to not be wearing a glove. It obviously isn't the 'owner's' hand, sine the skin tone is about 3 shades lighter. This is why wikipedia is suspect, aside from the fact that this is a picture of the vulva rather than the vagina. Get a grip.

Article Reassessment for WikiProject Medicine=
Hello. I am a member of WikiProject Medicine, a Wikipedia wide project that maintains and improves articles that fall under the scope of medicine. Since your article has not fallen under our scope, I have placed the correct template(s) on this talk page. Leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Thanks, and keep editing Wikipedia! Renaissancee (talk) 00:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Harry Potter 6??
Why does Harry Potter 6 redirect here? I'm not sure how to fix this. So if anyone else does know how, they should.--I am a Wikipedian (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind I fixed the problem :) --I am a Wikipedian (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is translated in Bangle language, So please insert the name of Bangle in the language section.--Wikitanvir (talk) 10:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Please Insert a Language
This article just translated in Bengali. Please insert Bengali as a language in the language bar. insert যোনি. then it'll be okay.--Wikitanvir (talk) 06:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay done --FormerIP (talk) 00:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There should be more pictures and more information
Firstly, you only show picture from one racial group, which could be misleading. Secondly more examples would be more educational (and people should not have to go to porn to learn, as some people have implied here!). Also it is human-centric. Certainly most people who read this would be interested in human vaginas, but it is also true that other species have vaginas and you need information on this, particularly if there are differences between human vaginas and those of other species. You only show a normal vagina. There are no examples of deformed, diseased or mutilated vaginas. There are no examples of unusual or atypical vaginas. There is no mention of people who possess both a penis and a vagina, of people who have their penis transformed into a vagina, or of genitalia which is malformed and is therefore a half-and-half organ (possessing traits of both male and female genitalia in a single organ). Nevart (talk) 08:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate Image (vulva instead of vagina)
I should preface by saying that I do not find the current image to be offensive to any degree nor do I have any other ulterior motive in my following opinions. I think that the current image being used does not actually depict the vagina. The image being presented is one of the human female vulva which is colloquially referred to as the vagina. I believe the proper image to depict the vagina, an internal structure, must involve the use of a cross section of some sorts. While it is true that the vaginal opening is shown in this image, it does not depict the entire vaginal structure but rather at length depicts and labels other structures. As it stands I feel this image is hurtful to the article in that it promotes a misinformed colloquial understanding of the topic instead of the proper one. 66.68.111.71 (talk) 05:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the photo isn't suitable for the article because it doesn't even fully depict the vagina. It only shows the opening, failing to provide an even basic sense of what it is: a tubular tract, to quote the article.


 * People have argued on this talk page that a photo is preferable to a diagram for anatomical articles on Wikipedia, but this does not apply to internal structures such as the vagina. Until someone produces a photo of a cross-section of a vagina, a clear diagram of a cross-section is far more preferable to this inadequate photo: there are a few available at the bottom of the article.


 * Re the issue of colloquialism, it's good to have the distinction clarified in the article but I think the statement "In common speech, the term "vagina" is often used to refer to the vulva or female genitals" in the second paragraph needs to cite a source and if there isn't one, say "citation needed", and the often changed to sometimes. It's not a universally widepsread use. Sukidakara (talk) 18:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that this is not an accurate picture of a vagina, but rather of a vulva. It is true that colloquially the word "vagina" is used to mean the female genitalia as a whole, but an encyclopedia should try to clear up this misconception rather than further it. The current picture, to me, seems about as sensible as using a photograph of an entire face for the article nostril. At the very least, could someone change the caption under the photograph? It could say something like "Human vulva with view of vaginal opening." Currently the caption references the Skenes glands, which are not actually visible - nor, in fact, mentioned anywhere else on the entire page. 68.183.201.60 (talk) 05:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well. The first thing I thought when I saw the picture was "that's not a vagina, that's a vulva!". 87.7.89.250 (talk) 09:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I took the liberty of changing the title of this section so that someone looking at the TOC would immediately know what we're talking about. I hope this does not violate etiquette. 87.7.89.250 (talk) 09:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Who knew you could find porn on wikipedia? I just came, looking at that picture. Hope to many times in the future too! thanks internet! -11 yr old internet wiz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.136.182 (talk) 04:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

image one whith pubic hair
'''hey!!! type BONER on this XD its funny'''

One whith pubic hair, realy how many people shave vulva anyway,a unshaved one maby. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markstar (talk • contribs) 07:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

best illustrative images
]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xdon elias (talk • contribs) 19:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Pubic hair
Set aside the aesthetics. I think that a picture without hair, hence shaven, is not appropriate: this is not what it looks naturally like. At least the description should mention this particularity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hehiheho (talk • contribs) 22:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It may be for clarity's sake in labeling the parts of the vagina. However I do agree that there should be some amount of hair, representing an average vagina. Obviously a vagina whose hair hinders the view of certain labeled parts should not be used. --72.88.89.243 (talk) 00:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations. By using this photograph you are helping to convince teenage girls everywhere that the hair on their vagina is unnatural and should be removed in order for them to be "normal." It's irresponsible beyond belief. Newsflash: A woman's vagina has pubic hair!! Instead of providing valid and accurately represented educational information (and I believe a picture is better than an illustration) about female anatomy, you have presented porno-culture as fact. On the "penis" page every single penis picture has pubic hair; yet here, good god no! We can't show a vagina with pubic hair--hell women might actually start to think it's normal and ok to have it on their vagina. And, dear lord save us, we can't have that! What would all the men--who, let's be real here, got their education about what the female vagina "looks like" from pornography--think if their girlfriends didn't shave their cunts to make them look like an eight-year old's, instead of letting the natural hair that is the inherent sign of their sexual maturity actually be there? I'm disgusted by the lack of professional integrity on this sight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tld4242 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tld4242. You seem to be muddling vulva and vagina (see the articles for the difference). Apart from that, I agree with you. See the discussion that fizzled out at Talk:Vulva. --Nigelj (talk) 13:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Although many of the arguments about photos on this page are made in reference to the page on Penis, and this approach appears to be kind of played out, I want to add one more: the hair in the headline penis picture is not on the penis itself - yet it is still part of the photo, and part of the impression that a reader gets from the image. A moderate amount of pubic hair in the leading image on the vagina page would not obscure the anatomy of the vagina at all, and would avoid tacitly supporting a particular body ideal (in this case, one that is associated with the differential standards for men and women's genital grooming.) I feel that this is a good reason to have such an image over the current one, and certainly, the current one could not be cogently defended from being replaced with such an image (provided that the anatomy was still visable) on the basis of an editor's aesthetic preference for shaved females genitals. Unfortunately, as a man, I cannot provide one. 74.110.18.111 (talk) 18:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The close up of a vagina.
it actually hurts looking at that picture. can we get a better one lol.

Why would you replace a photograph with a diagram? Surely a photograph is more illustrative? BodvarBjarki (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Holy shit! That is a fucking disturbing picture. Is this an educatonal website or Swank magazine? Remember, kids also frequent this site for research. How about something a little less...hmmm, I don't know...DISGUSTING. There's no other article on Wikipedia with an image so graphic. Someone please repalace this.

Agreed - not only is is vulgar, I would be very concerned about the age of the model —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.160.103 (talk) 02:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so this is vulgar? What about the ten photos of a penis in the penis article? Besides this an ecyclopedia, basiclly meaning it should show what it looks like.

I find it ironic that someone complains about a picture possibly offending kids, yet lets loose with a lot of swearing. 210.246.51.185 (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

(btw, is it true that there's a scratch 'n sniff app for the iPhone? Because if there is....) --Jack Meihoffer (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Read the "censor" notice at the top of the page. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 22:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

If you visit a page about a Vagina what do you expect to see? Earth_Worm_Eater (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it will scar a child for life if he or she sees a picture of a vagina in article about vaginas. God forbid a kid learn some basic anatomy.70.30.138.36 (talk) 08:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for photos of abortions on the abortions page too. God forbid if a kid learns what an abortion is. Somehow I think those clamoring for vagina photos here would fight tooth and nail against an abortion photo though. If the user base of Wikipedia is so offended to use the product can it succeed? It only succeeds when people use it. Therefore I don't think we want beaver shots here. 70.254.46.119 (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Its better to see the real picture for understanding... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.75.89 (talk) 20:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

What's disgusting about vaginas? Did you know that over half the population of the world has a vagina? Shocking stuff I know! Roughly 99.99% of people came out of a vagina at some point, and an unknown number will re-enter one several times throughout their lives. Seriously if you're disturbed by a vagina you need to see a psychologist. It's like being disturbed by a toe or an apple or the Eiffel tower.


 * Fucking toes... How do they work? Nidht (talk) 02:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedias do not show pictures of vaginas, they typically show illustrations. The problem is that Wikipedia has a small group of wannabe pornographers that insist images like this remain. This is not an issue with censorship,l but of decency. Those that don't get that may be part of the pornographer class. Steve (talk) 05:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I just don't get what's so indecent about a vagina. I really don't.  Maybe I'm biased because I have one?  Whatever. Millahnna (talk) 11:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyright infringement?
173.7.222.30 (talk) 03:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC) scarily enough, I recognize that image. It's been ripped from a porn site -- the model used tha name "alice" on the site. I actually have an unlabeled copy of that image on my HD. LOL. Don't want to be accused of spamming so I shall not name the site. Simply labelling the parts on it does not do away with the copyright of the orignal image. It needs to be yanked from the wikimedia commons.


 * you know this how? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.46.27 (talk) 05:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Obviously, from looking at explicit images on the Internet, like a zillion other people. Get over it. Wikipedia isn't a place to be condemnatorily prudish, and identifying a copyvio is good, regardless how the identification is made. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 23:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What does the fact that you saw an image on a porn sight have to do with anything? The only way your comment makes sense to me is to presume you believe the fact that you've seen the picture previously on some other site means it can't be used here, and I don't get why you've presumed that.  How does the image and the use of the image become at all altered by way of the fact that its on another site besides wikipedia?--Δζ (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Can somebody explain to me
... why this article has exactly one photograph of a shaven vagina, while the penis article has three unshaven photographs? Shaving is by no means the norm for women across the world, especially outside of Western countries.--71.36.41.69 (talk) 00:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should read this before you make statements like that. user:Aaron BruceUser_talk:Aaron Bruce/Special:Contributions/Aaron Bruce 06:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all that section cites no sources, but second of all I think showing a natural vagina should be shown. I always think about it this way; if someone who has never seen a naked woman or a human being would come to Wikipedia, they should be able to see a picture which shows how women are naturally, and then a picture of a shaven vagina should be included maybe with the caption "in the late 20th century, shaving gained popularity in the Western world". But shaving is just a fad like everything else, shaving wasn't popular in the 60's and 70's and it'll stop being popular one day. The first picture in the "human" includes a naked man and a woman. Wikipedia is supposed to educate, so a even if 99% of people in the world would get a navel piercing, the picture at navel should still feature a natural one as the main picture, and then include a picture of a navel piercing somewhere else in the page. --BiT (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Two problems, AB. As BiT says, that section has no citations, and in my own personal experience (which, I'm sure you'll agree, is just as valid as an uncited Wikipedia article), women from the Middle East and Eastern Europe are quite a bit hairer than Americans. Even if it IS the norm in those areas, that's still hardly the whole world. Most of the world's population is in East/South Asia, and I know for a fact that genital depilating is not the norm there. Maybe this is all moot, anyway. It seems that somebody has removed every vagina photograph in the article.--71.37.2.38 (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

White Americans and East Europeans (and likewise West Europeans)have natural bodily affinities: why should east-Europe women be as a rule different (hairier) than other europoids? The Cold War did not intervene in genetics... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.18.7.44 (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed the thing labeling this issue as resolved, since the diagram is no longer there. I think having a photograph of a shaved vagina makes sense, since hair would obscure the vulva. On the other hand, it would also make sense to show female genitalia in its natural state. Perhaps there should at least be an unshaven picture on the mons pubis article? There doesn't seem to be a good one in the commons, but I might be able to supply one, if needed. Ketsuekigata (talk) 00:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I do think the article would benefit from the addition of a photograph illustrating female genitalia with natural pubic hair. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 21:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Since the early days of Islam, Muslim women and men have followed a tradition to "pluck the armpit hairs and shave the pubic hairs". This is a preferred practice rather than an obligation, and could be carried out by shaving, waxing, cutting, clipping or any other method. This is a regular practice that is considered in some more devout Muslim cultures as a form of worship, not a shameful practice, while in other less devout regions it is a practice for the purpose of good hygiene. (See Islamic hygienical jurisprudence.) The reasons behind removing this hair could also be applied to the hair on the scrotum and around the anus, because the purpose is to be completely clean and pure and keep away from anything that may cause dirt and impurities. (Taken from the Vulva article. Stop saying only westerners shave their recreation area...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.54.116.10 (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Pornography and images that have qualities of pornographic images.
The discussions on the talk page are very cyclical- someone posts a pic, people agree its good, then someone objects to it on the grounds that "wikipedia is not pornography" or "the picture is too porno". Could someone educate me as to the relevance of an image being pornographic in nature and the way in which we can identify such pornographic pics? (this assumes the allegations are demonstrably correct for the sake of argument. In practice, the 'Porno-caller"s seem to be unable to offer any argument that the images have a pornographic quality to them.)

It seems to me that the no censorship policy bars consideration of the people's "that's porno" arguments/explanations. How could it not? It is an explicitly value-based judgement as to the suitability of an image based on no criteria shown relevant to the merits of the image's use.

It seems to me that the only valid reason to remove an image would be that the article is better without it. The fact that you allege an image to have pornographic qualities, without more, would seem never to satisfy this requirement.

Isn't it always inappropriate to remove an image on the sole basis of it being porno-like? Shouldn't the numerous comments/actions seeking censorship on the basis of porno-ness be invalid where no effort to tie the pornoness of the image to any improvement of the article is made?

Thanks for any feedback. Numerous examples of the refered to "porno claims" are present on this page of the talk page, and none of them have cited any relevant policy nor offered any argument showing how the article would be improved by the removal of the images--Δζ (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I"m relatively new to this discussion, but have followed it a bit over the past few months. Unfortunately, pornography is *extremely* subjective; for example, one person may find a nude painting or an anatomical diagram pornographic, but to an artist or a doctor they're just diagrams.  One often-quoted saying is "I know it when I see it", which came up in a US court ruling about obscenity in film (Jacobellis v. Ohio).  For the average person, this is a good rule of thumb; you can look at a picture of a nude individual or a body part and be able to guess fairly well what the intended audience is.

I think Wikipedia should give well-intentioned users the benefit of the doubt when it comes to pictures; an editor shouldn't immediately assume that an uploaded picture is pornography unless there is an obvious pornographic slant to the photo (e.g. the presence of a sex toy in a photo of a vagina is probably pornography). The only problem I have with your argument that pornography shouldn't be removed is that Wikipedia could become a repository for pornographic images that really don't add to the articles. Generally, the editors on this talk page are pretty good at reminding over-eager photo-removers that Wikipedia is not censored, and the photos that are on the page right now do an adequate job of depicting the subject matter IMHO. Jhfortier (talk) 06:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is an editorial judgment over here. While Commons and Wikipedia may deposit images, that could be considered pornographic, the main issue is the proper selection of useful and pleasant images. There are options to not see an image, so if someone does not want something, then it's up to him/her. Brand[t] 11:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this whole controversy is silly. If you go to a page about a penis, you're there to learn about a penis and one of the most instructive ways is to see a real life picture. Of course some people might be sexually aroused by it, but that is beside the point. Its impossible to separate the learning value from the potential for sexual stimulation, because the very subject is supposed to be stimulating to some degree (i.e. it is a built-in, biological response within all human beings to become sexually aroused by certain stimuli). People should just recognize this and get over it...I mean it would be understandable if there was a picture of an alluring stripper who is showing her vagina, which could distract from the learning value by making it even more sexually charged than it already is. But that isn't the case in any of these pictures, which are just basic photos of sexual organs. 24.150.156.219 (talk) 02:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The image is unsuitable, since it is more pornographic than not. The girl in the picture is shaved or naturally hairless (ie possibly underage) the person who is handling her looks to be a man and looks as though he is handling her rather roughly. A more appropriate picture would be of a woman with hair, positioning/handling herself so the vagina is visable. Hair does not obscure the vagina as hair does not grow on the vagina. But as long as the women is well kempt everything will be visable as in the male pictures of peni. Incidentally if there was a picture on the penis page of a woman handling the penis of a young boy I would find this equally unacceptable. Sigil5 (talk) 09:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This is not a vagina photograph and it should be removed. I agree about leaving a real picture on the anatomy subjects of wikipedia, but the thing about the photo here, is that is not really a vagina, its a human vulva. Its a photograph of what is called an external view of the perineal body. So in any case it should be moved over the vulva page, the structures marked on the photo are relevant to that structure. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia so it should be truthful, even if the vulva is generally mistaken as vagina. The only way to see the vagina properly is in a lateral cut of the body, as in the drawing. And in the picture shown of the vulva here there are 8 of other structures seen that are not really relevant to the article since it only shows the entrance of the vagina. No clinical anatomy book will depict vulva as vagina just because people don't know how to differentiate them, and vagina is always in the section of pelvis and perineum including the lateral view describing 1. urinary bladder 2. uterus 3. cervix 4. rectouterine pouch 5. vagina 6. rectum, none of them seen on the photograph. (Clinical anatomy, Grant's anatomy by Douglas Gould Pelivis and perineum 3.18)Ttmon (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

mammal vs. human
On the 'Penis' page there is a picture of a horse's penis demonstrating that these reproductive organs are found on animals in addition to humans. Yet, there is no such non-human picture on the vagina page. I suggest we post a comparable picture of the vagina of a horse or likewise animal. 72.255.57.103 (talk) 23:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I was considering the same thing. The article on penises has a photo of several non-human animal ones, while none of the articles on female sexual anatomy, like the vagina or clitoris for instance, have got even a single example beyond those of a human (of which there are plenty, by the way). Furthermore, some of those articles are heavily anthropocentric, only having slight mentions of anything not human (just check out clitoris, in which this is especially the case) - even though they are clearly supposed to present a general view on the subject, not focusing on any particular species. Any thoughts (hopefully of a more NPOV than the one Someone65 made below)? Omnomymous (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * On actually caring to read the article on penises, I think it is both very well written and quite adequately representative of the animal kingdom in general (for those animals who have penises anyway). Having the separate page for the human penis is, in my opinion, a much better way of specializing on a single species than trying to cram everything into a single article, in which the human often is way overrepresented (as is definitely true with the articles mentioned in my above post). If no-one objects, I will start creating anthropocentric versions of articles that should rather be more universal in nature, and move most of the text pertaining to human anatomy into these instead, leaving just a general description on the generic pages. Omnomymous (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: I don't think anybody wants to see a horse vagina. Someone65 (talk) 08:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Vaginal Tightening
It is a very important topic related to vagina, amazingly there is no information about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.136.0.189  (talk • contribs)  05:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at Vaginismus? I see there is no link from this article to that, and will put that right in a minute. --Nigelj (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

"Above the vagina is the Mons pubis"

This should be changed to: "Above the vagina is the urethra, and beyond that (outside the the labia minora but within the labia majora) is the clitoris. All of this comprises the vulva. From the front side of a person, the vulva is typically hidden by the pubic hair on the mons pubis."

"the hymen covers the opening of the vagina from birth until it is ruptured during sexual or non-sexual activity."

This can lead to some dangerous misconceptions. I suggest the change: "the hymen typically covers all or most of the opening of the vagina"

Not done:This needs a source. -- The New  Mikemoral  ♪♫ 22:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Extremely Inappropriate
so does that mean when I look up "gangbang" on here there will be photos??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.88.237.243 (talk) 02:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a poor excuse for posting pornography disguised as 'Sex education'.

A person can learn just as much with a simple drawing or diagram without having to resort to posting pornography in it's place.

Wikipedia has become a haven for Children who wish to look at the Female body and bypassing content filters that have been set in place.

If the editors wish to look at pornography there are certainly endless ways to find it on the Internet without having to resort to this kind of foolishness.

These pictures are extremely inappropriate and should be replaced immediately.


 * In Response to the comment made below - Wikipedia is an open community that caters to all people, including children

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Johanntelemann (talk • contribs) 03:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOTCENSOR. Wikipedia is not written for children. -- Neil N   talk to me  03:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * More specifically: Sexual content noisy   jinx  huh? 03:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Can we have this conversation on one talk page? Either here or Talk:Clitoris. -- Neil N   talk to me  03:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, here's an extremely detailed drawing of the vagina. The source? Encyclopedia Brittanica. You know; the book? Half  Shadow  03:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Really? Cut the bullshit about parts of the human body being pornography. You probably don't even care about kids learning about anatomy or looking at pornography, you probably are embarrassed by pictures of the human body. Let's be real here guys, we don't have to be such prudes as to say the human body is pornography. Are we that sexually repressed as a society? Besides, if a kid is looking at scientific close-ups of a vagina on wikipedia, he's probably not going to see a real vagina for a long time, so he should at least have a good idea of what one looks like O.o


 * Um no, human body parts don't constitute "pornography." Obviously Wikipedia does not censor content based upon deeply-held sexual hang-ups and religion-created mental problems, if Wikipedia did, every page would eventually be deleted by cultists or other people with mental difficulties. When discussing female reproductive organs, the concept of "pornography" in the context given is absurd. For those who are offended by the real world and wish to live in a fantasy delusion, there is the conservapedia.com which caters more to your mindset. Damotclese (talk) 05:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

More pictures please??
Do anyone here mind if someone can take some more photos of a vagina, no matter if it is shaved or not here?

Also, there is only just 1 vagina photo here, and it is "opened". Can the photo be non-opened? Is this more natual? (just like http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/Female_abdomen_frontal_view.jpg this one)

Even the topic penis has got more than 4 real penis photo, both circumcised and not. So i think it should also applied here. thx!

Although you may think this is a platform for all kids who want sex photos to come, but though wiki, i think, is a dictionary. It should teaches us all the things, including sex. Just with one photo, can we learn?(talk) 07:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you might be confusing vagina with vulva. This is mentioned in both articles. --Nigelj (talk) 12:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Do a google image search for vagina, you'll learn everything you need to know. There's definitely no shortage of images on the web.  raseaC talk to me 19:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

hi ther —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.120.191.231 (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No black vagoina?
Isn't that racism? We do have a black first lady! Get with the program, you bunch of backwater hicks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.93.83.77 (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Excuse-me, what do you mean my "WE?" A reminder to all americans, you are NOT alone in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.29.224.2 (talk) 00:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep your shirt on--it was a natural slip-up by someone from the States on a site that is dominated by American users. Yes, lets try to avoid systemic bias but there's no need to make self righteous, self important jabs at someone's nationality. (And if you don't think other nations can be just as self absorbed as Americans at times, you're extremely naive or in denial).70.30.138.36 (talk) 07:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

This is an american based sight. If you don't like it start another website. No one here is under any obligation to be politically correct. If your feelings are that sensitive, leave! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.56.208.236 (talk) 01:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * How ironic is it that you cannot spell properly? This is the "English Language Wikipedia", it's not the "American Wikipeida". Please see WikiProject Countering systemic bias for more info. You may also want to see WP:POLITE. --386-DX (talk) 00:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, we are the biggest, the best and the most beautiful. Hence, US rules on Wikipedia. If you don't like it, maybe your country should build an army that is worth its name. But I think we're digressing here. What about the black vagoina? And how about an Asian. They do look different, you know. Black ones have curly hair and Asian ones have very straight hair. I think it's important to point out the differences! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.164.129 (talk) 03:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "Well, we are the biggest, the best and the most beautiful. Hence, US rules on Wikipedia." biggest ? No your Country is not the largest in the world. The best ? In what way, it seems you are drawn to military but history has thus far dictated the contrary. Beautiful ? Opinion, it depends what you like. In terms of adding or changing the images to accommodate more races, I do not think it matters when you consider that the labels and structure of vagina will remain the same throughout all the human race. --Nikolai508 (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Why does your beggar Jimbo beg all over the world then? Why not just beg in "the biggest, the best and the most beautiful". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.248.161.91 (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I love that this argument has gotten more and more irrational and off-topic as it's gone along. But in answer to the original question I suspect it's a combination of the fact that it's hard enough to keep even one photo on here with so many people up in arms about "pornography" on Wikipedia and no one submitting a photo of a non-white vagina. A quick glance at Wikimedia Commons shows plenty of white vagina photos but no non-white ones. Because all our images have to be released under Creative Commons we can't just grab one off Google, we need someone to submit it with the proper license. Personally however if any non-white individuals were willing to take and upload a photo of their vagina I'd be in favour of it for the sake of both variety and PCness. Danikat (talk) 12:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Why?
This is not an article about gorilla vulvas, it is about the science and beauty of the female human reproductive organs. Do not be so foolish as to suggest photographs of primates should be presented in this article. The organs of the ape/primate and the human may appear to be one in the same, but make no mistake they are vastly different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.114.129 (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

PORNOGRAPHIC
The photographs are pornographic thus extremely inappropriate for children. 117.98.111.92 (talk) 09:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:CENSOR. Wikipedia is not censored. The photographs used are for educational purposes because it is relevant to the topic. If the page was full of pictures of Vaginas and nothing else, then it would be inappropriate. Imperial   Monarch  (D•R) 09:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The only reason the photographs would be inappropriate is if they were just that, inappropriate. For an article about vaginas, pictures of vaginas are appropriate. If it was an article about soccer they would then be inappropriate. Children at school using Wikipedia for porn because it is not blocked is the school's and the parent's problem and responsibility. If they don't want their children using this article for porn then they should get better internet blockers, thus a picture of a vagina in an article about vaginas is appropriate, a child knowing what a vagina even is and surfing the web unmonitored is inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.114.129 (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the point. No internet blocker really works like that. You would have to manually input this article in to stop it. So it then begs the question. How could I possibly know that Wikipedia is displaying images for any article that I don't approve of? I would literally have to check every article. You see your point shows either a prejudice or stupidity as you haven't even considered for one moment the other side. Now imagine everything on the internet. That is why we have something called community standards. Unless you are completely uneducated, only children really use Wikipedia as a primary source. Composers of articles should have in mind then that a large percentage of users are underage. We adults and the educated might use Wikipedia often as a starting point, but it is just that. Wikipedians need to remember this and not get to high on their rocker, believing that they are accomplishing more than they really are which is the a relatively reliable quick lookup guide for GENERAL knowledge.99.187.238.14 (talk) 05:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I would dare say a vagina in and of itself is not inappropriate or unsuitable for children. It's a subjective issue, but your parenting style might be better of with educating rather than censoring.--207.118.105.246 (talk) 12:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

100% Agreed. Try searching for "vagina" on Google and see what comes up (If you would, try "vagina close-up" on Images and select "Big Images" for a clear example). Why would a child searching on Wikipedia not search the most commonly used search engine on the whole Internet for the very same word? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.29.224.2 (talk) 01:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is inappropriate. I just checked out the ejaculation site and they actually have a video of a guy ejaculating. I made a point there and so I will essentially make the same point here. If you are a a female (all ages) you know what a vagina looks like. If you are a guy essentially in adulthood you know what a vagina looks like. Therefore, only children would actually need a Wikipedia "article" to discover the vagina. Children use Wikipedia for research all the time. Although, parent's filtering software protects against porn sites and other inappropriate images, Wikipedia is generally allowed. This will defeat the blocks. You may think that you are noble in the sense that you are doing this for completeness or railing against censorship, you are not. The lack of nuance is either by mistake or on purpose. Both options show a lack of intellectual breadth and understanding of all positions.99.187.238.14 (talk) 05:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with person's comment above me. A lot of girls don't know what their vaginas look like and/or don't know what the parts are called. I was answering questions on Yahoo Answers yesterday, where a girl had a question about her 'vaginal bud'. I didn't know what she was talking about, told her to look up 'vagina' on wikipedia and give the correct name. She did that, and her question about her 'vaginal bud' could now be reliably answered, as she discovered it's correct name is a 'hymen'

The reason I think the photos probably helped her was because in her initital question she said 'you know like a rose before it's flowered, the bud'. So her mind was visual, and seeing a photo of a vagina with a hymen is what made her realise what it was she was referring to & to get a more accurate answer to a question about her 'hymen', rather than her 'bud'

Exactly what is the problem if a child sees what a vagina looks like? It is not like they are seeing a woman undergoing orgasm or anything. Stop acting like you know everything. There is nothing wrong in learning about the human body.

Whooooooow
I'm not a prude or a vandal or anything but damn, that was shocking. I am an adult so i can only imagine what kids are thinking. *ponders* Someone65 (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You ARE a prude because the image of a female vagina is just that an image of an vagina,please do not fill in the blanks and empty your mental soil as to why pictures of vaginas are in this article. They are here to educate and enlighten there is no earthy reason why a child should not be educated properly about the reproductive systems of a human.

If you find an image of a vagina offensive I would advise you to discontinue your interaction with the outside world and live in abstract isolation.
 * I love the self righteousness of you people who think that people, especially people with children who use Wikipedia, are the "deviants" here. You do not need a real life picture of a vagina for completeness. "Real" encyclopedias debate this and generally do not include a real life picture. Why? Well, if you are studying the vagina indepth you would not use an encyclopedia. People who use an encyclopedia are there for basic knowledge and the vagina with its internal structures is best shown with a diagram. All adults know what a vagina looks like and all girls as well. So only underage boys would actually need a real life vagina picture for "completeness." You guys need to remember you are not a REAL encyclopedia. You are an outstanding, group contributing repository of general knowledge which many people, myself included, find value. Most posters are generally upper middle class white people who are either gay or have no children (birth rates show your extinction). Do not dismiss the thoughts of people who are actually producing and raising children please.99.187.238.14 (talk) 05:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Please review this and this. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tony. You kinda proved my point didn't you. The censorship issue is only if it is needed for completeness. My argument is that it isn't needed for completeness and so this is done as some type of "noble irrational act." Because you and your self righteous buddies don't understand censorship you think that this is an opportunity to defend it. You miss the point entirely. As to the "civility," I love it. You just showed how hypocritical you are. It is your camp that is the aggressor here. Not to mention that is open to interpretation. Your request for "civility" and other virtues I take to be self censorship. I stated a fact that most contributors here are precisely of the sub-cultures that do not produce kids and so they need to make an effort to see it from our perspective. The demographics of Wikipedia are disproportionately Bay Area, disproportionately gay, disproportionately white upper middle class of the left persuasion who don't have kids. My point here was that you do not realize that combined with your lack of understanding of what censorship (censorship for Wikipedia comes into play only when it would have otherwise been deemed necessary to include it for completeness but was blocked) really is and the lack of understanding from the article's creators of who uses Wikipedia and how to create a community that it is the "self righteous" camp that is imposing their view. This imposition of view is a form of censorship. You really need to look in the mirror. I consider myself a true progressive and not some right (or left) wing nut job but it is perspectives like your own that turn off independents from supporting you guys. You are just as bad in your thought process as the right wing nut jobs only that you use different signs and symbols.99.187.238.14 (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

"Ultimate contraception"
Can hymen be completely sewed so nothing can get in nor out - and everything is OK, or would there be problems - e.g. some liquids filling-up till it bursts?

Yes, that's why it's not a very common or popular procedure. Liquids will eventually fill up and because of this the girl will only survive up to three months after the procedure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.164.168 (talk) 05:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course, in many islamic societies this is still considered preferable compared to not being a virgin when you get married. This way the girl only survives three months of marriage, but at least she doesn't bring shame onto the family. So it's a win-win. - [unsigned comment]


 * Can also happen naturally, in which case it requires minor surgery at menarche to allow fluids to escape. See imperforate hymen DewiMorgan (talk) 02:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for clarification
The included statement: "The word vagina is quite often incorrectly used to refer to the vulva or female genitals generally; strictly speaking, the vagina is a specific internal structure." is apropos. The vagina is not the external genitalia. Should not the reader also be directed to what is the external genitalia for contrast to illustrate what is often confused with "vagina" but is not?

I might recommend: "The word vagina is quite often incorrectly used to refer to the vulva or female genitals generally; strictly speaking, the vagina is a specific internal structure."

If this is acceptable, can someone put in those wikilinks? 71.169.191.64 (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

People complaining about the contents of this page
Before you start complaining about whether or not this page is appropriate for your children: 1. Look, you can either control the entire internet or control your child. Control you child. Don't make the rest of us cover for you poor parenting. 2. I'm from Denmark, and over there we are much more liberal about these kind of things. When I was six I had seen worse than is shown on Wikipedia. The result: Fewer STDs, fewer teen pregnancies, fewer aborted children, fewer children born out of wedlock, fewer single parents, fewer divorces than in the US. 3. If you love censorship, move to North Korea or some other communist country. I'm sure you won't have to deal with nudity or any other scary freedom over there! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.164.123 (talk) 03:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Before I start, you should take a deep breath. First, there is no country called the "US"; I'm guessing you mean America or the United States or "U.S." for people who are too lazy to say the name of a great nation. Second, why would I want to go to a place where people thinks the entire country should be controlled by a few guys (or gals) who thinks they are superior to the human race and deserves to live a better life than the citizens? Lastly, make sure you sign before clicking the Save page button mmkay? --64.40.61.70 (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

And for those of us too lazy to type the dots? Secondly - EX-FUCKING-ACTLY my point. Thirdly, mkay.
 * IP, the United States can be abbreviated as "U.S." or "US"; reliable sources use either variation. Flyer22 (talk) 01:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

America is a landmass, not a country. :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.248.161.91 (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Functions of the Vagina
Under function of the vagina, it lists sex, g-spot and childbirth. Well, G-spot is not a function, and even whether its function is to privide sexual pleasure, then, it is already listed - functions: sex and childbirth. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 23:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep Pornography Off Wikipedia
I think everyone agrees this is pornography. It should not be here. The people who run wikipedia want it here. Why? Cosprings (talk) 15:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

- Don't be silly, silly. Everyone is such a broad term, and from what I have read, the fair majority of the comments here indicate that this article is NOT pornography. If I'm not mistaken, pornography is designed to arouse people and such, among other things. This article merely talks about the vagina, etc. I think you should wikipedia "pornography" to get a good definition of that. But I guarantee that none of the definitions in that article will name this page as pornographic.

- If you think a picture of a vagina on an educational website is inappropriate, I would seek mental help immediately, it's obvious you cannot distinguish reality from your paranoid delusions. If you are concerned about you abilities to properly parent your children, there is professional help available for that too, theres no reason to make your kids suffer through your prude and draconian mindset.


 * Exactly. This is meant to be educational, and is not pornography. I'm not sure who you are referring to by "everyone". ♥puff!  11:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Flyer22 (talk) 06:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Pwned.99.231.241.146 (talk) 10:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I jerked off to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.73.132.171 (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

As usual...
This article is an "edit festival" -.- 201.81.66.134 (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Vagina vs. vulva
I disagree with the second paragraph: "The word vagina is quite often incorrectly used to refer to the vulva or female genitals generally; strictly speaking, the vagina is a specific internal structure." This is very prescriptive, and should at least be reworded. "Vagina" in its technical sense (e.g., medical/scientific usage) refers to the internal structure described in the article, while in a general sense (that is, as used in everyday speech) is used as a synonym for "vulva". It is in no way wrong to use "vagina" to mean "vulva", it's just not technical usage, it's general usage. The sentence in this article, as well as any similar content in the vulva article should be reworded to reflect this. Wonderroast (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * From the Oxford English Dictionary:

vagina |vəˈjīnə|

noun ( pl. -nas or -nae |-nē; -nī|)

the muscular tube leading from the external genitals to the cervix of the uterus in women and most female mammals.

• Botany & Zoology any sheathlike structure, esp. a sheath formed around a stem by the base of a leaf.
 * So yes, it is wrong. The two words are under no circumstances synonymous. Just because you use them as such doesn't mean that you're correct in doing so. — INTRIGUE B LUE (talk&#124;contribs) 07:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Admittedly, this may be unconvincing to you, but, to cite Wiktionary: vagina (plural vaginas or vaginae or vaginæ) So, no, it's not "wrong". It's just colloquial (non-technical) usage. Besides, the issue is usage, not definition; OED won't always have usage information, and is more a source for definitions than usage. Also, it's not just me that uses it this way; using vagina to mean vulva is widely used, at least in my experience. I imagine you've heard plenty of people use it that way, and even used it yourself. Most importantly, in most conversations, if someone says vagina, most people would understand that to mean vulva, not the technical meaning of vagina listed in the article. When usage is so widespread, no matter one's opinion of it, it can hardly be called "wrong". Wonderroast (talk) 09:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) (anatomy) The passage leading from the opening of the vulva to the cervix of the uterus in female mammals.
 * 2) (zoology) A similar part in some invertebrates.
 * 3) (botany) A sheath-like structure, such as the leaf of a grass that surrounds a stem.
 * 4) (colloquial) The vulva.
 * I see there are seperate articles for both so i dont see the big deal PassaMethod   talk  22:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * See my point? Pass A Method   talk  22:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've heard lots of people muddle up the Internet and the World Wide Web too. And the greenhouse effect and the hole in the ozone layer as well as electric current and voltage. That is one of the purposes of an encyclopedia, so that people who are not sure what words refer to can look them up and find out, not look them up and be told, "it means whatever you want it to mean, just use these words any how you like". --Nigelj (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Does anyone seriously oppose the current wording, The word vagina is quite often used colloquially to refer to the vulva or female genitals generally; technically speaking, the vagina is a specific internal structure.? This explains to the average reader that the content they are looking for will be in the other article with the funny name. It also goes directly to the point of explaining *how* the primary focus of *this* article is different. And it doesn't stoop to obnoxiously calling the native speaker "wrong" for using their language in the manner most that best communicates with others but yet is contrary to the dialect espoused by some presprescriptivist somewhere (see sections of this regarding problems with linguistic prescriptivism, and the relation with descriptivism, and perhaps you would benefit from becoming aware of the known processes of continual natural language evolution, a science that inspired Darwin). Come to think of it, isn't an encyclopedia supposed to DESCRIBE how the world is (e.g., how a word is usually used), rather than to preach how it should be (according to who)? To me it seems like we have a fair compromise at present, the article clearly focuses on the canal between external genitals and internal genitals, just a gentle descriptive nod somewhere in the tone of the lead. Nigelj, nobody is saying that one can use words any how they like, rather that one should consider how everybody else uses them. Cesiumfrog (talk) 01:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's not technical use, then it is wrong use. I don't see the problem at all with calling the reader wrong if they are wrong. We do this in plenty of Wikipedia articles. Vegetarianism, for example, has come to include pescetarianism to many people. But we point out in the lead of the Vegetarianism article that authoritative vegetarian groups do not consider pescetarianism or any flesh-eating to be vegetarian. We still list pescetarianism in the article, but we make clear to note how it is disputed by people of a complete vegetarian diet. Just because something becomes common use...it doesn't mean that it is correct use...and we shouldn't let readers think that it is. That said, the current wording does get across that they are wrong without directly saying "you're incorrect," but it's a little weasel-wordy to me. We don't need words like "quite" and the other unneeded wording. I'll reword it to this: The word vagina is often used colloquially to refer to the female genitals in general; technically, the vagina is the specific internal structure. Flyer22 (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * For future reference, here's the diff for my change. Flyer22 (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding this change, why are we saying "to refer to the vulva or the female genitals in general"? The vulva is a part of the female genitals. Thus "the female genitals in general" covers the vulva as well, and there is no need to single out the vulva. Besides that... When people say "vagina," they often mean everything that has to do with the female genitalia, including the clitoris, not just the vulva. And saying "vulva or the female genitals in general" makes it seem like there is that much more to the external female genitalia.


 * So why are we adding extra/unneeded wording? Let's say, hypothetically-speaking, people do only use "vagina" to mean "vulva" or the vagina itself and not "the female genitals in general." That would mean that "the female genitals in general" part shouldn't even be there, and that we should just leave it as "vulva," period. Flyer22 (talk) 03:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

This could use a real picture
Instead of using the purple image, there should be a real picture, or one witch illustrates the vagina better, like front view, i thought the old picture was doing the job right, why was it changed, even a a better diagram would be good. 122.106.138.133 (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Pretty soon that capture is going to read "Structure of the wall of you-know-what". GregorB (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I can only agree that the photographic image certainly has a higher informative value. Doesn't mean the other one is unimportant, but the structuring was not well done.--Lamilli (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why remove the additional images in the process? Flyer22 (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Because they are redundant to the others.--Lamilli (talk) 12:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The current picture doesn't show the urethral opening though...--TheAmericanizator (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Lamilli, I was going to say that plenty of Wikipedia topics have additional images representing a topic and that those images can be considered redundant since they are about the same thing, but I see what you mean about the redundancy of the two images that were in the gallery. Like the lead images, one is of a diagram and the other is a real-life image of a vagina. Such redundancy really does not add anything to the article. If we included images of vaginas that have a different look to them, or close-up images, then I could see the point. Flyer22 (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Possible Citation error, or Vandalism
As of this writing, the third citation on the page, for the sentence:
 * Although there is wide anatomical variation, the length of the unaroused vagina of a woman of child-bearing age is approximately 6 to 7.5 cm (2.5 to 3 in) across the anterior wall (front), and 9 cm (3.5 in) long across the posterior wall (rear).

is cited with the words "Gray's Anatomy", without any links to any articles. Unless there is actually a legitimate medical publication of that name, It seems to me that someone is trying to attribute the average size of a vagina to a hit TV Series, Grey's Anatomy, which is a (usually wrongly portrayed) hospital drama.

Anyone want to clarify or fix this? Unitepunx (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a medical textbook with the name Gray's Anatomy. The text book is spelled with an A (GrAy's), while the TV show is spelled with an E (GrEy's). I can't confirm that the textbook contains the sentence you noted, but it is a legitimate medical source. kyledueck (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Good to know. I'm not in any medical field, and was passing through following a link on Reddit. Either way, as a non-medical reader, I became confused as to the source. So I reach out again, does anyone have a copy and wouldn't mind finding out where this statistic occurs? Just stating that it is in a book somewhere isn't much of an citing. Unitepunx (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Infobox image
Hi Cesiumfrog, could you please explain to me in which way 'your' image (which is of much lower qualtiy) is more appropriate?--Lamilli (talk) 12:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems like everyone has a different opinion of which image would be most suitable, and I'm no different... I'm going to further complicate this question by adding another option. The image that would be best for this article is not the one currently in use or the one recently added by Lamilli, but this one:


 * File:Vaginal_opening_-_english_description.jpg


 * The vaginal orifice is clearly visible even at low resolution (300px wide), more so than in either of the other two candidate images. Since this article is about the vagina rather than the vulva, using an image where the vaginal opening is clearly visible would be preferable. --kyledueck (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't believe all the arguments here
If you don't want to see pictures of vaginas, and other private parts, don't look at the articles on Wikipedia, simple as. All the prudes on here are ridiculous. I could understand if the article was showing deliberate pornographic images (intended to cause sexual arousal), but it doesn't. The vagina, is a natural part of the female human body and there is nothing wrong with there being pictures of it! It is completely educational, nothing more. People who are complaining are choosing to view it inappropriately. Wikipedia is not censored, and rightly so.

Infobox: image does not illustrate vagina
I don't see vagina in the first photo, only an entrance to it. What is actually depicted is vulva. Vagina is properly illustrated in the second (File:Vagina1.jpg) and third (File:Vagina (mucosa).JPG). And the latter is more clear and informative than the former. --Eleassar my talk 09:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a composite image could be made, showing different aspects of vagina. --Eleassar my talk 09:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I've changed the infobox image to one that shows the vaginal opening more clearly. While it's still an image focused more on the vulva than the vagina specifically, it's a step in the right direction anyways. The infobox does contain a diagram showing the inner vaginal structure as well, so the two infobox images together should provide adequate illustration, but I agree that a composite image would be ideal. --kyledueck (talk) 13:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That looks about perfect. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 15:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * isn't this a better image of the vagina?


 * or this one?



Cleo (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The english version of the second image might be a good replacement for the current diagram. It's much easier to see all the various structures with the colored diagram. However... the label for the vagina points only to the vaginal entrance, rather than to the vaginal canal. The label in the current diagram does point to the vaginal canal.


 * To me, the purpose of having a diagram in the lead is to show that the vagina is not just the external opening on the body, but a canal that connects to the cervix, because this is something that the current lead image cannot do. The first suggested replacement diagram would accomplish this, but this is a lower quality image than the other two options.


 * So, I'm not entirely sure... All three options have their merits, and shortcomings. --kyledueck (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)