Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) Tweak. |
||
Line 106: | Line 106: | ||
The way this article is written suggests that the vagina exists in order to accommodate the penis. That's not biologically accurate, since the penis didn't exist first and facilitate the evolution of the vagina. It is also not accurate to most women's experience of their own bodies or sexual activities other than sexual intercourse with a man. Here is the part I find most problematic in this regard: "The vagina's inner mould has a foldy texture which can '''create friction for the penis''' during sexual intercourse. During sexual arousal, vaginal moisture increases (vaginal lubrication) '''to facilitate the entrance of the penis'''." [[Special:Contributions/173.228.80.252|173.228.80.252]] ([[User talk:173.228.80.252|talk]]) 18:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC) |
The way this article is written suggests that the vagina exists in order to accommodate the penis. That's not biologically accurate, since the penis didn't exist first and facilitate the evolution of the vagina. It is also not accurate to most women's experience of their own bodies or sexual activities other than sexual intercourse with a man. Here is the part I find most problematic in this regard: "The vagina's inner mould has a foldy texture which can '''create friction for the penis''' during sexual intercourse. During sexual arousal, vaginal moisture increases (vaginal lubrication) '''to facilitate the entrance of the penis'''." [[Special:Contributions/173.228.80.252|173.228.80.252]] ([[User talk:173.228.80.252|talk]]) 18:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC) |
||
:Hello, 173.228.80.252. I'd already been thinking of changing the "During sexual arousal, vaginal moisture increases ([[vaginal lubrication]]) to facilitate the entrance of the penis" part to "During sexual arousal, vaginal moisture increases ([[vaginal lubrication]]) to reduce friction during sexual activity" (or, more accurately, during vaginal penetration), similar to what is stated in the Sexual activity section of the article. And the reason I was thinking of changing that, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vagina&diff=603808045&oldid=601687597 have now changed it], is because I know that the previous line can be considered [[heteronormative]]. But as for "can create friction for the penis," that or something very similar to it should most certainly remain. And regarding either line, biologically-wise, and this is supported by various [[WP:Reliable sources]], the vagina does lubricate during sexual arousal to facilitate the entrance of the penis. In the vast majority of WP:Reliable sources with regard to vaginal lubrication and sexual arousal, this is discussed, and I mean with regard to more than just humans. This article is not solely about humans. The [[sex organ]]s are always trying to reproduce during sexual |
:Hello, 173.228.80.252. I'd already been thinking of changing the "During sexual arousal, vaginal moisture increases ([[vaginal lubrication]]) to facilitate the entrance of the penis" part to "During sexual arousal, vaginal moisture increases ([[vaginal lubrication]]) to reduce friction during sexual activity" (or, more accurately, during vaginal penetration), similar to what is stated in the Sexual activity section of the article. And the reason I was thinking of changing that, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vagina&diff=603808045&oldid=601687597 have now changed it], is because I know that the previous line can be considered [[heteronormative]]. But as for "can create friction for the penis," that or something very similar to it should most certainly remain. And regarding either line, biologically-wise, and this is supported by various [[WP:Reliable sources]], the vagina does lubricate during sexual arousal to facilitate the entrance of the penis. In the vast majority of WP:Reliable sources with regard to vaginal lubrication and sexual arousal, this is discussed, and I mean with regard to more than just humans. This article is not solely about humans. The [[sex organ]]s are always trying to reproduce during sexual arousal and further sexual stimulation during that state, and the vagina lubricating during sexual arousal is just one aspect of that. This is no time to be politically correct in that regard and leave out a key aspect of the reason for vaginal lubrication from the lead. And notice that the word ''can'' instead of the word ''is'' for that part, which helps consider the fact that women may sexually please themselves via the vagina or that a woman may sexually please another woman via the vagina. |
||
:Also, remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four [[tilde]]s (~), like this: <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>. I signed your username for you above. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 23:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC) |
:Also, remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four [[tilde]]s (~), like this: <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>. I signed your username for you above. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 23:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:15, 12 April 2014
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Human-centric
The article lead presents the article as if it were on vaginas in general, when most of it is specifically about human vaginas (except for the bit at the end), which have notable differences from the vaginas of other animals. I think that there should either be clarification from the outset (e.g. with the about tag) that this article focuses on human vaginas, or else develop the article to accommodate for non-human vaginal discussion. --Humorideas (talk) 12:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. We need an article solely about vaginas in mammals, as well as one about vaginas in humans. The problem is most people who go to the vagina page, are looking for the human vagina, and this is a high traffic page. So we have a few possible name options:
- 1. This would be the standard convention, but the problem with this combination is people looking for the article on the human vagina will keep being sent to the animal article.
- Vagina (human): for humans
- Vagina: for all vaginas
- 2. This would send the majority of users to the page they are looking for, but they would have to be redirected through a redirect, and the names are ugly
- Vagina (human): for humans
- Vagina (mammals): for all mammals
- Vagina: a redirect to Vagina (humans)
- There's some more potential ways to go, but you get the drift. I think first a separate article should be made about all vaginas, then content here that is not about human vaginas be moved there, and then we should worry about the naming.OakRunner (talk) 01:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Most of our articles are human-centric because individuals who read these articles are, as we know, humans (unless one believes that extraterrestrial life is out there studying us) and are usually looking for the human aspects of these topics. Also keep in mind that vaginal anatomy and other topics about the vagina have been studied significantly more in humans than in non-human animals. A lot of topics on Wikipedia that are human-centric are mostly that way because the topic has been studied significantly less in non-human animals. As such, we usually keep the non-human animal material in the same article under the heading In other animals, or, as Humorideas prefers, under In non-human animals. WP:COMMONNAME is also a reason, despite the redirect factor in cases that don't take readers to a disambiguation page. In other cases, it's also because a term refers more to humans than it does to non-human animals.
- I'm against splitting this article...until it requires splitting, which may never be the case. Not only should the In non-human animals section be developed before any split is considered, so should the article in general. The only reason that the Human penis article was created, as separate from the Penis article, is because there was just so much human penis material in the Penis article. Yes, the Vagina article has significantly more human material than non-human material. But it's still a relatively small article in general, and, like I stated, it should be developed more (significantly more) before any split is considered.
- Also, it wouldn't be best to have an article titled Vagina (mammals) while the other is titled Vagina (human); humans are also mammals. Just having an article titled Vagina to cover mammals in general, while directing readers to the article specifically about human vaginas would suffice. But then again, I'm against a split for the reasons stated above. As for the "About" template, I would prefer that it use "primarily" if, until the In non-human animals section is significantly expanded, we are going to tell readers that this article is about the human vagina. "Primarily" should be included in that case because this article is about non-human animals as well, no matter that it's currently only a little about them. Flyer22 (talk) 04:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- I agree we are no where near the point of needing a separate article, but I believe if we do get to a point where a split is necessary it would be best just to simply leave this article titled Vagina for humans, and another titled Vagina (mammals) for mammals in general. I don't see an issue with having an article for humans specifically, and one for mammals, since while we are indeed mammals, the mammal article would not need to exclude us, it could(and would likely need to) include information on the human vagina, but it wouldn't be the main focus.OakRunner (talk) 05:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- If it were needed, I obviously agree that there wouldn't be a problem with having an article specifically for human vaginas and one for mammal vaginas in general; I was of course speaking of the titles (in reference to the human/mammal wording). But now I better understand your point. And, yes, if a split were done, I'd prefer that the article about human vaginas remain titled Vagina...instead of Human vagina or Vagina (human). Flyer22 (talk) 06:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, and I meant to add that I do know that there is precedent for having non-disambiguated titles focus on information about humans, and the disambiguated titles focus on non-human animals, such as with Pregnancy and Pregnancy (mammals)...and Menstruation and Menstruation (mammal). Flyer22 (talk) 03:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- Good to know.OakRunner (talk) 04:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- I thought you knew about this precedent and that that's why you suggested "mammal" as part of a disambiguated title, OakRunner. Flyer22 (talk) 05:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- Nope, just heard of it now from you. On an unrelated note, it would be great if we could get this to featured article status as it is one of the most viewed pages on Wikipedia.OakRunner (talk) 05:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- Getting it to WP:GA status would need to happen first. That is, I'm not familiar with any article that skipped the WP:GA process to go right to WP:FA. I know what it would take to get this article to GA status, but it may be months before I'd start undertaking such a task. There is a lot that this article should cover. Flyer22 (talk) 06:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- Nope, just heard of it now from you. On an unrelated note, it would be great if we could get this to featured article status as it is one of the most viewed pages on Wikipedia.OakRunner (talk) 05:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- I thought you knew about this precedent and that that's why you suggested "mammal" as part of a disambiguated title, OakRunner. Flyer22 (talk) 05:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- Good to know.OakRunner (talk) 04:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, and I meant to add that I do know that there is precedent for having non-disambiguated titles focus on information about humans, and the disambiguated titles focus on non-human animals, such as with Pregnancy and Pregnancy (mammals)...and Menstruation and Menstruation (mammal). Flyer22 (talk) 03:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- If it were needed, I obviously agree that there wouldn't be a problem with having an article specifically for human vaginas and one for mammal vaginas in general; I was of course speaking of the titles (in reference to the human/mammal wording). But now I better understand your point. And, yes, if a split were done, I'd prefer that the article about human vaginas remain titled Vagina...instead of Human vagina or Vagina (human). Flyer22 (talk) 06:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- I agree we are no where near the point of needing a separate article, but I believe if we do get to a point where a split is necessary it would be best just to simply leave this article titled Vagina for humans, and another titled Vagina (mammals) for mammals in general. I don't see an issue with having an article for humans specifically, and one for mammals, since while we are indeed mammals, the mammal article would not need to exclude us, it could(and would likely need to) include information on the human vagina, but it wouldn't be the main focus.OakRunner (talk) 05:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Also, it wouldn't be best to have an article titled Vagina (mammals) while the other is titled Vagina (human); humans are also mammals. Just having an article titled Vagina to cover mammals in general, while directing readers to the article specifically about human vaginas would suffice. But then again, I'm against a split for the reasons stated above. As for the "About" template, I would prefer that it use "primarily" if, until the In non-human animals section is significantly expanded, we are going to tell readers that this article is about the human vagina. "Primarily" should be included in that case because this article is about non-human animals as well, no matter that it's currently only a little about them. Flyer22 (talk) 04:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 5 December 2012
Footnot[7], greys anatomy isnt a reference Hollypov123 (talk) 09:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- While the footnote ideally would include a page number and edition information, Gray's Anatomy is among the most reliable of references. Rivertorch (talk) 11:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Sideways Pictures
Why are all the pictures sideways? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.225.222 (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Guinness record?
I want to print about The Guinness Record on this topic. I mean Tatuana Kozhevnikova - the strongest vagina in the world (14 kg). What do you think about? Or creat new article? Night Rain 5 (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- Lol. But no. We got rid of trivia sections a long time ago. It's better this way because if you're unable to incorporate it into the article, then it doesn't belong into the article. Anything notable could have a page of its own and, a world record like that hardly seems notable. Monkeytheboy (talk) 02:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Proposed merge from Human vaginal size
FYI, it is proposed that content from Human vaginal size be merged into this article. Zad68
02:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Note: The discussion is taking place at Talk:Human vaginal size, and it's the result of this discussion at WP:MED. Flyer22 (talk) 02:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Bald Vagina?
Good day fellow wiki people. Ive noticed the vagina in the picture is bald. This is not a natural as vaginas do have some hair, unless of course, they've been waxed.
good day sirs
- Strictly speaking, the vagina is hairless. You are thinking of the vulva. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- No actually, the entire vagina is not always hairless. --I find it misleading and wrong that the only picture of a vagina on this page is one that has had a full removal of all pubic hair. One the human penis wiki page, the male genitalia displays pubic hair - why should the female's be made to look pre-pubecent? I understand the value of anatomical labeling not being impaired, but I don't believe it would be difficult to find a neatly trimmed vagina that would lend itself to medical understanding without the full removal of all hair. -- 14:01, 10 January 2014 User:Sashasweety
- I agree that the picture is misleading and going to Commons I was also surprised not to see any other image of the vagina other than hairless!Edmund Patrick – confer 16:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- No actually, the entire vagina is not always hairless. --I find it misleading and wrong that the only picture of a vagina on this page is one that has had a full removal of all pubic hair. One the human penis wiki page, the male genitalia displays pubic hair - why should the female's be made to look pre-pubecent? I understand the value of anatomical labeling not being impaired, but I don't believe it would be difficult to find a neatly trimmed vagina that would lend itself to medical understanding without the full removal of all hair. -- 14:01, 10 January 2014 User:Sashasweety
Genital
'Unlike men, who have only one genital orifice, women have two, the urethra and the vagina.'
This is the first occurrence in the article of the word 'genital' which needs to be wikilinked thus: 'Unlike men, who have only one genital orifice, women have two, the urethra and the vagina'. 121.222.35.118 (talk) 08:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- Genital redirects to sex organ, which is linked earlier in the paragraph. I'm not sure what the best practice is in cases like this. Rivertorch (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- Since "genital" is a redirect and the two terms commonly mean the same thing, with the term genital referring to the external reproductive organs a bit more than the term sex organ does, we should simply do what WP:OVERLINKING advises -- only link it once unless it's clearly helpful to link it twice. Flyer22 (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- True. My thought was that it might be helpful to link it because some readers may not be familiar with the word. Your call. Rivertorch (talk) 04:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- Since "genital" is a redirect and the two terms commonly mean the same thing, with the term genital referring to the external reproductive organs a bit more than the term sex organ does, we should simply do what WP:OVERLINKING advises -- only link it once unless it's clearly helpful to link it twice. Flyer22 (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Hair
the vagina illustrated, has no hair on it. This is not therefore biologically correct. Shaving vaginas has become normal due to the pornification of culture. It would be great to see a biologically normal vagina for an adult woman depicted on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.60.31 (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- If you look further up on this talk page, you'll see that your concern has been addressed already. I wonder whether you think shaved heads or even haircuts also aren't "biologically correct". Perhaps men should let their beards grow till they're long enough to trip over, and certain postmenopausal women with significant facial hair growth should leave it in place out of respect for biological correctness. Incidentally, you're making the same mistake in terminology as the other party who posted. A truly hairy vagina would be quite unusual, I suspect. Rivertorch (talk) 06:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- It's obvious you are very proud of your snarky self, but "unsigned post" correctly remarks that unless this genital region is supposed to be a child's, or unless it is identified as not normal adult genitalia, or unless this is a porn site, it needs hair. I'm sure if a "head" page had only photos of bald people there would some counterbalance. Maybe Wikipedia should be edited by someone other than 14 year old boys, or the man-boys they have become. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acham (talk • contribs) 19:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Article reviewed in media
"Wikipedia's penis and vagina pages: Their colorful history and popular present" by Ben Blatt, Slate Jan. 8 2014. Scroll down to Naomi Wolf comments... -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for that link, AnonMoos; I finished reading that media article some minutes after you posted it. I wish that I had already significantly fixed up this article, something I've been planning to do for some time now, as currently mentioned on my user page. But I'm getting to it, and this media review is a motivator. As for sexual pleasure, Naomi Wolf is right about the lead. It's more important that the rest of the article be taken care of first, though. And while there is certainly more that can be added to the Sexual activity section, I'm not sure what she is looking for with regard to expanding on such information. What is currently there is accurate and is repeated in various reliable sources. Reliable, non-popular culture sources these days don't present the vagina as a sex organ that is wildly pleasurable to all women, but rather as a sex organ that is pleasurable (quite pleasurable in certain cases) to some women and more so because of the emotional attachment; this is because the lack of nerve endings in the vagina is often acknowledged in reliable, non-popular culture sources these days, often in conjunction with information about the general inability for women to reach orgasm via vaginal stimulation (meaning without sufficient clitoral stimulation). As for the image, yes, see what is currently stated above on this talk page about that (if you haven't already) and this removed observation/threat by an IP; some people think that it's a prepubescent child porn image (I don't because, with regard to that image, I see what clearly appears to be skin that used to contain hair and what looks like razor bumps areas). As for the lack of vagina images, that is a matter of selecting good vagina images from WP:Commons (by "good," I mean the quality of the image and images focusing on the vagina instead of on all of the female genitalia and buttocks); once that is done, they can go in an Additional images section, per Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Anatomy. There used to be an Additional images section in this article; I'm not sure how it got removed. Either way, I hope that this media review does not bring unwanted attention (unnecessary drama) to this article; I so hoped to vastly improve it in peace. Flyer22 (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Also, I haven't yet read Wolf's book on the vagina, but judging by the criticism it has received (whether mostly from feminists or not), and that she is not an anatomist, sexologist or sex educator, I won't be putting much stock into her views with regard to the vagina. Flyer22 (talk) 06:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- About the images aspect again, just in case anyone thinks that I am stating that every additional image should be placed in the Additional images section, I'm not. The Additional images section should not be overpopulated anyway, per Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Anatomy. Of course there should be more than one image (including diagrams) of the vagina higher in the article (meaning not just in the Additional images body of the article). Once this article is significantly expanded in size, there will also be more room to do so without WP:Sandwiching images. However, we should look for images that clearly display the variation of the vagina; redundancy should be avoided. It's easier to display the variation of the penis, but the vagina is often obscured by the labia, which is why there are some images, like the current (and debated) lead image, where the vagina is being manually spread for view. Variation is more likely to be seen by the labia minora ("vaginal lips") in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Phallocentric description of female genitalia
The way this article is written suggests that the vagina exists in order to accommodate the penis. That's not biologically accurate, since the penis didn't exist first and facilitate the evolution of the vagina. It is also not accurate to most women's experience of their own bodies or sexual activities other than sexual intercourse with a man. Here is the part I find most problematic in this regard: "The vagina's inner mould has a foldy texture which can create friction for the penis during sexual intercourse. During sexual arousal, vaginal moisture increases (vaginal lubrication) to facilitate the entrance of the penis." 173.228.80.252 (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hello, 173.228.80.252. I'd already been thinking of changing the "During sexual arousal, vaginal moisture increases (vaginal lubrication) to facilitate the entrance of the penis" part to "During sexual arousal, vaginal moisture increases (vaginal lubrication) to reduce friction during sexual activity" (or, more accurately, during vaginal penetration), similar to what is stated in the Sexual activity section of the article. And the reason I was thinking of changing that, and have now changed it, is because I know that the previous line can be considered heteronormative. But as for "can create friction for the penis," that or something very similar to it should most certainly remain. And regarding either line, biologically-wise, and this is supported by various WP:Reliable sources, the vagina does lubricate during sexual arousal to facilitate the entrance of the penis. In the vast majority of WP:Reliable sources with regard to vaginal lubrication and sexual arousal, this is discussed, and I mean with regard to more than just humans. This article is not solely about humans. The sex organs are always trying to reproduce during sexual arousal and further sexual stimulation during that state, and the vagina lubricating during sexual arousal is just one aspect of that. This is no time to be politically correct in that regard and leave out a key aspect of the reason for vaginal lubrication from the lead. And notice that the word can instead of the word is for that part, which helps consider the fact that women may sexually please themselves via the vagina or that a woman may sexually please another woman via the vagina.
- Also, remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this:
~~~~
. I signed your username for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 23:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- Cesiumfrog, see what I stated above in this section. We should refrain from WP:Activism in this regard. I don't see how your change, which I reverted, is an improvement? Your version states "The vagina has a folded texture.", without being accurate on that matter or elaborating on that aspect. Your version does not sufficiently explain why vaginal lubrication exists, and only focuses on "entrance of the penis" with regard to vaginal lubrication. My change to the vaginal lubrication aspect broadened it to sexual penetration of the vagina in general, but put its attention on the penis when it comes to the inner mould/help enable ejaculation and fertilization aspect.
- I can invite WP:Anatomy and WP:MED editors to this discussion if more opinions in this topic area are needed. Flyer22 (talk) 23:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- And regarding what you stated here about it being "phallocentric" to attribute vaginal lubrication, or rather texture of the vagina, to friction, I obviously disagree. I go by what the WP:Reliable sources state, not by an editor's theory or WP:Fringe theory over a widely accepted matter among anatomists and scholars. Of course the texture of the vagina is not only about friction; the lead does not state that is. I will leave that cn tag you added for the time being, even though that aspect is sourced lower in the article, and, per WP:CITELEAD, it does not necessarily need to be sourced in the lead as well. But I will eventually remove it, if someone else does not beat me to that removal first. I will not have WP:Activism get in the way of my editing this article. Flyer22 (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)