Talk:Vagina/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

After checking the Wikidata entry, I noticed that File:Vaginal opening description-en.svg is the image displayed there. It's basically the same image as File:Vaginal opening description.jpg (the current second lead image), except more descriptive and with the unnamed numbers replaced with actual English-language terms. Replacing the current second lead image with this other one seems uncontroversial to me, but I might as well ask here first, especially given this has Good Article status. An added benefit of doing so is that the numbered list in the caption, which is useless to anyone who does not see the image anyway, can be removed altogether. The only downside is the loss of the wikilinks in the list, but that's hardly much of a loss. Thoughts? —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 22:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure how readable it would be in the infobox, which is a pretty small image. The main benefit of having it *not* in the image is that the text stays the same size as the other text. I think the numbers are too small in the current image though as well. Mvolz (talk) 07:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

No. I just tried "show preview" with the proposed image and it is a total failure as predicted by Mvolz. Johnuniq (talk) 07:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh wow, I was so caught up with what I thought was an interesting find that I did not consider about whether it would even be clearly visible given the image size! Yes, perhaps if the image size was bigger, it might be appropriate, but increasing the image size is probably not at all appropriate here, so it's a non-starter. Given these size constraints, I agree that the current approach is preferable. Sorry about the time sink, Mvolz and Johnuniq. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 12:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

ALL PARTS OF BODY SUBJECT TO DISEASE AND DISORDERS. Flyer22 Reborn reverted my change. The change included the line "Like every region of a human body, the vagina is subject to disorders." Flyer22 said it was reverted in part because "every region" of the body is not subject to disorders.

    I have worked taking care of sick people for 35 years. Claiming that any part, any region of humans is not subject to disorders is just incorrect and naive.  The general trend is "from dust to dust." It will all corrupt and fail, given enough time. The whole learning of modern medicine disagrees with Flyer 22. Every organ is subject to disorders.  Every kind of tissue is subject to them.  Every cell is subject to disorders.  Every molecule, every protein, every enzyme, every strand of DNA is subject to deterioration, malfunction.  The eyelashes, the fingernails, the hair follicles, every tiny piece is subject to disorders.  Indeed, like every part of the body, the genitals develop disorders if given enough time.Moabalan (talk) 22:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Your edit was on

WP:HELPDESK regarding indenting comments. Johnuniq (talk

) 23:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Would anyone else support the notion of removing the graphic photos on this page? I find that such is inappropriate for a website that is accessible to minors, as the photos appear to be quite pornographic in nature. 24.182.207.10 (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

The images are anatomically factual and objective.

WP:NOTCENSORED reads: "Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content." --Zefr (talk

) 23:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, the images were present during the Good Article review in June, so they were deemed appropriate then. —C.Fred (talk) 00:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

That is not even mentioning the fact that people have tried getting them removed somewhat frequently for years now, but always fail/are overruled. Cr@$h3d@t@^{t@1k t0 m3} 05:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Umm....the definition of Pornography would disagree with your assertion, it states "printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings." I'm not an expert but I would assume an encyclopedia article on Vagina's might show one, I don't see anything that sexualized the images or was designed to stimulate erotic feelings. The mere fact that vaginas exist and there is a picture does not make it designed to be erotica... Just Saying.

talk

) 18:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

" Skai Kurana (talk) 07:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

No, you are wrong, Skai Kurana. This encyclopedia and this article have an educational function. Ignorance about the structures of the female reproductive and excretory systems is commonplace. It is our job as encyclopedia editors to provide that information, in ways that our readers can best understand. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Should this be a redirect to this article or an article in its own right? If it should be a redirect, should (some of) the info that was on it before it was turned back into a redirect be added to this article? Jim Michael (talk) 08:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• The vagina article has around 3 photographs of the human vagina, and one of them is a lead image. It has no photos of non-human animals.
• The vulva article has lots of photographs of the human vulva, including a collage of human vulvas in the lead. It has no photos of non-human animals.
• The penis article has one photograph of a human penis, and it's buried towards the bottom of the article. It has many photos of non-human penises. The lead image is an elephant penis.
• Unlike for vulva or vagina, there is a separate article just for the human penis, that does contain several human photos.

This raises a couple of questions: 1. Should the vagina and vulva articles place more emphasis on non-human animals? 2. Should there be a separate "human vagina" and/or "human vulva" article? WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 16:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

We have been over the non-human animal matter; see

WP:Content forking

. There is no valid reason to split out that small "Other animals" section.

We have also been over the images matter. Minus histology material, there are only two images of actual vaginas (one showing the opening and another showing the rugae) in the article because there are only a few images of vaginas on commons. As you can see there, there are no non-human vagina images available for use on Wikipedia. There are also only two images of an actual vagina in the article because we want the images to focus on the vagina, not on the vulva, and we don't want to clutter a section or create a

WP:Gallery

is also clear about that.

As has also been discussed, the Penis and Human penis split should be revisited. People who go to the Penis article are clearly most often looking for the human penis topic. So the Human penis is the

talk

) 02:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed reply. I would probably support remerging penis and human penis. Also, I did find what I think is a good non-human vagina picture. I'll go ahead and add it. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 03:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

No problem. And regarding this, as seen there, I reverted because it's not really focusing on the vagina. It's focusing on birth. The image is also too big. All that stated, I could support including

talk

) 04:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, birth is one of the major functions of the vagina. And I thought the cow birth montage was just too small at normal size. There is one other animal birth photo I found, though, that may work at thumbnail size. See what you think. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 04:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

That works. Thanks.

talk

) 05:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Tweak.

talk

) 05:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi there Flyer22. I'm not an expert editor so I can't find how to reply directly to your comment reverting my edit so I'll do so here. Seems an appropriate enough place. Looks like you frequently edit or monitor this page. I have to disagree with your statement that the highly relevant image I tried to add "is best left at the articles its at". Now, were I a better editor, my goal would have been to add the image by this text:

During sexual arousal, and particularly the stimulation of the clitoris, the walls of the vagina lubricate. This begins after ten to thirty seconds of sexual arousal, and increases in amount the longer the woman is aroused.

An image that shows the vulva in an aroused state, with lubrication produced by the vagina, the subject of this page, in the section discussing this function of the organ is highly relevant and contributes to the betterment of the page. I recommend it be added back at the description of that function.Brakoholic (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

There is enough confusion in the world without illustrating the vagina article with something that is not a vagina. Johnuniq (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I created a section for your comment. This is the revert. I stated, "Image not showing up. And, yes, it's a decent image, but it's best suited at the articles it's at:

talk

) 02:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

Idea: IDEA = Shouldn't Wikipedia/Wikimedia have some kind of HTML dialog rectangular box that comes (pops) up before the whole article loads, warning the user that the content might not be PG? or even PG-13?! It could "fuzz" or "blurr" the background of the article behind it; Instead of on the [Accept] button, if the user clicks on [Take Me Somewhere Else!], the Wikipedia website would do the "Random Page" feature. Has this come up before?? {I am not a prude, but there are at least TWO (2) SPREAD-IT-OPEN photographs here and here on this article that are a bit shocking, overt, and low-brow.. IMHO. --From Peter, a.k.a. Vid2vid (his WP talk page), updated 🖋 on 09:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC).

I don't see how those unsexualized images merely showing what the vagina looks like are "low-brow", nor how it is shocking to see pictures of the vagina in an article titled Vagina. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

The pics are Eurocentric like its 1889. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.160.21.39 (talk • contribs)

(reply to header) We can only include pictures we have available. If you have any alternative COPYRIGHT FREE images, let's see them here, and perhaps we can update the article. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I moved the comment down since, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout, newer sections go at the bottom. And I removed the header since there was no need to leave the comment as a header. I also tagged the comment as unsigned.

IP, this article is about the vagina, not the vulva. Yes, with two images in the article, the color of the vulva indicates that the woman is likely white. But as for the the actual vagina? What flesh tones are you thinking are going to be shown? And how is the color of the vagina going to indicate "race"/ethnicity? Or do you think something else about the vagina would? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

In this section, it states:

Behind, the inner vagina is separated from the rectum by the recto-uterine pouch, the middle vagina by loose connective tissue, and the lower vagina by the perineal body.

I am pretty sure where it says "inner" it should read "upper". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.75.114.24 (talk • contribs)

I used the word from your post. GBFEE (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Gwerful Mechain (15c feminist female poet) writes plainly in a poem titled 'The Cunt' or 'To the Vagina' (the Welsh word is somewhere between both). She scolds men for wasting their time praising a women’s hair, eyes, and breasts when the most worthy and wonderful part is the vagina See here. Not many women writers of that period so proud of her vagina. Can someone ad, please? PArt of the poem would also be good:

Let songs to the quim grow and thrive,

Find their due reward and survive.

For it is silky soft, the sultan of an ode,

A little seam, a curtain, on a niche bestowed,

Neat flaps in a place of meeting,

The sour grove, circle of greeting,

Superb forest, faultless gift to squeeze,

Fur for a fine pair of balls, tender frieze,

Dingle deeper than hand or ladle,

Hedge to hold a penis as large as you’re able...

Thanks Gwerful Mechain (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect

The bolding of "birth canal" here[3] seems satisfactory because

UserTwoSix, please discuss here and gain consensus for changes that appear substantial. Almost all of your changes are substantial. GBFEE (talk) 21:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I came to the article to see if the "birth canal" was exactly the same as the vagina. I always wondered when people would use that term, what its connotations were. Most other articles list all synonymous terms up front... I can understand for a technically medical article like this not to mention slang terms which are often quite vague as to whether they meant vulva/vagina/multiple parts of the reproductive system. So I had to search for "birth canal" to find the term, it is just below the lede.

One of the parts I have had confusion with and I assume many other people is the difference between the vagina and the vestibule, so when it said the hymen protects the vagina, I started picturing it at the vulval opening because I never really understood where the hymen was. Therefore, I think the first information on anatomy should be exquisitely clear on where things are and the relevant parts, which includes mentioning the vulval vestibule and the labia in the first paragraph.

I can approve of the reversions to some of the things related to menstruation, as I actually am not an expert on it and don't really know what "menses" means vs. terms like menstrual flow, menstruation, etc. The monthly part seemed a little dated to me, but I am willing to differ because I am not an expert on menstruation. I have read and heard women say that it is more-or-less monthly, but if a woman throughout her life menstruated at 21-day intervals, it would be slightly less than monthly. I thought it read better without the word if it was not 100% accurate, but it also have another word like "mostly monthly" or something of the sort.

And I appreciate the time you took to explain the issues. UserTwoSix (talk) 01:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

(

contacting a team designed to protect your privacy about removing your IP address

.

A line at the start of the page says, "This article is about the birth canal." So that's one thing that let's people know they're at the right page. We could redirect people to the section for the bolded term "birth canal." And we probably should because of what

this

guidance says.

I don't entirely understand what you mean about

the introduction is meant to be the article's summary

.

Your latest edits were rvted by

vaginal birth" instead of "birth", and, most recently, "pregnancy" in the first paragraph? You don't think saying "The vagina allows for sexual intercourse and birth." is sufficient? Fertilization has a mention in the third paragraph. I think we can do without "monthly" and "menses." Bolding "birth canal" and retargeting the redirect for it to the section is a good choice. If Crossroads doesn't object, I'll remove "monthly" and "menses", and reinstate your change to "birth canal" and then amend the redirect for it. But you shouldn't reinstate your other changes without consensus first. GBFEE (talk

) 19:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I can see why "placental mammals and marsupials" doesn't read as well as "mammals", but it is patently false, because not all mammals have vaginas. Monotremes are the exception and they are still classified as mammals, so it must read "in most mammals" or "in some mammals" and it should be changed to "a vagina" rather than "the vagina" because marsupials can have two vaginas. UserTwoSix (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Saying "vulval vestibule" over "vulva" may seem like "extra verbiage" but for people just learning the anatomy I am sure there are more than just me that confuse the differentiation between the vestibule and the vagina. The vulva is composed of many parts. I also had confusion about the hymen starting at the front of the vestibule rather than the rear where the opening is because I have never really inspected a hymen. UserTwoSix (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

"In mammals" doesn't mean we're telling people "In all mammals." So saying "In mammals" isn't false. It's also good to remember not to put

undue emphasis on exceptions. Two vaginas is an exception. An extraordinary one. Also, please go back to where I said, "Amphibians, birds, reptiles and monotremes get a mention at the end of the second paragraph." I think I now know why you think saying "vulval vestibule" is preferable to "vulva" for "extends from". You're, of course, correct that the vulva has many parts. Here are some options we have for using "vestibule": Britannica says "extends from the cervix (outer end) of the uterus within the lesser pelvis down to the vestibule between the labia minora."[5] "Anatomy, Abdomen and Pelvis, Female External Genitalia" (last updated in 2021) says "extends to the external surface through the vulva vestibule."[6]

Other resources say things like "The vagina extends from the vestibule to the uterus." Which one do you think is the better description? Or do you want to use the one you used?

Before making changes, let's wait and see if Crossroads has something to say. GBFEE (talk) 20:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

GBFEE, the changes you're okay with sound fine with me too. I think "in mammals" is okay because it doesn't say "all mammals". And as noted it clarifies the monotremes matter not long after (and there are very few monotreme species compared to mammals as a whole). "The vagina" is fine even though a few species have two vaginas - compare tibia, where it says "the" even though every species has more than one. What do you think is better for addressing the "vestibule" matter? "Through", or "to"? Crossroads ^-talk- 02:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I made the changes that have reached consensus.[7] [8] I have to think about which description to use to add "vestibule". I'm going to look at more resources for the best choice. I'll also wait and see if UserTwoSix puts down a preference for the description here in the discussion. I'm thinking about if we should say "vestibule" instead of "vulval vestibule", like resources most often do when saying "extends from" and if it might cause less confusion for anyone who might be confused. GBFEE (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I chose "extends from the uterus to the vestibule", like "Leibel and Phillips Textbook of Radiation Oncology - E-Book: Expert Consult", 2010,[9] and "Operative Obstetrics, 4E", 2017,[10] do. That's just two resources, but I read different medical ones and some use this description ("vestibule" instead of "vulva"). Actually, the lead says "vestibule to the cervix",[11] but what resources mean when they say "uterus" for this description is "cervix of the uterus" or "the cervix (neck of the uterus)." I didn't use Britannica's "extends from the cervix (outer end) of the uterus within the lesser pelvis down to the vestibule between the labia minora" because that's a little too complicated for the lead. And using "external surface", like "Anatomy, Abdomen and Pelvis, Female External Genitalia" does, is elusive without clarification. When a comparison between "vestibule" and "vulval vestibule" is made for this description, it can be seen that "vestibule" is used a lot more. So I chose that shorter form. The link will push people along to the article about it if they want to learn what it is. I don't know if the longer form "vulval vestibule" would be more helpful or add a little confusion. GBFEE (talk) 18:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:MEDRS-compliant sources (Hopkins, URMC, etc) the most common appears to be vulva, with outside the body used more for websites aimed at the public. Interestingly, among recent MEDRS-compliant books

(and ignoring irrelevant results about ligaments or other tissues), more appear to use formulations like outside the body, external opening, or introitus (less commonly), as well as vestibule and vulva, with the outside/external wordings seemingly the most common.

Based on these, if the extends from wording is chosen, any of those terms could be used, and given the opacity of vestibule to our presumed readership, I would pick either vulva or one of the outside/external wordings as more appropriate, unless vestibule had previously been defined nearby. Adding Crossroads. Mathglot (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

To whom it may concern, "outside the body" is opaque. It says nothing to readers except "outside the body". I wouldn't even use that with a pipelink. Returning to "vulva" is no issue for me. I've said "it's more common to see the resources say 'extends from the vulva to the cervix' or 'extends from the vulva to the uterus'" than any use of "vestibule". GBFEE (talk) 19:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Details from the corresponding article in Polish

It says that a woman's vagina is 5 to 14 cm (1.97 to 5.51 inches) long, usually 6 to 8 cm and is about 2 to 3 cm wide. Faster than Thunder (talk) 06:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Labiaplasty

‘Reduction of the labia minora is quick without hinderance, complications are minor and rare and can be corrected… long-term problems have not been identified’. 2A00:23C5:4E9C:E201:4D59:D1C9:15A9:5E18 (talk) 07:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

The article has: "With regard to labiaplasty, reduction of the labia minora is quick without hindrance, complications are minor and rare, and can be corrected. Any scarring from the procedure is minimal, and long-term problems have not been identified." --Gilgul Kaful (talk) 13:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Evolution of

Why is there no description of the evolution of this structure? I propose to add the following paragraph:

In humans and other therian mammals, HoxA-11 and HoxA-13 are implicated in the development of the vagina. (Wagner, Lynch, 2004).

amniotes have become specialized to facilitate live birth, in a manner unique amongst amniotes to therians. 142.157.228.3 (talk

) 20:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)