Talk:Clitoris/Archive 4

Believe it or not, the clitoris is actually twice the size most textbooks treat it as, and apparently extends considerably back into the vagina. It is further speculated that the "G-spot" and "vaginal orgasms" are really just different regions of the clitoris.

Bloody amazing stuff. You'd reckon that if we discovered that, say, the penis was twice as big as originally thought, they'd be shouting it from the absolute rooftops, but. Anyway, somebody with a bit of an anatomy background should have a look at the following transcript from a TV science show and incorporate the details into the article:

http://www.abc.net.au/quantum/scripts98/9825/clitoris.html

should this page be under "clitoris" or "Clitoris"? doesn't capitalization matter?

The first letter of a Wikipedia article title is always capitalized. --Damian Yerrick

btw, AFAIK, the clitoris extends backwards to around the symphisis pubis, but I've never heard of it extending into the vagina.

It was my understanding that clitoral stimulation --> orgasm, which is important in driving sperm into the vagina and increasing the likelihood of fertilization. Therefore it isn't true that the Clitoris's sole function is sexual pleasure. --corvus13

well, it is my understanding that the female orgasm doesn't always result in driving sperm INTO the vagina and that it usually is actually expulsive. that should be the topic of a node on orgasms though. - firehawk

Removed from the main article:

Switters, a character Fierce Invalids Home from Hot Climates by Tom Robbins says, "This insect is making me feel libidinous", about a moth because it 'resembled a clitoris with wings'.

Am I missing something here, or does this irrelevant nonsense that belongs on the nonsense page? ---Robert Merkel

You're right, Damian... I couldn't let the anatomical inaccuracy stand, and edited the page to include more accurate information about the full extent of the clitoris!!! -- Gjalexei
p.s. Here's a question from a newbie -- how can we include this picture (click here), since definitely, a picture is worth about 3000 words when it comes to the largely unknown clitoral anatomy..

I would be more concerned about the copyrights to the picture than to any offense to prudery. Eclecticology, Thursday, July 11, 2002

The newly uploaded picture is indeed informative, but perhaps slightly, erm, un-encyclopedic in style. (Most other encyclopedias would prefer something rather like an anatomical textbook illustration). Any opinions, please? Kosebamse 21:24 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

discussion is on Image talk:Clitoris.jpg -- Tarquin 21:26 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

I think that a draw is really not so informative. Moreover, in books of medicine you can find pictures of everything (whatever it seems gross or not, and don't think this is the issue). I think we are not used to see this kind of picture, because it was culturally admitted that showing this was an offense. But, it's nothing more that the most natural thing. The is no censure for the word Fuck in this encyclopedia, as it reflects just the reality, I think it should be the same here. JohnQ

OK, we seem to have a solution: a clickable link to the image, with a warning telling people exactly what they will see if they click the link. Whilst I don't care about the image (although I think it should have been smaller), many people might be offended, and they can be accommodated in this way without self-censorship on our part. I agree, the nice nail-varnish definitely adds a certain something to this image. The Anome 22:08 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

I wonder about the case in pornography. While an illustration can be good enough for this article, can we really tell people what is a pornography without what does it look. -- Taku 22:10 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

You're talking about in the pornography article, right? Or other appearances of might-be-pornography throught the 'pedia? -- John Owens 22:13 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

No, I think words will do just fine for that. We should be a serious encyclopedia first and foremost. That means we should deal with subjects such as pornography and genital anatomy, but not in a titillating way. I think the presence of this image with the warning text is the right balance for this article: no such image is needed to describe pornography. The Anome 22:16 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

Actually I have started to wonder more general policy for pornography related to topics. For example, if we started to cover some famous porn sites, we probably need to offer a link in external link section. Besides, if those kind of article started to be organized very well, wikipedia can be a good directory for porn sites. It is unfortunately legally quite risky. For example, while there are many objections, some local governments in Japan have a policy that even linking to porn site is illegal. -- Taku 22:30 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

Well it is a good thing that the server isn't in Japan then. :) Seriously though, we've gone over this already on the talk archive of Aria Giovanni (an article on a porn star with a weblink to her web page - which has frontal nudity on it). But if the laws of the nation you are in say that it is illegal to place such a link on a page then you should not place a such a link on any page. However, since I'm in the US it is legal for me to place such a link on a page (whether or not it is relevant to the article or appropriate for Wikipedia are different matters). So there are two sides to the issue here; what is legal for a Wikipedia user to do and what is legal for the Wikipedia server to contain. --mav

A note for anon. I fully suport having a suitable illustration available. However, an image of a porn star spreading, is not suitable. Personally, I am not in the slightest offended by it. But it's not something that ought to be directly linked to by the Wiklipedia, certainly not without discussion in advance and a consensus decision on the matter. Tannin 08:20 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

I don't think the image in question is sufficiently informative, obscuring as it does the subject anatomy. I would agree that any photographic image ought be externally linked, but would prefer an archival site. Personal or pornographic sites come and go and are likely to produce a broken link in the future. BobCMU76 08:28 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

I think that any relevant picture has its place, no matter if it's offensive for some cultures. A picture of a foot wouldn't be considered as offensive as it's a US web site. But for come other people, a picutre of a foot is clearly offensive. I believe that freedom should prevail Wiki -- (Tanin with 1 "N")

It is not just a matter of "freedom" but a matter of appropriateness and professional presentation. A diagram would be far more appropriate and professional (I've already drawn one but I'm having technical difficulties on transferring that to a digital format so that I can annotate and upload to file). --mav

Why a diagram would be far more professional? If you want to show to someone what a cow is, you show him a picture of it. I can bet that there are far more photographs here to represent any object than diagrams. So, why be hyporcritical and just show things as they are... A. (Tanin with 1 "N")

Because that is how textbooks and other encyclopedias do things - it is the norm of the industry. It also in non-controversial and thus will not cause a great deal of wasted edits on talk pages discussing the image. This will be the last edit I waste on this subject. --mav

All please note the distinction between the Tanin with 1 "N" - a newly created account which is famous only for posting links to a porn snap - and the Tannin you have all come to know and love. Err ... well .. come to know, anyway. :) Tannin 09:04 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Already spotted :) And I doubt Jimbo would approve of such a close username, possibly chosen to cause confusion. It's going to be a diagram. Just drop it. -- Tarquin 09:06 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

If you want to have an encyclopedia as the other one, don't bother wasting time here, sure! Juste go for the Britannica, this will be better. But apparently, this encyclopedia has something different as it could really reflect all realities. We can find the "Fuck" page or about any other subject considered as taboo. And that's normal. That's exactly the same here. As I told Tannin before : "Do you think really that I have any interest in porn? Absolutly not. As you say, if I would like to find porn, I could just go to one of thousand of porn sites. I think this is relevant. Tell me, if you see a picture of a cow on the cow page, would you remove it? No, no. Even if the cow is not beautiful. So, it's exactly the same. Sorry to disappoint you, but it's not a provocative action, I do think it has its place here. Give me an acceptable and RATIONAL reason to remove it. " - A.

Sooo, apparently, the encyclopedia is just operated by sysop, no true speech then. Your behavior is defintely not rational.

Everyone seems to agree except one contributor. Page protected. For the record, I think a picture could be acceptable, but it would need to be tastefully done -- Tarquin 09:16 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Protected. That's the way of dictatorship. No even one single rationnal argument was put forward. Except "it's not tasteful". Really, do you think this is thoughtful? A.

"the encyclopedia is just operated by sysop, no true speech then" -- no other encyclopedia lets people edit in the first place! If anything, a diagram will be much clearer. The girl in your photo has a tiny clitoris which is pretty much invisible. -- Tarquin 09:22 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

It's possible to add a diagram AND a picture. I think this case is a pretty common case. 100 years ago, it was totally impossible to use the word Fuck in an encylopedia, because it was against the culture (doesn't mean it's justified). It has evolved and today, we understand that it is not really important to censor such words. That's not essential. Obviously, even clever people use them. What is important, is to have a NPOV, and something that is morally justified. I mean, not going against the concept of general happiness. For instance, if you would have a page about Nazi, defending this idea, this would be definitely bad, as it goes against the general interest of people. Regarding our issue, it's not the case I guess. Really, think about it thoroughly. From a NPOV a cow and a clitoris should have a page alike. Even for the picture. A.

You don't understand NPOV. You're repeating yourself. I'm out. DNFTT. -- Tarquin 09:25 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

You're not arguing. A.

I strongly disagree that a "diagram will be much clearer". People need to see genitalia the way they look like in reality, a diagram is always an abstraction. However, I agree that the uploaded image is not very tasteful, primarily because of the nail polish and the porn-like lighting -- these are connotations we want to avoid in an encyclopedia. It is also not particularly helpful in identifying the clitoris itself. What would be most helpful is a collection of clitoris photos, I faintly remember a feminist photo project that collected plenty of those. This allows the viewer to see the clitoris in different shapes, sizes and states of erection.

However, leaving the image in the article might motivate other contributors to find a better one. I am not quite happy with John Q.'s copyright declaration, though, simply because I don't trust him. His answers were evasive and he is not a long-time contributor. --Eloquence 15:07 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Really? I'm sure that the woman will reconigze herself... lol. Crop it even further if you are soooo afraid. Copyright was not such an issue for other articles. I have post many other articles with pictures and nobody even bothered about the copyright. Or is it something else? A.

If you consider this an issue like any other, then why don't you tell us the the photographer's identity and email address, so we can inquire about when the photo was made, and what its copyright status is? It is not the woman who holds the copyright, it is the photographer. Furthermore, it is incorrect that copyright is not an issue for other photos -- the copyright question will be raised for any photo that gets a certain amount of attention. --Eloquence 15:59 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

I have restored the version without the link to the porn photo, and, seeing as the Manynames Vandal still hasn't got the point, protected the page until he settles down and works through this controversial matter in a civilised manner. This does not include vandalisim of multiple pages, throwing insults around the place, and creating multiple identities.

This is a sensitive matter, and needs to be approached in a calm and sensible way, with an awareness that many people will find explicit images offensive, and that there needs to be discussion and a consenus before a major change is made.

Personally, I have no objection whatever to explicit imagery: it's not something that offends me. However, this is not about my personal taste (or indeed any other individual's personal taste), it is about respect for other people and upholding a community standard until such time as there is a clear consensus that the standard should be changed. Tannin 16:28 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Well, the last time I tried to talk to you, you told me "I'm out". Apparently this is not consistent. Moreover, I don't think that we're going to debate and talk so much time each time we add a picture or anything.... JohnQ

JohnQ, you are getting your Tarquins and Tannins mixed up. They are two different people. -- sannse 16:39 May 10, 2003 (UTC)