Talk:Vagina

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vagina article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Vagina is part of WikiProject Sexuality, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of human sexuality. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Before complaining about article content, please read: Wikipedia is not censored.

Archive 1 (Jan 2002 to Mar 2007)

Contents

[edit] Image

Vulva

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your image is deleted because it is copyright violation. Not to say that it is useless "for educational purposes" without explanations. Wikipedia is not image gallery.
You are also adding useless external links. If there is useful information these, please add it to the article. Otherwise people can surf web themselves. This is not some obscure topic difficult to find.
Wikipedia is not democracy and woman rights vehicle. "Equality" argument will not be taken serioously. Please write useful information into the article, if you want equality.
Also, please sign your posts. mikka (t) 16:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

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

Thanks PK, October 20, 2005
What kind of an image is this! Just made me stop to think about women! Deliogul 22:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I personally don't feel that any photographic representation is necessary for educational purposes. The anatomically correct drawing is satisfactory. Since sexuality is stimulated visually as well as tactfully, your real life photos of the penis and vagina are erotic by nature. I know it was not the intent of the author to post a pornographic image, but unfortunately for adolescents and even adults these images are very sexually provocative. Humans are designed to be aroused by even just a photograph. I don't think it's appropriate to bring a nude woman into a sex education class, spread her legs, and have all the students look inside - even if it's just for educational purposes. Would it be educational? Absolutely. But what does it teach that was so necessary to learn before marriage? Those parents who don't want their children to have sex before marriage believe that the penis and vagina are to be discovered together between man and wife. It is through this discovery that they are to bond with their spouse and make an intimate connection that can't be made any other way. This process of learning and bonding is vital to a happy and long lasting marriage. It's not to say it is the only way or the right way, but if you are keeping the values, beliefs, and wishes of Wikipedia's readers in mind then you should want to remove these photographic images. They just don't serve enough educational purpose worth offending the many religious or sexually sensitive target audience.

This is an Encyclopedia, not a site about religious education!

If kids want to look at porn, they won't go to WP. If someone wants to learn about the human anatomy I'm more than happy to let them learn. I found it amazingly educational, more than any diagram I saw in school.

 + Thanks, Kevin (Nov 22, 2006)
See discussion below.--Loodog 03:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggest Removal of a Very Poor Image

I note that Vag1.jpg has been removed from and then put back into this article several times, so I'll post this comment here rather than being just another person to remove it and have my edit reverted.

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

In Vag1.jpg, as PK says, the labels are all misaligned: the clitoral hood is in the general area of where the label points, but I can't see the clitoral hood, and the same goes for the glans clitoris and vaginal opening labels. As for the labia labels -- again, the picture is very unclear, or the creator is confused about which are the minora and which are the majora.

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

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

  • I'm going to agree with Craig on this one. The vag1.jpg image is poorly labeled and unclear visually. Even if the alignment of the labels was adjusted, the anatomical parts just aren't easily seen. Joyous (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks Joy. Seeing no opposition and realising that the image may have been put back only as a result of unrelated vandalism reverts, I have removed it, reworded the title of the picture of the vulva to draw attention to the opening of the vagina, and done some juggling to improve the layout of the page in one of the main browsers out there. --Craig 02:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

Regarding diagrams and photos:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looking around Wikimedia commons, I found what i think would be a better photo if it was labeled, Foto076. I think photos are better than diagrams as they are more realistic, and would like to see more used, especially in education as, having been educated with diagrams, having now seen photos i believe that if i had been useing photos i would have had a better understanding of the topics. I would like to see more infomation on this topic but unfortunatley lack the knowledge to do it. SophieRachel 14:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Comments unrelated to images

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

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

Cleanup/Re-work?

Suggestion: Restructure the page as follows: 1 Anatomy, 2 Functions: 2.1 Sexual activity (orgasms etc here), 2.2 Menstruation, 2.3 Birth 3 Vaginal health (info on gynaecological visits, pap smears, diseases), 4 Cultural significance. 84.99.234.233 12:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I think this could be an improvement. Or possibly some compromise would be an improvement. I am curious about your removal of the text "Providing sexual pleasure to a woman during the sexual intercourse." While this may be inaccurate, would it not be more effective to change this text than to remove it? For instance: "Facilitates (or plays a role in) sexual pleasure for women during the sexual intercourse." or something similar (with better wording). It (i assume) does play a role in sexual pleasure. --Robby 16:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Of course the vagina "plays a role" in sexual pleasure. But that's not the same thing as a "function". The anus can provide sexual pleasure - but that's not what it's there for. Same for the vagina. However, the clitoris *is* there for that. Your elbow may provide with you no sexual pleasure, but others may disagree - take note of nipples, feet, ears, etc.
Every anatomy book I've seen describes the vagina as having precisely three functions: childbirth, coitus, menstruation. Surely we would need a compelling reason to go against the grain on that one. A woman whose vagina does not allow sex, menstruation or childbirth would be described as having a problem. A woman whose vagina brings no particular sexual pleasure would, in general, not. 84.99.234.233 18:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
My reply to 84.99.234.233 is: "Go for it!" You've made some changes already, so while looking for opinions on major edits is laudable, there is no Editor God to which you can or should submit your ideas or questions. Rewrite the article and post it here for comments or suggestions. Some non-human information would be nice too.
As for the removal that Robby comments on -- I think I like his wording much better than either of the previous versions. Sexual pleasure, at least in humans, is obviously a part of the experience of having a vagina. My elbow provides me with no sexual pleasure, but my penis does; while we're not talking about penises, I don't happen to be equipped with a vagina (so can't comment on it first hand), but I don't see a reason to ignore the pleasurable aspect of the genitals.
To clarify: the pleasurable aspect of the genitals should definitely be included! But it's not a primary function.
--Craig (t|c) 06:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I'll have a stab at improving the article, but I'm a bit hesitant, knowing that someone will more than likely take offense at some wording and revert the whole thing...

84.99.234.233 18:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I would be surprised to learn that tampons are not used in Asia. I suspect the statement that "in Western societies..." should be removed.

Good point - bad wording. Should it be "modern societies"? Feel free to change it. --84.99.234.161 13:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

[edit] New diagrammatic image

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

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

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

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

  • Photographs of genitalia are not inherently pornographic. Pornography is an explicit depiction of eroticism, presented with the intention of sexually exciting the viewer. None of the images on vagina, penis, or any of the related articles qualify as such. Thatdog 22:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
This has been argued so many times it's hardly worth doing again. I should have been clearer. The image I removed was "pornographic" because it was a cropped part of a pornographic image. The image that remains is the same, but at least it does show the vaginal opening. I am quite certain this image was taken with the aim of exciting male viewers, and the fact that the vagina in question appears to be aroused adds to that impression. Take a look at the black and white image on vulva for a non-pornographic example.
There is no double standard. Photos of genitals are totally appropriate, but pornographic ones aren't. However, until some better photos appear...

---There is a double standard. The penis page has an aroused penis in its full erect state. That could and SHOULD be a diagram, not a photo of a sexually excited male. Plus, there is another PHOTO of the glans penis, also aroused. This vagina page and the vulva page have one ugly photo in black and white which is not even that clear. Either allow more photos on the female pages, or please remove some of the ridiculous photos from the penis page.---

I think the basic problem is a lack of good, uncopyrighted images. If you know of any, please feel free. For the penis page, perhaps a good non-photographic hand-drawn/painted image would be better. And to be honest the photo of the glans does look a bit like someone said "There's no photo of that, here, I'll take one!". Anyway this is not the penis page. --84.99.234.161 14:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Frankly I think the real photograph is better. The illustrated one just isn't as realistic and thus isn't as useful. Thoughts? --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 16:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I feel the real photograph mentioned above was much better than the current photo. It CLEARLY showed the vaginal opening, and was not labeled "clitoris" as this pic is. Also, this pic is used on the "clitoris" article already. I vote we go back to the last vaginal opening photo. Any others feel this way? --EaZyZ99 16:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)EaZyZ99
      • Already? You just added it to the article... —Locke Cole 16:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

[edit] Replace PHOTO with DIAGRAM

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

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

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

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

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

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

If this were an article on the internal combustion engine, would anyone seriously be suggesting that we not have a photo of the article's subject? UrsusMaximus 11:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you have a picture of a car with the hood up, pointing to the engine, along with other important parts pointed out? (Because the picture is of the entire vulva area, not just the vagina) Maybe, maybe not. But this is hardly an apples to apples comparison. Bassgoonist 17:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] removed image

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

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

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

[edit] spyware in external link

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

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

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

[edit] Human Anatomy

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

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

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/a/g/Talk%7EVagina_c9f5.html"