Talk:Clitoris/Archive 4: Difference between revisions

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