Jump to content

Talk:Labia/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

lips

i've also heard of the lips of the mouth being referred to as labia. Gringo300 19:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you heard this in a porno. Alexander 007 03:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Labium is Latin for "lip". You are correct, Gringo. The term is applicable to anything that is a lip. --Mattopaedia 06:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

My jab at Gringo was a jest, which I couldn't resist, once it occured to me. Alexander 007 06:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I was just about to give you a reference, but I see you've done that yourself. That wikipedia and wikisaurus do not refer to the broader definitions of the term is, as you can appreciate, a shortcoming in their definitions that perhaps someone could revise. Mattopaedia 07:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Good revision. I was a bit cocky myself earlier, but that's just me. I took a look in the appendix of an anthropology textbook then checked the article Lip, and verified it. Alexander 007 07:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

But thanks for clarifying your position, though. I really think this should be a wikipedia entry, nonetheless, I've edited the article as seems more appropriate to me. Next, I'll revamp the anatomy in lip wherein I shall describe some of the important labial muscles used in facial epression. Have a nice day! --Mattopaedia 07:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW, The intention of my original response was not to have a go at you or your remarks. I wasn't even particularly concerned about how Gringo felt about your little jest. What prompted me to act was the inaccuracy of the information. In my relatively short time as a Wikipedian, I seem to have developed an approach to contributing where I consider what a person who doesn't know about what they're reading may take away from what they've read. There's probably a wikipedian philosophy and associated user box template for this somewhere, and if I find it I'll just have to stick it on my user page. Mattopaedia 07:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Sentence

I removed this:

In English usage, Labium often specifically refers to parts of the vulva.

from the article because:

  1. I'd already listed vulva under "see also"
  2. because of point 1, I feel the phrase is repetitive and therefore adds nothing to the article. People who are interested in vulvas can already follow the link. --Mattopaedia 09:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

AND, there's still the reproductive/gynae template with all the other related links embedded, sitting happily at the bottom of the page. Mattopaedia 09:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but the (human) vulva rocks. Alexander 007 00:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
That was never in dispute! Mattopaedia 03:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I replaced the sentence, because it should actually be the other way around; if a link is listed in the text then it should be removed from the See also section. This has nothing to do with the fact that there are certain "People who are interested in vulvas..." (and how User:Alexander 007 refers to it) in the sense that you mean it, but should be simply stated out as a regular encyclopedia; besides what about people who are actually trying to located information? Besides, this article appears in the Labia disambig page as "a part of the female genitalia", so futhermore this article should be expanded as to the purpose of the labia in the female reproductive system. AndyZ 01:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The following discusiion occurred on the talk pages of AndyZ and Mattopaedia and has been copied here for discussion of a proposed merge between labium and labia.

Welcome to Wikipedia (again)! I replaced your deleted sentence in the article Labium. It seems as if your main objection against the sentence is that it would simply be for "People who are interested in vulvas" (cough User:Alexander 007). However, your arguments aren't ground for the deletion of the sentence; conversely it results the deletion of the vulva in the See also section. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia has to be factually accurate. In fact, I added more to the article about the Labium and its "role". AndyZ 01:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome! I didn't remove that sentence because I objected to some of the motives of "people interested in vulvas" in that schoolkid looking up rude words in the dictionary kind of way. I don't object to that at all - 20 years ago I would have been looking for precisely that reason! The reason I removed it was because I felt the neutrality of the article was compromised by labouring one interpretation. I've since re-read the NPOV policy and realise majority opinions may receive proportionately more space in an article without necessarily being POVist.
I've reconsidered my stance therefore, and decided I'll leave that aspect of the article alone. Now I've had more time to think about it I feel my major issue is there is one article for labia (plural) and one for labium (singular). They're both alternative forms of the same word and have similar links. Perhaps they should be merged. I'll put it up for consideration & post this to their discussion pages here and here. Mattopaedia 23:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

merge discussion

User:Anthopos removed the merge templates without discussion or consensus. It would be polite to wait a week or so then take action.

My stand point is to support merge of the articles .

Mattopaedia 06:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Its been a week since I suggested merging labium and labia. The only thing that's happened in that time was Anthopos removing the merge templates without warning or explanation. I reverted that edit and since then there's been silence. So I've made the decision & will merge labia into labium. --Mattopaedia 00:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Interlabial Sulci

I've read that the areas between the labia majora and the labia minora are called the interlabial sulci. I'm curious though about: What's the term for the area between the labia majora and the clitoral hood? Gringo300 20:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

it's also the interlabial sulcus since it is merely a continuation of the same furrow. Bobble2 22:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Bobble2

labia minora

i've heard of the labia minora being referred to as "nymphae". that would be plural. i'm under the impression that the singular form would be "nympha". anyone on here know? Gringo300 20:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. Singular is nympha (although it is rarely used) Bobble2 22:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

posterior commisure of the labia minora

is the fourchette/frenulum labiorum pudendi the same thing as the posterior commisure of the labia minora? from what i can tell they are either the same thing, or are very closely interrelated. Gringo300 20:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

General

It seems to me that the human sexuality pages of the Wikipedia suffer from many editors' amateurish and juvenile attempts at fulfilling their fantasies under the cover of an attempt to educate. This page is a prime example of that.

Case in point: why is there a compelling need to include the topics of pornography and exotic dancing while talking about labiaplasty in one same paragraph? There are actual medical reasons to need such procedure!

Why include a full paragraph on "cameltoe"? This is pure slang. At least make an attempt at separating the anatomical from other topics, perhaps using headings such as "Anatomy" where you are strictly descriptive (a la Gray's Anatomy), then "Social Attitudes" where talk about sex, depictions in history, taboos, depilation, etc., and then even a purely "Informal and Slangs" heading, for things such as "cameltoes".

What makes a particular editor's judgement trump everyone else's? At least respect the purely grammatical corrections! Try to read that Khosian people paragraph, and tell me if it does not need a clean up? I've rewritten it twice, to have someone just revert to an old version.

Lets be serious people, this is an encyclopedia, not a free webpage to mess with. jcordova 16:30, 17 August 2006 (PST)

jcordova, I agree totally, even though I prefer to think that it is misguided editors who add references to pornography or slang, and not juvenile amateurs! As far as I'm concerned you can remove the paragraph about cameltoes, and those medical reasons for labiaplasty would also be a great addition. IronChris | (talk) 23:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Cameltoe?

I had removed the paragraph on "cameltoe". Isn't this supposed to be an encyclopedia? What kind of academic value does a slang like "cameltoe" add? But before I get blamed for censorship, I decided to reclassify it, as a Slang topic. jcordova

I did some general cleanup on the article, where I created a new section for 'Social and Cultural Concerns,' and I cut the 'cameltoe' section down to a single sentence within that. Any further discussion of cameltoes should probably be done on that page. Personally I think that "cameltoe" is a pretty ugly word for that effect, but it's hard to avoid using it on this page since it's the title for the WP article on the topic. --Kadin2048 18:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

labiocrural fold

can someone explain to me what the labiocrural fold is? yes, i've looked this up on the internet, but everything i've read is very, very vague. Gringo300 20:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The labio-crural fold is just the angle between the top of the inner thigh and the outer edge of the labia majora. If you run your finger down either groin you get to it. Bobble2 22:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
ok, i can picture it now. the word "crura" from what i've read means "legs", thus "crural" means "of the legs". thus, the fold between the labia majora and the legs. and if i'm going to be doing the running the fingers down either side of the groin, i'll need to get permission from whoever first. otherwise i could get in trouble... Gringo300 23:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Well you could try it yourself as guys have the same structure. It's just that you switch scrotum for labia.Bobble2 17:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I love this place; I learn something every day.  ;) Kasreyn 23:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm under the impression that "genitocrural folds" is the gender-neutral term for this area. Gringo300 02:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Page name

Yeah, I know page names are supposed to be singular, and labium isn't exactly like *scissor, but this article is mostly about pussy lips, and, really, in human anatomy, like, barring a disfiguring explosion, can you really have a single lip? —Wiki Wikardo 08:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I am removing the external link (at bottom of article) leading to http://www.labiaenhancement.com/. Aside from that site's irrelevance (not to mention potential offensiveness [to women, mostly]), I don't think it belongs in an encyclopedic article about an anatomical part. If anyone has any questions or concerns about why I have removed this link, feel free to visit the site -- which is not only not educational, but *not at all* objective in its content. It would be exactly like going to a Wikipedia article about "the nose" as a part of the body, and seeing a link at the bottom leading to a plastic surgeon's website, specializing in "fixing ugly noses." Utterly ridiculous.

Sugarbat 18:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Porn Pics

Both of the images on this article are from a porn website... http://glam0ur.com/gals/met_art/adriana_malkova/adriana_malkova.htm

Scroll down and you'll see them. Aren't they a copyright violation or something? CerealBabyMilk 22:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

better be replaced --Lamilli 16:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I will provide some from my own collection with proper license within next few days. MarkMarek 00:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Khoikhoi apron

The large labia of the hottentots were once called by some phrase which translates as egyptian apron, they were never called Khoikhoi aprons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.177.51 (talk) 05:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 16:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Get rid of the smut

AHHHHHH! Get rid of this smutty topic. Delete the smutty picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.250.139 (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It occurs to me to check on you to see if you ever got away from the guy with the gun.
Are you okay? I'm worried sick. Sugarbat (talk) 18:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Photo in article *NOT* a good representation of subject

I glanced through the discussion to see if I could find any mention of this, but didn't see anything (if I missed something, please forgive me). So I'll step up and say that the photo, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vulva_labeled.jpg, is terrible, especially in the context of an article about the human female "labium."

First of all, the subject's genitalia appear either to be deformed or to have been surgically altered somehow so that the labia majora and the labia minora seem -- well, fused together. I have no way of knowing for sure, not knowing anything about either the photo or its subject, but it looks to me as though this were done surgically, and that, additionally, some of both (the majora and the minora) were actually removed in whatever process was used to alter the organ. I see some tissue (particularly at the top left, just beneath the clitoris and at the point where there ought to be a clear fissure or cleft between the major lip and the minor lip) that, instead of naturally occurring labial tissue, could be minor scarring.

Regardless, though, of whether this woman's genitalia were surgically altered or not, the fact remains that if I were unfamiliar with human female genitalia and/or, specifically, with human genital-labial anatomy, I would be no more educated as a result of looking at this photo than I was before I saw it. In this photo, there are almost *no labia whatsoever* -- and what *is* there is, anatomically speaking, vague and almost vestigeal, and, frankly, grotesque as a result.

To borrow from my earlier simile, it would be like going to the Wikipedia article for "human nostril," where the only photo available of a human nose showed two nostrils, the diameter of a pinhead, perforating the face of someone the location of whose nose could only be determined based on the location of the twin pinhead-sized nose holes. In other words, even taking into account general differences in nose/nostril sizes/shapes ranged along the human spectrum, such a nose as I have described would likely NOT be defined as "normal" by any reasonable representative of humanity.

I appreciate the fact that, clearly, efforts have been made to post a photo that's as non-pornlike and clinical as possible, but I don't think that "clinical" is a synonym of "postoperative." If no one can post a better photo -- by which I mean a photo that clearly shows the labia minora and labia majora in a human female -- I'm almost tempted to take a photographic trip to my own downtown and post that, so as to take care of both anatomy and copyright in a single swoop. Sugarbat (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

All right -- Since no one else seems to care, I've recommended the previous photo be deleted, and I've swapped it out here with another commons photo that actually shows some actual (vaginal) labia. It's still not ideal, in my opinion, but I'm not in the mood to go hunting around looking for better, non-copyrighted cookie photos. Feel free to improve on this one at your leisure. Sugarbat (talk) 03:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Update: I just glanced through the above comments and saw this: Both of the images on this article are from a porn website... http://glam0ur.com/gals/met_art/adriana_malkova/adriana_malkova.htm, which, it turns out, certainly does host a version (mirrored and tagged using photoshop or something) of the exact photo I swapped into the old one's place (see above). So I deleted the photo from the article entirely, and now we have no photo at all. I hope everybody's happy. DON'T ALTER COPYRIGHTED PHOTOS AND POST THEM IN COMMONS. If you want to look at porn, why are you in an encyclopedia? Jeez, people. Sugarbat (talk) 03:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Relevant pictures were removed - Why?

Hi All. I know this could become a misussed article where pics can be placed without really adding to the topic. However a pic I uploaded and added to the article's gallery, showing how sometimes the labia minora can protrude (in a frontal view, non offensive photo) was removed without any comment. And same happened to a picture that other editor added previously, that IMHO is not so similar to existing pics (the one that showed a "panoramic"? view of a vulva opened, with the different labia clearly identifiable) so it would add to the article.
I'd greatly appreciate if any responsible editor can justify those deletions, because if that's not the case I'll include both pictures again.
Many thanks & kind regards, DPdH (talk) 07:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Images

Aren't there some less-heinous looking snatches that could be used instead? One of these even looks diseased. 174.91.1.114 (talk) 10:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Not half as "diseased" as your attitude towards women. Our body parts are not there for your entertaiment or approval, thank FSM.EnquireWithin (talk) 12:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Picture labeling

The "frontal view" and "detailed view" pictures appear to be mislabeled. The second frontal view picture reads "pronounced labia majora, protuding labia majora" when it should read "pronounced labia majora, protuding labia minora". The second detailed view picture reads "pronounced labia majora" when it should read "pronounced labia minora". Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The text, caps, and table alignment for the frontal and detailed views have been fixed. kyledueck (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Picture / Photographic Concerns

How about a picture of a nicer labia instead? F15x28 20:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with the current picture? Kasreyn 02:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Kind of disgusting for me, too. But nicer pictures should be found before deciding, of course. --euyyn 20:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
If you want to submit a photo that's as subjectively good as the current ones, and is also more aesthetically pleasing, by all means go for it. However, I think it's intellectually dishonest to remove a photo because it's "disgusting" or "ugly," if it's the best illustration available of the subject in question. --Kadin2048 18:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
How are the pictures disgusting or ugly? They accuratelty dipict variations of the female gentalia. What's so wrong with that?71.231.78.4 07:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I never meant to imply that I thought the photo was necessarily ugly; I was responding to certain other people who claimed that it was. Personally I have no problem with the image and think it's fine as-is; if other people have a problem with it, though, they are free to try and find one that's more aesthetically appealing to them, and which is equivalent or better in terms of illustrating the subject at hand, and we can vote on it or something. --Kadin2048 23:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Sarahvulva.jpg

This image, which the article uses, has recently been added to the MediaWiki:Bad image list, which prevents the image from being displayed in-line in articles, as a result a recent vandalbot attack. This change will only be temporary, and the image will be back working properly in a day or so. Sorry for the inconvenience. AmiDaniel (talk) 10:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Eww!

Can someone not find a photo of a bird with a non-hairy arse to go on this page?!? The one now is disgusting! Skinmeister 18:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to inform people about the world that is, not the world as some of us might wish it were. From my experience, that appears to be a fairly representative example of the subject illustrated. Kasreyn 20:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh. My. God. I have never seen anything like that in real life, and would run a mile if I ever had the misfortune to. Skinmeister 20:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
What does that have to do with improving this article? Kasreyn 22:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
It wouldn't make people barf when they come to it, for one. Skinmeister 22:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Please refer to WP:NOT; Wikipedia is not censored to avoid offense. Kasreyn 23:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Well said, Kasreyn. Skinmeister (and perhaps your nick tells us all we need to know), if you are looking for "pretty" sanitised imagery, can I suggest you go to one of the many pornographic sites on the internet. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to appeal to your personal taste. Bobble2 11:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... visit a pornographic website. Thanks, I'd never thought of doing that before! Skinmeister 12:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Excellent. Everyone's happy then. Bobble2 16:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry to revive the topic, but it appears like the model has dirty fingernails on top of everything. Whose wife is she? ;-) jcordova 16:30, 16 August 2006 (PST)
I like the cut of your jib! Thanks for removing the image, I shall now sleep much more peacefully. Skinmeister 13:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Come on, how juvenile can we possibly get here? If you don't like it, leave it the hell alone! romarin [talk ] 15:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
My dear Romarin, How unWikipedian!!! Your comment is a slap in the face to the very concept of the Wikipedia!jcordova 14:30, 17 August 2006 (PST)
I'd love to make a whole WP article about comical WP "discussions." The above is on my personal top-ten list. Jib, indeed! Sugarbat (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, but your attempted censorship of this photo is what is un-Wikipedian. This is an informative picture of a real woman. No air-brushing, no alterations. Yes, we have pubic hair. Yes, sometimes we have dirty fingernails. So what? The comments made by yourself and Skinmeister sounded juvenile and sexist, and I felt that it was important to point out, as that is generally not appreciated around here. romarin [talk ] 22:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, censoring perfectly informative pictures is a "slap in the face of the very concept of Wikipedia" (speaking of which, jcordova, maybe you should read WP:NOT, and WP:5P, you might learn a bit more about this so called "concept"). And comments such as "whose wife is she?", with or without a smiley, are disrespectful, if not insulting.
To come back to the picture, the dirty nails are barely visible at the size the picture is in the article. But if you have a willing model, why don't you come up with your own picture? We could then discuss which is most informative and representative. But for the moment there is no better alternative. IronChris | (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Alright. I stand by my request for a better picture of an average-looking model, and argue that I was not *censoring* but merely trying to improve the quality of the entry. As for the "wife" comment, it was merely meant to be funny, in the hopes (misguided) of preventing any hostility, but I retract it if it was perceived as disrespectful. By the way Romarin, I have been using and editing Wikipedia for about two years now, so no need to be condescending with me about what is appreciated "around here" as if I were a newcomer. Again, I was hoping to use humor to keep this from turning into a vicious edit/reedit cycle. jcordova 16:30, 17 August 2006 (PST)
While I agree that having multiple photographs to choose from could only help the article, I really don't see anything wrong with the quality of this photo. Could you please specify what the problem is? And I honestly don't think that a tiny bit of dirt under the nails (only visible if you look really closely) should be an issue. Not only does this photo show all outer components of a woman's genitalia, but they are labeled so we know what they are called. How is this not of encyclopedic value? I can't give the same credit to the other photo, which only shows half of what the article is about (there is also the labia minora, let's not forget). And I never implied that you were a newcomer; please don't put words into my mouth. Everyone, from the newbie to the veteran, needs some advice every now and again. I really don't care how long someone has been around; if they seem to be hurting rather than helping the project, I am going to say something, as should every concerned editor. romarin [talk ] 14:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I had a couple of thoughts on the photo which I wanted to bring up for discussion. First, I think the "Eww!" and "nicer labia" comments in regards to Sarahvulva.jpg are inappropriate. Someone effectively donated their image to Wikipedia, and at the current time no superior one has been found; I think we owe the person or persons involved a certain amount of thanks, which ought to at least extend to being polite. With that said, I'm not sure if the image is the best one for this page. It's really, IMO, more of a "vulva" image than a good "labia" one. (Not coincidentally, it's also used on the vulva page.) I wonder if something more like this image might be better: Image:Vulva15.jpg. Now this isn't a particularly good image (it would need some cropping, for a start), but I think it might be more appropriate for this topic. It seems to emphasize the labia rather than the other structures of the vulva, and it also isn't a stereotypically "pornographic" vulva (which I think we should stay away from -- I'd rather have "accurate" or "common" than "pretty.") Does anyone have any thoughts? I think we definitely need an image or images for this page, but I question whether the spread-labia Sarahvulva.jpg is really the best choice. --Kadin2048 20:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

To the person above ^^^The current pic is not as labia-specific(?) as the alternate option you suggest, but the current pic is showing the labia in context of the whole vulva so is it really that much of a problem??? And honestly, if it was changed to a picture like you posted, there is going to be even more people trolling, complaining and making juvenile remarks like "ew beef curtains!" etc.
There's a cropped image up at Image:Vulva15Cropped.jpg. Having said that, I think Image:Vulva11.jpg is the better image to replace Sarahvulva.jpg. Fishies Plaice 03:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the photos on the page right now ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Labium&oldid=76083914 ), are good and a substantial improvement over the old one. None of them on their own would really be great, but together they give a fair illustration of the different variations, without going totally overboard. I vote that we keep it this way, and the hell with people who don't like looking at it; if they find prettier vulva pictures, we can consider them at that time. Nobody should come to an article on labia and be surprised when there are pictures of labia there. --Kadin2048 18:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Just keep the photographs proffessional, Sarahvulva.jpg wasn't much a a reference picture, Proffessional photographers and healthy hygenic models are very neccessary. Look at the EYE articles and see quality phograph of a human eye that doesn't look like it was taken by an amature photographer.

I guess I'm not completely upset at hairless vulvae being displayed here since it makes for easier illustration of the underlying skin, but should BOTH pictures be hairless? There's enough pilophobia around as it is.

For heaven's sake. Surely the only thing that's needed is a comment that the hair has been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.206.194 (talk) 12:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2011

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request. A history swap will be necessary.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Labium (genitalia) → Labia – Two issues here. First is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Since this is an English encyclopedia, the fact that "labia" means "lip" in Latin is rather trivial; in English, "labia" almost always refer to the genitalia. Second, the word is almost always used in the plural; referring to a single labium is so rare that it should be an exception to WP:SINGULAR. (Note that even "genitalia", the disambiguator on this title, is plural -- shouldn't it be either "Labia (genitalia)" or "Labium (genitalium)"?) Powers T 20:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The 'pronounced' labia minora are not particularly pronounced and still fairly small compared to the human average - sort of the equivalent of using the average plus-size model as an example of what a plus-size woman looks like. I believe this detracts from the informative mission of wikipedia.

- Linked here from an article mentioning a man describing perfectly normal female genitalia as 'hideous' because he'd looked up labia on wikipedia and therefore 'knew what they were supposed to look like'. The social 'norm' or societal expectation is for small labia minora, but wikipedia should be representing reality, not modern western cultural ideals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.66.84 (talk) 09:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Other biological use of labia?

It was pointed out in this article that the labia is the membrane that regulates the airflow that passes through the syrinx. I'm assuming what it is referring to is similar to vocal folds, but am unsure. Is there a wider use of the word labia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.84.208.5 (talk) 03:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Where's the hair?

Surely there are some photos that would show more realistic labia--meaning unshaven. I noted that the photo of scrotum shows public hair where the photos of labia show none. At the least, the photo should be captioned to note that the women has shaved, lest some curious child think that adult women are hairless.A Softer Answer (talk) 13:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The pictures in this article need to be changed to show more of the natural variations between individuals. I made a note that public hair was removed in the lead image. --kyledueck (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Sources

Kyledueck, I don't think clitoris.com counts as a WP:MEDRS-compliant source, which are the type of sources we are supposed to use for WP:Anatomy topics (though cultural information, including sexual practices, about anatomy generally does not need to be WP:MEDRS-compliant and anatomy topics usually don't need review articles or sources published within the last five years or so since anatomy information is usually the same as it was many or several years ago; exceptions to this are new discoveries, rediscoveries or new understandings about certain functions). I've come across clitoris.com before at different Wikipedia articles (I think at only a couple), and I removed it because it also did not look like a general WP:Reliable source to me; I'm not speaking of the reliability of what it states, but whether or not it passes the WP:Reliable sources guideline. And for this addition citing Mary Roach, while Roach can be good source for some material, I don't think that she's generally a good source for anatomy information. Keep in mind that Roch specializes in popular science (often with humor), but has no solid credentials in the anatomical, sexual or other scientific fields...except for psychology, and often reports on aspects or research topics that have no solid evidence supporting it. I also don't think that the greatwallofvagina.co.uk is a good source to use, and I'm iffy about Joani Blank. Flyer22 (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. In general I agree that the sources are not good enough, and I would prefer to have better ones. This article (like many sexual subjects on wikipedia) lacks detail, and I suppose I've been cutting corners in an effort to make quick progress, but I'll search for better sources. I suspect that it will be difficult/impossible to find sources for some of this information elsewhere (such as sexual sensitivity), due to the lack of funding for official studies.
I believe the section sourced using Bonk by Mary Roach is summarizing research by Robert Latou Dickinson, and Masters and Johnson, and if so, that should make it a reliable secondary source. I will have to confirm this though.
The last two sources, greatwallofvagina.co.uk Joani Blank, aren't mine, and I haven't checked them, so I can't comment on them. --kyledueck (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I just now read your response. Before I read and responded to it, I was waiting to see if Anthonyhcole, a WP:MED editor who I've noticed also watches this article, would weigh in. It's not too difficult or impossible to find WP:Reliable/WP:MEDRS-compliant sources with regard to the sexual sensitivity of the human labia (and some other aspects regarding it). Again, like I just added into my initial comment above "cultural information, including sexual practices, about anatomy generally does not need to be WP:MEDRS-compliant" (unless, of course, it concerns a medical aspect that should be WP:MEDRS-compliant). And you are making good progress by removing the unreliable sources and adding reliable sources in their place, such as the Janell L. Carroll and Robert Crooks Cengage Learning sources as you did here. Sex guide sources, however (just in case you consider using any of those), are often unreliable for sexual information because (generally unless having been written by a non-WP:Fringe researcher in that field) they often go on popular belief about sexual topics, such as types of orgasms that are not supported by research or are barely supported by research and are therefore dubious, more than they go on actual science. Yeah, I saw that you were using the Roach source for parts that seemed okay; I still felt the need to caution using Roach for anatomy and sexual aspects. And I wondered if you used the greatwallofvagina.co.uk and Joani Blank sources, though (being familiar with you generally knowing what are poor sources for sexual topics) using the greatwallofvagina.co.uk source didn't seem to me like something you would do, but I didn't feel like looking in the edit history and checking; it was still important to note greatwallofvagina.co.uk as a poor source.
On a side note: It's best that you cite the page numbers. If you don't want to duplicate the source just to cite a specific page number, which is often how I feel, you can simply include, in the pages field, all of the pages numbers you are citing. And when it comes to punctuation and sourcing, punctuation comes before the sources (generally), per WP:REFPUNCT. Flyer22 (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
As for this, Puppo is not a good source to use for female anatomy unless it's to source his own views; his views are generally out of step with other researchers' views on female anatomy; see this section at the G-spot article. I also noted as much on the G-spot talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 00:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again for the feedback and advice. :) I believe I've removed all the refs that you were concerned about. There are a few that you didn't mention at the bottom of the article that I still haven't looked at, but they're also not anatomy related. I also moved ref placement around, per WP:REFPUNCT as you suggested. I will still need to address the page number issue.
"It's not too difficult or impossible to find WP:Reliable/WP:MEDRS-compliant sources with regard to the sexual sensitivity of the human labia (and some other aspects regarding it)."
It appears that you are correct! I did manage to find some. My difficulty with finding sources is largely due to bandwidth limitations (I'm on dial-up), so admittedly, I was slacking a bit before, but a little wifi surfing sorted me out!
Thanks for letting me know about Puppo as well. I can't really say that I'm very surprised. Some of it did seem to conflict with what I've read elsewhere, and I noticed that he cited a lot of his own research (which can sometimes indicate fringe opinions), so I'm glad I didn't use more of it. I'll get rid of those refs too. --kyledueck (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
No problem. Just let me know here in this section when you need help sourcing certain aspects. And for an example of Puppo's beliefs generally (not always) being out of step with other researchers' views on female anatomy, other than his insistence that there is no connection between the vagina and the clitoris, is his insistence that (as shown in the aforementioned section of G-spot article) the vestibular bulbs have nothing to do with the clitoris (or at least to me that has seemed like what he is stating). Like this and this source state, among other WP:Reliable sources, the vestibular bulbs are more closely related to the clitoris than the vestibule. And, remember, sex guide sources are not always bad when it comes to sourcing sexual practices information; if the writer of the book has good credentials in sexual and/or anatomy fields, the book might be good to use as a source for sexual practices information. Flyer22 (talk) 00:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Labiaplasty NPOV?

It seems that the line: 

   A misunderstanding of this latter fact sometimes leads women to seek labiaplasty to "correct" them.

...doesn't present an NPOV, unless someone can produce evidence to support labiaplasty as strictly a "corrective" procedure. AKADriver 00:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

http://www.webmd.com/women/vaginoplasty-and-labiaplasty-procedures
summary: mostly used in cosmetic surgery, rarely in reconstructive surgery --31.150.160.172 (talk) 20:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Human specific or not?

If the Labia are human specific, then I would suggest that the initial sentence be phrased more closely to the one for Foreskin, something like "In Female Human Anatomy...". OTOH, if the Labia is not specifically human, then some non-human information should be given in the article.Naraht (talk) 01:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The labia are not human specific. Other mammals have labia, but I'm not sure about other animals. I agree that the article would benefit from more info on the subject. kyledueck (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Race?

Can we get some more racial variety in these pictures? We've got 30+ white vulvas on this page, giving off the impression that they only come in one shade. Maybe add additional vulva collages with different skin colours? 07:54, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

New lead image

I think a single image better illustrates the topic than a (cluttered) gallery which illustrates differences among vulvas, which can be featured later on in the article. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Labia/Archive_1&oldid=1136889817"