Talk:Perineum/Archive 1

Archive 1

Removal of Image

Removed a picture of bush at top of article. (this is still pretty funny)

Definition of perineum

Please note that the definition of perineum varies. In the context of modern anatomy, it refers to the region between the pubic symphysis and the coccyx. That means that it includes both the vagina and the anus. The slang, and all its associated topics, therefore, do not so much relate to this article as they do with an older definition of perineum. Mauvila 01:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed; there is serious confusion between the two definitions in the article. The wiki article should reflect modern anatomical definitions and use of the colloquial terms should be clarified and restricted to description of the perineal body. 128.227.206.66 19:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

removal

Removed strange comment from article.

This is exactly the problem with Wikipedia, in general. There are too many people interested in mixing knowledgeable information with street language, and the two don't mix. I personally would like to see Wikipedia completely disappear before it is allowed to be taken over by the uneducated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beorg (talk • contribs) 15:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

New User:

No doubt though, the taint is another word for the perineum, the least they can do is mention it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.128.54 (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Nicknames for the Perineum

First I, and then someone else added information to this article about nicknames for the Perineum, only to have it promptly reverted with little comment.

Now, there's a million nicknames for the Perineum (a quick google search turned up the following: http://www.f5wichita.com/index.php?story=307)

I've personally heard taint, grundle, and baunch used before to describe it. Urban dictionary seems to agree with me on this.

Common nicknames for things are encyclopedic. Pussy has its own article. Fellatio lists quite a few synonyms. So there is a lot of precedent that is being ignored. →Raul654 09:00, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, and I've re-added the passage you added originally (noting this is almost two years later, but I still believe the argument is relevant; and also noting nobody responded to you). —Locke Cole 00:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added the nicknames for the Perineum. These slang names are appropriate. I8pgump 21:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I can find enough uses (though nothing authoritative enough for a ref) of grundle, taint and durf (via google). The others I've removed. If someone can find substantial uses of them that we can at least cite on the talk page, feel free to add them back, though I'm not sure how appropriate these are here vs on wiktionary. -Harmil 18:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added "gooch" because of its widespread use in West Seattle --71.231.202.241 19:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you cite any sources for that, even informal ones that aren't just "I've heard it"? -Harmil 02:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

How can you cite sources for slang words? I.E. Word of mouth? Troubleshooter 00:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If a word is not used widely enough that there are non-word-of-mouth sources, then it's not used widely enough to be listed on Wikipedia. Please see the policy on citation for further information. BTW: if no one has any such sources, I'm going to be removing that word. -Harmil 20:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Huh, seems I already removed it. Nevermind, then. -Harmil 20:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well surely the fact that me, an Englishman, has heard the same same slang term as an American surely means something? Troubleshooter 21:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm 99% sure it was referred to as a gooch in the first Jackass movie.

I just returned from Papua New Guinea like a week ago and I found a very interesting term while I was over there. Now New Guinea still has tribes for those that don't know and we went to one of the cannibalistic tribes. So, the word is Quaper and I wanted to bring it to the world because it's not on wikipedia at all. So for those that don't know what a Quaper is, I’ll tell you and for those that do, well good on you. The Quaper is the seam that runs down the Female Perineum. So that's pretty self explanatory but know for the cannibalistic part, Quapers are actually prepared specially for the chieftain of the tribe to eat. You heard me correct, they actually eat the Quaper from the females that they kill for bad omens or something. This whole thing just amazed me and still amazes that there was a body part that I didn't know about and when I got back and I searched for it on the net and in atonamy books it was no where to be found.

Now Wikipedia won't actually allow me to put a page up but I thought that everyone should know about it.

I prefer scrass -- derived from scrotum and ass -> scr - ass -- It is also important to include what region this idiom comes from, the US is not homogeneous with respect to vulger slang. There are definite sub-cultures, east coast - NY - Boston - southern - midwestern - west coast (so cal and no cal), etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.182.141 (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Image

The image is not of the perineum, but of a vagina. I object against content like this; the reader would benefit much more from a schematic drawing. JFW | T@lk 19:41, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I object against people who unintentionally use double negatives. 75.82.29.177 (talk) 02:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.29.177 (talk) 02:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I've got to agree that a line drawing would be better. Also, go ahead and put a line drawing of the perineum of the male as well. Saying, over and over again, that both sexes have one simply doesn't carry the proper force when the big vagina is staring you in the face and when that Slang section comes in and tells us all kinds of huh-huh terms. Geogre 13:23, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would say that viewers would benefit from both because a diagram doesn't really show you what it looks like on a real person as well. --66.177.138.140 02:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The photographs would benefit from an arrow pointing to th perineum as they cover a whole lot of body parts. Indeed the first hit on Google Images is to this which highlights the male perineum: http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/1/14/20060626093223!Male_perineum.jpg&imgrefurl=http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Male_perineum.jpg&h=1072&w=816&sz=161&hl=en&start=1&tbnid=s8k1aLqNk5WuuM:&tbnh=150&tbnw=114&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dperineum%2B%26gbv%3D2%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff --WeAreSilver (talk) 12:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It's clearly best called a Choda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry.smtih (talk • contribs) 04:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Image

Something about this image just doesn't seem to apply to the article. The image itself is not titilating, but doesn't really show the area the article discusses. I think that anyone with a paint program could do a more appropriate, albeit less detailed diagram.71.244.163.156 23:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Image

I agree, this image is not relevant to the article Husker007 17:13, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you have such an image, by all means add it. —No-One Jones ^(mail) 17:15, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am sure they exist, even if one is not placed, the image of a vagina is inappropriate.

Maybe an upskirt image? @@

Inappropriate Image

I would like to ask this image be removed, it is only minorly useful to the topic and inappropriate in the current context. Please revert to the version without a picture until a suitable image is found. Husker007 18:11, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Notice

If no one can provide a real reason for this image in a few hours, I'm removing it.

Husker007 22:07, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep it until a better picture or diagram is uploaded. -Sean Curtin 23:25, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. The image is encyclopedic. RickK 23:29, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

So is a photo of a banana, but it has no more relevance to the topic than a vagina does. Husker007 23:55, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Let's leave aside the Freudian implications of your choice of example. --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 18:41, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

The image is completely irrelevant, largely useless, and unexpected. I removed it. tendril

I agree with all the previous comments - the picture does add something to thea article. Replace it with a better one if you want, but don't simply remove it. →Raul654 21:03, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

I second that. It's in the pubic region, so a picture including the genetalia and/or anus is highly warranted. There are surely flaws to the current picture -- it could show more of the perineum and show it on both sexes -- but it's obviously better than no picture. And for those who object to a (gasp) picture of privates, see the lengthy discussion at the clitoris talk page wherein the issue of pictures of genitals on wikipedia was dealt with. They're appropriate. Timbo 03:04, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What the...?

From the article: "Moreover, mentioning this area on Internet chat sites is generally frowned upon by moderators and those suffering from what is commonly known as a 'high' care factor, despite the deeper physiological significance of this particular area."

I'd probably be bold and remove that if I had any idea what it meant. --bodnotbod 15:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

2 groups?

Shouldn't it be 3 groups, since 3 groups are listed?

I'm going to change it to 3 groups, feel free to revert if there's something I don't see.antabus 19:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

internal portion of perineum?

If i understand right, there is an internal portion of the perineum, as well as an external portion. Everything i've read about the perineum- including what's here on Wikipedia- is rather confusing and vague. The info definitely needs expansion. Gringo300 20:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

regions

I'm uncertain whether the urogenital region and anal region are supposed to be external or internal, or both. (I'm under the impression that part of perineum is internal, but I'm not sure.) For one thing, muscles of the perineum are mentioned, and I'd usually get the impression that muscles would be internal. Gringo300 20:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Guiche

Guiche has some good deatail, and a few sources. However, the article is essentially covering the same ground as this article. I'm proposing a merge. I'm happy to do it, but I want to leave time for others to object if they feel strongly. -Harmil 18:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I object--the perineum article is about to get a work over, so wait and see if you think its compatible. Mauvila 01:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Mauvila, your edits would have been more helpful, had you cited your sources. As it is, you have significantly changed the definition, expanding the perineum to include the anus and (in females) the vagina. This seems to be in contradiction to every source I can find online, so for this edit to remain, I would have to ask you to provide a reliable source.

Further, I don't see how that or any other update to this page prevents us from merging Guiche, and certainly your removal of the merge tag (only from this article) does not facilitate the discussion. -Harmil 10:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

My bad about the merge tag. Second, the update has to do with the expanded definition. We (Anatomy project) have been restructing anatomy articles and will add a lot more material to the article (nerves, arterial supply, etc) according to the more general definition. Third, as far as the definition goes, the page already had a form of the definition I had. It also had that other definition confusingly mixed in with it. Here are the sources that use the definition I put:

• Gray's Anatomy (available online at http://education.yahoo.com/reference/gray/subjects/subject?id=120#1)
• Dorland's Medical Dictionary
• Almost any anatomy text (e.g. Moore's Clinically Oriented Anatomy)

The following listed the more general defintion (the one I put) as #1, with #2 resembling the more specific definition:

• Meriam-Webster Medical Dictionary
• American Heritage Dictionary (available online at same place as Gray's anatomy)

Those I found that listed the more specific definition (ie the other one) :

• OED; it was a scant entry with the last citation (1842) possibly referring to the more general definition

I have no desire to get in a tiff about this. My point is that the content about the article you wanted to merge with perineum is too specific for the modern definition of perineum and that it is best left as a separate article about piercing. Mauvila 21:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added the appropriate sources tag to the page. Please, incorporate these sources as described at WP:CITE and then remove the tag. Please, don't take this personally or "get in a tiff". This is the way editing works on Wikipedia. Fact checking is a critical feature of the community here.

That said, I still think you should restore the mergefrom link so that those who wish to continue to discuss the merge can do so. Thanks. -Harmil 14:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

June/July 2007 Merge proposal.

• I would oppose such a merge based on the grounds that taint (slang) is about a rather common slang term and comedic device and not so much a part of the human body, per se. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 13:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The "taint" is not part of the human body? Doesn't the article itself say "Taint is a term used to refer to the perineum"? The point is, this is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias have articles on concepts not on words. The "taint" is the exact same concept as perineum and thus they should be the same article. We don't need articles on words, unless their etymologies are unusually significant. Powers ^T 13:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the article is about the slang word, not the part of the body. The question is whether or not the slang term and concept "taint" is significant and differing enough from the medical term "perineum," and I would argue that it is prevalent enough to currently be worthy of an article (note: I am also one to believe that notability is not inherently permanent, so this may change). Note that in the first AfD, I supported your side of the argument. I have since, however, come to believe that the term is in fact distinct enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 13:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I missed the word "about" in your message, which changed the meaning entirely. To that, I argue simply that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, which is where information about words goes. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which is for articles on concepts. Powers ^T 16:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

That was my contention last AfD, but the concept of a "taint" has taken on a life of its own outside of the biological description. Kinda like asshole. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 23:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

When has the word ever been used to describe anything except the perineum? Every single one of the examples in the article refers either to the perineum, or to the traditional definition of "taint". I don't see the connection to "asshole" at all. If there is some usage of this word beyond a convenient semi-sexual double-entendre for comedy writers, it ought to be in the article somewhere. Powers ^T 02:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I must oppose this merge. no points are being made here that were not made in the AFD debate for the Taint article. --The Emperor of Wikipedia & Protector of Wiktionary 16:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

... which resulted in no consensus. It's been almost 18 months since then; why not try again to attain consensus? Powers ^T 21:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Then tag it for deletion. We can have the same debate with the same arguments and the same results. Merging the article is just a back door way of deleting it. --The Emperor of Wikipedia & Protector of Wiktionary 04:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Powers did open an AfD for it, but they only proposed merging, not deleting, the article, so I gave it a speedy close and moved the discussion over here. If someone wants a merger, this is how it is done. If someone wants this article deleted, however, they can nom another AfD. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 11:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Letting the AfD continue would have at least resulted in more discussion than we're getting here. AfDs often end with a consensus result of "Merge"; I saw nothing wrong with proposing a merge, especially since the redirect Taint (slang) would probably be deleted at the conclusion of a merge. You were within the letter of AfD procedure to close it, but I think it would have been more useful to the discussion to have let it continue. Powers ^T 15:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think that a discussion 18 months after the previous one will be identical? AfDs can be relisted after 18 days and sometimes get a consensus when none was reached initially. Powers ^T 15:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I've created an RfC for this discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, law, and sex. Hopefully this will attract a diverese group of opinions. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 16:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

This debate has recived no new input for 3 days. Objection to the merge has recived more support than the merge. I am removing the tags. I think for this debate to be had an afd is in order. --The Emperor of Wikipedia 13:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - articles on slang words are quite separate from articles on the meaning of the word - compare shit with feces. Both articles have a place, but should certainly not be merged. Leevclarke (talk) 23:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge Proposal as of January 15, 2008 (copied from Talk:Taint (slang))

This page survived an AfD over a year ago by the very skin of it's teeth (just enough opposition to avoid a solid consensus to delete). At the time, it possessed zero references, an exceptionally-tenuous claim to notability, and a tone that smacked of a poopy jokes forum for 11-year-olds.

A full year later and nothing has changed. It's still entirely without reliable references or any real assertion of notability beyond "a bunch of stand-up comics use it". I've purged most of the truly non-notable nonsense from the article and cleaned up the sentence structure and tone as best I could, but this is really an embarrassment. By all rights, this article doesn't deserve to exist in it's present form. This isn't me being a prude; WP:RS isn't optional, folks. Articles on neologisms are held to a higher standard because of the very real risk of turning the encyclopedia into Urban Dictionary. I don't think anyone wants that. No new points are being brought up and the ones that DO get brought up are often demonstrable violations of various policies in themselves.

I'm recommending a merge with perineum where it can have an appropriate-length section illustrating the rich and clever history of the term "taint" with perhaps the top two or three most notable examples being kept. I would also not object to a redirect to the Wiktionary entry or another AfD. Thoughts? Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 04:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I would point out that much of the article's raison d'être, that is, the "history and etymology" part, was completely unsourced and smells just like any one of the 425 false-etymologies for the word "fuck" or "shit" floating around school lunchrooms all across the fruited plain. Thus, I removed it all. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 04:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

For what it ts worth, not only is it the standard format for all new sections to go to the bottom, it is much easier to find them so that more fols can help form the new consensus. youngamerican (wtf?) 05:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

How would the merge be handled? Would it still refences the phrase? y'american (wtf?) 05:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course. Otherwise it would be a straight redirect. I'm not averse to that either, mind you, but I'm hoping for a compromise we can reach consensus on. There's no reason for an article to be left like this. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 07:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: I put up the merge proposal notices on both pages, so I'm copy-pasting this discussion over there so I don't have to re-type it all. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 10:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose as per previous merge discussion--The Emperor of Wikipedia (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Male and Female Perineum Images

I don't think these images are scientific at all. I edited and made comments to that effect. My edits were simply rolled back by Shankbone, repeatedly. I'd like to see him unable to put these images back in without some sort of sane discussion and without any threats of locking the article from being editable. User:Now Registered —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• There's nothing wrong with the images. They're a decent representation of what and where the Perineum actually is. It's not porn or anything, just a "real" image as opposed to a diagram. *shrugs* Pencil drawings can only go so far. -- Cheeseman Muncher (talk) 23:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

There are enough illustrations here to demonstrate what the perineum is without these images. You need a better case than that. One is more of a female's anus, and the other is not focused on the perineum. Rather, it shows a male's butt and testicles from too far away to see the perineum. Neither image is labeled to detail information about the perineum as the other illustrations are. Make a better argument for how these images IMPROVE the article as they don't seem to expand or enhance the information provided about the perineum. And until they do, please stop simply reverting to the version of the article containing your preferred images. This is supposed to be a collaborative encyclopedia, and we need to discuss it until we are all convinced what is accurate and good information as well as accurate and good illustrations that belong in the article. Added a bit to your request for semi-protection. I think my edits are to improve the article, and we need to discuss it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Now registered (talk • contribs) 00:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I have asked for further mediation from a third party to see if we can get this resolved. I'm still learning my way around wikipedia so please be civil and give advice, not criticism. Thanks. now_registered (talk) 03:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the comment above -- the female image is worse than than the male in my opinion since it seems to focus on the anus rather than the perineum - and (is it me) but it looks like a strange specimen anyway ??? Lanzarotemaps (talk) 00:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with Now Registered - seem to be pretty unencyclopedic to me. Viridae^Talk 10:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• We could probably do without them. But they are free images and don't really duplicate any of the other images in the article, because unlike all the other images, these are photographs. So on balance, I think that without any substantial argument in either direction (as is the case now), might as well keep them. Mangojuice^talk 14:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• Body parts are illustrated throughout Wikipedia, on every article, via photographic representation. Check out Anus. If Now Registered wants to submit photos he thinks better illustrate the concept - excellent! But they have been there, in a gallery and not prominent, for a long time. Instead of proposing a change, this is the usual, "Let's just get rid of it because WP:IDONTLIKEIT" argument. It's bad form to denigrate an article's content without proposing your own. I think they should stay, until better ones come along. --David Shankbone 17:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• Suggestion The images should be improved to provide better direct illustration of the article subject itself, preferably via labels. In the gallery, both images are described as images of the perineum, while the first image is a picture of the perineum and testicles, and the second image is of the perineum and anus. While Wikipedia is not censored, images should provide a maximal amount of illustration to the topic when possible. As these are free use images, this is entirely possible. Additionally, I'd like to suggest that all the gallery images be integrated into the main body of the text and discussed appropriately. I feel this would eliminate the periodical complaint of inappropriateness and unencyclopedic-ness. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Images almost always provide better information than even the best diagram can. It's also clear that people learn similar subjects in different ways - some people can read about something and are set, others are more experiential and photos can help. Agree with Mendaliv, in part, that better integrating of images will help. I disagree however in editing those photos as they provide reference and context. We could zoom in enough on almost any body part in the name of neutralizing it but in the process rendering its value moot. A doctor likely doesn't need this information, but the rest of humanity likely does. I see no need to bow to more puritanical tastes and "For the children" is a terrible editing policy. Banjeboi 21:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • None of which anyone in this current discussion has suggested. As for my opinion on the matter: I'm all for photos in this article, but Now Registered has a perfectly good point in saying that the current photos really don't do a good job of illustrating the subject. Powers ^T 00:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Well ... I'm no perineum expert but the article suggests that the region includes the anus so both images seem to do a good job illustrating. To me it would help to fully label one of the diagrams to show what some of the items are. The photos seem to be accurate without being overly graphic. I'd be willing to bet a touch of research took place to ensure it was accurate to the article. Banjeboi 01:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• I'm 100% against censorship, but these photos —in this article— are gratuitously pornographic in nature. And since they are not labelled and because they don't clearly focus on the perineum, they don't do a good job of illustrating the topic and should not be in the article. user:Everyme 10:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Well one person's gratuitous porno is another's illustrative photo - again this does seem to illustrate the article's subject "A diamond-shaped area on the inferior surface of the trunk which includes the anus and, in females, the vagina". (I added emphasis to relevant clause). Personally we might need a photo that shows the woman's vagina as well but simply amending the photo caption to state "The partial perineum of a women not including the vagina." Banjeboi 22:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• To be honest, I find that the problem of "poorly illustrating the subject" lies more in all the medical diagrams included in the article. The perineum is defined by the article itself as the "surface region", but all bar one of the diagrams included variously illustrate the bones, muscles, blood vessels, and other things that lie beneath the surface region the article is actually talking about. While possibly some clear labels would be useful on the male/female photographs, right now I think they both provide a pretty good illustration - and they certainly aren't any more or less pornographic than the photographs we use in most crotch-oriented anatomy articles. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 19:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• In defense of the photos (and I know the subject seems to be dead now anyway), I came to this page actually, honestly, looking to verify what I thought the perineum was. I looked at medical diagrams first and found them confusing; was thinking to myself "I wish there was just a photo." Then low and behold I saw the photos with the arrows and my questions where immediately answered. They are by far the clearest and easiest way of getting the point across. I will have to agree that the female specimen seems a little abnormal (nothing against her or anything). As far as the case that they are pornographic in nature: this would mostly be a subjective opinion. Some people get off on pics of feet...I don't see those being banned. Rmkreeg (talk) 08:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • They have changed since this discussion - I cropped them to remove superfluous stuff and added the arrows. The old versions are in the history. Viridae^Talk 08:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It tis or it taint?

"the taint" as it is colloquially referred to, has been removed from the lede. I feel it's somewhat helpful to have it there. Any thoughts on its inclusion and placement? -- Banjeboi 00:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I just don't see the point in having one particular piece of slang in there. Most parts of the body have various pieces of colourful slang associated with them - note that the lead section of buttocks doesn't mention "ass", penis doesn't mention "cock", and so forth. I don't see any reason why that particular piece of slang belongs in the opening sentence of this article. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 20:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not terribly bothered either way at this point. A good or featured article would certainly include this information but this article is pretty short right now. It can be included when there is more content to support the context of cultural usages. -- Banjeboi 18:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

At the same time, everyone knows what an "ass" or "cock" is, but people don't know what a "taint" is until someone tells them. It might be good to include how the word got to be associated with the perineum.

^Agreed. An 'In popular culture' mention might be a good way to do it. Also, the term is relatively new. (Some have credited it to a Saturday Night Live sketch from the episode Conan O'Brien guest-hosted in the early 2000s. --24.21.148.212 (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't object to some sourced coverage of the term "taint" and its usage in popular culture - to be honest, as a Brit I find it persistently strange how often the word "taint" pops up in American casual conversation. During my life I don't think I've ever had cause to actually mention a perineum, slang or otherwise, in everyday conversation... but the word "taint" has certainly become moderately well-used in the USA. I'd call information on that very encyclopedic if it can actually be attributed to some reliable sources; I just remain a little dubious about overuse of unsourced "taint" mentions in this article, and I don't think it belongs in the lead section. ~ mazca ^t|c 15:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I live in Oregon, on the west coast, and I almost never hear it. Its rare. Soo... umm.. whats with the word "cunt" in the UK? Please tell me its not as prevalent as all our sources keep telling us. (Unrelated note, in the great scheme of things, 'cunt' is far worse than 'taint.') --24.21.148.212 (talk) 08:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Taint it important?

Let's find a NPOV and reasonable way of stating taint is a rather, currently commom, wayof referring to the perenium. -- Banjeboi 06:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If we include one slang term, do we then include other prevalent ones? Where's the border between Wikipedia and UrbanDictionary? Anyways, if we're adding 'taint' we should include 'gooch' (as seen on Jackass: the movie) and Tweenis (though that is male-specific). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.102.127.243 (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)