Talk:Vagina envy

This article was nominated for deletion on November 18, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on May 10, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Link removed

Removed the following link which coincidentally uses the term, but has nothing whatever to do with the topic of the article. The writer says he likes them and wanted to see one, not that he wanted to have one as part of his body: Vagina Envy. Edison 16:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge

One is se and the other reproduction. Sure they;re related :), but the y focus almost exclusively on different aspects, and i doubt there is real overlap in the literature. . Better to develop each of the articles,DGG (talk) 00:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no consensus apparent for merge. Reverted. DGG (talk) 01:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think merging with the "womb envy" stub would be a good idea. They seem basicialy the same idea, with just a different bodily focus.Yob Mod 09:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a joke?

"A male, usually in the pubescent stage, realizes that he does not have a vagina and is jealous that girls do."

This was obviously written by someone with an agenda, who knows nothing about psychology.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.228.70 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 14 March 2008

OMFG! there is no vagina envy! I think some feminist woman wanted to create this page.right? no ,nowhere in human psychology that vagina envy existed.

it is penis envy which exists.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Praka123 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 21 September 2008

Tag

I added the tag to the one sentence. The sources show the existance of the term, but need a cite to show it is the counterpart to the psychoanalytical idea of penis envy (which has a very precise Freudian definition). It seems more likely to be simply the idea of being envious of women having vaginas, the counterpart to the pop culture use of "penis envy".Yob Mod 09:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At present this page open with the line "Vagina envy is a counterpart to the psychoanalytic concept of penis envy.[citation needed]"

How in the hell does this need Citation? If I was to say "Down is the Opposite of Up" you wouldn't ask for citation!!!! How is this article any different? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.100.50 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 15 May 2009

Other citations

Have to check if this is suitable: Peterson, L.M. (1980) Why Men have pockets in their pants: A feminist insight (or if Freud had been a woman). Society for the Advancement of Social Psychology Newsletter, 6, 19. Шизомби (talk) 04:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

24.184.200.190 (talk) 03:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC) This article is nowhere near as sourced as Penis Envy, and it's obvious that this article was created as a response to it.[reply]

No. You're ignoring the fact that this stub has survived two AfDs and that there are references in it (which, paradoxically, you also do acknowledge), which would tend to undermine your argument that it was dreamt up as a response to the Wikipedia article on Penis Envy. Also, that an article has less sources than another article is not one of the recognized criteria for deletion. Шизомби (talk) 04:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, although i stubbed it long ago, the term does have currency. It's just that editors so far are only interested in writing about there opinions of what VE should mean, without regard to sources. Penis envy does not simply mean "wanting a penis" - that is the smallest part (har har) of a complex pschoanalytic theory. VE is just as complex, so merits an article, it just has to be a sourced one. I made a start, so we have at least a definition, and links to PE and WE.Yob Mod 11:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty is the VW and WE are given overlapping or the same definition, depending on the source. They would be better merged, imo, as no source writes about one without the other.Yob Mod 11:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this has got to be a fucking joke. there is very little evidence to support this. I could simply make up a bullshit theory and post it on wikipedia. remove this before wikipedia's reputation of being a joke becomes...well, more of a joke.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.128.193 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 3 November 2009