Talk:Vaginal flatulence/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Vaginal flatulence. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive of 2004-2005 edits.

Article rank

This article ranked 817th (1881 hits) in the list of pages from English Wikipedia with more than 1000 hits in Feb 2004. All sex-related topics seem to rank highly. A note for anyone who thinks it's not of encyclopedic interest to the internet audience... Jamesday 10:50, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Was thinking about doing some related mentions of queefing: in the South Park 317 episode, World Wide Recorder Concert, the SP kids are getting called "queef" by the NY kids who are there for the event. Might be one common entry point for people to check the meaning of the word? Was for me, anyway (not a native English speaker). There's always the broader topic of "voluntary queefing" whereby a woman can pump air (or any other gas, or liquid) into her vagina, and then "exhale" it. I remember the second Emmanuelle movie containing such an event: a Thai nude dancer gets on stage, does some move, lights a cigarette and blows smoke in and out of her vagina.

Does the "obscure Australian slang" belong with this article? [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 07:22, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Queef isn't a medical term

The slang term queef was banned from theNational Library of Medicine MeSH index.
because it is offensive for the woman dignitate and I ask to ban this term from the English Wikipedia.

-(unsigned comment by User:Roger Gianni)

Wikipedia is not censored to protect the sensibilities of its readers. This is a real (slang) term in widespread use (as evidenced by the fact that the NIH was even discussing it). That makes it notable, and notable material is appropriate, no matter how offensive that material might be.

That said, you have a very good factoid there, and I think that you should include in in something that looks vaguely like this:

The slag term queef was banned from the National Library of Medicine MeSH index because it is considered offensive. [1]

If you can include the correct terminology to use in a medical context, that would be great. -Harmil 19:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

NIH resaults of the slang term queef is 0 (zero)

Here is the resault of the NIH search queef page and you are the only person, who pretend, they have some gynecological works about queef.

Because the slang term of queef dosn't indicate any fisiology or pathology condition in all Medicine Area.
the relation of this term with the Gynecologic area is wrong.

--Utente:Roger Gianni">Roger</a>dimmi) 20:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure who you're refering to when you say "you", but if you mean me, I assure you that I've made no such claim. I think you're misunderstanding what is implied by the categorization of an article. It does not indicate that the article is in some way authoritative in that category, simply that it is related to that category.

Now, I'm not so sure that I wouldn't put this into Category:Sexual anatomy instead of Category:Gynecology, and if you made that change, I would not complain, but the point still remains: this is a perfectly valid slang term for a bodily function. -Harmil 05:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Categorization of queef

Dear Harmil

You asked to me: "If you can include the correct terminology to use in a medical context, that would be great". I well appreciate your request. The term queef don't exist in a medical contest, the patien use the term "air" or similar most generic possible term and don't use it in a gynecological contest, because this terms is not a patology or fisiology description.
I ban the link to the gynecology index, because the gynecologist, never will use this term.
Note that gynecologist isn't a censor, he simply don't have this term in his medical mind.
Personaly, I'm not a censor and I don't ask to banned the term.
Only appropriate link of this term is in the slang pornoarea.
Perhaps somebody in the future, it will think that queef isn't a adeguate term in an enciclopedia and it will ask the ban.
Hello.---- Roger tellme 16:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Very well. I'm still not thrilled with removing that category (and I've explained why), but I'll add a different category that attempts to narrow down the topic. I still think you are employing too fine-grained a filter here, and you're missing the fact that a categorization is not an indication of endorsement, only a categorization. Still, I'll find a category to fit this into.... PS: Don't make this about me. "Dear Harmil" is not the topic of your comment, here, a change to the categorization is. -Harmil 19:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Vaginal air emissions

It is a fisiological fact. It's a wrong classification like a sexual anatomy, the air is't anatomic part of the body.

Roger tellme 00:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm following you there. This is a slang term for a bodily function of the female sexual anatomy. How is the categorization incorrect on that basis? "the air is't anatomic part of the body" simply doesn't make any sense to me. -Harmil 02:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

In medicine it distinguished the bodily function from the female sexual anatomy.

A body function is a vaginal air or a menstrual discharge, an anatomic organ is penis or vagina.

---- Roger tellme 12:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of re-formatting some of this as an actual threaded discussion so that others (if they are so inclined) can comment. I left all of the text of your and my comments alone.

OK, I think I see where we're not connecting, above. You are looking at categorization as a strict set-theory kind of thing. However, if you glance around WP, you will see that Categories are often used here as a way of loosely grouping related topics, and often of refering to the categories of articles that will be of interest to each other. In terms of strict categorization, I would say that a queef is a sexual slang term. However, the other categories give it context. Certainly much of the article discusses sexual anatomy, and thus the category. Remember that Wikipedia is not a paper encylopedia, and many of the conventions that make sense for such a tome do not always make sense for Wikipedia. -Harmil 15:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I try to search some chategorization

I searched air vagina term in the ostetric area, on the parto all wide Web
and it has No directly matching sites even there!
Me too have difficolt to looking for a categorization.
Vanderbilt University Medical Center No Results Found.

Try Obstetrics area abstracs:

Birth Control@ (171) Clinics and Physicians@ (226) Education (3) Gynecologic Disorders@ (252) Hysterectomy (17) Menopause@ (86) Oophorectomy@ (17) Pelvic Exams and Pap Tests@ (20) Reproductive Endocrinology@ (6) Ultrasonography@ (16) and Reproductive Health (2,180) Women's Health (761) all reproductive systems
And there are No directly matching sites under Top/Health/Medicine/Medical_Specialties/Obstetrics_and_Gynecology/Gynecology.

Sincerily the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM)

queef no mach, error, no results. I thought that air vagina was the exact term and I insert
air vagina but the sconsolate results it is no mach.
Well, I propose to ban the wrong categorization like sexual anatomy.
Then we will see if somebody propose some other categorization

Roger tellme 00:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you honestly saying that you don't think vaginal flatulence is possible? I assure you that it's not only possible, but quite common. Or, are you just hung up on the slang term (which, again, is a slang term, and Wikipedia lists many such terms where they are notable).

That aside, however, you still seem to be hung up on the idea that categorization is a way of strictly listing those items which are a part of a narrow set. I think I've made the case rather clearly for that not being reasonable, and yet you continue to make what amounts to the same point. Please, re-read what I wrote above and if you disagree with it, respond. Citing the lack of the term queef in various medical databases is not helpfull. -Harmil 02:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

PS: Please stop using the term "ban". The only thing Wikipedia bans is users who abuse its rules and vandalize the site. Concepts are not banned here. -Harmil 02:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

future Gynecologist

Your interest in the gynecological area, it make me to think as you a future possible Gynecologist, then I try to explain you, the way.
I propose you to add, at list, the exact collocation of this term, with the physiology template.

Roger tellme 11:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't mean to offend, but I really don't understand what you're saying. I do think you (incorrectly) assume that the Category:Sexual anatomy tag means more than it does. Please, just respond to my points above about categorization. If you don't understand, let's discuss it, but please leave Gynecology out of it. Thanks. -Harmil 12:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

PS: You don't need a section heading for every comment, really. -Harmil 12:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Male and female smells, olfactory reproductive stimuli

Now, I don't have any bad ideas, about queef categorization in the Sexual anatomy, becouse you are right, to tell, that in the optic of a general pourpose use, probably a girl who need to understend something about queef, search this word in the sexual anatomy area.
But here is the anatomy area, and if she find this word here, she learn a wrong idea. You teach me, that the spirit of wiki encyclopedia is to teach the exact temininology.

Now, the corporal emission of air, generaly are about of the smell area, right?

Olfactory stimuli in female mammals.
The male mammals are actract by the olfactory stimuli of female mammals. Then I think that queef is a potent stimuli in the mechanisms of control of the reproductive function.
Then I propose to chategorizied it in the fisiologycal female reproductive area or most generaicaly in the fisiologycal medicine area, becouse there, it's talk of the female riproductive function .

Roger tellme 13:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello again. I'm not sure how anything to do with smell entered into this discussion. Since, unlike rectal flatulence, vaginal flatulence is not related to digestion, there are no waste gasses involved, and thus no oder associated with this phenomenon. This also has absolutely nothing to do with reproduction (though obviously sex itself does). -Harmil 15:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Animal Parfume

You are right flatulence is n 1: a state of excessive gas in the alimentary canal, syn: flatulency, gas but you teach me, this vaginal air is a new discover idea, that before today, nobody has give importance yet. Then, there is another significance for flatulence 2: pompously embellished language syn: turgidity, turgidness or swollen or distended, you know.
It is possible extends flatulence for the vaginal air flow or flux.
So, this vaginal air, you know, it smells like a animal parfume and stimulate the male odor, Category:Olfaction in the brain, in an activity that has its goals in a human little new born. Then flatulence, being too air of an intestinal gas, like air of intestinal gas, it smells of pheromone, and in the human, it takes the name of androstenone and it is supposed sex attractant. I think to be enought clear. Hello again.

Roger tellme 22:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Again, I think you're really missing the point here. If you're trying to say that pheromones are ejected along with air during vaginal flatulence, you're probably going to have to find some data to back that up as it's definitely not common knowledge nor easily provable without some form of medical or scientific means. Females do not vaginally flatulate in some form of pre-sexual act: commonly it is involuntary, or when voluntary, is not done to "attract a mate" nor, save in non-traditional sexual intercourse, used to stimulate a male. It just kind of happens. I think you have misunderstood this. Also I fail to see the point raised by the "pompously embellished language" portion, and I don't think it was stated anywhere that vaginal flatulence was a new discovery, because it is definitely not. As well, I should like to note that searching terms (especially in exact form) like "air vagina" makes little sense as that term itself is nonsequitur. Shipton 13:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)