Category talk:Vulva

in my opinion 90% of the pictures are trash -- 193.171.244.50 20:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

--In my opinion 90% of these pictures are useful as they show the great variety of human vulvas. Hence they do have educational value for both men and women. Especially young women get a chance to view other women's vulvas (which they usually do not get to see anywhere else with the exception of pornography which depicts the "ideal" genitals of female porn stars). Please allow Wikimedia to show even more examples of vulvas! 212.27.185.253 11:31, 24 April 2009

---

Could anybody remove this statement that no more home made pictures of vulvas are needed? Wikimedia is one of the rare sources on the internet where people get to see vulvas of all kinds (shape, size, age, ethinicity etc.). Hence women that might feel uncertain about their own genital should be enabeled to view even more examples of "natural" vulvas (natural in contrast to modified organs often depicted in commercial porn). We shouldn't discourrage women to show what they are proud of on Wikimedia Commons! Unlike for the penis there has long enough been an absolute taboo on the depiction of vulvas in "Western" education, culture and art. 212.27.185.253 15:31, 18 May 2009

It's supposed to be the counterpart to the statement on Template:Nopenis, which was instituted due to there being numerous redundant low-quality photos uploaded of random guys who shot photos of their penises with their cellphones while drunk. Not sure this is true to the same degree of women... AnonMoos (talk) 15:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would also asume that most women who have contributed to this topic have done it consciously. Hence as long as the quality of the image is good and it shows a new vulva (every vulva is unique) we should accept it on this page. Every new contribution is in some kind erasing this old taboo (and isn't a taboo finally what keeps people from gaining knowlege and ultimately liberty). 212.27.185.253

Don't take this the wrong way, but the purpose of Commons is not really to advance your personal vision of social and cultural reforms, but rather to fulfull its own educational mission within its declared scope. That said, I don't have any strong opinions on whether the disclaimer should stay or be removed -- it depends solely on whether or not a significant number of low-quality and redundantly duplicative images are being uploaded, and I haven't been monitoring the category closely enough to determine this. AnonMoos (talk) 02:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not see any contradiction of my personal vision above with the scope of Wikimedia. The "scope" of Wikimedia is quiet broad and I think that showing what is usually not shown (taboo) is per se educational. For the comment on the disclaimer I still think that it is - by itself (without the explanation you have given) - missleading and can prevent women to provide images of educational value (e.g. use of a tampon, menstrual blood, use of a female condom). 212.27.185.253

QUALITY vs QUANTITY

i think its a good idea to collect the great variaty of human vulvas BUT they should comply to a minimum standard of scientific images! that means vor example "neutral" positions without any underwear or a good background and a good imageqality. In many cases Pictures looking cheap and have some pornographic touch. i cant imagine that this is in the interest of wikipedia.--193.171.240.76 23:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Pornography can be educational... consider them as examples of pornographic images, thus showing people what pornography looks like. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no real problem with hosting a few pornography-type images on Commons (as long as they have a legitimate source and valid license), but what would be a problem is if there are many duplicative and rather redundant low-quality images... AnonMoos (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

??

wieviele braucht man denn noch als anschauungsobjekt um verstanden zu haben (darum geht es doch in einer enzyklopädie) WAS eine vulva ist???--217.235.173.138 07:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Basically the external female genitalia (what many people inaccurately call "the vagina")... AnonMoos (talk) 08:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)