Talk:Vagina/Archive 4

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 10

Wikipedia Standards

These are Wikipedia's Standards:
WP:NOTCENSORED
WP:OWNERSHIP
WP:CIVIL


Wikipedia owns Wikipedia: they get to set the rules, not you. And they have ruled that Wikipedia is not censored, and will allow adult pictures as though they were any other picture.

Wikipedia also requires Civility: if you have an issue with an article, please read the talk page before posting your issue because maybe someone before you had the same issue, and all of the same points and counterpoints have been exhausted before you got there - if such exists, your YELLING adds nothing to the talk page and nothing will change, except you may get a note/ban left on your talk page.

Thank You!

Bullercruz1 (talk) 09:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Can this be moved to the top of the talk page? I know we already have the info box stating that Wikipedia is not censored but clearly it's not being read by many people and this comment manages to go into greated detail whilst still being very concise. Danikat (talk) 12:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge

Per vaginam simply means through or from the vagina. It makes no sense to me that it would be a disambiguation page distinguishing those meanings, as opposed to having a few lines in the Vagina article. bd2412 T 03:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Not much more to say than that. Flyer22 (talk) 04:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Done. Seems noncontroversial, and fairly obvious. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the first paragraph

"The vagina (from Latin vāgīna, literally "sheath" or "scabbard") is a fibromuscular tubular tract which is a sex organ and has two main functions; sexual intercourse and childbirth."

Umm, isn't vagina used also for urinating? - 85.222.89.208 (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

No its not. Thats the urethra Pass a Method talk 18:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Picture

Resolved
 – See the post at the top of the page.

Is the actual picture of the vagina necessary, it's porn! we can use a diagram. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Changarose46ers (talk • contribs)

Hi there, welcome to Wikipedia. Site-wide policies dictate what content is appropriate, and in this case, the policy Wikipedia is not censored applies. Although some may find the image in question to be objectionable, it is meant to be educational. If you find such content to be offensive, you can always configure your browser so that the images will not be visible to you.
Also, please be sure to sign your posts by typing four tildes at the end of it, like this: ~~~~. Thanks in advance! kyledueck (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Well then you can't see any pictures then. I sort of agree with the person on top, I understand it's the rules, but it sort of gives that icky feeling: you know, like, that you wouldn't see that sort of thing on Encarta on Britannica. Maybe it can be cartoonized or something? 129.180.166.53 (talk) 09:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
It's natural anatomy, not "icky" or "porn". While those may be the genuine feelings of some beholders, those descriptions say more about the mindset of the beholders than about the very neutral picture. Keep in mind that perversion and taboos are the repression of that which is natural, so both adults and children need to learn to think in natural ways, rather than perverted ways. This may seem an odd place to quote the Bible, but this verse happens to apply quite well: "To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted." Titus 1:15 -- Brangifer (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
" Keep in mind that perversion and taboos are the repression of that which is natural. " - Brangifer
Would you say the same about paedophilia or bestiality? Your argument is flawed. The community decides upon its own taboos and definition of perversion. In this case, the Wikipedia community has an established consensus: WP:NOTCENSORED. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
??? I would say that (in western societies) paedophilia and bestiality may be caused by a perverse and unnatural relationship to what should be natural. When that which is natural is forbidden and blocked, perverse expressions will occur. One cannot completely suppress biological urges that should be allowed natural expression. If a healthy and natural relationship to the body and sexuality were the norm, we probably wouldn't see as much of these things. Otherwise I'm well aware that attitudes toward these things differ between cultures, and that a discussion of paedophilia and bestiality is off-topic here and has nothing to do with policy.
My comments were personal POV in support of NOTCENSORED. No need to debate it since I support policy and oppose those who seek to subvert NOTCENSORED. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with your definition of "perversion". However we agree that WP:NOTCENSORED should be applied here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
That's okay. I know that some consider bestiality and paedophilia to NOT be perversions, but my POV says they are perversions. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
BullRangifer, as someone who has extensively studied pedophilia, I can assure you that what you stated is not why pedophilia occurs. It's not why bestiality occurs either. A healthy and natural relationship to the body and sexuality are the norm; it's just that restrictions are often put around these norms, often due to religious beliefs. Or, in this case, a combination of both religious and cultural beliefs that male and/or female genitals are ugly/dirty/icky/too provocative to be exposed. But this is not enough to make normal people suddenly become pedophiles or engage in bestiality. People don't suddenly become pedophiles anyway. I also point out that most pedophiles are men. So if pedophilia was as much about sexual repression as you think it is, there would undoubtedly be more women who are pedophiles (despite culture taking female sexual predators less seriously than male sexual predators). Moreover, not all child sexual abusers are pedophiles. Some have the disorder pedophilia; others have sexually abused prepubescent children for other reasons, and those reasons, unless you consider priests who have taken a vow of celibacy, certainly are not the result of normal sexuality being repressed, since normal sexuality brands adult-child sexual activity as abnormal. Furthermore, there are barely any cultures where an adult engaging in sexual activity with a prepubescent child is condoned/readily accepted. The only examples I know of are these: Semen#Cultural practices. And it's not about sexual activity with the children in those cultures, but rather about the supposed power of semen. Sexual activity with pubescents, on the other hand? Yes, that is viewed as normal in some cultures because that is the reproductive age. I also don't think Axl was saying that pedophilia and bestiality are not perversions; he was saying that they are not natural. Your comment that "perversion and taboos are the repression of that which is natural," if applied to pedophilia and bestiality, means that pedophilia and bestiality are natural. Of course, you did clarify, but not in a way where Axl and I still do not disagree with your reasoning.
Obviously, this isn't the place for such a discussion. So, yes, we should only be referring to WP:NOTCENSORED in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Ah! The light just went on. I now realize that my initial wording created some confusion, and I'm sorry for that. I think we agree that there are definitely many other aspects to this. My initial comment wasn't intended to convey that this was the ONLY cause of perversion, just one of many. My initial statement should have been something like this: "Repressing that which is natural by making it taboo can lead to perversion." That's what I meant. Suppressing/repressing what is natural ends up causing problems. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I find it fairly funny that censorship and discretion are often confused on this talk page. I do not believe a Wiki will not be censored warring really closes an discussion about what is the best image which outlines the feature points while satisfying the most people. Clearly we need a fairly realistic image, but most close shot images seem inappropriate for scholastic reading. I wanted to suggest Gray1229.png from the Hymen article for the second picture in the info page. I for one am doubtful that a photo should be one of the first images that load on the page, I think linking to it in the caption would be enough, but that is simply my opinion. I think the image is appropriate as it shows and labels all of the required places, but is less likely to cause a fuss among those who seem to think the article needs no images at all (75.65.20.204 (talk) 05:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)).

Animals vs. Other Animals

User:Ed Poor recently changed the section on 'in other animals' to remove the word 'other' from the title,[1]. I reverted, with the rational that this article isn't specifically about the human anatomy, and humans are scientifically animals, so why not be clear and scientific. Ed seems to feel this is a POV issue, which I admit, I don't really understand where he's coming from. Rather than edit-war, I though I'd bring it here. Thoughts? Grayfell (talk) 05:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I've reached my self-imposed limit of deletions and reversions on this. It has nothing to do with being "clear", and the article is almost entirely about the human body part; also, look at the category tags.
You concede that it's a POV issue, yet you revert instead of working together for NPOV? That's odd, but I appreciate your frankness.
Anyway, this is not about how "science" classifies people, and I've already explained that (for example, in the legal aspects of bestiality) in most contexts humans and "animals" are considered distinct, rather than the former as a subset of the latter. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Matter of taste, I would hardly notice this one-word difference. Duplex vaginae and other phenomena might be more interesting in this section. The introduction of the article could use better sources and wording, should we really reference some site calling itself "themarriagebed.com". Classifying vagina as fibromuscular is anachronistic at best and the wikitionary def is even more misleading. "has a foldy texture which can create friction for the penis during intercourse" somewhat contradicts lubrication etc.. Richiez (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
As Richiez says, this article has other, more pressing needs. Ed, I see now I wasn't being clear, I did not concede this is a POV issue. Your initial edit said it was POV, while I considered it a matter of clarity. After thinking about it, I can see that the current wording might have insulting overtones... maybe. Bestiality seems like a flawed comparison for several reason, mainly that it's more about psychology and anthropology than anatomy. I get that most of the time animal and human are treated as distinct, but I don't think it's insulting or demeaning to include humans as a subset of animals in the context of biology. It seemed excessively squeamish to change it for that reason, that's why I reverted it. Again, in hindsight I can see that I might have been a little hasty, but between the two I think it's better to be too clinical, rather than overcautious, and I stand by my initial statement. Grayfell (talk) 07:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Principle of least surprise is also an aspect... stumbling upon "in other animals" I would wonder what was the first animal again? But perhaps the problem can be avoided elegantly by a formulation like "Evolution of the vulva in the animal kingdom and embryonal development"? A short summary of the embryology is just one thing that seems to be missing, I am sure there are very good WP articles on the subject somewhere they just need to be linked with a short summary. Post-embryological development and maturation needs a few sentences as well.Richiez (talk) 11:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
The more I think about it, the more I think I was just plain wrong. I think 'In Animals' is fine. I still reject the idea it is inherently insulting to use 'other'. However, I think you raise a crucial point about the principle of least surprise. It is confusing, and it does have the strong potential to make a reader scroll back up to try and figure out what the 'original animal' is. Maybe once that section actually has more content something else could be found, but that's a problem for another time. Grayfell (talk) 04:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
You weren't wrong to revert to "In other animals." That is standard on Wikipedia with regard to medical and sexual topics. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine project has always added "In other animals" because humans, as stated, are animals. Flyer22 (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, good to know.Grayfell (talk) 22:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Changes about anatomy and sexual activity

Editor Richiez made changes to this article that I disagree with, and which go against the reliable sources backing the text he removed. Richiez removed everything that was supported by this Health.discovery.com source, which is one of the more reliable sources in the article as opposed to crappy sources like site.themarriagebed.com, TheSite.org., and AskMen.com.

Regarding text that is backed to two scholarly sources, Richiez made this change and this change, adding "into the vulva and form the urethral sponge" in place of "into the vulva and vagina," despite the fact that O'Connell & team, and Kilchevsky & team, specifically state that clitoral tissue extends into vulva and the vagina. O'Connell even states, "The vaginal wall is, in fact, the clitoris. If you lift the skin off the vagina on the side walls, you get the bulbs of the clitoris – triangular, crescental masses of erectile tissue." Kilchevsky and various other modern-day researchers have agreed with O'Connell's findings. This is why I reverted Richiez's change, the only change of his I have reverted thus far.

Richiez removed the following line: "During sexual arousal, and particularly the stimulation of the clitoris, the walls of the vagina self-lubricate. This reduces friction that can be caused by various sexual activities." Richiez referred to this as garbage, despite the fact that every medical source out there on vaginal anatomy makes clear that the vagina self-lubricates when aroused to ease penile entry.

While I believe that I know where Richiez is coming from by stating that "there is no mucous membrane in the vagina," scholarly sources state that there is. Besides a simple Google search showing sites, doctors and other such experts stating that the vagina has mucous membranes, let's refer to Google Books and to Google Scholar. While Google Books largely shows very old sources stating this, it also consists of modern-day sources stating the same thing, such as this The Encyclopedia of Women's Health source and this Sexuality Now: Embracing Diversity source. The modern-day Google Scholar sources also back up the line "The walls of the vagina are composed of soft elastic folds of mucous membrane."

And, finally, here is the diff showing Richiez remove the Health.discovery.com source altogether and any text associated with it.

All of this is why I must point out that changing reliably sourced text and removing a reliable source, with no proof that such information is wrong, violates WP:Verifiability. Wikipedia is not about what we think we know. It's about what reliable sources say. And I found no reliable sources disputing any of the information Richiez removed. Flyer22 (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Many of the changes Richiez made were very low-quality edits, not designed to improve the article. I see that Flyer22 has made a partial revert, and I have reverted the rest. If there is something wrong with some of this sourced and cited information in the article, then let's discuss it here: let's see references that show it is wrong, and then let's agree on better wording in each case, based on the presumably new and better refs.
  1. "It consists of three layers of tissue: the mucosa is the layer on the surface that can be touched, which consists of mucous membranes and is a surface similar to the lining of the mouth.[1]" Deleted. Some statement about the structure is required, if not this, what does the surface tissue of the vagina consist of?
  2. "Vaginal lubrication typically decreases as women age, but this is a natural physical change that does not normally mean there is any physical or psychological problem. After menopause, the body produces less estrogen, which, unless compensated for with estrogen replacement therapy, causes the vaginal walls to thin out significantly."[1] Deleted. What then are the actual changes in vaginal lubrication with age?
  3. "Tissues extending from the clitoral extends considerably into the vulva and form the urethral sponge." changed from "Research has found that clitoral tissue extends considerably into the vulva and vagina." ...extending from the clitoral extends... WTF does that mean??? Which cited reference (and there are some, and they were unchanged during this edit) supports the introduction of the urethral sponge (WP:BURDEN applies here)?
  4. "During sexual arousal, and particularly the stimulation of the clitoris, the walls of the vagina self-lubricate. This reduces friction that can be caused by various sexual activities". Deleted Are you telling the world that the walls of the vagina do not lubricate???
  5. "The vagina is supported by smooth muscles performing rhythmic contractions stimulating the penis and helping to cause the male to experience orgasm and ejaculation, thus enabling fertilization." changed from "The walls of the vagina are composed of soft elastic folds of mucous membrane which stretch or contract (with support from pelvic muscles) to the size of the inserted penis or other object,[1] stimulating the penis and helping to cause the male to experience orgasm and ejaculation, thus enabling fertilization." These muscles are continuously performing rhythmic contractions, as part of their supporting role??? (There's nothing about 'during female orgasm' here). These rhythmic contractions are what cause male orgasms? I don't think you'll find that in any textbook.
The remainder of the edits were to remove the <ref name="Vagina"/> reference from other statements that it supports, leaving them uncited. Removing a sentence or two from a paragraph usually leaves the rest of the paragraph making very little sense, and can completely ruin the flow of the text. Careless, uncited, ungrammatical and wide scale edits to a high-profile article such as this one are not helpful. --Nigelj (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Note: I did contact Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, and two editors individually (Nigelj being one of them), about this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC) ‎
This article could use better references. how stuff works IMO is not a reliable source. Anatomy textbooks would be better such as [2] or [3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
From Danforth's Obstetrics & Gynecology, ninth edition, chapter 42: "Pelvic nerve stimulation results in clitoral smooth muscle relaxation and arterial smooth muscle dilation. With arousal there is an increase in the clitoral cavernosal artery inflow and an increase in the clitoral intercavernous pressure that leads to tumescence and extrusion of the clitoris. Engorgement of the genital vascular network increases pressure inside the vaginal capillaries and results in lubrication of the epithelial surface of the vaginal wall by a transudate of serum.... Although most lubrication is from the transudate, which is passively transported through intraepithelial spaces, and appears on the surface of the vagina, a small amount of additional lubrication arises from the mucus secretions of the Bartholin glands."
Whether this is "self-lubrication" as opposed to "lubrication" is somewhat debatable. "Self-lubrication" implies that the lubrication occurs without any external factor. What exactly does your source say regarding self-lubrication? Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
The existing source says, "During sexual excitement, droplets of fluid appear along the vaginal walls and eventually cover the sides of the vagina completely. The vaginal tissue does not contain any secretory glands itself, but is loaded with blood vessels, which when engorged with blood as a result of sexual arousal, press against the tissue, forcing natural tissue fluids through the walls of the vagina."[4] I understand this to be pretty consistent with your formal medical quote above. Are you saying we should delete the 'self-', rather than the two whole sentences quoted in (4) above, because of the 'small amount of additional lubrication arises from the mucus secretions of the Bartholin glands'? --Nigelj (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
James (Jmh649), when I added the Health.discovery.com source months ago, it was more about me wanting to do a quick fix on some parts of the article, and about focusing on the reference being a Health.discovery.com source instead, which is known to be reliable with regard to WP:MEDRS, rather than it being a Health.howstuffworks.com source. But like I stated, this article does need better sources. So we don't disagree there.
Axl, good point about "self-lubricates." I didn't add "self-lubricates" when I added the source, and the source doesn't state "self-lubricates" either. It states what Nigelj stated it does. I'm not sure that Richiez removed the vaginal lubrication line because of the "self-lubricates" part, though. It seemed to me that he objected to what was stated about why the vagina lubricates during sexual arousal -- penile entry. That, and/or the "particularly the stimulation of the clitoris" line. I'm trying to figure out why he made any of the changes he did. Saying that the vagina has no mucous membrane, for example? That goes against scholarly sources on the subject. Flyer22 (talk) 22:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a link to the source. I do not believe that howstuffworks/Discovery Fit & Health should be used as a reliable source for this anatomical article in Wikipedia, despite any consistency with Danforth's textbook.

" Are you saying we should delete the 'self-', rather than the two whole sentences quoted in (4) above, because of the 'small amount of additional lubrication arises from the mucus secretions of the Bartholin glands'? "

— Nigelj

Not for that reason, no. It should be deleted because the source does not state "self-lubrication". Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Flyer22, can you please explain your statement "While I believe that I know where Richiez is coming from by stating that there is no mucous membrane in the vagina.." ? I find this a somewhat bizarre claim of geolocation.

Mucous membranes: there is the ancient "mucous" definition used by Gray Anatomy which apparently means mucous in the sense of "appearing mucous". The modern definition of mucous membrane is different - it implies mucosecretory cells, staining for mucin etc. This is why you only find very old sources saying vagina is mucous. We go by the modern definition today, perhaps you will find a WP:MEDRS confirming that the vagina contains such cells but I very seriously doubt it. The mucous cells are for example in the cervical channel.

Show me a WP:MEDRS source claiming that the vagina is self lubricating.

Urethral sponge: the change which I made did was a cosmetic improvement. In my opinion it says everything that the previous rather vague version said before but perhaps it is too complicated for some readers to be be bothered to read about the urethral sponge? But this could sure be improved to cover the corpus cavernosum of clitoris and vestibular bulbs.

The statement "It consists of three layers of tissue: the mucosa is the layer on the surface that can be touched, which consists of mucous membranes and is a surface similar to the lining of the mouth" is utter garbage and made me strongly preoccupied against this particular source which does obviously not meet WP:MEDRS anyway. -- Richiez (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I stated that I believe I know where you are coming from, because I felt that you may be defining mucous membranes the way that you have shown yourself to be defining them in your above reply. Despite that definition, it is clear that some researchers don't define mucous membrane that way...seeing as some of the modern scholarly sources I provided above describe the vagina as having mucous membranes. I am well-aware that we go by the modern definition with regard to medical/anatomical topics, which is why I stated "While Google Books largely shows very old sources stating this, it also consists of modern-day sources stating the same thing" and "The modern-day Google Scholar sources also back up the line 'The walls of the vagina are composed of soft elastic folds of mucous membrane.'" Some of those sources do indeed pass WP:MEDRS. I don't believe that the WP:BURDEN is on me. I believe that it is on you to show that modern-day researchers generally don't describe the vagina as having mucous membranes. As I stated, I looked for sources specifically stating that the vagina has no mucous membrane and that this was a mistake in medical terminology of the past, but I didn't find any. My main point has been that we go by reliable sources here, not what we think we know. And again, the majority of sources (old ones, new ones, ones that don't pass WP:MEDRS and ones that do pass WP:MEDRS) are defining mucous membranes differently than you with regard to the vagina. Maybe they are using the Gray Anatomy definition. Maybe they are speaking in terms of the vagina having been described as absorbing and secreting. Maybe they are speaking in terms of the urethra's internal extension. But I would think that such an outdated and/or inaccurate definition would not still be so widespread. Would those very familiar with vaginal anatomy still spread misinformation that the vagina has mucous membranes? All of that is why I am at a crossroads about this.
As for the "self-lubricating" issue, that was already resolved above. I didn't add "self-lubricates," and will remove "self" now.
As for adding "urethral sponge," whether you feel that it is a cosmetic improvement or not, the sources describe the clitoris as extending into the vagina, not just the urethral sponge. Again, O'Connell says "The vaginal wall is, in fact, the clitoris." She doesn't just single out the urethral sponge, and neither does Kilchevsky and the other researchers who are mentioned/speaking in the sources. And while reliable sources say that the clitoris and urethral sponge are interconnected, let's not forget that some experts believe that the urethral sponge is the G-Spot and that others debate whether or not the G-Spot is connected to the clitoris.
And as for the Health.discovery.com source, I've already explained my use of it. It used to just be called Health.discovery.com when speaking of sexual and medical topics, not Health.howstuffworks.com, and I've used it on Wikipedia for only a few articles...usually with regard to sexual topics. I have also added it as a WP:SECONDARY source beside a scholarly source (such as the G-Spot debate mentioned in this article), especially if that source isn't easily accessible. I've done so because it has proven itself to be reliable for sexual and health information. Having read how it gathers its sexual and health information (by reading the site's information years ago about that, although I see nothing on its site about it now), and knowing the WP:MEDRS guidelines, I do believe that it qualifies as a reliable source with regard to WP:MEDRS. I also specifically remember members of WP:MED stating that it can be used as a reliable source for sexual and health information. Maybe it isn't that reliable for anatomical information, but it has been reliable for everything else I've used it for on this site. I don't mind if the source is removed altogether from this article as long as another source is added in its place. Most, if not all, of the information you removed can be backed to high-quality scholarly sources. So that was my main problem with your changes. I'm all for using sources like the one Axl provided. It doesn't mean that the Health.discovery.com has to be discarded altogether, but, like I stated, I'm fine with removing it as long as a reliable source is used in its place. I'm not hard-pressed on this article saying that the vagina has mucous membranes, because, like I stated, I can see where you are coming from on that, but I am conflicted about that information per what I've stated about it. More than anything, we need to get rid of the following sources: site.themarriagebed.com, TheSite.org., and AskMen.com. Flyer22 (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

From Black's Medical Dictionary, 41st edition:-

"Mucous membrane: The general name given to the membrane which lines many of the hollow organs of the body. These membranes vary widely in structure in different sites, but all have the common character of being lubricated by MUCUS – derived in some cases from isolated cells on the surface of the membrane, but more generally from definite glands placed beneath the membrane, and opening here and there through it by ducts. The air passages, the gastrointestinal tract and the ducts of glands which open into it, and also the urinary passages, are all lined by mucous membrane."

"Mucosa: A term for MUCOUS MEMBRANE."

From Stedman's Medical Dictionary, electronic 4th edition:-

"Mucous membranes: synonym for mucosa."

"Mucosa: A mucous tissue lining various tubular structures, consisting of epithelium, lamina, [sic] propria, and, in the digestive tract, a layer of smooth muscle. Synonyms: tunica mucosa [NA], membrana mucosa, mucosal tunics, mucous tunics, mucous membranes."

Stedman's dictionary goes on to give a list of various mucous membranes, including "vaginal mucosa". Stedman's dictionary defines "Vaginal mucosa: the mucous membrane of the vagina. Synonym: tunica mucosa vaginae [NA]."

From Wheater's Functional Histology, fifth edition, page 377: "The wall of the vagina, micrograph (a), consists of a mucosal layer lined by stratified squamous epithelium E, a layer of smooth muscle SM and an outer adventitial layer A. In the relaxed state, the vaginal wall collapses to obliterate the lumen and the vaginal epithelium is thrown up into folds."

From my reading about the subject, I believe that the definition of "mucous membrane" is somewhat loose. The strictest definition includes only those epithelial membranes that contain mucous glands. This definition would exclude the vaginal epithelium. A more inclusive definition would include all epithelial membranes whose surface is kept moist (either by virtue of mucous glands or some other mechanism of moistening). This definition would include the vaginal epithelium.

My recommendation is to avoid the term "mucous membrane" in Wikipedia's article.

As a separate recommendation, I also suggest that Discovery Health/howstuffworks should not be used as a reliable source for this article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that, Axl. Like I stated, I was definitely seeing the loose definition not only in very old sources but in modern-day sources. Would you suggest any word(s) in place of "mucous membrane"? How would you go about rewording the first paragraph in the Vagina#Location and structure section?
And, yes, I have considered removing the Health.discovery.com source. I've stated that I'm fine with removing it as long as a reliable source is used in its place for the text that only it is supporting. Flyer22 (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Vaginal contractions

From above:

  • "The vagina is supported by smooth muscles performing rhythmic contractions stimulating the penis and helping to cause the male to experience orgasm and ejaculation, thus enabling fertilization." changed from "The walls of the vagina are composed of soft elastic folds of mucous membrane which stretch or contract (with support from pelvic muscles) to the size of the inserted penis or other object,[1] stimulating the penis and helping to cause the male to experience orgasm and ejaculation, thus enabling fertilization." These muscles are continuously performing rhythmic contractions, as part of their supporting role??? (There's nothing about 'during female orgasm' here). These rhythmic contractions are what cause male orgasms? I don't think you'll find that in any textbook. --Nigelj (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I don't recall ever reading that it helps the male orgasm, but an extremely RS - Guyton's Textbook of Medical Physiology (1986), pp. 980-981 - discusses this in detail, and clearly states that it is possible that the contractions which occur during the female orgasm may help transport sperm toward the ovum. "Also, the orgasm seems to cause dilation of the cervical canal for up to half an hour, thus allowing easy transport of the sperm."

The "supporting role" of the contractions which occur during the female orgasm is related to aiding in the transport of sperm, thus enhancing the chances of conception. Fortunately conception can still occur (to a lesser degree) without the female orgasm, or the human race (in certain cultures which denied and repressed the existence of the female orgasm) would have tended to die out..... Brangifer (talk) 00:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

There are definitely a lot of reliable sources stating that the vagina helps the man achieve orgasm (which is obvious that it does anyway)...because of how the vaginal walls hug the penis and aid in its lubrication. But as for vaginal contractions helping the man orgasm? Well, the vaginal contractions, with regard to male orgasm, are usually applied to the theory that it helps fertilization, like you stated BullRangifer. See Orgasm#Theoretical biological and evolutionary functions for more detail (I still have to source the few unsourced parts of those sections; I already sourced other parts of them). Flyer22 (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Transferred discussion from WP:MED

Link to transferred discussion.

Hm.. anyone working on it? It is severely lacking in some parts as it is now. Richiez (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I am waiting for you to respond to my comments, Richiez. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
And I am waiting for Axl to respond to me while Axl is waiting for you to respond to him, LOL. Although I already figured that was the case, he let me know on my talk page that he was waiting for you and that this is why he hasn't yet commented on how he would tackle the mucous membrane issue (since some anatomical/medical sources describe the vagina as being a mucous membrane or having mucous membranes). I was planning on using Axl's sources for not only that information (whether I used the term mucous membrane or not), but other information that should have high-quality sources backing it as well. Flyer22 (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Too much politeness from all editors.. reminds me of the dining philosophers problem;) I thought I would keep my fingers away from it as it looked like others are taking good care of it. Will look over the talkpage again and try to answer any questions. Richiez (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
LOL, Richiez, it does remind me of that. I assure you that I would have eventually taken care of the issues, though. Like I stated, I was planning on using Axl's sources (the ones that I need)...as well as ones Axl did not provide. After trading out a few sources and simply adding others, I would have contacted Axl about the mucous membranes issue...seeing as we need to figure out the way we are going to describe the structure of the vagina without using the term "mucous membrane(s)." Axl's Wheater's Functional Histology, fifth edition source uses the words "mucosal layer," so I'm not sure if you or Axl would accept that instead, for example. I also note to WhatamIdoing that the article mostly has scholarly sources. The health.discovery.com (howstuffworks.com) source isn't the worst non-scholarly source, but it and the poor-quality ones I mentioned on the talk page will be replaced. It's a matter of including high-quality sources that essentially say the same thing as, or more than, the health.discovery.com source (such as the information about the "outer one-third of the vagina, especially near the opening, [containing] nearly 90 percent of the vaginal nerve endings and therefore [being] much more sensitive to touch than the inner two-thirds of the vaginal barrel." A lot of people don't know just how few nerve endings the vagina has, which is one reason why so many men and women are perplexed when a woman doesn't get much physical pleasure out of vaginal intercourse and barely or will not reach orgasm from it. As someone very familiar with that topic, I was confused as to why it wasn't already in the Vagina article...and this is one of the ways that the health.discovery.com source became a quick fix for the article (along with the quick-fix scholarly source and quick-fix Go Ask Alice! source backing it). Flyer22 (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
As of the mucosal layer, I would avoid all mention of anything that could confuse the reader into thinking there is a mucous membrane. The best we can do describe what PMID 19598112 says which is stratified squamous epithelium in adults. Some years ago I did a literature search about the development, specifically of the vaginal epithelium but looking at the new sources my older findings are probably all obsolete;) As of the "three layers of tissue" this can not stay like that. It is not at all clear from the text if it is about epithelial layers or epithelium/myoepitheluim or some other structuring. To make it more complicated the number of layers depends on stage of maturation, vaguely recall that prepubertal girls have fewer layers.. which would be important to describe if I manage to find that source. The issue of the lower and upper vagina is an interesting one, I thought that they correspond to portions resulting from mullerian vagina and the portion formed from the urogenital sinus. However, looking at PMID 20638775 this may not be so easy and it might turn out difficult to find good sources. Richiez (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
But what about the modern-day sources, such as the ones Axl provided, that do describe "mucous membrane" in relation to the vagina? I'm wondering if the Mucous membrane article shouldn't simply be expanded with different definitions. On Wikipedia, we don't just give one definition for a term when there is more than one. If we don't use "mucous membrane" or "mucosal layer," what do we use in place of what these sources are describing about the vagina? And good point about the "three layers of tissue" bit; that should definitely be specified, elaborated on. As for the lower and upper vagina bit, every reliable source I have read on the matter makes clear that most of the vagina's nerve endings (which, again, are few) are present near the opening of the vagina. Flyer22 (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
You say "A lot of people don't know just how few nerve endings the vagina has, which is one reason why so many men and women are perplexed when a woman doesn't get much physical pleasure out of vaginal intercourse and barely or will not reach orgasm from it." I'm not sure if not having an orgasm or physical pleasure equals not having nerve endings. I'd wager most people don't have an orgasm from getting their arm stroked or massaged, but it does not follow from this that the arm has no nerve endings. I'm also not sure if health.discovery.com is the most reliable source - what exactly are their sources? I'd prefer a medical textbook as a source here. Sea Moomin (talk) 12:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Sea Moomin. I did not state that "not having an orgasm or physical pleasure equals not having nerve endings." And, as can also be seen, I did not state that the vagina has no nerve endings; I stated that it has "few nerve endings" and that it's because of this that the majority of women do not achieve orgasm through vaginal penetration. This is supported by scientific literature. When it comes to sexual pleasure and orgasm, nerve endings have an overwhelming lot to do with those things, as well as pain of course. Most people don't have an orgasm just by thinking it; even when some do, it is felt in the genitals...if going by the clinically accepted definition of orgasm, which, as stated, significantly has to do with nerve endings. And although psychological stimulation is a part of it, such pleasure has to do with anatomy/physiology more than anything else. I agree about the health.discovery.com source not being the most reliable medical and/or anatomical source, and I've already commented on the mediocre and subpar sourcing that exists in this article, which needs to be remedied, but the "insufficient nerve endings for sexual stimulation and orgasm" line in relation to female sexual pleasure and orgasm is not only supported by that source in the article. Besides the O'Connell and other research sources mentioned in the Clarifying section below this that can be used to support it, there is this source, which cites research and this Go Ask Alice! source supporting it. As mentioned, I can add other scholarly sources to support the line, such as this, this, this and many others. For now, I've added O'Connell and that latter scholarly source to the line to help back it...and removed Health.discovery.com from it. A medical textbook isn't needed to report this reliably; other type of scholarly sources, including sex journals, clearly showing the research, suffice. And as I stated before, "[W]hen I added the Health.discovery.com source months ago, it was more about me wanting to do a quick fix on some parts of the article, and about focusing on the reference being a Health.discovery.com source instead, which is [or rather was] known to be reliable with regard to WP:MEDRS, rather than it being a Health.howstuffworks.com source." And when I've used health.discovery.com on Wikipedia, which has been rarely, it's usually been as a WP:SECONDARY source beside a scholarly source, like I did in this article with regard to the vaginal nerve endings topic. This is useful when the scholarly source isn't easily accessible. I haven't gotten around to significantly fixing up this article yet, if I ever do decide to do so (such as preparing it for a WP:GA nomination). If I had, it wouldn't currently consist of sources such as site.themarriagebed.com, TheSite.org., and AskMen.com. Flyer22 (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Clarifying

two points: the concept of "clitoris extending into the vagina" is rather vague and easy to misunderstand as "the clit is sticking inside the vagina", hence I tried to change the wording. The less obvious, the urethral sponge is imo one of the tissues developmentaly very closely tied to the clitoris and the urethral sponge is extending all the way to the vagina, some ever say around the vagina so in the end the text says pretty much what it did before. Richiez (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Richiez, I don't know what else to state that I haven't already stated about your specifying urethral sponge. The scholarly sources I've read and studied on recent developments about clitoral anatomy, some of which are in this article, describe "the clitoral legs" as extending into the vulva and the vagina. They do not specify the urethral sponge only. They quite unambiguously describe how the clitoris reaches into the vagina, with O'Connell even outright calling the vaginal walls the clitoris. The urethral sponge doesn't make up the entire vagina, and so your wording of "into the vulva and form the urethral sponge" limits just where the clitoris extends. And as said before, some experts believe that the urethral sponge is the G-Spot, while others debate whether or not the G-Spot is connected to the clitoris. We should go by what the sources say instead of specifying an area based on our opinions. If someone were to interpret the wording as "the clit is sticking inside the vagina," that, according to modern-day research, would not be inaccurate...unless the person only thinks of the clitoris as the clitoral glans. For this reason, the text does not simply say "the clitoris." It says "clitoral tissue." By that, we mean "the clitoral legs " known as the clitoral crura. It's more layperson-friendly to say "clitoral tissue" or even "clitoral legs," although we could put and link "clitoral crura" in parentheses following it. [Striked out a line on June 7. Not sure what I was thinking calling this general tissue "clitoral legs"; to my knowledge, the clitoral crura don't extend into the vagina, so the sources are speaking of different clitoral tissue on that matter.] Flyer22 (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Update. Note for archive: I did come across one source specifically stating that the crura extend into the vagina, but it's not a high-quality source. I'll look for more sources on that matter as time goes on. Flyer22 (talk) 03:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I recommend reading PMID 19598112. Of course all tissues are related somewhat but if you still think the vaginal walls are part of the clitoris after reading that than we need an oracle. Richiez (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Richiez, that is one source compared to MRI technology that O'Connell and others have used to show just how far clitoral tissue extends into the vagina and in what way. O'Connell would not state "The vaginal wall is, in fact, the clitoris. If you lift the skin off the vagina on the side walls, you get the bulbs of the clitoris – triangular, crescental masses of erectile tissue." if she did not believe that to be true. She is about correcting inaccurate descriptions of clitoral anatomy and has been praised by various researchers for her findings. A few years after her 2005 ANATOMY OF THE CLITORIS, researchers Odile Buisson and Pierre Foldès created the first complete 3-D sonography of the stimulated clitoris, showing the erectile tissue of the clitoris engorging and surrounding the vagina. See this The Internal Clitoris blog for in-detail, easy-access information about that. Yes, blogs are generally not reliable sources when it comes to Wikipedia, but that blog does go over all of the most relevant past and recent research about clitoral anatomy. Everything stated in it is backed by the most recent scholarly sources on clitoral anatomy. In 2010-2012, Kilchevsky & team investigated the relationship between the clitoris and vagina when taking on the G-Spot debate. Kilchevsky stated his belief that the G-Spot is the clitoris, and, as acknowledged in this source, "Kilchevsky’s argument is supported by anatomists who say that the clitoris is like an iceberg. You can see just a little. The rest extends well into the vagina." What I keep reading from these researchers is that the "clitoris extends into the vagina," "vaginal wall is the clitoris," "clitoris surrounds the vagina," not just the "clitoris extends into the urethral sponge and likely is the G-Spot." You say "Of course all tissues are related," but researchers debate the very notion of the G-Spot and clitoris being related, although it seems that most do believe that they are related...considering that most now doubt that the G-Spot is a distinct anatomical structure. It's not about what I believe; it's about what high-quality sources, the most recent and usually the most supported, say. Flyer22 (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
It could also be that the researchers don't mean that the vaginal walls are literally the clitoris, but rather that the clitoris surrounds the vagina and therefore when "lift[ing] the skin off the vagina on the side walls, you get the bulbs of the clitoris." O'Connell has described it as surrounding the vagina, and, as shown above, so have Buisson and Foldès...among others. Flyer22 (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
We are getting closer. I think you are right to think that the source did not literally claim that the vaginal walls are the clitoris, though nothing would suprise me from a source that mentions the "skin of the vagina" and the quote saying "lift[ing] the skin off the vagina on the side walls, you get the bulbs of the clitoris" doesn't raise my confidence in that source either.
You have suggested that the clitoris surrounds the vagina and I am saying the urethral sponge originates or is closely related to clitoris and surrounds the vagina in some sections. So to me it looks like we are saying almost the same, we still need to find reliable sources for this. Richiez (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
A reliable source for your wording? There are two reliable sources in the article for "into the vagina," and your urethral sponge-wording, when speaking of it being closely related to the clitoris, is supported by these two sources as well. After all, the urethral sponge surrounds the urethra, and, as O'Connell states, "The clitoris is a multiplanar structure with a broad attachment to the pubic arch and via extensive supporting tissue to the mons pubis and labia. Centrally it is attached to the urethra and vagina. ... The distal urethra and vagina are intimately related structures, although they are not erectile in character. They form a tissue cluster with the clitoris. This cluster appears to be the locus of female sexual function and orgasm." Not to mention, she also speaks of the G-Spot (which, as said, is believed to be the urethral sponge) and how it is an extension of the clitoris...leading people to call orgasms derived from it "a vaginal orgasm" since women experience it as a result of vaginal penetration. It's just that the researchers don't limit the extension of the clitoris to the urethral sponge. O'Connell is a reliable source for clitoral anatomy and we're talking about a peer-reviewed article in this case. So, again, there's not much more I can state on that particular matter. Her findings have support and have been supported by further research. That said, O'Connell does have a vocal critic. See here for Vincenzo Puppo, who argues that O'Connell and other researchers use incorrect terminological and anatomical descriptions of the clitoris. For example, Puppo says, "Clitoral bulbs is an incorrect term from an embryological and anatomical viewpoint, in fact the bulbs do not develop from the phallus, and they do not belong to the clitoris: 'clitoral bulbs' is not a term used in human anatomy, the correct term is the vestibular bulbs." However, Puppo also argues that "there is no inner clitoris," which goes against what the mainstream scientific community now says about clitoral anatomy.
Either way, the clitoral wording, as currently worded, is not the issue with this article. The "three layers" and "mucous membranes" descriptions are, as well as the few poor-quality sources it harbors. What do you make of Axl's proposed alternative wording on that front? Any problem with it? Ready to implement it? Flyer22 (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
The current wording looks strange and is unnecessary vague. The claim that the clitoral tissue "extends considerably into the vagina" requires better sources than that. Purely as a matter of style, I try to avoid phrases like "research has found..". Richiez (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Due to all that I've stated above, I cannot see how the current wording is strange or unnecessarily vague. It's backed to two high-quality scholarly sources, combined with two lay-summary sources with the researchers discussing it, and is the most recent research on clitoral anatomy...aside from Buisson and Foldès's research. This means that there are no "better sources" and that better sources are not required. Once again, the most recent research on clitoral anatomy generally says the same thing -- "the clitoris extends considerably into the vulva and vagina." If you read those two scholarly sources, as well as Buisson and Foldès's research, you will see that they are not vague about the clitoris's extension. It's just that they do not limit that extension in the way that you are proposing to do. If they specified a definite endpoint for the clitoris, other than acknowledging the usual anatomical descriptions that it terminates with attachment to the pubic arch, then I would see your point. But they don't, especially since clitoral leg anatomy and clitoral tissue in general are variable. We all know that it doesn't extend throughout the whole body, but just where it stops in the vagina is not as definite. I can agree to remove "Research has found," per WP:Weasel words, but I cannot agree to word it the way that you had it worded or in any way that would specify a definite endpoint for the clitoris that is not otherwise supported by the most recent research. Flyer22 (talk) 03:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I changed the wording to this[5][6] to briefly describe what the clitoris is and its relation to the urethra (and therefore the urethral sponge), and because O'Connell and other researchers are clear that some women may have more extensive clitoral tissue than others (which allows for what the women believe to be a vaginal orgasm). Flyer22 (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
The wording is now much better than previously but still - tell me where exactly you find the claim from that the clitoris "extends into the vagina". I see O'Connell 2005 saying "The distal urethra and vagina are intimately related structures, although they are not erectile in character. They form a tissue cluster with the clitoris.", this is as far as it gets and I would be fine with that. But saying the clitoris extends into the vagina is something completely different. As of sources, O'Connell was relying on MRI almost exclusively and had limited possibilities to differentiate whether the tissues are just a tissue cluster or whether the clitoris extends into the vagina. PMID 19598112 is newer, more focused on the vagina with very detailed investigation of the vaginal development and histology and leaves absolutely no room for the clitoris to extend into the vagina as far as I can see. Everything that was written before should be interpreted with that in mind. Finally, we have just recently agreed that the 3 layers of the vagina are this - if you want to have the claim that the clitoris extends into the vagina than this description must be enhanced to say where and into which layer the clitoris extends. Richiez (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Richiez, how is saying that "the clitoris extends into the vagina" any different than what you've been saying, except that you wanted it specified to the urethral sponge? It's not as though the clitoris doesn't extend into the vagina. After all, the urethral sponge is found on the vaginal wall. It seems that you are defining "extends into the vagina" differently than myself and the researchers. The description that the clitoris extends into the vagina is in the sources. Have you not accessed the whole "Anatomy of the Clitoris" O'Connell source? It's been some time since I've read the whole thing (I used to have access to all of it), but I think I remember her stating that (elaborating on what she states in the lay-summary source) and that some women having more extensive clitoral tissue than others is why some women experience "vaginal orgasm." Of course...if every time she or others say "extends into the vagina," they mean the distal vagina/urethral sponge, that still explains why some women (the minority albeit) reach "vaginal orgasm" (if you believe the researchers who assert that the clitoris is responsible for all female orgasms and therefore the G-Spot is not a distinct entity). You can see some of her words on the extension of the clitoris in the Vincenzo Puppo source I provided above. And Kilchevsky states the same thing about what causes "vaginal orgasm": "My view is that the G-spot is really just the extension of the clitoris on the inside of the vagina, analogous to the base of the male penis," he says. And then there's the following line I pointed to before: "Kilchevsky’s argument is supported by anatomists who say that the clitoris is like an iceberg. You can see just a little. The rest extends well into the vagina." Your source, while about the vagina, is not about the clitoris. I am speaking of the most recent research on the clitoris. As shown, it's not just the 2005 O'Connell source saying that the clitoris is intimately related to the vagina or "extends well into the vagina" (whichever wording), but also Buisson and Foldès's 2008 3-D sonography source (and that's the source, not the blog)...and Kilchevsky & team having analyzed every possible connection between the clitoris and vagina, stating in this 2012 The Journal of Sexual Medicine source that "radiographic studies have been unable to demonstrate a unique entity, other than the clitoris, whose direct stimulation leads to vaginal orgasm." So why do you insist on specifying a definite endpoint for the clitoris, when the most recent research on it has essentially shown that researchers are not completely clear where it extends, as shown by the G-Spot debate? We can't say "where and into which layer the clitoris extends" because researchers don't say where and into which layer, other than saying that it extends into the vulva, connects with the urethra and reaches back toward the anus, which I guess answers my question as to why you want only the vulva/urethra part mentioned. But, again, it seems that you are thinking that "extends into the vagina" implies something physically impossible. They haven't given any indication that it's physically impossible and they perhaps mean what you mean. But they haven't exactly limited its extension the way you have.
In addition to reading the other sources I have provided that are specifically about the clitoris and its relationship to the vagina, maybe if we read this older source by O'Connell (from 1998), titled "Anatomical Relationship Between Urethra and Clitoris," and this newer source by her (from 2008), titled "The Anatomy of the Distal Vagina: Towards Unity," we will better understand what O'Connell means and can agree to a particular wording.
In the abstract from the 1998 source, she says, "The female urethra, distal vaginal wall and erectile tissue are packed into the perineum caudal (superficial) to the pubic arch, which is bounded laterally by the ischiopubic rami, and superficially by the labia minora and majora. This complex is not flat against the rami as is commonly depicted but projects from the bony landmarks for 3 to 6 cm. The perineal urethra is embedded in the anterior vaginal wall and is surrounded by erectile tissue in all directions except posteriorly where it relates to the vaginal wall. The bulbs of the vestibule are inappropriately named as they directly relate to the other clitoral components and the urethra. Their association with the vestibule is inconsistent and, thus, we recommend that these structures be renamed the bulbs of the clitoris."
In the abstract from the 2008 source, she says, "The anatomy of the distal vagina and surrounding structures is shown and described in detailed. The distal vagina, clitoris, and urethra form an integrated entity covered superficially by the vulval skin and its epithelial features. These parts have a shared vasculature and nerve supply and during sexual stimulation respond as a unit though the responses are not uniform." Flyer22 (talk) 02:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Also from that 2008 source, O'Connell says, "The distal vagina is a structure that is so interrelated with the clitoris that it is a matter of some debate whether the two are truly separate structures. ... Deep to the vaginal wall mucosa laterally lies only the clitoris."
Gravina et al., in "Measurement of the Thickness of the Urethrovaginal Space in Women With Or Without Vaginal Orgasm" (2008), states, "The most interesting finding of our study is the evidence that women who experience vaginal orgasm have an urethrovaginal space thicker than those who do not ... The self-reported nature of presence or absence of vaginal orgasm is another strong limitation of our findings ... By vaginal orgasm, we mean the orgasm experienced after direct stimulation of the anterior vaginal wall by penetration. ... The measurement of the space within the anterior vaginal wall by ultrasonography is a simple tool to explore anatomical variability of the human clitoris-urethrovaginal complex, also known as the G-spot, which can be correlated to the ability to experience the vaginally activated orgasm ... As there is now evidence that the clitoris is related to the distal third of the urethra in the perivaginal space ... The close physical proximity of the urethra and the clitoris to the anterior vaginal wall suggests an association between these anatomical structures and sexual function ... The presence of pseudocavernous tissue (clitoral bulb) in the anterior vaginal mucosa is a frequent but not universal finding (86%) ... However, our data cannot directly demonstrate that the thickness of an anatomical space may generate a mechanism that can be related to the creation of an orgasm ... But, in conclusion, the results here presented allow us to speculate that there may be a functional correlation between the thickness of urethrovaginal space, or G-spot, and the ability to experience the vaginal orgasm."
In "The G-spot and Lack of Female Sexual Medicine" ("Le point G ou l'absence de médecine sexuelle féminine," 2010), Buisson states: "G-spot was popularized by sexologist Beverly Whipple in 1980 in honor of the gynecologist Ernst Grafenberg ... the exact anatomy of the clitoris only recently has been recognized ... the dynamic study of the clitoris urethra-vaginal complex... ...the vaginal penetration causes a close contact between the inner clitoris and the distal anterior vaginal wall..."
There is a rebuttal to Gravina et al.'s research, by Carlo Vicentini, but the only researcher I've seen challenge all of this research and "the inner clitoris" is Vincenzo Puppo. Otherwise, researchers today generally seem to believe that there is an intimate relationship between the clitoris and vagina, whether we specify that as "the clitoris and urethral sponge," "the clitoris and urethral sponge...which is the G-Spot," "the clitoris and distal vagina," or "the clitoris, the distal vagina, and urethra/urethral sponge." The latter sources are from 2008, 2010, 2011 and 2012. This means that the research from your 2009 source was being done at the same time of the 2008 sources. Maybe your source was not privy to all of this new research when describing vaginal anatomy. For example, there are still new anatomy books being produced with old and inaccurate descriptions of the clitoris. And then there are the sources after 2009 also stating that there is an inner clitoris (not just the already-known fact that it extends beneath the vulva) and that this is the likely cause of vaginal orgasms.
My current wording that you objected to is "Its tissue extends into the vagina, but is more extensive for some women than for others. This extension may contribute to orgasms experienced vaginally." But I worded it that way due to this research stating that. Notice, however, that I have the text worded as "may contribute"...since it is not definitive that the clitoris causes vaginal orgasms. But with so many researchers being certain that it does, I definitely feel that it should be mentioned. One could say that this information is covered by the G-Spot paragraph which mentions that the G-Spot is hypothesized to be an extension of the clitoris, but that doesn't explain why some women experience vaginal orgasm and most others don't, and there is still debate as to whether or not the G-Spot is the clitoris or is the urethral sponge and therefore a part of the clitoris. And let's remember that the G-Spot is often described as being on a portion of the vaginal wall that is not in the urethral sponge area, which means that if it is separated from the urethral sponge but is the clitoris, then it's an extension of the clitoris in the vagina that is not limited to the urethral sponge. Confusing, right? No wonder there is so much debate. Anyway, since you want specificity about where the clitoris extends into the vagina, maybe we should say "extends into the distal vagina," per the sources above. Or "is considered," "is believed" to "extend into the vagina" or "extend into the distal vagina," correcting the tense for the rest of the sentence, since Puppo does make an argument against this research, calling it hypotheses. I wouldn't say "hypothesized," however, since there is MRI and 3-D sonography technology backing some of it. And, again, maybe "extends into the vagina" was being defined by you differently than it's being defined by the researchers? Flyer22 (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
The question at the moment is not whether and how the "extended clitoris" contributes to the orgasm, I am not getting into that debate;) For now it is purely about the anatomy - to put it oversimplified is there widespread agreement that the "inner clitoris" actually sticks into the vagina?
Re "how is saying that the clitoris extends into the vagina any different than what you've been saying, except that you wanted it specified to the urethral sponge?" Saying that is something completely and utterly different than saying for example "tissue closely related to the clitoris form a tissue cluster with the vagina". Something like that (loosely paraphrased from O'Connell) would be perfectly fine with me, the other formulation not. As you write O'Connell 2008 says, "The distal vagina is a structure that is so interrelated with the clitoris that it is a matter of some debate whether the two are truly separate structures." So that means in 2008 not even O'Connell was convinced either way, has the debate conclusively ended since than? Interrelated is not necessary the same like saying the clitoris extends into the vagina. Regarding the wording of Kilchevsky ("My view is that the G-spot is really just the extension of the clitoris on the inside of the vagina, analogous to the base of the male penis") this is a hotly debated field. I have not followed the g-spot debate closely but it seems like it is nowhere over and the g-spot not so easy to find for researchers. The other sources suggest close proximity and nothing more.
Replying "So why do you insist on specifying a definite endpoint for the clitoris, when the most recent research on it has essentially shown that researchers are not completely clear where it extends,...". Well that is the point, as you say "research on it has essentially shown that researchers are not completely clear where it extends". We can't say something the researchers themselves don't know.
I am not insisting upon specifying an endpoint for the clitoris - but we have to avoid saying things that are not supported by sources or just by a small minority of them. The classical view is that vagina and clitoris are clearly distinct. The new sources say either they form a tissue cluster, are closely related or (Kilchevsky) one sticks into the other. As long as the new sources do not agree even among themselves we can only go as far as they agree. Instead of a general agreement among the sources I see widespread confusion. Also, we need to be cautious with wording overall. While there is no doubt the bulbs of the clitoris are closely related to the clitoris they are not the clitoris. The crura are related or part of the clitoris but obviously very different than the shaft or glans of the clitoris. The relation of the urethral sponge and clitoris is even less defined - while I take it for plausible that they are related I am less confident that this is the mainstream view. How closely defined are they at all? All of the urogenital organs are very much related. Did you ever come across a source about the histology of the urethral sponge? Some years ago I was searching literature to find out if any of this structures express androgen receptor as would be expected from clitoral tissue and did not find anything even about the bulbs, much less the urethral sponge.
As of the wording we could for example say "tissues closely related to the clitoris are closely interrelated with the vagina and one researcher claims that the G-spot is an extension of the clitoris into the vagina". Richiez (talk) 20:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Richiez, I was asking "how is saying that the clitoris extends into the vagina any different than what you've been saying" because of the urethral sponge issue and because the researchers keep saying "into the vagina"; it seems that you are defining "into the vagina" in some strict sense that they aren't. As for O'Connell, no, she seems pretty convinced that the distal vagina is a structure that is very interrelated with the clitoris. She stated that affirmatively before adding "that it is a matter of some debate whether the two are truly separate structures."
I added your suggested wording of "tissue closely related to the clitoris form a tissue cluster with the vagina," but I left in the "extensive clitoral tissue" bit because the most recent sources on clitoral anatomy (with the exception of Puppo) assert that the clitoris is responsible for "vaginal orgasm" and that its extension being more prominent in some women than in others is the reason that some women (again, the minority of women) achieve "vaginal orgasm." To mention this "cluster" and not mention its connection to orgasm would be a huge omission. However, I soon changed your suggested wording to this because saying "tissue closely related to the clitoris" is WP:Original research. The sources do not state "tissue closely related to the clitoris"; they state "the clitoris." And they keep agreeing about the "clitoris and the distal vagina," "clitoris and the distal anterior vaginal wall," "clitoris and the distal third of the urethra," or "clitoris-urethrovaginal complex."
As for saying "We can't say something the researchers themselves don't know," that has been my point with regard to your wording. My wording has been supported by the sources each time. They are saying "extends into the vagina." They aren't saying that with doubt. They may be defining "extends into the vagina" loosely, but it's what they are saying. The only things they aren't completely certain about is exactly how it "extends into the vagina," which includes the debate as to whether the G-Spot is most assuredly an extension of it. The G-Spot debate may not be over, but researchers are generally in agreement that the G-Spot is not a distinct structure. This is supported by several sources in this article, and more are in the G-Spot article. It's not just one researcher claiming that the G-Spot is an extension of the clitoris. It's the majority of researchers. Every new source on the G-Spot, with the exception of this one, is about how the G-Spot doesn't exist because it is the clitoris. Kilchevsky & team made this quite clear when they stated, "The surveys found that a majority of women believe a G-Spot actually exists, although not all of the women who believed in it were able to locate it. Attempts to characterize vaginal innervation have shown some differences in nerve distribution across the vagina, although the findings have not proven to be universally reproducible. Furthermore, radiographic studies have been unable to demonstrate a unique entity, other than the clitoris, whose direct stimulation leads to vaginal orgasm. Objective measures have failed to provide strong and consistent evidence for the existence of an anatomical site that could be related to the famed G-Spot. However, reliable reports and anecdotal testimonials of the existence of a highly sensitive area in the distal anterior vaginal wall raise the question of whether enough investigative modalities have been implemented in the search of the G-Spot." And even in the "exception" source, it states "...the precise organ of female orgasm has been hotly debated. Many, including the father of modern psychiatry, Sigmund Freud, asserted that the vaginal walls were strongly implicated. Others, noting the paucity of nerve endings on the surface of the vaginal walls and the comparative density of nerve endings in the female clitoris, countered that the organ of female pleasure was plain for all to see. The fact that women commonly report orgasms with clitoral stimulation — and not so commonly with sexual intercourse — appeared to bolster their case that the clitoris is the G spot."
So considering that and the G-Spot debate, no matter that most researchers assert that the G-Spot is the clitoris, I object to your G-Spot wording and feel that it's best to keep the G-Spot information in the G-Spot paragraph instead of also including it in the paragraph about the clitoris's relation to the vagina.
The classical view that the vagina and clitoris are clearly distinct is just that -- a classical view. WP:MEDRS says that sources should "accurately reflect current medical knowledge." Well, current medical knowledge is saying that the clitoris and vagina are anatomically related. Just not exactly how they are anatomically related. I was staying away from the "exactly" part, because of the reasons I gave for not going along with your original wording, while you were pressing for "exactly." Most recent discoveries about anatomy trump "classic view" of anatomy, and I believe that I was appropriately following WP:MEDRS's Use up-to-date evidence guideline. It's not as though these are WP:FRINGE sources. It's not a minority of researchers stating that the clitoris and vagina are intimately related. But again, you seem to be defining "into the vagina" and "intimately related" differently than the researchers. For example, if the G-Spot is the clitoris, how is the clitoris not "extending into the vagina" in your view? And do you describe the urethral sponge as being inside of the vagina? Do you describe it as just pressing against the vaginal wall? How do you describe it? You mention the relation of the urethral sponge and clitoris, saying that while you "take it for plausible that they are related, [you are] less confident that this is the mainstream view." And yet you added "into the vulva and form the urethral sponge." I criticized that because, as I made clear, the sources do not limit "the inner clitoris" to there. And, no, I haven't come across a source about the histology of the urethral sponge. I went to Google Books and Google Scholar about it on June 9 and didn't find anything completely dedicated to it, other than sections of articles describing what we already know about it and sex books asserting that it's the G-Spot. I did find this good source on vulva and vaginal anatomy, among other anatomically-related parts, though. Flyer22 (talk) 05:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I wrote that already, sorry if I was not clear enough: I am not getting into debates about clitoral or vaginal orgasmus and the question is irrelevant for this discussion. You have collected an unbelievable amount of evidence prooving something that has not been subject of discussion. I am not going to argue with all that in detail, however as a minor comment statements like "The surveys found that a majority of women believe a G-Spot actually exists, although not all of the women who believed in it were able to locate it." are really utterly unsuited to substantiate any statements about anatomy and calling Freud as authority does not help that.
The current wording is quite ok, what do you think about giving more details? "attachment to the pubic arch" seem to be the crura, we also have articles about the vestibular bulbs somewhere and the urethral sponge could be mentioned (no, urethral sponge is not my obsession;). Richiez (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
If by "[I] wrote that already," you mean that you specified how you view the urethral sponge in relation to the vagina -- whether it is inside of the vagina or pressing against the vaginal wall -- I don't believe that you have. Some sources describe it as being inside of the vagina, and I wanted to know if you view that description as accurate. Because it goes to reason that if it is inside of the vagina, and the clitoris is so thoroughly a part of it, then the clitoris is also inside of the vagina. I believe that the evidence I have provided has been the subject of this discussion. Because the subject of this particular discussion has been "the clitoris extending into the vagina" and whether or not such a description is accurate. The line you just mentioned... Well, it's not as though the research is only based on women's personal opinion of their anatomy. It comes with the rest of the paragraph that states "[a]ttempts to characterize vaginal innervation have shown some differences in nerve distribution across the vagina, although the findings have not proven to be universally reproducible" and "radiographic studies have been unable to demonstrate a unique entity, other than the clitoris, whose direct stimulation leads to vaginal orgasm. Objective measures have failed to provide strong and consistent evidence for the existence of an anatomical site that could be related to the famed G-Spot." That is suited to substantiate statements about anatomy. It is a peer-reviewed article from The Journal of Sexual Medicine that went over all the research regarding the G-Spot, including "surveys, pathologic specimens, various imaging modalities, and biochemical markers," and it just so happens to be the type of statement that most researchers are making about the G-Spot -- saying that it either does not exist or is an extension of the clitoris. And the other source called Freud "the father of modern psychiatry," not "the authority on human anatomy." Scholars are quite clear that a lot of Freud's theories and hypotheses, especially about female anatomy, have been discredited. So that is not an issue.
As for more detail, I am okay with that. But we should be accurate. Not going on what "seems to be" the case, unless we word it in a way where doubt is possible (using words such as "may be," or something similar). Though some women report that the urethral sponge causes sexual pleasure, I am iffy on adding mention of it due to our previous statements on that. And the urethra is already mentioned, which therefore covers the urethral sponge. I feel that if we do mention the urethral sponge, it should go in the G-Spot paragraph...since it is so often described as the G-Spot. We could tie it in with the "extension of the clitoris" bit...since the clitoris is said to be an intricate part of the urethral sponge. What wording/format style do you suggest? Flyer22 (talk) 22:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's something else that can help us with the wording, should we elaborate on it: Besides Buisson and Foldès's 2008 3-D sonography source of the clitoris, there is also their 2009 "The Clitoral Complex" source. It's the source that the museumofsex.com is talking about. Buisson and Foldès don't describe the clitoris as extending into the vagina; they argue that women may be able to achieve vaginal orgasm via stimulation of the G-Spot because the highly innervated clitoris is pulled closely to the anterior wall of the vagina when the woman is sexually aroused and during vaginal penetration. In other words, they state that the front wall of the vagina is inextricably linked with the internal parts of the clitoris, and that thus stimulating the vagina without activating the clitoris may be next to impossible, which means that "vaginal orgasms" are very likely clitoral orgasms under a different name. This site, though also a blog, explains well what Buisson and Foldès are saying by also using Buisson and Foldès's sonograms of the clitoris. In the abstract for the PubMed source, Buisson and Foldès state the following: "The existence of the G-spot remains controversial partly because no appropriate structure and innervation have been clearly demonstrated in this pleasurable vaginal area. Using sonography, we wanted to visualize the movements of the clitoris and its anatomical relationship with the anterior wall of the vagina during voluntary perineal contraction and vaginal penetration without sexual stimulation. The aim of this presentation is to provide a dynamic sonographic study of the clitoris and to describe the movements of the quiescent clitoral complex during a voluntary perineal contraction. We aim to visualize the mechanical consequences of the pressure of the anterior vaginal wall with women who claim to have a special sensitivity of the G-spot area and vaginal orgasm. Histology and immunohistochemistry of the G-spot and other female genital tissues are beyond the scope of this study and have not been discussed. The ultrasounds were performed in five healthy volunteers with the Voluson General Electric Sonography system (GE Healthcare, Zipf, Austria), with a 12-MHz flat probe, and with a vaginal probe. We used functional sonography of the quiescent clitoris with voluntary perineal contractions and with finger penetration without sexual stimulation. We focused on the size of the clitoris (raphe, glans, and clitoral bodies) and of the length of the movements of the clitoris during voluntary perineal contractions. The coronal planes during perineal contraction and finger penetration demonstrated a close relationship between the root of the clitoris and the anterior vaginal wall. We suggest that the special sensitivity of the lower anterior vaginal wall could be explained by pressure and movement of clitoris' root during a vaginal penetration and subsequent perineal contraction. The G-spot could be explained by the richly innervated clitoris."

So, again, what all the sources regarding the clitoris I've listed here have in common is that they all state that the clitoris has or very likely has an anatomical relationship with the distal vagina/anterior wall of the vagina, whether they describe the clitoris as extending into the vagina or not. But with regard to all the recent research about the clitoris, I definitely see the point about not describing the clitoris as extending into the vagina here at Wikipedia...unless we say "may extend" (or something similar) and/or contrast that with other views about how they are or aren't connected. But that's extensively covered by the Clitoris and G-Spot articles. For this article, we should only touch on the subject, as we are doing now. Flyer22 (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Richiez, please comment on my findings and conclusions about the vaginal wall as a "mucous membrane". Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I would support your suggestion to avoid mentioning mucous membrane. As of the definition, I grew familiar with the more strict definition with the glands, in particular as muc-1 staining. Somewhat OT, I was very surprised a few months ago when I stumbled across the (from Gray) claim that the hymen was a mucous membrane. Regarding vagina I would think that "stratified squamous epithelium" as described in most recent sources is incompatible with any kind of mucous membrane. Stedmans def might be self contradicting as I am not aware that the "mucus" could be in any way derived from the cells in the surface of the membrane and neither any glands beneath the membrane (pretty sure any glands inside the vaginal wall would be considered a pathologic consequence of prenatal DES exposure).
In short, I have no idea or source for a better description than "stratified squamous epithelium". The mucous membrane article could use some double checking as some of the examples are apparently not completely in agreement with the definition in the lead of that article but rather display historic usage of the term. Richiez (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Richiez. The definition of "mucous membrane" is ambiguous, so it should be avoided. "Stratified squamous epithelium" is unambiguous and accurate. My recommendation based on Wheater's Functional Anatomy: "The internal lining of the vagina consists of stratified squamous epithelium. Beneath this lining is a layer of smooth muscle, which may contract during sexual intercourse and when giving birth. Beneath the muscle is a layer of connective tissue called adventitia." Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I am fine with not mentioning " mucous membrane." But it has been shown that anatomists do not necessarily define mucous membrane in the same way, which means that we are using a restrictive definition of the term. While going by the restrictive definition is fine for this article, the Mucous membrane article should be expanded to mention the different definitions...as is done for all articles we have here on terms. For the Vagina article, I just want the structure described in a way that is accurate but not missing any important descriptions simply because we have avoided "mucous membrane" and aren't sure about how to describe "the "three layers" information. Axl's alternative wording is more than fine, though. Flyer22 (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I am fine with and would add a precautionary "adult vagina" qualifier in both cases. Prepubertal and earlier differ in many aspects. For the adult vagina, I was wondering if we should add that the epithelium is keratinized. Do not have particularly good sources at hand, only PMID 9751518.
Replying to Flyer22, I am sure that "stratified squamous epithelium" is more precise than a overly broad definition of mucous so we won't loose any information here. It would be fine to add a note that some sources call(ed) it mucous based on another definition of mucous. The usage seems a bit confused indeed, eg Bullmer 1957 (PMID 13475148) avoids the mucous (and describes the hymen quite detailed btw) while I found one newer source that still described the vagina as mucous. The mucous membrane article should have a note on the other definitions. Richiez (talk) 22:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Then we are in agreement to go along with Axl's wording, and it's fine for one of us to go ahead and implement it. I also agree with your qualifier. And, yes, it might be best to note the mucous membrane issue there as well.
Axl, do you mind going ahead and adding the changes? You provided the sources and know which source or sources are best to use for your wording. Flyer22 (talk) 03:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I have added the text based on Wheater's Functional Histology. For the time being, I have included the word "adult". Use of this word implies that children have different histological findings. This is not stated in Wheater's Functional Histology. It requires a better source than Richiez's vague anecdotal recollection. I have not been able to find a source about this. I expect Richiez to look for a source too. If we are unable to find a source, I shall remove the word "adult". Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
In the fourth paragraph of that section, it says, "The membrane of the vaginal wall also produces moisture, although it does not contain any glands." So should we change this wording as well, or is it fine because it doesn't say "mucous membrane," makes clear that this membrane doesn't have any glands, and the paragraph goes on to mention that the cervix's mucus glands secrete different variations of mucus? Flyer22 (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I found one pubmed indexed source from 1993 indicating that it could be true but hope there would be a better one. Also I believe the acidic milieu resulting from estrogenic activity arises in the vagina itself which is another indication of at least some fluid transport. As a minor point, referring to stratified squamous and quite likely keratinized epithelium as a membrane is rather unusual and as long as we do not know how for sure what kind of fluid transport it is we should not claim the "membrane" or epithelium produces it. -- Richiez (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
So do you suggest rewording? And if so, how? Or just removing it? As we can see, it's unsourced anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
That paragraph is misleading at best. The article "Vaginal lubrication" is actually more accurate. I'll have a go at re-writing it. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I just found the following text from Guyton & Hall's Textbook of Medical Physiology, 12th edition, chapter 81: "Parasympathetic signals also pass to the bilateral Bartholin glands located beneath the labia minora and cause them to secrete mucus immediately inside the introitus. This mucus is responsible for much of the lubrication during sexual intercourse, although much is also provided by mucus secreted by the vaginal epithelium and a small amount from the male urethral glands." Comments please? Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
And from Ganong's Review of Medical Physiology, 23th edition, chapter 25: "During sexual excitement in women, fluid is secreted onto the vaginal walls, probably because of release of VIP from vaginal nerves. A lubricating mucus is also secreted by the vestibular glands."
I believe that Guyton is incorrect. Ganong is technically correct, but perhaps not detailed enough. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
The Bartholin glands are undisputed, as of fluid produced inside the vagina some sources that I found say there is transudation of (blood)plasma through the vaginal epithelium which is responsible for the moisture. So afaics it is not the "classical mucus". In particular PMID 590545 says "Albumin, alpha1-antitrypsin, ceruloplasmin, gamma chains, gamma G. K.". PMID 17539673 and PMID 19374746 do not seem to differentiate what is from cervical and vaginal origin. This is also interesting. Richiez (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I have not found any reference that indicates different histology in children. Richiez hasn't commented on this either. Therefore I have deleted the word "adult". Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b c d "Vagina". health.discovery.com. Retrieved February 11, 2012.

Recommendation to change See Also...

I would like to recommend changing Gynoecium to Gynaecology. Gynoecium talks about a particular part of plants and has nothing to do with human anatomy. Gynaecology is the study of the female reproductive system, which in this case does deal with human anatomy. Please and Thank you.

Bmhedgehog (talk) 03:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

My recent clarification: Vagina vs. vulva again

The "colloquial" use of the word "vagina," to mean the whole female reproductive system rather than just the tube this Article is about, is not sanctioned by the Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries. Therefore, it is incorrect, not merely "colloquial." I have checked both the Oxford and the Cambridge dictionaries, and changed that sentence in the Article to reflect this fact. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You were reverted. But this has been discussed before. See Talk:Vagina/Archive 3#Vagina vs. vulva. And, per what I stated in that discussion, I agreed (and still agree) that referring to the vulva as the vagina is incorrect. However, those who argue that it doesn't necessarily have to be defined as incorrect also have a point...since referring to the vulva as the vagina is just another definition for vagina (not to mention, that the labia minora, which is a part of the vulva, is often referred to as "the vaginal lips").
On a side note: I still contend that we shouldn't be saying "vulva or the female genitals in general"...considering that "vulva" covers the external female genitals and thus saying "vulva or the female genitals in general" makes it seem like there is more to the external female genitalia. Flyer22 (talk) 02:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I see "female genitals in general" was changed to "female reproductive system in general." The latter is worse because, aside from the vagina, there can be no doubt that people do not refer to the female reproductive system as the vagina. Flyer22 (talk) 02:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Note: It -- "female reproductive system in general" -- was reverted by the editor who added it. Flyer22 (talk) 03:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Issue with the Discharge section

I take issue with this:

Discharge The great majority of vaginal discharges are normal or physiological and include blood or menses (from the uterus), the most common, and clear fluid either as a result of sexual arousal or secretions from the cervix. Other non infective causes include dermatitis, discharge from foreign bodies such as retained tampons or foreign bodies inserted by curious female children into their own vaginas. Non-sexually transmitted discharges occur from bacterial vaginosis and thrush or candidiasis. The final group of discharges include the sexually transmitted diseases gonorrhea, chlamydia and trichomoniasis. The discharge from thrush is slightly pungent and white, that from trichomoniasis more foul and greenish, and that from foreign bodies resembling the discharge of gonorrhea, greyish or yellow and purulent (like pus).[34]

This completely excludes the daily discharge women experience (white, orderless, starts about a year before menstruation) and the discharge of ovulation.

This page covered it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaginal_discharge

But to say "The great majority of vaginal discharges are normal or physiological and include blood or menses (from the uterus), the most common, and clear fluid either as a result of sexual arousal or secretions from the cervix" is extremely misleading.


Transitional (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC) transitional


I'd like "or foreign bodies inserted by curious female children into their own vaginas" be removed from this section. It is grossly inappropriate and indecent to talk about children in this way when it is not at all necessary in explaining causes of vaginal discharge.

AmazingBouncingFerret (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC).

At the very least I would like the sentence changed to "...or foreign bodies." thereby speaking generally about vaginas and not unnecessarily making the sentence exclusively about children's vaginas. AmazingBouncingFerret (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

From what I keep reading about wiki and being not pov and some other I can post porn if I wanna seems like taboo is cool if it makes sense. I agree I think it's gross but if you change that then you just give people pissed about the pussy pic in the article more reason to demand it be removed. I agree to both. The kid thing should be dropped. And the pussy pic should be changed to something else. 72.169.224.103 (talk) 07:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done (Except for your cat picture.) It would be constructive if you could find reliable sources for a more appropriate coverage of that subtopic. Cesiumfrog (talk) 07:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Transitional, I don't know where to begin on your statements. I'd have to go in-depth regarding the "The great majority of vaginal discharges are normal or physiological and include blood or menses (from the uterus), the most common, and clear fluid either as a result of sexual arousal or secretions from the cervix." line, which I'm not inclined to do at the moment. What I will state is that we can only go by WP:Reliable sources, and WP:MEDRS specifically for the vaginal discharge topic. But it seems that Cesiumfrog has taken care of your concerns,[7][8] while taking care of AmazingBouncingFerret's.
AmazingBouncingFerret, if reliable medical sources state that one of the ways vaginal discharge is caused is by "foreign bodies inserted by curious female children into their own vaginas," I don't at all see how that is grossly inappropriate and indecent. It is certainly an issue that I believe would be relevant to most parents. We shouldn't exclude medical facts simply because they are distasteful to some people, even if referring to children. Refer to WP:NOTCENSORED. The "discharge from foreign bodies such as retained tampons" part of the line should also probably have been kept. However, I don't much mind these removals, and so I am not arguing that they be readded.
And, IP, you should also refer to WP:NOTCENSORED. The "pussy pic" is not porn in the way that you are making it out to be. It is educational/encyclopedic to show the location of the vaginal opening/what it looks like beyond a diagram. Flyer22 (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Vagina/Archive_4"