Category talk:Female genitalia
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
[edit] For God's Sake See Sense and Don't Make Wikipedia a Porn Site
Wikipedia isn't a porn site, is it? The editors of the encyclopedia should ponder over this matter that this kind of explicit images make wikipedia "offensive to many." I cannot advise any of my students to search this encyclopedia just because of this kind of images. In many libraries, wikipedia is blocked or censured. So please try to be content with the text alone. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.147.165.70 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 25. Mai 2006
Although I like the pictures (I guess there's nothing wrong with that) we have to deal with what I consider to be retrogradous puritanism. This "explicit images" are "offensive" to puritan societies that consider anathomy a taboo subject because it is slightly related to sexuallity. Although I consider such censorship unnaceptable (perhaps we could upload some authopsy photos, as they wouldn't be censored as long as they didn't displayed any sexual organs along with severed heads or members), if those immages are used to prevent people from using such a great resource (and a very noble project), they should be removed or perhaps they should be replaced with a hyperlink with a warning. It's the XXI century, AIDS is chewing us up and we can't have anything "sexually explicit" in a FREE encyclopedia. It's ridiculous!
—the preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.155.117.207 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 20. Nov. 2006
Get over yourself. This isn't pornography, its an encyclopedia. If you have a problem with pictures of female anatomy, get off the site yourself. Don't keep such an amazing site away others.
--24.89.225.14 05:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I think its great, my girlfriend finally lets me take NUDES of her Vag, for "encyclopedic" purposes, since im doing it for all of society, she doesn't mind ^_^
scribebox —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.93.113.111 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 16. Apr. 2007
Hi all, yes, the pictures are not pornographic from an hard and fast point of view (refer to first statement of discussion about sexual arousal). However, it should be considered if there are some pictures showing exactly the same aspects of female genitals as others do and, consequently, those do not contribute anything to illustrate encyclopedic knowledge. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.146.220.38 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 27. Apr. 2007
Przecież to my ... natura ...
pl:Pornografia (gr. πορνογραφια – pisanie o lub rysowanie prostytutek) to przedstawienie ludzkich zachowań seksualnych, której celem jest wywołanie u odbiorcy pobudzenia seksualnego podobnego, ale odmiennego od erotyki.
en:Pornography or porn is, in its broadest state, the explicit representation of the human body or sexual activity with the goal of sexual arousal and/or sexual relief. (...) "pornography" (...) connotes the more direct, blunt or excessive depiction of sexual acts [than "erotica"], with little or no artistic value, intended for mere entertainment.
Gdzie tu jest jakaś pornografia?
I cant' see any pornography here. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.5.16.133 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 15. Dez. 2007
Unfortunately female genitalia are still a taboo in our society. The depiction of a real vulva (not only a drawing) should be as normal as that of a penis. A vulva is beautiful and the pictures on this page have nothing pornographic as there is clearly no sign of sexual arousal of the depicted genitals. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.27.185.253 (talk • contribs) 11:51, 25. Jan. 2007
- I agree, a vulva is beautiful. But I my eyes wikipedia was a page where even children could get information from - it WAS. It no longer is. I fear children could be influenced in a bad way. Open female genitals and erected male genitals are nice to see for adults. But I don't want it to be seen by children! As far as my information goes, genitals presented like this are porn! It's very pityful for an enzyclopedia to sink on this standard. -- 11:40, 25 October 2008 User:Tom666
[edit] What is this?!
Condoleezza Rice isn't a "female genitalia", is she? (about Condoleezza Rice.jpg) —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.66.202.92 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 4. Feb. 2008
- If you encounter a vandalistic classification, click on the thumbnail link to the individual image description page, and edit that. The incorrect information is not actually located "in" the category. AnonMoos 01:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
