Talk:Cleft of venus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Protrusion?

In the uplinked image, the cleft-of-venus is clearly visible from an anterior (frontal) view, while the model is standing. In most images of undressed women, no part of the vulva is visible in an anterior view, [even if the model's bikini-area is perfectly shorn]; and it is only visible when she is sitting, or lying down, with her legs spread.

My question for the creator of this article is, "Is the 'cleft of venus', a phenomenon that is in any way correlated to the age of the model, (pre- or post-pubescent), and/or to the integrity of her hymen?

In virtually all images of undressed children, the genitals clearly protrude and are visible in an anterior view. In images of undressed women, however, the opposite seems almost universally the case. Since the model in the uplinked image is clearly a post-pubescent woman, this cannot be the sole explanation.

Please respond at your earliest convenience, since it could result in significantly more content for this article.Pine 04:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

IANADoctor but I think it has to do with the percent body fat of the individual not age. The larger thighs would tend to block the view. Let me check my skinny wife... --vossman 14:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you are confused, Pine and Vossman. If the pubis is shaved, the cleft of venus is always visible in an adult woman just as it is in a child. You are only partially right that the vulva itself is not visible from the front. This purely depends on how fleshy the clitoris and labia minora are. If they are very fleshy, they will protrude slightly from the cleft of venus and be visible and a small piece of flesh.Bobble2 15:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)Bobble2
Yes, I have often seen where the clitoral hood and the labia minora protrude from between the labia majora and can be seen from a frontal, standing viewpoint. I've also seen females where the clitoral hood and labia minora are NOT visible from a frontal, standing viewpoint. I've often heard and read that anatomy varies somewhat from person to person, and apparently this is true. Gringo300 05:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
And now illustrated Fishies Plaice 02:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Why has Pine seen so many pictures of naked children, in sufficient detail to make a close comparison between a child's genitals and an adult's? Is Pine a paediatrician or a specialist in genito-urinary medicine? It would be reassuring to know that his or her activities are lawful and what would generally be accepted as moral.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 09:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pudendal cleft

The term "pudendal cleft" is referred to in this link: [1] . i see no reason in the world why there should be two different WP articles for the exact same subject, so I am completing the merge by having Pudendal cleft redirect to this article. 71.161.201.133 03:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protruding labia minora image

I think Image:Vulva15Cropped.jpg is useful. Because it illustrates the part of the article that says "In some women the clitoral hood and labia minora protrude through the Cleft of Venus, in others they do not", and also because it illustrates part of the conversation above. Sometime the Cleft of Venus has protruding labia minora, sometimes it doesn't. Having two photos showing the natural variation is, IMO, useful for an article about the Cleft of Venus. Which is why I added Image:Vulva15Cropped.jpg. Could we discuss it here before just going into an rv cycle Fishies Plaice 16:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there any percentage to how many have protruding labia minoras and how many do not? Or How does it work?

[edit] "cameltoe"

is the second paragraph really needed?

"When tight clothes are worn, the fabric of the tight garment may be pulled into the cleft (often because of a central seam, as in jeans), resulting in a situation best known as the cameltoe, "beetle bonnet" or "moose knuckle" in slang terms." 66.92.0.36 22:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latin term?

Is there a Latin term for the Cleft Of Venus? Is so, it needs to be added to the article. Gringo300 06:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Offensive

Perhaps a drawing could be used as a picture instead of the photo. I was looking at random articles and I was a little taken back when the page came up. I could be wrong just thought I'd express my opinion.

I can understand why you might be surprised, but honestly I think the photo illustrates what it is better than a drawing or picture could. It's not like it is pornographic. It's just a picture of someone standing there...
I agree with the thread parent. Yes, it is just a picture of a crotch. Yes, not all crotches are pornographic. But, when it's more likely than not that the picture was taken by an exhibitionist getting kicks from having her genitals on a highly trafficed site, we should be wary. Also, doesn't wikipedia have a SFW policy?Agnamus (talk) 04:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
No, Wikipedia does NOT have a SFW policy. Wikipedia is not censored. See WP:NOTCENSORED. Furthermore, you shouldn't assume that she's just an exhibitionist, you have no way of knowing her motives. Asarelah (talk) 06:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:NOTCENSORED only tells us "some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content." This does not mean that (1) real photos are best for the purposes of the article, or (2) that in the event of a tie we should go with the real picture.
I think that we should go with a diagram. In addition to my aforementioned concern about exhibitionism, we can make an argument about openness. There are reasons why most anatomy books use diagrams and drawings rather than photographs. Using real photographs may be offensive to some readers. If a reader takes offense, they are excluded from learning. The opposite is not true--there is no way that drawings could be more offensive (and therefore exclusionary) than real pictures. Unless someone can conjure up an argument that real photos facilitate learning in a greater degree than comparable diagrams would, why should we exclude?
In re the image's creator: I have no way of knowing her motives. However, there is strong evidence for inferring that she's an exhibitionist. The WP:GOODFAITH commandment doesn't preclude the possiblity of bad faith on behalf of editors. Given the totality of the circumstances, we should at least question her motivations. This isn't a court of criminal law, and we don't have to hold her motives to a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. The burden of proof can go on either party and the standards of proof can vary as justice demands. I personally think that given the immense opportunity for exhibitionism inherent in the current system, users who submit self-created photos should have the burden of proof placed on them. But, this is the wrong forum for debating wikipedia policies in general.
Also, please don't talk down to me by telling me what I should and shouldn't assume. Let's keep it civil. Agnamus (talk) 01:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I apologize if I sounded like I was talking down to you. However, I think that a photo of something is far more informative than a diagram. If you wanted to learn about the World Trade Center, what would be more informative, a photograph, or a drawing? In regards to your inference that the model is an exhibitionist, well, like you said, this isn't a court of a law. And since this isn't a court of law, she doesn't have to prove or defend anything to you, or anybody. Furthermore, while I am admittedly not a doctor or medical professional, I have seen medical textbooks with photographs of people's genitals as well as diagrams. I think that it should be kept, and there is a well-established precedent for nudity in articles (see the talk pages and talk page archives of Penis, breast, and vulva) that has already been set. Asarelah (talk) 02:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
A drawing may be more useful. As was mentioned in the publicity for the new exhibition of botanical drawings at the Royal Botanical Garden at Kew, botanists find drawings more useful than photographs because they more faithfully represent the essential features of the flower or plant they are studying. Anybody who has studied just a little artistic theory of the Renaissance and beyond will know that an artwork has the capacity to attain higher standards of perfection than nature itself. It might be more useful to have what we might call an "idealised" vulva (anatomically ideal that is, not aesthetically). There are presumably about 2 billion adult females on this planet. It seems a little misguided to use a photograph of one woman's genitals to illustrate an article about female genitals in general. In the case of the World Trade Center it is the World Trade Center, not a world trade centre, so the analogy is false. Of course in an article about HM The Queen you would want a photograph of her and not just a drawing, but in an article about an ant an idealised drawing, showing all the essential features of the ant, would be be useful. You could, of course, have both.
On a related point, I wonder about the wisdom of having a photo of a woman who has no pubic hair. The natural state of the adult female human is to have the area around her genitals covered in hair and I believe the large majority of women do have pubic hair. Arguably the feature with which this article is concerned is more clearly visible without pubic hair. However, I think the hair could be brushed aside to make it more visible or the woman in the photograph could naturally have rather little pubic hair. Also, it makes more sense, to me, to display the woman's genitals as they actually are in life, and not as a minority of women choose to make them appear. Further to which, I am sure somebody better versed in feminism could make the argument that it is not a good thing to be reinforcing the notion already so popularised in pornography than pubic hair is, perversely, almost unnatural. Of course, if a drawing were to be used the case for leaving out pubic hair would perhaps be stronger as there would be no claim to representing a real woman. Alternatively, it could include a small amount of stylised pubic hair, thus illustrating that in its anatomically ideal form the vulva does have pubic hair, while not allowing it to obscure the rest of the drawing.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 09:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
If you've got a better image where it is visible and there is hair, then go ahead and put it up. If you've got a drawing, go ahead and put that up too. Asarelah (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV template

Please see the discussion at Talk:Human height#Listing of female and male. 68.163.233.173 21:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

And this is relevant to this article how? • Maurog • 22:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
It was important to point out that the unsourced slang terms you have now twice insisted on inserting are being inserted by one who has taken personal offense with me. You really have an uncooperative attitude, don't you see that? Are you depressed or something? Seriously, please back off: you slapped a vandalism warning on me, amidst what was OBVIOUSLY a content dispute. The person from 3O didn't say "well, the anon is obviously a vandal, let's ignore them", no, they said "hmm, you both have made a good point here, and here's my opinion." That is not how the 3O would respond to a vandal. So your repeated reference to me as a vandal shows you have some sort of personal umbrage against me. Why this is, I don't know.
Does anyone think it's appropriate to list other terms usually reserved for the vagina or vulva, in this article? Maurog has twice reinstated them: 1, 2. I don't think they should be included as none are sourced to refer specifically to the cleft of venus. 68.163.233.173 10:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Did I revert them after you finally provided some reasoning beyond "don't know" and "don't like" for what seemed like blatant deletionism? I didn't, complying to the link provided. This article is not POV disputed, and adding a POV tag does not make it so. • Maurog • 11:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)