Talk:Vulva/Archive 1 - Knowledge (XXG)

1837:

bare human feet are indecent). However, since Knowledge (XXG) cannot be all things to all people, its basic structure has, and inevitably must, privilege common beliefs over uncommon beliefs about what sort of material should be included in an encyclopedia and how it should be presented. For instance, the NPOV and verifiability policies appear to be directly derived from what the vast majority of people believe about how an encyclopedia should be written. Necessarily, this privileges those who believe in NPOV, verifiable encyclopedias (who can find the information they want in Knowledge (XXG)) over those who want encyclopedias full of hearsay and blatant partisanship (who won't find their information in Knowledge (XXG)). Clearly, therefore, we do not (and cannot) "merely provide information": we decide both what information to provide, and the manner in which the information is to be conveyed. We do not thereby tell readers that they should think that NPOV, verifiable information is good and that biased rumors are bad: we merely recognize what most readers want. Thus, given that the NPOV and verifiability policies do not constitute bias merely because they favor common beliefs about encyclopedias, neither is it bias for us to provide some deference to common sensibilities about what sort of material is "offensive" while ignoring uncommon and idiosyncratic sensibilities. Indeed, to some extent, such deference to common sensibilities has already been provided. For instance, consider the following from

1845:: "23:42, 5 February 2006 Jimbo Wales deleted "Template:User paedophile" (I'm sorry but just, no. I'm sure there's a CSD rule or three which covers this, but I honestly don't care. Just, no.)" Similarly, it is highly unlikely that the Arabic language Knowledge (XXG) includes graphic photographs of human genitalia in any form, because most Muslims would find such material to be extremely offensive. Since, in the English speaking world, a significant portion of readers would find graphic photographs of human gentitalia to be offensive and prurient while another significant portion of readers would view such photographs as educational and liberating, it is perfectly sensible, not biased, to accommodate both sensibilities by linking to such photographs in the articles but not displaying them inline. By contrast, since people who find bare human feet to be indecent are extremely uncommon, their sensibilities can be ignored, not out of bias against them but merely resulting efrom an objective recognition that their beliefs are very unusual, and such images can safely be displayed inline. 1961:

is the case, it is best to de-inline the material, and accompany the link with a short, accurate, NPOV description of the material that the reader will view if he or she follows the link. This principle is perhaps best illustrated with a real-life example. In the United States, even most nudists generally avoid nude sunbathing on beaches used by the general public, and instead sunbath nude on beaches specially designated for the purpose, with other people who share their interest in public nudity. This situation has arisen because of the offensiveness of public nudity to a significant portion of the general public. However, when persons of Islamic faith claim that even people wearing bathing suits on beaches are dressed indecently, such complaints are generally ignored, because the belief that people dressed in bathing suits are indecently exposed is extremely uncommon.

1812:

or believe in "shame over the human body", but because they feel that human sexuality is properly regarded as an expression of love between two people. Therefore, they are offended by viewing a photograph that is likely to be sexually provocative of a person with whom they have no relationship. However, we may also observe that there is another significant portion of readers who believe that images such as these should be included in the article -- not because they wish to offend people who unwittingly stumble upon these images, but because they believe that the images have significant educational value and thus improve the article. To the extent that such images are sexually provocative, this latter group of readers is likely to see the effect as a liberation of sexuality from the context of human relationships to which it has long been confined.

350:: “This is a proposal to regulate the policy on graphic images that could be potentially disturbing to Knowledge (XXG) users. The policy shall be discussed for a period of two weeks, also giving users a chance to draft their own policy proposals, and the voting will start on December 15 and last for one week.” For anyone who is disturbed by penis, clitoris, or any other body parts (including fingernails covered with certain shades of nail polish), that discussion and a subsequent voting seems to be a good place to voice your opinion in a way more reasonable than vandalism and edit wars like the one that is taking place on 1826:

particular group. It should merely provide information. Full stop. Only the individual user can decide what to think of that information. We should not presume to do some of that thinking for him/her. Otherwise, we should indeed have to censor images of the foot because there will certainly be some people who find them offensive. We cannot possibly presume to cater for all sensitivities, so we should cater for none. You are proposing that we give "anti-vulva image" people favoured status by "protecting" them from offense. Surely this is clear?

1051:, Ok, I have no wish to cause a war here, but I do think my image adds something by way of detail (sorry you object to Sarah's fingernails, but she is perhaps a little casual at times!). Could we compromise by using both images and indicating that one is a little more detailed than the other? My problem with the original image is that it does not really show all the relevant structures? Could an image of a perfectly normal vulva actually cause offence? Surely not? 2938: 31: 712:

Each of those images serves to illustrate a specific point raised in the article. The image that you seem compelled to keep adding to this article does not serve any such purpose, as near as I can tell. I worked to have the photo of the glans penis removed from the article because it did not serve any useful purpose. Unless you can explain what useful purpose the photo that you are obsessed with adding serves, I'll do the same here.

2069:; you're not likely to find even that many on any of the genitalia articles. I respect and appreciate your desire to keep Knowledge (XXG) from offending people, but the truth is, we just don't know how many people will be offended by any given picture. Longstanding Knowledge (XXG) tradition is that Knowledge (XXG) is not censored; regardless of whether this is actually censoring or not, the basic principle applies. 1458:

Then, the way I read it, about six of us say either it should stay, or make neutral/equivocal comments like, "People debate about which images to use ... all the time". By this time Bobble2 has been persuaded to crop the image and the debate moves on from the, I believe, rather hopeless cause of whether there should be 'rude' pictures on WP, to whether this one is better cropped or in its original form.

1033:, I was an OB/GYN nurse for over twenty years and I'm very familar with the standard for images of the female anatomy. Problem with your image include, the vulva is distorted making it look different than an actual vulva; and the fingers in the image are very unprofessional. The current image is fine for the average 12 year child who is going to be main person looking at the image. 2702:"These pictures sicken me": I hope you, sir, is not thinking about becoming a gynaecologist. No but seriously, could the world be more open... It makes me think about people that are afraid of insects or arthropods and say "Ewwwwwww" each time they see a spider or an ant. It's just the women physiology, take it easy man. Be more respectful to the vulva, that's where you came from! 1470:

they should do with their free time to re-shoot it, edit it or whatever. Many of us feel that the current illustrations are more than adequate and are happy with the contributions. There is no question that they will be permanently removed just because they are clear, explicit and of vulvas (vulvae?), that is an established policy, considering the page is called

2094:

look at those pictures and not be offended. I come here to learn and so I would take the time to look at those images if I wanted to know how it looks like up close, but those images caught me by suprise. And do they really need to be so big? Most articles thumbnails are not that large. It's also bothering to my eyes because I can't focus on the text. --

1205:

The trouble is that no-one else is, so someone comes up with a new, clear picture and the "oh, my, what about the children/fingernails/erection/wetness/dryness" brigade get going again until it's ruined too. Either crop it a little more until we have no idea what we're looking at (so we have to start again) or put it back as it was before, I say. --

2308:. Please take personal disputes elsewhere. Nigelj, if you have a problem with John254, it would be a good idea to contact him on his own talk page. And John254, if you have a problem with Nigelj, you may do the same. If there is a serious issue regarding personal attacks and/or POV that needs to be resolved, a good place to take it would be 2287:'s claim that I have made "unfounded and unreferenced claims regarding the feelings and sensibilities of a 'significant portion of readers'" I would observe that article talk pages are often used to debate inherently subjective editorial questions as to which most claims are necessarily unreferenced. Please note that 2836:

I would have thought that if kids in school look up pages such as this, they are likely either to be looking for such an image in order to cause trouble, or to have been told to look it up. I don't see that there is a case to remove images just because children might be watching, and this seems to be

2788:

I personally think that having two pictures is redundant, and I consider the one on the right especially unnecessary (and somewhat disturbing). I understand that Knowledge (XXG) is not censored for minors, but I personally believe that the second picture contributes nothing new - at most, revise one

1960:

The fact some people will always find something on Knowledge (XXG) to be offensive does not imply that we should never be concerned with whether a significant portion of readers is likely to find some particular visual material to be offensive, and whether, in light of an objective judgment that this

1479:

Please don't try to bully Bobble2 into using a picture that he is less happy with ("Couldn't agree with you more, mate. I am still puzzled as to what the problem was with my image"). The concensus seems clear that having images is not just OK but good, these images are good ones, and, of course, one

1469:

So, the points you raise: If you have an image that, in your opinion, illustrates the article more clearly, more professionally, with less stretching of skin or better lit, then please put it up for discussion. If you don't, then you can't really issue instructions to fellow-contributors as to what

1412:

Here's the thing about debating change on Knowledge (XXG): if you simply ignore the points that someone makes and ask, "what's the problem," then you never move forward. Please, feel free to respond to the issues I raised. Would anyone care to discuss the information at hand, and would the two people

1171:

Ok, thanks for the input everyone! Most democratic. I have now cropped off as much as I can without losing the labels and I have attempted a slight perspective correction to adjust the slight top (near) to bottom (far) distortion. Is it now acceptable? User Alenius appears to agree, at least, that it

864:

Honesly, I don't think its the kids that are complaining, its the parents who think that anything sexual should not be shown to the children. the images are not sexual in anyway. Besides lets say a 13 year old boy looks up vulva and lets say this boy was looking for porn. He would probably read the

2880:

policy, not to a current one. I was trying to guide you towards a policy change likely to help your cause. I wouldn't classify what I said as a rant. No doubt I could have written it as such but I was only trying to calm things down and avoid a 'revert war' where you might have ended up blocked from

1811:

I think that it is POV to make content decisions on the basis of the perceived reasonableness of our readers' beliefs. Rather, we should recognize, as a factual judgment, that a significant proportion of readers are likely to find images like these to be offensive -- not because they are "anti-sex"

1800:

Oh dear oh dear! Let's not get ridiculous about this! We should not pander to prudes. What if someone happenes to object to images of the foot? Should we hide those too? The vulva is a part of the human body. There is nothing obscene or depraved about it. For God's sake - we are in the 21st century.

1523:

re-take it, I think the ideal end-product would be two images, taken with the camera in the same position relative to the model, one with the labia relaxed, and another with them manually retracted (spread using fingers). As of right now, I don't think there are any photos of the same person in both

1516:

First, I think thanks are due to you and your wife (she in particular) for submitting the image. I think it's a distinct improvement over what we had before. If you felt like re-shooting the image there's certainly room for improvements, but at the moment I think it's the best image of the vulva and

1204:

Well, now it's so zoomed-in that you have no context, and it's barely recognizable. I think that's what always happens to these images: a few people want them zoomed, cropped, distorted, tinted, de-saturated, faded out and messed around with until they are barely recognizable, then they're happy.

838:

I don't see how it might provoke a feeling of disgust. Young children don't even have a capacity to feel anything unnatural about nudity. It's only after you've grown up in a society that shuns and abhors nudity for a few years that you start to get that "nudity is a shameful and disgusting thing"

559:

Knowledge (XXG) is not a soapbox. We should strive to find the best picture or pictures we can find, and we should endeavor to write accurate, cited, and neutral articles. But we should not add content to articles with the goal of persuading or trying to make readers feel better about themselves.

516:

I would like to stress that given that Knowledge (XXG) is inadvertantly informing people around the world what a "normal" vulva looks like, the vulvas of women of color need to be included, especially given that there are different phenotypes found more commonly in some ethnic groups than in others.

2093:

There are spoiler tags for summaries on books, movies, TV shows, etc. Why can't there be something like that for certain types of images that a user may not want to view here? What if there are virgins who have never seen a vulva? That would spoil it for them (I'm just joking). Personally, I could

1825:

But by "censoring" the content you would be effectively endorsing the vailidity of a position (and only one of many possible positions) that sees something wrong with showing a part of the body. Don't you see? Knowledge (XXG) is purely an information resource and should not reflect the mores of any

1463:

It seems to me that the concensus is that it was better before (Nigelj, Bobble2, 84.67.212.109), so I edit the article to show the original image. Then I am surprised to see that Bobble2 reverts me, and Harmil accuses us of edit-warring! At the same time, Harmil and FloNight re-appear and want to

2727:

With appologies to Bobble, as has been stated previously, the Sarah picture should be replaced with "Vulvabigopen2(english).jpg" I have no problem with the content of the current picture, but the picture itself is distorted, amateurish and (dispite the labels) better suited to a porn site than an

1497:

Hear, Hear! Thanks everyone. I genuinely believe we have an image that is more illustrative and informative. That is why I put it there in the first place! Phew! Anyway, I have cropped it, so please let's just have an end to this debate. Leave things as they are and move on. BTW just a minor point

1291:

I disagree. The new image is superior, precisely from an encyclopedic point of view. It shows things much more clearly than the other picture. I see you point about "having everything" but as this article is about the vulva (which covers all the sub-structures) it's important to have a good image.

1094:

I think we need one image of the vulva in the "normal" state. I would be open to a second image if it looked more professional. Editing out the fingers would greatly improve it. (I would like to see the final product before I say for sure.) Could you fix it and put it on the talk page for comment?

583:

what an encyclopedia is about. There are obvious copyright problems associated with the images she cites, but there is no reason why her points cannot be made somewhere in the main article here, and maybe one day illustrated by copyright-free and suitable images donated by kind contributors. And

510:

I feel that in view of the plastic surgery trend where women are having their labia altered in order to better match up to the "ideal" (i.e porn star) pussy, that it is extremely important that Knowledge (XXG)'s definition show a wide variety of vulvas, and perhaps even include ones which have had

2006:

Just to be another voice backing Al and Bobble2 up, I thought I'd pitch in. If you are offended by a picture of a vulva, then you have some issues to work out. I mean, for starters, you came out of one! Depending on your sex, you may have one yourself; depending on your sexual orientation you may

1836:

De-inlining images which photographically depict human genitalia would indeed "give... favored status" to the sensibilities held by significant numbers of readers (not wishing to view pictures of human genital organs) while ignoring extremely uncommon, idiosyncratic sensibilities (the belief that

1815:

We should recognize both views, but we need not endorse either of them. Instead, we could accommodate both views by retaining images such as these in the article, but only displaying them to readers who express an interest in viewing them. "Images of the foot" and other images which, based on a

711:

page — without admitting for a moment that we need to maintain "parity" — I count three images, conceptually: one biological illustrated diagram, one series of two photos showing the penis in flaccid and erect states, and one series of two photos comparing circumcised and uncircumcised penises.

1457:

I've just looked through this whole debate again in detail. First, Harmil, no-one is edit-warring, so please don't try to escalate the language. The way I read it is that we have two people, Harmil and FloNight saying either that the image should go, or that it should be altered or be re-shot.

421:

Do nothing now, as there's not really a problem now. Revist this if it ever becomes a widespread problem that can't adequately be handled on a case by case basis on individual article talk pages as it is now. Policy should only ever be developed on an as needed basis, as excessive policy is both

2690:

As much as the images have been debated, I would like to ask if they could be moved down on the page, so they don't appear flashing right in your face as you open the page. I'm foreign, from Europe- and I had no idea what the word "Vulva" meant so I looked it up and this is not quite what I was

2147:

know that is going to complain about seeing a pussy on the internet? "Scarred for life", please - he's likely going to be seeing a lot more of those in not too long. Lookup where the IP is from - guarenteed all his neighborhood friends are going to be on this article a lot. "Bullshit" called.

2557:

Precisely. One of the issues I think is relevant here is that high school text books would lead one to beleive that all genitals are the same. Indeed there are wide variation between individuals, not to mention differences based on race, age, and whether they have given birth. More is merrier.

1789:

I suggest that the vulva photographs be de-inlined, so that they will be displayed on the article page as shown here. We would still preserve access to the photographs for readers who wished to view them, but they would not be obtrusively displayed to readers who do not want to view explicit

1610:

I think the dirty-fingernails photo should either be re-shot after the model has an opportunity to clean her nails, or replaced by an equally illustrative photograph that doesn't feature dirty nails. No offense -- I understand that people's nails get dirty. I just think that the dirty nails

1218:

Couldn't agree with you more, mate. I am still puzzled as to what the problem was with my image. It seems to me to be most "encyclopedic" as it shows the relevant things. Quibbling about the cleanness of my dear wife's fingernails seems somewhat irrelevant! If there are no more comments, I'll

185:

Here are two images that might be a little more aesthetically pleasing than the current. The only way in which these images are inferior to the one currently on the page is that the clitoris glans is covered by this female's larger clitoral hood. On the other hand, these images are far higher

2471:

Now, I'm trying to assume good faith here. As I'm sure most editors know, we have an ongoing debate on these articles with ultra-conservatives of all descriptions, some of whom would like to see all 'rude' pictures, words and ideas banned from everywhere. Offer up any excuse to delete an

998:

I am rather astonished at the apparently prudish and censorious attitudes being expressed here! Good grief - what century are we in! The photo shows all the relevant anatomy and so is surely encyclopedic, ie descriptive and explanatory. It is not in any way titillating or attempting to be

999:

pornographic. Your decision to edit out his picture is based purely on subjective criteria and, surely to most people's opinions, criteria which are outdated and even sexist (ie the female genitals are "shameful" in some way). You would never get this reaction to a picture of a penis!

2456:

There seems to be a number of people now patrolling these articles on sexual matters and removing, or advocating the removal of illustrative images on the basis that they are 'cluttering' up the articles, and that there are simply too many of them: For very recent examples see

1430:, I agree with the points you made above. My biggest concern is that the vulva is distorted. Trying to get detail, the anatomy is stretched so it is not an accurate view. We need an image that shows a vulva the way it usually appears. There are other articles that show the 1278:

should carry on a debate over the image. If it is strong enough to stand on its own, then it is worthy of Knowledge (XXG), but involving the photographer and spouse of the model means that there is a personal stake in this, and that seems to be a bad idea all around, no?

2176:

Just adding my voice - WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSORED - PERIOD. Prudes can go to that imaginary hot place the believe in that is presided over some fallen angel or something and supposedly tortures them for all time (ok, i know exactly what all if it is.. i'm being obtuse)

2825:

We do not need phots, a diagram would be just fine. If you ever want wiki to be taken seriously as a reference, we can't have images that kids in school would get in trouble for having on the screen. There is no need that a diagram of an illustration cannot be used.

1332:

The least of my concerns are the fingernails, though that's certainly distracting. The redundancy, deformation and bad lighting are my big concerns. Others have said that they feel the other picture does not work, but I think that's a problem with point of view (not

1641:

Knowledge (XXG) is meant to be for a diverse, worldwide audience, but all we have is two pictures of a white woman's vulva. To provide a diverse POV, pictures of all different race's of women's vulva are needed. We need at least 10 more pics to cover this problem.

1498:

about "distortion" and the idea that my pic is somehow not an "accurate view"?! What is the "accurate" state of a vulva? When it is completely closed so you can't see the details being illustrated? It is hardly "unnatural" for a woman to hold her vulva open? Sigh.

267:

The image, while generally good, should label the vaginal opening and the approximate location of the urethral opening. Arguably, most men/boys interested in learning about the vulva want to know where the vaginal opening and the clitoris are, for obvious reasons.

1892:

I repeat, we should not pander to these views. The idea that the vulva is offensive is just absurd. It is plain wrong and should be ignored. The vulva is only a part of the body! It is 100% natural and cannot possibly be offensive to any sensible person. This is

2472:

illustration and you will instantly have a good few supporters from among their number. So, is there a new WP policy somewhere that we must reduce the number of images in large and popular articles? If so, please post a link to it here. I am familiar with

2902:

I am not going to get into a revert war, it is just sad is all. A few people here are so adament about putting distasteful pics on here when a less offensive just as informative alternative is easily available, and they do it for no apparent reason at all.

2494: 2261:: "A sermon is an oration by a prophet or member of the clergy. Sermons address a Biblical, theological, or religious topic, usually expounding on a type of belief or law." To my knowledge, nothing I have posted to talk pages is even remotely close to a 2107:

It's widely agreed that images are good. Featured articles all have at least one relevant image. Many encyclopedias contain similar images. The size of the images may be a little large, but shrinking them is problematic because of the text labels.

1947:

You may be right. We'd have to replace Knowledge (XXG) with a blank page, and hope that the color of that blank page doesn't offend someone. I'm told that white is the color for funerals in some parts of Asia; perhaps it would be seen as offensive.

511:

operations performed on them (clitorectomies, etc.). As another contributor stated, vulvas come in all shapes and sizes, and the claim by one of contributiors that inner labia are generally minute reveals his/her ignorance about the variety out there.

1267:

The most important of those is really the redundancy. This article does not need to have everything, as it stands in unison with the various articles that cover the details. The existing image lists all of the important parts and is well composed.

2500:

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not "patrolling" the sexual articles on this basis specifically. It's simply that the sexual articles seem to be more problematic than most in terms of clutter. I have yet to encounter an edit war on, say,

882:

Look, if God thought it was disgusting & shameful, he wouldn't of let us be born naked. Your body is beautiful, but keep it to yourself. We should all learn its beauty, but learn selfcontrol over its sexuality. Not to become sexually immoral.

1121:

To be frank, the current side-view image isn't all that clear, while the finger-spreading one shows more. Having said that, I wouldn't be opposed to zooming and cropping to focus on the vulva, eliminating the fingers and other extraneous areas.

1671:

and take this at face value. There's a link at the bottom that leads to a web site dedicated to showing vulval variations, so we don't need to do this ourselves. Besides, there's some truth to the saying about seeing one and seeing them all.

978:

I'm not sure that I agree with FloNight's statement. The previous and now current picture has the virtue of looking more like what one would actually see "naturally", but the image that she has deleted, by spreading out the folds of tissue,

2229:

I am starting to get seriously offended by John254's preaching and sermons to the editors of Knowledge (XXG) on these talk pages. Is there some way I can view my watchlist without being subjected to his lengthy and self-righteous epistles?

2924:

Can we stop redirecting slang terms, and provide a summary of each? It'd be interesting from a language standpoint, and some of the terms might be worth having their own article (e.g. "Minge", and how it's unique to British slang only)

1559:

This really isn't a very good picture. There's smegma around the clitoris and the fingernails are filthy. (Yecch!) We really need a better picture of a vulva being held open, preferably by someone with a basic concept of hygiene.

233:? It contains two image-links which point to deleted(?) images. I presume the whole block of stuff surrounding the links should be deleted, but I am hesitant to do so, since I haven't really figured out this whole image-thing. -- 2236:, but I'm very worried about children and minors coming across his unfounded and unreferenced claims regarding the feelings and sensibilities of a "significant portion of readers", about which he apparently knows so little. -- 600:

I concur with Artofthehidden's objection. The pictures lead to an inherently biased definition. Assumptions based on predominant images in pornography should not influenced the definition of what consitutes a "normal" vulva.

2200:

The article it self seems a clunky - why don't we move the second picture down a bit, so that it breaks it up a little. I'm not sure how to do this, unfortunately, so I won't do this myself, but I think it would look better

504:

Diagrams? No. But we do need more pictures of vulvas. The penis page comes with numerous photos displaying the variety of coloring, shapes, and sizes penises come in, and this is important to do---I'll explain why in what

1271:

There is a minor point of Knowledge (XXG) conduct here, as well. This is essentially an autobiographical picture (in so far as the photographer/uploader is the spouse of the model in question), and that really means that

989:! Let's get another picture of the same vulva three or four weeks later, and maybe we'll get an image appropriate for another article dealing with vaginal infections or something of that sort. Gross! (Maybe a diagram 2854:

Looking at this talk page and the pages of the others I edited before you gave me your little rant about how policy allows it, it looks like I am not the only one who has an issue with the photos. Did you even read

706:

First off, there is no "equality" to be had. Each article in an encyclopedia needs to stand on its own merits. When examining a picture, we need to ask what they add to the article. To look at the images on the

1349:

detail. This article most needs to give us the whole, vulva as it is typically seen. That's not at all what the new image does. So I ask the obvious question: why did we need this picture to illustrate the vulva?

2856: 2735:

Well I for one totally disagree with this unsigned comment. The picture suggested has a very strong overall colour-cast, is way over-cropped so as to have no context or scale and is in general less informative.

334:

I'm going to lock this page for a little while due to a revert war that is happening (I locked it a few hours after the last revert). I would appreciate it if we could talk about it on this talk page first. -

2476:, but that refers to articles with too many pictures for the current amount of text and recommends 'image queuing' on the Talk page until the article gains more text. That isn't the case in these examples. 1249:

article (though it should be cropped down to just the clitoris itself for that page), and the entrance to the vagina which already has a far more professional picture (in diagram and photograph formats) at

2539:. You wouldn't allow an article to contain 5 paragraphs that repeated the same thing over and over, and neither should you allow an article to contain 5 images that repeat the same thing over and over. 2479:

If there is no current policy to support "uncluttering" WP of it's illustrative images, then it will appear that some of these deletions may be a subtle attempt to censor these articles, by another name.

2527:

I'm sure there are people who want to eliminate all sexually explicit images from Knowledge (XXG). I'm not one of them. I have a firm track record of opposing censorship: articles on sexual topics

1524:

positions; it would be useful if there was. But like I said before, right now I think it's the best depiction out there, and I think the critical comments about aesthetics are totally out of line. --

579:

guidelines, I don't think that Artofthehidden was suggesting any kind of soapbox. I think she has some good points about modern, popular culture and and the partial ignorance of some. That is

260:

Dear God, I never thought I could find that kind of ugly picture just browsing by clicking "ramdom Page". To make it short, I don't like it at all and think we should just find a good drawing ...

2497:. However, if you think that this means that we should not be constantly on the lookout for ways to improve the appearance and readability of our articles, then we will have to simply disagree. 1441:

In all honesty, the inclusion of the fingers in the image is unprofessional and unencyclopedic. I've looked at images of vulvas in medical publications for 30 years and I've never seen fingers!

749:

Shouldn't there be some kind of warning on/before this page about the image contained on it? I'm pretty sure some parents wouldn't like their young children looking at a picture of a vulva. --

2521:

vagina into the article. This ends up sometimes "compromising" by saying "Well, let's just have 6 images of penises in the "penis" article!" And that is, not to put too fine a point on it,

1912:

Oh, no doubt that it offends some people, but we can't avoid offending everyone and we shouldn't try. If we did that, we'd be reduced to a few bland articles about letters of the alphabet.

1366:

If I won't be egged for a "me too", may I just weigh in on the side of the "Sarah" picture. It is clear, well captioned, not salacious, and appropriate. I think both images should stay. --

677:

Well, there is only ONE pic here, and the penis page has 4 pictures. So what does it hurt to have one ugly labeled one, and one nice looking pic to demonstrate the cultural shaving phenom?

2691:

expecting. These pictures sicken me, but I realize they are important so all I ask is that they would be moved down, making them a tad less shocking to viewers than they currently are. -

937:

This statement is rather strongly speculative, and certainly not encyclopedic. I think we can simply make the point that there are similar numbers of pain receptors and leave it at that. -

2775:

I think we do, in fact, more would be better - the second shows a more clinical 'spread' of the internal parts, but some more naturalistic shots showing natural variation would be good.

2605:

page has many more pictures than here. Furthermore, why are there no pictures of brown/yellow/black pussy? Even though they are all the same colour (pink) inside, it simply isn't fair.

2372:

Filthy picture of vulva has been removed. It is simply distasteful as the puss seems diseased. One anotated pic of the organ is enough. Have some decency and class, man. G. Mitterand

2120:

I clicked on 'random article' and found this. I am 12 and I would prefer not to see enormous pictures of female parts, thank you. Knowledge (XXG)'s ingorance has scarred me for life.

1852:

generally refers to some effort to prevent people from obtaining information. De-inlining the images doesn't obstruct anyone's access to them, it merely avoids inadvertent exposure.

1801:

If some people are shocked by looking at the human body, then quite frankly, they should get a life! We should certainly not be pandering to their absurd, personal limitations here!

2513:

guy's, but the sexual articles are constantly besieged by editors who — for whatever reason — have decided that the most important thing in the entire world is to add a picture of

347: 464:

Maybe we should get some different images...those photos are not the prettiest ones of the female genitalia that I have ever seen. Generally the inner labia are not so visible.

2395:

Did you even read the discussion on this topic above? Did you know that picture was of a fellow editor's wife? Did you intend your message to be insulting to that person?

1970:

Whether or not a "significant portion" of readers are offended is speculation at best. I have seen a fair number of complaints regarding medical photographs in articles like

2065:? If it's not clear to you yet, there is strong resistence to hiding images behind links here on Knowledge (XXG). I'm surprised you found as many supporters as you did at 2042:

EXACTLY!! Their easily offended sensibilities are utterly ludicrous and absurd and deserve no place in any civilised conversation. Ignore them. End of story. End of topic.

2587:

I agree that thoes aren't perfect images... maybe the thumbs could be smaller, so ppl would click if interested, and wouldn't click if they feel its not right to them...--

455:

I am going to remove the image (Image:Vulva.jpg)until we get some proof that it the uploader either ownes copyright to the photo or permission has been given to use it. --

2712:

Quite. There are many things that individuals may find distasteful, I, for one, feel sickened by the picture of George Bush on that page. The solution? Don't visit it...

2495:

Knowledge (XXG):Don't Have Articles Look Really Ugly By Being Cluttered Up With A Bunch of Redundant Images That May Or May Not Have Anything To Do With The Topic At Hand

1599:

Good heavens, I didn't even notice the fingernails until I read this discussion. I continue to think the image is an excellent complement to the "closed vulva" image.

2728:

encyclopedia. The replacement proposed shows the same information, and while perhaps not up to featured picture status, is a vast impovement over the current picture.

983:

give us more "encyclopedic" detail, much as a diagram would. But what amazed me was what you see when you download and blowup the image—my god those fingernails are

641:

was the term for the male version of the cameltoe -- when a man's clothes are so tight that the outline of his testicles and penis are clearly visible. Anybody else?

1548:

I think the fingers help give an idea of the relative size of the vulva. Perhaps having the penis style, erect/flacid image but relaxed/spread might be an idea --

2806:

While I do not believe that either picture is "disturbing" (they are both photographs of healthy body parts...), I agree that there seems no need to have two. --

890:

It is pathetic to see how many people believe that humans must be born without nipples buttock or genitals in order to be acceptable. GROW UP YOU GYMNOPHOBES!!

1930:

Steady on! The alphabet? Are you sure? Doesn't the letter "I" symbolize the erect penis and the letter "O" the vagina? Pure filth if you ask me! Ban them all!!

1200:

Can I ask what you think is distorted? The colours on my image are better. The clitoral hood image has a peculiar colour tint on it - looks orangey, somehow?

1702:

I think your underestimating. With all the sub-racial categories and taking into account interracial people, we need at least 50 photos to cover all bases.

311:

Concur. Although I disagreed with the reason for changing my word, I left the edit alone because I concede that "introduced" has less potential to confuse.

2269:'s selection of these particular words in describing my comments appears to be an implicit personal attack against me, based on the religious beliefs that 2143:

Someone point out to me the last 12-year-old you know that writes that well and uses words like 'prefer', 'ignorence', etc. Also, what 12-year-old boy do

2661:. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out 2617: 2431: 2375: 2123: 2531:

have a reasonable number appropriate images. That is no excuse for not being dedicated and conscientious editors. Editing is about deciding what to

901:

there are already individual articles for various other parts of the vulva. so why shouldn't there be an individual article for the vulval vestibule?

2186:

I find censorship offensive. If you're looking up the entry on 'Vulva' what do you expect? Should the text body of the article be de-inlined too? --

1232:

I think the image you posted a couple of weeks ago was fine. It didn't need to be cropped. It was called Sarah, or something. It was a good image.

303:: "wicked" isn't a spurious word. Obscure, perhaps: "wick, v. To convey or be conveyed by capillary action". That said, "introduced" is clearer. 154:

If whoever uploaded Image:Clitoris.jpg could remove the zoomed box, it would do well for an illustration on (or at least a link from) this entry.

1743:

I believe the model should shave down there, because the hair is disturbing and gets in the way and distracts people from the subject area - anon

839:

bias. Remember, before we evolved the brains to make clothing (which was pretty recently), we were nude for millions upon millions of years. --

176: 2658: 1575:

How dare you! Please do not be so rude. My wife has generously allowed this image to be used and I think the least you can do is respect her!

1260:

The model is deforming the area in question, not just parting the vaginal orafice. This is a very serious problem for an encyclopedic picture.

1474:. Finally, this is not a medical publication, but a general-consumption encyclopedia, and it is not 30 years ago either: times have changed. 1313:

a distraction), it should be simple enough to take care of. He says that it's his wife, let her get a manicure and take the picture again.

696:

Yeah, but how about some equality with the male genital pages. Four pics there, one diagram and labeled pic here. Let one more picture go.

1309:

You know, whether one agrees or not with the point of the cleanliness of the fingernails (and I submit, when the image is seen at full size

100:

It's strange that photos of Penis are allowed but photos of Vulva have been removed, though both originate from the same site (alt.sex FAQ,

2629: 547: 2654: 2637:

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Knowledge (XXG) is a

2548:

Yeah but every Intellivision looks the same, whereas every vulva is different. There's something to be said for illustrating variety.

2387: 380: 1658: 2135: 1399: 2443: 2277: 2253:. Additionally, I believe that my comments on article talk pages have been legitimately related to content decisions, and that 2250: 962:

The vulva image with fingers is unencyclopedic. Do not put this image on the article with out widespread community consensus. --

2857:

Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject_Sexology_and_sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines#When_possible.2C_avoid_images_that_are_likely_to_offend

794: 788:

Oh yeah, I forgot about that, next time I'll remember. As for whether it's encyclopedic, I think it is. Well thanks anyways. --

755: 2672: 2662: 2233:

I note that it has already been suggested that he "might enjoy making contributions through the Christianity WikiProject"

1816:

factual judgment, are unlikely to be offensive to a significant portion of readers should remain coded for inline display.

443:

Please refrain from adding images that just show the vulva when we already have a more informative one. I am referring to

2762:

Do we actually need 2 pics in the article? I would think the second one is sufficient as it shows all the salient bits!--

2493:

I agree with you that there is no explicit Knowledge (XXG) policy or guideline, that I could find, called something like

681: 1718: 1337:

in the Knowledge (XXG) sense). What this article really needs, IMHO, is a picture to compliment the other pages such as

529:

This link describes practies such as labia stretching (large inner labia was considered beautiful in several cultures):

2166:

I call bullshit, someone see if that IP matches up with one of our known pro-censorship idealogues and ban them if so.

248:

I dared to be bold and included the picture of a vulva (quite conveniently already with explanations) that I found at

477:

What a horrible thing to say. Vulvas come in all types of variations. Many women's inner labia are quite visible.

2945: 2007:

visit one regularly. Vulvas are everywhere, and there's no point in trying to censor them here on Knowledge (XXG).

817:

What kind of warning did you have in mind? "The following images may provoke a feeling disgust in small children"?

730:

I reverted and removed the shaved image. I agree that is not needed in this article in this general encyclopedia.--

172:

A picture of a human vulva that I find aesthetically more pleasing, but doesn't show the clitoris glans or urethra.

38: 2288: 1990:

Let me be clear; I don't care one bit if they're offended. Knowledge (XXG) is not censored. If someone comes to

2859:, and can you honestly tell me that photographic images are essential to the information given in the article? -- 210: 2625: 282:

The picture here should be probably changed, once PhiloVivero deletes the copyright notice from the new one. -

543: 615:

I just added a link with a good series of drawings showing the development of the vulva from child to adult.

2490:

I'm glad that you're trying to assume good faith. Based on your comments, though, I urge you to try harder.

2383: 2318: 2013: 1872:

is expecting to see vulvas. I don't see any such exposure as inadvertent. Knowledge (XXG) is not censored.

1654: 2578: 2265:. Alternatively, if the words "preaching", "sermons", and "epistles" are used in a metaphoric sense, then 2149: 1706: 1646: 1395: 1387: 775:. The question is whether the image is encyclopedic. On the whole, I think it's fairly representational. 673:

i concur with the other complaints about the inordinate number of images on this page depecting the vulva.

535: 1013:

page all the time. A lot of this has to do with esthetics, which is of course largely a matter of taste.

432: 105: 2621: 2178: 2167: 1612: 416:

Actually one of the proposals (reproduced below) gained a strong consensus, with 33 for and 5 opposing.

2379: 2131: 1263:

The dirty fingernails are a minor point, but distracting from the subject matter at hand, none the less.

1233: 915:

article? If it couldn't possibly be a featured article, it should probably be part of another article. —

884: 276: 2838: 2703: 1650: 1549: 1257:

The photograph is poorly taken. There is substantial washout from what is obviously a cheap fill flash.

297: 182:

The same picture, without text or copyright information to allow for translations into other languages.

2127: 2061:

So, John254, what makes you think this proposal would gain any more traction than the one you made at

1391: 1293: 911:

Because it's not that important or complex? A good guideline is to ask yourself, could this ever be a

818: 325:

The clitoral hood is analogous to the foreskin, not the scrotum, right? The article seems to disagree.

2986: 2978: 2973: 2439: 722: 336: 79: 71: 66: 2668: 2406:

Thank you Lt Powers! I am reverting this image as the general consensus was to keep it. Thanks all.

2270: 1766: 1621: 799: 760: 539: 280: 602: 186:

resolution, are in colour, are better lit, and are available for adding text in other languagues.

166: 2882: 2842: 2763: 2693: 1710: 1449: 1183: 1150: 1103: 1041: 970: 916: 121: 680:

This page is not about the cultural shaving phenomenon. Perhaps you should place that image on

1848:

Additionally, some deference to common sensibilities is not "'censoring' the content", because

1413:

edit-warring of the article please join the conversation and leave the article alone for now? -

2776: 2713: 2650: 2559: 2333: 2028: 1978:, etc, but I have seen far more people speak in defense of the photographs than against them. 428: 576: 2588: 2291:

only "determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace".

2062: 1838: 1714: 1142:

is much better. We need at least one image of the vulva in the normal state. Not distorted.

866: 448: 234: 187: 2473: 2309: 2280:: "There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them." 2249:'s statement "about which he apparently knows so little" is a personal attack. Please see 1668: 772: 517:

Should a Knowledge (XXG) staff member request it, I will send in a picture of my own vulva.

2435: 405: 1782:{{linkimage|Sarahvulva_crop.jpg|Labelled picture of the external human female genitalia, 898:

it's been suggested that the vulval vestibule article be merged into the vulva article.

2540: 2359: 1690: 1525: 1014: 902: 789: 776: 750: 713: 685: 660: 624: 561: 478: 312: 269: 261: 137: 1464:

take the whole argument back to the beginning with let's delete it and/or re-shoot it.

1138:

Many of the parts of vulva have their own article with more detail. IMO, the image on

2676: 2549: 2502: 2416: 2396: 2222:

Off topic discussion from July 2006, moved from a separate page to here for archiving

2158: 2109: 2083: 2070: 1979: 1765:{{linkimage|HumanVulva-NewText-PhiloViv.jpg|Labeled picture of external human female 1749: 1733: 1600: 1583: 1561: 1442: 1193: 1143: 1139: 1135: 1096: 1061: 1048: 1034: 963: 731: 530: 304: 155: 132:. The issue isn't that no one wants to allow a vulva to be seen, but that there are 2355: 2790: 2789:

of them to include all of the anatomic details listed and delete the other one. --

2746: 2407: 2327: 2313: 2292: 2187: 2095: 2043: 2022: 2008: 1995: 1962: 1949: 1931: 1913: 1894: 1873: 1853: 1827: 1817: 1802: 1791: 1673: 1633:

Are there any visual signs of female sexual arrousal? If there is why not compare?

1576: 1539: 1499: 1367: 1220: 1173: 1162: 1123: 1087: 1052: 1030: 1000: 699: 642: 495: 283: 253: 197: 2505:

where editors were fighting over whether the picture of an Intellivision would be

444: 1378:

I prefer the Sarah image too. Just keep both. What's the problem with doing that?

1245:

It's redundant with the exception of the exposed clitoris, which could go on the

1196:

article better. There is less distortion of the vulva and the parts are labeled.

2953:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2807: 2737: 2481: 2284: 2266: 2257:'s characterization of such comments as "preaching and sermons" is false. From 2254: 2246: 2237: 2066: 1485: 1427: 1414: 1351: 1280: 1206: 938: 589: 523: 456: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

1667:

No we don't, and I wonder whether you know that already, although I'm going to

1582:

I'm sorry, I didn't know she was your wife. Please accept my humble apologies.

2954: 2904: 2860: 2827: 2608:

also i believe a picture of a elephant cow's pussy is justified to mirror the

1849: 119:

A photo of a vulva is due here, either that or eliminate the penis photo too.

47: 17: 932:

This would surprise many females that think a kick to the vulva doesn't hurt.

2204: 1686: 947: 840: 465: 1994:

and is shocked to see a picture of a vulva, then there's no help for them.

1182: 623:

i think labia majora and labia minora should redirect to labia, not vulva.

165: 1786:, with the labia held apart to reveal the clitoris and inner structures.}} 1772: 1431: 1338: 1246: 390: 374: 363: 355: 351: 249: 242: 218: 214: 164:

It's been replaced (by an image whose copyright/license isn't disputed).

148: 2907: 2885: 2863: 2845: 2830: 2810: 2793: 2779: 2766: 2749: 2740: 2716: 2706: 2696: 2679: 2591: 2581: 2562: 2552: 2543: 2484: 2419: 2410: 2399: 2362: 2336: 2295: 2240: 2207: 2190: 2181: 2170: 2161: 2152: 2112: 2098: 2086: 2073: 2046: 2031: 2000: 1982: 1965: 1954: 1934: 1918: 1897: 1878: 1856: 1830: 1820: 1805: 1794: 1752: 1736: 1693: 1676: 1624: 1615: 1603: 1586: 1564: 1552: 1542: 1528: 1502: 1488: 1451: 1417: 1370: 1354: 1296: 1283: 1236: 1223: 1209: 1176: 1165: 1152: 1126: 1105: 1055: 1043: 1017: 1003: 972: 952: 941: 919: 905: 869: 845: 821: 804: 779: 765: 734: 725: 716: 688: 663: 645: 627: 605: 592: 564: 498: 481: 468: 140: 101: 1689:

says; "Once you've seen one woman nekkid...you wanna see them all" --

2262: 2258: 1975: 1435: 1342: 1251: 865:

article and then leave finding out that the pictures are not sexual.

655:

I have no objection to images of female genitals. Having said that,

2609: 2602: 2305: 1991: 1971: 1869: 1729: 1611:

distract significantly from the subject of the photo, the vulva.

1010: 708: 384: 230: 94: 522:

The following link displays women whose inner labia are "large":

2638: 222: 1219:

probably re-post the original uncropped version. Thanks Nigelj

2932: 388: 377: 366:, and I don't see any vandalism there. 12:35, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC) 25: 659:

article needs five barely-different pictures of its subject.

301:(Spurious word 'wicked ' replaced by meaningful 'introduced') 279:

is slightly less ugly and available in a higer resolution...

2745:

No, that picture is rubbish. Mine is much more true to life.

575:

I disagree with your tone here, Nandesuka. In the light of

404:

The poll above has closed, and there is no clear consensus.

1759:

Proposed de-inlining of pictures containing graphic nudity

1620:

So picky! I think the dirty nails are entirely irrelevent!

111:

Why can a penus be shown but not a vulva? Perhaps another

348:

Knowledge (XXG):Graphic and potentially disturbing images

196:

I have changed it for a clearer and more detailed image.

1480:

day we may be given even better ones. Let's get on with

1317:

we can debate about the alleged distortion of the image.

2466: 2464: 2461: 2458: 2274: 2234: 1842: 2354:

Maybe this can be linked to from some related article

1637:

Vulva Pictures not representative of wordwide audience

2657:). The Knowledge (XXG) community encourages you to 2645:

can edit almost any article by simply following the

2356:http://www.erotica-readers.com/ERA/ITEM/Scent.htm 1748:Disturbing?? A shaved vulva is disturbing IMO. -- 1630:People with good hygene and health should model. 175: 1484:things and not just re-running old arguments. -- 1009:People debate about which images to use on the 1775:is obscured by the clitoral hood in this image 130:already 6,315 images of the vulva on this page 2577:You could choose with more a clean neals ! -- 2157:Somehow, I doubt you're "scarred for life". 560:That is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. 88:Including a diagram, a photograph, or neither 8: 2881:editing while you were only trying to help. 494:Do we really need 3 diagrams of the vulva? 2428:"the puss seems diseased..." What the -- 2217: 1292:The vivero-becker one is quite inadequate. 1241:Problems that I have with the new image: 773:not censored for the protection of minors 2771:More pictures = more fapping. -unsigned 2649:link at the top. You don't even need to 2951:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2304:This is the talk page for the article 946:You make a good point. Go for it. -- 178:File:HumanVulva-NoText-PhiloVivero.jpg 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2839:WP:CENSORED#Wikipedia_is_not_censored 2196:Moving pictures around in the article 669:how many different images do we need? 102:http://www.luckymojo.com/faqs/altsex/ 7: 2673:New contributors are always welcome 2278:Knowledge (XXG):No personal attacks 2251:Knowledge (XXG):No personal attacks 1172:is a clearer illustration. Thanks. 682:genital cultural shaving phenomenon 115:mindset? please, dont give me that 2655:many reasons why you might want to 588:what Knowledge (XXG) is about. -- 24: 2671:to try out your editing skills. 2936: 1790:photographs of human genitalia. 1064:, or I can edit off the fingers! 29: 1161:What do you mean by distorted? 2582:20:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC) 2553:21:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC) 2544:01:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC) 2485:19:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC) 2411:10:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC) 1529:19:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC) 1: 2908:16:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC) 2886:15:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC) 2864:15:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC) 2846:12:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC) 2831:12:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC) 2767:03:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC) 2750:18:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC) 2741:10:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC) 2420:09:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC) 2400:20:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC) 2289:Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability 2153:09:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 1625:21:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC) 1616:21:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC) 942:21:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC) 846:06:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC) 822:19:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 735:20:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC) 726:06:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 646:21:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC) 482:21:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC) 469:21:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC) 252:. What do you think of it? - 229:Could someone take a look at 141:11:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC) 113:men think of sex, women don't 2811:09:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC) 2794:07:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC) 2780:01:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC) 2717:01:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC) 2707:20:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC) 2697:22:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC) 2680:23:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC) 2563:01:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC) 920:13:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC) 906:06:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC) 717:04:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC) 689:04:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC) 664:05:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC) 628:20:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC) 439:Stop adding new vulva images 373:Indeed. And that is because 211:Knowledge (XXG):Village pump 134:already enough photos there. 2592:03:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 2283:Furthermore, in regards to 2191:02:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC) 2182:20:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC) 2171:20:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC) 2162:00:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC) 2087:13:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC) 1604:13:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC) 1587:17:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC) 1579:09:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC 1565:05:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC) 870:04:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 805:03:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 780:03:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 766:01:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 499:03:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC) 235:Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 3005: 1517:female genitals available. 1224:10:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC) 1210:15:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC) 1177:09:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 1166:09:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 1153:01:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 1127:01:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 1106:00:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 1056:23:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 1044:22:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 1018:22:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 1004:22:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 973:17:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 953:14:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC) 721:I concur with Nandesuka. — 2659:be bold in updating pages 2415:This is a joke, right? -- 2363:16:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC) 2337:17:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC) 2296:05:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC) 2241:20:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC) 2208:06:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC) 2113:23:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC) 2099:20:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC) 2074:21:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC) 2047:21:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC) 2032:14:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC) 2001:05:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC) 1983:02:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC) 1966:04:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC) 1955:16:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC) 1935:11:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC) 1919:08:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC) 1898:07:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC) 1879:03:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC) 1857:21:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC) 1831:18:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC) 1821:15:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC) 1806:10:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC) 1795:05:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC) 1753:04:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC) 1192:I like this image on the 451:17:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) 435:05:47, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) 330:Image and page protection 272:16:50, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC) 200:19:07, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC) 168:File:VulvaDiagram-800.jpg 128:Excuse me, but there are 2837:Knowledge (XXG) policy: 2452:"Cluttered" with images? 1737:03:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC) 1694:20:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC) 1677:16:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC) 1553:23:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC) 1185:File:Sarahvulva crop.jpg 606:18:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC) 593:15:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC) 565:01:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC) 459:01:43, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) 408:01:24, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) 358:06:20, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC) 339:12:59, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC) 307:14:41, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC) 286:18:03, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC) 264:16:47, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC) 256:18:06, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC) 237:14:55 25 Jul 2003 (UTC) 158:03:26, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC) 122:Antonio Vulva Man Martin 108:18:41, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC) 1543:19:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC) 1503:18:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC) 1489:00:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC) 1452:20:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC) 1418:20:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC) 1371:15:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC) 1355:13:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC) 1297:23:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC) 1284:22:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC) 1237:16:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC) 393:03:03, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC) 315:19:57, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC) 204:Links to deleted images 190:14:01, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) 2686:Moving the images down 2368:Filthy Picture Removed 2213:Off-topic conversation 1538:Where's your new one? 1189: 1090:, discussion is good. 637:I always thought that 183: 173: 2949:of past discussions. 2620:comment was added by 2523:really really stupid. 2434:comment was added by 2378:comment was added by 2126:comment was added by 1188: 422:wasteful and harmful. 277:User_talk:PhiloVivero 181: 171: 42:of past discussions. 2653:(although there are 2474:WP:IUP#Image queuing 1767:reproductive anatomy 1521:If you were going to 958:Unencyclopedic image 2273:has ascribed to me 1402:) 16:39, 5 May 2006 771:Knowledge (XXG) is 2664:how to edit a page 2463:and User:Nandesuka 1345:, which have more 1190: 184: 174: 136:Now knock it off. 2992: 2991: 2961: 2960: 2955:current talk page 2876:The link is to a 2633: 2447: 2391: 2346: 2345: 2335: 2139: 2030: 1868:Anyone coming to 1728:Do you belive in 1723: 1709:comment added by 1663: 1649:comment added by 1404: 1390:comment added by 702: 698:unsigned edit by 611:Extra Links added 552: 538:comment added by 362:I just looked at 343:Disturbing images 241:New image - from 147:Image already at 85: 84: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 2996: 2970: 2963: 2962: 2940: 2939: 2933: 2615: 2579:Wikifriend pt001 2429: 2373: 2332: 2325: 2218: 2150:JonathonReinhart 2121: 2063:Talk:Human feces 2027: 2020: 1998: 1952: 1916: 1876: 1788: 1787: 1779: 1778: 1722: 1703: 1662: 1643: 1447: 1403: 1384: 1186: 1148: 1101: 1039: 968: 894:vulval vestibule 843: 802: 797: 792: 763: 758: 753: 697: 633:"Moose knuckles" 551: 532: 391:Rafał Pocztarski 356:Rafał Pocztarski 179: 169: 63: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3004: 3003: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2995: 2994: 2993: 2966: 2937: 2922: 2823: 2760: 2725: 2688: 2616:—The preceding 2599: 2575: 2460:, User:Atomaton 2454: 2430:—The preceding 2374:—The preceding 2370: 2352: 2347: 2319: 2223: 2215: 2198: 2122:—The preceding 2014: 1996: 1950: 1914: 1874: 1781: 1780: 1764: 1763: 1761: 1704: 1644: 1639: 1443: 1385: 1184: 1144: 1097: 1035: 964: 960: 928: 896: 841: 800: 795: 790: 761: 756: 751: 747: 671: 653: 635: 621: 613: 533: 492: 445:Media:Vulva.jpg 441: 345: 337:Ta bu shi da yu 332: 322: 295: 275:The image from 246: 206: 177: 167: 152: 106:210.214.131.161 98: 90: 59: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3002: 3000: 2990: 2989: 2984: 2981: 2976: 2971: 2959: 2958: 2941: 2931: 2930: 2921: 2918: 2917: 2916: 2915: 2914: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2889: 2888: 2869: 2868: 2867: 2866: 2849: 2848: 2822: 2819: 2818: 2817: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2799: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2783: 2782: 2759: 2756: 2755: 2754: 2753: 2752: 2731: 2724: 2721: 2720: 2719: 2687: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2647:Edit this page 2622:219.78.220.183 2598: 2595: 2586: 2574: 2571: 2570: 2569: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2525: 2498: 2491: 2453: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2413: 2369: 2366: 2351: 2348: 2344: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2339: 2299: 2298: 2281: 2225: 2224: 2221: 2216: 2214: 2211: 2197: 2194: 2179:65.125.133.211 2174: 2173: 2168:65.125.133.211 2164: 2155: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2102: 2101: 2090: 2089: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2050: 1988: 1987: 1986: 1985: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1846: 1813: 1760: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1745: 1744: 1740: 1739: 1725: 1724: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1680: 1679: 1638: 1635: 1628: 1627: 1622:CerealBabyMilk 1618: 1613:24.124.124.121 1607: 1606: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1568: 1567: 1556: 1555: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1518: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1492: 1491: 1476: 1475: 1466: 1465: 1460: 1459: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1265: 1264: 1261: 1258: 1255: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1213: 1212: 1199: 1180: 1169: 1168: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1020: 995: 994: 959: 956: 935: 934: 927: 924: 923: 922: 895: 892: 888: 887: 879: 878: 877: 876: 875: 874: 873: 872: 855: 854: 853: 852: 851: 850: 849: 848: 829: 828: 827: 826: 825: 824: 810: 809: 808: 807: 783: 782: 746: 743: 742: 741: 740: 739: 738: 737: 694: 693: 692: 691: 670: 667: 652: 649: 639:moose knuckles 634: 631: 620: 617: 612: 609: 598: 597: 596: 595: 570: 569: 568: 567: 554: 553: 540:Artofthehidden 526: 525: 519: 518: 513: 512: 507: 506: 491: 488: 487: 486: 485: 484: 472: 471: 461: 460: 440: 437: 425: 424: 414: 413: 412: 411: 410: 409: 397: 396: 395: 394: 383:again, unlike 368: 367: 344: 341: 331: 328: 327: 326: 321: 318: 317: 316: 294: 291: 290: 289: 288: 287: 265: 245: 239: 205: 202: 194: 193: 192: 191: 151: 145: 144: 143: 97: 91: 89: 86: 83: 82: 77: 74: 69: 64: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3001: 2988: 2985: 2982: 2980: 2977: 2975: 2972: 2969: 2965: 2964: 2956: 2952: 2948: 2947: 2942: 2935: 2934: 2928: 2927: 2926: 2919: 2909: 2906: 2901: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2887: 2884: 2883:Sam Blacketer 2879: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2872: 2871: 2870: 2865: 2862: 2858: 2853: 2852: 2851: 2850: 2847: 2844: 2843:Sam Blacketer 2840: 2835: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2829: 2820: 2812: 2809: 2805: 2804: 2803: 2802: 2801: 2800: 2795: 2792: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2781: 2778: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2769: 2768: 2765: 2764:Light current 2757: 2751: 2748: 2744: 2743: 2742: 2739: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2729: 2723:Sarah picture 2722: 2718: 2715: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2708: 2705: 2700: 2699: 2698: 2695: 2694:James R. Rock 2685: 2681: 2678: 2674: 2670: 2667:, or use the 2666: 2665: 2660: 2656: 2652: 2648: 2644: 2640: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2631: 2627: 2623: 2619: 2613: 2611: 2606: 2604: 2597:more pictures 2596: 2594: 2593: 2590: 2584: 2583: 2580: 2572: 2564: 2561: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2551: 2547: 2546: 2545: 2542: 2538: 2534: 2530: 2526: 2524: 2520: 2516: 2512: 2508: 2504: 2503:Intellivision 2499: 2496: 2492: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2483: 2477: 2475: 2469: 2467: 2465: 2462: 2459: 2451: 2445: 2441: 2437: 2433: 2427: 2421: 2418: 2414: 2412: 2409: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2398: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2389: 2385: 2381: 2380:203.81.228.58 2377: 2367: 2365: 2364: 2361: 2357: 2349: 2338: 2334: 2331: 2330: 2326: 2324: 2323: 2317: 2316: 2311: 2307: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2297: 2294: 2290: 2286: 2282: 2279: 2275: 2272: 2268: 2264: 2260: 2256: 2252: 2248: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2239: 2235: 2231: 2227: 2226: 2220: 2219: 2212: 2210: 2209: 2206: 2202: 2195: 2193: 2192: 2189: 2184: 2183: 2180: 2172: 2169: 2165: 2163: 2160: 2156: 2154: 2151: 2146: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2137: 2133: 2129: 2125: 2114: 2111: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2100: 2097: 2092: 2091: 2088: 2085: 2081: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2072: 2068: 2064: 2048: 2045: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2035: 2034: 2033: 2029: 2026: 2025: 2021: 2019: 2018: 2012: 2011: 2005: 2004: 2003: 2002: 1999: 1993: 1984: 1981: 1977: 1973: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1964: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1953: 1936: 1933: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1917: 1899: 1896: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1877: 1871: 1858: 1855: 1851: 1847: 1844: 1840: 1835: 1834: 1832: 1829: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1819: 1814: 1810: 1809: 1807: 1804: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1793: 1785: 1776: 1774: 1768: 1758: 1754: 1751: 1747: 1746: 1742: 1741: 1738: 1735: 1731: 1727: 1726: 1720: 1716: 1712: 1708: 1701: 1700: 1695: 1692: 1688: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1678: 1675: 1670: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1660: 1656: 1652: 1648: 1636: 1634: 1631: 1626: 1623: 1619: 1617: 1614: 1609: 1608: 1605: 1602: 1598: 1597: 1588: 1585: 1581: 1580: 1578: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1566: 1563: 1558: 1557: 1554: 1551: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1541: 1530: 1527: 1522: 1519: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1504: 1501: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1490: 1487: 1483: 1478: 1477: 1473: 1468: 1467: 1462: 1461: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1450: 1448: 1446: 1439: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1419: 1416: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1401: 1397: 1393: 1389: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1369: 1356: 1353: 1348: 1344: 1340: 1336: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1316: 1312: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1298: 1295: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1282: 1277: 1276: 1269: 1262: 1259: 1256: 1253: 1248: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1239: 1238: 1235: 1234:84.67.212.109 1225: 1222: 1217: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1211: 1208: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1197: 1195: 1194:Clitoral hood 1187: 1181: 1178: 1175: 1167: 1164: 1160: 1159: 1154: 1151: 1149: 1147: 1141: 1140:Clitoral hood 1137: 1136:Clitoral hood 1133: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1125: 1107: 1104: 1102: 1100: 1093: 1089: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1063: 1060: 1059: 1057: 1054: 1050: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1042: 1040: 1038: 1032: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1019: 1016: 1012: 1008: 1007: 1005: 1002: 997: 996: 992: 988: 987: 982: 977: 976: 975: 974: 971: 969: 967: 957: 955: 954: 951: 950: 944: 943: 940: 933: 930: 929: 925: 921: 918: 917:Keenan Pepper 914: 910: 909: 908: 907: 904: 899: 893: 891: 886: 885:69.67.234.235 881: 880: 871: 868: 863: 862: 861: 860: 859: 858: 857: 856: 847: 844: 837: 836: 835: 834: 833: 832: 831: 830: 823: 820: 816: 815: 814: 813: 812: 811: 806: 803: 798: 793: 787: 786: 785: 784: 781: 778: 774: 770: 769: 768: 767: 764: 759: 754: 744: 736: 733: 729: 728: 727: 724: 720: 719: 718: 715: 710: 705: 704: 703: 701: 690: 687: 683: 679: 678: 676: 675: 674: 668: 666: 665: 662: 658: 650: 648: 647: 644: 640: 632: 630: 629: 626: 618: 616: 610: 608: 607: 604: 594: 591: 587: 582: 578: 574: 573: 572: 571: 566: 563: 558: 557: 556: 555: 549: 545: 541: 537: 531: 528: 527: 524: 521: 520: 515: 514: 509: 508: 503: 502: 501: 500: 497: 489: 483: 480: 476: 475: 474: 473: 470: 467: 463: 462: 458: 454: 453: 452: 450: 446: 438: 436: 434: 430: 423: 419: 418: 417: 407: 403: 402: 401: 400: 399: 398: 392: 389: 386: 382: 378: 376: 372: 371: 370: 369: 365: 361: 360: 359: 357: 353: 349: 342: 340: 338: 329: 324: 323: 319: 314: 310: 309: 308: 306: 302: 299: 293:Spurious word 292: 285: 281: 278: 274: 273: 271: 266: 263: 259: 258: 257: 255: 251: 244: 240: 238: 236: 232: 227: 226: 224: 220: 216: 212: 203: 201: 199: 189: 180: 170: 163: 162: 161: 160: 159: 157: 150: 146: 142: 139: 135: 131: 127: 126: 125: 124: 123: 118: 114: 109: 107: 103: 96: 93:Analogy with 92: 87: 81: 78: 75: 73: 70: 68: 65: 62: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 2967: 2950: 2944: 2923: 2877: 2824: 2777:Trollderella 2770: 2761: 2730: 2726: 2714:Trollderella 2704:74.56.48.155 2701: 2692: 2689: 2663: 2646: 2642: 2614: 2607: 2600: 2585: 2576: 2573:Image Critic 2560:Trollderella 2536: 2535:and what to 2532: 2528: 2522: 2518: 2514: 2510: 2506: 2478: 2470: 2457:User:Crossmr 2455: 2371: 2353: 2328: 2321: 2320: 2314: 2232: 2228: 2203: 2199: 2185: 2175: 2144: 2119: 2079: 2060: 2023: 2016: 2015: 2009: 1989: 1946: 1911: 1867: 1783: 1770: 1762: 1651:65.138.71.39 1640: 1632: 1629: 1550:81.151.4.245 1537: 1520: 1481: 1471: 1444: 1440: 1426: 1383: 1365: 1346: 1334: 1314: 1310: 1274: 1273: 1270: 1266: 1240: 1231: 1198: 1191: 1170: 1145: 1120: 1098: 1091: 1036: 990: 985: 984: 980: 965: 961: 948: 945: 936: 931: 912: 900: 897: 889: 748: 700:User:EaZyZ99 695: 672: 656: 654: 638: 636: 622: 614: 599: 585: 580: 493: 442: 429:Tony Sidaway 426: 420: 415: 346: 333: 300: 298:80.40.54.184 296: 247: 228: 208: 207: 195: 153: 133: 129: 120: 116: 112: 110: 99: 60: 43: 37: 2943:This is an 2920:Slang Terms 2589:R2cyberpunk 2128:75.80.139.8 2067:Human feces 1839:Jimbo Wales 1705:—Preceding 1645:—Preceding 1438:in detail. 1392:84.67.44.82 1386:—Preceding 1294:84.67.44.82 867:Quazywabbit 819:82.32.60.14 534:—Preceding 449:LostAccount 209:Moved from 188:PhiloVivero 36:This is an 2436:Callmarcus 2312:. Thanks, 1850:Censorship 723:Locke Cole 490:3 diagrams 406:Andrew pmk 320:Homologues 219:August 2nd 18:Talk:Vulva 2987:Archive 5 2979:Archive 3 2974:Archive 2 2968:Archive 1 2821:Seriously 2541:Nandesuka 2517:penis or 2509:guy's or 2360:Easyas12c 2271:WCityMike 1691:Pascal666 1687:Ron White 1526:Kadin2048 1482:improving 1015:Nandesuka 993:be best.) 949:Cyde Weys 903:Gringo300 842:Cyde Weys 777:Nandesuka 714:Nandesuka 686:Nandesuka 684:article. 661:tregoweth 625:Gringo300 562:Nandesuka 479:JustADuck 381:protected 379:has been 313:Matt gies 270:AxelBoldt 262:Aurevilly 138:Nandesuka 80:Archive 5 72:Archive 3 67:Archive 2 61:Archive 1 2878:proposed 2758:Pictures 2630:contribs 2618:unsigned 2444:contribs 2432:unsigned 2417:einexile 2388:contribs 2376:unsigned 2276:. From 2136:contribs 2124:unsigned 2084:Cacetudo 1980:Asarelah 1833:Bobble2 1808:Bobble2 1773:clitoris 1750:Jwwalker 1734:Cuzandor 1719:contribs 1707:unsigned 1659:contribs 1647:unsigned 1584:Asarelah 1562:Asarelah 1445:FloNight 1432:clitoris 1400:contribs 1388:unsigned 1347:internal 1339:clitoris 1247:clitoris 1146:FloNight 1099:FloNight 1062:FloNight 1058:Bobble2 1049:FloNight 1037:FloNight 1006:Bobble2 966:FloNight 913:featured 745:Warning? 732:FloNight 619:redirect 584:that is 548:contribs 536:unsigned 505:follows. 375:Clitoris 364:clitoris 352:Clitoris 305:Marnanel 250:perineum 243:Perineum 215:Saturday 156:Marnanel 149:Clitoris 117:bull.... 2946:archive 2929:Agreed. 2791:Nevhood 2747:Bobble2 2669:sandbox 2537:exclude 2533:include 2408:Bobble2 2293:John254 2188:Huffers 2096:Hecktor 2049:Bobble2 2044:Bobble2 1963:John254 1937:Bobble2 1932:Bobble2 1900:Bobble2 1895:Bobble2 1854:John254 1828:Bobble2 1818:John254 1803:Bobble2 1792:John254 1577:Bobble2 1505:Bobble2 1500:Bobble2 1368:Slashme 1226:Bobble2 1221:Bobble2 1179:Bobble2 1174:Bobble2 1163:Alienus 1124:Alienus 1088:Bobble2 1053:Bobble2 1031:Bobble2 1001:Bobble2 603:Scoo00T 586:exactly 581:exactly 577:WP:BITE 496:Kaldari 284:Marcika 254:Marcika 198:Bobble2 39:archive 2808:Strait 2738:Nigelj 2677:Powers 2651:log in 2643:anyone 2612:page. 2550:Powers 2529:should 2482:Nigelj 2397:Powers 2310:WP:ANI 2285:Nigelj 2267:Nigelj 2263:sermon 2259:Sermon 2255:Nigelj 2247:Nigelj 2238:Nigelj 2159:Powers 2110:Powers 2071:Powers 1976:Breast 1711:Moosaf 1669:WP:AGF 1601:Powers 1486:Nigelj 1436:vagina 1428:Harmil 1415:Harmil 1352:Harmil 1343:vagina 1281:Harmil 1275:others 1252:vagina 1207:Nigelj 939:Harmil 651:Images 590:Nigelj 457:Clawed 2905:E tac 2861:E tac 2828:E tac 2641:, so 2610:penis 2603:penis 2519:their 2515:their 2350:Scent 2306:Vulva 1992:vulva 1972:Penis 1893:fact! 1870:vulva 1784:vulva 1730:races 1685:Like 1472:vulva 1011:Penis 991:would 986:dirty 926:Kick? 801:Ri¢h! 762:Ri¢h! 709:penis 385:Vulva 231:vulva 104:) -- 95:Penis 16:< 2639:wiki 2626:talk 2601:the 2511:that 2507:this 2440:talk 2384:talk 2205:Stui 2132:talk 2080:AMEN 1771:The 1715:talk 1655:talk 1434:and 1396:talk 1341:and 1315:Then 1134:See 544:talk 466:JD79 433:Talk 223:2003 2632:) . 2446:) . 2390:) . 2329:rin 2315:rom 2145:you 2138:) . 2024:rin 2010:rom 1843:log 1777:.}} 1335:POV 1092:: ) 981:did 221:, 0 213:on 2983:→ 2903:-- 2841:. 2826:-- 2736:-- 2675:. 2628:• 2480:-- 2468:. 2442:• 2386:• 2358:-- 2134:• 2082:. 1997:Al 1974:, 1951:Al 1915:Al 1875:Al 1841:' 1769:. 1732:? 1721:) 1717:• 1674:Al 1661:) 1657:• 1540:Al 1398:• 1311:is 1095:-- 796:Am 757:Am 657:no 550:) 546:• 447:. 427:-- 387:. 354:. 217:, 76:→ 2957:. 2624:( 2438:( 2382:( 2322:a 2130:( 2017:a 1713:( 1653:( 1394:( 1350:- 1279:- 1254:. 791:I 752:I 643:R 542:( 431:| 225:. 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index