Talk:Sex organ

Requested move

Discuss the proposed name change here.

We need to reconcile this with the "category:sexaul anatomy". -- Fplay 14:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Object: I don't think that it is a good idea to change an article's name to suit a category's name. Also, sexual anatomy is not equivalent to sex organ. If the sexual anatomy category needs a head article, I suggest one be created at sexual anatomy, which is current a redirect to this article. If the reason for the move was explained more, I would reconsider my position. -- Kjkolb 09:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Object as above - that alone is definitely not a reason to move the page; especially since "sexual anatomy" seems to me not quite such an appropriate title. -- John Smythe 19:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Diversity

Apologies if there is a better, higher-level forum for discussion of this issue. I've looked over a great deal of the wikipedia pages about human genitalia, as well as the wiki commons photos in those categories. One of the most striking aspects is that almost all of the photos are of "white" people (or caucasians or people of recent European ancestry if you prefer). Obviously, wikipedia can't go around commissioning photos of a more diverse set of genitalia, but this is a problem that needs to be addressed somehow. Wikipedia is for all of humanity and is supposed to be about all of humanity. I realize that white people are probably the vast majority of readers and contributors to the English language wikipedia, but there really needs to be an effort to show a much greater variety of genitalia. The disparity is greatest in terms of the "racial" diversity of genital images. However, just as important, is simple structural diversity. There is high variability among genital appearances, even when restricted to totally functional genitals. There are all sorts of sizes and shapes of penises and foreskins and labia and clitorises, etc. It is misleading and unjust to include only a few images of genitalia, especially when they tend to be white and tend to be within a fairly narrow range of what is considered "normal". This true of all parts of the human body, but is especially true for genitals because, unlike faces, people don't readily see others' genitals and so they aren't exposed to the same diversity in their daily lives. The importance of this is further magnified because of the relatively high importance of genitals to people's identity and self esteem. For example, many studies have shown that increased penis length is associated with higher self-esteem, at least in the US in recent times. This is totally a cultural value and is not universal in time or space. If there were a broader understanding and acceptance of diversity of genital appearance, I think that a lot of people might feel better about themselves and their sexuality and would be more positive about variability in others as well. See wikipedia pages about labiaplasty and vaginoplasty for more info (though way too brief) about the normalization of genitalia and the increasingly narrow definition of what is considered normal and beautiful or sexy. --Prepuce4Life (talk) 08:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with what Prepuce4Life wrote above. Since an encyclopedia is ideally impartial in tone and content, I replaced the idealized (likely labiaplasty) image of a vulva with a more typical example that was already in Wikimedia Commons. I had considered it an obvious improvement, more informative, and less biased, but perhaps I was mistaken as it was reverted by User:TBM10 with a comment to please discuss on Talk first. I apologize for the breach in protocol. What is the reasoning for keeping the current image ("Vulva with tiny labia and shaved pubic hair")? Ben (talk) 22:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Hackerb9 (Ben), this is a years old section. New comments in a years old section are commonly ignored. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout (what it states about newer sections going at the bottom). The only reason I saw your latest comment is because this article is on my watchlist. Anyway, at different Wikipedia articles, the justification for keeping an image of a shaved vulva has been that the anatomical parts can be easily seen. In cases like the Vulva article, though, we've opted to have a lead image that shows shaved and unshaved vulvae; same goes for diversity lower in that article. For the Sex organ article, we don't need as many images. Just one to show the male genitals and one to show the female genitals. On Wikipedia, there is always discord over whether or not to have a shaved or unshaved vulva, or a circumcised or uncircumcised penis, as an image. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Flyer22 Reborn. I had not known about always posting at the bottom of the page and had mistakenly assumed anyone interested would have the page on their watchlist. Ben (talk) 11:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Stuff

Although I have no argument with a strictly biological definition, it is by no means the only or "right" definition. For many people -- both in the US and around the world -- "sex" is not just for the same of reproduction, and does not always, necessarily, or exclusively involve reproductive organs. Slrubenstein

---

On the second tentacle, maybe there should be some mention of the reproductive organs of some lower life-forms? Plants and stuff, you know. A link at the very least. Cimon avaro P.S. just musing, you know.

Indirect self-link

Just wanted to point out that there is an indirect self-link... --Sgeo | Talk 00:18, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm...

there needs to be an actual page about the reproductive system that is used for reproduction, not just the sex-related organs.

Foreskin

Is there any particular reason for the recent removal of some references to the foreskin? It's almost as if the article were undergoing circumcision! --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 13:14, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Certainly Tony. First I quote from the first paragraph of the article:

"A sex organ, or primary sexual characteristic, narrowly defined, is any of those parts of the body (which are not always bodily organs according to the strict definition) which are involved in sexual reproduction and constitute the reproductive system in an complex organism;"

Now over to you ... can you present evidence that either the male or the female prepuce meets those criteria? - Robert the Bruce 14:44, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I see your point--the first part of the article is an attempt to list only apparatus directly involved in reproduction. But why is the clitoris mentioned prominently, in that case? What part does that organ play in reproduction? The article Clitoris says "Its particular function is inducing sexual pleasure and orgasms." In intact males, the prepuce closely envelopes the glans, enhancing sexual excitement, and its sensitive nerve endings also enhance pleasure (trust me on this). To be consistent, we should move the clitoris from that section. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 15:41, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Yes do remove reference to the glans penis/clitoris. As to taking your word for it. Sorry I can't. Neither you nor I have any basis for comparison so are not able to state the kind of stuff that you do. This comparative stuff should be left to those who have been circumcised as an adult. (One point, were you not the person who reported a dysfunctional foreskin at some point?) - Robert the Bruce 18:26, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Who's talking about comparison? My foreskin is part of my body that feels sexual pleasure. If I had no foreskin, I would not feel that sexual pleasure. As to your odd suggestion, I can assure you I do not have any kind of sexual dysfunction, whether of the foreskin or any other part. Please be careful about the kind of statement you make about others in discussion--that comment could be interpreted as a personal attack. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 19:51, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Tony it was you Minority Report who reported a non retractable foreskin [1]. Like it or not that is dysfunctional (and this is not as you would like to make out a personal attack but rather a statenment of fact) and on the basis of that your "experience" can by no stretch of the imagination be considered typical and as such I suggest you cease presenting it as such. - Robert the Bruce 04:33, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A non-retracting foreskin is not dysfunctional. You mistake your opinion for fact. It is a fact that by having a foreskin I experience sexual pleasure in the foreskin (amongst other places). It is a fact that a detached foreskin could give me no such pleasure. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 04:59, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Tony, we should depersonalize this discussion. A non-retracting foreskin is dysfunctional. A non-retracting foreskin hinders hygiene. Phimosis together with sub-optimal hygiene is the greatest risk factor in the development of cancer of the penis. Adults with non-retracting foreskins should go see a urologist soonest. - Robert the Bruce 03:27, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tony, just because you experience pleasure from your penis does not mean that it is fully functional. You have a medical condition called phimosis, which can be resolved (circumcision is not the only cure, though it has the highest success rate). You should seek to resolve this problem, too, because there are serious health risks associated with your condition. - Jakew 19:52, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jakew, so-called dysfunction works both ways. Only the owner of the genitals is in any position to say. Like it or not, your recommendation is no better or worse than promoting foreskin restoration for us American guys who've clearly had insufficient skin (which is only presented as a voluntary option, never as a "you should" recommendation for anyone). To each his own is the only advice we should be providing. I hope you can agree with that, but so far the constant hypocrisy of promoting an unwelcome alteration in Wikipedia, after you and Robert criticise a voluntary one in your various edits is completely baffling to me. DanP 23:23, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What is with all these ad hominem attacks on Tony, here? Y'all should know better than that. The penis is a sex organ and the foreskin is part of it. Period. Sure, it can be removed and the penis will generally still serve its sexual function, but that in no way means that the foreskin is not a part of the sexual organ known as the penis. You guys are no better than the charlatans (this is primarily in the US) who suggest that parents should circumcise their children so that their kids don't get made fun of and feel normal. That is still seriously one of the more common arguments in favor of circumcision. They forget to mention the fact that we shouldn't be raising our children to go around making fun of each other's genitals and shouldn't impose such monolithic notions about what is normal for genitals. @Bobby Bruce - You don't have to take someone's word on it that the removal of tissue that has sensory nerves in it will prevent certain sensations from being felt. Now, I'm not going to argue that circumcised men feel less pleasure than intact men. But there's no debating that a man without a frenulum cannot have the sensation of the stretching of the frenulum. Similarly, most intact men, won't ever have the sensation of a keratinized glans. All of this back and forth seems to be based on the assumption that there is a single spectrum of more/better versus less/worse sensation and that if it can be proven that one or the other has more/better sensation then that should be the policy. These arguments ignore the fact that the brain is the most important organ for feeling sexual pleasure. This is why women who have had total infibulation can still enjoy intercourse (not all will, but some can). Asking men who have been circumcised in adulthood whether they had more sensation before or after circumcision is not generalizable to comparisons of people circumcised in infancy versus intact people. First of all, the healing processes will be slightly different and in general, not quite as fast or as complete in adults than in infants. Second of all, the brain of a person circumcised in infancy may develop differently and may compensate for the early foreskin amputation in ways that brains of those circumcised in adulthood cannot. Third of all, we might expect a sort of confirmation bias in that while there may be some "buyer's remorse," there's probably just as much if not more desire to confirm that their penises are now finally complete and in the ideal state, even if there are some decreases in sensitivity or other complications. Forth of all, there's massive selection bias among those who choose to be circumcised in adulthood. Especially in the US, they are probably people who have been so indoctrinated in the pro-circ media environment of the USA, which portrays intact penises as gross, dirty, ugly, etc., that it's entirely possible that they could have high rates of improved sexual satisfaction entirely from the removal of psychological barriers that were put up by the discordance of their penis with that portrayed as ideal in the toxic community environment of the US. Also, no one is going around and pushing foreskin restoration, especially not on people who cannot consent to it. In addition, many instances of phimosis do not actually result in negative consequences for the patient and in many cases it can be "cured" via gradual stretching of the foreskin, something that US docs generally aren't aware of because of how much circumcision is pushed by the medical establishment.--Prepuce4Life (talk) 08:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it would be a good idea to depersonalize. The claim that a nonretracting foreskin is ipso facto dysfunctional is simply false, although it can sometimes be a symptom of serious conditions (especially when acquired). Penile cancer is a very, very rare disease; I'm not aware of any modern medical body that recommends medical treatment of a healthy, functioning penis as a preventive against this disease.

To return to the personal for an instant, I'm in my late forties and have never had any problem with my penis. I have a normal sex life and no personal hygiene problems. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 04:00, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Cast your eye over this if you will, [2] - Robert the Bruce 20:44, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As you well know Robert, there are many risk factors for breast cancer. They do not inherently mean cancer will happen -- it is only associated risk. So for you to say any organs are "dysfunctional" solely because of associated risk is purely POV. Even if you're right, you do not have evidence of actual dysfunction, only mere statistical basis. By your standard, we should be promoting foreskin restoration on the statistical basis that severely circumcised genitals have dysfunction, being rough and dry during intercourse, giving a woman only brief and unfulfilling stimulation at best. DanP 00:18, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• What I do know Dan is that this dry sex nonsense is mere disinformation being spread by anti-circumcision activists. Those of use who indulge in heterosexual vaginal intercourse are well aware of the nonsense of it all. Especially in these days of essential condom use what ever contribution the male supposedly makes towards lubrication is specifically contained. So where pray tell is the thunderous howl of protest from women in traditionally non-circumcising societies about the dryness of the sex when a condom is used? Sane and intelligent people are able to see through this line of nonsense instantly. That does not stop the zealots though does it Dan? As to Tony's problem. He happens to be in the highest risk group for penile cancer (uncircumcised with a non retractable phimotic foreskin). That is the facts of the matter. - Robert the Bruce 04:34, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. You people seem to be more or less argueing over which is better, but in my eyes, there's no big difference. No benefits, no losses (except the foreskin). As for penile cancer, there is no actual proof that circumsision prevents it. In short, they're both still a penis. -- Anonymous

Vulgar image

I have removed the link to the image of a man's erect penis. As well as possibly offending people, it may cause repulsion of a different kind too; namely in its unsightliness. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.92.67.69 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

You can't - well, you can, but you shouldn't - just remove an image because you think it is repulsive. Well, it's reverted, so no harm done. And in the future, think before you act (in this case, you were probably not the first one to find that image, and the others let it stand, right), and kindly sign your comments with -- ~~~~. -- AlexR 09:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

The current image should be removed; it is pornography; young children have access to this site. A flaccid penis is not pornography, but an erect penis certainly is.--213.40.3.66 20:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

While I don't have a problem with the image per se, I do think it is randomly thrown-in. If this is a discussion of male and female sex organs, why only are only male human sex organs shown. Why aren't insect or mammalian sexual organs also displayed or mentioned? There are plenty of pictures of penises available at the article this page links to. Erect or not the picture doesn't belong here though it does belong in wikipedia. Reflex Reaction 20:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, this image is already significantly human-centric, so I'm not shocked about that. The fact that there isn't a gallery of genitalia also doesn't bother me. Like you say, pages that are more specific should probably be the ones to have specific images.

As for the idea of "pornography". Repeat after me: Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. It's just not. Ever. Now, if you want to approach these issues from the point of view of topic-worthiness, that's one thing, but the fact that your stomach does a little flip-flop when you see an erect penis is really not something that those working to create a useful reference work should be taking into account. -Harmil 23:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that your argument supports the inclusion of more photos, not less. What you seem to be saying is that the article shouldn't contain just a photo of the human male sexual organs; I agree. But removing the photo isn't going to get us any closer to being all-inclusive, really it should have been left in place, and then other images found (human female sex organs would be the next obvious inclusion, but perhaps plant sex organs would be easy to find also, etc.) to balance it out. Kadin2048 20:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. But this should have images of both the vagina and penis in it, because these are the most commonly recognized sex organs. Animal and plant sex organs should also be included. As for the image of an erect penis, just put a picture of one in a flaccid state in. If you check out the article on 'Penis', it has images of both flaccid and erect penis' in it, so why not putting them here? Also note if the penis is circumsised or uncircumsised, as they both are common. Try to put in the 4 images of the uncircumsised and circumsised, flaccid and erect penis' into the article if you want to. Because the Penis can have so much variation to it, it may be hard to stop people from trying to 'balance it out', which would either reduce the page down to a minimum amount of images or make it seem just disturbing and cluttered. --anonymous

ha ha - you really have an "flower image" as picture for sex organs? --93.221.216.207 (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Removing the human bias

Everything from fungi to plants to animals have sex organs, and yet we have this page, which narrowly explores the human sex organs with minor lip-service to the existence of anything else. I'd like to remove this bias and expand the coverage, but I'd like to get opinions on the best way to do that. We could:

1. Expand this article, covering general topics first, then narrowing by kingdom, and within each kingdom citing a few examples (humans would be one of the examples in the animal kingdom).
2. The article could be shortened to just a general overview of the concept with links to the specific articles for each kingdom.
3. A hybrid approach would be to write the general section, follow it with a very short section for each kingdom, but have links at the top of each kingdom section for the detailed article.

Thoughts?

Here's what I have in mind for the flowering plant section, just to give an idea:

Sexual reproduction in flowering plants involves the union of the male and female germ cells. The sex organs, contained within the flower, may contain both male and female sex organs (these are known as perfect, bisexual, or hermaphrodite) or only one of the two (known as imperfect or unisexual). Also, thos plants whose flowers are unisexual may contain both male and female flowers, or there may be purely male and female plants of the same species.

During a plant's sexual reproduction the stamen (male sex organ) produces pollen from an anther. These male germ cells are carried to the pistil (female sex organ), with the ovary at its base where fertilization can take place. The male germ cells can be carried by air, rain, water, insects or other symbiotic animals, or simply by gravity.

I don't know how old this message is, as it is unsigned, but I thought it was about time somebody made a start on this. I have used the suggested text to make a section on flowering plants. I didn't add fungi or anything else as I don't think I could write decent sections on this. Instead I have rearranged the section structure to make this sort of thing easier to add and tagged for expert help.

I have also cut the three identical images of the human penis down to one occurance. We wouldn't want people to think we are obsessed or anything ;-) .

My view is that we need to cover everything here. I don't mind mammals and humans being given some overcoverage as much as I mind everything else being almost completely missing. My vote is just to expand the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

merge this article into "reproductive system"

Reproductive_system includes all sex organs. Biology experts there try to merge this article into reproductive system.Lara_bran 13:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:HEY. Just because the article is currently pretty much a duplicate of reproductive system doesn't mean it has to be it could be expanded in a number of ways. Also this is also the article on genitalia, which should hardly redirect to a broad topic like reproductive system. If anything the name of the article should be changed from "sex organ" to genitalia. Also, the embedded list is a useful navigation tool which should probably not be included in reproductive system, but is appropriate where it is at. In my mind reproductive system should have the basics on the topic and the narrower topic articles expand from there. Peace, Earthdirt (talk) 15:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

  Please, discuss this at a single place, Talk:Reproductive system. Thank you. Miraceti (talk) 10:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of cn

I rempoved the "citation needed"-template for brain differentiation, because it is only a summary of what is said about that in Sexual differentiation and its subpages, e.g. Sex and intelligence and Biology of gender. I prefer the template is better placed at the individual differentiation, because there are two many examples of the phenomenon to put the it all into dispute. Mikael Häggström 07:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

POV template

Please see the discussion at Talk:Human height#Listing of female and male. 68.163.233.173 21:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Terminology

Is there a special name for the entire external male reproductive apparatus? Penis and scrotum each refer only to specific parts of it. Is there a word for these 2 parts viewed as a whole? (Please excuse my obsession with precise definitions.)Bostoner (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think "male genitalia" (or "genitals") is what you are looking for. Unfortunately, the term has multiple meanings in this context, unlike "vulva". There are better words I can think of, but they are slang. ("He was caught adjusting his junk in front of the dignitary.") Ben (talk) 01:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Science Concepts

1. The female reproductive organ is the ovary. 2. The major parts of the reproductive system are: ovary,uterus,fallopian tubes and cervix... 3. The female has two ovaries. Each ovary is attached on either sides of the uterus. 4. The arms of the fallopian tubes of the uterus cervix over to meet the ovaries. 5. Ovaries make and store one or egg cell. 6. The release of an ovum or egg cell from the ovary is called ovulation.. -------------------- Remember: All of these info/s are true.... make use of my post and yuo will get perfect in your science quiz... this info/s are for grades 3-6.... and other grades whe nthey have this articles.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psalm345 (talk • contribs) 10:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Anus a sex organ?

Don't think so, regardless of how it's used. The closest you could get is the cloaca in certain species if the suggestion about human-centrism is ever acted on. Yellowdesk60 (talk) 07:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Image of female sex organ.

I changed the image to File:Pubic hair.jpg but found out that this image file is restricted to prevent it from being used in articles it doesn't belong. I have made a request to allow this image to be used in this article. I is a better counterpart to the male image that is used in the article. 72.95.95.102 (talk) 02:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Image shows a vulva, not a vagina

The vaginal entrance may be just about visible, but the vagina itself is not pictured, therefore the picture should be relabelled as depicting the female vulva, rather than the vagina.

I have changed it now. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Any reason why the female image is half as large as the image of male genitals, and zoomed out about 5x as well? The female genitals are actually barely visible, and occupy literally about 1/100th of the page space devoted to male genitals in this article. Surely a better image can be found, one that actually depicts the sex organs clearly? Blackworm (talk) 09:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Primary, secundary

The article speaks about the primary sexual organs as the organs visible at the outside and of the secundary organs as being the gonads ie not visible. Embryologically however the body starts with the gonads that produce the hormones necessary to form the other sexual organs. These are therefore the primary sexual organs. --DrJos (talk) 11:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Photos representing the Female Genitalia? Shouldn't this photo be replaced with a more accurate representation of a woman's genitalia?

Although as a male editor, I can very much appreciate (blushing) the photo depicted of the female genitals used herein, wouldn't this article be more accurately represented by using a photo depicting a Naturally Unshaven woman's vagina?

I personally think it should be changed to display a grown woman's naturally unshaven pubic area.

Any thoughts to this? Greetings! Dijcks HotTub Pool 20:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

To be blunt, just showing a patch of fur would not be very educational. File:Female unshaved genitalia.jpg may be a better option as it shows the female genitalia surounded by (but not covered by) pubic hair. Just remember, this page is regarding genitalia, so it would be inappropriate to use an image where the genitalia is hidden behind a bush. 16:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.233.25.14 (talk)

I agree that the image used was extremely atypical and geared towards current culture norms of "beauty". (Tiny labia, hairless). I've replaced the image with a more representative one. It's a drawing from Gray's Anatomy, rather than a photo, so it is able to clearly show the regions mentioned in the text. (BTW, The adjacent circumcised male genitalia photograph looks jarringly dissimilar. Unfortunately, Gray did not include a similar external view of the male genitalia. Can anyone find a good match? Perhaps something from Albecht Durer?) Ben (talk) 01:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The Gray's Anatomy edit was apparently reverted. I agree that the current image is not representative and reenforces perceptions that may lead women to doubt their attractiveness. This image might be better, File:Jillvagina3.png, as it include pubic hair and the features are more distinctive. I would question why we need to include human images in this page, as oppose to other animals. People seeking images of human body parts might best be directed to specific articles that contain more information about them.--agr (talk) 18:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

For those who haven't noticed, I replied to Ben in the #Diversity section above. This type of thing (a shaved vulva being the only vulva image in the article) doesn't bother me. It's often a matter of dispute, though, just like using an image of a circumcised penis vs. an image of an uncircumcised penis often is. As for using images of humans, it's been argued a number of times at WP:Med and WP:Anatomy that humans are naturally going to be more interested in seeing images of humans when it comes to topics that concern both humans and non-human animals, unless the topic predominantly concerns non-human animals (like rabies, for example). I've argued the same. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out Ben's recent comment in the #Diversity section. It seems he and I are in agreement on this. If we are going to show human organs, with only one example for each sex, why not choose examples that have not been modified for cosmetic or other reasons?--agr (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I explained in the aforementioned section what the justification has been for keeping a shaved vulva, but you can give replacing the image with a non-shaved vulva a try. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I suggest this image: File:Vulva and pubic hair.jpg. It has a vertical orientation, so it can match the male image in size and the hair does not obscure any details, which are indeed much clearer than with the current image. But it is on the MediaWiki:Bad image list (as is the current image) so it needs an exception for use in this article. I'd like to get some consensus before requesting the exception.--agr (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Given that the current example ("vulva with tiny labia") is an extreme, pretty much any random image is going to be an improvement. While I have a preference for the Gray's Anatomy version (which includes annotations and does not need an exception from the "bad" list), I recognize that without a male counterpart it did look out of place. I am fine with User:ArnoldReinhold's suggestion ("vulva and pubic hair") and note that it does not (as some people have worried) hide the parts of interest under a "bush".

On a side note, does Wikipedia have any way to create a text overlay so whatever image we end up with can be labelled in a manner similar to Gray's Anatomy? While it's easy for me to create a new SVG image, I was thinking it might help internationalization of the article. Ben (talk) 10:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any image overlay tool, though it would be a good idea. One way around the lack might be to label the image with numbers (1, 2, 3, ...) and reference the numbers in the caption. That way the image could be used internationally and there would be less clutter on the image. And it looks like uploading a modified version of the image as a new file would bypass the bad list, though it might be appropriate to suggest adding it with an exception for this article later. For balance, the male image might be labeled as well, if you are willing to do that too.--agr (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Why are genitals considered offensive?

I have noticed that particularly in the English language, some of the most offensive swear words are synonyms for genitals i.e. cunt. Why are genitals considered so offensive? Pass a Method talk 11:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a very good and relevant question! It doesn't make any obvious sense to me either. I can find nothing bad or evil in genitals – for God's sake, they are absolutely central to most of Life and for us being here, and furthermore they are a source of great joy for most of us. Also, calling a person a "flower" is quite positive, but calling a woman a "cunt" is the opposite, even though both words refer to sexual organs. So it would be very interesting to have a section about that if someone would like to explore the question and write about it, with references to possible explanations given in the literature. My personal guess at an explanation is that it could be related to the widespread sexual taboo in Western culture and perhaps negative commandmends about sexuality is various religions, perhaps especially in Catholicism, but that's just me thinking that. I would look forward to reading a well-referenced section about this subject. --Jhertel (talk) 11:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

calling them a flower is not referring to their sex organs. But onto the main question: Why are genitals considered so offensive? Dude: check yours out: would you like to meet that in the street? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.226.109 (talk) 02:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

"Primary sexual characteristic" term

Iztwoz, regarding this, "primary sexual characteristic" redirects to this article. So it seems best to keep it in the lead. It seems to have been added to the lead per WP:Alternative title. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Flyer22 Reborn I am not too familiar with these topics and have read different things regarding the terminology. I know that there is more than one reference (Wiki) to primary sex organs and secondary sex characteristics; and another stating that (paraphrasing) these terms of secondary sex organs and secondary sex characteristics are interchangeable. Also it was wrongly placed in the first sentence which stated that a sex organ was a primary sexual characteristic because it can also be a secondary sex characteristic I changed it and added the two refs to prim and sec organs to cover this; as it was it cannot be an alternative title. ? --Iztwoz (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I've just had a look at the page secondary sexual characteristics which gives a different slant to things entirely. Suggest we both do some looking up on this.--Iztwoz (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Think its OK now, cheers --Iztwoz (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine. Primary sexual characteristics are the ones we are born with, the ones before puberty. I'm not aware of any reliable sources stating that secondary sex organs and secondary sex characteristics are the same thing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - I came across one ref to their being the same (don't remember where) but couldn't find it elsewhere and doesn't make sense anyway. so think its OK now. --Iztwoz (talk) 10:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Female genitalia redirect

I reverted ArnoldReinhold on this edit because "genitalia" does not only refer to the external genitalia (the Sex organ article makes this clear), and there can be no doubt that people are not only thinking about the vulva when they read or hear "female genitalia"; they are thinking about the vagina as well. In fact, given how much more attention the vagina gets (including when it comes to female genital terminology), many people are more likely thinking about the vagina than the vulva when they read or hear "female genitalia." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I see your point, but almost all the articles that have redirects to female genitalia intend the human female genitalia, so sex organ is a poor _target since it isn't even gender specific. One possibility is to redirect female genitalia to Female reproductive system, which is where human female genitalia redirects. Another would be edit all the pages that link to female genitalia to instead link to the most appropriate _target for each article, e.g. Sex in advertising clearly is talking about the vulva. Incidentally, the vulva article should have an "other mammals" section or state that it is only talking about humans, as Female reproductive system already does..--agr (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Inconsistencies with redirects can be a pain. But, in this case, "female genitalia" redirecting here while "human female genitalia" redirects to the Female reproductive system article makes sense because the Female reproductive system article is (so far) solely about humans. This article, on the other hand, is obviously not solely about humans. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sex organ. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120728014926/http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/Bio106/mosses.htm to http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/Bio106/mosses.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Wrong info

A sex organ (also called a reproductive organ, primary sex organ or primary sexual characteristic) is any anatomical part of the body in a complex organism that is involved in sexual reproduction and together constitute the reproductive system. The external and visible organs, in males and females, are the primary sex organs known as the genitals or genitalia. The internal organs are known as the secondary sex organs[not in citation given][1][2] and are sometimes referred to as the internal genitalia. The characteristics that begin to appear during puberty, such as, in humans, pubic hair on both sexes and facial hair on the male, are known as secondary sex characteristics.

This info which i edited and was reverted is wrong. The primary sex organs are the gonads - testis and ovary - very clear in ref given, and not the external organs which are called the secondary sex organs. see ref.

The secondary sex organs are known as the primary sex characteristics - see ref - the secondary sex characteristics has a linked page. It may be muddling but i didn't come up with the terminology. I shall restore my edit which is correct information as i read it. If another editor can produce a different reference giving different information then they are of course more than welcome to change the material and add the ref. --Iztwoz (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

This is very confusing, particularly the statement "The secondary sex organs are known as the primary sex characteristics". I can't tell if this is incorrect or just not clear, so I won't revert it again, but if somebody else can take a look and try to make it as correct and understandable as possible then that would be great. We don't want the readers to get confused. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

It is confusing, especially the sentence you highlighted. A good percentage of viewers reading Wikipedia articles, never get past the lead, and imho, this will both confuse and discourage them from doing so. Talking about primary vs. secondary with respect to two different sets of objects, especially when one item is simulataneously "primary" in one set, and "secondary" in another, all in the same paragraph, can only lead to confusion.

There's another issue, which is that the first paragraph starts talking right away about "anatomy" and "body", but if sex organs also apply to plants, as the third paragraph claims (I rather think of them as "reproductive" rather than "sex" organs, but perhaps I'm mistaken) then that assertion should be made in the first paragraph, not the third, and perhaps in the first sentence, as part of the definition. Then, the distinction between animal kingdom sexual organs, and plant kingdom reproductive (or 'sexual') organs could be made at the top, with a follow-up paragraph for each kingdom. Once this was achieved, the issue with the "primary" vs. "secondary" might end up being relegated to the body of the article, where it could be dealt with in more detail, and maybe in separate sentences or paragraphs, and not forced into close proximity as they are now, which seems so confusing. Mathglot (talk) 11:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Iztwoz is correct about primary vs. secondary. Look at sources on the matter via regular Google or Google Books. I should have fixed that content much sooner, but I didn't pay attention to the backwards nature of what was there until now. Also, primary vs. secondary is something that is addressed lower in the article. Given that sources are clear to mention primary vs. secondary, and the lower part of the article does as well, the lead should mention something about it. And to reduce confusion, Iztwoz removed the "secondary sex organs are known as the primary sex characteristics" part. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, for why "primary sexual characteristics" was mentioned in the lead, see the #"Primary sexual characteristic" term discussion above. The term redirects here (to the Sex organ article) because the visible sex organs (or just the sex organs altogether) are considered the primary sexual characteristics. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Jeni'tulz listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jeni'tulz. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. gnu57 18:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Focus too much on humans

This article has too much of a focus on humans.CycoMa (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Genitalia

CycoMa, do I have it right that you intend to make a genitalia article? That is extremely unnecessary since this sex organ article exists. I point you to WP:REDUNDANTFORK. If you create it, I'll request a merge. GBFEE (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

In other words, there isn't even one benefit to having a genitalia article as separate from the sex organ article. GBFEE (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Sex organ and genitalia are related but the article on genitalia goes more in depth on genitalia. Also not all sex organs are part of genitalia, genitalia is basically the external sex organs.CycoMa (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Like the genitalia draft also discusses the evolution of genitalia.CycoMa (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

You have not given any good reason for wanting to create a genitalia article when the sex organ article addresses both external and internal sex organs, and both characteristics can be sufficiently covered in this article. You say "Sex organ and genitalia are related." No, not just "related." Sex organ refers to either the external or internal sex organs. It's not necessary to have both a genitalia and internal sex organ article while the sex organ article exists, and it's not necessary to have both a sex organ and genitalia article. Having a sex organ article and a genitalia article would almost convey that the sex organ article is for the internal sex organs and the genitalia article is for the external sex organs. An additional article should only be created when its creation is necessary. GBFEE (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

There are tons of sources that go in depth on the evolution of genitalia across species. It just seems inappropriate to have a section of genital evolution here. Because genitalia is specifically referring to external sex organs.CycoMa (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Then create an Evolution of genitalia article and link to it here. Problem solved. GBFEE (talk) 20:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:SUMMARY, it can have a brief section here that links to the main page on the topic. Can you agree to that? GBFEE (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

The genitalia article is also gonna probably go in depth on types of genitalia. Because genitalia is diverse across species.CycoMa (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I still don't think the extra article should be created. In the same way you can expand on the external sex organs here, you can expand on the internal sex organs here. I'll drop a line at WP:ANAT for their opinions. GBFEE (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

CycoMa, GBFEE is right. Such an article would be a fork. Please do not create duplicate or redundant articles and stick to existing ones, only splitting per WP:SIZESPLIT and related guidelines. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

It isn't ideal to have a section in mammals

Mammals are merely a minority in the animal kingdom.CycoMa (talk) 02:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

But most sources about sex organs are about mammals. I think most people who come to the article will be looking for that information. If helpful or necessary for a more well-rounded article, we can create sections for other categories of animal. There's already a section for other animals, and we have one on plants. GBFEE (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

It makes no sense to have a section for mammals and a section called other animals. I’m just gonna merge those two sections together.CycoMa (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

It does if most of the material about animals is about mammals[3][4] and we want a dedicated section for mammals that doesn't seem to hog space under an "Animals" heading that also features other animals. However, I think your merge is okay. GBFEE (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

There are tons of articles that link here. From articles on fishes, flowers, and etc. Also there are fungi that have sex organs.CycoMa (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

What does that have to do with what I said? If a topic covers one animal category more than others, there isn't anything we can do about it except follow the due process. Well, unless you want to add a lot more on other animals and plants for "balancing", but that's forcing "balance." Balance should come organically. GBFEE (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Can we do piercing on this?

I'm curious 58.227.208.200 (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

We don't have a section specifically for humans so I am not sure where it would go. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

It sounds like you're asking if the sex organ can be pierced. You said, "I'm curious." See genital piercing and genital modification and mutilation. If we included any information on that in this article, it wouldn't require a whole section. A little paragraph is all it'd need. GBFEE (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)