Template:Vital article

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Anatomy: Gross B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been classified as relating to gross anatomy. Sexology and sexuality B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Women's Health B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Martindo, regarding this edit you made, I reverted because that's not what the sources state and we should be sticking to the sources to avoid WP:Synthesis. Like I noted when reverting you, the sources are stating that because the vagina has few nerve endings, the pain of a vaginal birth is decreased. The first source for the sentence states, "Recent researchers have denied the existence of the G-spot because very few tactile (i.e., touch-receptive) nerve endings exist anywhere in the vagina (Hines 2001). They argue that the presence of such nerve bundles would make vaginal delivery of a pregnancy overwhelmingly painful." The Google Books page for the second source is currently unavailable, but I remember what it reports; it states that the vagina has relatively few nerve endings, which is a good thing since women give birth via the vagina. I confused this source with this one. I temporarily overlooked that three sources support the sentence. So what I called the second source is the third source. I don't remember what the third source states.

Also keep in mind that, as seen here and here, you added the sentence I restored. It's just that I removed a part of the sentence that is not clear and not supported by the sources. And I then rearranged the sentence. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the original sentence you added: "This arrangement limits the pain experienced during childbirth due to the concentration of nerves only at the final part of the process." I understand what you are trying to state; you are trying to state that because most of the vaginal nerve endings are near the entrance of the vagina, rather than spread equally or almost equally throughout it, most of the pain for childbirth occurs near the entrance, when the child is being born -- the final aspect of pregnancy. But, again, my issue with your edit is that the sources don't state this. I've changed the wording to the following: "Due to the lack of vaginal nerve endings, pain experienced during childbirth is significantly decreased." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Martindo, I have have reverted yet again. Due stop WP:Edit warring over this. WP:Synthesis is policy. You went right back and violated that policy again without even making a comment here on the talk page about the matter. I am going to see if WP:Anatomy is willing to comment on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also alerted WP:Med. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Less painful than what? What a strange edit. Jytdog (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, which edit do you find strange? Mine or Martindo's? Or both? In the case of mine, it states, "Due to the lack of vaginal nerve endings, pain experienced during childbirth is significantly decreased." This is the line supported by the sources. As for a comparison, it's simply stating that childbirth is not as painful as it would be if the vagina had a lot of nerve endings. Childbirth is already painful enough as it is. If the vagina was rich in nerve endings, childbirth would be so painful that it would be impossible, or likely impossible, except for a C-section. The sentence fits in this section better than in the Childbirth section because this section is already speaking on the topic of the vagina having relatively few nerve endings. My issue with Martindo's wording is that it's not supported by the sources. Other than that, I wouldn't object to his focusing on most of the pain during childbirth being due to most of the vagina's nerve endings at the entrance. What Martindo is trying to state is what I explained of his edit above. He is focusing on the fact that most of the vaginal nerve endings are at the vagina's entrance; so this is where most of the pain via childbirth would be. The only source I see with wording moving along the same lines is this 2010 "Myth Buster: 150 Great Misconceptions Clarified" source, from Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd, page 117, which states: "The vagina does not have nerve endings all along its length [...] There is a solid evolutionary reason for the lack of nerve endings along the whole length of the vagina. If the vagina had nerve endings all along its length, childbirth would have been an excruciatingly painful affair." This source, like sources in the Vagina article, notes that most of the vaginal nerve endings are near the entrance of the vagina. And it's focusing on how painful childbirth would be if the whole length of the vagina had as many nerve endings.

Also regarding Martindo latest edit, stating "The entrance for intercourse is also the exit for childbirth." is not needed since this is already abundantly clear. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not keen on using the "Myth Buster: 150 Great Misconceptions Clarified" source, but I will use it to add wording that helps support what Martindo is trying to state if that would resolve the issue. But we'd need to stick with what that source states; so I'd suggest this wording: "Due to the lack of nerve endings along the whole length of the vagina, pain experienced during childbirth is significantly reduced." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Protected the article for 10 days to provide time for consensus to develop. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Doc James. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We need a better source, then. As Jytdog notes, "less painful" is vague, almost a weasel. Less painful than what? The wording I originally saw makes it sound like childbirth isn't painful. There are clearly nerve endings, and the comparison logically should be "more painful at the point where the baby exits, compared to the entire birth canal". Can you really doubt that as a fact? If that strikes you as OR, then let's find a source that explains it clearly. I'm not going to mess with this wording anymore. Please reconsider what I wrote and MODIFY it rather than simply re-revert. Martindo (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Martindo, what better source? Better than the "Myth Buster: 150 Great Misconceptions Clarified" source? If you mean what is already in the article, we have three solid sources used to support the line in question. And Jytdog has not yet clarified what he finds vague. Either way, there is nothing vague about stating the following: "Due to the lack of vaginal nerve endings, pain experienced during childbirth is significantly decreased." This line comes right after stating that the vagina "as a whole, however, lacks nerve endings, which commonly hinders a woman's ability to receive sufficient sexual stimulation, including orgasm, solely from penetration of the vagina" and the "outer one-third of the vagina, especially near the opening, contains the majority of the vaginal nerve endings, making it more sensitive to touch than the inner (or upper) two-thirds of the vaginal barrel." So I don't see how the sentence in question is vague in context. After reading that, readers will understand that most of the pain results from the vaginal entrance without you adding a bit sating so. The information relaying that the lack of vaginal nerve endings make childbirth "significantly less painful" or that the pain "is significantly decreased" is not stating that there is no pain. Obviously, pain is involved in childbirth; everyone knows that, and the text states "significantly decreased," which indicates that pain is still involved. The wording originally stated the following: "This factor makes the process of child birth significantly less painful, because an increased number of nerve endings means that there is an increased possibility for pain and pleasure." For some reason, you found that contradictory, but all it was stating is that more nerve endings not only increase the possibility for pleasure, but also for pain. That's not contradictory; it's simply a fact. As for doubting what you added, it's not a matter of doubting it; I clearly explained above that I understand what you were stating and that I would be okay with it if a source states it. But we do not have a source stating it. So, yes, that makes your addition WP:Synthesis. It's not WP:OR unless there is no source that exists anywhere for it; I do not know if a source exists for it, but I do know that we (at this site) currently do not have a source for it.

I made another proposal above. I suggested adding: "Due to the lack of nerve endings along the whole length of the vagina, pain experienced during childbirth is significantly reduced." How do you feel about that? If you are still concerned about readers thinking that childbirth is not painful, we could add the following instead: "Although pain results from childbirth, this pain is significantly reduced due to the lack of nerve endings along the whole length of the vagina." Or we could word it this way: "Without this setup, there would be a significant increase in pain during childbirth." Or "an overwhelming increase in pain during childbirth" in place of "significant increase in pain during childbirth." Or something like that. I would suggest "Without this arrangement" in place of "Without this setup," but, for the pain aspect, the sources in the article are focused on the scarcity of nerve endings rather than on the arrangement. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22Reborn wrote:The wording originally stated the following: "This factor makes the process of child birth significantly less painful, because an increased number of nerve endings means that there is an increased possibility for pain and pleasure."

Please explain to me how "less painful" and "increased possibility" in the same sentence are clear? They might be clear in your mind based on the elaborate history you recount, but readers do not see that history. A reliable researcher or journal doesn't always offer text that is clear to a lay person. This is why WP emphasizes secondary sources rather than primary sources.

As I said, it's not "scarcity" or "lack" but rather the distribution: less at the outer portion, which means "less pain" compared to the *possible* arrangement of nerves along the entire birth canal. The verb "decreased" (or "reduced") means a change compared to a prior state, but there's no evidence that human vaginas ever had nerves along the full length of the birth canal. So, the wording needs to explain the comparison, or else find a better descriptor.

I think the following sentence that you proposed moves in the right direction: "Although pain results from childbirth, this pain is significantly reduced due to the lack of nerve endings along the whole length of the vagina."

The problem is that there is no "lack along the whole length" -- there's a concentration. Let's change to: Although pain results from childbirth, this pain is significantly reduced by having an arrangement of nerve endings concentrating in the outer part rather than along the whole length.

As for references, I don't consider references "untouchable" if they are oblique. A clear reference is always preferable to something slapped on because "it's authoritative and sort of makes the point". Can you find out what source the 150 Misconceptions article draws on? That might be the ideal reference. Otherwise, use the 150 if necessary. Everything is in flux in a wiki and eventually someone will find something reliable and clear. In the meantime, the text doesn't have to be perfect. Thanks for your input and concern. Martindo (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Martindo. This will be my last time pinging you to this section since I assume you will check back here for replies on your own and because you might not want to keep getting pinged. As for your latest commentary, I must repeat that we have to go by what the sources state, and the ones currently in the article do not state what you want to add. You asked, "Please explain to me how 'less painful' and 'increased possibility' in the same sentence are clear?" I do not see how that previous wording wasn't clear. It was stating that a lack of vaginal nerve endings makes the process of childbirth significantly less painful, and that this is because an increased number of nerve endings would mean that there is an increased possibility for pain. In other words, more nerve endings would result in more pain (just like they result in more pleasure for matters concerning sexual activity; for example, the number of nerve endings in the clitoris vs. the number in the vagina). So I fail to see what is confusing about. Either way, as noted, I felt that your change to the sentence was an improvement...except for one part. As for secondary sources, the sentence in question is supported by three secondary sources.

You stated, "As I said, it's not 'scarcity' or 'lack' but rather the distribution: less at the outer portion, which means 'less pain' compared to the *possible* arrangement of nerves along the entire birth canal." But like I already stated, "the sources are stating that because the vagina has few nerve endings, the pain of a vaginal birth is [reduced]." The sources are not stating what you are relaying. You stated, "The verb 'decreased' (or 'reduced') means a change compared to a prior state, but there's no evidence that human vaginas ever had nerves along the full length of the birth canal. So, the wording needs to explain the comparison, or else find a better descriptor." I do not see what this has to do with simply noting that the lack of vaginal nerve endings makes childbirth more bearable. The paragraph is not focused on human evolution. And, really, research on vaginal nerve endings are clear that they are relatively few regardless. Despite the fact that most of the vaginal nerve endings are near the entrance, the vagina has few nerve endings regardless; this is no doubt why the sources do, in fact, focus on the scarcity and lack of nerve endings when speaking of reduced childbirth pain. You make it seem like "decreased" and "reduced" are stating that the nerve endings are being reduced or have been reduced; it's not stating that. It's stating that although pain results from childbirth, this pain is significantly reduced due to the lack of nerve endings in the vagina. Yes, there are more nerve endings near the entrance, but readers are not going to neglect that fact; this is because the paragraph is already clear where most of the vaginal nerve endings are near the entrance. So given that we state that most of the nerve endings are near the entrance of the vagina, I do not see that readers will not understand that most of the childbirth pain happens at the entrance of the vagina.

As for your suggested wording, looking at the "Myth Buster: 150 Great Misconceptions Clarified" source, I could go along with that wording, even though I find the "nerve endings concentrating in the outer part rather than along the whole length" part redundant to what the paragraph already states, and I consider this source to be poor. As for going by the references, that is the way Wikipedia works, even if it can at times prove to be problematic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer 22: You offered to make an edit closer to my suggested wording, but I don't see any change yet. Better still, why not cut the entire last sentence of paragraph 1 of the Sexual Activity section? The part about childbirth actually sounds like a digression there, tacked on by someone who felt it somehow added evidence to Sexual Activity.

I looked at the 150 Misconceptions chapter you cited, which has wording closer to what I suggested, but also has sloppy logic, conflating "not along the whole length" with "lack along the whole length" (implying total absence). I don't see any problem with using that source until someone replaces it with a better one.

BTW, 150 Misconceptions mentions evolution in regard to "reduced" or "few" nerves. I agree with you that this is a distraction, because evolutionary explanations are often made these days in retrospect without direct evidence, leading scholars such as Richard_Lewontin#Sociobiology_and_evolutionary_psychology to criticize evolutionary psychology for its promulgation of Just-so_story ideas.

References should clearly match the text, but the text doesn't have to follow them slavishly. It's better to find a reference that fits the consensus than to slap one in place simply because it is scientific and tangentially relevant (or in this case, poorly worded). WP is full of narrative segments in good articles that have no direct reference -- if such segments were impermissible, there'd be nothing but direct quotes in the entire 'pedia! Martindo (talk) 03:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't changed the article to your latest suggested wording yet because the article is still currently locked; see the #Inability to edit? discussion below. As for removing the sentence altogether, I thought about doing that, but I feel that we should retain that information since it is sometimes mentioned with the topic of vaginal nerve endings, and I don't find it to be trivial. On Wikipedia, I often strive to build comprehensive articles. The text might fit okay in the Childbirth section, given what another editor (again, see the "Inability to edit?" discussion) wants to add to that section. And since that section comes right after the Sexual activity section, the flow wouldn't be too off. But any readers who skip right to the Childbirth section would be missing out on the important information about vaginal nerve endings, which helps provide context for the sentence in question. Yes, I know that the "150 Misconceptions" source mentions evolution, but the section in question doesn't. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's done. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a lot of editing related to women's health and have never run into a topic that has been blocked from editing like this. Why? Please give me the briefest answer possible including consensus discussions. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 11:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barbara (WVS), if you click "view source", you may then click the blue bar that says "Submit an edit request", and an administrator will review your request and make the edit if appropriate. The article is locked for one week because of an edit-war; the locking gives the community time to come to a consensus. Remember that editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right, and that that privilege may be revoked if administrators determine that is best for any reason. Softlavender (talk) 12:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing edit reverting by established editors. Page fully protected to get them to develop consensus on the talk page rather than continuing as they were. I am sure they would appreciate your involvement in working on such consensus. I have shortened the protection to three more days. This is a controversial topic so likely best to discuss any change that might be controversial on the talk page first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the otherhand, I am pretty sure neither of the editors would have been delighted to have me in the mix. Bfpage (talk) 00:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara (WVS), if the changes you want to make are significant, do you mind discussing them here first? I ask this because per Talk:Vagina/Archive 9#In preparation for GA status and #Edits, the article underwent a sort of peer review in preparation for a WP:GA nomination, and, like I recently told Tom, I do plan to nominate it for WP:GA soon. I feel that the article is GA-level, but there are a few things I want to do to it before nominating it. And the article needs to be stable during the nomination (meaning no frequent changes made to the article due to edit warring or some other content dispute during the process). Since you and I often disagree on article content/style, I feel that it's best we discuss first. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind discussing it here. It has something to do with the vaginal pain during childbirth and recovery. Injections are given through the vaginal wall in some cases to block pain. I don't think it was more than one sentence with refs. No edit warring from me. Maybe I can help with the GA by just double checking the references. That really won't involve any editing changes unless a ref needs a new url or something like that. Best Regards, Bfpage (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara (WVS)/Bfpage, yes, I'd seen that you created the Pain management during childbirth article. Thanks for noting what you plan to add; feel free to add the material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that content should go in the Childbirth section. The aforementioned nerve endings content is just to explain the nerve endings issue (which fits best in the Sexual activity section). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No ref that I remember describes the microbiota like this. I'm not going edit, but it seems like puffery. It really isn't dynamic - over life time yes. I'll just leave everything alone until after the GA. Like I mentioned above, I don't think my participation in improving the article would be helpful. Bfpage (talk) 00:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I remember the editor who added that, although the username currently escapes me. Yeah, I'd reword that as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OMGosh! I wrote that?(she said with a very red face) Seriously?? Well if I am anything it is totally inconsistent. How funny. I can see your eyes rolling up. Bfpage (talk) 00:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I need to learn to use wikiblame so I know who to blame. Bfpage (talk) 00:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bfpage, no, you didn't add it. It was there before your first edit to the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very thorough article, generally well-organized and usually careful about neutrality. Flyer22 suggested in a recent thread above that she (?) would soon nominate vagina for Good Article status after touching up a few points. I’d like to see those points listed first for general discussion, and I’m opening a separate Talk thread to facilitate that (below). Here I offer my own concerns and suggestions about one section.

The title of this section includes the word “activity” but the initial paragraph portrays the passivity of the vagina. The term “nerve endings” appears no fewer than 6 times in this paragraph, once more in paragraph 3, and then not at all in the rest of the entire article.

Why start a description of sexual activity this way? Leading with a description of nerve endings is undue weight in regard to “prominence of placement” and “depth of detail” as noted in paragraph 2 of WP:RSUW.

Tallying nerve endings (and there is no actual quantity offered for an objective comparison, only vague generalities in relative terms) as the touchstone for sexual activity is reductionism at best and a red herring at worst. There is no absolute limitation on the experience of sex that can be attributed to the concentration of nerve endings.

As noted in the online Q&A Quora (https://www.quora.com/What-parts-of-the-human-body-have-the-most-nerve-endings-and-why), “sensation involves not only nerve endings (or other specialized sensors), but also how the information is interpreted in the brain”. In particular:

“Surprisingly the genitals really don't have all that many nerve endings, relatively speaking. Obviously, this doesn't mean that the genitals aren't sensitive. They just don't have (or need) the density of nerve endings that fingertips have, because you need to be able to discriminate between two inputs on your fingers that are close together.”

One can see this portrayed in the Cortical_homunculus drawing based on research by Wilder Penfield which shows that the fingers and lips have more nerve endings than the other parts of the body including the genitals. And Orgasm#Definition cautions that orgasm is not merely physiological.

Asserting that subjective experience should conform to the pseudo-objective quantity of nerve endings undermines WP:NPOV by implying a hierarchy of orgasms. This looks like an indirect attempt to deny vaginal orgasms on the basis of “few” nerve endings, an anatomical argument that would also deny orgasms based on anal penetration. It also begs the question of why sensation in one’s fingertips or lips isn’t a common source of orgasm.

It’s important to recognize that researchers and writers often speculate in addition to reporting facts. We’re all human. Aside from promoting one’s own fame (“I said it first”), there is social value in suggesting hypotheses and new lines of research in a journal. However, speculation (the word “may” occurs 41 times in this article at present) should be minimized in WP and not presented as definitive pronouncements simply because it was voiced in a reliable source alongside factual information.

Note, for example, how paragraph 5 of this section says the G spot “may” be an erogenous zone, but paragraph 3 unequivocally declares that the clitoris “plays a part in vaginal stimulation” (due to a supposedly definitive “abundance of nerve endings”). This assertion implies that the clitoris is always essential rather than sometimes supplementary or complementary.

Suggestions for improving the Sexual Activity section:

a. Cut everything in paragraph 1 after the first sentence. Integrate it elsewhere (especially the part about pain experienced during childbirth, as Flyer22 and I discussed in a recent thread above).

b. Cut paragraph 3. I have no doubt that “research indicates” a connection for some women, but is it possible to examine all women in this respect? That’s really what is needed if this paragraph is going to focus on proven facts rather than extrapolation. Again, undue detail creeps in with the undefined term “tissue cluster” (leave it for the Further Information articles linked under the section heading). And again, we see speculation, written almost like an apology for vaginal orgasms: “perhaps more extensive in some women than in others, which may contribute to orgasms experienced vaginally.”

c. Modify the convoluted first sentence of paragraph 5 as follows:

The G-spot (an abbreviation for the Gräfenberg spot) is an erogenous zone that is defined as being located at the anterior wall…

and also the next sentence to refer to specific incidents before describing the hypothesized generalization:

A G-spot orgasm sometimes results in female ejaculation, leading…

then conclude with skepticism about the G-spot, streamlined as:

The G-spot's existence as a distinct structure is still under dispute, because its reported location varies from woman to woman, and some women do not report having one at all.

The part about “extension of clitoris” is speculation already voiced once as “tissue cluster” (again WP:RSUW). However, if there is consensus to cut the unverifiable paragraph 3, then I accept retaining this generalization as a separate sentence at the end of paragraph 5, along these lines:

The G-spot has been hypothesized to be an extension of the clitoris and some experts therefore suggest that some orgasms experienced via its stimulation actually result from stimulation of the clitoris.

As noted in a recent discussion, and emphasized in the last paragraph of WP:RSUW: “Common sense is required to determine what sources to use; this guideline cannot be applied robotically.” Research is inductive, with generalizations based on reliable discovery of facts. However, the aim of wikipedia is to provide truth according to the current state of knowledge. A more deductive approach is sometimes better: find sources that fit the consensus, because the narrative never consists entirely of direct quotes. Martindo (talk) 04:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Martindo. Since this is a new section, I will ping you here once. Yes, I am female, by the way. As for your suggestions in this section, although I appreciate your thoughts on these matters, I cannot go along with those suggestions. And here is why: It is important to begin the Sexual activity section with information about nerve endings because nerve endings are important for sexual pleasure, including orgasm, as far as the genital region goes and women time and time again note that they do not get sufficient sexual pleasure from vaginal stimulation. The vast majority of women do not orgasm from vaginal stimulation. Women note time and time again that, with penile penetration and sexual satisfaction, they get pleasure from the closeness and feeling of being full, but that vaginal penetration by itself is generally insufficient for them. The vast majority of women need direct clitoral stimulation to orgasm. The sources in the article are clear about all of this. And that is why it is important to start off the Sexual activity section with information about the vaginal nerve endings and the design of the vagina as far as sexual pleasure goes. This information not only belongs in the Sexual activity section, it should begin with it. Before we get on to talking about any sexual pleasure that results from vaginal sexual activity, readers should understand the design of the vagina with regard to vaginal sexual pleasure, and that includes the limitation of it. This is not a WP:Undue weight violation.

You mentioned Quora, but Quora is not a WP:Reliable source. As far as the human brain goes, I recently helped bring that article to WP:GA. The power of the human brain is extraordinary, but it is not usually psychological stimulation that results in orgasm. Many women who have not understood the importance of the clitoris with regard to female orgasm have tried to will themselves to have a "vaginal orgasm" to no avail. They have felt broken in this regard. It wasn't until they learned that all the willing in the world was unlikely to result in an orgasm from stimulation of the vagina alone, and that it is also important to stimulate the clitoris if they desire an orgasm. The difference between the number and types of nerve endings in the vagina vs. the clitoris makes all the difference when it comes to female orgasm. You pointed to the Orgasm article; that is another article I've worked on, and it still needs significant work, but do see the Orgasm#Females section, including its subsections; the "Clitoral and vaginal categories" section is also enlightening.

You speak of "hierarchy of orgasms," but it is an undeniable fact that women are far more likely to orgasm from direct clitoral stimulation than from direct vaginal stimulation. You do know that the clitoris is equivalent to the penis, don't you? Just like it is unlikely that a man will have an orgasm without the direct stimulation of his penis, it is unlikely that a woman will have an orgasm without the direct stimulation of her clitoris. Like Helen O'Connell, one of the top researchers (if not the top researcher) on the clitoris, stated in an interview, focusing on the G-spot to the exclusion of the rest of a woman's body is "a bit like stimulating a guy's testicles without touching the penis and expecting an orgasm to occur just because love is present." Researchers today are clear that the clitoris is (usually) the key to female sexual pleasure and that "vaginal orgasms" are likely nothing but a different type of clitoral orgasm. Sources like this, this, this and this are clear about that. The WP:NPOV policy is based on WP:Due weight, which means that we give most of our weight to what the vast majority of the literature states. The vast majority of the literature supports the statement that 70-80% of women need direct clitoral stimulation to orgasm. The vast majority of the literature shows no evidence for a G-spot; the G-spot has never been proven to exist. Read the G-spot article, which is another article I worked on. It's also WP:GA. "Anal orgasms" are not a demonstrated scientific fact; the few sources (that pass the WP:Reliable sources guideline, that is) reporting on them indicate that they result from prostate stimulation in men, which is still tied to the penis, and indirect stimulation of the clitoris/vagina in women, rather than from the anus itself. And it's usually a sex guide source, with no research supporting it, that reports "anal orgasms." Actual research has gone to the G-spot, and, since the G-spot is a popular concept and vaginal matter, we mention it in this article.

You stated, "It’s important to recognize that researchers and writers often speculate in addition to reporting facts. We’re all human. Aside from promoting one’s own fame ('I said it first'), there is social value in suggesting hypotheses and new lines of research in a journal. However, speculation (the word 'may' occurs 41 times in this article at present) should be minimized in WP and not presented as definitive pronouncements simply because it was voiced in a reliable source alongside factual information." Again, we go by what the WP:Reliable sources state with WP:Due weight. "May" is only used when needed and with regard to exceptions. A woman may have a "vaginal orgasm," but this doesn't negate the fact that the vast majority of women, as replicated repeatedly in research, will not have one. We state that the G-spot may be an erogenous zone because its existence has never been proven and is subjective. We are not going to state "is," which would be a WP:Due weight violation. The research of today consistently shows or indicates that the clitoris plays a part in vaginal stimulation. Like Odile Buisson and Pierre Foldès reported, the "vagina is inextricably linked with the internal parts of the clitoris, [and] stimulating the vagina without activating the clitoris may be next to impossible. [...] The coronal planes during perineal contraction and finger penetration demonstrated a close relationship between the root of the clitoris and the anterior vaginal wall." Complete division of the vagina and clitoris is a minority view among researchers today. In fact, I only know of one researcher who argues for complete division, and that is Vincenzo Puppo. Like Go Ask Alice! notes, "In reality, total separation between the vagina and clitoris is mostly artificial, and often based on a misunderstanding of what, where, and how big the clitoris really is."

The A-spot is WP:Fringe and female ejaculation has never been proven to exist either; there is significant debate regarding whether or not the fluid is urine or mostly urine.

All in all, I reiterate that we can only go by what the reliable sources state...with due weight.

You are concerned about neutrality and how I have presented content in the article. I assure you that I am adhering to the WP:Neutral policy. I'm going to go ahead and WP:Ping some editors who have either worked with me on sexual or anatomy topics and/or discussed some of these matters with me, so that they may weigh in on your and my statements in this regard (and so that it's not only us discussing back and forth): Pinging Nigelj, who is someone I have discussed the clitoral and vaginal nerve endings with. Pinging Grayfell, who has been helpful on a number of sexual topics. Pinging Tom (LT), who has worked with me on anatomy topics, including this article. Pinging Rivertorch, who used to watch this article and probably still does, and weighed in on a few of its talk page matters. Pinging Ritchie333 and NeilN, who are also familiar with my work on anatomy and sexual topics (NeilN hasn't edited since July 14, though.) Doc James is another, but I think he may want to keep watching over the article in case of disruption and so may want to retain an administrative role at this article instead. All of these editors are men, seeing as there are not as many women I've worked with (mainly because Wikipedia has far more male than female editors, and also because men focus on sexual topics more than women do), but they are familiar with my work. Two female editors who might be willing to weigh in are SummerPhDv2.0 and Softlavender. Softlavender already commented in the #Inability to edit? section above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to ping: I hear you on the lack of female participation on this article. I'm not really enough of a reader on, or expert on, female human sexuality to have much of a say on content. But one thing that worries me, glancing through the article, is the quality of citations. I think it's problematic to source to "pop" sources and clickbait articles and articles from non-scientific venues. Ideally, especially for a GA, all content should be sourced to MEDRS-compliant sources. Unfortunately, most of the MEDRS-compliant sources are written/researched by men, and it's women however who have a better understanding of their own bodies. I suggest posting requests for assistance an input on all of the WikiProjects whose banners are at the top of this page, and also on Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists and WP:WikiProject Feminism. Also, it occurs to me that Opabinia regalis is female, and a scientist, so she may be able to help or have some ideas of how to proceed. Softlavender (talk) 14:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender, other than this source I included as a compromise above, what pop sources do you think I have included? This is a link showing the references used in the article. All of the stuff that should be sourced to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources is sourced to them. WP:MEDRS-compliant sources include "academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers," and that is what I have included when it comes to book sources. I did the same when elevating the Clitoris article to WP:GA. Per WP:MEDDATE, the need for WP:MEDRS-compliant sources is significantly relaxed for Society and culture/History sections and for "areas where little progress is being made or where few reviews are published." I'm also not sure what "clickbait articles and articles from non-scientific venues" you mean, other than what is perhaps in the Society and culture section. If you mean a source like this "G-Spot Does Not Exist, ‘Without A Doubt,’ Say Researchers" source in the Sexual activity section, it's included as a lay summary source (see Template:Citation Style documentation/lay) with a review article. I assure you that this article is mainly supported by good or great sources. And making sure that it is sourced to good or great sources is one reason I previously contacted Tom (LT) for a review of the article; Tom (LT) mainly works on anatomy articles and is often in contact with WP:Med, just like I am. Also see what Tom and I stated at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-09-03/WikiProject report about sourcing anatomy articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging Herostratus, who is familiar with my work and sometimes has a lot to state on certain disputes. Herostratus, if you have anything to offer on the above matters, please do. I will continue to present the current knowledge on these topics in this section and in the section below to support my arguments or challenge arguments. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for thinking of me, Softlavender, but I doubt I'll be much help here; my time for Wikipedia has been short lately, and I'm a biochemist by training who works on modeling intermolecular interactions - whole organs are beyond me ;) As for sources, big topics like this benefit IMO from broad source selection - the challenge with medical sources is that they're often difficult for laypeople to read, either because they're paywalled or because they're written for specialists. Medical claims can benefit from references to both medical sources and well-chosen tertiary sources written for a lay audience. To that end, I'd suggest prioritizing sources that are freely available, and avoiding a proliferation of intro textbooks. (They can be expensive and hard to find, and Google Books text isn't available in all locations.) In some biochem articles we addressed this by consolidating the intro-type citations to textbooks available through the NCBI library - they may have basic anatomy and women's health books available.)

An article like this is also inevitably going to contain a lot of "society and culture" type information for which other sourcing standards apply. One thing that stood out to me on a quick skim is that several passages contain long quotes from named scholars without their own articles, which raises the question of why these specific people were chosen as representative sources. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opabinia regalis, I pretty much agree with what you stated. WP:PAYWALL certainly comes to my mind when working on articles, and I figured that Softlavender might be referring to paywall sources when she stated "clickbait articles." But I again point out that the book sources I've used for the biological and/or medical stuff are WP:MEDRS-compliant. As for what you stated regarding "several passages contain[ing] long quotes from named scholars without their own articles, which raises the question of why these specific people were chosen as representative sources," I take it you mean something like these two sources? If so, I sometimes include author quotes in references for statements that may be contested and because the pages for the quotes may later not be accessible. It's common for people to be unaware of certain things regarding female sexual anatomy and to challenge the matter if they don't see that the source supports it, or that more than one source supports it. The authors weren't selected; the sources were, and this is because they support the material I've included, which adheres to WP:Due weight. Margarita Sáenz-Herrero stating that "there is a current lack of appropriate vocabulary to refer to the external female genitals, using, for example, 'vagina' and 'vulva' as if they were synonyms" is a fact; it's not an opinion. So I didn't cherry pick the source to relay this information; I used the source because it's a decent source for the information. And like I noted in another discussion, "whether the scholars are WP:Notable doesn't matter. We don't judge sources on whether or not we've heard of the author and/or whether or not the author is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. [...] WP:Reliable states nothing about whether or not the author is notable. WP:Notability is about whether a subject is notable; it is not about whether an author of a source is notable." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just so that I'm clear, I do think we should mainly be sticking to WP:MEDRS-compliant book sources (whether on Google Books or not) and review articles for the biological and/or medical content in this article, which is what I've done. The book sources are usually lay friendly, and since they are often WP:TERTIARY, they commonly summarize primary and secondary sources and report on what the current understanding for a topic is. I'm not keen on using health website sources (unless it's something like the World Health Organization website) or media sources (unless it's for a few things in the Society and culture section). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. While I am not aware of a direct COI here, there are a couple of cites that are or should be here that are solidly in my neighborhood so I won't be commenting at length. If you have not already done so, perhaps a few notices on Wikiproject pages would bring in some more opinions. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 (apologies for abbreviating your username), I appreciate the wealth of detail you have given in your response, but your insistence on emphasizing nerve endings in the initial paragraph strikes me as a type of WP:Weasel: “creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated.”

Journal editors do not screen academic articles for weasels. As I noted in my initial post of this thread, they accept hypotheses and conjectures related to factual research. But WP doesn’t tolerate weasels. The use of relative and qualitative terms like “reduced” and “abundance” to describe nerve endings is indeed vague — I don’t see how you can deny that. There is no quantitative information given (e.g., number of nerve endings per square millimeter), and I wonder if it’s even in the sources you name.

And I see you sidestep the obvious question: why don’t we all get orgasms from our fingertips, which have way more nerve endings than our genitals? Orgasm is rooted in nerve stimulation but not limited by quantity — the brain plays an undeniably essential role in interpreting the stimulation.

The Sexual Activity section (and other sections that have links to more detailed articles) should summarize key points evenly and concisely. The way the section reads now virtually denies vaginal orgasm, which you say in your Talk reply is achieved by a significant number of women. So, the goal of liberating the majority has led you to unintentionally oppress a minority? The omission of a minority view seems like WP:RSUW even if you didn’t intend the weight to be oppressive.

As we both know, Talk is a place to share relevant but less reliable sources, such as the Quora Q&A that I posted, which informally speaks truth that is verifiable through reliable sources (e.g., Penfield’s well-established research). Further, it sounds like your stats on 70-80% needing clitoral stimulation (is that all women? or only the set of women who actually achieve what other people agree is an orgasm?) do come from a reliable source, so why not include that quant info in the article itself? It would help.

WP:RSUW emphasizes common sense and provides general guidelines on including minority or even outmoded viewpoints. The plain fact is that G-spot, human sex pheromones, and other sexual phenomena are neither proven nor disproven. A true NPOV way to present such topics is to state the original finding by quoting that source, and then counter it by quoting another source. Trust readers to follow the text and draw their own conclusions (presumably agreeing with yours). People don’t need to be spoonfed a conclusion before they read the whole paragraph. Martindo (talk) 13:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• (responding to ping) I still do watch this article, but from a distance. I'm happy to revert vandalism or blatant POV-pushing, but that's about it; my knowledge of the topic is limited, and to comment intelligently on the specifics of this thread would require my overcoming a significant learning curve. I will make two brief general comments. First, the OP's repeated comment about fingertips and orgasms seems fairly bizarre, not to mention irrelevant. Second, the only Wikipedian I might conceivably trust more than Flyer22 for sourcing anatomy articles and wording them neutrally is Doc James (who was already pinged to this discussion), and I suspect his informed opinion might be more valuable than his admin tools in this instance. Obviously, it's his decision to make, but mops are easily found (except at 2 a.m. EST) and content editors of his caliber working in this area aren't. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 14:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Martindo, I have no issue with you abbreviating my username; after all, it used to simply be "Flyer22." My insistence on emphasizing nerve endings in the initial paragraph has been explained and is not a WP:Weasel violation.

As for the sources stating that the vagina, or upper two-thirds of the vagina, has relatively few nerve endings, you can check the sources yourself or read other sources on the matter. This source used in the article states, "Although most women report that they enjoy intercourse, it is not the optimal mode of stimulation for them. This is because intercourse provides rather indirect stimulation of the clitoris, the most sexually sensitive genital area in most women. Thus, more lengthy foreplay, including manual or oral stimulation of the clitoris, is usually key to enhancing women's sexual pleasure. Many men mistakenly assume that women experience the same degree of pleasurable sensations that they do during intercourse. But this is not the case, as the upper two-thirds of the vagina has relatively few nerve endings -- a good thing, since the vagina serves as the birth canal. Manual or oral stimulation of the clitoris is typically more effective in producing female orgasm than sexual intercourse alone (Brancroft, 2002b)." When reading passages like this, it should be easy to see why it is important to begin the Sexual activity section with information about the design of the vagina with regard to vaginal sexual pleasure, including the limitation of it. When solid sources talk about the vagina and sexual pleasure, they often mention these aspects. And it's important that they do since so many teenage girls and women are expecting vaginal intercourse to be satisfying and are confused when it is not; so many of them do not know that it's typical/normal to not get optimal sexual pleasure from vaginal intercourse. And, as numerous source note, we have Freud, to thank for that (since it was Freud's "vaginal orgasm and clitoral orgasm" distinction, which includes his "vaginal orgasms are superior" belief, that started it all).

You stated, "And I see you sidestep the obvious question: why don’t we all get orgasms from our fingertips, which have way more nerve endings than our genitals? Orgasm is rooted in nerve stimulation but not limited by quantity — the brain plays an undeniably essential role in interpreting the stimulation." Why? Because sexual organs have different types, and a different arrangement, of nerve endings, much like the tongue does. Taste is a different sensation, is it not? I didn't sidestep this at all; I simply briefly commented on it, stating, "The difference between the number and types of nerve endings in the vagina vs. the clitoris makes all the difference when it comes to female orgasm." A person can try as much as possible to have an orgasm of the fingers, but it will not happen. And this is because the fingers are not built for orgasm. If a person were to manage to have an orgasm via having their fingers stimulated, the orgasm would originate from the genital area, not the fingers, much like the so-called "breast orgasm."

You stated, "The way the section reads now virtually denies vaginal orgasm, which you say in your Talk reply is achieved by a significant number of women." No, it is not denying vaginal orgasm; it begins by noting that "the concentration of the nerve endings near the entrance of the vagina (the lower third) usually provide pleasurable vaginal sensations when stimulated during sexual activity, and many women additionally derive pleasure from a feeling of closeness and fullness during penetration of the vagina." So it mentions pleasure first. It then goes on to note the important contrast, which is that "the vagina as a whole, however, lacks nerve endings, which commonly hinders a woman's ability to receive sufficient sexual stimulation, including orgasm, solely from penetration of the vagina." It then explains why this is the case. Revisit my second paragraph above in this latest reply of mine for why this is not only important to mention, but to begin with. The next paragraph then goes on to note different ways that a woman may achieve vaginal sexual pleasure. The clitoris is not mentioned until paragraph three, and, unlike, the Orgasm and Clitoris articles, it does not note that most women need direct clitoral stimulation to orgasm; this was a decision I made, as this fact is already covered in the Orgasm and Clitoris articles, and because I wanted the text to mainly stay focused on how pleasure can be derived from the vagina, and because I did not want to have to any male editor feeling a kind of way about the material; I state this because I've only seen male editors have an issue with information noting that the key to female orgasm is some type of direct stimulation of the clitoris rather than penile-vaginal sex. But now we see that even though I kept that part out, you are an editor complaining about the mention of the clitoris. All the text about the clitoris states is that "the clitoris additionally plays a part in vaginal stimulation, as it is a sex organ of multiplanar structure containing an abundance of nerve endings, with a broad attachment to the pubic arch and extensive supporting tissue to the mons pubis and labia; it is centrally attached to the urethra, and research indicates that it forms a tissue cluster with the vagina. This tissue is perhaps more extensive in some women than in others, which may contribute to orgasms experienced vaginally." Personally, I see nothing threatening about that. And it is not a WP:Undue weight issue.

But if we are speaking on the existence of the vaginal orgasm/G-spot, its existence is significantly disputed. Like scholars Kilchevsky, Vardi, Lowenstein and Gruenwald note, "radiographic studies have been unable to demonstrate a unique entity, other than the clitoris, whose direct stimulation leads to vaginal orgasm. Objective measures have failed to provide strong and consistent evidence for the existence of an anatomical site that could be related to the famed G-spot." And like I've already pointed out above, most researchers today believe that the experience of "vaginal orgasm" is caused by the clitoris. So, no, we should not be making it seem like "vaginal orgasm" is a distinct entity or that the G-spot definitively exists. We should be clear on the doubt regarding the existence. There is no doubt regarding the existence of clitoral orgasms. And we certainly should not be presenting the barely-researched anterior fornix erogenous zone (A-spot) as something that definitively exists; from what I see, it is too WP:Fringe to even mention in this article. As numerous sources note, there is already a lot misunderstandings about female orgasm and a number of reported types of female orgasms that have not been proven to exist, which makes it all the more important present the vagina and female orgasm topics as accurately as possible. And this also means sticking to good or great sources on the topic, not media sources reporting on some type of female orgasm that has no scientific backing whatsoever.

As for 70-80% of women needing direct clitoral stimulation to orgasm, you can read the sources on female orgasm for more detail. Either way, we can only go by what the sources state. As for mentioning that 70-80% of women need direct clitoral stimulation to orgasm, I see no need to mention it in this article; see what I just stated in my fourth paragraph of this reply. Doing so would only cause more of an issue for men who would rather not see text stating that most women need clitoral stimulation to orgasm, or for men who would think that the section is downgrading the vagina by simply mentioning biological facts; the latter applies to you now. And if I did mention that general statistical range in this article, people should be able to do the math regarding the leftover percentage of women anyway.

I don't understand your objection to the way that the G-spot material is presented; it is presented with WP:Due weight. You don't have to like it, but I am following the rules in this regard. Also keep in mind that WP:RSUW is a supplement page; it is neither a guideline nor policy. The WP:Due weight policy is the policy to look at. The article notes that the G-spot may be an erogenous zone; it does this because the existence of the G-spot is significantly disputed. In fact, most of the anatomical and medical communities do not believe it exists, unless considering that it is an extension of the clitoris. So the article also notes that its "existence, and existence as a distinct structure, is still under dispute, as its reported location can vary from woman to woman, appears to be nonexistent in some women, and it is hypothesized to be an extension of the clitoris and therefore the reason for orgasms experienced vaginally." And, of course, the text also mentions that a "G-spot orgasm may be responsible for female ejaculation, leading some doctors and researchers to believe that G-spot pleasure comes from the Skene's glands, a female homologue of the prostate, rather than any particular spot on the vaginal wall; other researchers consider the connection between the Skene's glands and the G-spot area to be weak." It should mention all of this. This is not spoonfeeding readers; this is summarizing the important matters for readers; none if it should be omitted. We shouldn't be vague and have readers draw inaccurate conclusions when we can be clear about the research/current knowledge. The only time Wikipedia should work that way is for the lead since, per WP:Lead, the lead is meant to be a brief overview of matters the articles goes in depth about. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above in my comments on the Sexual Activity section, there is undue weight WP:RSUW given to nerve endings, and only minimal discussion of other aspects of a vagina’s role in sexual experience. I mentioned there that the role of the brain in interpreting sensory information is completely ignored (e.g., fingertips and lips have extremely abundant nerve endings, but their stimulation generally doesn’t lead to orgasm).

In addition, muscles are overlooked. For example, Kegel exercises are only mentioned once in this article, as an afterthought in the Infections, Safe Sex, and Disorders section rather than as a way to tone up the vagina for Sexual Activity. And muscles can do more than just tone up, as explained in Suzie Heumann’s article on the Yoga of Sex Muscles (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/suzie-heumann/the-yoga-of-sex-muscles_b_497224.html) which describes the Kama Sutra technique of Vadavaka (“The Mare’s Trick”).

More generally, psychological or spiritual states related to Sexual Activity are omitted entirely. There is nothing in this article about the vagina's role in tantra or Taoist_sexual_practices. The article also fails to mention sex pheromones as well as more poetic references to human experience of a vagina’s allure (e.g., positive descriptions of scent and flavor), other than as an abstract topic for erotic art and literature.

Not only are all of the above absent from the Society and Culture section, but that section leads with a bizarrely conflated subsection heading: Perceptions, Symbolism, and Vulgarity. I think readers would benefit from seeing the positive “perceptions” described first, with the “vulgarity” pushed back to a later subsection.

I invite the addition of other suggestions to this thread, in line with Flyer22’s admirable effort to prepare this article for GA status. Martindo (talk) 04:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the vaginal nerve endings, etc., see what I stated above. As for Kegel exercises toning up the vagina, there is little research on that. We don't want to seem like we are endorsing that when there is little research on it. Notice that, per WP:MEDRS, a medical source is used for it in the "Infections, safe sex, and disorders" section and it only states that Kegel exercises "have been used to strengthen the pelvic floor, and may help prevent or remedy vaginal prolapse," not that it does. HuffPost would not be a MEDRS-compliant source.

As for psychological or spiritual states related to sexual activity, we can mention psychological or spiritual matters in the Sexual activity section, but it should relate to the vagina. This is not the general Sexual activity article. The Sexual activity section in this article should focus on how the vagina works/the way it is used with regard to sexual activity. We also have a "Society and culture" section that mentions, for example, "Regarding religion, the vagina represents a powerful symbol as the yoni in Hinduism, and this may indicate the value that Hindu society has given female sexuality and the vagina's ability to birth life."

Any mention of sex pheromones would need to be tied to the vagina. Furthermore, pheromones in humans are believed to be weakened or damaged, and something that only has residual effects. Although mammalian copulation is a reflex controlled by hormones and influenced by pheromones, human sexual intercourse is overwhelmingly a voluntary and learned activity that is performed for the sake of sexual rewards.

Regarding the "Perceptions, symbolism and vulgarity" section, most of the content is negative because most of the sources speak of the negatives first or mainly of the negatives. The many negative perceptions of the vagina and vulva is exactly why The Vagina Monologues exists. So this is an appropriate application of WP:Due weight. So I don't see what you think could be moved up in a way that would change the overall tone of the section. If you have any WP:Reliable sources speaking of the positive perceptions of the vagina, list them here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since I’ve aimed to make this thread more general, I’ll address your reply in that vein, even though there will be some overlap with the preceding thread. I addressed pheromones in that thread.

I should have been clearer about kama sutra, etc. Those aspects should be included in the Society and Culture section, which is kind of insipid in that it seems to emphasize abstractions worthy of a museum tour rather than actual sexual practices that empower women’s sex lives. Since “activity” is a general term, and the vagina (or more accurately, pelvic floor muscles) has an active role in such practices, it could be included in Sexual Activity as well. If we’re going to declare a vague concept like “tissue cluster” a key detail, why not the interaction of pelvic muscles and vaginal activity?

I see a deeper problem in the overall presentation of this page, somewhat related to the sequencing of sections, and reflected in the narrowminded emphasis on nerve endings. The page is oriented toward viewing the vagina as a clinical object, and in your responses to my two new threads you repeatedly refer to the primacy of medical sources.

I wonder if readers coming to this article really want to wade through Structure (especially Microanatomy) before reading about Function. I bet the latter section is a greater source of hits and you should consider resequencing to reflect that. You yourself showed sensitivity to reader motivation when you doubted the placement of childbirth pain in the Sexual Activity section, in your reply to my earliest thread, noting that some people who come to the article seeking childbirth info might miss it if it’s tacked onto Sexual Activity.

The unintentional bias in the “clinical” approach is that info should be universal (even though anatomical variation is a fact of life). Thus, we see an incessant use of “may” (often with the subtext of “is it real?”) because the axiom is that all reported experiences should be verifiable as valid for all people before they deserve mention with NPOV.

So, we see speculation expressed as generalizations, such as the undefined tissue cluster “may contribute to orgasms experienced vaginally” which implies that this is the mechanism for that type of orgasm. After all, how else could it possibly occur? Instead, a more accurate presentation would be to recognize population subsets by referring to “some” (or even “many”) as in the revision I proposed in the preceding thread: “some experts therefore suggest that some orgasms experienced via its stimulation actually result from stimulation of the clitoris.”

The real difficulty in ironing out this page isn’t the lack of women editors who have scientific expertise. It’s the lack of editors who are willing to envision a holistic approach that includes both science (and surveys aren’t necessarily a form of science) and experience. This is why “common sense” is mentioned as a guideline in WP:RSUW. I’m not an expert on this subject, but my opinion is that the sequence of sections should be reconsidered in light of the overall impression and tone of the article. As someone who had done editing as a profession for a number of years, I know that repeated immersion in revisions can narrow one's perspective -- it's inevitable that earlier info is still in one's memory and can lead to gaps in logic because "we know that already, so we don't need to state it". Hopefully fresh pairs of eyes especially those of women with a wide variety of experiences (not only scientific training) will be called in to help improve this article. Martindo (talk) 13:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You addressed sex pheromones in this thread.

Kama Sutra material would fit in the Sexual activity section since the section does mention sex positions and sexual practices and since the Kama Sutra, although a manual, is commonly considered a sex position matter; it's also well known as a sex manual. I don't see where it would fit in the Society and culture section under the current subtitles, and I don't think we should create a section solely for the Kama Sutra. There are a lot of sex positions involving the vagina. So again, in terms of sexual activity, this article should only focus on matters relevant to the vagina and not on all of the sexual practices that might involve the vagina; we have other articles for that, including the Sex position article. Anyway, I will look for some Kama Sutra material to add to the Vagina article. I didn't write most of the "In contemporary literature and art" section, by the way.

You stated, "I see a deeper problem in the overall presentation of this page, somewhat related to the sequencing of sections, and reflected in the narrowminded emphasis on nerve endings. The page is oriented toward viewing the vagina as a clinical object, and in your responses to my two new threads you repeatedly refer to the primacy of medical sources." There is no "narrowminded emphasis on nerve endings," and I've already explained why in the thread immediately above this one. You can be as open as you want to about this topic, but we must follow the literature...with due weight. Wikipedia is not the place to challenge ideas and bring in our own theories and speculations. We follow the literature. The page does not solely treat the vagina as a clinical object, which is clear by different sections, and neither do I, but the vagina is significantly a clinical topic. We summarize right in the lead what it is known for: "[It] allows for sexual intercourse and childbirth, and channels menstrual flow, which occurs periodically as part of the menstrual cycle." I cannot help it that the topic of the vagina is overwhelmingly a biological/clinical topic. You make it seem like the article is not sexual enough. The only way it could be even more sexual is to add a bunch of sexual practices information that is better left to other articles, or include some more media stuff in the Society and culture section. Whether one likes it or not, there is a lot more sexual material (when considering solid sources) concerning the clitoris and this is because the clitoris is usually the optimal way that women get sexual pleasure (few women masturbate by directly stimulating the vagina, for example), and the clitoris is not known for anything other than for providing sexual pleasure (no matter the theories for its role in reproduction). Historically and even today, the vagina has been viewed more clinically than has the clitoris, which, given menstruation and its role in childbirth, is understandable. When it comes to sources for this topic, my focus is on academic sources, and for good reasons -- reasons I made clear in the section immediately above this one. A lot of academic sources in this article are not medical sources in the traditional sense, but they pass the WP:MEDRS guideline. Read that guideline; it also allows popular press/media sources in certain cases (WP:MEDPOP).

Regarding the Structure section coming before the Function section, this setup is in line with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Anatomy. We typically design our anatomy and medical articles a certain way, just like we do for some other topics. WP:Film has MOS:FILM, for example. A lot of our readers want to read the Critical reception section first, but we still do not put it first since, stylistically (meaning flow-wise) and encyclopedic-wise, it makes more sense for the Critical reception section to come to last or close to last. Stylistically (meaning flow-wise) and encyclopedic-wise in the case of anatomy articles, it makes more sense for structure information to come before function information. If readers want to skip to the Critical reception section, they can do that from the table of contents. If readers want to skip to the Function section, they can do that from the table of contents. I didn't doubt the placement of childbirth pain in the Sexual activity section (except for the quick thought of removing it altogether); I doubted moving the nerve endings text in relation to childbirth out of the Sexual activity section and into the Childbirth section instead; I noted that "any readers who skip right to the Childbirth section would be missing out on the important information about vaginal nerve endings, which helps provide context." My point was that important information about nerve endings is in the Sexual activity section and that the Childbirth section would only have the one line about a lack of nerve endings reducing childbirth pain without the context of what is stated in the Sexual activity section. In other words, I was concerned about the material being split up.

As for use of "may," I've already addressed this in the section immediately above this one. Research consistently indicates that the vagina and clitoris are interconnected, but researchers do not yet have irrefutable proof that the clitoris is the cause of orgasms experienced vaginally. So use of "may" is appropriate; it gives weight to the minority view among researchers that "vaginal orgasms" are a distinct entity. You make using "may" seem like some crime; I see it as no more a big deal than using "is"...if the words are used appropriately, and they are used appropriately in this article. And it's not a case of "some experts," which is WP:Weasel wording anyway. It's the case that most experts state that either the G-spot does not exist or that it is an extension of the clitoris, and that "vaginal orgasms" originate from the clitoris.

As for female editors at this article, I noted above that most Wikipedia editors are male/men and that this is mainly why most of the editors familiar with my work are male/men; I wasn't really complaining about there not being more female editors examining this article, but I was indicating a lack of female editors. As for "experience," I go back to what I stated before: "You can be as open as you want to about this topic, but we must follow the literature...with due weight. Wikipedia is not the place to challenge ideas and bring in our own theories and speculations. We follow the literature." And, again, WP:RSUW is not a guideline or policy. And WP:Common sense, which is an essay, does not trump WP:Verifiability. I'm not looking at the topic strictly from a medical or scientific viewpoint; I'm only looking at the topic in that regard concerning the portions of the article that should have quality academic sources. I agree that more women, of different backgrounds, giving their opinions on the article might be helpful, but these articles should not be edited based on editors' personal experiences. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]