Talk:Mons pubis

Picture of adult women please?

Am I the only one noticing that we see only very young women's mons pubis? I'm sure we could find adult ones and take out the young and baby ones... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kastor (talk • contribs) 05:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes I agree, it also feels weird that all the pictures are shaved/waxed. On an article about anatomy I feel like it makes more sense for the main picture to have a depiction that is more accurate to how it often naturally looks. Onexargetian (talk) 08:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Added picture of Mons Pubis with pubic hair from Wiki Commons that seems to meet the description of a Mons Pubis in the Anatomy section of this article.Demt1298 (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Demt1298

Firstly, the very term "woman" means an adult, so it's superfluous to say "adult woman". There are three images in this article, and clearly none of them are from babies, so yes - you are the only one noticing that, because it's not true. To assume an age - more specifically an inappropriate age - is somewhat weird in itself.

Secondly - the mons pubis is "a rounded mass of fatty tissue found over the pubic symphysis of the pubic bones" - this cannot be discerned if the fatty tissue is covered in hair. It is necessary in many articles - especially anatomical ones - to show the topic out of it's potentially natural state in order to observe or see the topic in the first place - can't see the Femur when it's covered in skin and muscle... In short - you cannot see the mons pubis when it's covered in hair. Note the Human head article - the first three images are hairless.

First, Wow that is quite a visceral response to suggestions/assistance on improving a stub-class article which Wikipedia defines as "an article deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject".

Secondly, the article itself states "The mound also becomes covered with pubic hair" suggesting the need for a picture referencing how this may look.

Thirdly, the discussion point about the femur or head doesn't hold water. If you used the same standard as either of these articles then you would you an anatomical drawing of the layers of the Mons Pubis showing the fatty tissue over the pubic bone, which none of these show. You could use this if you like File:Mons-pubis-anatomical-location-in-female-reproductive-system.png . It is from Commons and used in the B-Class article Human body discussing female genitalia, which includes a link to the this article.

Finally, As an inclusionist I believe that having multiple points of view in an article helps improve it for those who are seeking greater knowledge on a subject, which should be the purpose of Wikipedia. Many people might search out information from this article and including a picture that meets one of the identifying expectations of the Mons Pubis is good for the article.

Oh! Though I can look at the View History section of both the article and the talk page to find out who is making edits it is best to sign your comments to take credit for themDemt1298 (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Demt1298

Apologies for pointing out inaccuracies and sensationalism in the original comment. Please point out where I was wrong, and there are indeed images of "young and baby [mons pubis]", or correct me if I'm wrong and that the term "woman" does not mean an adult?

There's nothing wrong with being an inclusionist - so long as the stuff you want to be included is actually pertinent to the article. In an article about the mons pubis, I see no point in including an image that specifically disguises the outline and does not actually show the mons pubis. Why not say that this is also an example of a Christina, but you can't see it due to the hair - but it's still there?

Speaking of catty responses - I'm aware of the concept of using tildes for sigs, thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:40, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Again, I never argued you were wrong about the word woman, nor did I state that these were images of young or baby mons pubis. You can have that argument with those who did. This is also the reason that I didn't argue against or remove the Christina, because it is addressing the society and culture portion of the article, in the same way the photo of a Mons Pubis with hair addresses the part under anatomy that specifically says there is hair on the mons. Besides you being right or wrong doesn't determine the appropriateness of a picture for an article.

I, as an inclusionist, saw the concern of two fellow Wikipedians and added to an article, which needed more content in general. I have this saved as an article to work on in whole, but this was an easy quick update based on these concerns.

Secondly, Consensus is not unanimity as it states in Wikipedia:Consensus. So with two people requesting inclusion and you not liking it means 66% of the comments are in favor of inclusion. If you add the fact that I found and included the photo that takes it up to 75% of the people involved in the discussion.

Thirdly, Yes that was a catty response but appropriate. I did review your User page and User talk page. I am not sure why you have had so much vandalism on your User Page, but discussions on your talk page were enlightening.Demt1298 (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Demt1298

@Demt1298

I know it's years later after this discussion had taken place, but this article had received some new attention, and in sharing of this article and it's images.

Snapchats algorithm flags the main image of this page (the shaved Mons Pubis) as CP, now that could be entirely mistaken on their end, but I'm just pointing out that a computer saw it that way and other computers probably do as well, and it should be a valid concern to use a less suspect image. ChrisOlson0214 (talk) 04:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@ChrisOlson0214 I think you have pinged the wrong editor. I was advocating for adding the mons pubis with the hair as it is described in the article. @Onexargetian argued for the mons without hair because of their discussion about fatty mound and @Chaheel Riens continued to revert any effort to add any other photo of the mons pubis. Instead of an editing war, I attempted to reasonably discuss the inclusion of a mons with hair in the article. If you think this article might have issues with computer screening of potential illegal material, I believe you need to take it up with an administrator. Demt1298 (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

to be clear i didn't argue for it without hair, i think the main image should be with hair! Onexargetian (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Onexargetian I appologize, I misread the history when trying to get @ChrisOlson0214 in touch with the editor that was advocating against adding the mons pubis with hair.Demt1298 (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Demt1298 Let's just be clear - to say [i]nstead of an editing war, I attempted to reasonably discuss the inclusion of a mons with hair in the article is disingenuous as you clearly did edit war - you added the first image here which I reverted with the edit summary of see talk page, and archives as to why this is being removed - which you ignored and reinserted the image here and here - with the last reversion not only re-adding the contested image, but also unilaterally changing the accepted lede image. I'm all up for discussion, but you don't get to keep your proposed change while that discussion is ongoing. And within your "reasonable discussion" [sic] you never explained what you meant by I am not sure why you have had so much vandalism on your User Page, but discussions on your talk page were enlightening - I'm not even sure what the implication or point of such a comment was - neither then nor now. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@ChrisOlson0214 I read the history of these discussions wrong. I appologize. It appears @Chaheel Riens is the editor who requests more disucssion on why a photo which has had multiple editors raise concern about it, might need to be changed for one that matches the description in the article itself. Demt1298 (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the current image not only matches, but demonstrates the description of "[i]n human anatomy, and in mammals in general, the mons pubis or pubic mound (also known simply as the mons /mɒnz/, and known specifically in females as the mons Venus or mons veneris) is a rounded mass of fatty tissue found over the pubic symphysis of the pubic bones."

Again, let's not forget that it comes back to the same old argument of what image best represents the actual image topic - and the fact remains 2 years on from the original discussion that pubic hair covers up and thus disguises what the mons pubis is and looks like. The current image is still the best representation of the mons pubis as it shows the actual mound - the mons. What snapchat - or indeed any other editor - considers is not really relevant - Wikipedia is full of articles that contain images that could be considered erotic, fetish or in some way offensive. That's not grounds for removal. It could be argued that such categorisation merely reinforces the accuracy of the image for the article. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Are you looking at the correct editors users page? In 13 years there have been 4 (discounting this as it's obviously just the same editor returning,) incidences of vandalism to my userpage - once every 3 1/4 years isn't really "so much" is it? I'm glad you found my talk page enlightening, but what's your point? I see from yours that you constantly make disambig errors, but so what? I don't see what our relative user/talk pages have to do with this particular discussion - the issue at hand is the Mons Pubis article and whether it's appropriate to have an image that intentionally obscures the view of topic X in an article about topic X, not whether we know what a minor edit is or have an issue with potential copyright infringement car images. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if it's just me, but I do feel there's some erotic appeal to the main picture of the article. I'm not sure it's the type of picture that should be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:7F0:BB41:4423:E472:5843:AF31:EFEB (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it's fine. 2600:8802:6900:285:74B7:B488:96AF:D4C2 (talk) 05:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

References