Talk:Mons pubis/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Missing the male mons

I found the page Mons pubis as I wondered whether the similar area on a boy/man is also called by the same name.

In the first sentence humans and mammals in general get conveniently swept immediately away by focusing directly on human female mons including explicit image of appealing young mons (as if there isn't enough images of shaved female mons or detailed descriptions of pubic girl development anywhere).

I came looking for information about human male/boy/man mons pubis (as that is less circulated knowledge) and additional info about mammals in general would be very welcome. So I would really appreciate if the sexual bias in this article were addressed.

It is currently sexist against males/boys/men (ignoring anatomic clarity and importance), deficient in information (eg function of mons?) and perpetuates all the exploitative paragigms against females/girls/women by focusing persistently upon them and their bits.

Could we have an equally appealing picture of the Pubis mons of a male/boy/man? Obviously need more information about the male mons (eg. is it also affected by estrogen or other hormones especially at puberty?) Maybe it could include a graphic description of how the mons of boys leads to all the other exciting bits in human males/boys/men.

Unless as some other commenters suggest the mons doesn't exist in males/boys/men at all, in which case the whole article needs re-writing.

Thank you. Flotsm n jetsm (talk) 07:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Flotsm n jetsm (talk · contribs). I'll alert WP:Anatomy to this section you created. But I do state that, as also indicated by you above and by various dictionaries and anatomy books, the mons pubis is usually associated with female anatomy or more so with female anatomy than with male anatomy. The Mons pubis article used to imply that the mon pubis is only a female aspect. But as you can see with this edit, it was changed by Startswithj to imply that the mons pubis is a male aspect as well. Flyer22 (talk) 07:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Alerted. Flyer22 (talk) 08:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The mons pubis is a fat pad only present in women. This distinction was made long ago by anatomists, and if there is any corresponding fat on the male it is not known as the mons, and frankly may not be known as anything at all. There are a myriad of features that have no name. I support removing the mention of the mons as a male feature, and am very surprised it has stuck in there seeing as there were no sources for the statements. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 08:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems that Startswithj was going by the dictionary sources that he or she added; those sources imply (or, because they don't specify a sex, can be taken to mean) that the mons pubis exists in both sexes. See this Merriam-Webster source that Startswithj added; it does state "especially of the human female," though. We can argue WP:Undue weight in this case; it is a fact that the mons pubis usually refers to female anatomy, and so we can state that not enough weight in WP:Reliable sources is given to that area of male anatomy being referred to as the mons pubis. Flyer22 (talk) 08:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping. It's my understanding that the term "mons pubic" (latin for pubic mound) refers to an anatomical feature of an individual regardless of the individual's sex or gender (as this article currently states with three citations). The existence of the specifically gendered hyponym "mons veneris" logically sustains the prior term's generality. The definition of a body part as independent from sex or gender yet more pronounced in a particular sex also exists in, for example, the human breast or human Adam's apple. Regarding concern for NPOV, the citations are rather well-regarded publications. Regarding the photo, I have no opinion. Cheers, startswithj (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Startswithj (my last time pinging you to this discussion via WP:Echo because I assume that you will check back here if you want to read replies), an important aspect of the WP:NPOV policy is its WP:Due weight aspect, which is why I linked to that (WP:Undue weight) above. Per WP:Undue weight, we are supposed to give far more weight to the view that is predominantly covered in WP:Reliable sources, and, per that aspect of the WP:NPOV policy, it's often that we don't need to give any weight to the significant minority view. The Mons pubis article currently gives far more weight to the female aspect, so that is keeping in line with the WP:Due weight policy, but a need to mention that the mons pubis can refer to male anatomy has not been demonstrated by the sources you've included; I don't know what the non-URL one states. And regarding the other two, they don't state that the mons pubis refers to male anatomy, even though the notion that it refers to male anatomy can be considered implied by those sources (especially regarding the Merriam-Webster source). With the topic of breasts, as you know, the term breast usually refers to female breasts; the male chest is rarely referred to as breasts. But we give WP:Due weight to the male aspect in the Breast article because the term is covered well enough in WP:Reliable sources as referring to both sexes. As for the Adam's apple, it's similar to the breast case, except in reverse, since the Adam's apple usually refers to male anatomy. Going back to the sources you used, it's better that we use scholarly sources for anatomy material, unless we are using dictionary sources for the etymology/definitions section.

Regarding the lead image, I was also going to take the time to address that since this is an active discussion. I was close to reverting Gaius Cornelius on this image change a little after he made it; this is because he changed it to an image (Image:Crop Mont de Venus.jpg) that focuses on the entire vulva, while the previous image (Image:Poolside anterior view of mons pubis.jpg) does not. The previous image is better, in my opinion, because it focuses on the mons pubis instead of the vulva as a whole. Flyer22 (talk) 17:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm actually going to question using a general dictionary when it comes to these terms. I'm certain if we were to go into a medical dictionary or anatomy atlas, we won't find this use of ambiguous language. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I've made further efforts to improve citations throughout the article. Flotsm n jetsm, you might be interested to hear that there may have been an archaic term "mons Jovis" for the specifically male anatomy, though no reliable source is apparent. startswithj (talk) 07:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

[1] – startswithj .. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 19:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I finally changed the image back. Flyer22 (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The Pubis mons, per already cited sources, is typically more present in females, but it is present in both sexes. It is a fat pad over the pubic bone to protect it. Vchapman 20:00, 9 October 2019

Which image to use?

CFCF, why should we go with this image? I noted in the #Missing the male mons section above that I think we should go with an image that focuses on the mons pubis rather than on the vulva as a whole. People can see the full vulva in the Vulva article and in a few of the related articles. Flyer22 (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

So, Ddamoah (talk · contribs), per my message on your talk page, now I ask you: Why should we use the image you added, which is of the entire vulva, instead of one focusing specifically on the mons pubis? Flyer22 (talk) 19:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

While I agree the image doesn't show the mons as well as it could I find there is something distasteful in using an image shot in a bikini. It brings the thoughts to something voyeuristic rather than to a professional encyclopedia. That said it's likely there are better images out there, I just haven't had time to look. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 19:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

(P.S. I had forgotten the previous discussion. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 19:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC))

(Edit conflict)

The voyeuristic thoughts are yours alone, and as previous discussions have shown, the shot you disapprove of shows specifically the "mons" part of the "mons pubis" - that it the mound. The image you wish to replace it with does not show the mons at all, due to the position of the models legs. It is for that reason that the image is inappropriate - and that reason has been discussed and stated many times in the past.

You are in fact, well aware of these changes, as they are discussed above - and Flyer reverted you last time as well here.

While a discussion is ongoing it is considered good etiquette to leave the page "as is" - whcih means leaving the poolside image in place. As you have been reverted by at least two different editors in your proposed changes, I suggest that you try to come up with a new argument that hasnb't been tried before in your attempt to remove the poolside image.

Now, I'm aware that my final reversion - which I'm about to make - may be viewed as editwarring, so I'll make it clear right now that this will be my final change, even if CFCF thinks that BRD and previous consensus is beneath him, and changes it again while the discussion is ongoing. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it is very clear you are the one who thinks BRD is beneath you. I do not understand what you mean by saying that the mons is not visible, if you read the article you will see that it is a fat pad. It is there.-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Chaheel Riens, with this edit, I wasn't reverting CFCF. I was reverting Gaius Cornelius; see this edit he made. I mentioned this in the #Missing the male mons section above. Flyer22 (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Flyer. I know you weren't reverting CFCF, but the end result still supports my argument, in that you reverted an inaccurate image that didn't show the Mons, and reverted it back to the Poolside image. And CFCF, please show where I have disregarded BRD? Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Introduction of more images

I think it is very important that any images we use are professional in nature. They should not be taken by the pool or on a bed etc. etc. If Wikipedia is to seem credible we need to use images that display the content in a neutral manner. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I have been part of the discussion over the image and proposed changes since June 2011. It never ends - the only constant being a failure to provide a better iamge that illustrates the Mons Pubis, which is what the article is all about. Why is a bikini shot of the Mons pubis not in a nuetral manner? Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Stable for a week

"(The version has been stable for a week, discussion has not been brought up as to why this is incorrect)"

Are you being serious? The poolside image has been consistent in the article and re-inserted each time on the article since 2010. I'd call that a lot more stable than your image which has been reverted and contested after a week.

At the very least, the poolside image has been uncontested in the article since February this year - which again is a lot longer than your "week". Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Please give it one hour, I will modify a number of images from commons so that they are more neutral. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Chaheel Riens The following images have been cleared up and had their background removed:

• 
  Failed somewhat in removing the tatoo
• 
  Previous image with background removed
• 
  Objectively neutral as it included a piercing
• Could be cropped a bit more
  Could be cropped a bit more

Unfortunately I was not able to find any image with hair that wasn't either fuzzy or black and white.-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 12:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm a little confused now. I appreciate the amount of work you've put in here - despite the fact that we both disagree, we obviously have the best interests of the encyclopaedia at heart - but I don't understand why you feel it necessary to modify some of these images. I have no particular affection for the poolside image other than it's the only one ever suggested that shows the Mons Pubis accurately. Of the above images, I would say that the one tagged "Previous image with background removed" is inappropriate for exactly the same reasons as given before - it doesn't show the Mons.

A background is irrelevant, as is a tattoo or a piercing, and has no affect on whether an image is neutral or not. I'm not sure you understand the Wikipedia definition of "neutral". Despite my time here on Wikipedia, I rarely venture into Commons, so I'm assuming that these images came from there, you modified them, and then uploaded them? Now knowing that there are other suitable images, I would say that either of these two would be suitable replacements for the poolside image:

• 
  Piercing image - suitable for Mons Pubis, as shows the Mons
• 
  Arching of back gives an accentuated look

Either of these are similar in imagery to show the Mons Pubis, but then again - if they're so similar to the original file, why is it necessary to change it? Just for changes sake? Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how the proposed images above are better or more appropriate than the poolside image. In my opinion, the proposed images are more sexual and provocative in nature. The poolside image looks to me like it was taken professionally, and that, plus it focusing solely on the mons pubis instead of the entire vulva, is good enough for me. Flyer22 (talk) 07:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree - and this is the crux of the argument. Despite many suggestions and changes over the years, there has never been a better suggestion than the poolside image - hence it endures. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Just had a look through commons for more images. There are about 50 I think, but none show the defining shape of the structure (which is the purpose of the image) as clearly as the current image. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 15:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

'Neutral' image?

I'm not sure what the basis is for all this talk about a 'neutral' image. As far as I know, the most important use of the word neutral in Wikipedia policies is in the context of neutral point of view. Looking through that central policy it is clear that it is about topics or issues where there are different or opposing opinions, explanations, theories or judgements. If there are we must be careful to represent them fairly and without bias, giving them the weight that they are given in the best scholarly literature. To the best of my knowledge, there are no opposing factions in academia regarding the mons pubis. What is it that we have to be neutral about? Blustering and even edit warring over images on the basis of neutrality will surely get us nowhere until we establish which Wikipedia policy it is that we are trying more closely to adhere to. --Nigelj (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that showing images that are intended to be erotic or voyeuristic is not neutral. It's in the first sentence of the WP:NPOV. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 16:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Where? "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Where do you get the mindreading skills to know what the image was 'intended' for? Women have a mons pubis whether they are sat by a pool or in a hospital examination room. If you find it more erotic in one situation or another, I think that is more about you than about them, and certainly nothing to do with the anatomy of half the population, or NPOV. --Nigelj (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I recently saw a composite (collage?) image, used for educational purposes by Goedele Liekens which I presume was suppose to illustrate variety. This strikes me as a useful thing. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC).

I can't see anything relevant to images of the mons pubis on that Channel4 link, @Rich Farmbrough:. Am I not looking in the right place, or was that the wrong link, I wonder? --Nigelj (talk) 12:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't watch the whole program, it was in the background in the part I saw, and whether it would have qualified as images of the mons, specifically, I can't say. Commons has a 9 image montage, entitled File:Vulva diversity.jpg. I would say the image in the program was 10x10 or 8x8, thus significantly more variance. Neither image specifically illustrates the mons, which may be a problem. Nor is the male mons illustrated. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC).

The male mons can not be illustrated because it does not exist. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 12:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)