Talk:Pubococcygeus muscle

Sources?

can we flag this page for sources? Kellenwright 21:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I've gone and found some so I guess this isn't an issue anymore. Freikorp (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Popular culture

I completely fail to see why this article needs to mention when people have talked about this muscle in popular culture. Should we also mention on the biceps brachii article that Will Ferrell talks about his biceps in the film Anchorman? Should we mention on the Brain artlcle that JD and Turk discuss how the brain works on an episode of Scrubs?

Think about it, the surgery Coronary artery bypass surgery has been mentioned in hundreds of documentaries, I should know I've watched several of them. How would listing all the time this surgery has been discussed, without mentioning what was discussed, or if anything new was discussed, be beneficial to anyone?

Wikipedia:Handling trivia states "Trivia sections should only remain in an article temporarily, as a step towards integration of the information". How do you propose we would ever integrate "The pubococcygeus muscle is discussed by Mischa Barton and Paul Rudd in the feature film The Oh in Ohio (2006), which deals with orgasm techniques" into the main article? Freikorp (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, you have portrayed yourself here at Wikipedia as a person with an absolute dislike for popular culture. It is reasonable to assume you would never ever be able to even remotely understand why it is interesting and relevant to the average Wikipedia-reading person to know how an anatomical phenomenon like the pubococcygeus muscle is portrayed in popular culture, hence how outside anatomical textbooks it is understood to fits in to our understanding of our lives as human beings. Your point about mentioning every documentary listing every documentary mentioning coronary artery bypass surgery is completely irrelevant, as such a listing would be a list-article which in fact is perfectly permissible within the boundaries of Wikipedia. And so is noting examples of how a phenomena fits into popular culture, thousands of Wikipedia-articles have such a section and are all the better for it. You are perfectly welcome to sit in your tower and spit bitter, Ebenezer Scrooge-like hatred at the follies of humanity on you own blog or website, or but don't ruin Wikipedia for the rest of us based on what is -- and you must be aware of this -- an extremely remote and eccentric world-view. --Minutae (talk) 11:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Well what can I say, I do value scientific and academic information much more than movie quotes and discussions between celebrities. I certainly didn't feel like I was alone in this thought, and at least one other person thinks your trivia is too trivial to warrant mentioning. Nevertheless I just wanted a third opinion, I will wait for a third party to edit this page themselves, so the trivia you and those like you apparently yearn for is safe for now. I hope you understand your belief that wikipedia articles are bettered by trivia is not unanimous, many others like myself believe such sections are completely destroying wikipedia's credibility as a reliable resource (it's hard for an educated person to take an article seriously if directly underneath scientific facts is hollywood trivia, I have no major problems with trivia in film or song articles), but again that's just our opinion, (you think I'm ruining wikipedia, the feeling is mutual) and it is certainly not remote (I'm willing to accept we are not the majority, but I would be extremely surprised if the majority of people editing wikipedia are professionals in any field). You can call me what you like but I feel my contributions to how training the muscle helps treat certain conditions are much more beneficial to the average person who will search for this muscle than your hollywood trivia. If nothing else I hope you've learned that here on wikipedia we value references and verifiable information. I'll tidy up your bare URL's when I get a chance. Freikorp (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Freikorp, your self-congratulatory comments ("it's hard for an educated person to take an article seriously if directly underneath scientific facts is hollywood trivia", "I would be extremely surprised if the majority of people editing wikipedia are professionals in any field") speak for themselves. Enough said. I fully acknowledge that some people feel compelled to look for ways of feeling above other people, but it's fair to say that the majority of Wikipedia readers are perfectly able to handle various types of information presented side by side without losing faith in Wikipedia's credibility as a reliable resource. While an anatomical phenomenon's place in popular culture might not be important to for instance an academic snob or a medical surgeon, many people with no less of an education and no less of a profession may be interested in understanding our lives as human beings also on a cultural level, and would be aware of the huge international influence for better or worse of Hollywood movies in today's world, as in previous cultures has been the case with myth, religion, theatre and literature. An Achilles' heel, for instance, is a tendon, but the term is a reference to Homer's Iliad and based on that knowledge can be used as a metaphor. A truly educated, professional person would want to understand all this. --Minutae (talk) 09:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't insult my intelligence, you can't compare the etymology of 'Achilles Tendon' to this for a second. You haven't listened to me. Your argument is completely off topic to what I am saying. I am not against understanding academic studies on a cultural level. I am against your specific contribution. You contribution states the muscle was mentioned in a hollywood film, a hollywood film that was a commercial failure no less, a hollywood failure that wasn't even aboutt the muscle , it just mentioned it. It was mentioned in an "Anatomy class" within the movie. They didn't discuss anything unknown about the muscle, the haven't conducted a new study on the muscle, they haven't renamed the muscle based on an actual event related to it. Therefore the only contribution this adds to society is noting that the writer of this film acknowledges that the muscle exists. If we mentioned every movie that acknowledges that the bicep brachii muscle exists, we'll probably create the longest article on wikipedia. I am all for understanding how academic and scientific studies affect society at large, I am against random lists stating when fictional characters have casually mentioned something. I highly doubt "truly educated professional" people will be discussing the cultural significance of "The Oh in Ohio" in 400 years. Freikorp (talk) 16:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Your argument lacks understanding of the real world. Even a Hollywood movie that was "a commercial failure" is likely to reach a huge international audience if professionally produced and starring well-known people, as is the case with The Oh in Ohio, which since its disappointing theatrical US opening has been released world-wide on DVD and television, and is likely to remain in distribution for decades. It will no doubt reach infinitely more people than will ever read an anatomical text (just to get an idea, compare 115.000 Google-hits for "Pubococcygeus muscle" with 5.720.000 for "Mischa Barton" and 1.550.000 for "The Oh in Ohio"!), hence it is more likely to influence how this anatomical phenomenon is understood (rightly or wrongly) by society. Your editing-comment "I don't want to know if Mischa Barton has ever talked about it" reveals a failure to look beyond your own snobbery and understand how information (or misinformation) spreads, but for anyone interested in communication, such understanding is essential. That's why its relevant for Wikipedia to note how a phenomenon is reflected in popular culture (and this does not mean mentioning "every movie that acknowledges that the bicep brachii muscle exists", that's just you being silly). Furthermore, in your description of The Oh in Ohio you've failed to acknowledge that it includes the Pubococcygeus muscle in a discussion of what triggers female orgasms, but maybe that too is outside your personal field of interest. --Minutae (talk) 10:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I see your point now, I maintain my belief that we have to draw the line somewhere, and I draw my line above a film that was both a box office failure and commercially panned for its poor acting and production. If you think I'm a snob for not valuing a film that as far as I can tell no critic took seriously that doesn't bother me, we all have different levels of standards, if the movie was at least one of the following, A) successful, B) ground-breaking or C) received generally positive reviews, my thoughts on it's inclusion may be different (a film few people liked is unlikely to be referred to in later years for anything other than its failure, which in this case is not any different from any other film that made back less than 10% of its budget at the box office). For the record my initial editing summary was more of an attempt to be humourous, you have to make your own fun on wikipedia. Nevertheless there wasn't enough space to fully explain how I felt about it in the summary, and as you do not have a user page I though you must have been a new editor and therefore I didn't bring it up on the talk page as I didn't think you'd ever come back to the page. I'll take your word for it that the muscle is discussed in that context, actually all discussions and texts on how the human body works fascinate me, and I've failed to acknowledge that because I don't have access to the film (and don't want access to it now that I've read several professional reviews of it). Freikorp (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. For the record, I personally find The Oh in Ohio ground breaking in the contemporary and factual way it deals with its otherwise taboo subject matter. I agree with most critics that viewed as a comedy the film isn't funny enough. That said, the trade paper Variety singled out the film's "clever but uneven script", and predicted that it is most likely to make its mark on home video, which indeed is where I caught up with it. --Minutae (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It was irrelevant and, culturally talking, restricted to a narrow community so I removed that content you added. Don't readd problematic content before gaining consensus. Thank you.--Nutriveg (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe; all mimsy were the borogoves, and the mome raths outgrabe. You're welcome. --Minutae (talk) 09:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If you keep insisting you're going to be blocked from editing.--Nutriveg (talk) 13:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Save your threats for kindergarden, and please try to form sentences that form a complete train of thought. If you have an intelligent point, feel free to make it. So far, you've made no effort to explain how you feel popular culture is "a narrow community" or how that falls outside the scope of Wikipedia, but good luck trying to do so. --Minutae (talk) 16:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That movie is little know, restricted to a narrow community, and what I can say about a scene within that movie, even less relevant. So stop readding that content you have no support for.--Nutriveg (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Minutae your statement 're-adding non-problematic content' was downright incorrect. Obviously I have a problem with it, Nutriveg has a problem with it, and I'll remind you a neutral third party at Project trivia also thought it was not appropriate for the article. Freikorp (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm simply trying to reply to Nutrivej in his own language, which sadly seems to be Jabberwocky. I must admit I find it hard to reply meaningfully to statements like "That movie is little know, restricted to a narrow community, and what I can say about a scene within that movie, even less relevant." Am I supposed to think, "gosh, what an impressive argument, that really nails it"?! That said, I've reviewed NickPenguin's considerably more sensible comment (which however was made prior to the above discussion) and rephrased my edit accordingly. --Minutae (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

"Trivia" is not welcome in Medical articles, that movie is still irrelevant and the passage you mention is original research since it's not supported by secondary sources.--Nutriveg (talk) 12:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, cut out the childish nonsense! There's no rule saying "trivia is not welcome in medical articles". You have made no argument as to why a movie focusing on the causes of orgasmic dysfunction and in which the main characters discuss the subject of this article is somehow "irrelevant" to the subject of this article, you've simply made an unsupported statement. Finally, if we were to remove all parts of the article not supported by secondary sources, there'd be very little left of the article; you've made no attempt to remove all such unsourced content, so it's clearly an argument you don't even believe in yourself. And for good reason: Wikipedia guidelines aren't Nazi laws, they are guidelines to be applied only when it makes sense to apply them, not when it doesn't. Also, the fact remains that there were four sources for two lines explaining a movie plot, more than enough. --Minutae (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Nutriveg, I've now sourced both ends of the passage so it should be easier for you to see, and also written an explanation for you on how to click on icons, so you can read the full quote. As you will see, what I wrote was correct. Not that I expect that to make any difference for you. If an outside editor who isn't an anatomist but talks for all of Wikipedia decides that popular culture and its reflection of things holds no interest for Wikipedia users, then so be it, even though in my humble opinion it would be completely against the spirit of Wikipedia. --Minutae (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The link said: "Avoid lists of trivia by working these tidbits of information into the main body text.". Your citation of passages of a movie where "pubococcygeus muscle" is mentioned doesn't make that movie relevant to this topic. You need secondary sources supporting that relevance, you trying to give that scene a importance it doesn't have, this is original research.--Nutriveg (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow. So this page is protected now. Something tells me The Oh in Ohio is causing more talk now than when it was actually released. So now that we are forced to chat about it once again I'll sum up my final position. I removed the content once because I didn't think it was appropriate (I maintain my belief that in its original form the information was useless to anyone who didn't have a hard-on for Mischa Barton). I removed it a second time because it was unreferenced. Now that it is reworded and referenced I change my position from a strong delete to a weak delete. I still don't think popular culture mentions are appropriate for anatomical articles but I understand Minutae is trying to make wikipedia interesting for all kinds of people and I understand a certain type of people will find this information interesting. Freikorp (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

"A certain type of people"? Yes, people who are not elitist snobs! Normal people = most of humanity! --Minutae (talk) 10:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm truly getting tired of being called an "elitist snob" because I don't find Mischa Barton's Hollywood conversations intellecutally stimulating. In the future do you want me to apologize in advance for not keeping up to date with Gossip magazines and the latest Hollywood box office failure? I don't know where you live but where I live actual education is valued more than trivia, the fact you actually think most of humanity will be interested in this scares me. So I'm not sorry your repeated attempt to "dumb down" wikipedia have failed. Freikorp (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

He just provided random sources, the only one using the term is the result from a search tool that searches movie scripts. There's no secondary source associating the movie with the term neither supporting that association is relevant. It's all Minutae OR.--Nutriveg (talk) 14:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I just looked into that and apparently websites that search film quotes aren't reliable sources, secondary sources are needed. So you're right. Freikorp (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, when it comes down to a democratic vote, the truth may be outnumbered, as is plainly the case here. The fact remains that what I was wrote was not only correct, it made the article more interesting for a majority of readers. The fact that only three people have joined in this discussion demonstrates that nobody gives a damn about this article, the way it has been written. Nutriveg's arguments is a textbook case of the misguided quoting rules, leading others with them further into darkness. That's why Wikipedia's guidelines are not laws but should be tempered by common sense, a principle sadly absent here in the anatomical sector! --Minutae (talk) 10:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

"We use consensus, not voting." Welcome to Wikipedia! —Duncan (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 16:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

"Consensus" means "general agreement". Two or three against one is hardly a general agreement, it is simply a majority. Welcome to the English language! --Minutae (talk) 11:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You have neither, so stop pushing that change.-Nutriveg (talk) 11:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

As the saying goes, I'd rather be right than be president, but I don't expect you to understand that. The fact remains that my addition was sourced, factually correct, and in tune with the spirit of Wikipedia since it improved the article. You can hide behind technicalities and run to daddy for help all you like, at the end of the day that's still how it is. As for your calling my edit "a list of trivia", kindly look up the word "list" in a dictionary!

What's really laughable here, though, is the nature of Freikorp's complaints: 1) "I don't want to know if Mischa Barton has ever talked about it", 2) "I don't find Mischa Barton's Hollywood conversations intellecutally stimulating", and 3) "in its original form the information was useless to anyone who didn't have a hard-on for Mischa Barton". Why this obsession with Mischa Barton? First of all, not only does Freikorp hate popular culture, he is apparently so far removed from the real world that he thinks actors in a fictional film are engaged in private "Hollywood conversations", while the truth, as the rest of us know, they are reciting scripted dialogue! Even worse is his claim that "the information was useless to anyone who didn't have a hard-on for Mischa Barton". Now, hold that thought. The information he refers to is this sentence: "The pubococcygeus muscle is discussed by Mischa Barton and Paul Rudd in the feature film The Oh in Ohio (2006), which deals with orgasm techniques." Exactly how does this only become useful if one, to quote Freikorp, has "a hard-on for Mischa Barton"? There's not even a hint of dirty thought in the sentence, except what Freikorp brings to the table. Furthermore, why would the reader require a hard-on for Mischa Barton and not for Paul Rudd? Not merely is Freikorp's remark nonsense, it is sexist nonsense. In fairness, Freikorp's problem with taking attractive women seriously is hardly unique. It's also interesting that the award-winning documentary feature "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" (2006) indicates, that to Americans, female sexuality is seen as more disturbing than anything else. In view of this, it can not surprise that the the idea of an attractive woman discussing female sexuality must lead to a certain panic, especially here in (thinking of no one in particular) nerd country.

To sum up, this is the latest addition suggested by me, taking into account that others beside Freikorp may have a problem with the idea of a talking woman: "The pubococcygeus muscle is discussed in the feature film The Oh in Ohio (2006), which focuses on female orgasmic dysfunction, and includes the pubococcygeus muscle to deepen a main character's awareness of what triggers the female orgasm." This is factually correct and refers to a film in worldwide release, starring well-known, popular actors, and hence likely to reach and interest more people than any other work discussing the pubococcygeus muscle will ever do! --Minutae (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Get a secondary source saying this movie is relevant to the "pubococcygeus muscle" and we can talk about it, so far it's just you affirming it has a relevance. Accusing others won't help in anyway here. Thank you.--Nutriveg (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't feed the troll Nutriveg, it knows very well it needs a secondary source, until it finds one I have nothing further to say. Freikorp (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Just weighing in to add to clarify consensus. It's trivia. It doesn't help the article. It's a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. I think the undue weight issues are more dispository than the type of sources cited, because no matter how many sources of any type or found, the film will remain too insignificant to warrant mention here. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It may or may not be true that the movie is insignificant, but certainly not compared to this article in its present state or to any of it's listed source articles. Nutriveg is correct in admitting that a minimum of independent intelligence is called for, rather than WP's preference of merely repeating what others have written. And Freikorp seems admirably honest in admitting that having finished his tirade of sexist irrelevancies, he has nothing further to say. Thank you. --Minutae (talk) 10:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I caution the editors here, especially Minutae, against making personal attacks. Endless haranguing of other editors on the talk page seems unlikely to win support for your case. If nobody besides Minutae agrees that 'The Oh in Ohio' should be mentioned here, you should accept that verdict and move on to something else. If this goes on past a certain point, it becomes disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing 'admirable' about choosing to say nothing once your point has been made and you have no new information to add to your argument, it's just the rational thing to do. It is certainly more constructive than having to resort to personal attacks once a consensus has been reached against you. I am more offended by the fact you think the articles current sources, written by University's and medical professionals, are insignificant (yet of course you think your hollywood script was the most reliable source on earth), than your barrage of personal attacks. Please keep this discussion relevant to the article, I am glad you chose to remove this personal attack, please refirain from making more. Freikorp (talk) 01:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't be hypocritical, Freikorp, the tone of this discussion was established by your original editorial comment, which was followed up by several similar comments of an increasingly sexist nature; it's not at all the tone I'd have preferred, but it's the tone you brought to the table and which pissed me off from the get-go. Furthermore I've never said that "my" Hollywood script is the most reliable source on earth, or anything resembling such a statement, that's just more of your arrogant nonsense and refusal to talk straight. Finally, on this topic, you ad fuel to the fire by referring to me as a "troll", which in Wikispeak means "a person who willfully, through obscene, offensive or hateful actions, attempts to disrupt a community or garner reactions, attention and controversy", although my track-record here at Wikipedia is testament to the opposite. Your agenda however includes snobbery such as "'In popular culture' sections have no place in articles of a more academic nature" and "Concerning rock and modern music, if they haven't been played on Top 40 radio, I believe they are not worth mentioning in an encyclopedia" [[1]] (which for instance rules out popular music from countries without a Top 40 radio), so clearly it is you who is acting in opposition to the interest of the majority of the people using Wikipedia, merely to serve your own elitist viewpoint and with a very limited regard of others.

If we can move on to something more relevant, Steven J. Anderson opines about The Oh in Ohio that "the film will remain too insignificant to warrant mention here", but I challenge that statement, which is complete unsupported and contradictory to the larger picture. As I've pointed out before, you get 115.000 Google-hits for "pubococcygeus muscle" and 1.550.000 for "The Oh in Ohio"; so how exactly is the latter insignificant compared to the former? It is a layman's mistake to assume that if a film initially flops or gets bad reviews this somehow makes it culturally insignificant. For better or worse, that's simply not how the real world works. Hollywood mainstream films starring well-known people (such as in this case Parker Posey, Danny DeVito, Mischa Barton and Liza Minnelli) usually end up in global distribution for decades and reach huge audiences. Case in point, the distributors of The Oh in Ohio include HBO, no small operation! My point is that the article as written reflects the pubococcygeus muscle only as understood by a group of "University's and medical professionals", which quite often leaves a lot to be desired and certainly seems miles apart from how it is understood in popular culture as exemplified by The Oh in Ohio. Therefore, the article simply does not give an honest and full portrayal of its subject matter. I'm not in any way saying the viewpoint of anatomist scholars is without any merit, what I'm saying is that artists (including filmmakers) have an equally important view of the world which often includes a better understanding of how something impacts on our lives as living, emotional beings. This is why noting how a phenomenon is portrayed in popular culture should not simply be dismissed as "lists of trivia" or some such nonsense. The fact that an article is of an academic nature should be all the more reason for noting its subject's reflection in popular culture, so we can paint a more complete picture as well as open the topic up to the understanding and appreciation of more users. --Minutae (talk) 13:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I wasn't going to dignify your allegations that I am a sexist with a response, but if your going to bring it up again and again and again it's only natural to expect me to defend myself eventually. First of all I know very well what a troll is in wikispeak, which is why I used the term to describe you. Responding to having the consensus rule against you by calling me a sexist (regardless of whether or not other editors would agree with you), in all honesty, come across to as very childish. I.e I lost my argument, now I'm going to counter this consensus by accusing another editor of being afraid of attractive woman. I don't consider myself calling you a troll to be a personal attack, therefore I don't consider my request for you to stop attacking me to be hypocritical. In response to your allegations. I certainly don't consider myself to be a sexist. I already explained to you my initial comment 1), was a passing comment that wasn't explained in depth because I didn't see any need to at the time. I don't want to know if Mischa Barton has talked about because she is not an anatomy expert (this was before you made your points about the subject reaching people outside the anatomy world, I have paid attention to your arguments). Secondly please don't insult my intelligence, and your own credibility, by saying I am so removed from the real world I think hollywood is a fantasy land, I know very well it is scripted dialogue. Hollywood conversation, hollywood script, film dialogue etc would of all been synonymous for the purpose of my argument. Thirdly regarding your comments original form: "The pubococcygeus muscle is discussed by Mischa Barton and Paul Rudd in the feature film The Oh in Ohio (2006), which deals with orgasm techniques." Need I remind you, you agreed to reword it once myself and another editor brought up the fact that it is an insignificant passing mention. It doesn't mention why it was discussed, or what was discussed. It was completely useless. I still assume the only people this would be useful to are people who are obsessed with anything Mischa Barton says (or Paul Rudd for that matter), the "hard-on" comment had nothing to do with the fact they are talking about a muscle that is responsible, in part, for an orgasm. Why did I say Mischa Barton and not Paul Rudd? Probably because I had never heard of Paul Rudd before, whereas I am familiar with Mischa Barton's existence through news reports of her partying and drink driving and drug convictions etc, even though I have never watched a film starring her. I don't find her comments intellectually stimulating because she comes across to me as an airhead (not trying to start an argument, my opinion) it has nothing to do with the fact she is a woman. What's my obsession? Removing un-notable trivia without secondary sources! Accusing me of being obsessed with something you keep adding to the article is laughable. My opinions on my user page are exactly that, my opinions, I was not trying to change wikipedia policy, I was stating my views, the music comments are not relevant to this discussion, I'm going to ask you to keep this argument specific to this page. No matter how many time you use the term "snob" to describe me, you are not going to convince me unreferenced trivia in fiction is as valuable as years of medical research. It's just a difference of opinion, I've accepted that, so should you. I'll conclude my argument by bringing up the fact you accused me initially of having a "an extremely remote and eccentric world-view" regarding popular culture, whereas the consensus is now four against one (in the interest of being impartial I will not include NickPenguin's fifth opinion, as I went out of my way to get it) Considering the negative attention you have gotten on your talk page regarding this popular culture edit, are you not starting to think it is you who has the remote view? That question is rhetorical. Freikorp (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

{{admin help}} Uh... is it just me, or are we heading into a content dispute with this? —Duncan (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 00:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

dunno, tldr, and I doubt anyone else will either. Beach drifter (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not an issue anymore as far as I am concerned. I've decided not to reply to any more personal attacks here. Consensus was reached long ago, I took offence to personal attacks and decided to reply, I won't be doing that again. Freikorp (talk) 01:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If you cannot resolve a dispute yourself, or require third-party assistance, please defer to our dispute resolution process. Also, do not subst: {{outdent}}. Thanks, Blurpeace 02:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

martial arts?

It is my understanding that the pubococcygeus muscle allows martial artists to withdraw their testicles into the pelvic cavity, so that they would not be injured by a kick to the groin. Does anyone have a source for this fact? Would this fact belong in the "Kegel" section? The article already mentions the effect of the muscle on the cremasteric reflex, so in essence the fact that a martial artist could pull up his testicles is implied, although not stated. Is this fact worth mentioning in the article? What would constitute a verifiable source of this information? ...follow the trail (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Sound a bit far-fetched to me. Anyway if a reliable source were found it would probably belong in its own section, e.g. 'use in sports' or something. Finding a reference for that probably isn't going to be any different from finding a source for anything: WP:RS, so no gossip columns, blogs, networking sites etc... established reliable secondary sources only. Freikorp (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Subdivisions of pubococcygeus and order

It isn't really mentioned but it is now generally accepted that pubococcygeus has 3 divisions (puboperinalis, puboanalis and pubovaginalis(female)/puboprostaticus(male) that need adding. I can't add it in at the moment as don't have appropriate references available to me. But thought I should flag it as something needing added.

In addition, it seems odd that the Kegel exercises are before the anatomy. Talking about the exercises doesn't really make sense if you don't discuss the actual anatomy of what is purportedly being strengthened.