Talk:Vagina/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Pain during childbirth significantly decreased due to a lack vaginal nerve endings

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Update: As noted in the #Preparation for Good Article nomination: General suggestions discussion below, the text has been changed again. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Inability to edit?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Doc James, I just saw this. Will you re-add indefinite semi-protection to the article? This article is subject to high vandalism, and therefore should not be left unprotected. I'm not sure when it became unprotected, but it definitely happened recently. Maybe it happened after your full protection wore off? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Preparation for Good Article nomination: Sexual Activity section

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• (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)

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 sources 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 of 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)

Note: I've stated more on fingertips in the section immediately below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Preparation for Good Article nomination: General suggestions

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)

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)

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)

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)

I inserted changes related to the vagina's active role within the first paragraph of Sexual Activity and transitioned more clearly to the relative nerve endings material. I hope you will consider modifying rather than reverting. Or simply tack on notes about needing references or clarification. One way to invite editors whom you don't already know is to let some minor imperfection sit in the text for a couple days and see who emerges (other than the regulars) to edit it. A lot of newbies are drawn into editing because they see something that could be clearer or smoother in syntax and they follow the encouragement of WP:Bold to take the initiative and then discuss later.

The word "some" is not a weasel if it is supported by an unspecified but verifiable number (e.g., personal experiences described in Huff Post, or minority viewpoints noted in a research article). Common sense is a guideline for selecting reliable sources -- nobody ever said it was a replacement for them. Some of the sources you extract from are behind paywalls (noted with caution by Softlavender) and it's not clear whether the universal (i.e., anatomical/human) claims by the researchers are actually based on global study, or conveniently only the US or western world -- thus my "guess" that the 70% refers to American women, which I trust you will correct while inserting a reference, since you mentioned that stat earlier in this discussion. Martindo (talk) 12:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I was poised to revert that when I saw that Flyer22 Reborn already had. Unless you have a citation to a really good source, the point you're making about fingertips and lips and so on is original research. I have more nerve endings in my fingertips than I do on my forehead, so why can't I identify objects in the dark by touching them with my forehead? Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 14:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Martindo, I reverted your text per everything I have stated with reliable sources. This is the passage you added: "Some women involve their vagina actively in intercourse, using their pelvic floor muscles[1] which can be developed by Kegel exercise. Other women (over 70% of American women who were surveyed) feel that their vagina has a secondary or passive role in their achievement of sexual satisfaction. Although long-established neurological research, as depicted in the Cortical homunculus drawing, indicates that human genitals have fewer sensory nerves than our fingers, lips, and other parts of the body, the relative abundance of nerve endings in the clitoris compared to the vagina makes clitoral stimulation a more likely method for achieving orgasm."

The issue with that addition is this: What in the world does "involve their vagina actively in intercourse" mean? Not only is it unnecessary text, you supported it with a poor source. I already noted above that the HuffPost is a poor source to use for biological and/or medical material. Furthermore, you added "which can be developed by Kegel exercise," when I already stated the following 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." Then there is the bit you added about women "feel[ing] that their vagina has a secondary or passive role in their achievement of sexual satisfaction." This is not simply a feeling; it is a biological fact that direct stimulation of the clitoris is far more likely than direct stimulation of the vagina to produce a female orgasm; this is well-supported in the literature and is not something that is simply attributable to American women, as if American women have different vaginal anatomy than women from other countries. The research is consistent and extremely clear that the reason that orgasm via direct clitoral stimulation is so much more likely to produce female orgasm is due to the abundance of sensory nerve endings in the clitoris compared to the few in the vagina. The research also overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that "vaginal orgasms" are likely caused by the clitoris. So, no, it is not simply based on surveys. And sources I've linked to show this, including the aforementioned Kilchevsky et al. source, which notes that "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." Your text also does not flow with the next paragraph that is already in the article: "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 you included WP:Synthesis yet again. You keep going on about the "long-established neurological research, as depicted in the Cortical homunculus drawing, indicat[ing] that human genitals have fewer sensory nerves than our fingers, lips, and other parts of the body." So I'm going to address this right now. Maybe I should have done this earlier. There is research (when reviewing Meissner) stating that the "highest MI was observed at the fingertip and lowest at the prepuce of penis," and research stating that the fingertips and forehead are more sensitive to pain, but you won't find any reliable source stating that the fingers have more nerve endings than the genitals. By contrast, a number of reliable sources state that the glans clitoris, or just the clitoris (estimated to have about, or over, 8,000 sensory nerve endings), has the most nerve endings in the human body or the greatest density of nerve endings in the human body. (Note: The number in the human penis is more debatable, mainly due to circumcision arguments.) The source I just linked to reports the following about fingertips: "Nerve fibres are arranged differently for pain and touch. For pain, they are more dense in the areas near the trunk and decrease out towards the hands and feet, while touch fibres are most dense at our extremities. So somehow we must have learned to localise pain on the fingertips and forehead despite not having dense numbers of fibres there." This 2012 "Biology: The Dynamic Science" source, from Cengage Learning, page 1076, states, "Most nerve endings associated with erotic sensations are concentrated in the clitoris, in the labia minora, and around the opening of the vagina." Again, this speaks to types of nerve endings, which is why orgasms originate in the genitals rather than in the fingers. You might also want to read this 2014 "Anatomic Study of the Clitoris and the Bulbo-Clitoral Organ" source, from Springer, pages 81-82, which examines types of nerve endings, including the clitoral nerve endings (obviously).

As for Softlavender, I suspected that she had a problem with paywall sources, but she has to yet to clarify. Either way, WP:PAYWALL states, "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only in university libraries. Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf (see WikiProject Resource Exchange)." I accessed a number of paywall sources when building the Clitoris article; I no longer have full access to them (I currently go by my very good memory and what the academic book sources state), but you can ask Jytdog or Doc James for access. I sometimes ask Jytdog. Many of our medical articles are sourced to paywall references. Look at the Cancer article, for example. Furthermore, things you are challenging are easily supported by numerous academic book sources, which you can read via their Google Books links.

Your guesses do not matter on Wikipedia; reliable sources do. If you continue to add poor sourcing for biological and/or medical material or WP:Synthesis to this article, I will escalate this matter to a noticeboard; I'd rather not have to do that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Flyer 22, from our brief interaction, my impression is that you are a superb researcher, an excellent debater, and not such a good writer. You have revealed key info in these Talk discussions to support the droning repetition of "nerve endings" in Sexual Activity but not put it into the article itself. Specifically, types of nerve endings rather than vague references to relative quantities, and stats about how women value clitoral stimulation, with vaginal stimulation being secondary. I honestly don't know why you don't insert these key points into the text.

As I noted above, working hard to edit something tends to make us lose perspective and forget that info in our head is not (or no longer) in the text, thus not so clear to readers. Instead of asking for fresh eyes to comment on how the Sexual Activity section reads, you repeatedly come up with a defensive "what's not clear about the text?"

And now you threaten me about a small amount of WP:Bold editing I took to try to integrate points you yourself made here in Talk (clitoral primacy, and also Kama Sutra activity belongs more in this section than Society and Culture). What would have happened if you had let my edit stand for a couple days, simply flagging the need for a better source but otherwise stepping back to see how others deal with the wording? Is this page so perfect that my attempted edit is some kind of contamination?

It’s clear that we have different views about what constitutes solid info. You cite medical research that strikes me as extrapolation from a cultural subset to all of humanity as universal anatomy. For example, do you even know if the 70% plus women who prefer clitoral stimulation were drawn entirely from the US rather than distributed globally?

You also waved off my suggestions about respecting subsets via the word “some” and stating a hypothesis neutrally before debunking it, but this exact style is evident in the Weiten, Dunn, and Yost book you sourced in Talk. Page 385 includes: “Some women report that they ejaculate some kind of fluid at orgasm. The prevalence of female ejaculation and the source and nature of the fluid are matters still under debate.” That’s how NPOV should read when introducing a minor idea that is neither proven nor disproven.

You also rejected my appeal to your musing about whether childbirth pain should be mentioned in this section, asserting that readers can just click on the ToC. Are you basing this claim on actual web stats about how users click links from this page? I myself nearly always prefer scrolling to ToC, and only use a section link when I email someone, in order to highlight a specific section on a page that is of mutual interest.

I came to read this page when I sought an answer to a specific question about “tenting” which the text described concisely and clearly. I then read the full section on Sexual Activity and saw it needed improvement. I’m not really interested in becoming an active editor for this page, and have no desire to provoke another edit war. I’m going to refrain from Talk for a while due to travel. I trust that you will upload a list of the improvements you said you have in mind, now that my challenges won’t take up your time. I apologize for distracting both of us from the intention of the heading I created for this Talk thread.

I do think you should step back from your gatekeeper role. Knee-jerk undo is a sure way to discourage participation from people whom you don’t already know and who might bring new perspective to an article. If you want more people to participate in editing, let an imperfection stand for a while and see who is attracted to modify, source, or debunk it. Martindo (talk) 08:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Martindo, we met before years ago. Back then, I wasn't as skilled a Wikipedia editor as I am now. As for your impression of me, I know that there are editors who would disagree with you on the "not such a good writer" claim. Compare what you recently added to what I have there. In what way does it make sense to add "Although long-established neurological research, as depicted in the Cortical homunculus drawing, indicates that human genitals have fewer sensory nerves than our fingers, lips, and other parts of the body, the relative abundance of nerve endings in the clitoris compared to the vagina makes clitoral stimulation a more likely method for achieving orgasm."? A decent or good writer of an encyclopedia would not add content that cannot be supported by a reliable source and they would not add off-topic content about nerve endings in fingers, lips, and other parts of the body. They would stay on-topic. They, going by some style views anyway, also would not use the word our; they would keep an impersonal tone (see MOS:PERSON).

You stated, "You have revealed key info in these Talk discussions to support the droning repetition of 'nerve endings' in Sexual Activity but not put it into the article itself." Yes, I made it clear in the #Preparation for Good Article nomination: Sexual Activity section discussion above why it is important to talk about nerve endings in the Sexual activity section, and I made that clear with sources. Despite this fact and the fact that sources show how important it is to mention, you continue to act like it's some trivial and/or excessive material. It is one paragraph about how vaginal pleasure is achieved or not achieved because of the design of the vagina/quantity of nerve endings. And now you are criticizing me for not going off on a tangent in the Sexual activity section about the types of nerves endings that exist? It is the Sexual activity section; it is not the "Blood and nerve supply" section. Certain content is more relevant in certain sections; a good writer knows that. The most the Sexual activity section would need about a type of nerve ending involved in sexual pleasure is the word "tactile" or "sensory nerve endings." But we should also be going by what the sources state, which is what I keep repeating to you. If the sources don't mention what types of nerve endings are involved, we shouldn't either; we should not be guessing what the sources meant. You don't seem to understand that if the sources are vague, we are vague as well; WP:Synthesis and WP:Weasel wording are clear about that. We don't add "American women" when the sources don't state "American women" or when the source is not at all clear that it's focused on women in the United States. A good writer knows that.

You are hopping around with your complaints, as if you are trying to see what compliant might stick. You stated, "and stats about how women value clitoral stimulation, with vaginal stimulation being secondary. I honestly don't know why you don't insert these key points into the text." I responded to you on this in the "Preparation for Good Article nomination: Sexual Activity section" discussion; I stated, "[T]his 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. [...] I see no need to mention [the 70-80% statistical range] in this article [...] 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." So even though you have complained about the section supposedly downgrading the vagina in terms of sexual pleasure and elevating the clitoris, you want me to add that 70-80% of women need direct clitoral stimulation to orgasm? Because, just so we're clear, that is what I would be adding, and, for flow and logical positioning, it would go right in the third paragraph that initially speaks of the clitoris. Most sources state 80%, not 70%, by the way.

As for threatening you about being WP:Bold, I am warning you about adding poor sources for biological and/or medical content and WP:Synthesis to this article. If I had let your content stand, Rivertorch perhaps would have reverted (as noted above), or maybe someone else. There was no need for me to wait to revert. I compromised with you once on adding a poor source, and that is only because better sources support part of it and the text is not off. I will not be compromising in such a way again. I am also warning you not to violate WP:Undue. You should not be editing like this at all. No no ifs, ands, or buts about it. You are complaining about me not letting you edit the article this way. As far as Wikipedia rules and research goes, you are in the wrong. This is not about WP:Bold, and I am not censoring you. It's not about this article being perfect; it's about ensuring that the article is accurate. I'm not going to sacrifice the quality of this article for your doubts about the research.

You stated, "It’s clear that we have different views about what constitutes solid info. You cite medical research that strikes me as extrapolation from a cultural subset to all of humanity as universal anatomy. For example, do you even know if the 70% plus women who prefer clitoral stimulation were drawn entirely from the US rather than distributed globally?" You have been doing the extrapolating. Per WP:Synthesis, we are not supposed to do that. I repeat: "I'm not going to sacrifice the quality of this article for your doubts about the research." In what way do you think it has been proven that vaginal anatomy differs by country? In what way has it been proven that it's only women in the United States who have significant trouble achieving orgasm via vaginal penetration? You really think that women of other countries have so many more nerve endings in the vagina? Yes, the fact that women usually require direct clitoral stimulation to achieve orgasm is not simply a United States matter; the female orgasm has not only been studied in the United States. In fact, researchers Odile Buisson and Pierre Foldès, who created the first complete 3D sonography of the stimulated clitoris, are French. Do you think they were in the habit of studying American women for their research showing that the clitoris is key to female sexual pleasure/orgasm and that there is a close relationship between the clitoris and vagina?

You stated, "You also waved off my suggestions about respecting subsets via the word 'some' and stating a hypothesis neutrally before debunking it, but this exact style is evident in the Weiten, Dunn, and Yost book you sourced in Talk. Page 385 includes: 'Some women report that they ejaculate some kind of fluid at orgasm. The prevalence of female ejaculation and the source and nature of the fluid are matters still under debate.' That’s how NPOV should read when introducing a minor idea that is neither proven nor disproven." That page is not showing up for me in the 2011 version of the source, at least via Firefox, but I do see it in this 2016 version. Either way, it has nothing to do with what you added. You added, "Some women involve their vagina actively in intercourse, using their pelvic floor muscles which can be developed by Kegel exercise." And as for that and the other stuff you added, I have already addressed it. There is also a brief mention about female ejaculation in the Sexual activity section; it states, "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." That is NPOV. But I keep seeing that one of your definitions of NPOV is being as vague as possible (even though you have argued the opposite as well), and this seems to be because you do not like what the research states. What I am doing is in line with the WP:NPOV policy.

I'm not sure about your table of contents rationale; I'll just state that I stand by what I stated on that matter.

As for the Sexual activity section needing improvements, your ideas for improvements, with perhaps the exception of adding Kuma Sutra material (which I will be looking to add thanks to you), have so far contrasted how we are supposed to edit Wikipedia articles.

As for your view that I am being a gatekeeper, I am the main editor of the article, but I am not trying to WP:OWN it. I am adhering to the rules for reasons I've been over above. There are not many editors working on female anatomy articles. This is a very important topic with few Wikipedia editors with as much knowledge as me on the matter. So I do not think that my stepping back would be wise. I care about this topic and I am not just going to let any and everything be added to it. I don't agree with your approach of letting poor content remain in an article to welcome more editors. We should want editors adding decent, good or great content. We don't want them adding unsourced, and/or poorly sourced, and/or inaccurate material. And we should not be encouraging the addition of such material for the sake of attracting more editors. Your rationale in this regard seems to be that if an article is too "perfect," there will be less editors of the article...and that because of this, we should try letting the article go to attract more editors. I simply do not agree. This article is watched by more people than just me, but things can sometimes be missed/overlooked, and there are times that inaccurate information can remain in an article for a month or more, or years or more, which is partly why Wikipedia has a reputation for being unreliable. You are essentially asking me to contribute to that unreliability. I will not. And there are some editors we wouldn't want to attract. I don't feel that you need to apologize for striking up a conversation about improving the article; we want editors doing that. But we also want them following the rules. There are very few cases when WP:Ignore all rules should be employed; health articles are not one of them. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Flyer22, Martindo. I participated in a small review of this article and edit anatomy articles; Flyer22 has invited me to contribute on my talk page - I tend to contribute to most discussions as I have an interest in this area. I've tried with some difficulty to work out what the content issues are here but am having some trouble. Am happy to weigh in (as other talk page readers are) but it would help if we could narrow this debate to a couple of key statements that are being discussed? General statements about editing style of editors can be discussed on their talk pages. Some brief thoughts of my overview here (for what it's worth):

Huffington post is not a reliable source for anatomy or medical articles (WP:RS, WP:MEDRS)

The vagina involved in most intercourse is WP:SKYISBLUE as is the fact that the brain interprets sensory information

Detailed coverage of genital organs in sexual intercourse is not the primary topic of the article.

We shouldn't be stating that the vagina has more or less relative nerve endings than other sensory organs, that doesn't make any sense. We don't mention odd comparative facts like "the human has one nose, less than the five fingers of each hand". We are comparing apples with oranges if we make these comparisons

I don't see how it makes sense to use this to say the nerve endings of the vagina make the pain of childbirth relatively less ... than what? There is only one physiological route for childbirth

Happy to opine away on any other issues. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Tom (LT), thanks for weighing in. I obviously agree with what you stated, except for the "we shouldn't be stating that the vagina has more or less relative nerve endings than other sensory organs"; well, I only disagree with this on the clitoris matter. I obviously agree that we shouldn't be comparing the fingers, lips, and other parts of the body. But in terms of the clitoris, the vagina's nerve endings in relation to the clitoris's nerve endings are something we do and should cover (as seen in the Clitoris, G-spot and Orgasm articles), and this is because sources extensively compare them; they do this to explain why not a lot of women orgasm from vaginal stimulation, and because research consistently indicates that the clitoris and vagina are interconnected; sources like this 2012 "Discovery Series: Human Sexuality" source, from Cengage Learning, page 135 (103 in the book), are clear about these matters. Di Marino et al., in the aforementioned "Anatomic Study of the Clitoris and the Bulbo-Clitoral Organ" source (page 130), state, "Overall, the penetration stimulates the clitoris as much as the vagina (with very little innervation and, in any case, without comparison to the extraordinary nerve system of the clitoris). This is why the distinction made between 'vaginal' women and 'clitoral' women, which had its hour of glory during the era of S. Freud, is now generally criticised." So if we are going to talk about a woman having an orgasm experienced vaginally in the article, which we do, then the clitoral aspect should be mentioned as well. That stated, I have, so far, not included any extensive clitoris and vagina comparisons in this article, and I don't intend to. I have included brief mentions of the clitoris, per the sources. The solid sources for female orgasm mostly pertain to the clitoris (not to the vagina), which is why most of the content on that is in the aforementioned articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with what you have said above; my issue is with this statement here: "Although pain results from childbirth, this pain is significantly reduced". Significantly reduced... as compared with what? I think this statement is a tautology: if the body is different, then the body would be different. But it's not, so I don't think this statement is useful at all? Another editor has also noted this above.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Tom (LT), as compared to childbirth with more nerve endings in the vagina. I'm not clear on how that line can be confusing. Like I told Jytdog in the #Pain during childbirth significantly decreased due to a lack vaginal nerve endings above (when the line was different), "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 line goes on to explain, stating "by having an arrangement of nerve endings concentrating in the outer part rather than along the whole length." Readers have the rest of the paragraph before that point for context. Really, I'd prefer the line to simply state the following: "Due to this lack of nerve endings, pain experienced during childbirth is significantly reduced." But the current wording was a compromise with Martindo (again, see the initial discussion). I've noted that I think this bit fits better in the Sexual activity section where the nerve ending material already is and provides context than it would fit in the Childbirth section. And I don't find it trivial since a number of sources take the time to note this aspect when talking about the lack of vaginal nerve endings. If you have different wording in mind, feel free to suggest it here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Per my discussion with Martindo, I have included Kama Sutra material. There are not a lot of good sources on the Kama Sutra. I don't consider sex guides good sources in this regard. So I worked with what was available and what was focusing on the vagina and female sexual pleasure. I chose the best two. I also added Kegel exercises material with regard to sexual activity. Kegel exercises are still mentioned in the "Infections, safe sex, and disorders" section, but it's mentioned there in a clinical manner; it's not about sexual activity there (but rather issues with the pelvic floor, especially vaginal prolapse). It's also interesting that one of the sources I added states, "Kegel, like other physicians and psychiatrists of his time, believed that female orgasm was primarily vaginal, and that a proper orgasm occurred when the muscles of the vaginal canal contracted involuntarily during intercourse." And just so I'm clear, I have looked for more information on vaginal sexual pleasure. But you can see what I'm working with by looking at this "vagina sexual pleasure" Google Books search vs. this "clitoris sexual pleasure" Google Books search. Same goes for regular Google, as seen with this vs. this. As one can see on Google Books, in terms of the vagina, the sources are usually about sexual dysfunction, the vagina lacking nerve endings for sufficient sexual satisfaction, or similar. On regular Google, in terms of the vagina, the sources are usually about finding the G-spot or some similar pleasurable zone in the vagina, or sexual dysfunction. So, yeah, not a lot of good content out there about vaginal sexual pleasure. And we've been clear on how media sources are not ideal for biological and/or medical content. So, keeping the sources in mind, I'm not shortchanging the vagina. This is just the way it is. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I changed the "reduced pain" bit to the following: "By having an arrangement of nerve endings concentrating in the outer part rather than along the whole length, childbirth pain is significantly more tolerable."

Despite what I stated before about devoting a section to aging (now seen at Talk:Vagina/Archive 9#Edits), I also added a section with aging material, which significantly relates to childbirth, which is why I opted to title the section "Effects of aging and childbirth, or weight gain" instead of "Effects of aging, childbirth, or weight gain." I'm not strongly opposed to the latter title, however. Anyway, I see that it is important to include a section about this, and it's not overly redundant to information in previous sections. In fact, as the edit shows, I moved one piece out of the previous section it was in.

I changed the "Reasons for vaginal modification" heading to "Cosmetic or traditional reasons for vaginal modification" to make it clear that this section, unlike the Modification subsection in "Clinical significance," is about cosmetic changes due to societal issues, or changes due to societal tradition.

As far as article improvements go, there is still more that I want to tweak and add. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Note: Had to make some tweaks and fixes to the "Effects of aging and childbirth, or weight gain" section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Shortened "Effects of aging and childbirth, or weight gain" to "Effects of aging and childbirth" because the weight piece is only a brief/vague mention at the moment and such mentions don't need to be reflected in the section title. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

As you can see from the long gap in time, I am not interested in any more intense debates. All I offer is a tweak of the "bit" about "reduced pain" in the last sentence of the first paragraph, along these lines:

Within the vagina, nerve endings are denser near the opening than they are deeper in the canal, which means that the pain of childbirth is less acute until the baby starts to emerge.

Before Flyer and I started arguing intensely, we both agreed that this part of the text should not imply that evolutionary psychology “arranges” anatomical structure, so my proposed phrasing might be acceptable.

I see some good changes have been made in the past 3 months. Let the rest be. Martindo (talk) 08:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Martindo One small thing we are missing here is a reliable source (WP:RS) to back up this claim. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Martindo, like I stated on Tom (LT)'s talk page, discussion on this matter has mostly become unproductive. It became that early on. I do not know what you mean by "we both agreed that this part of the text should not imply that evolutionary psychology 'arranges' anatomical structure." Perhaps you need to read the #Pain during childbirth significantly decreased due to a lack vaginal nerve endings discussion again. But I do know that the current text is partly your wording. It states, "By having an arrangement of nerve endings concentrating in the outer part rather than along the whole length, childbirth pain is significantly more tolerable." You once stated, "Concentration is not what limits pain -- the arrangement limits it, because the nerves primarily feel the stretch only when the head begins to emerge." We initially discussed the matter in the aforementioned section, and I provided the less than ideal "Myth Buster: 150 Great Misconceptions Clarified" source that somewhat echoed what you were stating, but I also stated that the source "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." As seen in the aforementioned discussion and above in this section, I compromised with you by including "arrangement" while also including "concentrating." That's seen here and here. If I am to change the text yet again, the most I can offer is to change "by having an arrangement of nerve endings concentrating in the outer part rather than along the whole length" to "by having a higher concentration of nerve endings in the outer part rather than along the whole length." This wording is clearer and more accurate than the current wording. Your suggested wording of "within the vagina, nerve endings are denser near the opening than they are deeper in the canal" is already covered by the following text: "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." And, yes, we should state "majority" instead of simply "denser" since it is, in fact, the case the most of the nerve endings in the vagina are near the opening and that fewer are farther up. Overall, even though most nerve endings are near the opening, the vagina does not have many nerve endings. It's why so many teenage girls and women can stick in a tampon and forget that it's there; they do not feel it. We've already been over this. As for "which means that the pain of childbirth is less acute until the baby starts to emerge," this can imply that childbirth pain equals what the pain would be if that portion of the vagina had as many nerve endings. But that's not the case; the childbirth pain would be worse if there were a lot of nerve endings there.

I need to go ahead and be clear in a stern matter now: If you change text in the article yet again to unsourced, poorly sourced, or off-topic wording, I will consider taking the issue to WP:ANI. I've taken your comments into consideration and made some edits as a result of your comments, including the use of the less than ideal "Myth Buster: 150 Great Misconceptions Clarified" source and an unneeded Kama Sutra addition. Your behavior has now crossed into WP:I didn't hear that territory, and it only serves to go in circles. I ask that you drop this matter, like you stated you would on Tom (LT)'s talk page. Don't keep revisiting this "issue" every few months or couple of years, like you did with the Umami article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Recent revisions

I reverted a number of edits by Barbara (WVS), but I did restore the new childbirth material she added. Earlier, I asked her if she wouldn't mind discussing significant changes first. This is not only because most of the content in this article has already been worked out (via extensive discussions, including a review that served as a peer review), but also because Barbara (WVS) and I tend to disagree on edits she makes, including her "brevity" edits, which sometimes take away important context. She said she was willing to discuss and assured me that there would be no edit warring.

Below, I outline why I reverted:

• Barbara (WVS) changed "At the deep end, the cervix (neck of the uterus) bulges into the vagina." to "The cervix (neck of the uterus) normally bulges into the vagina." This aspect of the lead was worked out. An editor added "at the deep end" for clarity. After all, what does "normally" mean in this case?

• Barbara (WVS) changed "Female mammals usually have the opening of the urethra of the urinary system separate to the vaginal opening of the genital tract." to "Female mammals usually have the opening of the urethra of the urinary system separate from the vaginal opening." This text was discussed before as well. I think that the following wording proposed in that discussion has a better flow: "Females usually have two external orifices, the urethral orifice for the urological tract and the vaginal orifice for the genital tract." So I've changed the wording to something similar to that. Followup edit here.

• Barbara (WVS) changed "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." to "The concentration of the nerve endings are near the entrance of the vagina (the lower third) and are stimulated and often provide pleasurable sensations during intercourse." This "brevity" edit leaves out the fact that closeness and fullness during penetration are pleasurable aspects for women. Barbara (WVS) added: "During intercourse, stimulation of these same vaginal nerves can create an emotional feeling of closeness." The source does not state that the nerves create a feeling of emotional closeness. It states, "Many women enjoy vaginal intercourse because of the nice feelings of fullness, the emotional closeness, and from the intimacy from pleasing one's partner."

• Barbara (WVS) changed "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." to "Most of the vagina lacks nerve endings. This may account for the hinderance of sufficient sexual stimulation that leads to orgasm." There is no "may". The sources are clear that a lack of nerve endings in the vagina hinders an orgasm via vaginal penetration. And it's not about "insufficient sexual stimulation that leads to orgasm" as a whole. It's specifically about the vagina. Women can usually orgasm just fine by directly stimulating their clitoris. Also, "orgasm" should be wikilinked, not de-linked.

• Barbara (WVS) changed "Although some scientific examinations of vaginal wall innervation indicate no single area with a greater density of nerve endings, or that only some women have a greater density of nerve endings in the anterior vaginal wall" to "Currently, no indication of more concentrated areas of innervation on the vaginal wall have been found though some women have a greater density of nerve endings in the anterior vaginal wall." The previous wording is more accurate because it takes into account what all three sources state. Sources consistently state that most of the vaginal nerve endings are near the entrance and that the rest of the vagina has significantly fewer nerve endings (see here, here, here and here for examples), but a few others state that some research indicates, or some researchers believe, that there is no single area of the vagina with a greater density of nerve endings. This 2012 "Exploring the Dimensions of Human Sexuality" source, from Jones & Bartlett Publishers, that is used in the article states, "Others maintain that there is no one particular spot in the vagina that is more sensitive than others to stimulation." The source is clear that there is a debate. It's about what the others believe. My wording is being mindful of the debate while also giving appropriate weight to the "outer one-third of the vagina, especially near the opening, contains the majority of the vaginal nerve endings" aspect. This issue is continued with the next paragraph below.

• Barbara (WVS) removed "These cases indicate that 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." The issue with this removal is that it leaves the section without mention that the majority of vaginal nerve endings are near the entrance and therefore more sensitive to touch. Sure, Barbara (WVS) had the section begin by stating "The concentration of the nerve endings are near the entrance of the vagina (the lower third)," but it's not just "near the opening" that has a concentration of nerve endings. It just so happens that, according to most sources, "near the opening" has the vast majority of nerve endings. To remedy any redundancy or awkward wording Barbara (WVS) might have been trying to remove, I changed the text's design. Followup edits are seen here, here, here and here.

• Barbara (WVS) changed "The vagina provides a channel to deliver a newborn to its independent life outside the body of the mother." to "The vagina provides a channel for delivery of the newborn and placenta." I don't see why "placenta" needs to be mentioned, at least in that sentence. The focus is supposed to be on delivery of the child.

• Barbara (WVS) changed "When childbirth (or labor) nears, several symptoms may occur, including Braxton Hicks contractions, vaginal discharge, and the rupture of membranes (water breaking)." to "When childbirth (or labor) nears, several symptoms can occur. These include Braxton Hicks contractions, vaginal discharge, and the rupture of amniotic membranes and resulting 'gush' of amniotic fluid through the vagina." I don't mind this change much. I question the need to break up the text by stating "These include," but "gush of amniotic fluid through the vagina" is clearer than "water breaking." I still think that "water breaking" should be retained, since it is such a common expression. I changed the text to include both. Followup edit here.

• Barbara (WVS) changed "When water breaking happens, there may be an uncommon wet sensation in the vagina; this could be an irregular or small stream of fluid from the vagina, or a gush of fluid." to "In some instances, only a small tear develops prior to birth and the amniotic fluid may trickle out through the vagina." The previous text is clearer that it's talking about when water breaking happens, and it provides more context.

• Barbara (WVS) changed "When the body prepares for childbirth, the cervix softens, thins, moves forward to face the front, and may begin to open." to "The cervix, located above the vagina, softens and thins. It moves forward to face the front, and dilates." The latter is not clear that we specifically mean when the body prepares for childbirth. Yes, the section is titled "Childbirth," but this does not mean that we still should not provide clear wording for readers.

• Barbara (WVS) changed "While these symptoms are likelier to happen after labor has already begun for women who have given birth before" to "While these symptoms can happen after labor has begun." The source is clear about "likelier"; it is not simply a "can" matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)