" 
 

  

  
 == Pubic hair == 

 Set aside the aesthetics. I think that a picture without hair, hence shaven, is not appropriate: this is not what it looks naturally like. At least the description should mention this particularity.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by   •    

 It may be for clarity's sake in labeling the parts of the vagina. However I do agree that there should be some amount of hair, representing an average vagina. Obviously a vagina whose hair hinders the view of certain labeled parts should not be used.    

 == The close up of a vagina. == 

  
 it actually hurts looking at that picture. can we get a better one lol. 

 Why would you replace a photograph with a diagram? Surely a photograph is more illustrative?    

 Holy shit! That is a fucking disturbing picture.  
 Is this an educatonal website or Swank magazine? Remember, kids also frequent this site for research. How about something a little less...hmmm, I don't know...DISGUSTING. There's no other article on Wikipedia with an image so graphic.  
 Someone please repalace this. 

 Agreed - not only is is vulgar, I would be very concerned about the age of the model  —Preceding unsigned comment added by     

  
 (btw, is it true that there's a scratch 'n sniff app for the iPhone? 
 Because if there is....)    
 : No. Read the ""censor"" notice at the top of the page.     

  

 If you visit a page about a Vagina what do you expect to see?    

  

 Its better to see the real picture for understanding...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by     

 == Copyright infringement? == 

  
    scarily enough, I recognize that image. It's been ripped from a porn site  the model used tha name ""alice"" on the site. I actually have an unlabeled copy of that image on my HD. LOL. Don't want to be accused of spamming so I shall not name the site. Simply labelling the parts on it does not do away with the copyright of the orignal image. It needs to be yanked from the wikimedia commons. 

 :you know this how?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by     

 ::Obviously, from looking at explicit images on the Internet, like a zillion other people. Get over it. Wikipedia isn't a place to be condemnatorily prudish, and identifying a copyvio is good, regardless how the identification is made. —  [] [[[S