Talk:Clitoris

Shouldn't there be a picture to illustrate this article? I'm reliably informed that most men don't where it is. Genghis^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 13:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Just type "clitoris" into Google images - nuff said!   ^Contribs_Talk 13:10, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Device for manipulating.   ^Contribs_Talk 13:20, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Unfortunately it's the only linguistics I'm any good at. Genghis^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 17:19, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Heh! Me too!   ^Contribs_Talk 17:23, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Quick question, as I can never get a straight answer. Are ice-cubes any good? Genghis^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 17:29, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

This conversation is surreal. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:15, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

You'll learn. Genghis^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 18:17, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

How about hot candle wax? human 18:44, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Too close to hair-dryers for my liking. Have you tried it? Genghis^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 18:54, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

The purpose of the glans

Actually, the glans of the penis only serves to pleasure a male during sexual stimulation, the same as the clitoris. That the urethra and seminal ducts merge and then most often move into the glans doesn't make that the "purpose" of the glans. There are intersex disorders where incomplete development is made and the urethra exists either in a labial-scrotal fold, or at any arbitrary point along the bottom of the penis. I don't know if we could really call the "function" of the glans as such, since this would imply that there is some design there for that purpose. Rather, it would be better to state that the urethra which is most commonly used for the expelling of waste and semen most typically exits from the tip of the glans of a penis, rather than saying that the glans's purpose is that... by not representing information as it applies to everyone (including intersexed individuals) we present an arbitrary human model of gender/sex that simply doesn't exist... and well, those human models lead people to believe that there was a "designer" because the model is so perfect... the idea neglects the variation available in nature, and that biology fucks up... relatively A LOT. -Eira ^omtg! The Goat be praised. 14:48, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia

There is no page titled "clitoris".

For more information about searching Conservapedia, see Help.

Deletion vote

This article has nothing to do with the mission.--Krej^talk 01:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete

• Krej^talk 01:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
• Scream!! (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC) (but snip anything worthwhile for Female genital mutilation)^{[didn't realise what I'd done there until I saved it - "snip"!]}
• There's something to say here - this article isn't it, however. Hipocrite (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• The part on female genital mutilation should be joined to another article or become a separate article altogether. We're a site about skepticism and rationality, not a sex education guide.

We actually include a lot of information on sexuality, "sex education", etc., outside of skepticism, because it's actual part of a rational approach to things (non rationalists offering some rather ridiculous issues about sex, homosexuality, homosexual sex, cutting of genitles, etc. That said, this article, as currently written, isn't that.

• delete or rewrite.Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 00:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I attempted a rewrite a while ago. "rewrite" here meaning combining it with a few other stub/barely on topic articles about genitals and sex. My efforts were not appreciated. Might be willing to redo and finish--Token Conservative (talk) 00:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

If your ego is up for it - do it. worst that can happen is the mob says "ucky". Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 02:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm just not a fan of spending hours working on something to have it undone.--Token Conservative (talk) 03:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• I say it needs a delete, but we should definitely keep the section on female genital mutilation for its own article. Unless, of course, we want to claim that the clitoris is a mythical object, whose existence is in doubt... but we'd have to rewrite the entire article as snark... Reverend Lucifer (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep

--ZILtoid1991 (talk) 10:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any good reasons to delete listed above. Keep. ħuman 03:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I can think of a few reasons to keep it and no-good reasons to ditch it:

1) It might actually help someone oneday who comes here looking to learn in a less restricted way

2) Cunservopeida still don't have an entry, so on principle there.

3) There's surely no harm in duplicating FGM material what with it being a huge issue.
--Scimon149 (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. Most certainly is on mission. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism. Secret Squirrel (talk) 00:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Keep, but edit. Especially the part about female mutilation is worth adressing.Carlo Landzaat (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Goat

1. This is yet another article written back in the day to point at CP's prudishness. Is there any reason for it now? Sophie^Wilder 13:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
2. I'm actually surprised many readers can even find this page. --Seth Peck (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

What the hell is article?

It starts with an out-of-context definition of the clitoris, and mich of the content is neither myth nor woo. Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 00:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I explained in the Saloon bar, title "sexy bits", or something like that. Please refer there.--Token Conservative (talk) 00:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Our mission is education and there's a lot of misinfo out there about female sexuality. Definitely on-mission. EVDebs (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

To be clear -- I made the original comment not wne this article was "clitoris" -- which it should be, but when somebody re-named it "Sexual myths and woo" and it was a poorly-written mish-mash with little in terms of myth or woo. The article should stay as it is, more or less, not as it was briefly transformed to. Besides, Susan worked on this, IIRC -- all the more reason not to change it willy-nilly. Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 17:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank for your opinion, you reactionary jackass.--Token Conservative (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, good point. Garbaged articles make a mess of everything. EVDebs (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

It is so totally mission-related and not so bad an article. If anyone deletes it I will re-create and delete them. Huge swathes of the fundamentalist/authoritarian landscape regularly abuse this delightful organ, even going so far as to cut it off. A simple definition of what it is and how it works (links to Vagina Monologues?) completely belongs here. ħuman 03:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the clitoris itself is worth having an article on. FGM has its own article (and rightly so), but the clitoris itself, not so much. If you come up with some myths and woo specific to the clitoris that are not about FGM I'll get around to doing something this week--Token Conservative (talk) 06:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Deleted

Deleted per RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Clitoris. Sophie^Wilder 12:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)