Talk:Perineum

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Anatomy: Gross High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been classified as relating to gross anatomy.

Archives

1

What is the problem with mentioning a slang term for the perineum: "the taint"? Certain editors seem to be on a long-term campaign to expunge any such mention from this article. The arguments presented here are sparse. I think the fact that many separate people come here to place this information indicates that its placement bears examination for merit.

Also, I see no reason that the guiche piercing (a perineal piercing) should not be mentioned here. If you disagree, please explain. Whatever404 (talk) 02:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List it under see also, certainly relevant. I think a NPOV sourced sentence about taint would make sense. -- Banjeboi 04:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A see also of guiche piercing seems entirely valid to me. I also wouldn't necessarily object to a well sourced mention of "taint" somewhere, but I have yet to see someone come up with a good source for it. I remain dubious as to the necessity of mentioning the slang here - as I said above, we don't mention the word "ass" on buttocks or the word "cock" on penis, so I'm not sure why this article should be any different. ~ mazca ^t|c 06:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, both of those slang terms are mentioned at their respective articles, along with others. Whatever404 (talk) 03:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it's been a while since the last time I looked. Consider both my objections (precedent and lack of sources) dealt with! ~ mazca ^t|c 06:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that a "collaborative online slang dictionary" is not what I refer to as a good source. I would certainly have removed that sentence from the article as not reliably sourced, but as we're having this discussion I don't mind leaving it for now. ~ mazca ^t|c 06:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added refs for each. There were numerous ones to choose from. -- Banjeboi 21:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, nicely done. Does that book you cited support the whole sentence (I'm thinking the whole "It ain't your balls..." part) or not? I'm sure that bit can be sourced to something else if not - i'd just rather remove the whole "collaborative online slang dictionary" from the refs altogether. ~ mazca ^t|c 21:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its known as a stinkbridge in NW England (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=stink+bridge) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.128.109.168 (talk • contribs)

Got a source other than urban dictionary? Powers ^T 14:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty pathetic that the article doesn't mention the main terms actually used by ordinary folk.-96.237.69.64 (talk) 12:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't generally think of myself as a stupid or simple person (who would?), but for the life of me I can't seem to understand this sentence:

The anogenital distance is a measure of male feminisation measuring the distance between the anus and the base of the penis.

I wasn't aware that measurements of the the anogenital distance corresponded to lack of masculinity. 24.200.137.18 (talk) 00:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the next sentence, you'll see that a longer distance is found in males compared to females; therefore, a shorter distance in a male is an indication of a possible hormone imbalance or other disorder. Powers ^T 12:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The cart was before the horse so to speak. I corrected that paragraph so that the anogenital distance is defined FIRST, and then its predictive value is explained. Martindo (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please replace the key male and female photos with better ones. The male photo currently is great at showing context orientation, but the base of the penis could be less obscured, and the anus is not visible. The highlighting arrow is confusing at best; a circle might be better. The current female photo works better, but is rather abstract in terms of context, which could confuse naive readers; the vagina is almost entirely censored; it would be good if the perineum itself were at a larger scale. It is unnecessarily confusing for the male and female photos to be turned 180 degrees in orientation.

The Perineal fascia terminology section is incomprehensible high-faultin scientific gibberish, without explanatory diagrams and pictures.

The Gallery is pretty good. -96.237.69.64 (talk) 12:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason we can't simply have pictures (compare the Spanish page) of real healthy people rather than dissected drawings? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.12.127.142 (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No good reason, No. There is an ongoing struggle between human body photo positive editors and those viewing realistic human anatomy photos as porn. Due to the nature of wikipedia- Sometimes these photos are more titillating than some people are comfortable with. Generally its agreed that photos should be appropriate for kids and not porn. But that is very subjective. It's a perennial problem here on wikipedia (ba-doom cha!)

Anyway the more important point is that you have to come up with a non-copyright image that is accurate, illustrates the topic well, universally appropriate (not just showing a certain age or ethnicity), and cropped to be something the prudes won't censor. It could be easy, but it takes enough effort that often these (in my opinion not very illustrative) old fashioned medical graphics are easier. In short, the reason we don't have this is because no one has yet made it happen. If you have access to good photos or illustrations or can make them then please do! The world will be grateful. And if you make a sincere effort to do it well there are plenty of editors who will protect it from overly-prudish edits. So dive in!

Also, you can certainly borrow well done public domain graphics from other wikimedia sources and put them here.Rusl (talk) 01:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article probably should be moved to "human perieneum". -- Tomdo08 (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - at present, the article appears very anthropocentric - it should be split into two separate articles (one of them specifically about humans.) Jarble (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.112.70.211 (talk) 03:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Flyer22 Reborn: Let's dig some non-human, credible sources mentioning perineum or perineal (= the adjective relating to the perineum), [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. That should do for starters. This obviously is not a human-only thing. --Palosirkka (talk) 08:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Palosirkka, there is no need to ping me to this article since this article is on my watchlist. I reverted you here because the vast majority of anatomy sources on the perineum concern humans. When it's the case that a topic is human-dominated in the literature, the article is usually going to mostly be about humans. In the case of anatomy and medical articles, we include an "Other animals" section; see WP:MEDSECTIONS for what I mean. If enough material exists for non-human animals, then that topic might also get its own article, such as Pregnancy (mammals). If you want an "Other animals" section in the Perineum article, I suggest you add one and/or visit WP:Anatomy about helping out on the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed what I felt is gratuitous nudity by Frozen777, in which he uploaded a photograph of himself lying down in a full-body shot gazing at the camera, displaying the perineum.

 - this is the funniest thing I have read since I can remember, comedy gold.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.207.216 (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] 

• the photo displays his entire body, whereas a highly cropped image displaying only the relevant portion would suffice (completely extraneous parts of the anatomy)
• other articles in which there are photographs of parts of the human anatomy overwhelmingly highly restricted/cropped to the relevant parts of the human anatomy in question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buttocks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitoris

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ear

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbow

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finger

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingernail

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forearm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forehead

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_eye

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nose

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_penis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knee

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mouth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neck

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nostril

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toes

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.85.47.223 (talk) 22:53, 31 October 2011

Readily merged into Perineum#Perineal body. Benefits readers by giving more context to the information and centralising information. Can be reexpanded if necessary at a later date. Tom (LT) (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support this as long as no information is deleted, which should be doable. Oreo Priest ^talk 18:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I support this and agree the info should be combined without loss. It's mostly all duplicate info anyway.Rusl (talk) 02:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the penis erect in a medical illustration that does not relate to sexual productivity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.251.102.122 (talk • contribs) .

Quite. Clearly an exhibitionist abusing this website, possibly as part of a fetish, yet the image is still there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:6B6F:F070:9700:6D2E:C475:3055:6D26 (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should this get a mention ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.45.12.92 (talk) 12:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Aintcha. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 18#Aintcha until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• MalePerinium.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]