You had a bad biology textbook. There should still be drawings of what it looks like on the outside. But I guess an adequate warning is OK. Maybe the images should be kept outside Wikipedia, as external links for more information. We don't put pictures of everything on Wikipedia, but there are often external links that provide more information including photographs. I think this should be no different.
--LittleDan
--- Axel Boldt axelboldt@yahoo.com wrote:
Regarding the issue of photographs of genitals, we can distinguish three classes of people:
- those who wish to view them
- those who don't wish to view them
- those who don't wish others to view them
The first two classes are perfectly accomodated by having the photographs hidden behind links that unambiguously describe their content; the third class does not deserve any accomodation.
Drawings are important in anatomy, because they allow to show hidden and internal structures and allow to emphasize distinctions by using separate colors. At the same time, they can be very misleading when not accompanied by a real-world photo.
Personally, I was raised on biology-textbook drawings of the female anatomy. They were terribly confusing: it was impossible to tell what was inside and outside, what was visible and invisible, how big things were. They made the first porn I got my hands on that much more valuable.
Axel
Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com