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(a)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(a)wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com