Delirium-
I'm not even sure offensiveness is the right word, but more like visceral discomfort or shock---a great many people would find it difficult to read an article that had either of those images embedded (for completely different reasons, of course).
Why are you reading an article about the clitoris if you're not prepared to look at an image of one? Is this really about what people find offensive, or what people think *other* people might find offensive ("Well, I personally don't mind, but .."), or what they think *children* should not see?
Context is important, but there needs to be no special rule here -- off- topic images can simply be removed from an article.
I think if we only remove things that absolutely *everyone* finds offensive, we'd have a lot of odd things in our articles that'd alienate a lot of people. A large number of people have no particular problem with images of [[defecation]] for example
I think we've had this discussion before. I disagree. Aversion to feces is fairly universal as not having it makes a culture prone to disease; it may even be biological (the structure and smell of feces changes over age, so the taboo may not yet be triggered in small children). Coprophilia is generally recognized as a disorder.
Try it. Add a picture of human feces to an article, hold a vote, and see what the threshold will be against inline inclusion. Animal feces, that is a different story. You couldn't make a meaningful documentary about plants without showing feces, one of their primary means of transportation.
Regards,
Erik