I think some people think photos have more potential to disturb because they are presumably photos of a real person (that is, a photo of a clitoris is the photo of a specific woman's clitoris; a drawing of a clitoris can be a drawing of no one's clitoris -- but I think this is a side issue).

I agree with Steven, except for the above. I think the opposite is true. The image of a photograph of a clitoris is a 'real' clitoris, whereas a drawing is some artist's 'imaged version' of a clitoris. So whereas the real thing can be neutral, the imaged one can carry the artist's POV.

OK. A bit of humour after this ongoing discussion. A friend (female) walked in as I was reading the wiki-list. She knows that, whether through nature or nuture, it has been decreed that I am not one likely to have much interest in the clitoris stakes. And she walked in to find me with a page of emails all with the obvious words 'the clitoris guy'. So after a moment of puzzling quizzical looking at me, she asked, "are you trying to tell me something? Are you 'really' straight?" So thanks, guys'n'gals. After months of convincing her that as much as she desparately is in love with me, I ain't available, being unambiguously gay, she now thinks I 'really' am straight after all and having difficulty 'coming out' as straight to all my gay friends. Zeeech! Wiki has called me communist, a fascist, a liberal, an ultra-conservative, a monarchist, a republican. And now straight!!!! How much more of this??? *grin* So the next time you send around an email on 'the clitoris guy', please attach the words 'PS Nora. JT IS gay!!!' :-))

_________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail