[WikiEN-l] Re: pictures of genetalia

[Peter Jaros]

On Jan 10, 2004, at 8:57 PM, Anthere wrote:

> I went to the article about clitoris for a tiny comparison, as a huge 
> number of african girls are circonsized as well (some of them being 
> french, as this is still practiced in secret among african 
> immigrants). It is also practiced in other countries; A minority, just 
> like masculine circoncized, but a relevant number anyway.
>
> There are no pictures of circonsision in the article.

There should be (I think).  Care to look for one? :)

> And no picture in particular showing a natural clitoris with a label 
> saying "un-circoncized clitoris".
>
> What would you feel when seeing the pict of a perfectly classical (for 
> us) clitoris, with the label being not "clitoris" but being 
> "uncirconcized clitoris" ? Would it feel quite right ?
>
> Would it ?

I understand your point, but I think it's a matter of context.  If we 
show an "uncircumcised penis" (this all goes for "clitoris" too) next 
to a "penis", then yes, that is POV: one is implied to be "normal".  If 
we show an "uncircumcised penis" next to a "circumcised penis" (as you 
did on [[circumcision]]) the implication is that the circumcised one 
had something done to it, namely a circumcision.  That's not POV, 
that's fact, and it's also closer to your opinion.

But hey, a penis is a penis is a penis, folks.

> The topic of female circonsision is only very shortly mentionned in 
> two lines at the bottom of the article. And that's it. Not mentionned 
> in the anatomy. Not additional link.
>
> Now, I wonder what an african reading these two articles, one 
> proeminently talking about a practice he does not really know about, 
> and another hardly mentionning what is cultural norm to him, would 
> think.

Your points here are truly valid.  Let's fix the clitoris article.

Peter

---
Funding for this program comes from Borders without Doctors: The 
Bookstore Chain That Sounds Like a Charity.
		--Harry Shearer, Le Show