Talk:Perineum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Definition of perineum 2 removal 3 Nicknames for the Perineum 4 Image 5 Image 6 Image 7 Inappropriate Image 8 Notice 9 What the...? 10 2 groups? 11 internal portion of perineum? 12 regions 13 Guiche

[edit] Definition of perineum

Please note that the definition of perineum varies. In the context of modern anatomy, it refers to the region between the pubic symphysis and the coccyx. That means that it includes both the vagina and the anus. The slang, and all its associated topics, therefore, do not so much relate to this article as they do with an older definition of perineum. Mauvila 01:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removal

Removed strange comment from article.

[edit] Nicknames for the Perineum

First I, and then someone else added information to this article about nicknames for the Perineum, only to have it promptly reverted with little comment.

Now, there's a million nicknames for the Perineum (a quick google search turned up the following: http://www.f5wichita.com/index.php?story=307)

I've personally heard taint, grundle, and baunch used before to describe it. Urban dictionary seems to agree with me on this.

Common nicknames for things are encyclopedic. Pussy has its own article. Fellatio lists quite a few synonyms. So there is a lot of precedent that is being ignored. →Raul654 09:00, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, and I've re-added the passage you added originally (noting this is almost two years later, but I still believe the argument is relevant; and also noting nobody responded to you). —Locke Cole 00:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added the nicknames for the Perineum. These slang names are appropriate. I8pgump 21:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I can find enough uses (though nothing authoritative enough for a ref) of grundle, taint and durf (via google). The others I've removed. If someone can find substantial uses of them that we can at least cite on the talk page, feel free to add them back, though I'm not sure how appropriate these are here vs on wiktionary. -Harmil 18:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added "gooch" because of its widespread use in West Seattle --71.231.202.241 19:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you cite any sources for that, even informal ones that aren't just "I've heard it"? -Harmil 02:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

How can you cite sources for slang words? I.E. Word of mouth? Troubleshooter 00:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If a word is not used widely enough that there are non-word-of-mouth sources, then it's not used widely enough to be listed on Wikipedia. Please see the policy on citation for further information. BTW: if no one has any such sources, I'm going to be removing that word. -Harmil 20:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Huh, seems I already removed it. Nevermind, then. -Harmil 20:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well surely the fact that me, an Englishman, has heard the same same slang term as an American surely means something? Troubleshooter 21:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm 99% sure it was referred to as a gooch in the first Jackass movie.

[edit] Image

The image is not of the perineum, but of a vagina. I object against content like this; the reader would benefit much more from a schematic drawing. JFW | T@lk 19:41, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've got to agree that a line drawing would be better. Also, go ahead and put a line drawing of the perineum of the male as well. Saying, over and over again, that both sexes have one simply doesn't carry the proper force when the big vagina is staring you in the face and when that Slang section comes in and tells us all kinds of huh-huh terms. Geogre 13:23, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Something about this image just doesn't seem to apply to the article. The image itself is not titilating, but doesn't really show the area the article discusses. I think that anyone with a paint program could do a more appropriate, albeit less detailed diagram.71.244.163.156 23:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

I agree, this image is not relevant to the article Husker007 17:13, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you have such an image, by all means add it. —No-One Jones ^(mail) 17:15, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am sure they exist, even if one is not placed, the image of a vagina is inappropriate.

Maybe an upskirt image? @@

[edit] Inappropriate Image

I would like to ask this image be removed, it is only minorly useful to the topic and inappropriate in the current context. Please revert to the version without a picture until a suitable image is found. Husker007 18:11, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Notice

If no one can provide a real reason for this image in a few hours, I'm removing it.

Husker007 22:07, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep it until a better picture or diagram is uploaded. -Sean Curtin 23:25, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. The image is encyclopedic. RickK 23:29, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

So is a photo of a banana, but it has no more relevance to the topic than a vagina does. Husker007 23:55, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Let's leave aside the Freudian implications of your choice of example. --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 18:41, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

The image is completely irrelevant, largely useless, and unexpected. I removed it. tendril

I agree with all the previous comments - the picture does add something to thea article. Replace it with a better one if you want, but don't simply remove it. →Raul654 21:03, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

I second that. It's in the pubic region, so a picture including the genetalia and/or anus is highly warranted. There are surely flaws to the current picture -- it could show more of the perineum and show it on both sexes -- but it's obviously better than no picture. And for those who object to a (gasp) picture of privates, see the lengthy discussion at the clitoris talk page wherein the issue of pictures of genitals on wikipedia was dealt with. They're appropriate. Timbo 03:04, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] What the...?

From the article: "Moreover, mentioning this area on Internet chat sites is generally frowned upon by moderators and those suffering from what is commonly known as a 'high' care factor, despite the deeper physiological significance of this particular area."

I'd probably be bold and remove that if I had any idea what it meant. --bodnotbod 15:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2 groups?

Shouldn't it be 3 groups, since 3 groups are listed?

I'm going to change it to 3 groups, feel free to revert if there's something I don't see.antabus 19:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] internal portion of perineum?

if i understand right, there is an internal portion of the perineum, as well as an external portion. everything i've read about the perineum- including what's here on wikipedia- is rather confusing and vague. the info definitely needs expansion. Gringo300 20:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] regions

i'm uncertain whether the urogenital region and anal region are supposed to be external or internal, or both. (i'm under the impression that part of perineum is internal, but i'm not sure.) for one thing, muscles of the perineum are mentioned, and i'd usually get the impression that muscles would be internal. Gringo300 20:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guiche

Guiche has some good deatail, and a few sources. However, the article is essentially covering the same ground as this article. I'm proposing a merge. I'm happy to do it, but I want to leave time for others to object if they feel strongly. -Harmil 18:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I object--the perineum article is about to get a work over, so wait and see if you think its compatible. Mauvila 01:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Mauvila, your edits would have been more helpful, had you cited your sources. As it is, you have significantly changed the definition, expanding the perineum to include the anus and (in females) the vagina. This seems to be in contradiction to every source I can find online, so for this edit to remain, I would have to ask you to provide a reliable source.

Further, I don't see how that or any other update to this page prevents us from merging Guiche, and certainly your removal of the merge tag (only from this article) does not facilitate the discussion. -Harmil 10:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

My bad about the merge tag. Second, the update has to do with the expanded definition. We (Anatomy project) have been restructing anatomy articles and will add a lot more material to the article (nerves, arterial supply, etc) according to the more general definition. Third, as far as the definition goes, the page already had a form of the definition I had. It also had that other definition confusingly mixed in with it. Here are the sources that use the definition I put:

• Gray's Anatomy (available online at http://education.yahoo.com/reference/gray/subjects/subject?id=120#1)
• Dorland's Medical Dictionary
• Almost any anatomy text (e.g. Moore's Clinically Oriented Anatomy)

The following listed the more general defintion (the one I put) as #1, with #2 resembling the more specific definition:

• Meriam-Webster Medical Dictionary
• American Heritage Dictionary (available online at same place as Gray's anatomy)

Those I found that listed the more specific definition (ie the other one) :

• OED; it was a scant entry with the last citation (1842) possibly referring to the more general definition

I have no desire to get in a tiff about this. My point is that the content about the article you wanted to merge with perineum is too specific for the modern definition of perineum and that it is best left as a separate article about piercing. Mauvila 21:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added the appropriate sources tag to the page. Please, incorporate these sources as described at WP:CITE and then remove the tag. Please, don't take this personally or "get in a tiff". This is the way editing works on Wikipedia. Fact checking is a critical feature of the community here.

That said, I still think you should restore the mergefrom link so that those who wish to continue to discuss the merge can do so. Thanks. -Harmil 14:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)