"sexual education. They and everyone using Wikipedia as an source of information deserves to see a good picture that represents an avarage vagina when they read this article.    
 ::Time to learn: puritan narrowminds don't like to see vaginas (I mean the holes themselves) - probably because they all are closet gays. ^_~ KSM-2501ZX, IP address:=    

 ::Change granny vagina picture    

 :::So... a shaven vulva is a medically-accurate depiction is it? Personal tastes and aesthetics aside, this really isn't the appropriate image for an encyclopedia. What next, should we censor foreskins on the penis article because many women prefer a circumcised willy? 

 == The close up of a vagina. == 

 it actually hurts looking at that picture. can we get a better one lol. 

 == Copyright infringement? == 

    scarily enough, I recognize that image. It's been ripped from a porn site  the model used tha name ""alice"" on the site. I actually have an unlabeled copy of that image on my HD. LOL. Don't want to be accused of spamming so I shall not name the site. Simply labelling the parts on it does not do away with the copyright of the orignal image. It needs to be yanked from the wikimedia commons. 

 :you know this how?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by     

 ::Obviously, from looking at explicit images on the Internet, like a zillion other people. Get over it. Wikipedia isn't a place to be condemnatorily prudish, and identifying a copyvio is good, regardless how the identification is made. —  [] []  ‹(-¿-)›  

 == Can somebody explain to me == 

 ... why this article has exactly one photograph of a shaven vagina, while the penis article has three unshaven photographs? Shaving is by no means the norm for women across the world, especially outside of Western countries.   
 :Perhaps you should read this before you make statements like that. /  
 :: First of all that section cites no sources, but second of all I think showing a natural vagina should be shown. I always think about it this way; if someone who has never seen a naked woman or a human being would come to Wikipedia, they should be able to see a picture which shows how women are naturally, and then a picture of a shaven vagina should be included maybe with the caption ""in the late 20th century, shaving gained popularity in the Western world"". But shaving is just a fad like everything else, shaving wasn't popular in the 60's and 70's and it'll stop being popular one day. The first picture in the ""human"" includes a naked man and a woman. Wikipedia is supposed to educate, so a even if 99% of people in the world would get a navel piercing, the picture at navel should still feature a natural one as the main picture, and then include a picture of a navel piercing somewhere else in the page.    
 ::Two problems, AB. As BiT says, that section has no citations, and in my own personal experience (which, I'm sure you'll agree, is just as valid as an uncited Wikipedia article), women from the Middle East and Eastern Europe are quite a bit hairer