No. 171289[Reply]
Several English-language Wikipedia articles have had major, inexcusable flaws for many years. Among other issues:
• The article about the human anus has an image of a human female's anus and perineum that probably were damaged by some kind of major trauma. Human females beyond developmental stages in the womb should lack an externally-visible perineal raphe, or seamlike union/ridge, in the anogenital region between the anus and the vagina; the bulbospongiosus muscle is separated in them and does not form a persistent, visible midline raphe as it may in males [References: Anatomy & Trauma]. Furthermore, the article about the perineal raphe claims otherwise with no support from any cited source.
• The article about simple columnar epithelium explains nothing about its fragility nor lack of somatic innervation (for pain sensitivity).
The article about anal sex …
• lacks a neutral point of view — an essential component of Wikipedia's presentational philosophy. It fails to present even one _scientific_ opposing perspective, giving readers without exposure to more balanced sources the impression that opposition is limited to irrational religious positions. One such scientific perspective: The human anorectum is very unsuited for many all-too-common receptive activities due to the region's anatomy and physiology. The single short-term benefit, _potential_ pleasure, is greatly outweighed by the many short-term and long-term health risks for the receptive person. [Rationale: Anorectal Risks 1-3]
• fails to mention the normalization of injurious anoreceptive violence in pornography featuring real people.
• does not point out that "hemorrhoid" is an ambiguous term, sometimes referring to pathology and other times to normal anatomy.
• contains a logically-fallacious appeal to nature: "natural" is not necessarily good or desirable, nor is "unnatural" necessarily the inverse.
Those flaws contribute to rampant anorectal abuse and misinformation facilitating it.(USER HAS BEEN PUT OUT TO PASTURE)
No. 171291
File: 1613028267466.png (330.12 KB, 1138x1192, reddit.png)
>>171290> posting on redditOne or more other people could do that. I wish them luck if they plan to post this material on, say, /r/sex — a subreddit (and filter bubble) that has enshrined the "sex-positive" bias into its rules.
And speaking of Reddit… Here is a relevant post of mine from elsewhere:
"Do not post content that encourages, glorifies, incites, or calls for violence or physical harm against an individual or a group of people"
https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360043513151Some subreddits featuring violent pornography _were_ removed. See for example these:
https://old.reddit.com/r/AbusePorn2 ("This community was banned for violating Reddit’s rule against promoting hate.")
https://old.reddit.com/r/strugglefucking ("This subreddit was banned due to a violation of Reddit’s rules against posting violent content.")
Meanwhile, these still exist along with /r/painal:
https://old.reddit.com/r/PainPost too long. Click here to view the full text.