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)
File: 1613028267466.png (330.12 KB, 1138x1192, reddit.png)
>>171290> posting on reddit
One 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/360043513151
Some 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.