text:
Bonaventure

Bonaventure (Bonaventura da Bagnoregio ; Bonaventura de Balneoregio; born Giovanni di Fidanza; 1221 – 15 July 1274 ) was an Italian Catholic Franciscan bishop, cardinal, scholastic theologian and philosopher.

The seventh Minister General of the Order of Friars Minor, he also served for a time as Bishop of Albano. He was canonised on 14 April 1482 by Pope Sixtus IV and declared a Doctor of the Church in 1588 by Pope Sixtus V, becoming known as the "Seraphic Doctor" (Doctor Seraphicus). His feast day is 15 July.

Many writings from the Middle Ages once attributed to him have been subsequently re-classified under the name "Pseudo-Bonaventure".

Life
He was born at Civita di Bagnoregio, not far from Viterbo, then part of the Papal States. Almost nothing is known of his childhood, other than the names of his parents, Giovanni di Fidanza and Maria di Ritella. Bonaventure reports that in his youth he was saved from an untimely death by the prayers of Francis of Assisi, which is the primary motivation for Bonaventure's writing the vita.

He entered the Franciscan Order in 1243 and studied at the University of Paris, possibly under Alexander of Hales, and certainly under Alexander's successor, John of Rochelle. In 1253 he held the Franciscan chair at Paris. A dispute between seculars and mendicants delayed his reception as Master until 1257, where his degree was taken in company with Thomas Aquinas. Three years earlier his fame had earned him the position of lecturer on The Four Books of Sentences—a book of theology written by Peter Lombard in the twelfth century—and in 1255 he received the degree of master, the medieval equivalent of doctor.

After having successfully defended his order against the reproaches of the anti-mendicant party, he was elected Minister General of the Franciscan Order. On 24 November 1265, he was selected for the post of Archbishop of York; however, he was never consecrated and resigned the appointment in October 1266.

During his tenure, the General Chapter of Narbonne, held in 1260, promulgated a decree prohibiting the publication of any work out of the order without permission from superiors. This prohibition has induced modern writers to pass severe judgment upon Roger Bacon's superiors, who were assumed to be envious of Bacon's abilities. However, the prohibition enjoined on Bacon was a general one, which extended to the whole order. Its promulgation was not directed against him, but rather against Gerard of Borgo San Donnino. In 1254 Gerard had published without permission a work, Introductorius in Evangelium æternum (An Introduction to the Eternal Gospel) that was judged heretical within a year. Thereupon the General Chapter of Narbonne promulgated their decree, identical with the "constitutio gravis in contrarium" Bacon speaks of. The prohibition was rescinded in Roger's favor unexpectedly in 1266.

Bonaventure was instrumental in procuring the election of Pope Gregory X, who rewarded him with the title of Cardinal Bishop of Albano, and insisted on his presence at the great Second Council of Lyon in 1274. There, after his significant contributions led to a union of the Greek and Latin churches, Bonaventure died suddenly and under suspicious circumstances. The 1913 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia has citations that suggest he was poisoned, but no mention is made of this in the 2003 second edition of the New Catholic Encyclopedia.

He steered the Franciscans on a moderate and intellectual course that made them the most prominent order in the Catholic Church until the coming of the Jesuits. His theology was marked by an attempt completely to integrate faith and reason. He thought of Christ as the "one true master" who offers humans knowledge that begins in faith, is developed through rational understanding, and is perfected by mystical union with God.

Relics
In the year 1434, 160 years after his death, his body was moved to a new church that was considered more fitting. Upon doing so, the head was found to be entirely incorrupt. "The hair, lips, teeth, and tongue were perfectly preserved and retained their natural colour. The people of Lyon were profoundly affected by this miracle, and they chose Bonaventure for the patron of their city. The movement, already on foot, to obtain his canonization received thereby a new and powerful impetus." However, a century later in 1562, the city of Lyon was captured by Huguenots, who burned Bonaventure's body in the public square. In the 19th century, during the "dechristianization of France" during the French Revolution, the urn containing the incorrupt head was hidden, after which the church was razed to the ground. The urn has never been recovered. The only extant relic of Bonaventure is the arm and hand with which he wrote his Commentary on the Sentences, which is now conserved at Bagnoregio, in the parish church of St. Nicholas.

Writings
Bonaventure was formally canonised in 1482 by the Franciscan Pope Sixtus IV, and ranked along with Thomas Aquinas as the greatest of the Doctors of the Church by another Franciscan, Pope Sixtus V, in 1587. Bonaventure was regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of the Middle Ages. His works, as arranged in the most recent Critical Edition by the Quaracchi Fathers (Collegio S. Bonaventura), consist of a Commentary on the Sentences of Lombard, in four volumes, and eight other volumes, including a Commentary on the Gospel of St Luke and a number of smaller works; the most famous of which are The Mind's Road to God (Itinerarium mentis in Deum), an outline of his theology or Brief Reading (Breviloquium), Reduction of the Arts to Theology (De reductione artium ad theologiam), and Soliloquy on the Four Spiritual Exercises (Soliloquium de quatuor mentalibus exercitiis), The Tree of Life (Lignum vitae), and The Triple Way (De Triplici via), the latter three written for the spiritual direction of his fellow Franciscans.

The German philosopher Dieter Hattrup denies that Reduction of the Arts to Theology was written by Bonaventure, claiming that the style of thinking does not match Bonaventure's original style. His position is no longer tenable given recent research: the text remains "indubitably authentic".

A work that for many years was falsely attributed to Bonaventure, De septem itineribus aeternitatis, was actually written by Rudolf von Biberach (c. 1270 – 1329).

For Isabelle of France, the sister of King Louis IX of France, and her monastery of Poor Clares at Longchamps, Bonaventure wrote the treatise Concerning the Perfection of Life.

The Commentary on the Sentences, written at the command of his superiors when he was twenty-seven, is Bonaventure's major work and most of his other theological and philosophical writings are in some way dependent on it. However, some of Bonaventure's later works, such as the Lectures on the Six Days of Creation, show substantial developments beyond the Sentences.

Philosophy
Bonaventure wrote on almost every subject treated by the Scholastics (see Scholasticism) and his writings are substantial. A great number of them deal with faith in Christ, God and theology. No work of Bonaventure's is exclusively philosophical, a striking illustration of the mutual interpenetration of philosophy and theology that is a distinguishing mark of the Scholastic period.

Much of Bonaventure's philosophical thought shows a considerable influence by Augustine of Hippo, so much so that De Wulf considers him the best medieval representative of Augustinianism. Bonaventure adds Aristotelian principles to the Augustinian doctrine, especially in connection with the illumination of the intellect and the composition of human beings and other living creatures in terms of matter and form. Augustine, who had introduced into the west many of the doctrines that would define scholastic philosophy, was a critically important source of Bonaventure's Platonism. The mystic Dionysius the Areopagite was another notable influence.

In philosophy Bonaventure presents a marked contrast to his contemporaries, Roger Bacon, Albert the Great, and Thomas Aquinas. While these may be taken as representing, respectively, physical science yet in its infancy, and Aristotelian scholasticism in its most perfect form, Bonaventure presents the mystical and Platonizing mode of speculation that had already, to some extent, found expression in Hugo and Richard of St. Victor, Alexander of Hales, and in Bernard of Clairvaux. To him, the purely intellectual element, though never absent, is of inferior interest when compared with the living power of the affections or the heart.

Like Thomas Aquinas, with whom he shared numerous profound agreements in matters theological and philosophical, he combated the Aristotelian notion of the eternity of the world vigorously (though he disagreed with Aquinas about the abstract possibility of an eternal universe). Bonaventure accepts the general Christian Neoplatonic doctrine, found in Augustine and Pseudo-Dionysius that "forms" do not exist as subsistent entities, but as ideals, predefinitions, archetypes, or in Bonaventure's words: "exemplars", in the mind of God, according to which actual things were formed. This conception has no slight influence upon his philosophy. Physicist and philosopher Max Bernhard Weinstein described Bonaventure as a "half-mystic" and wrote that he showed "strong pandeistic inclinations".

Theology
Emanationism, exemplarism, and consummation are explicitly listed by Bonaventure as the core principles of theology, all of which are heavily Platonic themes and carry equally Platonic subtopics and discussions but yet are all rooted in the second Person of the Trinity, the Son, incarnate as Jesus Christ, who is the 'principio' of divine exemplars, from which creation emanates from and by which creation is made intelligible and which creation finds as its goal. Creation is two-fold, expressing the divine truth, the divine exemplar in the Word of God; it "speaks" of that which it is the likeness and subsists in itself and in the Son. Bonaventure's mature work, the Collationes in Hexaemeron, takes exemplarism, drawn out from his transformation of Platonic Realism, as the basis for vital points of Christian theological dogma: God's love of creation, God's foreknowledge, providence and divine governance, the unconstrained but perfect will of God, divine justice and the devil, the immortality of and uniqueness of human soul, and the goodness and beauty of creation. This also serves as his repudiation of Arab peripatetic necessitarianism and pure Aristotelian identified by the Greek Fathers, if left uncorrected by Plato and Revelation which teach the same thing under different modes. "Upon [rejection of exemplarism], there follows another [error], that is, that God has neither foreknowledge nor providence, since He does not have within Himself a rational justification of things by which He could know them. They also say that there are no truths concerning the future except that of necessary things. And from this it follows that all things come about either by chance or by necessity. And since it is impossible that things come about by chance, the Arabs conclude to absolute necessity, that is, that these substances that move the globe are the necessary causes of all things. From this it follows that truth is hidden, that is, the truth of government of worldly things in terms of pain and glory. If, indeed, these substances are inerrant movers, nothing is supposed concerning hell or the existence of the devil: neither did Aristotle ever suppose the existence of the devil, nor happiness after this life, as it appears. Here, then, there is a threefold error: a concealment of exemplarity, of divine providence and of world government."Like all the great scholastic doctors, Bonaventure starts with the discussion of the relations between reason and faith. All the sciences are but the handmaids of theology; reason can discover some of the moral truths that form the groundwork of the Christian system, but other truths can only be received and apprehended through divine illumination. To obtain this illumination, the soul must employ the proper means, which are prayer; the exercise of the virtues, whereby it is rendered fit to accept the divine light; and meditation that may rise even to ecstatic union with God. The supreme end of life is a union in contemplation or intellect or intense absorbing love; but it cannot be entirely reached in this life, and remains as a hope for the future.

Like Aquinas and other notable thirteenth-century philosophers and theologians, Bonaventure believed that it is possible to logically prove the existence of God and the immortality of the soul. In fact, unlike Aquinas, Bonaventure holds that reason can demonstrate the beginning of the world. He offers several arguments for the existence of God, including versions of Anselm of Canterbury's ontological argument and Augustine's argument from eternal truths. His main argument for the immortality of the soul appeals to humans' natural desire for perfect happiness, and is reflected in C.S. Lewis's argument from desire. Contrary to Aquinas, Bonaventure did not believe that philosophy was an autonomous discipline that could be pursued successfully independently of theology. Any philosopher is bound to fall into serious error, he believed, who lacks the light of faith.

A master of the memorable phrase, Bonaventure held that philosophy opens the mind to at least three different routes humans can take on their journey to God. Non-intellectual material creatures he conceived as shadows and vestiges (literally, footprints) of God, understood as the ultimate cause of a world that philosophical reason can prove was created at a first moment in time. Intellectual creatures he conceived of as images and likenesses of God, the workings of the human mind and will leading us to God understood as illuminator of knowledge and donor of grace and virtue. The final route to God is the route of being, in which Bonaventure brought Anselm's argument together with Aristotelian and Neoplatonic metaphysics to view God as the absolutely perfect being whose essence entails its existence, an absolutely simple being that causes all other, composite beings to exist.

Bonaventure's thoughts on our ability to see the Trinity in creation, lost or hampered in the Fall, are recorded and praised by Pope Francis in his encyclical letter, Laudato si':"Saint Bonaventure went so far as to say that human beings, before sin, were able to see how each creature "testifies that God is three". The reflection of the Trinity was there to be recognized in nature "when that book was open to man and our eyes had not yet become darkened". [Bonaventure] teaches us that each creature bears in itself a specifically Trinitarian structure, so real that it could be readily contemplated if only the human gaze were not so partial, dark and fragile. In this way, he points out to us the challenge of trying to read reality in a Trinitarian key."

Bonaventure, however, is not only a meditative thinker, whose works may form good manuals of devotion; he is a dogmatic theologian of high rank, and on all the disputed questions of scholastic thought, such as universals, matter, seminal reasons, the principle of individuation, or the intellectus agens, he gives weighty and well-reasoned decisions. He agrees with Albert the Great in regarding theology as a practical science; its truths, according to his view, are peculiarly adapted to influence the affections. He discusses very carefully the nature and meaning of the divine attributes; considers universals to be the ideal forms pre-existing in the divine mind according to which things were shaped; holds matter to be pure potentiality that receives individual being and determinateness from the formative power of God, acting according to the ideas; and finally maintains that the agent intellect has no separate existence. On these and on many other points of scholastic philosophy the "Seraphic Doctor" exhibits a combination of subtlety and moderation, which makes his works particularly valuable.

In form and intent the work of Bonaventure is always the work of a theologian; he writes as one for whom the only angle of vision and the proximate criterion of truth is the Christian faith. This fact affects his importance as a philosopher; when coupled with his style, it makes Bonaventure perhaps the least accessible of the major figures of the thirteenth century. This is true because philosophy interests him largely as a praeparatio evangelica, as something to be interpreted as a foreshadow of or deviation from what God has revealed.

Canonisation
Bonaventure's feast day was included in the General Roman Calendar immediately upon his canonisation in 1482. It was at first celebrated on the second Sunday in July, but was moved in 1568 to 14 July, since 15 July, the anniversary of his death, was at that time taken up with the feast of Saint Henry. It remained on that date, with the rank of "double", until 1960, when it was reclassified as a feast of the third class. In 1969 it was classified as an obligatory memorial and assigned to the date of his death, 15 July.

He is the patron saint of bowel disorders.

Bonaventure is remembered in the Church of England with a commemoration on 15 July.

United States

 * St. Bonaventure University, a Franciscan university, in Allegany, New York
 * Mission San Buenaventura and the City of Ventura, California, officially named San Buenaventura
 * St. Bonaventure High School in Ventura, California, United States
 * St. Bonaventure Catholic Church in Chicago, Illinois
 * St. Bonaventure Monastery, a complex of religious buildings, built for the Order of Friars Minor Capuchin, located in Detroit, Michigan. Solanus Casey served here as the monastery porter from 1924 to 1946, meeting visitors at the friary door. The site is a popular pilgrimage site for Metro Detroit Catholics.
 * Bonaventure Hall, in Sacred Heart Parish Catholic School, in Patterson, California, United States
 * Bonaventure Residence Hall, in Viterbo University, in La Crosse, Wisconsin, United States
 * Buenaventura Boulevard in Redding, California
 * St. Bonaventure Parish in Huntington Beach, California
 * San Buenaventura de los Tres Arrollos, a lost settlement in the far NE of Custer County, Colorado
 * San Buenaventura de Cochiti built in 1628 in [Pueblo de Cochiti, New Mexico] who remains the patron saint for Native American Village who celebrate on 14 July
 * St. Bonaventure-St. Benedict the Moor (combined) parish, Jamaica, New York
 * St. Bonaventure Church, in Paterson, New Jersey.
 * San Jose St. Bonaventure Hospital, a fictional hospital that serves as a setting in American TV show The Good Doctor
 * St. Bonaventure Catholic Church, Davie, Florida
 * St. Bonaventure Catholic Church, elementary school, and cemetery, Columbus, Nebraska
 * St. Bonaventure Church, in Allegany, New York
 * St. Bonaventure Church, in Glenshaw, Pennsylvania
 * St. Bonaventure Catholic Community and Church, in Bloomington, Minnesota
 * St. Bonaventure Catholic Parish and School, in Huntington Beach, California
 * St. Bonaventure Catholic Church in Concord, California

Canada
Bonaventure Drive/Bonaventure public school, in London, Ontario, Canada
 * The town of Bonaventure, Quebec, Canada
 * Bonaventure Highway in Quebec
 * Place Bonaventure and the adjacent Bonaventure Metro Station in Montreal, Quebec
 * Bonaventure Island and the Bonaventure River in the Gaspé Peninsula Region of Quebec
 * St. Bonaventure's College, a private Roman Catholic school, in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada
 * St Bonaventure Catholic School, at Edwards Gardens, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
 * St. Bonaventure School, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
 * St. Bonaventure Parish, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
 * Lake Bonaventure, in the community of Lake Bonavista, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
 * St. Bonaventure Parish, Tracadie Cross, in Prince Edward Island, Canada

Philippines

 * St. Bonaventure Parish, Mauban, Quezon is the oldest settlement in the Philippines to have been placed under the protection of El Serafico Padre Doctor San Buenaventura in 1599. In 1647, an image of St. Bonaventure was miraculously found on a branch of a Malauban tree. In this same year, the priest formally recognized San Buenaventura as Patron del Pueblo de Mauban. It is recorded in the writings of Fray Huertas that in 1759 an unknown man wearing the colors of San Buenaventura defended the town from a moro attack. The people of Mauban have since regarded this as a miracle of their Santo Patron. The largest bell in Mauban that was recast in 1843 is named after San Buenaventura and is rung during the Consecration, Angelus and Plegaria.
 * St. Bonaventure chapel or Capilla de San Buenaventura in St. John the Baptist Parish, Liliw, Laguna, Philippines, erected in honor of the Seraphic Doctor, San Buenaventura because of the 1664 miracle were tears of blood were seen flowing from the eyes of the venerated image, which was witnessed by the Cura Parroco, Padre Juan Pastor and 120 witnesses; in recognition of this miracle, the first major bell in the church of Lilio was dedicated in honor of San Buenaventura
 * Barangay San Buenaventura, a village in San Pablo City, Philippines. Three small chapels can be found within the village in honour of Saint Bonaventura. The oldest chapel and the original image of Saint Bonaventura is located in Purok-3 Chapel
 * St. Bonaventure Parish, Balangkayan Eastern Samar, Philippines
 * San Buenaventura, barangay in the Municipality of Buhi, Camarines Sur, Philippines. Has a chapel dedicated to the namesake saint.
 * St. Bonaventure Chapel in Barangay San Buenaventura, Luisiana, Laguna.
 * St. Bonaventure Chapel in Barangay San Bueno, Sampaloc, Quezon.
 * St. Bonaventure Parish, Talavera, Toledo City, Cebu

United Kingdom

 * St Bonaventure's Catholic School, in Forest Gate, London, England
 * St Bonaventure's Catholic Church, and Primary School in Bishopston, Bristol.
 * St Bonaventure's Catholic Church, in Welwyn Garden City, England
 * St Bonaventure’s Local Missionary Area (the Catholic Parishes of Wythenshawe) in Wythenshawe, England

Latin America

 * The Municipality of Buenaventura on the Pacific Coast of Colombia
 * The cities of San Buenaventura in Chihuahua, San Buenaventura in Coahuila, and San Buenaventura in the state of Mexico, all in Mexico

Southern Asia

 * St. Bonaventure's Church, a 16th-century Portuguese church is situated on the beach in Erangal near Mumbai. The annual Erangal Feast held on second Sunday of January, celebrating the Feast day of St. Bonaventure, attracts thousands of people of all faiths to this scenic spot. The Feast day of St. Bonaventure is celebrated on 15 July every year.
 * St Bonaventure's High School, a school in Hyderabad, Pakistan

Europe
Bonaventura College is a Catholic high school in Leiden in the Netherlands.

Works

 * Bonaventure Texts in Translation Series, St. Bonaventure, NY, Franciscan Institute Publications (15 volumes):
 * On the Reduction of the Arts to Theology, Translation, Introduction and Commentary by Zachary Hayes, OFM, vol. 1, 1996.
 * Journey of the Soul into God - Itinerarium Mentis in Deum translation and Introduction by Zachary Hayes, OFM, and Philotheus Boehner, OFM, vol. 2, 2002. ISBN 978-1-57659-044-7
 * Disputed Questions on the Mystery of the Trinity, translated by Zachary Hayes, vol. 3, 1979. ISBN 978-1-57659-045-4.
 * Disputed Questions on the Knowledge of Christ, translated by Zachary Hayes, vol. 4, 1992.
 * Writings Concerning the Franciscan Order, translated by Dominic V. Monti, OFM, vol. 5, 1994.
 * Collations on the Ten Commandments, translated by Paul Spaeth, vol. 6, 1995.
 * Commentary on Ecclesiastes, translated by Campion Murray and Robert J. Karris, vol. 7, 2005.
 * Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, translated by Robert J. Karris (3 vols), vol. 8, 2001–4.
 * Breviloquium, translated by Dominic V. Monti, OFM, vol. 9, 2005.
 * Writings on the Spiritual Life, [includes translations of The Threefold Way, On the Perfection of Life, On Governing the Soul, and The Soliloquium: A Dialogue on the Four Spiritual Exercises, the prologue to the Commentary on Book II of the Sentences of Peter Lombard and three short sermons: On the Way of Life, On Holy Saturday, and On the Monday after Palm Sunday, vol. 10, 2006.]
 * Commentary on the Gospel of John, translated by Robert J. Karris, vol. 11, 2007.
 * The Sunday sermons of St. Bonaventure, edited and translated by Timothy J. Johnson, vol. 12, 2008.
 * Disputed questions on evangelical perfection, edited and translated by Thomas Reist and Robert J. Karris, vol. 13, 2008.
 * Collations on the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, introduced and translated by Zachary Hayes, vol. 14, 2008.
 * Defense of the mendicants, translated by Jose de Vinck and Robert J. Karris, vol. 15, 2010.
 * The Life of Christ translated and edited by William Henry Hutchings, 1881.
 * On the Reduction of the Arts to Theology (De Reductione Artium ad Theologiam), translated by Zachary Hayes, Saint Bonaventure, NY: Franciscan Institute, 1996. ISBN 978-1-57659-043-0
 * Bringing forth Christ: five feasts of the child Jesus, translated by Eric Doyle, Oxford: SLG Press, 1984.
 * The Mystical Vine: a Treatise on the Passion of Our Lord, translated by a friar of SSF, London: Mowbray, 1955.
 * Life of St Francis of Assisi, TAN Books, 2010. ISBN 978-0-89555-151-1
 * The Mystical Vine: a Treatise on the Passion of Our Lord, translated by a friar of SSF, London: Mowbray, 1955.
 * Life of St Francis of Assisi, TAN Books, 2010. ISBN 978-0-89555-151-1

title: Bonaventure


text:
Talk:Sex organ

Requested move
Discuss the proposed name change here.

We need to reconcile this with the "category:sexaul anatomy". -- Fplay 14:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Object: I don't think that it is a good idea to change an article's name to suit a category's name. Also, sexual anatomy is not equivalent to sex organ. If the sexual anatomy category needs a head article, I suggest one be created at sexual anatomy, which is current a redirect to this article. If the reason for the move was explained more, I would reconsider my position. -- Kjkolb 09:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Object as above - that alone is definitely not a reason to move the page; especially since "sexual anatomy" seems to me not quite such an appropriate title. -- John Smythe 19:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Diversity
Apologies if there is a better, higher-level forum for discussion of this issue. I've looked over a great deal of the wikipedia pages about human genitalia, as well as the wiki commons photos in those categories. One of the most striking aspects is that almost all of the photos are of "white" people (or caucasians or people of recent European ancestry if you prefer). Obviously, wikipedia can't go around commissioning photos of a more diverse set of genitalia, but this is a problem that needs to be addressed somehow. Wikipedia is for all of humanity and is supposed to be about all of humanity. I realize that white people are probably the vast majority of readers and contributors to the English language wikipedia, but there really needs to be an effort to show a much greater variety of genitalia. The disparity is greatest in terms of the "racial" diversity of genital images. However, just as important, is simple structural diversity. There is high variability among genital appearances, even when restricted to totally functional genitals. There are all sorts of sizes and shapes of penises and foreskins and labia and clitorises, etc. It is misleading and unjust to include only a few images of genitalia, especially when they tend to be white and tend to be within a fairly narrow range of what is considered "normal". This true of all parts of the human body, but is especially true for genitals because, unlike faces, people don't readily see others' genitals and so they aren't exposed to the same diversity in their daily lives. The importance of this is further magnified because of the relatively high importance of genitals to people's identity and self esteem. For example, many studies have shown that increased penis length is associated with higher self-esteem, at least in the US in recent times. This is totally a cultural value and is not universal in time or space. If there were a broader understanding and acceptance of diversity of genital appearance, I think that a lot of people might feel better about themselves and their sexuality and would be more positive about variability in others as well. See wikipedia pages about labiaplasty and vaginoplasty for more info (though way too brief) about the normalization of genitalia and the increasingly narrow definition of what is considered normal and beautiful or sexy. --Prepuce4Life (talk) 08:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

 * I agree with what Prepuce4Life wrote above. Since an encyclopedia is ideally impartial in tone and content, I replaced the idealized (likely labiaplasty) image of a vulva with a more typical example that was already in Wikimedia Commons. I had considered it an obvious improvement, more informative, and less biased, but perhaps I was mistaken as it was reverted by User:TBM10 with a comment to please discuss on Talk first. I apologize for the breach in protocol. What is  the reasoning for keeping the current image ("Vulva with tiny labia and shaved pubic hair")? Ben (talk) 22:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

 * Hackerb9 (Ben), this is a years old section. New comments in a years old section are commonly ignored. See Talk page guidelines (what it states about newer sections going at the bottom). The only reason I saw your latest comment is because this article is on my watchlist. Anyway, at different Wikipedia articles, the justification for keeping an image of a shaved vulva has been that the anatomical parts can be easily seen. In cases like the Vulva article, though, we've opted to have a lead image that shows shaved and unshaved vulvae; same goes for diversity lower in that article. For the Sex organ article, we don't need as many images. Just one to show the male genitals and one to show the female genitals. On Wikipedia, there is always discord over whether or not to have a shaved or unshaved vulva, or a circumcised or uncircumcised penis, as an image. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

 * Thanks, User:Flyer22 Reborn. I had not known about always posting at the bottom of the page and had mistakenly assumed anyone interested would have the page on their watchlist. Ben (talk) 11:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Stuff
Although I have no argument with a strictly biological definition, it is by no means the only or "right" definition. For many people -- both in the US and around the world -- "sex" is not just for the same of reproduction, and does not always, necessarily, or exclusively involve reproductive organs. Slrubenstein

On the second tentacle, maybe there should be some mention of the reproductive organs of some lower life-forms? Plants and stuff, you know. A link at the very least. Cimon avaro P.S. just musing, you know.

Indirect self-link
Just wanted to point out that there is an indirect self-link... --Sgeo | Talk 00:18, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm...
there needs to be an actual page about the reproductive system that is used for reproduction, not just the sex-related organs.

Foreskin
Is there any particular reason for the recent removal of some references to the foreskin? It's almost as if the article were undergoing circumcision! --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 13:14, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Certainly Tony. First I quote from the first paragraph of the article:
 * "A sex organ, or primary sexual characteristic, narrowly defined, is any of those parts of the body (which are not always bodily organs according to the strict definition) which are involved in sexual reproduction and constitute the reproductive system in an complex organism;"
 * Now over to you ... can you present evidence that either the male or the female prepuce meets those criteria? - Robert the Bruce 14:44, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I see your point--the first part of the article is an attempt to list only apparatus directly involved in reproduction. But why is the clitoris mentioned prominently, in that case?  What part does that organ play in reproduction?  The article Clitoris says "Its particular function is inducing sexual pleasure and orgasms."  In intact males, the prepuce closely envelopes the glans, enhancing sexual excitement, and its sensitive nerve endings also enhance pleasure (trust me on this). To be consistent, we should move the clitoris from that section.  --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 15:41, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes do remove reference to the glans penis/clitoris. As to taking your word for it. Sorry I can't. Neither you nor I have any basis for comparison so are not able to state the kind of stuff that you do. This comparative stuff should be left to those who have been circumcised as an adult. (One point, were you not the person who reported a dysfunctional foreskin at some point?) - Robert the Bruce 18:26, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Who's talking about comparison? My foreskin is part of my body that feels sexual pleasure.  If I had no foreskin, I would not feel that sexual pleasure.  As to your odd suggestion, I can assure you I do not have any kind of  sexual dysfunction, whether of the foreskin or any other part. Please be careful about the kind of statement you make  about others in discussion--that comment could be interpreted as a personal attack.  --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 19:51, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Tony it was you Minority Report who reported a non retractable foreskin . Like it or not that is dysfunctional (and this is not as you would like to make out a personal attack but rather a statenment of fact) and on the basis of that your "experience" can by no stretch of the imagination be considered typical and as such I suggest you cease presenting it as such. - Robert the Bruce 04:33, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * A non-retracting foreskin is not dysfunctional. You mistake your opinion for fact.  It is a fact that by having a foreskin I experience sexual pleasure in the foreskin (amongst other places).  It is a fact that a detached foreskin could give me no such pleasure.  --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 04:59, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Tony, we should depersonalize this discussion. A non-retracting foreskin is dysfunctional. A non-retracting foreskin hinders hygiene. Phimosis together with sub-optimal hygiene is the greatest risk factor in the development of cancer of the penis. Adults with non-retracting foreskins should go see a urologist soonest. - Robert the Bruce 03:27, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Tony, just because you experience pleasure from your penis does not mean that it is fully functional. You have a medical condition called phimosis, which can be resolved (circumcision is not the only cure, though it has the highest success rate). You should seek to resolve this problem, too, because there are serious health risks associated with your condition. - Jakew 19:52, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Jakew, so-called dysfunction works both ways. Only the owner of the genitals is in any position to say.  Like it or not, your recommendation is no better or worse than promoting foreskin restoration for us American guys who've clearly had insufficient skin (which is only presented as a voluntary option, never as a "you should" recommendation for anyone).  To each his own is the only advice we should be providing.  I hope you can agree with that, but so far the constant hypocrisy of promoting an unwelcome alteration in Wikipedia, after you and Robert criticise a voluntary one in your various edits is completely baffling to me.  DanP 23:23, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * What is with all these ad hominem attacks on Tony, here? Y'all should know better than that. The penis is a sex organ and the foreskin is part of it. Period. Sure, it can be removed and the penis will generally still serve its sexual function, but that in no way means that the foreskin is not a part of the sexual organ known as the penis. You guys are no better than the charlatans (this is primarily in the US) who suggest that parents should circumcise their children so that their kids don't get made fun of and feel normal. That is still seriously one of the more common arguments in favor of circumcision. They forget to mention the fact that we shouldn't be raising our children to go around making fun of each other's genitals and shouldn't impose such monolithic notions about what is normal for genitals. @Bobby Bruce - You don't have to take someone's word on it that the removal of tissue that has sensory nerves in it will prevent certain sensations from being felt. Now, I'm not going to argue that circumcised men feel less pleasure than intact men. But there's no debating that a man without a frenulum cannot have the sensation of the stretching of the frenulum. Similarly, most intact men, won't ever have the sensation of a keratinized glans. All of this back and forth seems to be based on the assumption that there is a single spectrum of more/better versus less/worse sensation and that if it can be proven that one or the other has more/better sensation then that should be the policy. These arguments ignore the fact that the brain is the most important organ for feeling sexual pleasure. This is why women who have had total infibulation can still enjoy intercourse (not all will, but some can). Asking men who have been circumcised in adulthood whether they had more sensation before or after circumcision is not generalizable to comparisons of people circumcised in infancy versus intact people. First of all, the healing processes will be slightly different and in general, not quite as fast or as complete in adults than in infants. Second of all, the brain of a person circumcised in infancy may develop differently and may compensate for the early foreskin amputation in ways that brains of those circumcised in adulthood cannot. Third of all, we might expect a sort of confirmation bias in that while there may be some "buyer's remorse," there's probably just as much if not more desire to confirm that their penises are now finally complete and in the ideal state, even if there are some decreases in sensitivity or other complications. Forth of all, there's massive selection bias among those who choose to be circumcised in adulthood. Especially in the US, they are probably people who have been so indoctrinated in the pro-circ media environment of the USA, which portrays intact penises as gross, dirty, ugly, etc., that it's entirely possible that they could have high rates of improved sexual satisfaction entirely from the removal of psychological barriers that were put up by the discordance of their penis with that portrayed as ideal in the toxic community environment of the US. Also, no one is going around and pushing foreskin restoration, especially not on people who cannot consent to it. In addition, many instances of phimosis do not actually result in negative consequences for the patient and in many cases it can be "cured" via gradual stretching of the foreskin, something that US docs generally aren't aware of because of how much circumcision is pushed by the medical establishment.--Prepuce4Life (talk) 08:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it would be a good idea to depersonalize. The claim that a nonretracting foreskin is ipso facto dysfunctional is simply false, although it can sometimes be a symptom of serious conditions (especially when acquired). Penile cancer is a very, very rare disease; I'm not aware of any modern medical body that recommends medical treatment of a healthy, functioning penis as a preventive against this disease.

To return to the personal for an instant, I'm in my late forties and have never had any problem with my penis. I have a normal sex life and no personal hygiene problems. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 04:00, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Cast your eye over this if you will, - Robert the Bruce 20:44, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * As you well know Robert, there are many risk factors for breast cancer. They do not inherently mean cancer will happen -- it is only associated risk.  So for you to say any organs are "dysfunctional" solely because of associated risk is purely POV.  Even if you're right, you do not have evidence of actual dysfunction, only mere statistical basis.  By your standard, we should be promoting foreskin restoration on the statistical basis that severely circumcised genitals have dysfunction, being rough and dry during intercourse, giving a woman only brief and unfulfilling stimulation at best. DanP 00:18, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * What I do know Dan is that this dry sex nonsense is mere disinformation being spread by anti-circumcision activists. Those of use who indulge in heterosexual vaginal intercourse are well aware of the nonsense of it all. Especially in these days of essential condom use what ever contribution the male supposedly makes towards lubrication is specifically contained. So where pray tell is the thunderous howl of protest from women in traditionally non-circumcising societies about the dryness of the sex when a condom is used? Sane and intelligent people are able to see through this line of nonsense instantly. That does not stop the zealots though does it Dan? As to Tony's problem. He happens to be in the highest risk group for penile cancer (uncircumcised with a non retractable phimotic foreskin). That is the facts of the matter. - Robert the Bruce 04:34, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. You people seem to be more or less argueing over which is better, but in my eyes, there's no big difference. No benefits, no losses (except the foreskin). As for penile cancer, there is no actual proof that circumsision prevents it. In short, they're both still a penis. -- Anonymous

Vulgar image
I have removed the link to the image of a man's erect penis. As well as possibly offending people, it may cause repulsion of a different kind too; namely in its unsightliness. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.92.67.69 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You can't - well, you can, but you shouldn't - just remove an image because you think it is repulsive. Well, it's reverted, so no harm done. And in the future, think before you act (in this case, you were probably not the first one to find that image, and the others let it stand, right), and kindly sign your comments with -- ~ . -- AlexR 09:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The current image should be removed; it is pornography; young children have access to this site. A flaccid penis is not pornography, but an erect penis certainly is.--213.40.3.66 20:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

While I don't have a problem with the image per se, I do think it is randomly thrown-in. If this is a discussion of male and female sex organs, why only are only male human sex organs shown. Why aren't insect or mammalian sexual organs also displayed or mentioned? There are plenty of pictures of penises available at the article this page links to. Erect or not the picture doesn't belong here though it does belong in wikipedia. Reflex Reaction 20:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, this image is already significantly human-centric, so I'm not shocked about that. The fact that there isn't a gallery of genitalia also doesn't bother me. Like you say, pages that are more specific should probably be the ones to have specific images.

 * As for the idea of "pornography". Repeat after me: Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. It's just not. Ever. Now, if you want to approach these issues from the point of view of topic-worthiness, that's one thing, but the fact that your stomach does a little flip-flop when you see an erect penis is really not something that those working to create a useful reference work should be taking into account. -Harmil 23:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I think that your argument supports the inclusion of more photos, not less. What you seem to be saying is that the article shouldn't contain just a photo of the human male sexual organs; I agree. But removing the photo isn't going to get us any closer to being all-inclusive, really it should have been left in place, and then other images found (human female sex organs would be the next obvious inclusion, but perhaps plant sex organs would be easy to find also, etc.) to balance it out. Kadin2048 20:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. But this should have images of both the vagina and penis in it, because these are the most commonly recognized sex organs. Animal and plant sex organs should also be included. As for the image of an erect penis, just put a picture of one in a flaccid state in. If you check out the article on 'Penis', it has images of both flaccid and erect penis' in it, so why not putting them here? Also note if the penis is circumsised or uncircumsised, as they both are common. Try to put in the 4 images of the uncircumsised and circumsised, flaccid and erect penis' into the article if you want to. Because the Penis can have so much variation to it, it may be hard to stop people from trying to 'balance it out', which would either reduce the page down to a minimum amount of images or make it seem just disturbing and cluttered. --anonymous

ha ha - you really have an "flower image" as picture for sex organs? --93.221.216.207 (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Removing the human bias
Everything from fungi to plants to animals have sex organs, and yet we have this page, which narrowly explores the human sex organs with minor lip-service to the existence of anything else. I'd like to remove this bias and expand the coverage, but I'd like to get opinions on the best way to do that. We could: Thoughts?
 * 1) Expand this article, covering general topics first, then narrowing by kingdom, and within each kingdom citing a few examples (humans would be one of the examples in the animal kingdom).
 * 2) The article could be shortened to just a general overview of the concept with links to the specific articles for each kingdom.
 * 3) A hybrid approach would be to write the general section, follow it with a very short section for each kingdom, but have links at the top of each kingdom section for the detailed article.

Here's what I have in mind for the flowering plant section, just to give an idea:
 * Sexual reproduction in flowering plants involves the union of the male and female germ cells. The sex organs, contained within the flower, may contain both male and female sex organs (these are known as perfect, bisexual, or hermaphrodite) or only one of the two (known as imperfect or unisexual). Also, thos plants whose flowers are unisexual may contain both male and female flowers, or there may be purely male and female plants of the same species.

 * During a plant's sexual reproduction the stamen (male sex organ) produces pollen from an anther. These male germ cells are carried to the pistil (female sex organ), with the ovary at its base where fertilization can take place. The male germ cells can be carried by air, rain, water, insects or other symbiotic animals, or simply by gravity.

 * I don't know how old this message is, as it is unsigned, but I thought it was about time somebody made a start on this. I have used the suggested text to make a section on flowering plants. I didn't add fungi or anything else as I don't think I could write decent sections on this. Instead I have rearranged the section structure to make this sort of thing easier to add and tagged for expert help.
 * I have also cut the three identical images of the human penis down to one occurance. We wouldn't want people to think we are obsessed or anything ;-).
 * My view is that we need to cover everything here. I don't mind mammals and humans being given some overcoverage as much as I mind everything else being almost completely missing. My vote is just to expand the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

merge this article into "reproductive system"
Reproductive_system includes all sex organs. Biology experts there try to merge this article into reproductive system.Lara_bran 13:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:HEY. Just because the article is currently pretty much a duplicate of reproductive system doesn't mean it has to be it could be expanded in a number of ways. Also this is also the article on genitalia, which should hardly redirect to a broad topic like reproductive system. If anything the name of the article should be changed from "sex organ" to genitalia. Also, the embedded list is a useful navigation tool which should probably not be included in reproductive system, but is appropriate where it is at. In my mind reproductive system should have the basics on the topic and the narrower topic articles expand from there. Peace, Earthdirt (talk) 15:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please, discuss this at a single place, Talk:Reproductive system. Thank you. Miraceti (talk) 10:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of cn
I rempoved the "citation needed"-template for brain differentiation, because it is only a summary of what is said about that in Sexual differentiation and its subpages, e.g. Sex and intelligence and Biology of gender. I prefer the template is better placed at the individual differentiation, because there are two many examples of the phenomenon to put the it all into dispute. Mikael Häggström 07:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

POV template
Please see the discussion at Talk:Human height. 68.163.233.173 21:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Terminology
Is there a special name for the entire external male reproductive apparatus? Penis and scrotum each refer only to specific parts of it. Is there a word for these 2 parts viewed as a whole? (Please excuse my obsession with precise definitions.)Bostoner (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

 * I think "male genitalia" (or "genitals") is what you are looking for. Unfortunately, the term has multiple meanings in this context, unlike "vulva". There are better words I can think of, but they are slang. ("He was caught adjusting his junk in front of the dignitary.") Ben (talk) 01:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Science Concepts
1. The female reproductive organ is the ovary. 2. The major parts of the reproductive system are: ovary,uterus,fallopian tubes and cervix...                                                                                3. The female has two ovaries. Each ovary is attached on either sides of the uterus. 4. The arms of the fallopian tubes of the uterus cervix over to meet the ovaries. 5. Ovaries make and store one or egg cell. 6. The release of an ovum or egg cell from the ovary is called ovulation.. Remember:                                                                                All of these info/s are true.... make use of my post and yuo will get perfect in your science quiz... this info/s are for grades 3-6.... and other grades whe nthey have this articles.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psalm345 (talk • contribs) 10:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Anus a sex organ?
Don't think so, regardless of how it's used. The closest you could get is the cloaca in certain species if the suggestion about human-centrism is ever acted on. Yellowdesk60 (talk) 07:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Image of female sex organ.
I changed the image to File:Pubic hair.jpg but found out that this image file is restricted to prevent it from being used in articles it doesn't belong. I have made a request to allow this image to be used in this article. I is a better counterpart to the male image that is used in the article. 72.95.95.102 (talk) 02:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Image shows a vulva, not a vagina
The vaginal entrance may be just about visible, but the vagina itself is not pictured, therefore the picture should be relabelled as depicting the female vulva, rather than the vagina.

 * I have changed it now. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Any reason why the female image is half as large as the image of male genitals, and zoomed out about 5x as well? The female genitals are actually barely visible, and occupy literally about 1/100th of the page space devoted to male genitals in this article.  Surely a better image can be found, one that actually depicts the sex organs clearly?  Blackworm (talk) 09:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Primary, secundary
The article speaks about the primary sexual organs as the organs visible at the outside and of the secundary organs as being the gonads ie not visible. Embryologically however the body starts with the gonads that produce the hormones necessary to form the other sexual organs. These are therefore the primary sexual organs. --DrJos (talk) 11:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Photos representing the Female Genitalia? Shouldn't this photo be replaced with a more accurate representation of a woman's genitalia?
Although as a male editor, I can very much appreciate (blushing) the photo depicted of the female genitals used herein, wouldn't this article be more accurately represented by using a photo depicting a Naturally Unshaven woman's vagina?

I personally think it should be changed to display a grown woman's naturally unshaven pubic area.

Any thoughts to this? Greetings! Dijcks HotTub Pool 20:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

 * To be blunt, just showing a patch of fur would not be very educational. File:Female unshaved genitalia.jpg may be a better option as it shows the female genitalia surounded by (but not covered by) pubic hair. Just remember, this page is regarding genitalia, so it would be inappropriate to use an image where the genitalia is hidden behind a bush. 16:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.233.25.14 (talk)

 * I agree that the image used was extremely atypical and geared towards current culture norms of "beauty". (Tiny labia, hairless). I've replaced the image with a more representative one. It's a drawing from Gray's Anatomy, rather than a photo, so it is able to clearly show the regions mentioned in the text. (BTW, The adjacent circumcised male genitalia photograph looks jarringly dissimilar. Unfortunately, Gray did not include a similar external view of the male genitalia. Can anyone find a good match? Perhaps something from Albecht Durer?) Ben (talk) 01:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

 * The Gray's Anatomy edit was apparently reverted. I agree that the current image is not representative and reenforces perceptions that may lead women to doubt their attractiveness. This image might be better, File:Jillvagina3.png, as it include pubic hair and the features are more distinctive. I would question why we need to include human images in this page, as oppose to other animals. People seeking images of human body parts might best be directed to specific articles that contain more information about them.--agr (talk) 18:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

 * For those who haven't noticed, I replied to Ben in the section above. This type of thing (a shaved vulva being the only vulva image in the article) doesn't bother me. It's often a matter of dispute, though, just like using an image of a circumcised penis vs. an image of an uncircumcised penis often is. As for using images of humans, it's been argued a number of times at WP:Med and WP:Anatomy that humans are naturally going to be more interested in seeing images of humans when it comes to topics that concern both humans and non-human animals, unless the topic predominantly concerns non-human animals (like rabies, for example). I've argued the same. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

 * Thanks for pointing out Ben's recent comment in the section. It seems he and I are in agreement on this. If we are going to show human organs, with only one example for each sex, why not choose examples that have not been modified for cosmetic or other reasons?--agr (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

 * I explained in the aforementioned section what the justification has been for keeping a shaved vulva, but you can give replacing the image with a non-shaved vulva a try. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

 * I suggest this image: File:Vulva and pubic hair.jpg. It has a vertical orientation, so it can match the male image in size and the hair does not obscure any details, which are indeed much clearer than with the current image. But it is on the MediaWiki:Bad image list (as is the current image) so it needs an exception for use in this article. I'd like to get some consensus before requesting the exception.--agr (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

 * Given that the current example ("vulva with tiny labia") is an extreme, pretty much any random image is going to be an improvement. While I have a preference for the Gray's Anatomy version (which includes annotations and does not need an exception from the "bad" list), I recognize that without a male counterpart it did look out of place. I am fine with User:ArnoldReinhold's suggestion ("vulva and pubic hair") and note that it does not (as some people have worried) hide the parts of interest under a "bush".
 * On a side note, does Wikipedia have any way to create a text overlay so whatever image we end up with can be labelled in a manner similar to Gray's Anatomy? While it's easy for me to create a new SVG image, I was thinking it might help internationalization of the article. Ben (talk) 10:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any image overlay tool, though it would be a good idea. One way around the lack might be to label the image with numbers (1, 2, 3, ...) and reference the numbers in the caption. That way the image could be used internationally and there would be less clutter on the image. And it looks like uploading a modified version of the image as a new file would bypass the bad list, though it might be appropriate to suggest adding it with an exception for this article later. For balance, the male image might be labeled as well, if you are willing to do that too.--agr (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Why are genitals considered offensive?
I have noticed that particularly in the English language, some of the most offensive swear words are synonyms for genitals i.e. cunt. Why are genitals considered so offensive? Pass a Method  talk  11:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that's a very good and relevant question! It doesn't make any obvious sense to me either. I can find nothing bad or evil in genitals – for God's sake, they are absolutely central to most of Life and for us being here, and furthermore they are a source of great joy for most of us. Also, calling a person a "flower" is quite positive, but calling a woman a "cunt" is the opposite, even though both words refer to sexual organs. So it would be very interesting to have a section about that if someone would like to explore the question and write about it, with references to possible explanations given in the literature. My personal guess at an explanation is that it could be related to the widespread sexual taboo in Western culture and perhaps negative commandmends about sexuality is various religions, perhaps especially in Catholicism, but that's just me thinking that. I would look forward to reading a well-referenced section about this subject. --Jhertel (talk) 11:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * calling them a flower is not referring to their sex organs. But onto the main question: Why are genitals considered so offensive?  Dude: check yours out:  would you like to meet that in the street?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.226.109 (talk) 02:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

"Primary sexual characteristic" term
Iztwoz, regarding this, "primary sexual characteristic" redirects to this article. So it seems best to keep it in the lead. It seems to have been added to the lead per WP:Alternative title. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Hi Flyer22 Reborn I am not too familiar with these topics and have read different things regarding the terminology. I know that there is more than one reference (Wiki) to primary sex organs and secondary sex characteristics; and another stating that (paraphrasing) these terms of secondary sex organs and secondary sex characteristics are interchangeable. Also it was wrongly placed in the first sentence which stated that a sex organ was a primary sexual characteristic because it can also be a secondary sex characteristic I changed it and added the two refs to prim and sec organs to cover this; as it was it cannot be an alternative title. ? --Iztwoz (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've just had a look at the page secondary sexual characteristics which gives a different slant to things entirely. Suggest we both do some looking up on this.--Iztwoz (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Think its OK now, cheers --Iztwoz (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Yeah, that's fine. Primary sexual characteristics are the ones we are born with, the ones before puberty. I'm not aware of any reliable sources stating that secondary sex organs and secondary sex characteristics are the same thing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Thanks - I came across one ref to their being the same (don't remember where) but couldn't find it elsewhere and doesn't make sense anyway. so think its OK now. --Iztwoz (talk) 10:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Female genitalia redirect
I reverted ArnoldReinhold on this edit because "genitalia" does not only refer to the external genitalia (the Sex organ article makes this clear), and there can be no doubt that people are not only thinking about the vulva when they read or hear "female genitalia"; they are thinking about the vagina as well. In fact, given how much more attention the vagina gets (including when it comes to female genital terminology), many people are more likely thinking about the vagina than the vulva when they read or hear "female genitalia." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but almost all the articles that have redirects to female genitalia intend the human female genitalia, so sex organ is a poor target since it isn't even gender specific. One possibility is to redirect female genitalia to Female reproductive system, which is where human female genitalia redirects. Another would be edit all the pages that link to female genitalia to instead link to the most appropriate target for each article, e.g. Sex in advertising clearly is talking about the vulva. Incidentally, the vulva article should have an "other mammals" section or state that it is only talking about humans, as Female reproductive system already does..--agr (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

 * Inconsistencies with redirects can be a pain. But, in this case, "female genitalia" redirecting here while "human female genitalia" redirects to the Female reproductive system article makes sense because the Female reproductive system article is (so far) solely about humans. This article, on the other hand, is obviously not solely about humans. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sex organ. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120728014926/http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/Bio106/mosses.htm to http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/Bio106/mosses.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Wrong info
A sex organ (also called a reproductive organ, primary sex organ or primary sexual characteristic) is any anatomical part of the body in a complex organism that is involved in sexual reproduction and together constitute the reproductive system. The external and visible organs, in males and females, are the primary sex organs known as the genitals or genitalia. The internal organs are known as the secondary sex organs[not in citation given][1][2] and are sometimes referred to as the internal genitalia. The characteristics that begin to appear during puberty, such as, in humans, pubic hair on both sexes and facial hair on the male, are known as secondary sex characteristics.
 * This info which i edited and was reverted is wrong. The primary sex organs are the gonads - testis and ovary - very clear in ref given, and not the external organs which are called the secondary sex organs. see ref.

The secondary sex organs are known as the primary sex characteristics - see ref - the secondary sex characteristics has a linked page. It may be muddling but i didn't come up with the terminology. I shall restore my edit which is correct information as i read it. If another editor can produce a different reference giving different information then they are of course more than welcome to change the material and add the ref. --Iztwoz (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

 * This is very confusing, particularly the statement "The secondary sex organs are known as the primary sex characteristics". I can't tell if this is incorrect or just not clear, so I won't revert it again, but if somebody else can take a look and try to make it as correct and understandable as possible then that would be great. We don't want the readers to get confused. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

 * It is confusing, especially the sentence you highlighted. A good percentage of viewers reading Wikipedia articles, never get past the lead, and imho, this will both confuse and discourage them from doing so. Talking about primary vs. secondary with respect to two different sets of objects, especially when one item is simulataneously "primary" in one set, and "secondary" in another, all in the same paragraph, can only lead to confusion.
 * There's another issue, which is that the first paragraph starts talking right away about "anatomy" and "body", but if sex organs also apply to plants, as the third paragraph claims (I rather think of them as "reproductive" rather than "sex" organs, but perhaps I'm mistaken) then that assertion should be made in the first paragraph, not the third, and perhaps in the first sentence, as part of the definition. Then, the distinction between animal kingdom sexual organs, and plant kingdom reproductive (or 'sexual') organs could be made at the top, with a follow-up paragraph for each kingdom.  Once this was achieved, the issue with the "primary" vs. "secondary" might end up being relegated to the body of the article, where it could be dealt with in more detail, and maybe in separate sentences or paragraphs, and not forced into close proximity as they are now, which seems so confusing. Mathglot (talk) 11:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There's another issue, which is that the first paragraph starts talking right away about "anatomy" and "body", but if sex organs also apply to plants, as the third paragraph claims (I rather think of them as "reproductive" rather than "sex" organs, but perhaps I'm mistaken) then that assertion should be made in the first paragraph, not the third, and perhaps in the first sentence, as part of the definition. Then, the distinction between animal kingdom sexual organs, and plant kingdom reproductive (or 'sexual') organs could be made at the top, with a follow-up paragraph for each kingdom.  Once this was achieved, the issue with the "primary" vs. "secondary" might end up being relegated to the body of the article, where it could be dealt with in more detail, and maybe in separate sentences or paragraphs, and not forced into close proximity as they are now, which seems so confusing. Mathglot (talk) 11:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Iztwoz is correct about primary vs. secondary. Look at sources on the matter via regular Google or Google Books. I should have fixed that content much sooner, but I didn't pay attention to the backwards nature of what was there until now. Also, primary vs. secondary is something that is addressed lower in the article. Given that sources are clear to mention primary vs. secondary, and the lower part of the article does as well, the lead should mention something about it. And to reduce confusion, Iztwoz removed the "secondary sex organs are known as the primary sex characteristics" part. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, for why "primary sexual characteristics" was mentioned in the lead, see the discussion above. The term redirects here (to the Sex organ article) because the visible sex organs (or just the sex organs altogether) are considered the primary sexual characteristics. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Jeni'tulz listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jeni&. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. gnu 57 18:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Focus too much on humans
This article has too much of a focus on humans.CycoMa (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Genitalia
CycoMa, do I have it right that you intend to make a genitalia article? That is extremely unnecessary since this sex organ article exists. I point you to WP:REDUNDANTFORK. If you create it, I'll request a merge. GBFEE (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

In other words, there isn't even one benefit to having a genitalia article as separate from the sex organ article. GBFEE (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

 * Sex organ and genitalia are related but the article on genitalia goes more in depth on genitalia. Also not all sex organs are part of genitalia, genitalia is basically the external sex organs.CycoMa (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

 * Like the genitalia draft also discusses the evolution of genitalia.CycoMa (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You have not given any good reason for wanting to create a genitalia article when the sex organ article addresses both external and internal sex organs, and both characteristics can be sufficiently covered in this article. You say "Sex organ and genitalia are related." No, not just "related." Sex organ refers to either the external or internal sex organs. It's not necessary to have both a genitalia and internal sex organ article while the sex organ article exists, and it's not necessary to have both a sex organ and genitalia article. Having a sex organ article and a genitalia article would almost convey that the sex organ article is for the internal sex organs and the genitalia article is for the external sex organs. An additional article should only be created when its creation is necessary. GBFEE (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * There are tons of sources that go in depth on the evolution of genitalia across species. It just seems inappropriate to have a section of genital evolution here. Because genitalia is specifically referring to external sex organs.CycoMa (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Then create an Evolution of genitalia article and link to it here. Problem solved. GBFEE (talk) 20:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SUMMARY, it can have a brief section here that links to the main page on the topic. Can you agree to that? GBFEE (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

 * The genitalia article is also gonna probably go in depth on types of genitalia. Because genitalia is diverse across species.CycoMa (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I still don't think the extra article should be created. In the same way you can expand on the external sex organs here, you can expand on the internal sex organs here. I'll drop a line at WP:ANAT for their opinions. GBFEE (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * CycoMa, GBFEE is right. Such an article would be a fork. Please do not create duplicate or redundant articles and stick to existing ones, only splitting per WP:SIZESPLIT and related guidelines. Crossroads -talk- 20:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

It isn't ideal to have a section in mammals
Mammals are merely a minority in the animal kingdom.CycoMa (talk) 02:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * But most sources about sex organs are about mammals. I think most people who come to the article will be looking for that information. If helpful or necessary for a more well-rounded article, we can create sections for other categories of animal. There's already a section for other animals, and we have one on plants. GBFEE (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

 * It makes no sense to have a section for mammals and a section called other animals. I’m just gonna merge those two sections together.CycoMa (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It does if most of the material about animals is about mammals and we want a dedicated section for mammals that doesn't seem to hog space under an "Animals" heading that also features other animals. However, I think your merge is okay. GBFEE (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

 * There are tons of articles that link here. From articles on fishes, flowers, and etc. Also there are fungi that have sex organs.CycoMa (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with what I said? If a topic covers one animal category more than others, there isn't anything we can do about it except follow the due process. Well, unless you want to add a lot more on other animals and plants for "balancing", but that's forcing "balance." Balance should come organically. GBFEE (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Can we do piercing on this?
I'm curious 58.227.208.200 (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

 * We don't have a section specifically for humans so I am not sure where it would go. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you're asking if the sex organ can be pierced. You said, "I'm curious." See genital piercing and genital modification and mutilation. If we included any information on that in this article, it wouldn't require a whole section. A little paragraph is all it'd need. GBFEE (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Sex organ


text:
Clermont County, Ohio

Clermont County, popularly called Clermont,     is a county in the U.S. state of Ohio. As of the 2020 census, the population was 208,601. Ordinanced in 1800 as part of the Virginia Military District, Clermont is Ohio's eighth oldest county, the furthest county west in Appalachian Ohio, and the eleventh oldest county of the former Northwest Territory. Clermont County is part of the Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN Metropolitan Statistical Area. The county is named from the French "clear hills or mountain." Its county seat is Batavia, while its largest city is Milford.

History
Clermont's name is borrowed from a prefecture in France notable as the home of Celtic leader Vercingetorix who led the unified Gallic resistance to Roman invasion. Clermont connotes "clear mountain," which describes the hills when viewed through the thick Ohio River fog. During the Age of Discovery, the French became the first recorded Europeans to see this land from the Ohio River, though Clermont's population dates to the Paleoindian, Adena, Hopewell, and Fort Ancient cultures. The Gatch Site and other sites provide glimpses into what life was like for these people. The Shawnee, Miami, Lenape, Mingo, Odawa, Cherokee, and Wyandot each have or had a presence in Clermont.

At its ordinance in 1800 by the Commonwealth of Virginia to reward Virginian military veterans with land bounties, Clermont encompassed twenty-three current Ohio counties and over 4.2 million acres of dense old-growth forest. The first deed was issued on February 20, 1796. George Washington owned three parcels of land in Clermont County, whose first capital was Williamsburg, founded by William Lytle, and like Milford, was founded in 1796. A stone dairy house, constructed in 1800, is thought to be the oldest standing building in Clermont. The edifice is located beside Harmony Hill on South Third Street in Williamsburg. Harmony Hill, one of the area's first farms, was built by William Lytle. The last American Indian village was located two miles south of Marathon in Jackson Township, along the mouth of Grassy Run on the East Fork of the Little Miami River. The site saw the largest frontier battle in Clermont, the Battle of Grassy Run, during which pioneer Simon Kenton clashed with chief Tecumseh on April 10, 1792. The Wyandot lived at this site until 1811. The Bullskin Trail, once a major American Indian trail, runs north and south through Clermont along Ohio Route 133, and was used by frontiersmen Kenton and Daniel Boone on hunting and warfare expeditions. In 1823, New Richmond became the seat, and in 1824, the seat moved to Batavia, the county's current seat. Clermont's Moscow became the exiled home of French royalty during the early 1800s, including future King of France Louis-Philippe in 1815 and the Marquis de Lafayette in 1825. Point Pleasant was birthplace and boyhood home of military hero, Union general, and President Ulysses S. Grant, born on April 27, 1822.

During the 1800s, antislavery sentiment remained strong. Bethel was the residence of Democratic United States Senator Thomas Morris who also served three terms in the Ohio House of Representatives, as Ohio Supreme Court Justice, and four terms in the Ohio Senate. His U.S. Senate career lasted from 1833 to 1839, and in 1844, Morris was the vice presidential candidate for a third party with the goal of abolishing slavery—approximately sixteen years before the first antislavery Republican president.

Also in 1844, America's first anarchist, philosopher, and inventor Josiah Warren made Clermont the site of Utopia, an egalitarian haven of Puritans who espoused the doctrines of François Marie Charles Fourier. The primitive socialist life at Utopia was later made into a musical at the Carnegie Center of Columbia Tusculum. In 1847, future Ohio Governor John M. Pattison was born near Owensville. Grant became commander-in-chief of the U.S. Army in the Civil War, during which John Hunt Morgan and his Confederate raiders invaded Clermont in 1863. Grant was elected the eighteenth president in 1868.

Clermont's last-standing covered bridge was built in 1878 on Stonelick Williams Corner Road, near US Route 50; it was renovated in 2014. The Grant birthplace, originally a one-room cabin, continues to welcome visitors and in 1890 was removed from its original location, travelling by boat to be viewed by citizens along various waterways. It was also taken to the 1893 Chicago World's Fair before returning to Clermont.

Pattison became the first Clermont Countian elected Governor of Ohio in 1905, Ohio's first Democratic governor of the twentieth century. Pattison lived in Milford, and at a time before the influence of Columbus, governed from his home called the Promont, which was used as the official governor's residence. The mansion, completed in 1865, today is a museum that houses a library and other historical memorabilia. It is located at 906 Main Street, Milford. Democrat Hugh Llewellyn Nichols of Batavia served as 32nd Lieutenant Governor of Ohio and became the first Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court in 1914. Orpha Gatch of Milford, the first woman elected to its school board, locally sponsored the county LWV, and is the namesake for the club's award given annually at its suffragist brunch honoring the recognized volunteerism and leadership qualities. Clermont's progressivism created a climate of political independence. Despite recent Republican prevalence in its offices, heavy nonpartisan and union influences exist. Clermont's growing population as well as environmentalism have contributed to this climate.

Geography
According to the United States Census Bureau, the county has a total area of 460 sqmi, of which 452 sqmi is land and 7.7 sqmi (1.7%) is water.

Adjacent counties

 * Brown County (east)
 * Bracken County, Kentucky (south)
 * Pendleton County, Kentucky (southwest)
 * Campbell County, Kentucky (southwest)
 * Hamilton County (west)
 * Warren County (north)
 * Clinton County (north east)

2010 census
As of the census of 2010, there were 197,363 people, 74,828 households, and 53,800 families residing in the county. The population density was 436.5 PD/sqmi. There were 80,656 housing units at an average density of 178.4 /sqmi. The racial makeup of the county was 95.9% white, 1.2% black or African American, 1.0% Asian, 0.2% American Indian, 0.4% from other races, and 1.3% from two or more races. Those of Hispanic or Latino origin made up 1.5% of the population. In terms of ancestry, 34.0% were German, 18.1% were Irish, 12.0% were American, and 11.1% were English.

Of the 74,828 households, 35.9% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 56.1% were married couples living together, 10.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 28.1% were non-families, and 22.5% of all households were made up of individuals. The average household size was 2.61 and the average family size was 3.06. The median age was 38.5 years.

The median income for a household in the county was $58,472 and the median income for a family was $68,485. Males had a median income of $50,204 versus $36,746 for females. The per capita income for the county was $27,900. About 6.9% of families and 9.3% of the population were below the poverty line, including 12.6% of those under age 18 and 5.5% of those age 65 or over.

2000 census
As of the census of 2000, there were 177,977 people, 66,013 households, and 49,047 families residing in the county. The population density was 394 PD/sqmi. There were 69,226 housing units at an average density of 153 /sqmi. The racial makeup of the county was 97.13% White, 0.91% African American, 0.19% Native American, 0.63% Asian, 0.02% Pacific Islander, 0.26% from other races, and 0.86% from two or more races. 0.87% of the population were Hispanic or Latino of any race. 32.7% were of German, 16.7% American, 12.0% Irish and 11.0% English ancestry.

There were 66,013 households, out of which 38.10% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 60.40% were married couples living together, 10.00% had a female householder with no husband present, and 25.70% were non-families. 21.00% of all households were made up of individuals, and 7.00% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.67 and the average family size was 3.11.

In the county the population was spread out, with 27.90% under the age of 18, 8.40% from 18 to 24, 31.70% from 25 to 44, 22.60% from 45 to 64, and 9.40% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 35 years. For every 100 females there were 96.40 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 93.60 males.

The median income for a household in the county was $49,386, and the median income for a family was $57,032. Males had a median income of $40,739 versus $27,613 for females. The per capita income for the county was $22,370. About 5.30% of families and 7.10% of the population were below the poverty line, including 8.70% of those under age 18 and 7.90% of those age 65 or over.

Economy
Aviation is served by the Clermont County Airport. Clermont's newspapers are the Clermont Sun, positing historical stories and statistics, and the Community Press papers. According to the county's 2021 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, the top employers in the county are:

Colleges and high schools in Clermont
These buildings may not have been high schools when they were first constructed, but have since become high schools. The building years listed connote the current buildings' initial openings and do not include renovations or additions.
 * (1957) Clermont Northeastern High School, 5327 Hutchinson Road, Batavia
 * (1963) Milford High School, One Eagles Way, Milford
 * (1965) New Richmond High School, 1131 Bethel-New Richmond Road, New Richmond
 * (1972) Clermont College, 4200 Clermont College Drive, Batavia
 * (1996) Williamsburg High School, 500 South Fifth Street, Williamsburg
 * (1997) Batavia High School, One Bulldog Place, Batavia
 * (2002) Bethel-Tate High School, 3420 Ohio Rt. 125, Bethel
 * (2002) Goshen High School, 6707 Goshen Road, Goshen
 * (2004) Felicity-Franklin High School, 105 Market Street, Felicity
 * (2017) West Clermont High School, 4101 Bach Buxton Rd, Cincinnati,

Parks and libraries
Clermont County has the Cincinnati Nature Center at Rowe Woods and Valley View Nature Preserve, both in Milford, and oversees five parks, three nature preserves, a hiking/biking trail, and several green spaces, encompassing over six-hundred acres. Clermont is the location of East Fork State Park and Stonelick State Park, and benefits from the Clermont Public Libraries.

Politics
All of Clermont's elected officeholders, including judges, are members of the Republican Party.

U.S. House of Representatives
Clermont's congressional seat is occupied by Brad Wenstrup, who resides in Cincinnati, Hamilton County, Ohio.

Elected Commission
The three seats of the Clermont Commission are occupied by Edwin Humphrey, last elected 2016; David Painter, last elected 2016; and Claire B. Corcoran. The commission employs an administrator, Thomas Eigel (as of 2020), to run day-to-day operations of Clermont.

Ohio Statehouse
Encompassing all of Clermont, the 14th Ohio Senate seat is occupied by Terry Johnson, last elected 2020. Covering northern Clermont, the 65th statehouse seat is occupied by Jean Schmidt, last elected 2020. Covering southern Clermont, the 66th statehouse seat is occupied by Adam Bird, last elected 2020.

Elected Officers
Clermont's elected officers include Debbie Clepper, Recorder; Mark J. Tekulve, Prosecutor; Linda Fraley, Auditor; Robert S. Leahy, Sheriff; Jeremy Evans, Engineer; Paul Kamphaus, Municipal Clerk of Courts; Brian Treon, Coroner; Jeannie Zurmehly, Treasurer; and Barbara Wiedenbein, Common Pleas Clerk of Courts.

Elected Judges
The elected Common Pleas Court is occupied by Judge Richard Ferenc, Judge Victor Haddad, Judge Anthony W. Brock, and Judge Kevin Miles. The elected Common Pleas Domestic Relations Court is occupied by Judge Mary Lynne Birck. The elected Municipal Court is occupied by Judge Jesse Kramig, Judge Jason E. Nagel, and Judge Anita M. Bechmann. The elected Probate/Juvenile Court is occupied by Judge James A. Shriver.

National outcomes
Prior to 1912, Clermont County voted for Democratic candidates in presidential elections, only voting Republican three times between 1856 and 1912. The county was a bellwether from 1912 to 1936. Starting with the 1940 election, it has become more Republican-leaning, with Lyndon B. Johnson being the lone Democrat to win since. Clermont has been visited by recent national ticket candidates from Republicans and Democrats.

 * }

Communities
Ohio recognizes municipalities (villages and cities) and townships. Each municipality has an elected-nonpartisan council with a designated mayor. Mayors sometimes preside during mayor's court and have various other roles. These mayor-council arrangements pass municipal ordinances.

In 1991, the state legislature and George Voinovich adopted "Limited Home Rule Townships" as a schism from the Ohio Constitution's Municipal Home Rule established in 1912. The alteration devolved township government to be similar to municipalities but without full home rule, a city code, comprehensive zoning, among a host of other traits. The result is many developed townships which would have sought shared municipal incorporation with cities or villages have not maximized property value and do not have basic support for services and infrastructure, relying exclusively on reduced state funding—much of which comes from federal investments for roadwork. The autonomy which was sought has effectively been unable to reserve responsibility for the community and instead outsourced that responsibility to state intervention.

Cities

 * Loveland (partly in Hamilton and Warren Counties)
 * Milford (partly in Hamilton County)

Villages

 * Batavia (county seat)
 * Bethel
 * Chilo
 * Felicity
 * Moscow
 * Neville
 * New Richmond
 * Owensville
 * Williamsburg

Dissolved villages

 * Amelia
 * Newtonsville

Townships

 * Batavia
 * Franklin
 * Goshen
 * Jackson
 * Miami
 * Monroe
 * Ohio
 * Pierce
 * Stonelick
 * Tate
 * Union
 * Washington
 * Wayne
 * Williamsburg

Census-designated places

 * Day Heights
 * Goshen
 * Miamiville
 * Mount Carmel
 * Mount Repose
 * Mulberry
 * Summerside
 * Withamsville

Unincorporated communities

 * Afton
 * Amelia
 * Bantam
 * Belfast
 * Blairsville
 * Blowville
 * Branch Hill
 * Braziers
 * Cedron
 * Clermontville
 * Clover
 * Concord
 * Edenton
 * Elk Lick
 * Glen Este
 * Grailville
 * Hamlet
 * Hennings Mill
 * Hills
 * Laurel
 * Lerado
 * Lindale
 * Locust Corner
 * Maple
 * Marathon
 * Milford Hills
 * Modest
 * Monterey
 * Moores Fork
 * Mount Holly
 * Mount Olive
 * Mount Pisgah
 * New Palestine
 * Ninemile
 * Nineveh
 * Nicholsville
 * Olive Branch
 * Perintown
 * Point Isabel
 * Point Pleasant
 * Pringle Corner
 * Round Bottom
 * Rural
 * Saltair
 * Simpkinsville
 * Shiloh
 * Springvale
 * Stonelick
 * Tobasco
 * Utopia
 * Wards Corner
 * Wiggonsville
 * Williams Corner
 * Willowville
 * Woodville

title: Clermont County, Ohio


text:
Granite County, Montana

Granite County is a county located in the U.S. state of Montana. As of the 2020 census, the population was 3,309. Its county seat is Philipsburg. The county was founded in 1893, and was named for a mountain which contains the Granite Mountain silver mine.

Geography
According to the United States Census Bureau, the county has a total area of 1733 sqmi, of which 1727 sqmi is land and 5.6 sqmi (0.3%) is water.

Major highways

 * I-90.svg Interstate 90
 * US 10.svg U.S. Highway 10 (Former)
 * US 12.svg U.S. Highway 12
 * MT-1.svg Montana Highway 1
 * MT-38.svg Montana Highway 38

Adjacent counties

 * Missoula County - north
 * Powell County - east
 * Deer Lodge County - south
 * Ravalli County - west

National protected areas

 * Deerlodge National Forest (part)
 * Lolo National Forest (part)

2020 census
As of the 2020 census, there were 3,309 people living in the county.

2010 census
As of the 2010 census, there were 3,079 people, 1,417 households, and 911 families living in the county. The population density was 1.8 PD/sqmi. There were 2,822 housing units at an average density of 1.6 /sqmi. The racial makeup of the county was 97.5% white, 0.4% American Indian, 0.1% black or African American, 0.1% Asian, 0.2% from other races, and 1.7% from two or more races. Those of Hispanic or Latino origin made up 1.4% of the population. In terms of ancestry, 26.2% were German, 20.2% were Irish, 18.8% were English, 13.5% were Norwegian, and 7.9% were American.

Of the 1,417 households, 19.6% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 55.3% were married couples living together, 5.7% had a female householder with no husband present, 35.7% were non-families, and 29.5% of all households were made up of individuals. The average household size was 2.14 and the average family size was 2.63. The median age was 52.1 years.

The median income for a household in the county was $36,052 and the median income for a family was $47,685. Males had a median income of $41,307 versus $23,958 for females. The per capita income for the county was $23,222. About 7.5% of families and 12.1% of the population were below the poverty line, including 5.4% of those under age 18 and 13.3% of those age 65 or over.

Towns

 * Drummond
 * Philipsburg (county seat)

Census-designated places

 * Maxville
 * Hall

Unincorporated communities

 * Beartown
 * New Chicago
 * Quigley
 * Princeton
 * Sherryl
 * Stone

Ghost Towns

 * Bearmouth
 * Garnet
 * Granite
 * Nimrod

title: Granite County, Montana


text:
Golden Valley County, Montana

Golden Valley County is a county located in the U.S. state of Montana. As of the 2020 census, the population was 823, making it the third-least populous county in Montana. Its county seat is Ryegate.

Geography
According to the United States Census Bureau, the county has a total area of 1176 sqmi, of which 1175 sqmi is land and 1.0 sqmi (0.08%) is water. It is Montana's fifth-smallest county by area.

Major highways

 * US 12.svg U.S. Highway 12
 * MT-3.svg Montana Highway 3

Adjacent counties

 * Fergus County – north
 * Musselshell County – east
 * Yellowstone County – southeast
 * Stillwater County – south
 * Sweet Grass County – southwest
 * Wheatland County – west

National protected area

 * Lewis and Clark National Forest (part)

Politics
The county has usually favored Republican candidates. The 2016 Democratic candidate only received 71 county votes, the lowest ever for a major party in the county in a presidential election. The last Democrat to win there was Lyndon Johnson in his 1964 landslide victory.

2020 census
As of the 2020 census, there were 823 people living in the county.

2010 census
As of the 2010 census, there were 884 people, 363 households, and 239 families residing in the county. The population density was 0.8 PD/sqmi. There were 476 housing units at an average density of 0.4 /sqmi. The racial makeup of the county was 94.0% white, 1.0% American Indian, 0.7% Asian, 2.1% from other races, and 2.1% from two or more races. Those of Hispanic or Latino origin made up 3.5% of the population. In terms of ancestry, 38.9% were German, 19.5% were English, 18.4% were Irish, 10.1% were Polish, 9.0% were American, 7.3% were Danish, 6.4% were Dutch, and 6.2% were Norwegian.

Of the 363 households, 20.7% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 55.4% were married couples living together, 5.2% had a female householder with no husband present, 34.2% were non-families, and 29.5% of all households were made up of individuals. The average household size was 2.19 and the average family size was 2.68. The median age was 48.8 years.

The median income for a household in the county was $35,726 and the median income for a family was $48,750. Males had a median income of $33,750 versus $27,938 for females. The per capita income for the county was $19,319. About 3.4% of families and 10.9% of the population were below the poverty line, including 21.7% of those under age 18 and 5.8% of those age 65 or over.

Towns

 * Lavina
 * Ryegate (county seat)

Census-designated place

 * Golden Valley Colony

Unincorporated communities

 * Barber
 * Belmont
 * Franklin
 * Lavina

title: Golden Valley County, Montana