UK health portal NHS Choices has got itself into a bit of a tiz over whether or not to show unexpurgated genitalia in a forthcoming update of its interactive Body Map - an issue apparently so sensitive it has decided to put the matter to a public vote. The blurb explains: NHS Choices will soon be updating its body map with …
They should ask themselves: how do toy manufacturers deal with this issue?
Barbie is anatomically incorrect, but Action Man wears pants.
Censoring anatomy is silly, but if you have to do it, well, I'm in the Action Man camp personally. Modesty shouldn't need to be incorrect.
Don't go pissing off Americans, or they'll bring you democracy.
before someone sees the togerless version of themselves, decides they are therefore deformed and undertakes DIY surgery to correct the problem?
What's the difference......
Is it just me or do both the female pictures look the same?
Will Paris pose for the female pic?
I just hope...
That when counting the votes the NHS remove all no UK votes, as US prudes may well mess up the stats.
"People have to accept this is the 21st century"
Bloody hell. I had goolies in the 20th century as well. I'm upset to find out that I'm a freak and everyone else got theirs on the 1st of January 2000.
I don't see the problem here.
It's only a computer per per...
*coat already got*
Like Fred Durst and his Limp Bizkit... did they do it for the nuki?
Quote of the Year
Surely the quote of the year -
"I'm all for the genitalia" <said the vicar to the tart>
And there's the Paris Hilton Angle!
My vote is for the anatomically correct pics - like here: http://www.visiblebody.com/
As the Yanks don't contribute to the NHS....
...they don't have to look at a potentially offensive website for free healthcare advice.
If the NHS hopes to reduce under age pregnancy rates, maybe they should look across the Channel rather than across the Atlantic. Attitudes to nudity on the Continent are quite relaxed compared to the UK and yet they have lower teenage pregancy rates.
Good to see this site is always first with the nudes........
It's good to see that the NHS has got the balls to ask the public but I have a feeling they may get shafted.
I feel a ban coming my way.........
This actually has to go to a vote? FFS. I want, nae, I demand to see cock and gash on a medically inclined website. I would like to see far more of the latter on a lot of websites, and indeed, the EeePC "chick on beach" pic that El Reg print at ever available opportunity would be far more engaging with a bit of well-kempt beaver.
Glad I read the bootnote, and managed to restrain myself from making the "Nuki" joke, just in the nick of time.
I more concerned about the musculature on the bloke; if my girlfriend sees that she'll put the kibosh on Christmas.
Ah, nothing new here then.
NHS spending dosh on a consultation that is just a load of bollocks.
I'd prefer the question to be extended --
cut or uncut?
shaved or hairy?
average sized knob or proportioned to make men feel better or worse.
left handed or right handed?
The fate of the NHS website is in our hands!
.... No Doubt, this will get blown out of all proportion.
I'll get my scarf and gloves as well.........
What a load of
bollocks, or not as the case may be.
So this is the 'gonads or no nads' question?
Personally, I think this is silly, unless we are only trying to educate people about where the heart and lungs are. How can you use an anatomically incorrect model for studying anatomy?
They should go for a model that is more in line with the population at large ie with monster love handles providing self censorship. And manboobs. And cankles.
Gone for the penguin as at least it's a more realistic shape
another great plan to waste money on consultation.
Load of old cock
The anatomically incorrect point is: why, in the words of Vic & Bob, have the figures adopted the stance of Sandi Toksvig?
Genitals of mass distraction
I look forward to trainee doctors seeing the opposite sex's genitalia for the first time and running screaming from the wards and being unable to treat patients with genitalia and perhaps suing them for obscenity.
Ignore the US - they have trouble with reality full stop, trying not to offend them is a sisyphean task.
Someone at the NHS should be shot for even allowing this to go to become a serious issue, never mind putting it to a reality TV style 'public vote'.
You can't teach anatomy or sexual health without showing pictures of todgers and the like.
If there really are people who would be offended by this, then tough shit, they deserve to be offended. In fact they deserve to be pilloried and ridiculed, pointed and laughed at in the street, and followed around by naked dwarf smurf impersonators until they are cured of their hallucinations of a Victorian morality that never existed in the first place.
(Paris, because she knows the score on this issue)
Why stop there?
If we're going to censor the naughty bits we may as well put the woman in a burqa. Either you pander to all sensitivities about the human body, including the minority who believe that the entire female form is sinful, or you don't pander to them at all.
Get yer kit orf....
Well really. With just about every TV programme adding to the UK w@nkfest with the obligatory and grauitous sex scene, what's a few dummies in the buff?
I've place my vote
It's almost beyond belief that the NHS should even contemplate censoring educational material, but I've just voted anyway. I included the comments :
I support a fully detailed body map
It's an educational resource. By censoring the images you are implying that there is something wrong or shameful about genitals, which clearly isn't true. You will loose credibility as an impartial reliable source of accurate information, people will wonder what else isn't accurate on the website.
Typical NHS, behind the times again.
Second Life has had anatomically correct models for ages. What's more, they can move and do all sorts of things. With each other if you want.
And the females have hair.
My vote goes to Full Monty.
Is there any difference on the woman, i couldn't tell.
if it was good enough for Michelangelo then it HAS to be good enough for the NHS.
Another case of PC gone mad...
Gosh, people really do need to get a grip (so to speak) - it's a human body, and in this context it most certainly isn't pornographic, so what's the problem?? And don't get me started on those bloody US neo-conservative prudes that believe the world is only 6000 years old...
Show it all
A medical resource should only be allowed to show reality.
No pixellating or hiding bits which may offend a few people.
Just for fun they should include full footage of surgical procedures as well.
The Paris angle? I used to look like the guy on the left, now I look like Paris.
Its a medical reference, it should be as realistic, physically correct as can be!!!
FFS what are these people on?
This is exactly what Big Brotherism is about. By censoring the educational material, they can control the deliberately unthinking peasants !!
BTW, is that Prof. Gray in any way related to the author of that most famous of all anatomy books - Gray's Anatomy !!
I love the public sector, it lets me feel so superior
The spineless management are asking the public for advice.....
On whether on not to make "anatomically correct" a rendered polygon mesh, idealised representation of a human?
Surely warning signs need adding too; "Do not touch the exhibits."
Have you noticed how provocative the Queen's head is on a 5p piece ? Truly shocking !
His & Hers
Personally, if they're giving the dude a body that most women expect in a man then the least they can do is give her some good boobs. Jesus!
QUOTE: "Strong Internal Advocates"
Shurly it's the Weak External bits!
<coat donned, door already flapping>
Will Gordon promise us a referendum on this issue?
I think that we deserve to be told.
In the mean time I'm just popping out for my constitutional.........
That one word sums it up.
Its a health site, of course the models should be intact with all their bits. I have kids and can fully imagine that the actual lack of a willy would be more puzzling and create more questions than if it was just there in the first place!
Crivens, if they remove them off one section of the site, surely any further educational material featuring dangly bits and the like will have to be removed, give the righteous an inch and they take a mile :[
Sounds like a load of old cobblers to me!
Its all down to the issue
Whether to have faggots in gravy
or in song
same same prudish idiots
As for the American prudes, isn;t that the home of the largest sex movie studios in the world?
a balanced diet
... which the NHS should be advocating ... should always include meat and two veg ...
Quick, somebody tell OFCOM the vote is rigged.....
For those who don't know, the voting is done by email (a mailto: link in the page). Here's what happened next:-
This is the Postfix program at host <my-mail-host>.
I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not be
be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.
For further assistance, please send mail to <postmaster>
If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
delete your own text from the attached returned message.
The Postfix program
<email@example.com>: connect to mail.nhs.uk[188.8.131.52]:
Connection timed out
...no, hang on, don't head off to your bunker yet, I'm an idiot!
No really, I sent my vote from my company 'internal' email account!
Hey, c'mon, It's the last week before Christmas, I disengaged my brain some time ago.
Just make a bloody decision!
Call me sexist but I suspect those behind the decision to consult lack a few anatomically correct bits themselves....
don't let this "hang" around
we americans are very modest, and genitals scare us. on the other hand, we have no problem looking at said genitals IF they have been blown up or shot off....... a vote for no pixilation is a vote for work friendly porn imo
Removing the genitals
may affect the sensibilities of sluts and faggots.
At least the NHS asked us first, I'm all for putting things to a public vote, true democracy in action.
This *is* the 21st century isn't it?
They have computers a thousand times more powerful than those that calculated the orbit of the Apollo XI spacecraft to get it safely to and from the moon. I'd have thought they should be able to do *BOTH* with and without genitalia versions without too much trouble; and make it a user preference choice when being viewed.
Let's face it if they can do this stuff in games, GTA (hot coffee anyone?), then the NHS should be able to also. Child's play in fact.
If you ask me?
you guys are all nuts.
Who cares -- it's a medical site anyway.
Don't be calling me a yank over this.
First and foremost
it is a health site. They have a duty to use anatomically correct models.
What if a boy wants to know more about how the penis and testicles work? What will he be shown when he zooms in to see a labelled diagram? Same goes for girls.
Imagine the boy...
clicks on the website
has a closer look
checks inside his trousers
screams because he's got all these weird lumpy bits which the computer says he shouldn't have...
Seriously, with all the smut already available it seems stupid to censor a scientific, medical info site. Keep it clinical, and you'll be fine.
- Fee fie Firefox: Mozilla's lawyers probe Dell over browser install charge
- 20 Freescale staff on vanished Malaysia Airlines flight MH370
- Did Apple's iOS literally make you SICK? Try swallowing version 7.1
- Neil Young touts MP3 player that's no Piece of Crap
- Review Distro diaspora: Four flavours of Ubuntu unpacked