Talk:Sex organ

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Requested move 2 Stuff 3 Indirect self-link 4 Hmmm... 5 Foreskin 6 Vulgar image 7 Removing the human bias

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] Indirect self-link

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

[edit] Hmmm...

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

[edit] 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 [1]. 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)

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, [2] - 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

[edit] 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

[edit] 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:

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.

Thoughts?

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.