Talk:Ejaculation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ejaculation article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Censorship warning

This topic may attract censorship. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not censored.

Articles may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Images or details contained within this article, in particular, may be graphic or otherwise objectionable in order to ensure complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to our content disclaimer regarding objectionable content.
WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
Start This page has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance assessment scale
Sexology and sexuality
Sexuality Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Archive
Archives
  1. June 2006 & prior
  2. June 2006 - Feb 2007


Contents

[edit] Censorship, What is it really?

I have read this entire talk page and have found it to be utterly rediculous. As soon as an image that may be objectionable is put forth for deletion, the hordes of civil liberties pundits descend to defend its "educational purpose." Censorship as a negative term applies to a government or ruling body that denies its people the right to express a certain view, or set of text or images, etc. Censorship in and of itself is NOT a negative thing. Wikipedia is censored. There are a multitude of subjects which will never be written about here. They may have a policy against censorhip in most cases, but wikipedia cannot be free of all order. If, for example, I were to post extensive instructions detailing the synthesis of VX or Tabun nerve agents, and give the names of manufacturers who could provide the materials, I would be "doing a service to wikipedia" according to the majority here. But what service am I doing to society? Some things must be kept from the general populus, no matter what the cost, because some people quite simply do not have the means to deal with all information. Censoring individual beliefs to protect a flawed government is WRONG, censoring dangerous or harmful information to protect the people BY a just government is noble. Having now defined censorhip as a neutral term, I would like to proceed. This page has become nothing more than a test case for what will be allowed on this "encyclopeadia." Luckily for us, the majority of the english speaking world has clearly defined obscenity laws. I would suggest that we find out where the server containing this article is located, and having done so defer to the common law of that sovereignty. For example, if the server is in the United States, the image and videos would fall under the scrutiny of the Miller test. (This has yet to be cleared from the supreme court; I am merely stating that we SHOULD apply the law of the land in this case.) Referencing my first point, synthetic methods of nerve agents should not be exactly portrayed on wikipedia because of the inherant dangers they pose. Following this logic, we must eliminate all information from this encyclopedia which will invariably cause harm to a majority of people. There is a big distinction here. Knowing what VX and Tabun are may save lives; at the very least this information serves general intellectual curiosity. Knowing exactly how to synthesize them from anywhere in the world with internet access is, on the other hand, asenine. Likewise, knowing what ejaculation is is crucial to sexual education, however knowing the exact visual detail of the process is unecessary and possibly harmful to some audiences. Bringing this all back to the ejaculation video, I think we must determine if it will cause harm (like synthetic methods of nerve gasses) or if it will be generally informative. Material involving the specific portrayal of genitals and fluidic emissions has long been considered obscene in the US and abroad. Aroused genital portrayal and fluidic emission are also two of the credentials for determining if something is pornographic. The Venus de Milo would never be construed as blatant pornography because genitals are not shown in detail. However, if it were painted with a clearly engorged vulva spewing forth a given vaginal discharge, it would be cast in a different light. I will concede room for argument on the previous points, but not the following. The assertion that wikipedia is censorship free does not mean lack of censorship here is just or warranted. If this policy was found to be illegal, and in conflict with the common law of most nations, wikipedia would be forced to ammend it. This video is in fact in violation of United States regulation 2257 (a subset of the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988) , stating that all sexually explicit materials must be labeled as such, and all models in such materials must be verifiably of age (18 in the case of the bill.) The ejaculation video is sexually explicit; it contains vivid portrayal of aroused genitals and fluidic emission. Therefore, if the material was produced in the United States, or if the server that contains this article is in the United States, it is in violation of federal law and should be removed to save the foundation a lengthy legal battle that will cost it more than it is worth. This needs to be looked at form a legal standpoint, not a moral one. If I seem to be against the images and video , it is only because I believe them to be in violation of the law as unlabled, unverified sexually explicit materials. If these issues are resolved, I have no legal case against their use.**note, I have discovered that Wikipedia's servers are hosted in Florida, meaning that the site in general does fall unde r the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988. I would like to see further investigation of state law in this case, as I am not familiar with the specific laws of the state of Florida** Whiteknight521 (talk) 08:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. There's that famous quote by a high-ranking judge (supreme court?) who said something like "I know porn when I see it." This is clearly not pornography in that the ejaculation videos are free of any external stimulus or any sex act for that matter. They are very clinical and only demonstrate the pelvic region - the one guy even has a shirt on. I'm not a lawyer, but I would wager that this does not fall under the child protection law, and, hasn't that been successfully challenged in court? Anyway, regardless of that, if a natural bodily function is offensive to some people, said people should not be doing a search for "ejaculation" because the topic itself is likely to offend them. The rhetoric in the preceding post would be laughed at in an educational setting, such as a medical school. To my knowledge they don't "censor" (or whatever) this kind of info at U.S. medical schools. And, isn't that the purpose of encyclopedia, to provide thorough information on a topic? If one can't view the real-life process of an ejaculation, words probably can't do justice to this process if one has never viewed it in person. Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


Actually, the rhetoric in the preceding statement is often used in educational settings. Anatomical textbooks have long used illustrations over photographs for such things. Medical doctors don't need photographs of anatomy in a textbook because they are readily available elsewhere, and anatomy lab courses preclude their necessity. Protection of sensitive information is different than censorship. Obscenity laws do not require that something be pornographic in nature, only that it be sexual in nature and offensive to the majority of people. I see the video as unecessary to understanding the process of ejaculation, furthermore having video captures in addition to a motion film is pointless and clutters the article, one of them at the very least should be deleted. Again, I can't view uranium isotope separation, or vx gas synthetic methods, and no amount of thought-policing rhetoric will ever change that. Encyclopeadias are not meant to provide as much information that exists about any topic, but whether wikipedia is an actual encyclopeadia or not is debatable. I believe the cry of censorship allows rediculous articles to be posted and defended that are educationally unnecessary. Medical doctors see what they are entitled to see because they must know far more than the average person about anatomy and physiology in order to properly do their job. Gynecologists can perform pelvic exams on unfamiliar women with no social recourse because they are doing a service to society that protects the public from disease. It is all perspective; information of that nature has always been on a need to know basis. At the very least there needs to be some sort of disclaimer that this article contains graphic depictions of sexual function, or the results thereof.The viewer is given no choice as to whether they want to view the graphic process of ejaculation. There are many people, to be sure, that are interested in the academic and intellectual aspect of ejaculation but have no desire to watch a video of someone ejaculating. I do not think it violates wikipedia's policies to add a disclaimer, and at the very least this should be done. Even health network shows are subject to those laws, and they use nothing but clinical footage. Whiteknight521 (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sad to see Wikipedia has been condemned to be ruled by stupid and ignorant puritans and/or nazi-fascistoid obscurantists. KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.155.188.4 (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

One would think that ignorant would be a term best applied to those who resort to personal attacks without appealing to logic. Whiteknight521 (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] For paedophiles by paedophiles

If it causes offence to many people in education as is the case, then ask yourselves is it necessary to have these images ?


but there is still a controversy with unclear parameters here. Therefore, the issue is "borderline" and "debatable". What I think we should try to avoid is having people come to Wikipedia and encountering an "unpleasant surprise" -- especially since the quality of this Wiki article would NOT be diminished in any way by excluding genital masturbation pictures, videos, or illustrations. Since we have linkimages and resource links where people can find visual examples, the pictures and the controversies surrounding them is not necessary on Wikipedia. With a linkimage the user can have the option to see it or not see it. APatcher 09:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm only going to respond to your first paragraph, since I'm tired of discussions of (self-)censorship. It's true, the picture doesn't look like the majority of ejaculations - it is idealized. This is not rare. We have idealized pictures of apples, clouds, and crowns too. Encyclopedia images are rarely "average" examples - they're usually ideals. LWizard @ 11:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
the picture isn't needed on this page. A link to an image elsewhere is suffienct. Then people can activlty chosse to view it - as in the case of the video.
i can handle a link, but a picture up front is ridiculous —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bellst589 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC).
Is age even relevant? I think for something to be child porn it has to be porn (though I could be wrong). In any case, we can't very well tell the age by looking. I think based on the musculature and the size of the penis he must be done growing, so probably at least 17. LWizard @ 10:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Since everyone is insisting on having a picture, I bought one that shows less of the body of the person. Although I am still not fully convinced that we should have any pictures, this one is a good alternative. Also, the age of the person can not be judged by the picture. In addition, this is what an ejaculation looks like when fully completed (more realistic that what we have now). I'm not sure if the seller's organization info or the price paid should be included in the records/history. I'd rather not say because I don't necessarily approve of the overall site/business that sells these, but if I must, I will.

I dare not publish this on the article page myself due to the reactions any little change seems to create in this article. I don't know if people would rather see this picture anyway.

Image:Ejaculationexample001.jpg

APatcher 00:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


I came to this page thinking of learning something new, and instead I am taken back and a little offended. Since simply that image is overly graphic and doesn't add anything that a simple drawing would give. N1person 21:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If someone could contribute a drawing, I think that would be great. I'm sick of the arguments over these types of pictures. RJASE1 Talk 21:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I was looking for a drawing or illustration, but could not find one that could be borrowed or bought. I even suggested above that we use an external link (but that didn't go over well). However, I think the picture I mentioned above ( Image:Ejaculationexample001.jpg ) would be less controversial (and more accurate). People are constantly deleting the image that is there now, so I think just about any new image or new idea is worth a try. I thinik one of the reasons why people keep on deleting the current image is because it shows too much of the nude body of the boy. All that skin really catches the eye, and at first glance it does look like porn. APatcher 10:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't like the ejaculationexampls001 image much. I think the current image is better. Atom 12:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree a drawing would be much better. We should replace the current image as soon as a suitable drawing can be made or found. I have given numerous reasons for this in the archives. I will state them again if necesary but I don't want to take up too much space for now. Johntex\talk 15:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that the situation is very much similar to that in any of the pages having to do with Sex. In none of the pages do we have pictures of people having sex. Simply because it lowers the Encyclopedic value of Wikipedia. Even if a drawing wouldn't demostrate it as well it would most certainly be more Encyclopedic and less offensive to the majority of casual Wikipedia viewers. I understand how we do not censor Wikipedia, but do you think that it would be appropraite to say, have that image in print in any sort of public place? N1person 20:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I think all of APatcher's comments have been spot-on. In an attempt to help resolve the controversy, let me observe that no one believes that a drawing would be unacceptable, and also that pretty much everyone believes that a photograph that doesn't come across as porn (regardless of whether it satisfies the technical definition of pornography) would also be O.K. Perhaps a way we could resolve this discussion would be to agree on a set of criteria that a photograph should have, and then, if we cannot find a photograph that meets these criteria, then we find or make a drawing that does.--Atemperman 04:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The reason Wikipedia has policies is to solve issues like this. The image is scientific, and is directly applicable to the topic. If some users think it is pornography, then perhaps the problem is with their perception. The image illustrates the topic extremely well. As forapatchers comments, I didn't agree with them at all. From my own personal experience, I would have to say that the image seems very accurate. Perhaps some people's semen "seeps" out when they ejaculate, but at age 50, and after approximately 10,000 orgasms, mine still looks and ejaculates pretty much like the image. The imahe is there to be representative of the topic though, not to be accurate in all cases. There continues to be people who want to censor images that they think are too sexual. That philosophy is their right, but it is a case where their views do not fit Wikipedia culture and polcies, not a case where Wikipedia should change to suite them. Wikipedia is not censored. Just because some small minority of people who have either been reading their holy book too much, or watching too much porno, or both happen to think that an image of ejaculation is offensive is no reason to limit them. The more that people are exposed to honest and natural images, such as this, the less they are offended by them, and the more they realize that something like this image is no more notable that a picture of a person on a bicycle. Atom 21:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    • That Wikipedia is not censored only implies that we can have nude and sexually explicit images in articles related to nudity and human sexuality, not that we must. The choice of images, and whether to display such images inline or as links, is, of course, a question of editorial discretion, to be settled by consensus. I see little support for inline markup for the photograph on this article, and strong opposition. Notwithstanding conjectural arguments that the editors concerned with this page are somehow unrepresentative of the Wikipedia community, there is a clear and present consensus to de-inline the image. John254 02:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • The only problem with a drawing is it's not something that is easy to draw. Drawing liquids, in general, is difficult and rarely accurate. On the Pre-ejaculate page, they do not have the picture on the page itself.

They have a little box with a note on the Pre-ejaculate page.

I think that is a great idea. This way, nobody gets an "unpleasant suprise", yet people who need a picture can access one.

Atemperman -- The second photo suggestion I made above is less like porn. Image:Ejaculationexample001.jpg The current image on the page looks fake anyway. Nevertheless, I think as long as we don't have the picture blatently on the page, it won't be such a problem. APatcher (talk · contribs) 00:24, 27 February 2007

This picture is too pornographic, and also too funny. Besides, we should also stop posting pictures of the horrible other sexual organs on Wikipedia. 74.70.251.115 16:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Obligatory section break

I have examined it very closely, and the picture we currently have is fake. However, Atom says that it is still a good example, so I will certainly include it in the new format.

My personal issue with the pictures has nothing to do with being "offended". I have worked with human sexuality images for quite some time. My problem with it is the fact that it is representative of a very small (rare) minority of men. I'm not suggesting we delete the picture and have nothing. But if we have a picture that is less pornographic and is representative of many more people (and not fake), then I think we should at least include it somewhere.

As far as censorship is concerned, the whole problem as I see it, is the fact that the current format causes major controversy. If that can be reduced or ended AND the remedy does not detract from the article, then I think we should try the remedy. APatcher 12:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I really object to the censorship here. Wikipedia is not censored (why else do we have articles on fuck, shit, etc.?). All I've seen about these images is that there's a disbelief that the man who photographed himself (who has not returned to discuss anything) is that it's too unrealistic or it's someone underage because he doesn't have chest hair or something. There are no such objections to having an image of a human breast at breast or other pages that discuss the aspects of human anatomy that induce laughter in teenaged boys. I'm frankly tired of having to see all the hullabaloo concerning one image that is encyclopedic, is free for use on Wikipedia, and has only been discussed because of the fact that people don't believe men can look like that.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
There is no censorship here. Using editorial discretion to decide what is encyclopedic is not censorship. Censorship is when the government or some central authority forces you to do something. It is not censorship if we reach the decision ourselves. We get that you like the image, but it is not accurate to cry "censorship" if other edits want to discuss removing it. Johntex\talk 01:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
There is no censorship in Wikipedia. There is only the occasional arrogance of certain self-hired saviours of the everlasting bourgeois christianoid morality. KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.155.188.4 (talk) 15:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I have put Image:Ejaculationexample001.jpg up for deletion. Infofreak 15:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
On what grounds have you nominated the image for deletion? Johntex\talk 01:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I have put this image up for deletion on the grounds that it is unencyclopedic. Now, since there is NO definition of the word unencyclopedic (a completely fictitious "wiki-only" bullshit word anyway) in the wiktionary, and nowhere else that I can find for that matter, I'll give you mine. I define unencyclopedic as meaning "unfit for inclusion in an encyclopedia", thus by saying that this image is unencyclopedic I am saying that this image is unfit for inclusion in an encyclopedia. What standard am I using as a gauge to arrive at this determination? The very sources that set the standard for encyclopedias in the first place. Print encyclopedias. Now I know that Wikipedia is not a print encyclopedia, but the fact that print encyclopedias set the standards for the rest cannot be denied. I searched Brittanica, and World Book for an image like Image:Ejaculationexample001.jpg and Image:Ejaculation_sample.jpg. I couldn't find a single one. I discovered that they didn't use images this graphic for examples in their sexuality articles at all. Therefore, I came to the conclusion that if the print encyclopedias that set the standards that others have followed did not use images like this, then they must consider them "unfit for inclusion in an encyclopedia", thus unencyclopedic. Since Wikipedia calls itself an encyclopedia, then it seems logical that this image would be considered unencyclopedic here too. My reasoning on this matter has absolutely nothing to do with censorship. Now JohnTex, I want you to tell me why you think Image:Ejaculationexample001.jpg is encyclopedic. Infofreak 08:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the new ejaculationexample001. This article is about ejaculation, and I don't see how that image illustrates that well. It is a picture after ejaculation. It could be a candidate for the masturbation, or semen articles, if it were good enough, but is a poor example of ejaculation. Do other people think that the image is not very good for this topic? Atom 23:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I have the whole set of the frames from start to finish. In the beginning, it shows the ejaculation spurt. But you probably won't like any of those anyway, and then it will get nominated to be deleted by someone else; so why bother? APatcher 00:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  1. Ejaculationexample001 is better than the other one Image:Ejaculation sample.jpg The focus of the Ejaculation_sample.jpg picture is obviously on the well-proportioned "sexy" male body rather than the tiny white line of what is supposed to be semen way off in the distance.
  2. Enlarge the Image:Ejaculation sample.jpg picture 400% or 600% and you will notice that it has been altered. They forgot to complete or fully replace the shadow of the penis. The penis shadow has an abrupt straight line across the top rather than the natural curvature of the glans. Another indicator of a false picture is the fact that the stream of semen appears as an arc when the picture is small. But when enlarged, it is evident that it is actually made up of 3 different white-line segments that are all straight lines and completely continuous. The white line seems to be coming from behind the penis rather than the hole in the glans. At the end of the white lines is an abrupt turn or bend. If all that does not convince you, watch some of the Kinsey Institute movies on ejaculation. They just don't look like that. I did a thesis project that required me to examine exactly 1,000 different pictures and movies of men's ejaculations. This does not make my opinion any more important than anyone else's opinion in this discussion, but I am basing what I am saying on my experience.
  3. The penis in the picture is longer than 98.4 percent of all penises. It is at least 7.5 inches (or more), which puts it in the top 1.6 percentile. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human_penis_size I'm not suggesting we have to find something that is exactly average or "statistically correct". But when something is as rare as that, it is a distraction from the topic supposed to be on the page. I DO NOT go around trying to censor or get people to remove genital pictures. The fact is, this one really caught my eye because it is such an unreal spectacle. This picture is not typical or even an "ideal". Rather, it is "unreal".
  4. I think the pic was obviously originally taken to arouse rather than to inform. Most likely, it was copied from a porn site by someone who wanted bragging rights. Porn sites have a definite reputation for enhancing, altering, or faking ejaculations and penis sizes.APatcher 09:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware it was altered. Although most of what we see every day in the movies and in ads is altered. Not a big deal for folks there. I will say that most of the pictures in the anatomy books and exercise instruction, such as the well defined muscles of the human form. Many animal and anatomy pictures in books are drawn or painted outright. It's difficult to learn the seperate muscle groups without any size or definition of the muscles. I believe Michelangelo is in for some criticism there too. Perhaps this picture can be considered in the same context. That is, a small, limp penis dripping hidden in buldging flesh with a few drips running out may be more realistic but probably not the best example for clarity. Else, perhaps a drawing is all that is needed. Trevor100a 17:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well User:Trevor100a shows up just in time to tell us all that he was not aware that his submitted photo Image:Ejaculation_sample.jpg was altered? The original summary on the page for this image that Trevor wrote himself stated "A picture of Trevor ejaculating as an educational demonstration". We were led to believe by User:Atomaton and your summary of this image that you were the person in the photograph and that you had made this image yourself to help settle a dispute about another ejaculation image that no one wanted to use because it had been altered. Now it sounds like you are saying that not only did you not make this photo, it is not even you in the photo. I believe that after all of the shit that we have suffered through in trying to resolve the issues about this image on this article, I believe that we deserve the honest truth about the origin of this photograph and it's copyright status. Trevor, is it you in the photo? Did you make the photo yourself? If not, where did you get it? And User:Atomaton needs to come clean on his evidently fabricated story about this image too and explain to us why he "sanitized" the summary on the page of this image after the request for deletion process was over. Infofreak 21:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I think APatcher is just analyzing the image too much, and again, it's more complaints against how the picture is of an atypical penis, even thinking it was shopped. That is, unless the man in the photograph is not Trevor100a.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Frankly the image looks pretty normal to me. You can see he has three fingers around it, and my estimate makes it at 6.5 to 7 inches. Roughly the size of my own. I would be suprised if it, or my own endowement were "longer than 98.4% of all penises." As for this other nonsense, I haven't heard anyone (including Trevor)suggest that the image has been altered. If someone feels that way, I think they should provide more than speculation. Where did you get the idea that Trevor had said that the image was not his own? As for "fabricated stories" read the archives. Atom 22:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Three fingers is about 2½ inches in width. When I multiply that by 3 widths, it is not 6.5. And including your own penile dimensions is just not nesessary, thank you.
  • But anyway, I think the more important point made above is that it is not Trevor in the picture (although he originally stated it was). In his edit summary, he said, "A picture of Trevor ejaculating as an educational demonstration."
  • Now in his statement that he made on March 2, 2007, Trevor is implying that it is not him. It is obvious he is defending the fact that he thinks it is OK if it is altered (which he did not realize). If it were him in the picture, and he took the picture, and nobody else had rights to it, then nobody could have altered it without him knowing; and his answer would have been clear and unquestionable instead of saying he "was not aware". Now we have no idea who has or had the rights to it. I can't imagine anything that could restore credibility to it now (not that there really was in the first place).
  • The picture is a pose pic for a porn site, and porn sites alter their images to enhance them. That picture is all polished up just the way the porn webmasters do it. The original intent of that picture was to arouse rather than to inform (contrary to Trevor's edit summary, where he says it was a self-made educational demonstration). Enlarge the picture to 600% and look at the shadow pattern of the penis. The shadow was accidentially cut off at the top while they were altering the ejaculation. When a shadow in a picture does not match the object, it is good evidence that someone has been altering it. (By the way, I don't mind that picture if is this is a porn site, but it is not.)
  • There is another picture on the page which is not altered AND it is not "a small, limp penis dripping hidden in buldging flesh with a few drips running out" either. I know for a fact that the person in the other picture is about 150 pounds and has approximately a 6 inch erect penis. So, there's no "buldging flesh" or any of that other stuff Trevor mentioned. I also have the whole set of those pictures with each one depicting a different stage of the ejaculation process. The first or second frame shows a normal spurt of semen, then the pictures show how it winds down to a dribble near the end.
  • You need to enlarge Trevor's pic to 400% (at least) to see evidence of altering. If someone likes the picture, they are going to be biased whether they know it or not. The same is true for the inverse of that. I'm not one of the ones who deleted it or one that encouraged its publication. I am not a "morality censor". It just is what it is to me. I'm only speaking on behalf of the fact that it has caused so much controversy, and we can have something else that is not as controversial without sacrificing the quality of the article. Besides, I think this is the only really questionable photo in any of the sexuality articles. APatcher 05:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • To keep something like that just because Wikipedia is not censored is silly. No matter what else can be said about the picture, the fact remains -- It's a poor quality example, and others have made that same point in this discussion. At one time, I may have supported including the picture if that is all we had. It is better than nothing. However, we have other pictures and a video now that are better examples. APatcher 05:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I want to point out, that founder of Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales, removed some picture from Creampie (sexual act) before. He has done right thing in my opinion, because serious encyclopedia is really not the place for pornography. (BTW - you can see this picture here; NSFW!) Gen. Klinker Hoffen 23:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inline Links

Someone removed the inline links on the grounds that it is censorship. Why would having an inline link to a picture hosted on this domain be censorship? There is nothing "censored" or cut out. It is the same exact picture. An inline link is simply another way to access a picture. In this case, it is a better way. I'm not just someone who is coming along changing pictures into links. I am an editor of the article, a contributor, and someone who is participating in the discussion. A respectable editor said above that we have come to a "consensus" regarding the actual pictures within the article. After looking at all the comments, I agree that is true. I was acting on that reality.

It's true that Wikipedia is not censored. It's not true that we MUST display these images on the article page. We are not required to FORCE people to view these pictures either. I think the reader should have the option to see them if they need to see them. I like having options, and so do most other people. One of the most attractive things about the Internet and Wikipedia is the fact that readers have the option to see content that they want to see when they want to see it. I want to put the inline links to the pictures back in because it does not detract from the article to have inline links. Someone please tell me to do it (or do it yourself if you know how). APatcher 10:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

<> The reason we should not linkimage this image is because there is no need. The policies that are being worked on do not suggest that this type of image should be linkimaged. I am opposed to linkimage because the purpose of images is to provide a quick clear understanding of the subject matter. If we linkimage something as normal as this, what other Wikipedia images would be start linkimaging? HOw about the breast article, and then the penis article, and then why not the BDSM article and the nudity article. After all, anyone could just click on the link to see them. It is just a bad idea, and an excuse to eliminate perfectly normal images that some puritan mindedn people find offends them. The solution is for people like that to get used to the idea that nudity and sexuality are perfectly normal, and see them no differently than someone riding a bicycle. Atom 22:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

=

  • Who is writing the "policy" and where is it? You make it sound like all this is already decided. The page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sexology_and_sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines clearly states "References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy"." I don't even see the beginnings of a fair consensus anywhere. If those pages ARE the consensus, then what I am saying accounts for a large percentage, because there are only a handful of people saying anything. Also, I'm not the only one suggesting this sort of thing. On this page, Johntex and Atemperman also seem to be trying to be realistic and neutral.
  • On the issue of morality - To defend the civil rights of that picture is just like preaching to the choir as far as I'm concerned. It's a waste of time. In the past, I have worked as a volunteer editor for two other major sexuality projects that were designed to be an outlet for liberal sexual bias (dmoz.org/Adult and rawpsy.com). It is the magnitude of this controversy rather than the issue itself that motivates me. That is why I seek to facilitate a practical compromise. Now you have someone (me) calling the picture into question based on a number of other topics besides morality, none of which are Puritan minded. If you just want to use Wikipedia as a platform for rights to free speech and convincing people there is nothing wrong with nudity, then you will get the controversy you're seeking. On the other hand, if you want to create the best quality articles that are realistic and useful, you may have to compromise.
  • On the issue of linkimages - I think putting images behind links is a workable compromise. Wikipedia is not a picture gallery anyway. The article is just as clear and just as real with a linkimage. The linkimage capacity is a technological advancement of the Web. It makes things like Wikipedia better than a conventional encyclopedia, and I don't see any problem with using it. I'm trying to argue a moderate viewpoint here, and that is not as easy as screaming from the left or from the right.
  • If the breast article, the BDSM article, the penis article, or the bicycle article end up in this kind of passionate never-ending debate, then they probably should compromise also.
  • When you say it's "just a bad idea" or an "excuse to...". then debate stops making sense. Also, not everyone who wants a change is a "Puritan-minded" person. Statements like that turn this whole thing into something personal. So now I end up saying something personal since the ball is rolling? Then it becomes everyone's personalities rather than principles? Those statements also show your true reasons for being so passionate about this topic. It's just another "sex-positive" political platform. It's just another soap box to stand on to proclaim how those so-called lousy puritanical people on the right wing are infringing on our political freedoms. Doing that causes articles to be biased. Do we need political propaganda in an encyclopedia?
  • Your "solution" for offended people seems questionable. People generally do not become more open-minded when they are forced to see sexual pictures in an encyclopedia. People are more likely to change their mind if they are given a choice by virtue of a subtle hint (like a linkimage) rather than forcing them to see more of what they think hate. Allowing a person to use their own curiosity to investigate these things makes users feel more "in control" and also more likely to moderate their extremist views.

APatcher 06:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A suitable compromise

Why couldn't we remove all of the current photos and the video and just use this instead? It is no more shocking or offensive than the images that are already on the article. NightFlyer 14:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  • At least that would be real. By the way, it's not offensive in my opinion. There is no question on the intent of that video either. The ejaculation, being the subject, is very clear. As long as it is a GIF file and not some OGG extention that people need to figure out, there should be no problem.
  • As far as actually doing this is concerned -- I'm not sure certain people are interested in compromises. Some people are too busy defending the civil rights of the status quo. They are bent on the issue, and anything different from what they think is labeled censorship and closed-minded. They think Wikipedia is a place to express "sex-positive politics". They want to cite First Amendment rights and all sorts of other legal protections rather than entertain the idea of a compromise and a solution. They figure that as long as they keep talking down any alternatives that they are somehow protecting their rights and making any dissenting viewpoints just "go away". Just about all moderate viewpoints in these discussions get chased away. Then we just have a never-ending clash between the far left and the far right. That is why this discussion truly is a never-ending image debate. APatcher 05:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of this because I find looping videos distracting. LWizard @ 06:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • (They can be edited so they do not loop continuously. It could be set to do it 5 times or so and then stop. This is done with a GIF Contstruction Set. If the user refreshes the page, it will start over.) APatcher 07:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Ejaculation pic - nice, I like it. Tell me how to ejaculate now.

I object to this picture because it is not representative of a normal male penis. You will note that it is short and this guy has really small balls. We don't want to give boys who look at this video a complex, or give girls the mistaken impression that this disappointing specimen is "normal" for the male member, it may cause them to become lesbians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.30.121.23 (talk) 19:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spooge

I've been thinking, does anyone think we should not use the word "spooge" in this article? Because to spooge means to ejaculate, and the GIF there shows a man spooging, but is the word "spooge" offensive? JMO. --Angeldeb82 21:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
It's a bit informal, and shouldn't be used in an encyclopedia outside lists of slang. I'm not seeing this word currently used in the article, so I don't think it's an issue. / edg ☺ ★ 21:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Withdraw of picture donation

I am going to withdraw my picture donation from this article Image:Ejaculationexample001.jpg for two reasons -

(1) It seems to be causing more controversy instead of less.

(2) If the picture is going to be posted in this article with no linkimage, then it is not courteous to the public. Now I have people sending me AOL IMs and emails about it, and I don't really need that. Someone said to me that it is just not decent to make people see those pictures without a notice/linkimage. She's right. Just because Wikipedia is not censored should not mean that we can't try to be decent, respectful, and courteous to the end users.

She also said she originally thought the pictures were a prank, and that we lose all credibility if people assume this is all a joke. She's right again. She also said the one boy in the picture was very attractive. She liked the picture but doesn't like to have to see it with no notice/linkimage. Therefore, she's not some kind of Puritan-minded person with a right wing agenda.

We spend all this time debating and defending our rights to not be censored and our rights to freedom. Meanwhile, we're being just plain RUDE to the public by showing these pictures without a notice/linkimage. Obviously I am not exempt from this either, so I am including myself in that "we" statement.

You CANNOT revoke a GFDL grant on a document (see Wikipedia:Submission_Standards#License_to_edit_mercilessly_and_redistribute). Your opinion as to whether the picture should be deleted is welcome, but it carries no more weight than that of any other user. It is not yours to revoke the permission. The Wednesday Island 00:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Your opinion carries no more weight than that of any other user either. I obviously WANT the picture in the PUBLIC DOMAIN. I put it in this article, and THEY (editors) complained above. That is why it is removed here. Of course, the picture might be used somewhere else. I seriouly doubt you have an interest one way or the other as far as that picture in this article. Do you? This is a tough topic. Please don't make it any tougher. By the way, that submission guideline does not really cover whatever you're trying to say here. APatcher 21:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not expressing an opinion here as to whether the picture should be in the public domain, or should be included in this article. I am pointing out that when you donated the picture you donated it under a perpetual licence, which cannot be revoked, as Wikipedia:Copyrights clearly explains:
However, you can never retract the GFDL license for the versions you placed here: that material will remain under GFDL forever.
I am just making you aware of the consequences of your previous actions. The Wednesday Island 22:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading video

Firstly this video is on rewind replay mode giving the impression to those young girls wishing to view this porn that ejaculation has no limit.

Do you somehow know that all the people reading this page are both young, and female, or do you assume that only such people will "wish to view" it? And what's your second point? The Wednesday Island 03:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Well I'd be pretty embarassed if I was with a girl and she thought I didn't cum enough. What if she said "is that all you can shoot?" lol.
You don't really believe that anyone out there is going to think that, once stimulated to orgasm, the human male spends the rest of his life spurting away in an endless loop, do you? This is all covered in the text. The image isn't at the top of the page, and if the loop ran only once, it would have finished by the time anyone got to it. The Wednesday Island 22:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I object to this picture because it is not representative of a normal male penis. You will note that it is short and this guy has really small balls. We don't want to give boys who look at this video a complex, or give girls the mistaken impression that this disappointing specimen is "normal" for the male member, it may cause them to become lesbians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.30.121.23 (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


I speak english just a bit, then I'll try to express me. The video in this article -I think- has some virus. I use Firefox, and I had troubles. I have wroten, for example, "torturas" but in the search box appears "sarutrot". All of this after I tried to see the video. Can you do something? I thought that's a educational video, because I search a video about the physiology of the human ejaculation, but... u.u.. Wikipedia is for everyone, why somebody tries to boycott it when it's so useful? Forgive me my mistakes, I speak spanish, Speak english is ¿pretty hard? to me. Thanks!

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Linkimage

Template:Linkimage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100% with everything that has been said this is too graphic for most viewers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John121206 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] “Went back to consensus image to avoid controversy” – The Great and Powerful Atom has spoken

I say “Pay no attention to the Activist behind the curtain” ! Let’s analyze your statement above. “Consensus image”. What consensus? Reading all of the negative responses to this image on the Talk Pages of this article as well as all of the edits to remove this image clearly proves that there is No Consensus to have this image on this article. When I put this image up for deletion, it was decided that this image should not be deleted from Wikipedia. That decision did not mean that there was a consensus reached to keep this image on this article, it just meant that this image should not be deleted from Wikipedia. Now lets look at the next part of your statement, “to avoid controversy”.This image IS the controversy ! Are you insane ? No, you are an Activist ! Atomaton, I know why you so vehemently support this particular image when others equally informative but less explicit and graphic are available . This particular image promotes your brand of “in your face, anything goes” sexuality that hides behind the banner of “Wikipedia is not censored”. You use Wikipedia as your soapbox to stand on, and your position as an Administrator to jam images like this down the throats of the rest of us here and then protect those images from being removed or replaced. The cold hard truth of the matter is that your view of sexuality is a Minority view in the real world outside of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an exclusive “Members Only” club, it is open freely to every person on this planet where the true majority lies. Atomaton, I have an interesting challenge for you. The Wikipedia:Wikiproject Sexology and sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines clearly states that “All images should be from the Wikimedia Commons” so here is the challenge. Can you muster the courage to move this image ( Image:Ejaculation_sample.jpg ) from Wikipedia, where you are an Administrator and can control it’s fate, to the Wikimedia Commons where you are not an Administrator as the aforementioned guidelines clearly recommends? And if not, why? Infofreak 10:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I've read this 4 times and I don't see this as a personal attack. I see it as a wise observation and opinion, which Infofreak has a right to express. And I am very eager to hear Atom's answer to his question. 68.215.183.18 22:15, 21 March 2007

(UTC)

  • User:Atomaton's latest and greatest has been to demand of an administrator that the image be undeleted after concerns for 2257 record keeping got it removed. He then began his edit war yet again, [declaring himself to have consensus]. Atom should respond to how, after several months of objections, discussions, replacements, that he feels his unwillingness to compromise constitutes a consensus in his favor. -- jsa 01:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the fact is that the image was improperly deleted. There was an IFD discussion where deletion, following the Wikipedia process, was discussed, and the consensus was to not delete the image. Later, an administrator took it upon himself to delete the image ad-hoc, outside of the process, not realizing that the image had been used for a long time in this article. After discussion with that administrator, he agreed that not following the process was innapropriate, and the same administrator undeleted the image. Rather than suggesting, innacurately, that I declared anything, please see the IFD discussion -- Here. Clearly it was hotly discussed, with many people participating, and my part minor, merely offering my own opinion.

As for the the other discussions here, I haven't responded because much of it seems to be trollish behavior intended to elicit a response, rather than saying anything of substance. Anyone familiar with this article knows that the Trevor image has been here in this article for some time, and the consensus for much of that. One person suggested the Image:Ejaculation Educational Demonstration Still Frame.jpg as a compromise, but that gained no footing. At some time point that image was pushed forward and replaced the consensus image, without no prior agreement or consensus. The ejaculation educatiional sample is therefore inserted without consensus, replacing the longstanding Ejaculation_sampls image which had consensus. One can read the archives to see prior discussions related to that image.

I'm somewhat offended by the attitude various people here have taken. I am contactable by email, as well as on my talk page, and perfectly willing to have discussions related to the editorial quality of this, or other articles. I don't claim to be anyone special, just another editor. My personal opinions have been expressed, and they have always been fair minded and related to what is best for the quality of the article. It is true I am not an advocate of censorship. I seem to be attacked or disparaged by people whose motivation seem to be to censor whatever image they find personally undesirable, disregarding the Wikipedia policies, including the Wikipedia disclaimer, and the policy to not censor.

I'd be happy to have a level headed discussion presenting various potential images for the lede for this article, based on what, from an editorial perspective most adds to the quality of the article, and represents the topic of the article best. Atom 04:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Just too bad that the sum of all discussions is that the current image be removed. As much as you say you are willing to discuss this, you have been unwilling to compromise at any point. And, despite you saying that the image has been here for a "long time", it had only been up a couple of weeks and the subject of many removals when the objections started. It has been nothing but objections ever since. You refused to participate in the discussion for almost a month, during which time you did nothing more than revert the consensus approved replacement of the image. The replacement image remained up for 9 consecutive days without anyone removing it. 9 days "without controversy" until you decided it had died down enough that you could single handedly override consensus. Just because the image survived IfD doesn't mean you have your way with it. Consensus still stands against you. -- jsa 15:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Consensus doesn't stand against anyone. We don't have it. Both sides should stop claiming to have it and start trying to reach it. LWizard @ 22:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Consensus is very in favor of the images removal. This statement is supported by people who have spoken out to have it removed or replaced since it was put up there. This list is comprised of the users User:Joseph_S_Atkinson, User:NightFlyer, User:APatcher, User:Atemperman, User:N1person, User:John254, User:Inforfreak, User:Bellst589, User:ShmosesLEdsall, User:Ts_umbra, User:CyberAnth, and User:Carcharoth. This list doesn't include at least one name because that user was banned for sock puppetry.
User in support of maintaining the current image are User:LizardWizard, User:Atomaton, User:The_Wednesday_Island, and User:Ryulong. I couldn't find anyone else in favor of it, but I am only counting people who have participated in this conversation since December 24, when the image was inserted and the objections started. You could count User:Trevor100a as well I suppose, but it won't really help the case for consensus.
Neither of these lists count anonymous and undiscussed removals, nor the anti-vandalism reverts. Only people involved in the conversations stating a clear opinion in favor of one side or the other. And I will admit, I may have missed a name or two on either side, because this list is composed by hand, not because of bias. I extend my apologies to anyone I may have missed.
It is not the place of a select, elite few to dictate what is shown here. This is also not the forum to try and force people to change their views. Just because people have appointed themselves to Sexology and Sexuality or Anti-Censorship committees doesn't give them any right to push their want on other Wikipedia users, or the general viewing public. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Wikipedia is not a battleground, and lastly, do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point are all applicable and in violation with this matter. The sooner this stops being an edit war and political issue, the more productive these discussions will be and we can all move on.
So, I will state again, consensus very clearly supports removal and/or replacement. Since the image will probably be deleted for WP:PUI anyway, it is better to move on to the more relevant question: What do we replace it with? This really should have been the focus of these conversations since the first objection, but has been derailed at several points by an unwillingness to compromise, claims of censorship, and accusations of reading "the Good Book a bit too much". To that point, I would like to point out that Image:Ejaculation Educational Demonstration Still Frame.jpg is still a potentially offensive image to many people, and semi-protection will have to remain in place to prevent anonymous removals. However, this image is topical, is relevant, is educational, but it is no more sensational than is needed to illustrate the immediate subject. It is also very clear and done with the intention of demonstration. I would lend it my support without any qualms, though I am also willing to entertain other image suggestions. However, images that show people pleasing themselves or that have been doctored in any way will not get my support.
For the record, I have never stated that Image:Ejaculation Educational Demonstration Still Frame.jpg holds consensus, I have stated that Image:Ejaculation sample.jpg and User:Atomaton do not. -- jsa 01:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page of graphs on ejaculation times

[1] - This is from Oxford University and says how long men take to make it to orgasm after intravaginal sex. I reccomend inlcuding this information in the article, as it belongs here.--88.105.62.204 14:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Multi-Wiki consensus in favor of Image:Ejaculation_Educational_Demonstration_Still_Frame.jpg

I believe that the question of an overall consensus being held by this image has been answered by it's use as the lead image across multiple foreign language wikis. As of my post here at this moment, the Image:Ejaculation_Educational_Demonstration_Still_Frame.jpg is not only being used here at [[2]], it is also the lead image at [[3]], [[4]], and [[5]]. Ts umbra 23:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on this and think the image is appropriate given the subject matter. Ejaculation is what it is, no reason not to have the image in the article.

  • It's being used as the lead image on the French article too [[6]]. 208.61.125.132 23:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The image is clear, concise and perfectly shows what the subject matter is about. The image is perfect, imho JayKeaton 07:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This image can be demonstrated in a less pornographic way that's suitable for children. If anything, that video definitley needs to be removed. I and others see it as offending and pornographic. Wwefan980 03:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The video should go - it is essentially superfluous to the main article. Many users here seem far too willing to photograph their genitalia for the benefit of the wikipedia and should be referred to xtube.com if they are so inclined. 70.124.74.142 08:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Many (many) users may be willing to photograph themselves, but few are willing to go to extremes to make it clinical, educational, and using it only where topical. Considering that it is an article about ejaculation, the process of ejaculation is relevant to the topic. Since the video doesn't autoplay itself, if you are disinclined to watch it, don't click the link. The video is "optional" viewing, and its contents are labeled allowing a readers to make the viewing decision for themselves.
Imposing or generalizing a submitters motives violates WP:AGF. Your rationale also strikes me as largely WP:ITANNOYSME. -- JSAtkinson 23:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The rationale is that the video is superfluous to the main article. The rest is simply commentary. Note there are not similar videos on the articles for urination, defecation, sneezing, spitting, vomiting or any other ejection of matter/fluid from the body. The articles are complete without. Apparently no helpful user has seen the need to upload videos relevant to those articles, but the fact that some feel ejaculation must be represented to the minutest level of detail strikes me as unbalanced more than anything else.
I will concede that a video may not be entirely necessary for this article, but can you name one article in which a video would be? The idea here is to be feature rich and educational, while maintaining a neutral point of view. The video in this article is discretely on the page and labeled as to its sensitive content. Since the user must read, and therefore choose to view this content, I see no reason for its exclusion. If you don't like it, don't watch it. Don't want your kids to see it? Don't show it to them. The video is a tool you can choose to use, but you are not obligated to. As for your statement:
"but the fact that some feel ejaculation must be represented to the minutest level of detail strikes me as unbalanced more than anything else."
Might I point you to the article on solipsism? It doesn't make for a rational argument, and in several religions, it is considered a sin.
Additionally, the article on urination does indeed contain a video example, and I would be willing to be that some user contributed it. The articles on other bodily functions may not currently have them, but users are free to contribute them and editors are free to implement them. Welcome to the Wikipedia concept. Please sign your statements using 4 tildes. -- JSAtkinson 08:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Educational Value of the Ejaculation Video

Pornographic ? Not suitable for children ? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia whose purpose is to educate. This video has been put up for deletion two different times and both times the decision was to KEEP. This was one of the posts from that discussion, and why a video of this subject on this article is important. A copy of the post with the link to a post by a concerned father is below :

If you think the video is relevent, than I've got some that I can upload to the "copulation" article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.30.121.23 (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

" No educational value ? Have you read this comment from the Talk page here ? [[7]] I wish they had placed this comment here instead. 216.78.63.102 01:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC) "

Infofreak 11:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The video is kind of ridiculous either way as is the whole concept that someone jerked off FOR Wikipedia. Additionally there's several ways to cum who is to say that is the 'proper' way? Klichka 16:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should actually watch the video, because if you did, you would have noticed that no one jerks off at all. This is largely why the clip has the defenders that it does. It shows the process without excesses. Lots of people do lots of things FOR wikipedia, so long as it has "proper" context, how does this one differ in merit? If you have an objection, you are going to have to do better than it's "ridiculous", because that reason has no weight whatsoever. See WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The number of ways in which to "cum" are totally irrelevant, the video's intent is to show the process, not a myriad of techniques. Ultimately, I'm indifferent about the video or any other content herein. Quality and neutrality are my concerns (as they had preciously been in visibly noticable absence). But, to sway my opinion that the video is inappropriate will require something considerably more thought out than it being "ridiculous". Give me something rational to consider. -- JSAtkinson 06:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I think you're confusing the uses of the word "proper," here. In any case, it's the still that uses that term, not the video. I think the video is fine, anyway. You have to click the link to watch it anyway. Exploding Boy 16:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Would you care to humble me with how it is meant? Klichka 02:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"Ejaculation proper" = the actual point of ejaculation. I'm not saying it can't be reworded, only that I don't think it's intended as you're reading it. Exploding Boy 04:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Many of the "editors" here "jerk off" while "editing" Wikipedia Discussion Pages. Fact!
Anyway, I think it should be considered that when public school teachers see this image, they will ban Wikipedia use in the classroom. Right or wrong it will happen. Is this what we want? WiccaWeb 17:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, why don't we show video on how a guy ejaculate by showing him masturbating his penis? Sounds like a great idea. It's a very therapeutic education (oh yeah - it feels good, babe) - especially for teenage boys and those in their 20s - this may prevent rape and getting HIV/AIDS from multiple sex. --124.183.101.164 15:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Combine Image with Video

It's my suggestion that the video be merged into the infobox for the still frame. Thus making the still frame a placeholder/preview for the video (but retaining the click to view functionality). If noone disagrees, I will do this myself when I wander back around next. -- JSAtkinson 23:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I think that would be a good idea Joseph. Infofreak 10:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linkimage

Why is the current image not behind a linkimage? There is much support for this, including from me, and I do not hear anyone seriously opposing it. 74.210.48.109 05:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This is discussed further up the page. Some people want it in the article text, some don't. The Wednesday Island 15:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Health

It would be really great to see information related to male health and ejeculation in this article. Im pretty surprised there is nothing here about it. A good place to start would be books by Mantak Chia such as The Multi_Orgasmic man.

[edit] The video

Since its acceptable to have this guy ejaculating, what will be next? A video of someone taking a dump for the "defecation" page?

This article is sexist. I believe it must also include a video of a woman demonstrating how to ejaculate. As of now, the article is unbalanced. 72.188.221.142 19:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh please. Give it a break, you know exacly what the subject here is. If you want to bitch about it, why not suggest a male / female section division? WiccaWeb 17:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the video was pretty gratuitous. I didn't really mind it because I'm not a prude. Most people know that most guys over the age of 14 ejaculate on a regular basis. But if we're going to have videos, does that mean a nice graphic porn clip of guys and girls, girls and girls, guys and guys "getting it on" for the copulation article? WiccaWeb 17:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
i wouldn't mind that 149.254.192.115 22:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia was not intended to sate the fetishes of people, it's an encyclopedia not some user-run porn site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobertrxa (talk • contribs) 04:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

How does the guy orgasm with seemingly no stimulation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.28.183 (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That video does appear to be 100% "SPFX". KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.155.188.4 (talk) 02:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV?

The article says "During sexual intercourse or masturbation, most males will find it difficult to resist the psychological temptation to continue the stimulation of the penis to the point of ejaculation once the feeling of orgasm becomes imminent."

Is this really NPOV? Obviously, there is a point when it is impossible to stop the act completing, but to suggest that when a male stimulates his penis (either by intercourse of ejaculation), he will not be able to stop at any stage is surely incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stemur (talk • contribs) 14:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't say "all", it says "most". This is true. WiccaWeb 17:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why all the penis pics and movies?

My 12 year old daughter had this page bookmarked. You all should be ashamed of yourself. I did a little research and found pages having anything to do with a penis have multiple explicit pictures on the page. Curiously, almost all the page relating to the female anatomy are without pics and have diagrams instead, as should be for an encyclopedia. If heterosexual perverts were posting they would post female genitalia, right. With this information, one must conclude that there are many women out there that are dying to post male members for each other to look at, or the more logical explanation is that gay perverts have overtaken Wikipedia. Please do not use the argument that watching a man ejaculate is educational. If it is then so is a video of a woman being penetrated or menstruating. It's kids nature to be curious and look, so it is my duty to try to draw the line to keep these perverts from presenting pornographic material on a supposed educational site. I have retained a lawyer and a computer network engineer and have every intention of prosecuting everyone involved with the objectionable images on this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.145.7 (talk) 06:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Please direct your attention to Wikipedia's risk disclaimer and content disclaimer. If it is your intention to pursue legal action against the foundation, then that is your prerogative; however, legal threats will prove ineffectual in influencing changes and are not tolerated on this site. If you continue to make such threats, you will be permanently prevented from editing Wikipedia until such time as your legal proceedings have been resolved. Consider yourself warned. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey, if you have any free use stuff regarding woman being penetrated or female ejaculation, please upload! We'd gladly use it. Xihix 22:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Please don't blame Wikipedia for your inability to watch what your daughter views on the internet, that is your responsibility, not Wikipedia's.Coldpower27 13:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
lol. this is wikipedia. the website only has what it has. dont use the argument that if this is entirely academic it should include female ejaculation, because im sure there would be videos of that nature uploaded if they had any. please dont make negative assumptions like that. (unsigned)
This attitude only hurts wikipedia.Tgm1024 14:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The video is puerile and unnecessary. I wish those who insist on posting the video of ejaculation would use a mirror instead. Doing so would take less bandwidth, and I am sure they have many opportunities every day.LCP 20:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
71.202.145.7, I understand your predicament, as children these days are indeed everywhere on the internet. But be clear: I don't believe that wikipedia itself is at fault here. Over the years I've seen wikipedia become hijacked by a simplistic (and puerile) notion of "this is wikipedia, anything goes", which is at odds the wikipedia intent and charter. If it makes you feel any better, I'm tempted to modify the pages detailing the human GI tract with a video of me taking a dump. But even that wouldn't get the point across these days. I would have thought it might a year or two ago. But not now, which is sad. Citizendium and | New World Encyclopedia will eventually grow further in part from all this, and IMHO dominate over wikipedia sooner or later.Tgm1024 00:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The video does not belong on an encyclopedia. I mean, geez, don't we have enough porn sites for this?! If the guys who have this article on their watchlist want it so bad, have them mirror it. Diagrams would a lot be better since there we can point out which part does which. I believe it doesn't belong on an Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia for that matter) nor does it in, any way, help out the article. So with that said I'm taking it off. Grifter tm 05:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's funny that Wikipedia has devolved to the level of being a clearinghouse for exhibitionists to get their kicks off of. 67.135.49.158 05:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the 'controllers' of paedophillia or wikipedia need to examine their rasin d'etre. Why does anything related to penis have explicit content only found on pornographic/paedophillia sites? I mean if someone wants to see how defacating is performed, would it be on this site ? My guess is no. So, it becomes more apparent that paedophiles/perverts can have free input on this subject. I mean who is to say otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.59.135 (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

And you're a homophobe... if you haven't noticed, many men, gay and straight, are enthralled with their penises ... and quite a few women for that matter. Read Freud. Anyway, you should be ashamed of yourself for doing a blanket shaming of so many others. Perhaps your daughter was delighted to learn that such topics are nothing to be ashamed of, despite what she has most likely unfortunately learned from you. Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The ejaculation video is of unknown accuracy

Wikipedia is interesting from an anthropoligical point of view. Looking carefully at the arguments regarding the ejaculation video I see a pattern. I personally don't find the video objectionable per se, it's actually a little interesting, but I do strongly maintain that it does not belong in an encyclopedia. There is tone to the arguments that seems to say that because wikipedia is not censured and is of open contribution that any questioning of sutability revolving around potential audiences is by its nature unwarranted. Further, and more importantly, there is also this prounounced undercurrent that if someone wants that video removed, it must be for antequated feelings of propriety. The arguments for keeping that video dance around this carefully, but always seem to land on statements of the form "this is wikipedia". As if keeping such a video is sticking it to the establishment, or something similar.

This only hurts wikipedia, and is in part why wikipedia is gaining a reputation as source of disinformation. This is not a video from the kinsey institute. There is no documenting evidence or attribution whatsoever showing this to be an average or even normal ejaculation. Having that image here is akin to a self attributed quote, or worse, an example of original work. As such, it must be removed. As such I will remove it unless anyone can show how this video's accuracy can be established.

As an experiment I tried removing this video without discussion. It was regarded as wikipedia:vandalism, which is inaccurate because it is a good faith attempt at improving both wikipedia and the article, but still fell within vandalsm probably because of the blanking clause, indicating removal without non trivial reasoning, which makes a fair ammount of sense to me. To the credit of the individual involved I was politely warned with the appropriate assumption in the begining that it may have been a mistake on my part. I was warned repeatedly, until banned for a day or two by an admin. I was looking for a childish reponse to my actions, but did not find it. Again this is to the individual's credit, in my opinion thus far the warning mechanism is sound.Tgm1024 14:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you for coming here to discuss the matter. Secondly, I am curious as to whether you are attempting to implement an existing policy, or to make new policy. If you're attempting to implement existing policy, can you tell us what policy that is? If you're attempting to make new policy, it should apply across Wikipedia and not to this one article. Thirdly, and following from this, how could this be applied consistently in either case across the whole of Wikipedia? For example, if Sheep needs a photo and someone goes out and takes one and uploads it, do we delete it on the grounds that it wasn't certified by a biologist or a veterinarian as a genuine sheep? The Wednesday Island 22:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Existing policy, and yes, unless you want me to be able to cite myself for saying "sheep are wonderfully puffy", then you better delete any sheep photo I supply that similarly lack credibility. Otherwise you have a policy that states that supplied information needs a credible source, except for when it is in the form of a matrix of pixels.Tgm1024 00:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Though the propriety of the video in this article isn't my primary focus, I do have to wonder (with a chuckle) what the proponents of this video would think of the defecation or GI_tract pages containing a video closeup of me taking a dump. I feel rather like that editing this talk page :) to bust on myself a little... Tgm1024 01:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Why is the guy shaved? Surely that's not normative--nor is it necessary to reveal essential detail (as in the article of the vulva). Also, why only a human? Humans are not the only species that ejaculate.LCP 20:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Special "Sexuality" disclaimer tag?

Forgive me if something like this already exists... Is there some kind of Wikipedia disclaimer tag that might warn people who may be disinclined to view "the video" that the article in question containes graphic depections of human sexual function? Personally, I see absolutely no problem with the video being included in the article, however, common sense kinda dictates that if Wikipedia is going to take special precations to protect people from unwittingly seeing movie or TV "spoilers" by providing a special tag, they ought to do the same thing with an article like this, given the varying sensabilities that exist on the issue. This would empower the end user to make their own decision if they want to continue reading the article or not. It would essentially remove all of the "shock value" that seems to be the primary bone of contention. Does some sort of a tag exist? --LoverOfArt 08:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Wait, are you really comparing an article on a biological function to a article on a TV show? Think about it. An article on ejaculation ***SPOILER*** is about ejaculation. Does somehow knowing this spoil your enjoyment of ejaculation? It's not the same, at all. I will give some credit to the notion, it's a courtesy to those who intend to watch a show that it not be spoiled for them. Likewise, it is a courtesy to those who are sensitive to the topic to not force explicit imagery upon them. However, in it's present state, I see nothing in the article that is presented forward that meets any criteria of such. The image Image:Ejaculation_educational_seq_4.png is concealed, and labeled. So what's the beef here? I mean, if you find the topic to be offensive, maybe you shouldn't be looking it up to begin with. There is a huge differnce between courtesy and hand holding, and Wikipedia isn't your mother. -- JSAtkinson 18:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The media about ejaculation serve educational purposes. However we need to consider that many Wikpedia user find this type of explicit images offensive (parents, teachers) and might not use Wikipedia any more as a source of information. Hence by pushing to much for tis type of images on the article page itself we might jeopardize the Wikepdia project itself. 84.72.125.188 (talk) 11:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree, Wikipedia was ultimately meant to be an encyclopedia, and correct me if I am wrong, but encyclopedias, for the most part, are meant to be used for educational purposes. Having a video of someone ejaculating helps no one, a diagram or animation would suffice instead of borderline pornography. Pretty soon wikipedia will be banned by schools and seen as a joke. Bobertrxa (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Link in question: Wikipedia:Content disclaimer (also accessible via the Disclaimers link at the bottom of every page). Also see Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored. Harryboyles 15:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I thought the image on gangrene, for one, was bad enough, but this is a new low. We can arrogantly say "well, it's an encyclopedia. this is educational. therefore it should be allowed", but use some common sense! First of all - it's true parents should be policing their children very carefully on the Internet. There are millions of Wikipedia articles which contain absolutely no content that could possibly be construed as offensive or, dare I say it, pornographic. So I think it can be forgiven that most parents would expect Wikipedia to be a kid-friendly site. But is it not very feasible that a young child, reading about his/her favorite bird, notices a word which he/she has never seen before, clicks on the article, and is greeted by these wonderful, educational pictures of male penises? Is that the parents' fault for not sitting behind their child on the computer 24/7? I don't think so.

I'm not saying these pictures/videos/animations are useless. But if someone wants to know what ejaculation looks like, surely they have the capability to click on some sort of link with perhaps a disclaimer - yes, in an ideal world we wouldn't need a disclaimer or a linkthrough, but it turns out that yes, there are families and parents in the world that don't want their children to see explicit pictures of ejaculation, but don't necessarily have the time to sit behind their children whenever they use the Internet (wow! what a novel thought!).

Maybe parents shouldn't be so uptight about sexuality, and I can agree that these pictures serve some educational purpose, but it seems at this point we are making these decisions not based on educational merit (after all, how much more value does a picture directly in the article have, compared to one that requires a clickthrough to access?), but simply to make a point... ugen64 (talk) 07:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I'd point this out: http://xxx - as it turns out, it seems our friendly contributor is a part-time voyeur (not that you'd ever guess it by seeing both a stillframe and movie of his extension "spritzing" on Wikipedia), and it also seems that the line between "educational" and "pornographic" is a very thin line indeed, eh? Wait... what's the line defined by again?74.133.215.65 (talk) 04:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] new related article

I have written an article about anejaculation. please insert links where it's needed, if you can. -Mormegil 02/12/2007 17.47 UTC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.19.31.152 (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Volume' section: 1-5 mL is vague and not based any actual analysis of variation in volume.

An actual study that measured semen volume (among other characteristics) (Jørgensen, N. et al. 2001 "Regional differences in semen quality in Europe." Human Reproduction 16(5):1012-1019) found median semen volume per ejaculation of 3.6-3.9 mL (depending on the region) and a range (5th to 95th percentile) of 1.6-8.2 mL (for Parisian men) and 1.4-6.7 mL for men in Copenhagen. Hylobius (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can't a tasteful animation be done instead?

Like in medical textbooks. Can't a drawn animation be done instead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.232.154 (talk) 11:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

'Welcome to pornopaedia. 124.184.173.137 (talk) 04:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I nominate this Article for the Article of the Day feature.

All those with me; say 'Yay". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.61.29.11 (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please remove "The typical male orgasm lasts about 17 seconds..."

Please remove the text "The typical male orgasm lasts about 17 seconds but can vary from a few seconds up to about a minute." It can't be accurate. It has no references, and different websites state different amounts of time. Some say 8 seconds, some say 17 seconds, some say other amounts of time. 76.5.116.115 (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's also providing pretty low expectations for boys/men. My orgasms sometimes last well over a minute (and I'm male).

[edit] Please look into the following statement

"Once the first contraction has taken place, there is nothing the male can do to prevent ejaculation taking place."

I have been researching sexuality and I don't think this is true. I won't change it because I don't know how this article defines ejaculation but I know it is possible to hold back sperm during orgasm. Look up "Kegal excersizes" or "multiple orgasms". I didn't do the excersized but by flexing the muscle I found I could hold back almost half the sperm. Keeping it in makes the erection stay firm, allowing for more orgasms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A.dumb.username (talk • contribs) 23:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why the redundancy?

I apologize if this issue has already been directly brought up, I've read through most of the discussion and didn't find very much on it.
While I fully understand that wikipedia is not censored, I've never seen any guideline state that wikipedia should be redundant. So why is there a need for two different videos on this page demonstrating the exact same thing? Any idiot should get the idea with just one video. Most of the arguments I've seen over these videos follow along the lines of either "These are offensive and should both be removed" or "wikipedia isn't censored, so they should both stay." I've seen nothing that gives a logical reason why the page needs multiple examples, while just one would convey the idea perfectly.
So would somebody please give a logical, rational, educational reason (preferably from a reliable source) why there needs to be more than one visual demonstration of the article's subject? Keep in mind I'm not interested in neither the morality of these videos nor the fact that wikipedia isn't censored, as that has already been most adequately covered in this discussion. Simply why any article should need to be so redundant. Shdwninja8 (talk) 04:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problem here, the second video is only wikilinked (I presume because that video is an animated gif, and thus would play automagically when viewing the page which some might find offensive). Anyway, having more than one image is common practice (see kitten for an example) and I don't see why it would be a problem. Showing more than one example of the same thing helps get a better idea of the differences from person to person.
– Apis (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sperm in Pre-Ejaculate

This article says that there is sperm in pre-ejaculate. However, there are studies (linked to in the pre-ejaculate page) that say otherwise. Can someone fix this? And maybe add links to the studies/the other article?

Trexosaurus (talk) 06:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)