Talk:Penis/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

PHOTOS

The two photos, one showing a flaccid penis with the foreskin covering the glans, the other showing the same penis errect with the foreskin retracted, seem perfectly fine for illustrative purposes. The people complaining that the photos constitute "porn" are very immature. There is nothing pornographic about either photo, they simply show a penis in it's two normal states. The whole photo discussion is actually more entertaining than the article itself. People go ape over the silliest things. 209.244.188.149 (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Fat

Is it true that being fat means it is harder to get an erection and that your testicles get enveloped into layers of fat. This is not a joke, this is a serious question.

This talk page is for discussion about this article, not for Q & A on anatomy, sexuality or health. Anyway, I don't know the answer to your question. You should post your question on a page that deals with that kind of Q & A. ask123 (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
No. 68.43.228.63 (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This is false, I know a man who's 100 pounds overweight who has no problems with it. 75.121.85.219 (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Penile Enlargement

I think the page could be expanded with the theme penile enlargment, with the methods and surgical options of penis enlargement. I have a large biography about the subject but i cant edit the page

Thats more appropriate as a 'related' link 81.178.89.173 (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Images

      • The images and especially the photographs are perfection! There should be more photos! Do not remove the photos, they have and serve a great purpose.

I removed some pictures. I replaced one picture too, but for some reason it is not displayed. Provide normal images, the like one can find in scholary books. Tamokk 11:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


Ah-ha-ha! That photo of an erect penis isn't a penis - it's a Monster Penis! It rises way above that guy's navel, and is enormous in girth. That's a gay-porn penis. The other penises pictured fall into the range of sizes for the vast majority of penises. What a joke.16:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

That image needs to be replaced (image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Erect_penis_with_labels.jpg), it is really unnecessary to have that type of image on wikipedia. Someone replace it with a picture that would actually be used in a medical text book - if a medical text book would work for doctors, then it will work for wikipedia. 71.195.168.138 02:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree! The image is ridiculous, he is all hard, shaved, and lubed up like straight out of a porn. I didn't have Wikipedia when I was a little kid, but I'm sure I was curious and looked up "penis" in the Encyclopedia Britannica. If I would have seen an image like that, I would probably have been emotionally scarred. Whoever added it must be a perv.

Yeah! like who is the dude with the ego? You need to post your dick for the whole world to see. Would some please replace that photo with a medical illustration.

If you look at the proportionality of the penis itself, it doesn't seem particularly large. The shaving helps show the testicles clearly, and a "flaccid only" policy would be censorship. Erections needn't be a mystery topic. This photo also shows the contour of the shaft clearly. I believe most encyclopedias would leave people with the misconception that the body of a penis is just a cylinder with a tiny urethra down the center -- see the top illustration, for example. 72.244.206.38 06:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

About that image, I know it's gross but it didn't make thorw up or emotionally scar me at all and I'm 10 turning 11 next year. You are just over reacting. Patrickstar2 (talk) 11:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Right, and I suppose we should start replacing pictures of animals with medical diagrams of them? Seriously, it's a reference. Grow up, people. If they didn't want to see pictures of a penis, then they shouldn't have gone to the PENIS article in the first place. That picture is a reference material, not porn. Seriously, grow up. Ashyen 22:32, 3 May 2008

This is a right lively discussion! How can I post my medically illustrative penis photos? Jcitrix (talk) 06:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The only reason most people go to this article is because of the penis pictures, we should put more up, it will bring more traffic to wikipedia Munchmuchmunch? (talk) 09:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

About the herpes photo

Please remove that photo! It made me puke twice already! Please! Wikipedia is for getting information, not for you to lose your appetite. That photo is grossing everyone out.

This comment isn't signed, nor is it academic or appropriate in nature. It should be removed. WiiAlbanyGirl 07:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Looks like someone removed the photo anyway. --Art8641 21:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Why wasn't it in the Herpes article anyway? FiringRange 21:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Image size

Clawed, I respect your work. We disagree on the image size issue. Use preferences are most important. It is true that a person may not be able to see the detail in the image, depending on their chosen image size. Most users know they can click on an image to see the fulll image and detail. No information is lost by allowing user preferences to work. Let's talk about it please. Atom 13:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This comment reads too much like a personals ad. I suggest you alter it to sound more professional. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Plunge (talk • contribs) 19:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia is lily white

I protest the fact that there are no pictures of black/asian/anything else penises here. Black guys have dicks too.

No shit? I've been limiting my dick sucking to only a tiny percentage of the population? I've wasted my life! Seriously though, what do you think of a montage of penises of all races/sizes etc.? I think that would probably be the best approach for any wikipedia article about a human physical feature. We should always strive to be representative of all the different variations of a given thing so that readers are aware of all the different looks of a thing that fall under a given name. I volunteer you to go out and start asking men on the street of all different races if you can photograph their penises. 69.171.60.23 19:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, it ought to be mentioned that there are size variations between races, with people living in colder areas sporting slightly smaller penises(that's you, wiki-nerd reading this).

Well, this is the english Wikipedia. Using US demographics as an example, about 75% of the country is white. So, you shouldnt be suprised that what are depicted are mostly white; not a vast racist conspiracy, just statistics & demographics.


Also, I would expect this article to be about the fact that most mammals have a penis and what is it used for, not some bs. about piercing. It's too long for chrissakes(pun not intented). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.181.74.22 (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Unless you have scientific data to back up the claim that humans in northerly regions of the world have proportionately smaller penises, there's no way that will be included in the article. It's as reliable as a wive's tale. As for your problem with races not being represented equally--why don't you go to the beard article, sunburn article, and acne articles and complain of the same thing? It does no good to make a stir over something that you know is not making a political statement and that you know is a ridiculous thing to work around. We will not clutter the Penis article with more pictures of penises for the sake of representing all skin colors. We have too many issues with the images in the article as it is. --Berserk798 22:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

can a penus be removed when you have cancer in it and still urneate

Yes. It's easy to remove your penis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.171.60.23 (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
Just make sure you twist the shaft counter-clockwise until it comes loose; clockwise will tighten it.

I agree that there are superflueous penii on the page that are specific to one species only. I feel that all species should be represented equally in a massive montage of all the penis in the world. [nods] 211.30.71.59 01:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I second the above comment! Maybe someone could make a mosaic of a penis using pictures of the many different colors of penii from every race.Carlanna 20:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think anyone who looks at this page and sees the penis pictures can tell you what a black penis looks like. It's like the penis in the picture..... only black. I could personally care less who's color penis is in the article because it doesn't matter. It's a silly thing to argue about really.XXLegendXx 04:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If anyone wants to replace any of the images with an equivalent free content image of any race, I can see no problem with that. Just upload it to Wikimedia Commons (like those at Commons:Penis) and switch it on the page --h2g2bob 02:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
This may sound dumb, but is there any reason that the picture of penises have to be in color? Quite honestly, I realy don't understand the hubub over the color. This is a non-issue. From a pratical standpoint, there is no way(or encyclopedic reason) to have a page that shows every penis of size, shape or color. There are other sites for that. --Art8641 21:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's funny that all the penis photographs are "oriented" from left to right. How Western| of us! 129.137.160.100 16:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I Think that if you want pitures of black and asian cocks then take a pic of your cock and put it on here. simple as that!--Random05 23:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously it's only white men who are exhibitionists! talk 16:44 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm much more offended that there are no representations of penises that hang to the right. Why are we being excluded? Jcitrix (talk) 06:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Mass

I have removed a section from the article about the mass of the human penis. It seems trivial and adds nothing to this article or to the reader's comprehension of the penis. The removed section read:

Main article: Human penis size
An approximate method (assuming the penis is mainly blood and is an approximate cylinder) is through the use of the following equation where the mesurements are in centimeters and the result is in gramms. ((π * (Radius / 2π)2)2) * Length) * 1.060 This results in a result of 727.93861 grams for the worlds largest recorded penis and 199.394928 grams for the world average sized penis.

Do other editors feel this content is important and should be restored? WjBscribe 20:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

no 125.238.65.47 09:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No need to restore... But, as a side comment, don't you mean "weight," not "mass"? ask123 (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think mass would me more correct, weight is downward force on something caused by gravity...

Removed warning

The warning message added here seemed a little over the top, so I removed it. I would think that people looking up this page would probably expect it. Other pages - such as Vagina - don't have any warning. --h2g2bob 02:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Its even worse that the look-a-like template wasn't even spelt correctly.. - Boochan 07:06, 5 March 2007
Thanks for removing. Just another attempt at censoring and/or cluttering up Wikipedia. Whoever put up that faux-template should check the difference between an image of nudity and pornography. They are different things! ask123 (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

growth of the penis

does the penis stop growing as man gets older our does the size of the penis can enlarge our get shorter throw a mans life i know the penis stop growing at the age of 18 but does it. Can it enlarge by losing weight our with age get shorter our any other reson... 70.161.67.204 18:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)bob.

The penis finishes growing by about age 16, give or take a couple years. Size doesn't really change after that, unless puberty was delayed (rare). There can be a slight decrease in size by old age due to a decrease in circulation, but as long as you stay in shape this should be neglible. Losing or gaining weight can change how much of the penis is visible, but it doesn't actually change the size.
Wits 13:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Size

I am sexual health advisor from the UK. I tried to add the following text to the chapter on size, but it has been removed, can someone please explain why?

"and this is often refered to as a 'grower' as opposed to a 'shower'. The penis and scrotum are part of retractable muscle of which the owner has no control over. In some men they often contract due to a variety of different eniromental issues, such as cold weather, being nervous and doing sports and is called a 'peanut'. This contraction can lead to issue around changing in open planned changing rooms especially for men during puberty. "

sailor iain 16:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The text was removed by Nandesuka (talk · contribs), citing no original research. I think there would be no problem with it, but it would be helpful to provide a source for the information. --h2g2bob 16:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
No problem with it...!?! The mind boggles... Duke of Whitstable 22:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Most men do not have a huge Penis. When women find out that most men have penis sizes a little bigger that 5 inches they laugh. The truth is that most men have penis sizes fluctuating around 5 to 6 inches.

:Why would they laugh?CerealBabyMilk 22:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any guy seriously tells the truth about his penis size, so if all the 5" penises a woman has been with claimed to be 6" penises, and all the 6" penises claimed to be 7 1/2" (i'm assuming the slightly bigger penises go up a little more in lie) and all the 7" penises claimed to be 9" penises - then most women probably think 5" penises are actually 6" penises and the 5" penises (which they've never seen but would imagine are pretty small) sound comical. Porn stars claim to be 10" or 11" sometimes, but there's very little medical precedent for such a thing. Everybody lies about this stuff. A woman can't just glance at a penis and determine it's exact length. For some reason all men lie about that stuff. I would say, as a rule, men round up their penis to the nearest inch and then add an inch. So 5 1/2 inches becomes 7 inches. It's ridiculous. Those women that are laughing I guess the joke is on them because they don't ...understand what an inch looks like? I don't know

Well, totally on anecdotal evidence, women can't judge length for shit, but then again, guys can't really either. All the penis surveys I have seen have been crap, either they are based on self measurement (never a good idea, even if guys are truthfull, most theres loads of people who can't measure right), too small a sample, or they are based on stretched flacid length, which reasearchers claim is equal to erect, but It totally isn't. the 95% of guys are between 5" and 7" seems to (aproximatly) hold out across surveys, but where abouts inside that the average lies isn't clear. Basicly, the size of guy knobs just isn't important enough to have a serious study funded. and I'm glad of it too, theres much better things medicl research money can be spent on. 81.178.89.173 (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This tumult over size is silly. Who cares if the sizes represented are larger or smaller than normal. As long as the information is accurate and scientific and the images conform to these standards too, everything is fine. I trust people aren't making a big deal over this due to their own insecurities, right? Let's leave those at the door. ask123 (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I hereby submit that all images of penises, erect or flacid, show an appropriate (goverment approved) measuring stick alongside the shaft so that accurate measure can be made. This would be no different than photos taken at crime scenes. In fact, it might be said that lying about one's penis size is a crime. Jcitrix (talk) 06:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Wayyy Too Many Images

I think the erection pic,the 2nd Illustration of the anatomy pic,the pierced one,and the comparison pics should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Willie512 (talk • contribs).

Wikipedia is not censored. Please do not remove longstanding photos in the article without establishing a broader consensus for doing so. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually to a certain extent I think he is right. Do we need Image:Penis corrected.jpg and Image:Uncircumcised Penis.jpg ? Likewise do we need Image:Circumsized penis w notations.jpg and Image:Circumsised penis - Flacid and Erect - High Res2.jpg Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Theresa. It's not a question of censorship -- I absolutely believe that we need good images on this article. We just don't need quite so many. They make the article appear too cluttered. Nandesuka 22:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I've been bold and removed some of the "duplicates". I left in the piercing picture because that's illustrative of something the other pictures don't really capture. Nandesuka 22:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I know it's not censored.My problem is that there are just 2 pics on the vagina page but on this page it's about fifty-leven pics.And instead of putting all these pics on this page you could put some of those pics on it's main articles.Willie512 22:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

My initial objection was that nearly all of the pictures had been removed at one point (all but one poor black-and-white one had been removed). I'd removed a few when I restored it. I don't have a problem with the other removals, though I suppose it could be argued that it might make sense to show a circumcised one in addition to uncircumcised. I also realize that this article frequently seems to be a target for "put-my-penis-on-Wikipedia" vanity, so 2-3 good-quality photos should be sufficient. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not porn. I think having so many images is vulgar and unneccesary. Wouldn't drawings or diagrams serve the same purpose in a more plesant way?

I'm sorry, you must have the wrong website. Wikipedia is run by a pornographer and is most definitely not a serious encyclopedia. The stated purpose of wikipedia is disseminating pornographic materials to minors. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.136.204.61 (talk) 01:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Okay, the idea that nudity is vulgar is absurd. Not even the Bible agrees with this fact. The thing is NO a drawing or diagram does not suffice. Consider if you will the automotive or architectural articles on wikipedia. Do you feel that drawings or blueprints of the Sears Tower would suffice? How about a nice diagram of the automobile?? The fact is a picture shows greater detail and adds the concept of reallity. --MJHankel 18:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't always do so, and wikipedia is full of hardcore pornography, just not in this article.
Okay, seriously if you think that anything on wikipedia is Hardcore pornography, you seriously are closed minded. I have seen nothing on all of wikipedia that would legally quallify as hardcore. --MJHankel 23:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Autofellatio_2.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fellatio1.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Masturbation1a.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Orgasm.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Auto-fellatio.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Ejaculation_Educational_Demonstration.OGG
The list goes on and on.
Why cant we just have cartoon illustrations or some strong warnings at the beginning.
Oh lol, those pics are not hardcore porn, you really need to open your eyes man, try googling for hard core porn for like 5 mins. lol.

I have added a pic of an example of a natural variation showing a curvature of an erect penis. The article lacked an example of this state BigBoris 18:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you just want to show us all your big penis, BigBoris? 24.62.25.90 03:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

24.62.25.90, please check the source, this is not a pic of BigBoris' penis BigBoris 08:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

In the article's history at 11:26, 12 July 2007 Nandesuka has stated "(Please get consensus for new images FIRST. Thanks.)" Does anybody have any objection to the re-insertion of the penis image edited out of the article by Nandesuka?

What exactly is it that you think that picture contributes that the other five pictures in the article don't? Nandesuka 11:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The article lacks pictorial examples under the "Normal variations" heading. If there are no objections I will reinsert the deleted image BigBoris 21:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I still don't understand what you think that image contributes that the other five images don't. What, specifically, is it illustrating that isn't in the other pictures? If you can't answer this question effectively, then I object. Nandesuka 23:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The picture demonstrates an example of a natural variation as per the sub heading. The image of the variation shows a remarkable curvature to the left. BigBoris 14:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
It really doesn't seem like a particularly interesting example to me, frankly. Given that the article is already quite well illustrated, and given the problems that this article has with people trying to exhibit their own pictures for prurient reasons, I do not think that adding this picture would improve the article in any way. Nandesuka 12:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Are there any other comments or concerns regarding the reinsertion of the image removed by Nandesuka ? BigBoris 21:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Nandesuka that it's unnecessary. We certainly don't need to illustrate every conceivable variation. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
How many variations should be depicted? BigBoris 05:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree that a drawn diagram would be much more appropriate than the visual images currently on display. Each and every part of the penis can be labelled and explained just as easily if not more-so on a drawn diagram. Children visit this website.

Wikipedia is not censored. This has been addressed. No reason has been given, other than censorship, for using a drawn diagram instead of a photograph. If you think that a diagram could be more clearly labelled and explained, then an appropriate diagram could be used in addition to photographs. Also, please sign your comments. Ketsuekigata (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

A: Wikipedia is not censored. B: Nudity and pornography are not the same thing. The difference lies in the purpose of the depiction. ask123 (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

And therefore it lies in the interpretation. Ones man's porn is another man's Botticelli or Edouard-Henri Avril. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89douard-Henri_Avril

God gave man a penis. God gave man hands. God gave man free will. Man invents Pickle Tickle. Jcitrix (talk) 06:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Modification Image

Hey, I contributed a picture to the Prince Albert piercing section (the second one down). I know it's a picture I contributed so it might seem biased to say I think it's an improvement over the one currently posted, so I would like anyone's opinion, if you disagree strongly I won't even consider editing.

Orbiterdictum 00:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what yours looks like, but I feel that it's a poor quality photo of an ampallang, which also isn't a very common genital piercing. I feel that a higher quality photo of a PA would be both more appropriate. Theygoboom13 01:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey again, I edited the picture under the genital modification area that formerly had the ampallag. I gave some warning so I hope it isn't too much of a shock, be glad to take it down and replace it if you find it still isn't in the right. thanks for the imput!

(Orbiterdictum 21:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC))

Circumcision/Genital Mutilation

These topics are of course approached on this page since they effect this organ. There are of course differing opinions on these issues. that the clitoris page clearly states that female circumcision is genital mutilation., Many types of this are equivalent, no more severe than, male circumcision, and are recognised as genital mutilation. Ethical standards can be applied regardless of gender, and if cutting off apart of a females genitals without her consent is mutilation, than so should be cutting off a part of a males without his consent. The fact the victim is male does not effect whether or not it is a ethical violation. It is not okay to say it is okay to remove a foreskin from a boy, and then say it is not okay to do this to a girl, by removing her clitoral foreskin. Mutilation is mutilation and what makes it mutilation is cutting up a part of a persons body that has no medical abnormality, to cut off a body part from a child or any other non-consenting person you ought to have a medical essentiality to treat a current and present clinically verifiable medical abnormality (disease), where there is no lesser invasive alternative and the disease condition is not minor and is life threatening or threatening of essential health, and where the amputation is necessary to treat this, and the current and present disease actually involves the body part to be amputated, is the only way an amputation of an organ or a part of an organ can be ethically justified. Thus cutting off a healthy girls clitoral hood is wrong, as is cutting off the entire clitoris, and cutting off a boys foreskin is wrong, as is cutting off his entire glans. They all destroy body parts, regardless of lesser or greater degree, regardless of whether it is boy or girl, its still unethical when it is done without the consent, to an unconsenting person including children, of the person who lives in the body. Ethics is not something which you selectively disregard based on what is convenient for your cultural views. The fact that africans see cutting off the clitoral hood as being normal does not mean that this is acceptable or ethical, and the same also applies to male circumcision. It is interesting, and a bit of an insanity, that we could not refer to it as genital mutilation on this page without some people getting upset, but it is perfectly acceptable to do the equivalent on the clitoris page. It is not conveniently not mutilation because it is done to boys, or because it is a different body part. Keep in mind, that for these african cultures, that removing part of the female genitals, such as clitoris, or only the clitoral hood (equivalent to male circumcision), is seen as normal and is not considered mutilation, it however from outside perspectives from societies where these practices are not a part of the culture, they are seen as violation of human rights, since they violate the physical integrity and self determination of a person regarding their own body. The same tends to be true of male circumcision. about this issue, on the male circumcision page and other pages dealing with the penis, since there are different sides to this issue, it would be best to have a section for for and against sides of the issue. Wikipedia documents facts but also the differing views and perceptions people have about them since this is very much a part of the subject. There is ample documentation that many men do perceive circumcision as a mutilation that was inflicted on them and as a child that violated their human right to physical integrity by permenantly destroying a body part that had no pathological or medical abnormaliities and whatsoever. [1] It is not unreasonable that these perspectives should be mentioned in a section set aside for them as they are quite relavant.

If a fully informed and consenting adult wants to circumcise themselves, as long as it is their own choice, they are may go ahead and do it. But it is wrong to force this on unconsenting persons or children. It all comes down to choice and self determination, the right of the person whose body it is to make choices on amputations of normal body parts as a fully informed and consenting adult.

Millueradfa 03:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

All the same, this would fit better in the Circumcision article. Mentioning it in "Penis" is too specific. 66.215.153.240 (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

My penis lost his turtleneck when I was a baby. I've not missed it and I haven't called Oprah to cry on her shoulders about how my parents mutilated me. Having said that, who's "[E]thical standards" should we apply? Your's? The United States'? The United Kingdom's? Saudi Arabian? Vietnamese? One person's ethical standards might state that it is perfectly natural to use butter in anal sex, but would that not upset the moral or ethical fabric of their Vegan neighbors or the committee of Southern Baptists? Jcitrix (talk) 06:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Flaccid and Erect Comparison Image

In my opinion the flaccid and erect image could be better: 1. The flaccid stage is much closer than the erect, angle and distance of the camera are different. At a first glance it looks like only the shape changes, not the size. 2. The image quality is poor. The erect stage is even a bit distorted. Therefore, I propose another picture: Image:Human_penis_flaccid_and_erect.jpg. It is not perfect, but I think it is better than the previous image and better than other candidates: Image:Penis_flaccid_penis_erected.jpg would be another option, but it is shaved. Image:Uncircumcised_Penis.jpg also looks like there is only a minor difference in size. Image:Flaccid-erect.jpg is good but circumcised. Habbo42 22:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the new image is definitely yummier! 76.171.53.59 13:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

tried to change it to the 2nd option you gave, but its not showing up...


I just wanted to echo my support for this poster's suggestion to use the following image: Image:Human_penis_flaccid_and_erect.jpg The pictures are of higher quality, and show the penis in its unaltered state. I think showing a penis w/out the foreskin isn't a wise thing to do. Either show flaccid & erect for penisis both with and without the foreskin, or only show the penis in its natural state. Showing only a cirucumcised penis in the flacid/erect comparison does not reflect that most of the world's (and english speaking world's) men have foreskin Thestoryofmikeb 23:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)thestoryofmikeb

As a semi-pro photographer I am in favor of the best photographic image available and accuracy. The images (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Erection_Homme.jpg) are clearly of two different men as evidenced by the differing pattern of body hair. Is it too much to ask that one man have two photos of his wanker taken, one limp and the other stiff? Jcitrix (talk) 06:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Human bias

There are a lot of archives for this page and maybe this has been suggested before, but what do we think about splitting this article into "Human Penis" and a generic "Penis" article? — The Storm Surfer 05:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I second the motion. It will make searching for horse penises with Prince Albert's much easier. Plus none of the other animals on the face of the Earth show such facination with any particular species's male sexual organ. One Penis Page outlining the general nature of a penis and one massive page to support the massive egos, er, divirsity of human schlongs would be educational and humorous. Jcitrix (talk) 06:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Image Problem

There is an error with the image in the "erection" section (Image:Penis flaccid penis erected.jpg) - the image linked to is not being rendered/shown. I don't get it - any other image shows up fine, but this one for some reason is shown only as a link. Help? Goldfritter 13:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The erection image was replaced with a new one that was listed at MediaWiki:Bad image list without exceptions. I added an exception for this article, so this should be fixed now. Prolog 14:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

What if the erectile penis points stiffly verticaly upwards from which direction it can be moved by just a small angle, so that it can have a horizontal direction or even one near it? How can it be corrected?

Surgery. Jcitrix (talk) 06:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Porn

Is the pictures in the article Porn ? --Rebeccarulz123 15:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC) no they are not porn!

No. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 20:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes they are —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.136.204.61 (talk) 16:55, June 11, 2007 (UTC)
Seriously, no. -- Satori Son 03:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, no. FiringRange 21:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, sort of. You don't see that stuff in wikipedia's arch nemesis Encyclopaedia Britannica. What's wrong with an anatomical chart? I don't want to see that stuff.
Definately not. We have a massive diagram of a penis and a vagina in our science lab in secondary school!

If you don't want to see it don't look at it. Wikipedia is not censored. If you think any real life picture of a penis constitutes "porn", then you need to grow up.Rglong 11:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


Here's my thought on the matter... One of the biggest banes of existence is the belief that the so-called "sexual organs" are obscene. Save for those minutes in which they're being used for one of two physiologically designed purposes, genitalia is nothing more than a piece of hanging skin or several folds of skin. There is nothing obscene about it. To show a penis, flaccid or erect, is not necessarily porn - if it's being shown in an attempt to educate. The same can be said for a vagina, aroused or not. Even the sexual act itself, unless used for the sole purpose of arousal and sexual stimulation, should not be automatically considered "porn".
As for the Encyclopaedia Britannica not having images of flaccid and erect penii, or aroused vagina... They're an ages old institution, likely run by a group of stuffy, closed-minded chaps who think that it would be obscene to truly educate the masses.
I personally believe that, in order for we [i]homo sapiens[/i] to advance as a species, we need to cast off our previous assumptions and beliefs that certain things are "obscene" or "pornographic".Damien Cross 04:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, penii is the plural of the nonexistent word penius; if you want to flaunt your mad Latin skilz the form is penes. —Tamfang 23:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Clearly the pictures displayed here are not porn; however,they are also clearly inappropriate for minors and many users on Wikipedia. Furthermore, due to the large variation in size, color, shape, and aesthetics, they serve no academic, educational, instructional, or medical purpose. Additionally, one of the contributors has identified it as his own, indicating an ulterior motive behind the submission. The old "if you don't want to look at it" excuse is lame and against the spirit of Wikipedia. There are no rules here, i.e. uncensored, but we should be smart enough, and mature enough, to perform a little self-governance in attempt to not demean, detract, or otherwise distort what Wikipedia is about. Regarding Dameian Crosses comments, Wikipedia is a place for facts not opinions or delusions about how the world should be, it is about how the world is, and in this world, or at least the majority, photographs of erect penises are obscene.

"they are also clearly inappropriate for minors" - That is not in any way fact, that is your own moralistic view. Do you seriously believe that a picture of a human organ is "wrong" to watch if you are under a certain age? That is completely ridiculous. Seriously, it's hard to put it into words. In the future we will all laugh at the sick authoritarian moralistic views people had. Ran4 (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is a place for facts not opinions...photographs of erect penises are obscene." Beautifully self-contradictory. PollyWaffler (talk) 05:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

A: Wikipedia is not censored. B: Nudity and pornography are not the same thing. The difference lies in the purpose of the depiction. An image that's taken with the purpose of arousing the viewer is pornography. An image with the purpose of instructing is not. Additionally, for Wikipedia and instructional texts, there are certain other guidelines for shooting parts of the body. The image shouldn't be from that collection you made that day when you were taking naked pictures of yourself. That's not appropriate either. This is all pretty basic stuff, people! ask123 (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

For as long as people have had differing opinions, penises and vaginas have suffered the ridicule of being cast as obscene. Well, I wear my penis proudly and my wife is no less proud of her vagina. We celebrated our open mindedness and willingness to be free by openly engaging in that time-honored tradition of spooning. It was a beautiful, artistic expression of our love. The sex afterward was purly pornographic and we have the tape to prove it. Jcitrix (talk) 07:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Normal Variations

I would like someone to provide a citation for the statement "penis of average size can withdraw almost completely within the body". I find that statement completely unbelievable. 207.69.137.23 04:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

  • It's true. Try it.
    • Mine is currently nestled up next to my gall bladder.

I think that this section needs to be reviewed, I certainly wouldn't think that pearly penile papules to be normal! - Tundrawinds 18:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

My penis and I have fun playing peek-a-boo this way. Jcitrix (talk) 07:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


I agree The Picture of Man Blowing his load is not need,That is plain out porn01:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)MitchSuperTramp

Jewlery on a penis?

The picture of the penis with jewlery on is gross!!!

trainboy3 11:56 30 OCT

So is picking or blowing your nose. Or wipping your bum after shitting. Or cleaning your teeth with a tooth pick at the table. Whatever! Find a reliable source that states that and then add the information. Subjective responses such as the above don't help the development of the article. --CyclePat (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not fair! Wiping your butt after pooping isn't gross. It's gross if you don't wipe your butt after pooping. Not washing your hands afterward is gross, too! Raise your hand if you've ever been in a public restroom and watched as men go from holding their weiners at the urinal to going out the restroom door to shaking a client's hand, all without washing? Ew, penis cheese! Jcitrix (talk) 07:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes my clients deserve a unwashed handshake, but I wash regularly and I keep my penis clean enough to eat off of.

Obscene photo

In the United States a turgid penis is considered obscene and should be removed to comply with the law. Morthanley 01:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Source please? The following 1973 case, Miller v. California defines an obscene work as:
  1. That the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; AND
  2. That the work depicts or describes in a patently offensive way, as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable law; AND
  3. That a reasonable person would find that the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political and scientific value.
Under this definition, a turgid penis is not obscene in the context of an encyclopedia article, since the article as a whole clearly does not appeal to prurient interest, nor does it lack any scientific value. Perhaps you have another judicial ruling? Silly rabbit 16:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, please get over it! I mean really! --4.224.84.60 (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Our community standard is based on the free expression of ideas and knowledge (backed with fact and citation please). Now go away while I wank myself off to the Vagina page... Jcitrix (talk) 07:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia, a victim of narcissism, perversion and porn

Its apparent that this site while being somewhat educational is a victim od its own 'success'. Yes informative is imperative, but when that information or data overlaps in the area of sexual perversion it ceases to educate and instead tittilates.

Yes, it is based on an open-source censorship-free sphere, so with that same ethos, it is also subject to the same forces that can remove or HACK the obscenities

I strongly suggest that anyone who knows how to or knows anyone who can hack in to remove these obscenities should do so freely.

First of all, no one needs to "hack in" to remove or edit any such thing. You can edit it yourself. Wikipedia is editable by anyone. Second of all, Wikipedia is not censored for minors. There is no sexual act depicted. It is simply a statement of visual fact. Laerwen 01:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Your definition of "perversion" is weird. There is no form of "perversion" going on in the article. And even if it were so, that is in no way a reason to remove it. On the contrary, more such things should be added in order to give a better view on how the penis has effected culture. Ran4 (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's okay to say "penis" and "vagina". Go ahead, embrace your human nature. God gave you one or the other so enjoy its company. No need to hide it as if it had done something wrong. It's as if the Bible crowd forgot what's hiding, neglected, between their own legs. The Bible has multiple stories about sex. Check out the King James Version. See Song of Soloman 1:13, "A bundle of myrrh is my well-beloved unto me; he shall lie all night betwixt my breasts." Proverbs 7:18, "Come, let us take our fill of love until the morning: let us solace ourselves with loves." Song of Soloman 8:10 reads, in part, "I am a wall, and my breasts like towers..." If you're into comparative religion, you might find simlar language in the other major religious texts. While the Holy Bible doesn't say "penis" or "vagina", the text provides the visual. Here on Wikipedia, we say it with JPEG. Jcitrix (talk) 07:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yet another image suggestion

left|thumb We could put the image in an infobox with a list of the various anatomical parts. (These are listed on the image page.) This seems a bit more informative than some of the other photos here. Silly rabbit 22:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Developmental disorders of the penis -- Does not belong in this page

Not only is the small section on developmental disorders very incomplete, it does not relate strongly enough to the main article which is not about developmental disorders but the penis. This section if expanded would be much better suited in a new article. Also, the very unattractive picture associated with the micropenis is inappropriate to show in this article for reasons above.

Penis image

I think we should replace image of circumcised penis as most men have uncirmucised penis. Circumcised penis is not natural. That is very weird as we don't have any images of natural penis here. You can show circumcised penis here. --Zzzzzzzzzz 18:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Using a computer is not natural either please get off.

*Cough* i have a circumsicion and it may not be natural but it certainly is not THAT big a deal, wait, maybe i should rephrase that... The boy previously known as a vandal 09:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a bit weird that all of the images on this page show the foreskin either fully retracted or entirely cut off. Worldwide, only around 15% of men are circumcised, and the other 85% don't exactly walk around all day with their foreskins pulled right back.
My preference would be to have something similar to Image:Foreskin2.jpg as the main image on the page, as (apart from the skin colour) it is genuinely representative of what most mens' penises look like most of the time, whereas Image:IMG 0269.JPG, er, isn't. 217.155.20.163 15:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm also circumcised, as is almost everyone I know (those whom I know that about). However I live in the U.S., and this trend was popular around the time I was born, and it is quickly going out of style. Just because this article is in English doesn't mean it should be U.S.-centric. I agree that the number of pictures of uncircumcised penises should outweight the circumcised.Rglong 11:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

An article on the penis should show it in its unadulterated state. Then, under Circumcision (either as a ref to its own page or as a sub heading), we can see what mankind has done to the penis for either religious or health or fashionalbe reasons. Lets see how it should look and work naturally. (Kunchan 23:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC))

uncircumcised penises are unattractive and frankly look gross. Ask any girl in the U.S. and she'll agree (unless he used to be a man herself) 70.244.234.4 00:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Whether or not the uncircumised penis is attractive is irrelevant. This is an encyclopedia article, and its primary purpose is to be informative, not aesthetically pleasing. A photograph of a penis in its natural, unmodified state is therefore important to the article. Asarelah 15:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
"uncircumcised penises are unattractive and frankly look gross. Ask any girl in the U.S. and she'll agree (unless he [sic] used to be a man herself)" - ANY girl in the U.S., eh? That's a pretty bold statement. However, I'd have to agree with Asarelah - I think that the penis in its natural, unmodified state would likely be the best choice for a main image. Later on in the article, once the discussion led towards modifications, you could show an image of a circumcised penis.Damien Cross 01:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
We should definitely have images of both, but I agree the first image should probably be an unaltered example. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The mutilation of body parts common in some cultures is notable, but since it is not the norm the first picture should be of a non-mutilated penis. That also makes sense from a biological perspective, if that is desired. Ran4 (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of these comments are absurd! First of all, referring to circumcision as "mutilation" is grossly misinformed. Circumcision is suggested by many doctors for health reasons. This is not to say that being uncircumcised is unhealthy. Rather, there are certain health benefits to being circumcised, that's all. Second of all, the issues of attractiveness, "unaltered state," popular trends, naturalness, weirdness, etc. are totally irrelevant and diversions from the important topics here. Last I checked, both circumcised and uncircumcised penises are shown. And it should stay that way. 'Nuff said! Get over it, folks! ask123 (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"Circumcision is suggested by many doctors for health reasons"
No it's not, and no there isn't. The two reasons that could back a pro-circumcision argument would be to counter a rare physiological disorder (see:Foreskin#Conditions); or to minimilise the buildup of Smegma, which should not be a problem if the male exercises some basic hygienic practices. 86.164.173.140 (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

New Image

I have made a new image (erection) which I will use to replace the existing one. It is clearer and has more anatomical labels.

StewE17 15:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I got a hard on watching it, so well done :P --84.230.243.13 10:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Its Crap, lack of detail.. looks like you took it with a webcam.

I don't understand why we had to get rid of the perfect high-res, quality images we had before. Now we have shit like this. - Boochan 13:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Flaccid and Erect Comparison Image

I agree with thestoryofmikeb (22 June 2007) above that the pictures of the circumcised penis should be replaced. There is a reference to the circumcision page in the article which covers the subject comprehensively. This page should be dealing with the penis in its natural state and leave circumcision as a separate subject concerning a minority of the human male population (as well as a human rights topic).

I will replace it with Human_penis_flaccid_and_erect.jpg at thestoryofmikeb's suggestion.

As a later enhancement, it might be a good idea to show the same penis in four states:

1. Flaccid/foreskin covering glans (most common state)

2. Flaccid/foreskin retracted to expose glans

3. Erect/foreskin covering glans

4. Erect/foreskin retracted to expose glans

It would be nice if someone could supply a high quality combination picture of these four states of the same penis. I realise that many penises do not have a tight enough foreskin for the glans to remain covered when erect (without manual help), so this does present a slight difficulty (this has reminded me to check whether the foreskin page covers this phenomenon; no pun intended).

StewE17 16:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Minor correction

Since circumcision has moved to its own page, I have corrected the "see also" to "main article".

StewE17 17:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Tidy up

Upon further thought, the section on circumcision is now redundant and can be removed entirely, and the subject can be moved to the "see also" section, which I will now do.

StewE17 13:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Prince Albert piercing photo

My, that is just lovely. Well done whoever put that up, you really did Wikipedia proud... Vranak 23:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Having a piercing myself, I think that it would likely be in the best interest of education and information to provide descriptions and images of potential penile modifications. I don't know if Vranak was being sarcastic or not, but it might not be a bad thing to consider.Damien Cross 01:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Size

In the size paragraph a length of 12,7-15 cm and a circumference of 12,3 are given. The circumference is clearly wrong and should be corrected.

Non Circumcised Penis

You should include a picture of a non circumcised penis, to show people what they look like. This is an encyclopedia after all. I think it is unfair to have only a picture of a circumcised penis. Also include one with a ring in it.

  • Truth be told, the base image (not the anayomical diagram) should be an uncircumcised penis, as that is its natural state.
I believe it is. ←BenB4 13:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
That's correct. We're talking about a normal natural penis here. And although many of us may be circumcised, a vast majority of all males are uncircumcised and circumcision rates are declining rapidly in first world countries. So, we should keep our wangers for the circumcision article and post only el naturale penises here. 124.188.169.50 (talk) 04:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
While I agree with you that circumcision isn't a great idea, it's not NPOV to use words like "normal" (implying that a circumcised penis is somehow "abnormal") ... richi (talk) 11:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Picture Caption

I have removed the word "uncircumcised" from the double picture; this is the default condition.

For future reference: the word "intact" should be used instead of "uncircumcised", as the current vogue seems to be to avoid distorting language. Apparently it is misleading to describe something in terms of the abnormal or unusual, e.g. we don't say things like "a person with an unamputated arm", as though it were normal to have their arms amputated and unusual to see someone with an arm.

StewE17 14:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think your parallel to an arm is completely fair since it is quite unusual to have an arm missing. On the other hand circumcised penises are quite common and thus not unusual as you state. Thus "penis" in general means either circumcised or uncircumcised penis and it is thus fair to clarify which kind of penis we are talking about. --Morten LJ 13:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Heaven forbid we actually tell readers what they're looking at. Then they might know what's in the image! – Luna Santin (talk) 03:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia had best keep to standard use of language and terminology. Refer to the Merck Manual which uses the terms "circumcised" and "uncircumcised" when describing the procedure in pediatrics: "An equal number of uncircumcised males require a circumcision later in life." To force a change to usage of politically correct terminology would only detract from the usefulness of the information. Jcitrix (talk) 07:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Penis Structure image

I feel this image should be replaced with a drawn diagram. The image in this context is highly unnecessary.

Please read the notice at the top of this page. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I have read it. It doesn't relate to my point.

Why is the image unnecessary? Also, please sign your posts on the talk pages. Instructions on how to do so are on the top of the page when you edit it. Asarelah 15:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree. It is way too graphic to be in an "encyclopedia". --Henry W. Schmitt 22:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
As noted on the talk of the talk page, Wikipedia is not censored, and you're wasting your time complaining about the pictures here. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes I am aware of wikipedia's cute little rules, but I do not agree with them. Please refer to my userpage for more information. -Henry W. Schmitt 01:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
If you don't agree with them, or lack the open-mindedness to work within the bounds of them, why bother using Wikipedia? Censorship is, honestly, one of the worst banes of human existence. It's a case of "If you don't like what you see, don't look!" - or akin to the idea of passing laws "for the good of the common man". Just because YOU don't want to be allowed to do something doesn't mean *I* don't want to.Damien Cross 01:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
The worst bane of human existence, eh? While I'd agree to some degree, censorship is a rather broad umbrella term. Just like communism, 100% no censorship is a grand idea, but it just doesn't work at that level. Being able to protest and march and speak as one pleases are good things not to censor. Having any book available to check-out at your local library is another good example. But where is the line drawn? In the United States, persons under the age of twenty-one cannot consume alcohol, and for most of the country, persons under the age of sixteen cannot operate automobiles on public streets and highways. Is this censorship? In the same country, pornography cannot be viewed and cigarettes cannot be smoked by persons under the age of eighteen. Although I do not consider the photograph in question as pornography, it is pretty darn close. As an umbrella term, "no censorship" can apply to anything. All rules and laws (Including the ones Wikipedia stands by) can be seen as censorship. "No bad sources"? Just because YOU do not want to look at something does not mean I do not want to. --Henry W. Schmitt 19:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
The rules are not irrelevant merely because you disagree with them, Mr. Schmitt. If you believe that Wikipedia should be censored, then I recommend going to Conservapedia instead. Asarelah 02:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your concerns, I believe I have addressed them in my above response to Mr. Cross. -Henry W. Schmitt 19:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to get involved in the specific subject, but one specific sentence caught my attention. I feel the statement "and you're wasting your time complaining about the pictures here." is not true. Wikipedia is a community and it's meant for people to view their opinions. Even the policies/guidelines are not set in stone. If enough people disagreed with a specific policy and brought it under proposal, it would change. That's what wikipedia is all about, so saying that it's useless is not entirely true. Any opinion or point of view on wikipedia has the potential to change the way wikipedia runs. As it's a community run system. businessman332211 05:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean by "way too graphic" ... The fact it is so graphic is surely beneficial. The more graphic it is, the better; the pictures are there to show people what the penis looks like, the structure of the penis etc. Surely the best way to do this is with clear, high definition photographs. These pictures aren't here for titilation. They are here to inform. If you find the image of a human penis offensive I think you have some issues. 80.195.246.3 01:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Why strictly Human Penis'?

This article is "Penis" yet all images are of the human penis. Wouldn't it make more sense to replace one or two images of the human penis with the penis of another mammal? Seperating them would be of no benefit to the reader and would serve only for perverse reasons.

Adding images of non-human penises is a good idea, but I don't agree showing the human penis is "perverse" and I don't think there are too many images. I do think for the circumsised one that this is a better quality image than the one there now: Image:Flaccid-erect.jpg

Slang terms

"Bezzler" is a term sometimes used to describe the male external genitalia and urinary organ (penis + scrotum) or (rod + balls). The organ is sometimes referred to as the "urinary bezzler" or simply as the "bezz."--Katy May beauty products 15:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC) The "bezzler is somewhat analygous to the female vulva (vagina + clitoris + urinary meatus). --Religion and superstition (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You'll need to provide a reliable source backing up that claim. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The Pictures

All the pictured in this article are of nasty looking peni. Can't we get pics of more aesthetically pleasing penises?

If you upload public domain images of "more aesthetically pleasing penises" (whatever that means), then sure. Also, please sign your posts using four tildes. Instructions on how to do so are on the top of the talk page when you edit it. Asarelah 16:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I demand for the removal of these nude and pornographic images on this encyclopedia. Many faith groups will find this offensive and is unsuitable for children who may stumble upon this page whilst using Wikipedia. I want the images removed immediately or legal action may be taken by my organization. (Anonymous)

Please read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored, Wikipedia:No legal threats and Wikipedia:Civility. Thank you. anemone|projectors 21:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Blah blah blah blah. --Henry W. Schmitt 23:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
If you think that this is the worst thing on the Internet, then all I can say is that you haven't been on the Internet for very long. Furthermore, these are medical images shown in an article that is informative, not pornographic. Even if it was pornography (which it isn't under the law), you still would have no legal grounds to get it removed. Asarelah 03:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I see you never replied to my argument. --Henry W. Schmitt 05:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
You yourself admit in your arguement that the pictures are not porn. And I am not going to argue the definition of "censorship" with you. The policies state exactly what is appropriate for Wikipedia, and what is not. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored is very clear on the issue. If you have a problem with the rules, read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, which explains clearly how to make proposals to change policy, although I have serious doubts that you will ever achieve your goal of changing the offical policy of Wikipedia and removing the "inappropriate" pictures. Asarelah 07:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I took a photo of my penis for the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Josh_penis.jpg Feel free to use it. Joshua

The size of the penis in the picture

The penis shown in this picture: [2] is definitely above average size. Due to the popularity of this page, people may believe that that is the average penis size and may get anxious or begin to worry about their own penis size.

An encyclopaedia article should be balanced and display images that are representative of the general population. I believe this picture: [3] is more fitting for the page. It is representative of uncircumcised men, and is of average size.

Thanks,

Pussycatt (talk) 02:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to ask permission. Just go ahead and change it yourself, don't be afraid to be bold in your edits. Asarelah (talk) 03:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Pussycat!
Please ask an admin for help as the page is now fully protected (due to severe vadalism and disruptive, childish edits) and cannot be changed by "normal" users. I'm sure Jmk17 who protected the article will support you. :-) --Fromgermany (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
As I said in an earlier post, it doesn't matter if the image depicts a penis that's a little larger or smaller than normal. The only thing that's important is that it presents a scientific/medical perspective of that part of the body. One's insecurities or anxieties are not the problem of Wikipedia or its editors. That arguments over "anxiety" and "insecurity" are just diversions from the job at hand. In this case, however, the image is likely a porn image and is, therefore, not appropriate for Wikipedia. On the other hand, if the replacement image is an example of medical photography depicting a penis of above-average size, deal with it, people! ask123 (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Use drawings instead of photos

Obviously I had nothing better to do for a moment than to search wikipedia for the term "penis" but here's a thought: I know that there can be no discussion about whether wikipedia allows images to illustrate a topic, but don't you think it would be a good idea to use drawings instead? Showing a photo of an erect penis next to a serious article is a bit too much even for adults. Isn't wikipedia supposed to be neutral or do they support the use of very graphic images which the majority of people find offensive? And exactly how does it improve the quality of an article by using those kinds of pictures? The quality should be in the article itself, how difficult can it be to give a description of an erect penis? (And for that matter what kind of adult wants to see an erect penis to know what it looks like anyway?) Besides that there is no typical penis, some are short and fat and others are long and thin etc. So placing photos of penises whether erect or not doesn't improve the article at all, in fact it could even be construed as misleading. Drawings would be much more neutral to use in the article (serious drawings, not cartoon drawings of course)

That said, a main argument of wikipedia seems to be that wikipedia is not censored for minors. But wikipedia should bear in mind that just about any search term on google these days will lead to a link to a wikipedia page. I just did a search for "penis" on google with safe-search on(!) and the wikipedia page showed up at the top of the search results. According to the guidelines of google safe-search I should not be shown links to a page that contains photos that can be considered as porn. All the other search results were of pages that didn't show photos of penises whether the page belonged to a serious website or not. And did you ever look at a serious page about penises? Do a search and tell me which of them show photos of erect penises because I can't find any, all of them seem to be using drawings and not homemade snapshots. Wikipedia should use drawings of penises and not allow itself to be used as some spearhead for the "penis liberation front" For all I care you can link to websites that contain photos of erect penises of all shapes and colors but have some common decency and remove the penis photos from this page, it looks like a penis fanpage at the moment.

Oh, and I feel I properly addressed this topic despite the apparent taboo on discussing wikipedia policies. If any moderators remove this comment I will probably take it to the highest level and accuse that moderator of having a conflict of interest. I'm not even personally offended by the pictures but I am offended by the lack of integrity behind the use of these graphic images. My arguments are valid and should at least be considered by those who seriously want to improve this article. UltimateEnd (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)UltimateEnd

As the top of this talk page indicates, this page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for debating censorship. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
As I said in my comment I wasn't addressing wikipedia's policy about censorship but I'm addressing the extent to which it is used. I am trying to help wikipedia improve this article (and possibly others) If censorship is not allowed then to which extent should tolerance be pushed? Isn't this "omg censorship = bad evil" argument an open door for exploitation of wikipedia policies? Either way let's stick to the subject. I am of the opinion that this article would look better with drawings instead of photographs and my arguments referred to that alone, I'm not trying to debate the policies of wikipedia which are only a sideline in this discussion. UltimateEnd (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC) UltimateEnd
You'll see in the talk pages archives of this article that the issue has been beat into the ground; hence the notice at the top. Nonetheless, all Wikipedia articles on anatomical subjects include photos. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you, Jamie. And not only do we find articles on anatomical subjects including photos on Wikipedia but in all other forms of modern encyclopedia, too.
@UltimateEnd: I cannot the least bit understand why a photograph of an erect penis should be "unserious". Are men "unserious"? Is life "unserious"? Erections and penises are a part of life and therefore belong into any kind of encyclopedia. And drawings could never ever display what photographs can. In reality we do not find drawings of penises but something only photographs can give us an impression of. ;-)
But all that can be sad about this topic has already been said over the past few years (the archive is full of any kind of opinion, no matter how bizarre or serious). Let's just accept the article as it is.
--Fromgermany (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with this comment. No serious publication has photographs of this kind. Don't give me this censorship BS. Not allowing "bad sources" is also censorship. -Henry W. Schmitt (talk) 05:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Many serious publications have photos like this. I've seen medical textbooks and medical webpages with full-color photgraphs of human genitalia. Asarelah (talk) 06:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
As have I. Plenty of serious publications have photographs. A photo of a penis isn't a bad source so Henry W. Schmitt's argument makes no sense. A photo adds a great deal of info to any subject, removing them would detract from the encylopedia. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 06:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Censorship is not allowing someone something they should have access to. If I want to see bad sources, I have every right to, just as you have every right to see penis photos. -Henry W. Schmitt (talk) 06:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The whole point of this website is to create a useful encyclopedia. Leaving in bad sources is directly counterproductive to that goal. Penis pictures, however, are productive to creating a useful encyclopedia. Asarelah (talk) 06:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I thought the purpose of this website was for 14 year old admins to boss around adults with silly rules. Anyway, perhaps serious publications do have full color photographs of penises. But very little of any resources for the general public have such photographs.[citation needed] This discussion is brought up every week, I would think that by now Wikipedia would get its act together. Remember, the Internet is serious business. -Henry W. Schmitt (talk) 06:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
My patience with this is wearing thin. This issue has been debated into the ground, and I have already explained wikipedia's policy on it here. Let it go already. Asarelah (talk) 07:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I think best would be to terminate this discussion. Different users have different opinions/creeds whatsoever. I guess we will never find a solution suitable for all. If there are people who feel offended by photographs of penises they have the right to turn away from such pictures at their own free will. Just a "click" on your computer mouse and you'll be off. There are more horrible things on this earth to take care of than pictures of penises. :-(( --Fromgermany (talk) 11:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
A solution that would be suitable for all would be to use drawings instead of photos. One argument that the pro-photo people are constantly using is that medical text books and medical webpages contain photos of penises too but I'll counter that argument by stating that wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and not a specialized medical website or textbook. Wikipedia does not have to compete with specialized pages which have a different audience (medical experts) than wikipedia has (joe public) This topic has been flagged as being controversial which means there is room for debating this. Pointing out that "people have been debating this for years" is a knife that cuts both ways since it only means that this issue hasn't been solved yet, not that any party has won this debate. And I have to quote one of the arguments here to show how ludicrous some of the arguments are: "Erections and penises are a part of life and therefore belong into any kind of encyclopedia." lol @ part of life. I don't know where you live but when I go out and walk through the streets or ride a bike to my work I'm not confronted with erections, nor do I see any erections at my job or in my social life, and if I turn on my television or read a newspaper or book I'm not confronted with photos of erections either, so your argument doesn't make any sense at all or should be considered subjective at the very least. I also think that with "this issue has been debated into the ground" people really mean "we've debated this topic and run out of sensible arguments to defend the photos so now we're gonna cry censorship" To keep this discussion on track can anyone tell here why photos would be preferred to using drawings? Because that's basically what my argument is about. If you don't want to discuss the policies of wikipedia or censorship then don't, instead just give me some sensible arguments why photos would be better than drawings. UltimateEnd (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)UltimateEnd
As other's have noted, there's nothing further to discuss that hasn't been discussed before. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I ask for arguments not conclusions. I can make conclusions myself if you provide me with the proper arguments which so far you haven't. If you're going to say that it's been discussed before then point out where the same arguments as mine have been made and where they have been countered. Essentially you're just trying to shut me up while not offering any reasonable explanation or argument. Your argument here seems to be that you're simply tired of discussing this. If you are tired of discussing this then maybe it's time to reach a compromise otherwise the discussion regarding the relevance of the images used on the wikipedia "penis page" will continue with or without you. You have no right to deny this discussion just because you're tired of it. The article is in need of improvement and I'm just trying to help. The pictures themselves have also been debated regarding whether the pictures should all be of white men, whether the penises are too big, etc. and neither has that issue solved yet. Also for that reason using drawings instead of photos would be more sensible. The details that are described on all of the photos do not need to be photographed and are mostly irrelevant, a few drawings would be accurate enough. For example: the difference between a circumcised erect penis and an uncircumcised erect penis is irrelevant by any standards, provide me with an argument why these pictures are used. UltimateEnd (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)UltimateEnd
And stop using the "it's been discussed before, keep the page as it is argument" because it makes no sense. The page itself says that it's been protected against vandalism but that "protection is not an endorsement of the current version" And the discussion page says that "this is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute" So no, this discussion isn't closed yet and the page is not final yet and needs to be improved. If my exact arguments have been debated before then do us both a favor and point out where. I'd like some clear answers. UltimateEnd (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)UltimateEnd
Look on the archive of the clitoris page. The idea of substituting pictures with photos there was widely rejected by the community. OTOH the idea of having a drawing and a photograph was welcome. If you look at that page now you will see several drawings and only the one photo. Of course a clitoris is very different than a penis. Most of it cannot be seen from the outside, and so drawings are especially useful on that article. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
@UltimateEnd. Why should drawings of erect penises be more useful than photographs?? Because they are less offensive? Less "pornographic"? And I cannot quite understand what you mean by the difference between a circumcised erect penis and an uncircumcised erect penis is irrelevant [...]. Hey, an encyclopedic article NOT mentioning and displaying the differences between those two would be incomplete. So we do need displays of both. And a schematic drawing could never fully display the differences, believe it or not. I wonder what it is you seem to feel so offended by. A possible pornographic connotation, maybe? Penises, erect or not, are not pornographic, neither in real life nor on photographs. Or do we see the slightest bit of sexual intercourse or any form of masturbation on the photographs we're talking about? No! It's just the display of a male human organ, nothing more. --Fromgermany (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be possible here to create another penis page, with a title such as "Penis (Explicit)" with photos of genatalia on it, while leaving the main penis page with just drawings? To me I think this is probably the best way to go as it gives users the ability to decide if they want to see the pictures or not. If nothing else something such as what was done on Pre-ejaculate, the pictures should be hidden by default and you should have to click to view them. Nn123645 (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Even THAT would make some users still feel offended, I suppose. :-(( --Fromgermany (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
@Fromgermany. You are not constructively contributing to this discussion. You counter my questions by asking me questions, that is not healthy way of arguing. And you answer Nn123645's question with a supposition, sorry but a hypothesis is not a fact nor is it a strong argument. Let's look at the other pages on genitalia: the pages for vagina, clitoris, anus, breasts, and nipple all contain a moderate amount of photographs and no photos of piercings or photos of these body parts being in a sexually aroused state. So obviously the wikipedia page on penis needs to be adjusted to fit the other pages. And for those who claim there is no difference between an erect penis and a penis that is not erect: ever been to a nudist camp or a normal sauna? Nudists and people that go to saunas can tell you that it is not acceptable to prance around in places like that with an erection. Erections are caused by either being sexually aroused or sexual stimulation and as such are widely associated with sex or pornography. Let me quote wikipedia on sexual arousal:
"Male sexual arousal: Penile tumescence and erection (usually the most prominent and reliable sign of sexual arousal in males; however, adolescent males experience frequent 'non-sexual' erections stemming from their high level of testosterone.)" - From: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_arousal]
This states that only adolescent males have non-sexual erections and rules out the possibility of an adult male having a non-sexual erection. So also according to wikipedia an erection is not considered to be a penis in it's normal state which renders the photographs of erections irrelevant. There is already a separate page for erection so there is no need for these photographs on the penis page. If people need to know what an erection looks like they can go to the page about erections, if people need to see what a penis with a piercing looks like they can go to the separate pages for genital piercings, etc. UltimateEnd (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)UltimateEnd
It is perfectly possible for something to have two normal states. The purpose of a penis is for reproduction. Being in an erect state is a normal part of the process of reproduction, and I really do think we should have at least one photo of an erect penis in this article. However I do take your point about piercings. Personally I don' mind having the photographs in this article, but I wouldn't be that bothered if they were removed either. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I really don’t see the harm it would do it move the pictures to a different page labeled Penis (Explicit) or something along that title. The disclaimer on the top of this talk page says that “the images used to illustrate the subject matter are necessary for the quality of the article.” Why is it then that almost every other encyclopedia is able to illustrate how a penis works perfectly fine without putting what some will equate to pornography on the page? A drawing could be just as informative, if not more informative than a photo. According to WP:Profanity “Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not.” I think to uphold the ideal of that policy the article should be structured to offend the fewest amount of people possible. I don’t see a disenable advantage to having photos over drawings. I know it has been mentioned before that in medical textbooks they have full color photos of body parts. That’s why I believe that splitting the article into a Penis and Penis (explicit) would really be the best way to go. --Nn123645 (talk) 04:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that would be a big mistake!. The first one is technical, we'd end up having two articles on the same subject. How would we stop them from diverging? But more importantly than this is the problems of extremists. We's get people on the non explicit page arguing that drawings are also offensive, and if they get their way on that they would start on the text too. On the explicit page we'd get people posting multiple pictures. Why not show a whole range? Picture galleries and so on. Whilst I don't see Wikipedia's mission as being deliberately offensive, I don't see it as being deliberately innoffensive either. I think we need one article, and that article should be informative rather than innoffensive. People who are offended by information (which is what a photo is) can easily solve the problem themselves by not looking at the page. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
@Theresa knott. You seem to have misinterpreted me when I said "normal state" which you took too literal. For clarification let's just agree that an erection is a secondary state of a penis and not a primary: i.e. a penis is usually not erect. When I go into a man's dressing room it would be uncommon for me to see an erection, when visiting a medical specialist it would be uncommon to show them an erection when they ask to see your penis, etcetera ad nauseam. So when viewing a wikipedia page about the penis I wouldn't expect to see a photo of an erect penis, nor would I expect to see photos of erect penises next to flaccid penises. I would expect something more medical like some diagrams and some drawings. Having a photo of a penis is one thing, so is having a photo of an erect penis, but immediately being confronted with a photo of an erection is not something I would expect. And "don't look at the page" is no argument, if wikipedia wants people to stop looking at their pages then why don't they stop advertising themselves on google? You're sounding like a chef cook that tells people to eat at a different restaurant when they complain that there's something wrong with the food. And calling a photo "just information" is quite an understatement seeing how powerful an image can be in someone's mind. Remember: we are not discussing the information itself here, we are discussing the way the information is presented. I am personally not in favor of censorship based on religious values and this discussion shouldn't be seen from the perspective of religious fanatics because they have an entirely different viewpoint. The fact is that the wikipedia page about the penis contains a disproportional amount of photographs when compared to other wikipedia articles on human genitalia and in my opinion the photos of erections and piercings impair the seriousness of the article. That is all, don't make me repeat this over and over please as I feel I've stated this clear enough by now. UltimateEnd (talk) 13:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)UltimateEnd
I'm sorry but I don't see how the fact that you didn't expect to see an erect penis on the page is grounds for removal of the photograph! As I said before. I'm ok about the removal of the piercings photographs. Feel free to remove them and see if the removals stick. (which they very may well) But please do not not remove any others for the moment as you will not have consensus for that. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
This is an article about penis. A photograph is wholy appropriate and belongs here. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
There always seems to be someone that doesn't want to see that prick hanging around! Anyways' Maybe you should take a look at building a concensus for a policy here at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines instead of creating a big fuss about some tiny penis. On a secondary note: This entire article appears to be a POV towards humans... what about dogs, flies, frogs, pigs, turtles, and my favorite, (on of the largest penis' in the world, assides from George W. Bush) whales! (references wiki rules: WP:NPOV]])--CyclePat (talk) 00:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
This is actually a very good point. I agree and think that this article should be expanded to include penises of other animals. Nn123645 (talk) 12:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
@IdreamofJeanie. I asked politely if people would please READ MY COMMENTS BEFORE REPLYING TO THEM and clearly you didn't so let me repeat my last two lines again: "The fact is that the wikipedia page about the penis contains a disproportional amount of photographs when compared to other wikipedia articles on human genitalia and in my opinion the photos of erections and piercings impair the seriousness of the article. That is all, don't make me repeat this over and over please as I feel I've stated this clear enough by now." Want to partake in this discussion? Fine, but read the comments first and make sure you have some valid arguments. If people keep throwing these random lame arguments at me I will take it personal and interpret their arguments as mere contempt. UltimateEnd (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)UltimateEnd
@CyclePat. Thanks for your invitation to the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines but as it says on that page the proposal has already been rejected by the community. Furthermore I'm not addressing the topic of "explicit and possibly offensive images" on all of wikipedia, I'm just addressing the pictures that are on this wikipedia page. Let me try to make it clear one more time: I believe this article is in need of improvement and my opinion is strengthened by observing the past discussions regarding this page. I am personally in favor of replacing the photographs with drawings but I am openminded towards other solutions such as (but not limited to) replacing the photographs with links to the photographs or simply removing some excess and irrelevant photographs (there are three photographs of human erections on the page whereas surely one would suffice) As far as including photographs of animal penises I'm not against that, I think it would actually make the page look better and more professional though I don't see the need to include photographs of animals with erections. In fact, I've recently began to think the page might look better with some real medical photos such as these: http://www.scielo.br/img/revistas/clin/v61n4/30685f3.jpg (I do not have copyrights for this photo and am only including it here for the sake of discussion) Surely a picture like that can not be considered as pornography by any sane and healthy standard. Once again I'm not trying to force my will onto wikipedia, it's just another suggestion. Do with it as you will but please take it seriously. I think if we stop being stubborn and put our thoughts together we can work out a much better page which is what I intend to achieve through this discussion. As far as I'm concerned any suggestions that might improve the page are welcome if provided with reasonable arguments. UltimateEnd (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)UltimateEnd
You think that a picture of a penis being cut open as part of a surgical procedure more approrpate than a picture of an erection? Seriously? As for animal penises, many are hidden away and only really visible when erect. I think there used to be a photo of an elephant's penis on the page. I don't know who removed it or why. UltimateEnd if you want to get agreement over a drawing, then I strongly suggest you bet busy with a pencil. Arguing without having a drawing to discuss will go nowhere fast. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I must admit that that picture sent a sharp shiver down my spine and made me cringe. :=| I guess, we could always post a request for anyone that is getting operated and see if their surgeon will take pictures. Then they could release it under GFDL for Wikipedia? Despite this legal predicament and somewhat disturbing picture, I'd actually rather see this picture than 3 different pictures of erect penis'. I think the article is lacking in respect to WP:NPOV. Much emphasis is placed on the white human specimens... If we're going to talk about human penis' we should clearly explain the difference between Chinese, Indian, African, Jewish religion (circumcised), Christian, hermaphrodite, etc... the culture. Also see my above comment regarding other animals. Conclusion: I agree with user:UltimateEnd, and feel there is a need to rebalance things out within this article. --CyclePat (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
p.s.: The first Colour image of the erect penis, whith descriptive pointings, does not appear to be a good quality image. I believe this because the penis has some a reflection or white line and appears to be shiny. --CyclePat (talk) 07:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Pics of dicks are ok if they explain something. The fact that Wikipedia has a rule does not mean we have to flex. This article should have non human penises and more images of the inside of a penis. It would also help to place the pics in the sections they belong in.(Not just have them float around or make up the majority of the pics.) Benny Lava (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
If you want to see my point look at the Vagina page. It has many infomative pics and doesn't show how thing look to the naked eye.YVNP (talk) 23:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Without throwing myself into a fistfight with normal people and crazy authoritarian fundamentalists... I'd just say that I'm against using drawings. A drawing is not nearly as identical as a real-life penis. Wikipedia should (and is) strive for high accuracy. Using a drawing would decrease the accuracy of the picture a great deal. Ran4 (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Image caption

{{editprotected}} In image caption is section Penis#Erection "uncircumcised" is redundant. Change "An uncircumcised penis" --> "A penis". Circumcision is mentioned in alterations section, and penis naturally has foreskin. Thanks. Shifted.soap 06:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Readers might be curious, I don't see how the extra word is confusing or otherwise a drawback. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Not that it would confuse, but that it is redundant. Circumcision is dealt in separate section, no need to mention it repeatedly, since a penis has got foreskin naturally. As for its drawback, it creates unnecessary curiosity about "circumcision", which is intrusive. Shifted.soap (talk) 09:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"intact" is a much more correct term than uncircumsized. Circumcision is a procedure performed on the intact penis. Objection2000 (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No way. "uncircumcised penis" gets 240,000 ghits while "intact penis" gets only 17,400. It may be more correct, but we have to follow WP:NC. It may be redundant, but we have to be comprehensive. MB83 (talk) 06:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

new pic

any one that is uncirumcised that wants to put there pic up here... be more then welcome. I think an uncut is better then a cut becuase it's the true definition of a penis.RYNORT 01:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

done. --Lamilli (talk) 12:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for putting a much better picture up. - Boochan (talk) 13:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think one hard-on is enough to make a point. We got the two pics at the top of the page to demonstrate the difference between circumcised and uncirced. --Lamilli (talk) 11:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

when it says average penis is 15 cm they mean erect right?

?

of course. if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. --Henry W. Schmitt (talk) 06:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Captions

Could someone explain why my edits are being reverted? The natural penis (i.e. this article's primary topic) is not circumcised. The structure of the penis includes a foreskin in all mammals except monotremes. As the consensus showed in the talk page's archives, the absence of modifications to this natural structure does not need to be noted except in the context of discussing circumcision. We wouldn't label images "unappendectomised cecum" or "untonsillectomised throat", would we? Why would the "uncircumcised penis" be any different? Kieral (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Readers may want the additional information; is there any reason this single extra word is damaging to understanding the image? This article is not a political tool to support or oppose circumcision, or at any rate it shouldn't be; if people are helped by the extra information, I see no reason not to include it. Think from a reader's point of view. It's pretty much what we're here for. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
There is a section on circumcision in the article, and circumcision has its own article if readers want more. The word "uncircumcised" in this context is inherently biased, and I can think of plenty of types of readers who might be confused by it. First, consider someone from a culture that doesn't circumcise or normally discuss circumcision. They would naturally be confused by the misplaced reference to a foreign ritual, and it might require reading the circumcision article to figure out their normal human anatomy.
Then there is the other extreme (which, in fact, is fairly common), someone in the Midwestern USA or a Muslim country who has only seen circumcised penises. The notion of "circumcised = normal / uncircumcised = abnormal" is often so deeply ingrained that a foreskin could be simply dismissed as a disorder by such a reader. Note that there is no mention of what (un)circumcision is in the "structure" section, nor should there be. The penile structure includes a foreskin; for the purposes of that section, it's really that simple. Kieral (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it'd be easier if we could display slightly different versions, depending on whether circumcision is common in a particular reader's area (in which case you seem to agree the clarification could be helpful?), or not (in which case I suppose it'd seem a bit odd)... since we can't do that, things are a bit tricky. We at least know a reader probably speaks English, but that's hardly a fix on location or culture. I admit I'm not entirely happy with either of the options which seem to be currently under discussion. The magical trick I'd be looking for is to help people who do want to read about circumcision to find that information relatively quickly, without throwing down flashing neon signs. Just brainstorming some ideas to get us out of rehashing this old argument: a single image with side-by-side examples of natural and circumcised, with a neutrally worded caption linking to circumcision; I seem to recall an old subsection in alterations specifically relating to and summarizing the subject of circumcision, we could restore that; should the "alteration" section be included in the "disorders" section? Presently, what do you think about merging both Image:Foreskin Penis Descript.jpg and Image:Penis labeled eng.jpg into a top-bottom image with a single caption? They seem to be intended to form just such a comparison, now. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: A related discussion is taking place at Talk:Erection#Photo caption NPOV problems. Jakew (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

According to the World Health Organisation, about 30% of males worldwide are circumcised. Since this means that about 1 penis in 3 is circumcised, it seems quite reasonable to illustrate both common 'types', and to distinguish between them. I doubt that people would be confused by the term 'uncircumcised' - here in England, circumcision is not particularly common, but people in general seem to be familiar with the term 'uncircumcised'. Jakew (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Since neither user has commented here, I think, I'll just point out that these two edits seem to be relevant to this discussion, both the changes made and the edit summaries used. – Luna Santin (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I was blocked (in violation of Wikipedia policy) and unable to comment. Anyway, I looked at the penis category on the Commons and noticed that Image:Erected_and_flaccid_Penis.jpg would be a good choice to demonstrate both penile anatomy and an erection. Cropping it and adding anatomical notations should be a fairly simple task as well. Kieral (talk) 04:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not use the erection photos that are used on the Erection page?

The photo used on the Erection section isn't the best example, and certainly isn't as clearly representative as those on the Erection page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casdious (talk • contribs) 03:32, 13 January 2008

I agree, and I've tried to replace the photo with the main one from the Erection page. Unfortunately, this has to wait until an admin updates the "bad images" list. Kieral (talk) 03:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
What's your problem with the current picture? I can't see any improvement with the new one. --Lamilli (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The problem with the current picture is that it depicts yet another penis with significant parts surgically removed. The current erect and flaccid photos differ only in size, whereas the one I added shows a normal, retracted foreskin. The new picture was also taken from a better angle, showing both ventral and dorsal penile anatomy.
As it stands, only one out of four penises shown on this page is intact. Go back to BMEzine. Kieral (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The last penis on this page in uncircumcised, which means that 2/4 penises on this page are shown with intact foreskin. And what has BME to do with it. Don't tell me where I should go to! --Lamilli (talk) 10:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
But than again, I'm asking myself why we need the picture here in the first place. I mean, if someone want's to see photos of erect cock, he or she can have a look at the "Erection" page. It's not that far away. This way we wouldn't have the discussion bout cut or not.--Lamilli (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Request to add external link

Request to add external link: I would like to add an external link to my 2002 essay on the Human Penis (and human breast). I feel that the Wikipedia community would benefit from the essay.

I have included the essays title and link. Thanks.

Title: Human Penises (and Human Breats): Why are they so large in comparison to our primate cousins? http://www.evoyage.com/BillsEssays/HumanPenis.html --Wmspriggs2008 (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No thanks; please refer to WP:OR. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

About published photograph and image

Suitably because Corpus Spongiosum Penis and Corpus Cavernosum Penis is not written in the cross section as material. It is necessary to change it. http://kurasawa11081.11.dtiblog.com/blog-entry-9.html A red penis is being variously written here. The cross section chooses the one that even the detail has been described in detail by the one colored with a red color if related to telling the fact. Describing, and using the corpse like the cross section of the flesh and blood though the cross section used is the one colored based on the one to have dissected a body go against the facts. Next, when you use the photograph of a genuine penis Glans should be red, and the model that getting black is unremarkable be handled to other parts. When the melanin stands out and he publishes a dirty model, it is angry, holds hatred, violence, and the rape wish, etc. , the mind always darkens, and the man who saw it hinders man's evolution. If you publish the model with beautiful penis oppositely It becomes an effect quite opposite to it, and violence, crime, and psychological illness etc decrease. Please unite everything in ..Glans.. red pink in the photograph of the beautiful man model of no deposition the melanin in the pink color.--Pinkcherry (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Too many white human penises?

there has been a complaint that all of the cocks on this page are those of white men and this represents bias? Is it possible to replace a couple with people from other races? --Fredrick day (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

In addition, there is a second element to the complaint - that all of the cocks are of humans - can we get some of the pictures swopped out with those of some other animals? maybe a donkey or a horse? --Fredrick day (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Or any of the other millions of animal species that aren't even mammals?72.48.250.225 (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I personally think that this article should be moved to "Human Penis" and that the page of "Penis" should be just about penises of various animals in general, with a link on the top to "Human Penis". As for the race aspect, my fear is that doing so it might reinforce stereotypes about race and human penis size, when there is nothing in the scientific literature to indicate that there is any significant difference between them. If it was an article about hair or skin, I would feel differently, but I really don't think its neccessary. It would really just clutter up the page. Asarelah (talk) 02:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps Latin/Hispanic would also be good. One guy on the erection page, took several photos of his penis and offered to use them. I believe he is of Cuban origin. Is anyone here volunteering? Swisspass (talk) 11:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Guys, please remedy this. This is obvious bias. There are plenty of other penises from other races to chose from. Meowmix100 (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"[the penis] cannot be withdrawn into the groin" - really?

I remember watching a documentary in which Bruce Parry, a well known British tv-anthropologist, was in West Papua (Irian Jaya) and it was a common practive amongst the men there to somehow retract the penis into the body. I forget exactly how this was done; I do remember however that Parry attempted it and almost passed out.

New image

I've been following talk and noticed a few have complained the uncut penis shown is not aesthetically pleasing. No one has volunteered to post an image of their own penis, so I mustered up the courage to show mine. I took this photo earlier and labeled it in the same way as the current. Its here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Foreskin_Penis_Descript2.jpg Feel free to use it. JoshS18 (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yours is very nice. Very nice uncut natural penis. I vote that we use your penis image because the current uncut shot is very ugly. Hypomypc (talk) 03:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to add more images or change the existing ones. I've been watching this page for over a year and the number of times the images have changed is beyond belief. There was nothing wrong with the images that were on the page a year ago. anemone│projectors 20:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
| image = 250px. Have you seen his penis? It's much nicer than the one currently used. A few of us complained about the aesthetic and I think his penis is better. Looks better! Hypomypc (talk) 01:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Which image exactly are we talking about replacing with this new one? anemone│projectors 20:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm perfectly fine with replacing the image, if we're confident in the licensing of the new image. (I don't have an opinion one way or another -- either image is fine to me). I am strongly against adding an additional image. That being said, I notice that Hypomypc is a brand new user whose very first edits were to complement someone else on their penis, and I think there's a high risk of sockpuppeting here (no offense.) I'd prefer the consensus to come from experienced editors. Nandesuka (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree, personally I also do not care one way or another. Not sure why this is an even an issue, nevertheless I'll leave that up to others to determine. Swisspass (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The images ahead is dirty. It is ugly. Please see and use the beautiful one.

More information on nerves

The article doesn't really say anything about the structure of nerves in the penis. This is obviously an important feature, as the penis is the primary source of sexual pleasure. I would like to see information on the number of nerves (about 8000?) and their distribution (predominantly in the head?), and I invite people who have this information to add it to the article. Logicman1966 (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The fine-touch nerve endings are mostly clustered on the foreskin and frenulum, which are largely absent in circumcised penises. Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 03:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that doesn't sound right at all - can someone please help with the facts ?Logicman1966 (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If you are color blindness

As for the able-bodied man and woman, it explains how you feel the color. It explains how to feel it when Glans of penis is red and a pink color. It is felt that it is beautiful. It feels it to attractive. Neither dirty feeling nor an ugly impression is done. Beauty that wants to show to woman and becomes it. How do you feel it when white, gray, brown with which Glans of penis becomes impure, and getting black? It is felt that it is dirty. It is felt that it is ugly. It looks miserable. The woman despises the man in the mind.

The color where scrotum-shaft-foreskin looks the most beautiful is a color of a beautiful skin without getting blown.

The important element that looks attractive beautiful is a color of Glans. If Glans model other than red or pink color are used, the man who saw it becomes uneasy. The woman despises the man in the mind. --Pinkcherry (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Is English not your first language? You're talking nonsense... ask123 (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Non-human vs. Human (slight POV)

I will say this again, short and sweet. This article has a POV towards humans. Not only that the dissorders are all towards sexual dissorders. There is a lot of information out there on other species and I think this article should expand it that direction. Just go to YouTube and type horse penis and you'll find some educational video on how it is necessary to clean. Or type in Google "define:penis" and you'll notice it's a "male" organ. Male involves many species and even includes plants. Previously I posted a message on Horse penis, however it was removed because the subject also dealth with Horse tumors. Fact is, there are many types of dissorders or disseases that affect different animal and their penis. Furthermore I think there is a fine line between Reproductive system and penis... also note that encyclopedia britanica has their article on penis directing towards Human reproductive system. Now... I could add a bunch of links to different animal penis articles and images, but I'm sure, you can easily find some yourself (that are GFDL, or free) and add proper sourcing via www.easybib.com. --CyclePat (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone stopping you from editing? If not, there's no need for a tag.-Wafulz (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Disgusting

Pages like this is what keeps Wikipedia from being taken seriously. What if kids type in this page and it makes them gay by looking at the penises, especially the pierced penis. This is completely uncalled for and I intend to write my congressman about this.

Looking at pictures "makes you gay"? I know it's only March but this is probably the screwiest idea of the year, bar none. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Imagine your congressman's response when you tell him to look at penis images. Gosh, you might turn him gay! dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Looking at pictures of penises made me gay. Oh wait, no, that's the wrong way round. 88.107.201.172 (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
And it's immaturity like this that fortifies this article's inclusion in Wikipedia. An objective clinical look at a male penis isn't against the law. 66.215.153.240 (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Hay guys the other day I look down while in the shower and now I'm gay! 208.106.104.40 (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I looked at this page out of curiousity to see what wikipedia said about this subject. I think it is mature that an encyclopaedia covers this subject in a forthright way and would be of great comfort to many "kids" who were also curious about this sort of thing. I think it is profoundly naive to think that the first time a child with access to the internet sees a penis is on wikipedia...why not just type "penis" in google image search?? I say keep this page as it is, show the different types and stages of arousal of the penis and keep it concise and scientific James Frankcom (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

add new teenage development picture

i would like to sugest that some pictures of a teenage boy going through puberty would be helpful to prospective viewers. I was wondering if it would be alright to upload my images of myself seen as though i have images from the age of 12 through to 16, as current.


you sick fuck...

No! Law enforcement would get the wrong idea about Wikipedia. Adult images of nudity are fine, underage images could get us in deep, deep legal trouble. Asarelah (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
It depends on the images. Underage nude images are not unlawful as long as can be proven with high certainty that they are not pornographic. Cambrasa (talk) 19:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you please point where such deep, deep legal trouble is? Sounds like FUD to me.. Nude child images are not illegal, Supreme court invalidated any state law making such images illegal in 1989 (take a look at US Supreme court case Massachusetts v. Oakes [4]). The pictures must have lascivious display of genitals or pubic area and nudity is not even required to meet that condition. If you have any references claiming that it is, and that the Supreme court decision has been invalidated, please post references here. 91.46.235.181 (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The legal risk is just not to worth it. People have gone to jail in the United States for less than that when it comes to underage images. Wikipedia could get shut down or something. The laws are very, very strict. Asarelah (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see it being helpful at all. Inks002 (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No. A pubescent penis is no different in physiology than a adult one, only in size. This would serve no academic or clinical purpose. 66.215.153.240 (talk) 21:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes Penis developement information has no academic or clinical purpose? Have you ever read a biology book? BTW underage nude images are not unlawful in the US and most countries, fit in this context adding valuable information and wikipedia is not censored. 217.201.19.11 (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes Strong agree with the above comment by 217.201.19.11. Mike Segal (talk) 06:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT a Child porn site

Enough saidThright (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's not overreact here. Nobody's claiming these are porn, however they are probably unlawful to host since the subject is under 18. That's all that needs to be said, and they are now gone. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
It is NOT automatically illegal in the United States to show photographs of minors just because they aren't wearing clothes. If the photographs are not lascivious, as in this case where they are intended solely for educational purposes, then there is no legal violation. See the discussion above for more information. Mike Segal (talk) 06:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Flaccid vs. erect - photos

These don't seem to be the same guy. The pubic hair seems somewhat different. If the intent is to show not only what an erect penis looks like, but also how it differs from the flaccid state, wouldn't it be best to have the same penis involved in the 2 photos? -- JackofOz (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. It's been reverted. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
It's still there as of today. See thread below. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
How do you figure? It seems pretty clear to me that it's the same guy in both. The lighting has changed and his pubic hair is positioned differently, but this shouldn't be surprising, since erections don't occur instantaneously. The zoom is also slightly different, but it isn't really significant. Ketsuekigata (talk) 04:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Mr Left's pubes are bunched up at the top of the penis, and above that it’s pretty sparse except for a snail trail. Mr Right's pubes are more or less spread over the entire area. That can’t be achieved by use of a comb or whatever. Mr Left’s pubes are a lot bushier than Mr Right’s. OK, he could have cut them back before the next photo shoot, but then they’d be even less likely to reach above that area. Mr Right has hair coming from his skin all over his lower stomach, not just combed up from his pubes as Mr Left would have had to to. Also, Mr Right has a large flap of fatty skin hanging to our left of his scrotum; Mr Left doesn’t. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Replacing this image

There's a set of pictures on the circumcision page, one showing a circumcised penis both flaccid and erect and the other showing an uncircumcised penis flaccid and erect. You can find the images in the following sub-section of the article: Circumcision#Risks_of_circumcision. Perhaps it would be better to use these images on this page too... ask123 (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. My post above is relevant. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Penis Picture

JoshS18 Keeps switching previous picture with his own which is of lesser quality, Ohnoitsjamie picture is of much higher quality.

Just so there's no misunderstanding, none of these photos are mine. The current one is indeed better quality. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Check talk above this, from Feb 2008, where several people agreed to change the image and that the existing one just wasn't good. Some were indifferent about it, so I offered. Take it easy, my goodness people. JoshS18 (talk) 04:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
JoshS18, I mean no offense by what I am about to say. However, this is becoming somewhat ridiculous. You've replaced this image with Image:Foreskin Penis Descript2.jpg seemingly because you want to use your own penis. Please review Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view -- your insistence upon using the image of your own penis (seemingly without any justifiable reasoning) indicates to me that you are not being neutral. Consider the following situation: If Lindsay Lohan changed the Wikipedia article about herself to include an image she deemed more flattering, wouldn't that break the W:NPOV guidelines?

You say that you're only changing the penis picture because other Wikipedia users think it should be changed; you even reference earlier talk page discussions. However, the discussion you indicated was from February, and yet you made the change in May. Furthermore, there was no real consensus - User:Hypomypc was the only person to fully support the change. And if you look at Hypomypc's contributions you'll notice that discussions regarding replacing the original image with your image is the only contributions the user has made to Wikipedia -- no offense, but I am assuming this is a case of sock puppetry. Every other comment made in regards to the two-month old discussion essentially said that they either did not want to see the change made, or that they didn't care. Please review Wikipedia:Consensus.

JoshS18, please stop replacing higher-quality (and, in my opinion, more encyclopedic) images with lower-quality images of your own penis. Your actions broke Wikipedia policies on neutrality, sock puppetry, and consensus. Thank you.

Ghana and West Africa, Penis Snatching

In addition to Sudan etc. I added Ghana and West Africa, to Penis Panic sub-section here: * On April, 2008, Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo, West Africa's 'Police arrested 14 suspected victims (of penis snatching) and sorcerers accused of using black magic or witchcraft to steal (make disappear) or shrink men's penises to extort cash for cure, amid a wave of panic. Arrests were made in an effort to avoid bloodshed seen in Ghana a decade ago, when 12 penis snatchers were beaten to death by mobs.[1] --Florentino floro (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Citation for flacid to erect

Sorry, I don't have much experience with Wikipedia so I apologise in advance if I'm doing this incorrectly. There is a section in the main article that says, "In humans and some other species, flaccid vs. erect penis size varies greatly between individuals, such that penis size when flaccid is not a reliable indicator of size when erect," and after this is a tag saying a citation is needed. I have an appropriate citation: Jamison, P.L., and Gebhard, P.G. (1988). Penis size increase between flaccid and erect states: An analysis of the Kinsey data. Journal of Sex Research, 24, 177-183.

Maybe someone could double check that and add it in if you agree? 121.222.48.195 (talk) 07:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)dan

main picture

Why is the article's main image a diagram where the penis is not even at the center? Should'nt we have an aesthetic picture? I think the diagram does have a place in the article but not as the main image. Bobisbob (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I put the image MalePenis.jpg as the main picture. But it keeps being removed so I'll explain myself

The image is an aesthetic picture and the bodypart is in the center. It is uncircumcised and in a typical state. The diagram contains labels of parts that are not relevent to the article. Would you put a diagram of a human head as the main image for the Eye article? Bobisbob (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Despite your interesting arguments, there is clearly no WP:CONSENSUS for your edit, as several editors have reverted it. Please also beware WP:3RR ... richi (hello) 17:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Nobody responsed, so how am I supposed to get a consensus? Appaently the pic isn't important. Bobisbob (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Please read WP:CONSENSUS ;-) ... richi (hello) 23:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

why human penis?

I am surprised to note that this article penis is so strongly about the human penis. Human penis even redirects to it. The seems to me not correct and biased to humans, not NPOV. Why is this not an generic article about the organ "penis" in general? --Walter (talk) 19:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't really imagine an article about any other animals penis other than human penis. I think an article about the horses penis would be quickly deleted. JayKeaton (talk) 23:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I personally think that there ought to be two articles, one for Penis, which would cover the organ of all species in general, and one for Human Penis. I certainly wouldn't go so far as to propose that each species have its own article dedicated to the penis of that species, but I do think this article should be split. Asarelah (talk) 00:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there really enough interest to create an article about the penis in the animal kingdom though? Wouldn't it just end up being a list of facts about penis size in different animals? JayKeaton (talk) 04:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't just be about size. It would be about subjects such as the baculum, for starters, and the evolution of the penis as opposed to say, the cloaca. In fact, every article about body parts should probably be split between the human and the non-human. Having the penis article focus primarily on the anatomy and function human penis would be like having the tail article focus primarily on the anatomy and function of the tails of dogs. Asarelah (talk) 05:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't Baculum penis be in the Baculum article? We might end up with a massive list of penis' otherwise. JayKeaton (talk) 08:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
They could simply be combined into one article. Asarelah (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Images

Revasser has repeatedly tried to remove an image of a circumcised penis from this article, making several closely-related arguments in edit summaries:

The trouble is that these arguments don't make much sense. The first problem is that circumcision and genital modification are articles about changes to body parts, not the body parts themselves (it is like arguing that any male face depicted in face must be unshaven, because we already have an article on shaving). The second problem is that the existence of a sub-article does not mean that the subject cannot be depicted in an article which refers to it (in parrot, for example, we include images of Senegal Parrots). Finally, according to WHO, about a third of the world's (human) penes are circumcised, and it makes sense to depict common "types". Jakew (talk) 12:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Your argument is fallacious. I am not advocating we remove all images of circumcised penises for this article. That is rhetoric. It is you that has removed the assumption of good faith here. At worst, it is vandalism. What I have simply said, repeated, and have consistently edited to exactly show, is that circumised penis be put under the subsection of the article under genital modification, the article itself, and another separate dedicated article on circumcision. If three instances where you can have your circumcised images is not enough for you, then you are clearly pushing a POV.
My edits have been clear that I have left the image of circumcised penises intact (see my pun there) under the appropriate parts of the main article. You hear that? Do I need to repeat that I am not saying that circumcised penises are banned from the penis front page?
Additionally, the images for the other subsections (one image per subsection) of the main article should reflect that uncircumcised penises are simply the norm. The main page will display both, but the circumcised penis only under places where it is appropriate. It is clear you and Bobisbob are trying to push an agenda to represent both penis pictures (Bobisbob had repeatedly try to include penis pictures of his own) and litter the page, trying to affirm the notion that wherever there is a picture of a penis, there must be one circumcised and one uncircumcised. This would be sensible if statistics said the world was 50/50, or that penises being circumcised or uncircumcised were natural variations. This is not the case. There have been previous criticisms already on how the image of the penises are all caucasian males that were circumcised. And obviously, you never paid attention to that issue previously since it didn't countervene your interests and agenda here, only to hijack this today into a circumcision debate. I will call a spade a spade. Revasser (talk) 02:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem seems to be that you're saying that it is only appropriate to depict a circumcised penis under "Altering the genitalia". But, of course, a circumcised penis is a penis, and hence such images belong anywhere on the page (as appropriate). To insist, as you do, that all images must be uncircumcised except for those in one small section, is to insist on a non-representative presentation. Both uncircumcised penes and circumcised penes are common examples of penes. The position that uncircumcised penes are "penes" and circumcised penes are "altered penes", while a valid point of view, lacks a certain neutrality that might be expected in WP. Jakew (talk) 11:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Your argument is hypocritical if you wish to argue on the grounds of "diversity" here. Circumcision is an alteration, albeit a common one. There is no lack of neutrality to say that uncircumcised penises are the norm, and are just "penises". You are making an ethnocentric argument that because circumcised penises are the common norm in certain countries, they should be recognized together as "unaltered penises" along with uncircumcised penises. Sorry, but last time I checked, circumcision was a genital modification. You're trying to present it as something it is not. A spade is a spade. Revasser (talk) 11:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
That is a strawman argument. I am not suggesting that circumcised penes are unaltered, nor am I suggesting that they should be presented as such. I am stating that circumcised penes are examples of penes, just like uncircumcised penes. Jakew (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
You're wrong, it is not a strawman. My argument still stands. Circumcision is an alterration. You do not put pictures of tattoos on the section on human skin. You can put pictures of tattoos in the section modifications. Revasser (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I rather doubt that a third of human skin is tattooed, so it is perhaps a poor example. Anyway, if we apply your argument we'd have to disallow photographs of shaved faces, hands with trimmed fingernails, teeth with fillings, etc. This seems a rather absurd conclusion, and it arises as a result of confusing "representative example of X" with "unaltered X". Jakew (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
To compare circumcision, a surgical alteration of genitalia, to trimmed nails and cutting/shaving hair ultimately reveals your bias. Would you want me to take the opposite extreme viewpoint and say that it is amputation and mutilation? That we should not have amputees on a page talking about the human body? Your analogical arguments are extremely fallacious. Revasser (talk) 09:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Revasser, your argument is based upon a division into "unaltered" and "altered" (I'm using your words here), and surely you'd agree that trimmed fingernails are altered from their natural state. Thus, in the context of this division the question is simply whether X is an alteration or not. If, in fact, you actually meant a different division, then it would have helped if you'd said so. It still wouldn't address the fundamental problem, which is that this article is about penes, not "unaltered penes", and not whatever arbitrary criteria you happen to think of, and as such the appropriate test is whether an image is representative. Jakew (talk) 10:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Jakew, you are in fact putting out a strawman or misinterpreting my argument. "Altered" vs. "Unaltered" does not not apply to fingernails and hair because they grow back; they are not permanent surgical operations that are irreversible. One does not sue a cosmetologist, barber, or manicurist for making mistakes; one however, can and should sue surgeons. Your fundamental problem is that you group all modifications together - that a permanent one is next to a temporary one. You must make a distinction between permanent and temporary tattoos. The idea that a "penis" must be either "uncircumcised" or "circumcised" is distinctly American as well as circumcised countries. In countries were circumcision is a notable thing, "penis" is by default, schematically uncircumcised. The opposite for where "uncircumcision" is a notable thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revasser (talk • contribs)
I think the problem is that your argument is changing, Revasser. First you want to talk about "altered". Now you say that you're actually talking about permanent alterations, and introduce the interestingly tangential question of whether one can sue the person performing the alteration in question. Perhaps these are relevant issues if one is trying to argue a case against circumcision, but as a reason for selecting representative images, this makes no more sense than your previous argument. Finally, you tell me that in certain non-American and "non-circumcised" countries, a penis is simply "a penis" if uncircumcised. You haven't given any examples of these countries, but here are some English-language abstracts of papers written by Chinese (PMID 12174000), German (PMID 18209999), English (PMID 17016235), and French (PMID 16709012) authors. All of these papers refer to "uncircumcised" penes. Jakew (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I made no implication to "suing" at all. This is libel. You are reading into my text and colouring my words and trying to frame my arguments as an irrational bigot. Yet it is you, who is irrational in your thinking in trying to counter my arguments with a hodgepodge of arguments. All your research articles you have cited deal with biology/medicine, and in many cases, deal with circumcision as a factor or variable in its study. It is thus, completely obvious in such work to point out that the men are circumcised or uncircumcised. So let me tell you this: find any feminist scholarly work and they will mention of a "phallus", and be it not circumcised nor uncircumcised. You are trying to counter my argument that in certain societies, "penis" is part of a schemata that either presents it as circumcised or uncircumcised - with research articles pointing out explicitly the circumcision statuses of their specimen!
It is your arguments, above all, that are irrational. It hardly addresses my point, and you're the one going off on a tangent trying to counter my argument by claiming that because the medical researchers are German, English, Chinese, or French that it is notable that they pointed out the circumcision statuses in their medical research! Hardly a counterargument, to be honest. Showing me you can use Google scholar does not awe me, either. Revasser (talk) 09:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
You did discuss suing, Revasser. To quote: "One does not sue a cosmetologist, barber, or manicurist for making mistakes; one however, can and should sue surgeons".
You first claimed that 'The idea that a "penis" must be either "uncircumcised" or "circumcised" is distinctly American as well as circumcised countries.' Now, you admit that this isn't correct, and that people in other countries can and do use these terms (or their equivalents in the local language) for precision. Quite evidently, then, there is a concept of "circumcised" and "uncircumcised" penes in these countries. I am quite sure that you're correct that literature from many countries (including America) simply refers to "a penis" in cases where ambiguity is unimportant, but that does not imply that one could not be precise if one wished to do so. The problem here is that you are arguing for selective imprecision. Jakew (talk) 11:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
But how can a country have a concept of "circumcised" vs. "uncircumcised" penises if circumcision is not practiced? Why is it not "modified" vs. "unmodified" penises schematically? Your argument is fallacious in claiming that circumcision status is merely a further description of "penis" in trying to legitimize the practice to begin with. Circumcision status is not precision -- it is cultural. And in the contexts of biomedical research, as your linked articles have shown, culture is very important. For example, in Japan there are more than four words to describe penis. Should we include 4 pictures of various penises to dignify this cultural position, or is its omittance an imposition of Western values?
Clearly this article has already shown enough Western-centrism by having exclusively Caucasian penises. And here you are, trying to argue that we should two "precisions" of them! Revasser (talk) 02:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I think genital mutilation would be a more appropriate term than genital modification. Wikigrrl21 (talk) 17:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Please see our policies on neutral point of view. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Without reference to which images and captions I prefer, may I remind Revasser of WP:3RR? Thanks ... richi (hello) 15:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Obscene images

I have removed all of the obscene images from this article. I am an almost raped survivor and pictures of penises trigger flash backs for me. Please do not revert the article. Wikigrrl21 (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read the pink box at the top of the page. If you continue to remove images from Wikipedia without consensus, you will be blocked. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you shouldn't work on this article if these pictures are that upsetting to you. Asarelah (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I can't leave it, I have to remove pornography from wikipedia to prevent other users from deciding to support the patriarchy. You don't understand how hard it is for us Wikigrrl21 (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
For the record, I am a woman, and a feminist. I, for one, do not find photographs of sexual organs presented in a clinical and educational context to be offensive. These images are not pornography, pornography is explicit material intended to sexually excite a viewer, and most men are not interested in seeing pictures of penises with no women involved. If you continue to remove these images unilaterally and against well-established consensus you will be eventually be blocked for good. Please read WP:NOTCENSORED. Asarelah (talk) 23:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
If penises upset you then perhaps you should not have typed in the word "penis" into Wikipedia. JayKeaton (talk) 08:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't type penis, I clicked a link by accident. And those photographs do not look clinical or educational. Wikigrrl21 (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There is and has been a clear consensus here that some photographs are OK here. (Many other photographs have been removed for one reason or another). If it bothers you, you shouldn't view Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
They most certainly clinical and educational. Many medical websites contain photographs like these. Asarelah (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Two pictures under section "Erection"

On the left, there is the picture of the flaccid/erect circumcised penis, and on the right, there's the same picture with an uncircumsized penis. The erect pictures are exactly the same, and there is already a picture of a flaccid uncircumcised penis earlier in the article; both parts of the right picture are redundant. I for one suggest removing the right one. It's not because I have any objection to the article, it's just that there are dicks everywhere. Ziggy Sawdust 21:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The pictures aren't exactly the same. Though for the two images of the erect and unerect dicks, they could probably be compiled into one image containing all four thumbnails, instead of two separate images flanking the section with two thumbnails in each. As far as I can tell all the images are important and all show different things, but they could definitely be combined. JayKeaton (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Also the image Erection Homme.jpg is a public domain image, the plants in the background could perhaps be edited out and replaced with a texture that resembles a wall surface, the same as Flaccid-erect.jpg has. And if anyone has good enough editing skills, remove the shadow on the wall from Flaccid-erect.jpg as it is also public domain, and the shadow doesn't really serve any purpose other than to distract from the clinical and informative nature of the subject. JayKeaton (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Image issues

Regarding some recent photo disputes: though I am a firm believer in Wikipedia being uncensored, I don't have a problem with a diagram being used in the lead. You'll find that many anatomy articles use a diagram for the lead and photos later in the article. Diagrams are often more useful for illustrating the various structures of an anatomical subject. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Agreed - it's not censorship but rather using an image to illustrate the article in the most effective and informative way. The image at the top of the page has various anatomical links which become redundant when replaced with simply a photograph of user Bobisbob's erect penis. --Deadly∀ssassin 02:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

main picture (again)

DeadlyAssassin, I didn't just revert back the photo in the main box but I also replace the next image down with a diagram.

Scroll down

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Penis&oldid=212963612

Bobisbob (talk) 02:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


  • I see that now - thanks for pointing it out - I still firmly believe that the image at the top needs to be anatomical so that the links can be put into context. --Deadly∀ssassin 02:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

That picture is of the bloodflow in the penis so it doesn't belong in the main picture. An anatomical picture will be better in the section dicussing it's anatomy. It needs more context than the main box links. Bobisbob (talk) 21:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

As I've stated, the penis is an external organ and the main picture should be a photo (like eye, ear etc) a diagram picture works better in the section on the anatomy. The reason why diagrams are good as main picture from the heart and lung being we don't have a good betterof them inside the body. It's easy to get a good photo of an external organ thus an actual photo is best. Bobisbob (talk) 21:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


  • You may have stated your position and that's great. Wikipedia works on consensus, please stop edit warring until consensus on this is reached. --Deadly∀ssassin 02:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ejaculating Penis

I think the video with the penis ejaculating should be removed and replaced with something more scientific. This images give the impression that is the article is somehow erotic (why if the video is intended to be solely encyclopedic is the man in the video rubbing his penis when it is ejaculating?) I think the image is inappropriate not out of an attempt to engage in censorhip, but because I think there would be more appropriate images available.68.162.206.86 (talk) 01:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

From a purely scientific point of view a penis typically needs some kind of physical stimulation, such as using a hand to manipulate the penis into ejaculation. JayKeaton (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
This video is terrible and i could not understand why it is still 'here'. Wikipedia changes more and more to a site with pornographic contents and no youth protection. Mfag (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
That is a large accusation based on from what I can see your own distaste for anatomy articles (which you should not have been surprised to see a picture of the a penis when you type in the word "p e n i s". JayKeaton (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Although I agree with "no censorship, ra ra ra" I agree that perhaps we need to look objectively at the issue. There's no policy saying we can't use the letter Q in articles, but that doesn't mean we hQave Qto wQriQte liQke thiQQs. Just because we can have pictures of dicks doesn't mean we should. It looks a bit unprofessional to have 8 pictures of something which 50% of the people reading the page see on a daily basis. The guy jacking off, I find a bit repulsive, but that's actually a (somewhat) useful image, so I have no objection to it. Ziggy Sawdust 06:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
You would, however, expect to frequently see the letter Q and pictures of the letter Q in the Q article. 06:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

YOU ARE TAKING NO CENSORSHIP TO FAR!!

I think a little censorship maybe nessary, espically with this article, and also with the Breast article. Really, do you want your website to be treated as a porn site? --AntiPorn777 (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

What's pornographic about a picture of a penis and a breast? --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 17:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This is not porn, porn is intended to arouse people. This is intended for informative and educational purposes. We have a well-established consensous for pictures, in both this article and in the breast article. Asarelah (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC
If it it's not intended to arouse, why in the image is he rubbing the penis?68.162.206.86 (talk) 21:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I assume that you're referring to the ejaculation picture. That is done to demonstrate ejaculation, which generally does not happen without stimulation. Asarelah (talk) 22:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but I believe that they should have just shown the ejaculatio, not the stimulation. The stimulation crosses the line into erotic I think. 68.162.206.86 (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Since it looks like it was animated from a series of photographs taken from life, I don't believe that is possible. Asarelah (talk) 02:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Ejaculation without physical stimulation is rare and would not accurately represent ejaculation if we used an animation without any physical stimulation. Researchers who see it may be led to believe that ejaculation typically occurs without any stimulation, which is of course false. JayKeaton (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

4 June 2008 tagged Erection section with Poor Examples box

Surely there are better images we could use from artworks or something, instead of using un-Notable self-serving penis self-pics from Wikipedia editors? -- 09:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

They are notable, they serve the purpose of the topic illstruating it. 69.29.254.57 (talk) 19:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

A picture illustrating a subject doesn't necessarily have to be from a famous person or a work of art. Countless articles have user-made pictures. Asarelah (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
But it does have to improve the article. Is there any particular reason -- beyond pro-circumcision/anti-circumcision advocates -- that we need two images in the erection section? The differences between the circ/uncirc'd photos are quite subtle, and not worth cluttering up the page, I'd say (especially since that section deals with erection and not circumcision) Let's at least get rid of one. Nandesuka (talk) 21:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why the main picture was changed. The last one was fine, the current one is a absracted drawing. 69.29.254.57 (talk) 01:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Stale.

4 June 2008 - Light-hearted reminder to fellow editors :-)

This essay is not mine, but it has some relevence to some of the fervor some editors have about penis and sexuality related articles lol. This is an encyclopedia, remember. User:WLU/you should not spread your fetish across Wikipedia like mustard on a delicious, delicious ham sandwich -- caveman80(my 2 cents) 02:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)