Talk:Ejaculation

Proposed deletion of the ejaculation video and photos
The video and photos are indecent for use in a general encylcopedia. If you see the number of deletion requests that the user has generated: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Richiex you can see that he is a pervert trying to get his self made porn onto the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussiewikilady (talk • contribs) 19:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I do not understand how providing a video depicting the subject of the article could, possibly, be misconstrued as perversion.
 * What makes the video perverse? It shows a human adult male ejaculating. The article describes ejaculation.
 * No part of the video is unnecessary, please be objective. A Muddy Taco (talk) 14:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The video is staying. The photos are staying. This is a long established status quo.Jasphetamine (talk) 09:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sadist exhibitionists derive pleasure from exposing people to content which makes them uncomfortable.
 * It's disappointing that this is a controversy. I can accept that the material is needed on the site, but it limits the usefulness of the article when the mouseover for Ejaculation is obscene. Mkallies (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The video and images are not suitable for minors doing research on sexuality.
 * they could be construed in the public domain as pornographic.
 * These images and videos do not add to the understanding of the subject matter.
 * If some sort of imagery is deemed appropriate I would suggest a medically oriented computer animation would be better suited to the intent of wikipedia
 * 172.58.187.80 (talk) 00:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * WP:CENSOR. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Jasphetamine, Please don't say heavy-handed nonsense like this:
 * "The video is staying. The photos are staying. This is a long established status quo"
 * A long established status quo can be set aside; NOTHING in an encyclopedia exists by some authority of tradition. And Wikipedians making mistakes is similarly a "long established status quo".𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge receipt of your message. Jasphetamine (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

the video is unnecessary
the video is of far poorer quality and redundant to the images provided in the article. the video should be removed. ltbdl (talk) 07:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * , would you like to propose an alternative video? Or are you instead trying to argue that no video should be included? Are you trying to argue that including a video of ejaculation serves no useful educational purpose? Please elaborate. Cullen328 (talk) 07:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * i do not have an alternative video at hand, but the current video is of very poor quality. i will gladly replace it with something of better quality. ltbdl (talk) 07:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not see the quality issues that you see. Please clarify the quality issues. It is simply a brief video of a man ejaculating. If you can propose a better, more instructive freely licensed video, then please feel free to bring it here for discussion. Cullen328 (talk) 07:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * again, i do not have a better video. but the video is grainy, and the images provided are already sufficient for illustration. ltbdl (talk) 07:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If you believe that a video of a man ejaculating is highly instructive, then I invite you to attach a video (in the appropriate content) of a real women using her vagina for showing how to put a tampon and/or a video of a real vagina discharge/ejaculation. They would also be for educational purpose. 85.31.131.82 (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Those are fine subjects to discuss on those articles' talkpages. It is predicated on having a suitable video file available. That we don't have them there doesn't mean we can't have this here. Seeing (or not seeing) X has no bearing on seeing (or not seeing) Y, unless your whole problem is WP:IDONTLIKEIT or a desire to censor something for the benefit of certain moral codes. DMacks (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I am curious about this: Does it mean that actually we can have a short video of a couple having sexual intercourse in any term-related page? E.g. A real penetration, real felatio or real cunnilingus. Since we are talking about censorship, is this contemplated in the policy? Let's be congruent. 85.31.131.82 (talk) 20:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Nothing in WP policy appears to prohibit it by default. OF course, this here is not the place to discuss any other article, or to ask for clarification of or changes to WP content policies and guidelines. DMacks (talk) 20:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It's sleezy. I think we get the point without a guy blowing his wad on camera. Like, really? ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 04:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The idea is that producing a WP:PAG-based argument, either for or against the video, is very difficult. So, the status quo is unlikely to change. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's basically pornography. Does the video significantly improve a reader's knowledge? Doubtful. It comes across as exhibitionist and a bit creepy to have it displayed. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 07:09, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It may not significantly improve your knowledge of the topic, but you cannot speak for others here. I get why some call this "creepy" but that's not a problem that Wikipedia can solve. The article exists for a broad range of readers, including people who (rightfully) do not want to resort to pornography for medical information, but who are still looking for this info in a visual form. Describing this as 'pornography' is not helpful and makes a lot of unfounded assumptions about why people would view this article. Grayfell (talk) 21:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If they are looking for the info in visual form, they can go to Ejaculation videos on Wikimedia Commons. KingArmery (talk) 08:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Remove the ejaculation video and photos
Completely thoughtless or intentionally perverse to keep up any video or photos of an actual person ejaculating. Give reasons why it is both neccessary and appropriate that Wikipedia (which is for all ages) needs an actual depiction over a virtual video or drawn illustration.

Any video and photos need to be deleted. You don't need real depictions to understand the subject. That's not how teachers teach sex ed. KingArmery (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You have brought nothing new to this topic, that has been discussed to death. Please don't waste your and our time in this way. DMacks (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see an actual answer to what I brought up. If I've said nothing new, copy-paste the reasons why real-life depictions are necessary over virtual or drawn illustration.
 * Your wasting your own time if you're going to reply but say nothing. If you keep avoiding a valid complaint from people, it will keep being discussed. KingArmery (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * At the top of the page is a box labeled "Recurrent topics (links to archived discussions):" If you are on mobile you maye have to tap "learn more about this page" first. Please click or tap that box to see a list of past discussions of this issue. Grayfell (talk) 01:57, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I looked through the archives. I saw many people in agreement about deleting the video. Some also said it's an inaccurately large depiction of a cum load while others said it's a low quality video. Where is the argument that a real-life depiction is both necessary and appropriate, and how it's better than an animation or drawn illustration?
 * The video from the Medline Plus page on the "Sperm release pathway" is already more educational than the cumshots on Wikipedia. KingArmery (talk) 04:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Even if that's a better video, Wikipedia still has to obey copyright laws.
 * While our video is overly explicit, their video is overly prude. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Your argument then is that even if I found/obtained a similar video and it met your copyright needs, you would reject it because it's "overly prude." In other words, your copyright argument isn't your actual argument. Your actual argument is that you wish to have overly explicit material on this Wiki page regardless of better alternatives. What does "overly prude" even mean?
 * I thought based on WP:OM editors don't choose explicit material for offensiveness sake? You agree it's a better video; if you can edit this page, contact ADAM, Inc. for the right to use the video, or replace the current video with a link to the article and readers can access the better video.
 * Three people have replied to me. Not one of you have answered my original objection. KingArmery (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We have answered your original objections many, many, many times in the past, so patience for rehashing this yet again is limited.
 * If you wish to contact that website about donating the video to Commons, you are just as free to do that as we are. Perhaps Commons:Help:Contents or Commons:Commons:Community portal would be useful, although I do not know of any specific guide or policy related to that.
 * If that video is donated (or another alternative can be found) you will still have to build consensus for this change. Being too prudish is a valid concern, because as has already been discussed here countless times before, this is still legitimate medical information and Wikipedia isn't censored. Grayfell (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "Limited patience" - I guess you can now empathize with how the vast amount of people who replied feel about how the few of you keep avoiding the issues brought up.
 * You haven't even answered my original objection. (What is my original objection and what is your answer?) People bringing up the same objections is valid, especially when they're valid objections.
 * You contact them. Your argument is the video's "overly prude", so if I contact them and am able to acquire it you will reject it. I can't edit this Wikipedia page to replace the cumshot video, so I can't do anything other than trust you don't think it's "overly prude" than the "overly explicit" cumshot. You haven't defined what "overly prude" even means.
 * What does WP:VDC mean re: censorship? Considering I can't edit most of this page, that's not democratic; how is this not a form of censorship? What about censoring cp? KingArmery (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a democracy, and consider this a formal warning to stop assuming how others will react or edit (WP:AGF, etc.). This are just more examples of your not really demonstrating an understanding of our policies and guidelines. DMacks (talk) 00:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I said it's not democratic. I know that means it's not a democracy.
 * People aren't willing to answer what "overly prude" means for a video that they said may be better than this "overly explicit" video on this Wiki page. If none of you will answer that, and none of you will answer any of these other questions, I don't know what you want me to ask, DMacks. KingArmery (talk) 06:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Your 'original objection' is: Completely thoughtless or intentionally perverse to keep up any video or photos of an actual person ejaculating. It's not "thoughtless" since clearly a large amount of thought and debate has already gone into including this video. Medical information is not "perverse" just because it is related to sex. You haven't made a real objection here. There are valid encyclopedic reasons to include this information in video form, so dismissing it as "perverse" is a dead-end.
 * To put it another way, this is an encyclopedia article about ejaculation. A video demonstrating the topic of the article is obviously relevant and useful. Ejaculation is biologically normal, routine, and common. Many find it very unpleasant to look at, and some even consider it "perverse". This is not an excuse to censor the video. If you want to replace this with something else, you need to both propose a specific replacement and also explain why you want to replace it. Just vaguely asserting it shouldn't be in the article isn't even an objection we can answer. Grayfell (talk) 01:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You can't read any word past the first sentence which both asks for an answer from you and explains what I feel is better?
 * I can't even reply further with my first objection (which you haven't read in full) because the first answer was to not waste my time.
 * Now I'm also being told the type of video I thought is a better representation may be better but is "overly prude" than the "overly explicit" video here. No one has defined what "overly prude" and "overly explicit" even means here, especially when we're talking about "[m]edical information". KingArmery (talk) 06:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Since the suggested alternate video is neither in the public domain nor freely licensed, it is a waste of time to discuss the comparison any further. The only alternatives worth discussing are those that can be used freely on Wikipedia. began by boldly asserting that but quickly abandoned that absolutist stance. There is not a snowball's chance in hell that all videos and photos will be removed. They are educational. Now, we are discussing alternative videos instead. Well, find a better freely available video and then we will actually have something to discuss. Cullen328 (talk) 07:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Didn't answer me, Cullen328. Please read the *entire* topic, or don't reply.
 * Both my argument and question is about virtual or drawn...what exactly, Cullen? Will you or others be good faith with me and not skip sentences?
 * What have I been told is "overly explicit" and what have I been told that, if I could even provide (and may already be better), is "overly prude", without being given definitions?
 * We already have something to discuss. KingArmery (talk) 08:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I answered you by analyzing the lack of logic that cropped up in this discussion that immediately went astray. The video is educational and no better free alternative has yet been identified. You just didn't like my answer,. Cullen328 (talk) 08:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Your green text omits what I said. In an essay, is that a legitimate quote? Let me help add context: Why does Wikipedia need ?
 * You have not given me a way to find a better alternative because I've already been told that video I mentioned (which you will avoid talking about) may already be better than the "overly explicit" one you use, but it's "overly prude". No one has told me what that even means. It seems you won't answer, Cullen, but it is what it is.
 * Throw me a bone, Cullen. How do you feel about the Youtube video below and either its current license or you helping me get it so we can use the video to replace the current video on this Wiki page?
 * "The male orgasm explained". From Healthchannel Youtube channel.
 * KingArmery (talk) 09:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I see a big copyright sign on the video, so that's usually unusable for Wikipedia. Does the YouTuber even own the copyright for that video? If not, only the owner may release it to being used inside Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Throw you a bone, ? Here's your bone. I watched both alternative videos that you have suggested and saw that both are copyright restricted. There is no point in further discussion of videos that are illegal to use on Wikipedia. Have you looked at all the freely licensed ejaculation videos on Wikimedia Commons? I would be happy to discuss, in detail, any freely licensed alternative. I will not waste my time analyzing videos that are copyright restricted. Cullen328 (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Anyway, this is not an "essay", so I do not lnow why you are using that term. Please read Essays. This is a common article talk page discussion. And I am under no obligation to define terms used by another editor. Cullen328 (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I know it's not an essay. You keep skipping the added context I gave you, which further legitimizes the point I made.
 * You don't need to be obligated to still provide an answer. If the other editor doesn't provide an answer, then how will I ever receive one? KingArmery (talk) 08:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, about 50 bones (feel free to correct how many) of dudes masturbating and then blowing their loads. They show nothing else in the process than nearly the same "medically informative" video on a porn site. Glad to hear how happy you are to discuss any and all in detail. KingArmery (talk) 07:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting to hear what "overly prude" means. KingArmery (talk) 07:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We're not WP:Wikilawyering. Just apply common sense. (Weird thing for me to say, since I believe common sense is not common, and it does not always make sense.) tgeorgescu (talk) 04:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The video is basically pornography; Just apply common sense. KingArmery (talk) 08:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We get it...you just don't like that people might actually see someone ejaculating and think others don't find any value in it either. But when you learn others have found value in it, you just keep saying the same thing over again. And given others have found value in it, your label of "pornography" fails. And so we're exactly as we started...you have brought nothing new to the table, so nothing changes. DMacks (talk) 08:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm quoting the logic they used, DMacks, as you can notice by the green text. If their logic is invalid, then I'm still waiting to hear what "overly prude" means.
 * If my "label" of basically pornography (quote me properly next time) fails because others find value in the cumshot video, are you arguing pornography has no value?
 * You and the other editors who have responded still have not addressed all my objections. (If you want to reply, feel free to quote the sentence that keep being skipped over in the original topic and we'll see if you do understand what it was.) As I told *you* specifically before, I don't know what you want me to ask, DMacks. KingArmery (talk) 09:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The rules of the game: the video can only be replace with a better, freely licensed video. Otherwise, it won't get deleted. You have to comply with the rules of the game. We don't waste time splitting hairs with WP:Wikilawyering about parsing words and logical shenanigans. Provide a WP:PAG-based argument, thus not an argument based upon your own opinions (or my own opinions), or be gone from this talk page. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, tgeorgescu, I'll ignore some of what you previously said and be OK with the omissions when I've been "quoted" (possibly not by you, but by others).
 * The cumshots lack diversity; I notice a lot of white cocks which seem to be circumcised. They also seem to be large loads. Any POC cocks, possibly uncircumcised, on Wikimedia Commons that you know of to suggest instead? We can see if there's a consensus on which cumshot is best.
 * You're the editor; you'll be able to sift through the videos and link the POC ones faster than myself. KingArmery (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one who wants to change the status quo. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * An answer I should've expected.
 * Here's some videos you can watch that show more diversity than just white, circumcised cocks:
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Educational_Ejaculation_Demonstration.ogg
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:27_year_old_Asian_male_ejaculation.webm
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Masturbation_of_uncut_penis_and_semen_flow.webm
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Uncircumcised_man_ejaculating_(front_view).ogv
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:25-year-old_asian_male_ejaculation.webm KingArmery (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm here for the text, not for the pics/videos. So, I only intervene in discussions about those when a principle is at stake. Otherwise, I'm not bothered about which is the right picture for the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If you don't care, then have someone who does reply. They can see my argument and watch the examples. KingArmery (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have read your argument and watched your example videos. I do not believe that they are more informative or less sexually charged than the existing video, therefore I strongly support keeping things the way they are.
 * Let me just talk plainly here: in the current video it is a decidedly average guy, he's wearing a shirt, we don't see him masturbating, the video resolution is so-so, and the semen is clearly visible as it spurts its merry way out of his damn penis. It is dull, unexciting, and illustrative. Job done. Leave it alone.
 * If you are absolutely genuinely passionate about equal representation here, I think there could be merit in replacing the four-frame image of an ejaculating white guy penis (however it does appear uncircumcised, an issue you mentioned) with an equivalent image featuring an individual of color guy's penis. That will be a much easier lift.
 * I gotta say, in these challenging times, bickering about this page is the only constant left in my life. I find it oddly comforting. Jasphetamine (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

where does the sperm come from
The urethra, the tube that urine and semen flow through, runs along the underside of them, in the spongy tissue of the corpus spongiosum.

https://www.webmd.com/erectile-dysfunction/how-an-erection-occurs

in the second stage, ejaculation proper, the semen is moved through the urethra and expelled from the body. https://www.britannica.com/science/ejaculation

I think it is important to add this information at the beginning in the description of the article because the English-language Wikipedia is a measure of the reliability of information for the whole world

if this information is not in the English wiki, then people around the world will consider that their national wikipedia contains unreliable information. TimurMamleev (talk) 03:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

No citations provided in the first few paragraphs
The opening paragraphs of the article contain no citations. 2601:19B:67F:D200:B943:7493:82C7:FD98 (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * See WP:CITELEAD. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)