Talk:Erection/Archive 1

Older comments
Does anyone think this page could use more pictures of erect dicks? I've got a few of my own lying around here somewhere that I'd be willing to contribute, as long as that doesn't count as 'original research'.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.51.214 (talk) 06:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The penis photos is not appropriate. It should be replaced with an illustration or diagram.

I clicked on the "larger version" link under the photo but it is the same penis... Someone should look into that pronto.

OK then, how do nipple erections occur? A serious question, not a joke.


 * I did a google for it ... the first site I found said that they are due to muscle, not erectile tissue. we need more information that this (and probably on the article nipple) -- Tarquin 22:04 Mar 19, 2003 (UTC)

if the man or boy does not want to reveal to another person that he is sexually aroused by him or her (or by a third person).

I used this somewhat complicated formulation to distinguish embarrassment towards the attractive person and towards someone else, e.g. a man who is not openly homosexual can be embarrassed toward a friend that he is aroused by a third man, but he may not be embarrassed toward this third man. - Patrick 12:30, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Why not just say: if the person does not want to reveal sexual arousal. The shorter the sweeter, no?
 * ahahahaha thats what your girlfriend tells you
 * thats what she tells me... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.216.218 (talk) 04:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Erect penis picture is unjustified

 * Why not move the picture down to the Shape and Size section, so it's not the first thing that appears when one opens the page, giving people the chance to catch themselves if they're browsing in a public space. Regardless of what one may personally feel, many nations and states have laws preventing the display of such material in an environment where children may be present. 92.236.36.106 (talk) 00:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the assertion that an erect penis, with no content warning, is acceptable on this page becuase wikipedia is "not for little kids". It seems that this picture has been removed before, and there is a precedent for removing such pictures (see Talk:Masturbation) on the grounds that they do more harm than good. I'd appreciate it if you'd give a better explanation for your reasons in posting this image again - it has already been removed once. Shikasta 20:04, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I disagree entirely, what harm does it do? Honestly, there should be an explicit content warning for people who are like yourself and don't like pictures of penis' but it isn't a problem that its up there.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.216.218 (talk) 04:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Shikasta has hangups about sex.

The image, in all honesty, makes me sick whenever I look at it. I don't care if it's not for kids - but it's heavily inconvenient to be at work or something, start searching through links, and come upon this. Heck we can all imagine what an erect penis looks like. There's no purpose for the picture being there. Honestly, do they do this in encyclopedia Brittanica? If we could use illustrations like they do in medical textbooks and any reasonable mainstream books, that would be FAR more encyclopedic.


 * Thinking about this, an explicit content link would do, so I made the necessary changes - Shikasta 21:06, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A better and more representative image has now been imported from the penis article. However, it might be improved by rendering in a more clincal monochrome. -- The Anome 00:03, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * Couldn't we get a better picture? This one hardly looks like it is erect.
 * I agree, that picture looks like it would be suitable for a Soft-on article. ;) ShaneKing 09:23, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * A floner (floppy boner). --Ballchef 03:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I second that. Palefire 01:22, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * Why is monochrome more clinical? It seems to me that we associate monochrome with being clinical because old text-books weren't in color. It would do nothing to improve the picture, however.   &mdash; Asbestos | Talk 11:54, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

could u put a warning or something??? at least put the pic at the end of the page... i agree with the monochrome, maybe it would make it seem less porn-like and more matter-of-fact. --68.73.52.100 16:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I did change the image to a rendered version Image:Flaccid_and_erect_human_penis_(rendered).jpg, but someone had already reverted it before I had a chance to change it back to the version that was here before. I've put this link on the main discussion page in Talk:Penis where the photographer first put the image. --Veratien 00:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I guess I don't see why this picture is an issue. WP:NOT.  It's not like this is a picture of a porn star having sex.  It's not a particularly erotic picture; it seems perfectly clinical to me.  I wouldn't object to moving the picture further down the page and putting an explicit content warning near the top.  But presenting a photo of what it is that we're talking about seems like a no-brainer. Nandesuka

Perhaps a different angle on this would the fact that the picture is high up enough for people looking for the topic of man-made structure erection to be taken by surprise. I understand that typing 'Erection' into any sort of search engine is asking for it, but perhaps moving the image further down or a disambiguation page is in order? --Anon, 20:22, 7 October 2005

I also was offended by the picture, but I chose to block it by using my "Adblock image" option on my Mozilla Firefox browser. That is one solution, for anyone concerned. JohnJohn 19:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe people are offended by this image.....genitalia! oh god! what horror! And as for the argument that kids might find it....do you really think seeing a picture of a willy in an informative article like this is going to scar them for life? Better they learn from wikipedia than from the old man who lives down the road
 * Isn't Wikipedia the online version of the old man down the road?

Added an image that I thought would help with the "hardly looks erect" issue (TypicalHumanPenisScale.jpg) that also has an inch scale as none of the images currently give an idea of size. However someone has reverted to the previous version.

Returned you picture as I feel it demonstrates the variation in erections better than the two current images. ElizabethAA

Great new photo, nice to see some variation and a curve in the erection. CharlotteA


 * Man if there's one thing i hate about Christianity it's its moral rejection of the nude.--AnYoNe! 22:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

-I'm an atheist.


 * Is there any reason that the new pictures have shaved scrotums and trimmed pubic hair? JPBarrass (talk) 07:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I am against removing any erect penis image, because it's perfectly harmless - to anyone, adult or child - to see an erect penis. The penis can become erect due to numerous reasons - not just sexual, so it should not be regarded as shameful (not that sex is shameful anyway). Some people are just waaaay too immature. And what difference does the shaving of pubic hair make? Honestly, grow up folks. Anyone who clicks on 'Erection' should expect to find an image of an erection, and since the term applies both to buildings AND penises both should be featured.

Noticed something about the photo

 * The caption says, "An uncircumcised human penis in both flaccid and erect states." I don't know if it's just me, but the flaccid penis is obviously uncircumcised, but erect penis appears to be circumcised. Are they the same penis? The pubic regions look different. --Fallout boy 16:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I take it you are American. Go look at some dogs mating, or some European porn.

They are the same penis. I come to this point because an uncircumsised penis, when erect, looks like it's circumsised. Also, the testacles are the same and (for all those circumsised people) the glans of the penis are visible but they are not like that of the circumsised penis. All the pictures of the circumsised penis' generally have a lighter color glans, whereas that of an uncircumsised penis is generally darker. Just proving my point. --Anonymous

My Penis is circusised. I have a curve to to left when it gets hard. Is there any way to make it straight again? My wife tells me it curves to the left because it is so large. Can any one tell me what I can do?

Most penis's naturally get a slight curve in them. It's nothing you did. If it doesn't prevent intercourse there's no reason to get surgery, and in fact if you found a doctor that would do surgery on it he'd be a rather unethical doctor. Anyway, this is wikipedia, not a health and wellness forum.

Start by going to another site other than Wikipedia! PS you can't get rid of curves in a penis, it's there till you have surgery. PPS your wife is flattering you. even the tiniest willies have curves frequently.

The erect uncircumcised penis photo that Wikipedia currently shows gives a false impression - that upon erection the foreskin automatically retracts. This is not the case. If left alone the foreskin remains on the glans and is used to facilitate entry into the vagina. Thus, an erect penis with the foreskin retracted more accurately represents the penis after sex. This is an important distinction. Sure, it's possible to retract the foreskin manually, but the foreskin of an erect penis usually remains on the glans until it is pulled back.

Why the United States?

 * In some countries, particularly the United States, the skin of the erect penis can often be very tight and immobile on the shaft

Why the United States in particular?? Is there any citation for this? &mdash; Asbestos | Talk 09:18, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Yeah - this stuck me as odd as well. Shouldn't it at least be rephrased? It sounds like a damn good reason not to visit the USA otherwise.

I removed the reference to United States. I would like to see a reference to the problem. I suspect that the problem is rare. Nereocystis 08:12, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My skin moves. But its possible that more in US  seem to be  circumsized and a circumsized  penis has less  skin so   is  there is less to move.



Skin tends to be tighter if it isn't stretched out much. During puberty, as the penis begins to lengthen and thicken, the skin if very tight and can even hurt during erections. Just like breasts, stretch marks can even appear if the erections are too large for the skin. This tightness and pain gradually goes away with increasing erections as the skin gets used to stretching. Perhaps American's aren't as used to their erections as the rest of the planet? We're so uptight here, I wouldn't doubt it ;) Whether its true or not, America definitely needs to lighten up and get out of the shadows of self denial and ideology over nature.
 * That was the stupidest statement ever. EVER. The thing about tight skin was either some stupid comment on uptightness like the previous poster, or on how the medical procedure is performed in teh states. Was it cited by any chance?

--Trevor100a 14:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

the section about embarassment
am i the only person who thinks this whole section is surplus to requirement and should be deleted? it is stating the obvious.

We become embarrassed when we meet intelligence and must welcome its message and effects. If we refuse we won't develop!

OK then, how do nipple erections occur? A serious question, not a joke.


 * I did a google for it ... the first site I found said that they are due to muscle, not erectile tissue. we need more information that this (and probably on the article nipple) -- Tarquin 22:04 Mar 19, 2003 (UTC)

if the man or boy does not want to reveal to another person that he is sexually aroused by him or her (or by a third person).

I used this somewhat complicated formulation to distinguish embarrassment towards the attractive person and towards someone else, e.g. a man who is not openly homosexual can be embarrassed toward a friend that he is aroused by a third man, but he may not be embarrassed toward this third man. - Patrick 12:30, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Why not just say: if the person does not want to reveal sexual arousal. The shorter the sweeter, no?


 * Surely you realise that an erection does not always indicate sexual arousal? In fact, in most cases it doesn't..

Photo description
In the penis article it was established that modification and mutilation terminology is confusing or inaccurate. It was established by consensus that "altered" is both a neutral term and covers all forms of genital modification and mutilation without focusing on the particulars too much. Consequently, I am reverting the last change. DanP 11:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think consensus on one article automatically implies consensus on all articles. I think the word "uncircumcised" in this context is clear, accurate, and (should be) uncontroversial; to describe it as "mutilation terminology" contains a value judgment that I don't think is really warranted. If you'd like to explain why it offends you, I'm sure we're all willing to listen. Nandesuka 11:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear. There are a multitude of genital modification and mutilation practices.  Why are you trying to highlight one that is not present, while ignoring all the others.  Obviously you are going against both established precedent without a clear reason, while at the same time describing a self-contradictory viewpoint (you did not add "unpierced" to the description).  If you are trying to lend some legitimacy to genital mutilation, Wikipedia is not the place to do it.  Try to see both perspectives please. DanP 12:03, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to "lend legitimacy" to circumcision; it already has that legitimacy in Western cultures due to widespread practice. In fact, so many people are circumcised that many don't know what a flaccid uncircumcised penis looks like (for instance, I never saw one until after I was in college).  Most people do, however, know what an unpierced penis looks like.  This is why it is appropriate to note that the penis in the photo is uncircumcised, whereas noting that it is not pierced, not dyed bright blue, or not decorated with a little pink umbrella would just be a non-sequiteur. Nandesuka 12:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * DanP, your last edit on this article violates the 3RR rule. I'm sure this was accidental on your part; please undo your reversion so we don't need to report it. Thanks. Nandesuka 12:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That is clearly a false accusation. By no means did I violate 3RR.  It's sad that you feel the need to trumpet circumcision in this article, yet at the same time other genital mutilations you feel aren't worth mentioning.  It was established by precedent that "altered" encompasses any and all genital modifications and mutilations.  Why you can't see that is almost baffling.  DanP 14:41, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I've added all of the adjectives without judgement one way or the other. I hope all of the bases are covered now, and that we can all be happy. DanP 01:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * With respect, I don't like it at all; it reads clumsily and distracts from the article (which, after all, is about erection not circumcision). My strawman proposal is that we should leave "uncircumcised" in place -- it was the original adjective used until recently, after all -- until we come to a consensus here.  Deal? Nandesuka 04:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Your fetish should not be the topic of this article.  Stop singling out circumcision, and practice NPOV editing, would you? DanP 23:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm trying to. I'm also trying to come to some sort of a reasonable agreement with you here.  You don't like the adjective "uncircumcized".  OK.  That was the adjective that was historically used in the page, and several editors besides me seem to think it's perfectly adequate.  I'm not demanding that it stay that way forever, I'm simply suggesting that we try to come to consensus here on the Talk page here before changing the status quo ante.  Won't you work with us to develop that consensus, DanP?  I am sure you mean well, so I'm extending the olive branch here.  Let's work this out here on the Talk page rather than in the article. I will refrain from discussing your sexual and bodily preferences, and would like it if you could avoid calling me a child mutilator or fetishist.  Nandesuka 01:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

- How about calling it "natural" or "unaltered"? Just a suggestion -Jake


 * DanP your protectivism is pathetic. LIllIi 23:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

aiming at the bowl
Why is it hard to aim one's urine when one has a erection or semi erection? Even when one's penis is aimed at the right spot of the toilet bowl, the flow of urine doesn't hit where it should. What is causing this interference?

(question and answer posted at WP:RD/M)

What's wrong with this picture?
I fail to see exactly how this article is in need of attention due to quality, aside from petty arguments about a photo being black and white to keep from seeming pornographic (A penis is a penis, whether depicted in black and white or in colour; deal with it). Sources are cited, the only slang words are, appropriately, in the "Slang" section. I see no spelling or grammatical errors, and appropriate vocabulary and scientific terms are employed. Would someone kindly offer an explanation for the tag, or should I just remove it now? Adamdavid85 18:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I see no reason for it either. Surely people who slap on this tag, often defacing a valid article, and then just walk away expecting someone else to do the work they prescribe, should at least have to state what they find so objectionable about the article? Flapdragon 01:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

more photographs??
I do not object to displaying photographs of an erect penis. I consider this a very valuable piece of information and do NOT think it is pornography at all!!!! (People who label "erections" with "pornography" must still learn a lot about life, yes.) But do we really need a second display - this time a circumcised penis - to show what it is all about??? Doesn't the one photograph we already have here suffice? I think it does alright. I would like to see the second photograph being deleted. It's absolutely superfluous. Anyone agreeing with me??

--Fromgermany 23:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * In principle, I agree with you, but you're new to Wikipedia and probably haven't discovered the "circumcision wars". There are some very strong feelings on both sides of the circumcision issue here, and if both pictures aren't here, one or the other side will feel discriminated against. --Angr (t·c) 11:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The non-existant image
One of the photos is not uploaded properly (as in red link) that led to its non-existance. Should it be removed? If not, why?
 * Finally, the non-existant image was removed. --Gh87 12:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

growers and showers
I remember seeing a Margaret Cho standup act where she mentions "Growers" and "Showers"..... Though probably not the right term for it, certainly both exist. Is anyone who has this page watched qualified to write about it in more detail?

KV 19:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Another "missing" photo is that of a female erection (clitoral).

Why is this page lacking in any photos of the erect female clitoris?

Can you say "discrimination?" (I truly hope that is not the reason).

-Chickie

If you think there should be photos of an erect female clitoris, just find a freely available picture and add it. "And Susan was bright enough to know that the phrase "Someone ought to do something" was not, by itself, a helpful one. People who used it never added the rider "and that someone is me." " (Terry Pratchett) 69.156.56.25 11:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Jordan

It is like a joke to wish a picture of a clitoraL erection. Everybody know there is nearly nothing to see by women, when they have a sexual arousal. The clitoris gets a little bit thicker, what you can see by "sharp eyes". Only a part of the clits get longer, but negligible! The word erection comes from latin language -"erectere"- and mean stand up. The adjective is "erectus". The clitoris is more or less "covered" with tissue, so it can not change the position, where it is and if, only very small. It can not "touch" the abdomen for example. Only a few degrees a small part can "stand up". (pointed acute/angle) If anybody want ean erect clitoris, this person have to take a photo of a female bodybuilder, such who use testosterone. All other female "erections" are hardly visible,so a picture makes no sense! --Fackel 16:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I can tell a a difference in my clitoris when I'm sexually aroused. Yeah, it only gets a little bit bigger, but it gets a whole lot darker in color. I think a picture of a clitoral erection would be of value to the article, if a good one could be found. Even though the changes in the clitoris aren't huge, it's still an erection.CerealBabyMilk 20:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear CerealBabyMilk: I think your idea is great. I would gladly put my picture up, but as happens I have a penis, not a clitoris. I hope it is not to forward of me to suggest that you take a couple of pictures of your own clitoris (erect and non-erect) and put them up. This would avoid the copyright controversy.
 * For my part, I can asure you that I could have used the education on this subject, and I am sure that many males (and females) can benefit from this.
 * A close-up of your vulva would not actually be recognizable by anybody, and so, I think it is reasonable to think there is no embarrassment/privacy problems for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmer Homero (talk • contribs) 19:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Pictures would show just how significant the changes are.

If you guys want a picture of clitoral erection in this article, then please feel free to find an uncopyrighted photograph and put it on.

To all the women complaining that it's discrimination that there is no picture of an erect clitorus, stop blaming hte guys, you're the ones with the clits, I'm sure most of you have a camera, if you want a pic, take one, release it in CC licence, and upload it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.89.173 (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Image missing
Hey, who deleted image of an uncircumcised penis? 195.150.224.238 02:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Lorena Bobbitt?

"Morning wood"
I would like to translate the excellent German Wikipedia article de:Morgendliche Erektion (translation: morning erection). In the introduction of this article, this phenomenon is called "morning wood." Surely, there must be a more scientific name for it. What should the new title be for this nonexistant article? GilliamJF 22:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It's called a Morning Glory

My friend claims that "morning wood" is a result of the replenishing of testosterone overnight or something like that... does this claim have any basis in fact? Robin Chen 00:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe it occurs either because of collected blood, due to lower pressure (see Death erection), or as a shut-off from urination. -- THEBlunderbuss 22:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Not Completely Flaccid?
The supposedly flaccid picture looks partially erect to me. Can we have a photo that shows a completely flaccid one please? StephenJMuir 11:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The second set of photos isn't completely flaccid either. Check the penis article to see a proper flaccid penis. In fact, why can't this article use that photo. Indeed, why do we need two pictures on this page anyway? StephenJMuir 21:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

There needs to be two pictures for comparisons in what physiological changes occur. The above picture looks partially erect. Not an accurate comparison,not professional. Keep the erect pictures.


 * Not all flaccid penis point towards the floor or become soft and wobbly as jelly.

Why the circumcised picture?
There's no visible difference between the "erect" and "unerect" circumcised d*ck. It looks just the same only bigger. 201.23.64.2 04:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Photo
I have deleted the penis photo at the top of the page. This way we don't offend those who stumble across the page and find a big hard cock but there are still two remaining, perfectly adequate shots of erections further down the page where they serve excellently to illustrate the article. In this way the easily offended will have a chance to go to another article but there'll still be good pictures of two gentlemen who 'have wood.' This article exists perfectly well with two penis examples. Also whoever added this picture must understand the page existed for months without a picture upon immediately opening the page and despite the fact bona fide must be assumed, in this case I am somewhat suspicious of puerile desires to have ones own 'boner' on wikipedia. If you revert my changes I will simply revert it back, no argument or discussion. AntonioBu 12:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

PS I put this comment at the top of the page for a good reason. Do not move it again. Someone has also made a serious mistake on this page as it now only displays the first paragraph. Not due to my edits, I'm not sure how this can be fixed so maybe someone else could repair the damage. AntonioBu 03:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

If you insist on unnecessarily adding a third picture of an erection then upload a high quality image. Until then, it's gone... —Preceding unsigned comment added by AntonioBu (talk • contribs)

The new picture
This picture seems to be no better than the other ones that have been added and removed in the past. Biggishben 09:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. How about all us guys have a contest. Let's just keep replacing the photo with pictures of our own erect penises. We can call it a "cock fight".



Agreed. Here is my picture. Actually, I think it is pretty clean (non-porn like). The others I saw seemed to lack clarity and lighting which is important in an information picture. One thing I wanted to demonstrate was the difference between just being erect, and being fully erect and excited. Once erect, the penis can extend or lengthen slightly more and the head swells if it is extremely aroused. For me the difference can be a half inch.



--Trevor100a 21:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

man..is that really yours?..its huge..how long is that? how old are you???..that cant be an accurate depiction of what the average man has...youre a giant -Anon


 * Hmm. Not a idea for an image. However what's going on with the diagonal line at the bottom of the first two images? And the text isn't needed. Fishies Plaice 02:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * like the photo a lot(not in the sexual kind of like, in the academic sense of like! lol), they have you have done it with the angle of the camera and the presentation of the photos etc...  it just needs a cleaner backdrop without the distracting objects? Also it would be kind of nice to have a more average/typical sized cock. Oh well, whatever. I don't mind, mine is similar! hehe...  Mathmo 09:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Trevor100a, upload the Image again and raise an arguement before it gets deleted and put it on the page.simple KittenMcduff (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Odd statement
This statement was added anonymously: "however, one benefit is its prevention of young boys wetting the bed when waking up with full urinary bladders." is that right? I would remove it but have no knowledge either way Turquoisefish 23:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was weird, so I took it out. It should not be put back unless someone can prove it is true (with a reference) AND someone thinks it is actually an appropriate thing to mention somehow somewhere in this article... 69.87.204.22 11:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

is true that it is bordering on a physical impossibility to piss with an erection. however is it something relevant to include? I highly doubt it. Mathmo 10:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The statement is utter bullshit: I've pissed with an erection plenty of times! Having an erection just makes it easier to hold in is all.

Ok Everybody
I did research about erection in the school library and I got detention because the teacher who kept an eye said I was visiting a porn site. Please, this article can't be viewed in public. Remove the images. One alternative is to clearly warn of the content before the page is loaded or provide a link to the picture, preferably also with a clear warning as to what the content of the image is. --Scotteh 19:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm really trying hard to WP:AGF, but this claim sounds like utter bullshit. Why didn't this student show the teacher the article? Why didn't they file a complaint with school administration? Chances are that some adult at the school has at least the marginal intelligence to recognize that we aren't a pornographic site. Sorry, but it's your own fault for allowing yourself to get railroaded into detention. Question authority, always. --130.127.121.188 14:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Owned --AnYoNe! 22:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The computer illiterate will often identify anything like this as porn. They are rather common at schools, especially amongst the "teaching" portion of the population. I feel for ya, brother.

Ability to control an errection
Should we add a bit in about a male being unable to make an erection go back down? 163.118.215.31 16:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

There are mental "tricks" that can help make an erection go away (like thinking about other things) but it is true and important that erections are not under the direct mental control of men, not like ordinary voluntary actions. 69.87.204.22 11:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Add flacid photo
The two pairs of current photos do a good job of illustrating "erection". I don't think we need more photos to demonstrate various degrees of erection -- the reader gets the idea just fine from these pairs. However, these photos might leave a reader with mis-impressions about the size/appearance etc of a penis when not at all sexually aroused. These pictures just show "start of erection" and "after erect". It would be good to also have a previous picture, of a totally small/shrivelled/limp/floppy penis. (See also - Seinfeld ref: "shrinkage") 69.87.204.22 11:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's one to consider. -- 678901


 * It demonstrates that the size while flaccid is no indication of the size while erect, plus it includes two views -- 678901 23:02, 20 September 2006

Why is This inappropriate?
So many people say that pictures of erect penises are inappropriate because children may see them. Now, how could it be inappropriate if they are looking it up? If they know the term, they should know what one looks like. Besides, they'll see one at some place in their lives, especially boys. So, please, stop saying that it's inappropriate without a good reason. Whiffle Ball Tony 23:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts on the video... just curious
Could I get some feedback on what everyone thinks of the video that shows a penis becoming erect?--68.88.200.230 20:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * is a good idea, anything like this which is a motion the public at large would be curious about should be showing by video. Mathmo 10:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

the video doesn't show the best specimen to show a penis becoming erect.Yami (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * John Holmes was not available for an audition. --Merovingian (T, C) 01:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Clitoris pictures
Anyone else think the page should include pictures of the same clitoris both flaccid and erect? It would probably be more informative than the penis pictures because the subject isn't as well known. --Scottandrewhutchins 17:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * you are absolutely right about that mate, after all we have pictures of the other two. all we are missing is one of an erect clit. makes perfect sense. is the missing picture from this page to make it the complete three. Mathmo Talk 19:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I also Agree, could a women take a picture and post it, thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.36.252.148 (talk) 00:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Erection sample photo
A couple of times I have tried to modify the page to use as an example of a penis becoming erect. A side-on view, it shows more clearly the difference between a flaccid and an erect penis and allows the viewer to get a very clear idea of the physical manifestation of the penile erection. The existing photos are mostly front-on which means that a foreshortening effect makes it difficult to get an accurate picture.

Each time I have made this modification, I have been reverted. I can't find any discussion here as to why the picture I'm inserting is not to be used. I don't want to tread on any toes and do something I'm not supposed to, but I do think the picture is better than what is there now. 87.112.54.178 15:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

A genuine encyclopedic penis picture idea...
Here's an idea for all those who like to input pictures of erections and such onto the article...

On the Earth article, one finds an animated image demonstrating the rotation of the earth (see here).

Should those with the time, guts and expertise be interested, it may be appropriate (though would require consensus) to try to replicate this animation (gif) technique to demonstrate the stages of an erection (as used for sex education/medical enlightment - and thus be presented appropriately). Thoughts? Jhamez84 18:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you referring to a real penis, or to a drawin? I might be willing to create an animated GIF using my penis. Though I'm sure the people who mark this article as offensive and inappropriate will have a field day!

How about this to replace the video
How about using this to replace the video that has been removed?--68.88.196.111 23:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Video of a human male's penis going from flaccid to erect state

It violates Wikipedia community standards
I.P. 68.88.196.111 is probably a meat-puppet of User:Atomaton who has posted a similar animation at Talk:Masturbation.

The GIF he is trying to have accepted is inappropriate per Wikipedia community standards.

WikiProject_Sexology_and_sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines states, Images relating to some topics cannot be informative without also running the risk of being offensive to some. However, when deciding between two equally informative images, the one which is least likely to offend (or is likely to offend the least) should be used.

And below that quote is a section indicating that Artwork is preferred over photographs.

In the same way, the photos of flaccid and erect penises currently in this article do not conform to Wikipedia community standards. There is no possible rationale for why a drawing or artwork of flaccid and erect penises are a detriment to the educational value of this article compared with the photos. Since this is so it violates Wikipedia community standards. And drawings or artwork could be easily found or created to replace the photos. I am thus removing them.

CyberAnth 10:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want to draw a penis go ahead —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.36.252.148 (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

whose "community standards" are these?
Plainly, a number of fellows are having great fun adding pictures of their penises to this article, and have not the slightest interest in increasing the encyclopedic value of Wikipedia thereby.

However. To pretend that there are established "community standards" on Wikipedia that discourage nudity and sexual depictions is totally false. CyberAnth links to a proposed Wikiproject guideline which he is actively involved in debating. A few things to note: Dan B † Dan  D  18:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Dan B † Dan  D  18:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not Wiki-wide, but applies to the Sexology and Sexuality Wikiproject, of which this article is not a part (but actually...shouldn't it be?)
 * It is not established even for that project, but is still a set of proposals for discussion. The page heading states "References or links to this page should not describe it as 'policy'."
 * On November 30, Wikipedia chose to feature the article History of erotic depictions on the front page. Leadership of Wikipedia is apparently not shy about being perceived as sexually explicit by casual visitors.


 * I honestly did not see the proposed part of that. Right now it looks like many of prurient intent, including pedophiles, are weighing in on the matter. Let us hope that more sane heads prevail. CyberAnth 21:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I changed the images to links. Personally I dislike Wikipedia, but I do not think minors should be forced to look at nudity. This is an encyclopedia of knowledge for all, not a place to insert pictures of your penis. Go flash someone in public. --Flaming-Dookie 04:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

O, and who circumcised that dude? They cut his head down the middle! lolololol Maybe I should make a YTMND of that uncircumcised one...he has semen on his :D. Mah, I'll just delete that shit off of my hard drive.
 * Reverted- Wikipedia is not censored for minors, sorry. WJBscribe 04:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I bet that's your penis isn't it? roffle

I force children to look at this page, I hold a gun to their heads and tell them to type in "penis" and "erection", and when the page loads it scars them for life. Pahlease, if a child is shocked to find an erection when he types in "e r e c t i o n" then be probably needed that very important life lesson anyway. Anyway, at science class in school, we were once showed a boy with an erection inside a girls vagina and the photo had some kind of heat sensor and cross section thing done to it, so you could see which parts of the body fill with blood and stuff and you could actually SEE how perfectly the erect penis slides inside the girls vagina. It was a fascinating image, almost like looking at the very mechanics of sex, and seems to me like a perfect candidate for this page as it looks very academic. Although I imagine such photos are hard to take so there are few of them out there, but if anyone can find a free use one that would be excellent. JayKeaton 15:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Only humans get erections? Gasp!
The disambig preamble states: This article discusses human physiological erection. For erection of artificial structures, see construction.

Perhaps the article should be written less from a human specific point of view considering every warm blooded animal on the face of the planet and a good few thousand cold blooded have penises that also gain erection? This is possibly the most narrowly scoped article I've ever read. Surely I'm not the first to point out this blatently obvious flaw to the logic presented?!? 211.30.71.59 00:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "every warm blooded animal on the face of the planet and a good few thousand cold blooded have penises that also gain erection"
 * Speaking of flawed logic... ;) --zenohockey 06:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Prostate?
The article says that the prostate plays a role in erection. Can you explain this role to me?--Al-Bargit 16:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Spelling
On the warning at the top, it says "The material lower down the page may cause some readers offence."

"offence" should be offense.
 * Indeed, I didnt notice that. But its a template, so I can´t change it--ometzit&lt;col&gt; 23:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Offence is a valid UK spelling. Ragzouken 21:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for disambiguation for 'bonar'
I was searching for the Bonar brothers, Horatius and Andrew, who are prominent men in the Church of Scottland during the 19th century. My only request is that "Bonar" go to a disambiguation page saying something like: Are you looking for Horatius B, Andrew B. If it is necessary for Bonar to link to Erection, then include that on the disambiguation page.

If someone could do that, it would be greatly appreciated. I don't know how.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peterjhart (talk • contribs) 16:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC).


 * I think the present redirect is somebody's joke.
 * When you are redirected, you will see the phrase "(redirected from ____)" under the title of the article where you end up. Click on the link in this phrase, and you will be returned to the redirect page and can edit it normally. Dan B † Dan  D  05:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Dat's Bullshit
How tha fuck does a womens nipple of her boobs erect that iz bullshit dude it's like dat all day User:Next Fiday
 * You're an idiot.--203.70.89.148 19:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

if you're tryin to be funny, you aint, if you're bein serious, then get yourself into a school or college, or read a book.

Confusing caption for circumcised penis picture
The circumcised picture includes the sentence

"Note the abnormal bonding of penile skin due to circumcision."

yeh, thats a loada crap, the bond of penile skin to the glans in that photograph is purely unique to the person who'se picture is up there, its not due to circumcision.

It is not clear enough what this sentence refers to - can it be explained better? 68.46.96.38 15:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It may refer to a 'skin bridge' that's just visible. It's really unnecessary (and a bit soapbox-ish) in this article, though, which is about erection, not possible complications of circumcision. Jakew 16:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Photos
ITT tiny penises. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.70.89.148 (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC).


 * OBJECTION! --AnYoNe! 22:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Editing
I don't understand how to make a copyright tag for an image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coaster maniac (talk • contribs) 11:44, June 14, 2007
 * All existing copyright tags are listed here. To create a new tag, see Image copyright tags. --zenohockey 18:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Shankbone
Shankbone, I'm very happy for you that you're proud of your large penis, but try YouPorn.com next time. There are already 2 example pics of erections, I don't think anyone needs to see yours or your anus. --Judgeking 20:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL - I *wish* it was my large penis. This was a professional male model I spoke to about helping to illustrate articles.  Thanks for making assumptions I'm trying to get my big ol' unit out there, but as a photographer I prefer behind the scenes, thank you.  You can compare my photos on my User page to the photos found on my body parts gallery and you will note that they aren't particularly similar.  Regardless, it's a great illustration that replaced a PRE EXISTING poor quality photo.  We might could crop it some, but I see no reason why it shouldn't remain except for Puratanical sensibility.  --David Shankbone 20:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know my penis up there was of poor quality. But why'd you have to replace mine? I had just put it up there...and to be honest my erection looks more realistic than yours...which just looks enormouse...so enormous it may be fake. Crowdedcar 02:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL - a fake erection? Please...I'm dying to hear a description of how I would pull that off.  Aside from the fact the photo was taken with a low quality camera, the penis didn't even look erect - it barely even reached pass beyond the hand.   --David Shankbone 02:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I found the post incredible. I would love to see more of your work Shankbone. Please email to [EMAIL REDACTED] This subject matter would be appreciated. Thanks a lot.

Clitoral erection
I think the fact that there are only two sentences devoted to clitoral erection is unjustified. If the process is similar to penis erection, then why not move the physiological processes to the section on erection in general and then be more specific on penis erection and on clitoral erection. Now it looks like penis erection is the standard. It is not quite clear which of the processes described in the penis section also apply to clitoral erection and I'm sure that there are also differences that are worth mentioning. For example, how about some info on the size of the erect clitoris? A picture of a clitoris would also be a good idea. Zora11 09:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"This is often referred to as boner shame"
"This is often referred to as boner shame"

Man, who writes this garbage? I would like to suggest that "often referred to" should call for a citation. 212.99.207.196 22:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Photo
I can post a picture of my erect penis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.10.2 (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

What would we need it for? The existing images are satisfactory. 203.97.214.247 03:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I wonder if this is how we generally get images for sexual articles. 76.252.70.136 15:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess there is no easier way to get open source images of the body than to take photos of yourself. It would be nice if the images were taken in a more "medical" kind of way, like the vitruvian man. JayKeaton 19:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Circumcised picture only?
Why is the only picture in this article of a circumcised penis? Not very neutral to include only a penis in an altered state. We should have one of an uncircumcised penis. 67.171.230.83 (talk) 05:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. There are only two pictures of a circumised penis. The other pictures merely have the foreskin retracted.Asarelah (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, now it's fixed, but when I posted, only circumcised ones were there. 67.171.230.83 (talk) 08:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

ALL PIXES GONE !!!!
All gone. 65.163.112.205 (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Now they're baack. Must've been another glitch. 65.163.112.205 (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

More Photos
If your going to add more photos, don't add anymore caucasian males, as we have enough pictures of that, as well pictures require a neutral background, with as much of the penis as exposed as possible, which means no clothing, as well as no hands on the penis in any way shape or form.Coldpower27 (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Photo caption NPOV problems
Consider the following pair of captions. Here, a "human" penis is contrasted with a "circumcised" penis, the implication being that only one is truly human. Clearly, this violates WP:NPOV.


 * A human penis flaccid (left) and erect (right)
 * A circumcised penis flaccid (left) and erect (right).

Now consider the next pair, in which "a penis" is contrasted with "a circumcised penis". Again, this violates NPOV, just as comparing "a black girl" with "a girl" would - a circumcised penis is also a penis.


 * A flaccid (left) and erect (right) penis
 * A circumcised penis flaccid (left) and erect (right).

Given two captions, we have two options:


 * An uncircumcised penis flaccid (left) and erect (right)
 * A circumcised penis flaccid (left) and erect (right).

(In which both are described using neutral adjectives that differentiate between the two.) Or:


 * A penis flaccid (left) and erect (right)
 * Another penis flaccid (left) and erect (right).

The first is more informative, and is my own preference. Jakew (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that "circumcised" shouldn't be included in the description when the purpose of the pictures isn't to show circumcised vs uncircumcised (as in your first example), but when that IS the point, then that's how the captions SHOULD read. When the pictures are included with the purpose of illustrating that distinction, they should be captioned to mention that distinction. In an article about race, ethnicity, or cultures, two pictures comparing "a black girl" and "a white girl" (but not "a girl") would be just fine TheBilly (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The penis is naturally "uncircumcised," and images of this "uncircumcised penis" merely reflect normal human anatomy and physiology. The penis is the only example on Wikipedia of unmodified anatomy being qualified by possible modifications. Why do "unpierced ears" lack such a caption?


 * The "girl"/"black girl" analogy is simply wrong; try "a female" versus "a female amputee". Kieral (talk) 03:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the penis is naturally uncircumcised. Similarly, ears are naturally unpierced, legs are naturally unamputated, milk is naturally unpasteurised, fingernails are naturally untrimmed, and humans are naturally unclothed. In each of these cases there are times when it is appropriate to use an appropriate adjective. For example, if we were to include a pair of photos to illustrate the appearance of ears both pierced and unpierced, then it is entirely appropriate to label them as such. Jakew (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * TheBilly's comments seem to make abundant sense to me, here. – Luna Santin  (talk) 08:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This page is intended to demonstrate the penis' erectile function. An normal example of this involves a healthy, functional penis with an intact, retractable foreskin. Phimosis, Peyronie's disease, and subincision would all disqualify a model from inclusion in the leading sections, and penises without these conditions wouldn't be described as unphimotic, non-Peyronie's, or unsubincised.


 * Jakew, why do you seem so intent on making circumcision the focus of every article about male sexual organs? By describing normal anatomy in an unrelated article as "uncircumcised," that's exactly what you're doing. Kieral (talk) 04:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Kieral, both images demonstrate the erectile function of the penis. The foreskin has little to do with this function, but does affect the appearance of an erect penis. Since both circumcised and uncircumcised penes are common (roughly 30% and 70% of the world's penes respectively, according to the WHO), it is reasonable to illustrate both, and to briefly explain how they differ. Jakew (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with Kieral. Blackworm (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * For better or for worse, this article is mainly about human penile erections. Being circumcised or not is a big deal, that's obvious from the discussions/arguments on this article and many other artilces that have 'circumcision wars'.  So since the article is mainly about penis erections, and since circumsizing penises is a big deal, we need to show pictures of both (this argument has been going on for years, look at the other 'talk' above). --99.247.169.232 (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Size of erect penises.
I changed [this] because it's POV to state "little can be done" since it implies increasing size is desirable. I added a "citation needed" flag because I'm under the impression surgeries of that type mostly or completely only affects flaccid penile size. Also, I believe the entire paragraph is dubious. We don't discuss the fixed size of any other adult organs, do we? Even the breast article doesn't seem to mention size as a reason for plastic surgery. (!) Blackworm (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

the video should be removed
the video doesn't show the best specimen to show a penis becoming erect. Yami (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what best specimen has to do with it, but I think it should be removed as well. We don't show videos of other body functions on Wikipedia, such as clitoral erections (oddly not mentioned in this article), or urination...  Why a male erection (and, I'll note, an ejaculation, elsewhere on Wikipedia).  I'm all for depicting the subject without undue censorship, but I think videos of this type are better left to more specialized sources, such as medical sources, or porn.  Blackworm (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Drawings/diagrams?
Would not anatomical drawings or diagrams work well enough as examples? There's so much squabbling over what photos should be used, whether they should be labelled as 'uncircumcised' or whatever, when none of this is at all integral to the content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casdious (talk • contribs) 03:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Erection (penis) appears to have been intended to split out a section of this article. It may be that this article should be split, but until someone's ready to do it all at once (following proper procedure by discussing it here, of course), I think the page should be merged back here. For one thing, having two nearly identical articles could potentially lead to confusion as people start editing them separately. --DocumentN (talk) 05:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Erection (penis) has now been redirected back to Erection. This is a comparison of the two pages at the time of the merge; on close examination none of the differences really seemed worth merging. (I used copies because I don't know of an easier way to compare two different pages on Wikipedia.) --DocumentN (talk) 06:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Normally I would scream about non-consensus based changes, DocumentN, but your proposal to re-merge the two articles sat there for five days without anyone commenting on either side. And I agree with your concern about almost identical content in two articles which will likely result in more content drift as editors work on one or the other articles. There were already four differences between the articles. I did merge in two phrases/sentences that had been left out, so now all the content that was in the Erection (penis) article is here also. The only reason I stumbled on this article is because I was working on cleaning up Ithyphallic (as it related to ancient art and symbols). Bottom line: I agree with the merge. Good job, especially with the comparison. — Becksguy (talk) 08:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You may not feel like screaming, but I do: THERE IS NO REASON TO SEEK CONSENSUS FOR AN UNCONTROVERSIAL MERGE. Help:Merging and moving pages even specifically says so. The only reason I made the proposal was because I was hoping that somebody else would merge the pages for me. --DocumentN (talk) 08:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)