Talk:Human penis

"male"
Anyone want to attempt to justify the removal   of "male" from the first sentence of the lead "The human penis is an external male intromittent organ ..." ? Meters (talk) 05:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This is covered in WP:GENDER as "statements that are exclusively about anatomy and biological sex". Meters (talk) 05:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That same user claimed that gender is a "sexist" term. I think we are dealing with an unserious person. Crossroads -talk- 05:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And Meters, thanks for reverting that sort of language. I recently finished helping to clean up after a whole class of WP:Student editors who talked like that. I suspect some instructor told them to do that. Crossroads -talk- 05:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Just chiming in to thank you Meters, good catch. Crossroads, was that situation with a class group on related topics? Jasphetamine (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Why? 89.19.89.117 (talk) 13:22, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey dickheads!
In English, these include member, dick, cock, prick, johnson, dork, peter, pecker, manhood, stick, rod, thing, third/middle leg, dong, willy, schlong, todger, and popsicle stick. This is not covered by the citation. Jack Upland (talk) 03:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems to be a magnet for vandalism or rare non-noteworthy euphemisms. Should really be trimmed or deleted. Crossroads -talk- 04:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually the euphemism/slang issue is I think an important point. Even penis (tail in Latin) is a euphemism. What is the ur word for penis?--Jack Upland (talk) 05:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Penis is not a euphemism in standard 20th/21st century English. It is standard English. 65 plus years ago, my mother, who was 21 when I was born, called my penis "your wetter". Talk about a euphemism! We should not include a lengthy, poorly referenced list of slang terms. Stick, rod, thing, and especially popsicle stick seem exceptionally weak. Cullen328 (talk) 05:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Penis and other names are not covered? 97.124.236.235 (talk) 07:51, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to change Top pic to Medical diagram
Wikipedia is supposed to be for all ages and not just adults, and why I do believe it may be better to have a medical diagram that is just as informative, if not even more for the lead pic. I wasn't comfortable with this but after doing a deep search on wikicommon, I found this and propose it as a replacement for lead pic. My given reason to replace it is that if this was a medical journal for university students. Such a photo shouldn't be a problem at all. But we should remember that younger readers may be traumatised by the photo. And while I respect the Wikipedia community's preference for real photos, I advocate for a much more inclusive approach that considers the real diverse age readership of Wikipedia. 49.195.62.91 (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Seconded. I can't help but wonder if uploader of current photo (info says "own work") gets off on the notion of people seeing their ugly damn dick on wikipedia. We don't need anything this graphic on wikipedia. Well, I don't anyway. I realize I was dumb to type into Bing search (for points) "What does a penis look like?" when I know very well. Didn't expect what I got when I went to the wikipedia link though. lol 68.52.185.132 (talk) 04:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


 * See WP:NOTCENSORED. I'm not a great fan of people uploading dick pics just for the fun of it, but this is a medical article.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Although Wikipedia isn't usually censored, its editors often remove images that they find offensive or objectionable. Many images were removed following this discussion, for example. Jarble (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually came to this page because I wondered if people have been doing that or if there had been a lot of competition to be the penis on the article.
 * and yet, apparently this was uploaded in 2012 and has been here ever since. Because it's a good representative picture. It is not being presented in a particularly erotic way, it is not erect.
 * on top of Wikipedia's anti-censorship policy I think having a photo is better than having an diagram abstracted away from the human form. If a child goes out of their way to look up what a human penis looks like, this gives them a more realistic impression then a Google result full of porn.  And that is healthy. Just my two cents 2601:C2:781:EB50:C499:B529:E1B9:8EFC (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think an illustration would be better than the photo we have. It doesn't have to be a cross-section like the one above. Crossroads -talk- 19:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Absence of pubic hair in photo
In the spirit of accuracy, would it not be best to use/include a photo of an unshaven penis and scrotum, pubic hair being typical of secondary sexual development? For reference, the article for vulva includes both shaven and unshaven examples. Lenie Clark (talk) 03:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I’m more concerned about the size. The penis in this photo is very small. Can’t we replace it with something closer to average? 2A01:4B00:88F4:CE00:ED85:96C7:B5F:C02E (talk) 19:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)