Talk:Penis/Archive 4

Why reverted?
Hello. Just wondering why my addition to the "Penis" article was entirely erased. I legitamitely added to the article. Even adding references to back up everything (albeit references not working, probably due to edit protections). Perhaps Tasc didn't read through all of it and deleted assuming it was vandalism due to the prevalence of such on this article.

When talking about penis size the whole human population needs to be considered. Not just the average American/European. And even studies done there (USA/EURO) have shown great variation (just look at the penis size article for example). So it's opinionated to state a set average size (instead of a range). I also explained why the average size is slightly greater than the median size. Something which has been backed by all penis surveys.

I can understand that my section on "semen displacement" may be considered superflous. But this was a very small portion of my edit. If you're afraid this section could be offensive to "size sensitive" readers, remember this is about stating facts. And it doesn't say anything about relatively bigger human phalluses (human vs. human) being superior. It just gave a legit (referenced) theory as to why humans have larger penises vs. other primates.

Please let me know what you think. I believe at minimum everything besides the 2nd to last paragraph (semen displacement theory) should be reinstated as I put it (not that improvments couldn't be made in the future). That section (displacement) might be worded better as not to let anyone think it's slighting smaller hung folks. That wasn't my intention and I'm sorry if it seemed that way. Thanks for your feedback.

--Person 208.252.179.25 21:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, my original (now reverted) edit is at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Penis&oldid=61687293 so you can check out what I mean. Improved on the penis size section. Not perfect, but I don't see why it was all erased.


 * --Person 208.252.179.27 21:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I made a new revision (# 62080229) working off of my previous edit (# 61687293), which made the wording more neutral and eliminated the section on displacement.


 * New revision was reverted with captioning "since, tragically, we have an entire article on the subject, details are not needed here". The section stating "According to a survey..." is much more detail oriented then anything I added (yet has been left intact for ages). Understandable that you don't want the size section taking over when there is a seperate article. But I strongly disagree with reverting my entire edit.


 * A lot of improvements didn't add to the article size, but made it more accurate (vs. biased) and easier to read (i.e. fixed errors, new paragraphs for seperate ideas). It would have been best to incorporate the improvements (upon existing text) and eliminate the additions (entirely new text) if you felt it added too much detail.


 * --Person 208.252.179.25 21:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright. I incorporated the improvements to text while keeping the section size the same (by moving details to "main article" on human penis size).

--Wits 13:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

To many Paedophiles ?
I'ts not so much about Christian groups but there is a line between porn (in this case) and relative information lets face it, paedophiles and perverts would support images of that nature where children had access to.


 * Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. And I can't see how merely showing photographs of the body part in question is going to do any harm; they're small and quite far down the page. CameoAppearance 00:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Should a section be added about certain peoples fear of the penis (like Christian groups and such)? I mean many people seemed shocked about summat as essential and medical as the penis, in fact peoples shock of the penis seems to be a pretty big thing for humanity. Like how people view the penis I mean. JayKeaton 14:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

a Censoring idea that works
How about we have a title page when someone searches for Penis that says something like "the following page has images and words that some may find offensive" and below that there are two hyperlinks, one to the current article, the other to a pictureless less offensive explination. just an idea, any comments?


 * I think that's a very good idea -- it isn't censorship, but it protects anyone who may not want to see pictures that may offend them. There is the argument, however, that if they went to an article on Penises, perhaps they should expect some level of offense.  Regardless, I think it's a great idea. --Sugarskane 14:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not censored. Period. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Penis Enlargement
Penis is made up of 3 main areas, 2 large chambers on the top (The technical term for this is the Corpora Cavernosa) and 1 smaller chamber on the bottom (the Corpus Spongiosum). When we gain an erection, the penis fills with blood, filling these three chambers. The Corpus Spongiosum is the chamber used mainly when we urinate and ejaculate. The Corpora Cavernosa however, is the main blood holding chamber of the penis. This is where 90% of all blood is retained each and every time we gain an erection. Penis size is limited in both length and width, by the maximum in which the Corpora Cavernosa can fill with blood. Simply put, this means it is impossible for penis to get bigger by itself, as the blood which fills the penis is already filling the maximum size of the Corpora Cavernosa.

Penis Size
"one study has found that the average human penis is 5 inches (12.7 cm) in length when fully engorged with blood during arousal." This can't be right... I wish it was but it can't be... I believe the average human penis is about 15 cms long, but I guess it depends on how you measure it... still it's a nice article to show your girlfriends... they'll feel lucky *lol*.--nunocordeiro 03:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Certainly the Wikipedia ubiquitous addendum is most appropriate here: "This anatomy article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it."


 * I agree. Most study's I've seen say 6 inches is the statistical average. The average range is between 4 and 7. Google it.

Thelastemperor 12:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've Googled it, and read our Human penis size article, and, well, apparently studies can't really agree on an average penis size. There are all sorts of problems with systemic bias, as well as the innate controversial aspects of these studies. Still, 5.5 inches (14 cms) seems like a much better average. Some studies say 5, some studies say 6.1, and several studies say 5.5. Until someone can cite a definitive study, I've changed it to 5.5, and changed the text to sound significantly less authoritative.


 * 5.5 also happens to be the average of 4 and 7, so it seems to me to be a happy compromise. I've seen the 6 inches figure a lot as well; perhaps that pertains to Caucasian males only, though? I have no idea, I'm not at all an expert on this subject. If anyone could provide a study that seems more definitive than all the dreck out there, that would be nice. --Ashenai 14:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the change. I think it looks much better now :) Good work Ashenai! If any expert finds a study with facts to base the article on, that would make it even better. --nunocordeiro 02:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

glans penis: one picture too many?
I came here because of the 3RR violation, and because I think it's entirely appropriate that this article maintain a good image of a penis. But I have to say, the glans penis image might be one too many. Not because of content, per se, but just because it makes the page look all cluttered and, well, crappy. You've got that image, and then right below it the flaccid/erect penis, and it doesn't really add anything to the article that the other image doesn't do better.

So I propose removing the "glans penis" image, and leaving the flaccid/erect image. As a secondary suggestion, I suggest moving the glans penis picture elsewhere in the article so we don't have 3 images all jammed up against each other making the article look like utter crap.

Comments? Nandesuka 07:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't really care one way or the other, but it seems like a useful image (and based on the ammount of times it's removal has been reverted, you could claim that consensus is for it to be there). For formatting concerns, however, repositioning the image might be good idea.--Sean|Bla ck 07:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the positioning isn't ideal, but it does need to be close to the section ("glans penis"). — Locke Cole ( talk )  (e-mail) 08:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The only reason I support keeping it is for people who aren't following the link to the Glans penis article (which also has the picture). This picture makes it obvious what "glans penis" is referring to. — Locke Cole ( talk )  (e-mail) 08:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I dunno.  We refer to the clitoris, too, but it wouldn't make sense to put a picture of the clitoris on this page.  I'd say trust the user to read the glans penis article if they are interested, and they can see this image there.   As a third yet alternative suggestion, I wouldn't be opposed to annotating the flaccid / erect photo (in fact, I note that the the biological diagram, near the top of the article, has "penis glans" clearly labeled).
 * Really, I say just nuke it from this article and leave it on glans penis. Nandesuka 08:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You may have a point. But like I said, I'm not invested either way.--Sean|Bla ck 08:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

If I have time, I will file an article RfC later today to gather opinions from others on whether that picture adds anything to the article. Nandesuka 12:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * If it bothers you that much, I guess I have no objection to removing it. I just wasn't excited about someone removing it with edit summaries like "OMG ARE YOU GAYZOR?? LOL!!!1!!one!!". It's one thing to remove it because it's one picture too many, it's another thing to remove it because someones a homophobe. — Locke Cole ( talk )  (e-mail) 12:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

(unindenting...) I have opened an RFC for the picture to gather other opinions about that photo. I agree that we should never, under any circumstances, censor Wikipedia for the protection of minors. And I absolutely understand reverting Ezee's changes because of that. But we shouldn't let that force us into making articles worse than they need be just to be bloody minded. My specific objections to that glans penis photo are (in order of importance): (1) There are already other photos on the page that do a better job of illustrating the glans penis. (2) it makes the layout of the page look ugly. (3) the photo itself is technically poor (bad depth of field, out of focus, poorly lit). The last point is the least important because I'm too lazy to take a better picture, and obviously some picture is better than none. But we already have a great diagram and a good technical picture on the page, so I say don't settle for second-rate. Nandesuka 15:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sure "I love cock" is a great arguement for keeping the picture too.EaZyZ99
 * I'm sorry, who said that? Locke Cole 16:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * YOU!  23:29, 23 November 2005 Locke Cole m (I love cock)  EaZyZ99
 * Now who said it with the intent of being taken seriously? Locke Cole 08:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * And I'm willing to go on record that I will go to the wall protecting the article against the removal of the other remaining pictures, lest anyone think I am trying to sneak in censorship here. Nandesuka 15:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

First time I've flicked through pages hunting for a picture of a penis on wiki. Why do people hide things they invite comment on? Took a while to find it, but I suppose it was the one you asked people to comment on. More pink than the others? So, comments: As a general principle I have no objection to the picture. A fair point was made above, that (at least where I found it) it was right next to another picture of an erect penis, also demonstrating the glans, and that could have been captioned to explicitly say something like 'erect penis exposing glans'. And the (slightly small, but I'm sure it enlarges if you click on it) anatomical diagram has it marked. So it would be fair to remove the additional erect glans to satisfy concerns from those who feel there are too many members exposed. Of course, it occurs that you do not have a picture of a flaccid exposed glans... Sandpiper 01:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * As a note &mdash; there is a place for extra photos in wikipedia commons which is linked to in this article.--Clawed 10:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Even 7inches seems a bit too small I would've thought that it was around 10inches.

Penis pics?
I was here about a week or two ago and I could've sworn there were more than two measly photos of human penises. What happened? Where did the penises go? There isn't even a good pic at the top of the article, which is the most logical place to have a picture of a penis to introduce the subject matter. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 16:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Where did the penises go? You just won the award for best thing ever said JayKeaton 15:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

--

Hey Mac, theres loads of Penis's all over the net, don't tell me you hadn't noticed ?

One automatically gets the feeling that there's some exhibitionist paedophile tendencies out there that have to expose all and sundry, this site is primarily for education and not porn !

What if you want to see an image of a penis on a website that is SAFE and which won't redirect you to all sorts of horrifying hardcore porn websites? These images are genuinely USEFUL for some, and wikipedia is a neutral, safe environment to view them in. --Daverd2 02:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Altering the male genitalia
The two photos are clearly of the same uncircumcised penis. This may be useful for demonstrating to those of us who are not the proprietors of foreskins what one looks like in both unretracted and retracted conditions. But it doesn't demonstrate what a circumcised penis looks like. There is, however, a perfectly good photo of a circumcised penis in the same scale in the archives. Surely someone with better editing skills than I possess can attend to substituting it for the second photo of an uncircumcised penis which is now on the page. Masalai 23:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The photos have been edited to look similar (B&W and same dimensions) so they can be better compared, but are of two different penises--Clawed 09:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

But the one with the foreskin retracted doesn't indicate what a circumcised penis looks like; only what an uncircumcised penis looks like with the foreskin drawn back. This might well be informative but of something other than it purports to inform of. A photo of a circumcised penis would be appropriate with that label. Masalai 09:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Masalai. These are the same two photos that grace the circumcision article, and while they MAY be of two different penises (although they look like the same penis to me) the second one is not a circumcised penis, but an uncircumcised/intact penis with the foreskin retracted. Benami 03:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Why should the penis article show a surgically altered penis? Does the corresponding article for female genitalia show corresponding modifications? Hugh7 08:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Regardless of your personal feelings on the matter, the fact is that circumcised penises are far more common among the expected audience of English wikipedia than modified female genitalia are; in fact, circumcised penises are considered "normal", or at least unremarkable, among millions of English-speaking humans. It well behooves an encyclopedia to report on the facts of human existence. -- Rpresser 15:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Just because their considered normal doesn't make it right. The Picture should be of an uncut penis - hiding information about intact penises, long a hallmark of the united states, has created a culture of apathy and antipathy to those opposing male genital mutlation (like myself, a victim of it) - especially when bullshit poorly conducted scientific research comes out every so often supporting it - like the crappy studies out of africa lately saying that circ reduces AIDS - it does not.  A circed penis IS NOT NORMAL despite cultural expectations - it is unencyclopeadic and a POV violation to show a cut penis as a normal one.  REMOVE IT - Cut penis should only show up in the circumcision page.. PERIOD. 65.125.133.211 21:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Hugh7. A circumcised penis is a non-neccessary surgical procedure in most cases, and actually most men in the world are UNcircumcised, only in America are children circumcised habitually as babies, aside in countries where there is religious circumcision. I dont think it's neccessary to show it as a pic either, any more than to show genital piercings. TR_Wolf

Phrasing of evolutionary links
Can this be improved?


 * The penis is homologous to the female clitoris and in the theory of evolution, it originated from the same embryonic structure.

The sentence does not make a clear distinction between ontogeny (the development of an individual) and phylogeny (the development of a species). As well, I don't like the "in the theory of evolution": it makes it sound like evolution is just another point of view (rather than the one universally accepted by all scientists, that is). --Saforrest 23:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind evolution is both fact and theory. I only have a problem with the ackward wording of the phrase; there's nothing inherently wrong with mentioning "the theory of evolution".  --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 00:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Looking at it further it seems like this doesn't even have anything to do with evolution, the penis and vagina do both come from the same embryonic structure, this is a simple fact. How about something like ...


 * The penis is homologous to the female clitoris and both develop from the same embryonic structure.


 * Then you go into the evolutionary reasons of why men and women have homologous structures, but that seems kind of beyond the scope of this article. Anyway, if you want to know the answer I highly suggest you check out the essay "Male Nipples and Clitoral Ripples" by Stephen Jay Gould.  It will explain everything you could possibly want to know about this isue.  --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 00:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

raphe
The raphe is mentioned under Fears and reassurance. From what I found in the talk there was some kind of raphe discussion but I'm not sure if it was a fear of raphe or what.--Gbleem 17:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Males who are raised under a curtain of secrecy and shame may imagine that the raphe is a scar and conclude from that that something terrible has happened to them. We need a good picture of a raphe and the information that it is the "biological zipper" that closes up everything from the perianal area to the foreskin area. 金 (Kim) 23:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure
I don't think the pictures of the penises belong here, a diagram is fine, but many might find the errected penis offenisive. Especially since it's a real photograph.

Note: I haven't a problem with the article at all, and would greatly appreciate browsing some of the headings and reading the information but the pictures offend me - and possibly many other wikipedians - making it undesirable to utilize this otherwise useful article. Chooserr 01:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

This is an encylopedia! Of course we should have photographs illustrating a penis. What's offensive about a male body? Theresa Knott &#91;&#91;User talk:Theresa knott&#124; (a tenth stroke)]] 01:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and on a side note, you might want to turn on (or off, I forget which it is; the opposite of whatever you have it set to now) "raw signatures" in your prefs. =) —Locke Cole 02:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

While wikipedia isn't censored for children this isn't offensive to just children, and even if I do turn off (on) raw signatures other visitors will be confronted with an errected dick. Is this the head, sorry, face of wikipedia? Chooserr 03:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * What exactly do you find offensive about the human body? (The sig comment was for me, hopefully my sig is now fixed) Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 03:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If someone goes looking for "Penis" on Wikipedia, they should find a photo. FCYTravis 03:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Aye, the sig comment was for you, but his response raises a question: maybe there's a possible technical solution here? What if images could be marked as potentially offensive, with logged in users given a preference option to not show potentially offensive images? Then we get the best of both worlds: those who want to see Wikipedia uncensored can (as would anonymous users), but for those who may find such images offensive, they can disable them. It's possible we might get into edit wars over people marking images offensive (and vice versa), but at least that moves the debate from the article to the image itself. Oh, and yes, your sig looks great. =) —Locke Cole 03:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh no, not Toby again. --cesarb 03:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Locke, the very idea of "potentially offensive" violates WP:NPOV - because who decides what's offensive? The only completely NPOV way to do this is to have a global "All images on/All images off" toggle, with text descriptive of each image. FCYTravis 03:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * "Who decides?" — A consensus of editors, initially the image uploader? The idea is that it moves the debate out of the article and to the image. But having seen this was something discussed before, I'll drop it as a bad idea. :P —Locke Cole 15:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This is a perennial proposal - see  for some of the (very large) amounts of discussion. FreplySpang (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. =) —Locke Cole 15:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * On a side note, this reminds me of something from my pre-registered user days, oh yes, and the WfD, and his war on condoms, wicca, pornstars, and these very same images, right here, on this page...not surprisingly DavidsCrusader turned out to be a sockpuppet, not that this has *anything* to do with the current issue at all--Aolanonawanabe 05:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised that Locke Cole's idea was previously dismissed as unworkable. Yes, community standards as to 'offensive' vary widely... so don't bother with that label. Have a list of a few specific things that some large group of people find 'offensive' and let any user check off whether they want to see 'male sex organs', 'female breasts and sex organs', 'human sexual acts', 'bloodshed', et cetera. Yes, that would require more complex tagging, but it doesn't seem unworkable. People might well disagree about whether a penis picture is offensive or not, but I doubt there'd be much disagreement about whether it is a penis or not. Once that's established it can be labeled 'offensive' by the individual user if they so choose. --CBD &#x260E; &#x2709; 15:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That would work as well. I was going for the simpler idea of just having a "may be offensive" checkbox (which wouldn't even have any effect unless the user was logged in and had ticked off the "don't show me potentially offensive images" checkbox). But certainly categorizing certain kinds of images ("image shows nudity", etc) would work as well. —Locke Cole 15:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes that would be such a good Idea. I'm sure people who are offended by the content of wikipedia will be queuing up to join. Chooserr 04:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral labeling of images gets my support too. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 07:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I just dont understand this whole arguement. If you're on Wikipedia looking for an article on "penis", why would you be offended by seeing an image of one? Thats the point of the encyclopedia isnt it? It's not offensive as its just the human body, its natural. If you go on Wiki looking for the KKK for instance, would you be shocked or upset if you found a photo of them? If you want to know about something but dont want to see a photo of it, then thats your own problem, no one else'. TR_Wolf

Please review Talk:Circumcision for a different take on this issue. Tom e rtalk 07:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)