Talk:Scrotum

Before complaining about article content, please read: Wikipedia is not censored.

About the picture...

Template:Sexology-project-guidelines-notify In this day and age, looking at a human scrotum should not disgust, repulse, or disturb you. Some people are taking this way too far. Yet another example of our inability to evolve beyond our more primitive and false belief's that anything to do with sex is wrong and should be avoided. Even catholics are recognizing this, which is saying something. (No offense, it's a fact that catholics have had a history of viewing sex as negative)

Here is a photograph that demonstrates its functioning (temperature regulation) and the photo can be linked (not directly on page). Would this be a better solution? -- 678901 22:38, 19 September 2006. Template:Linkimage

• It is my opinion that my photograph is more educational than the current one. Should we consider replacing the current one with this? -- 678901 12:56, 20 September 2006

If I wanted to change the image to the new one, which I feel is much more descriptive than the current one, would I meet any objection? -- 678901 01:04, 26 September 2006

Question

What fills the area between the skin of the scrotum and the testes? Muscle? Lymph? Blood? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.147.250.226 (talk • contribs) 19:13, June 8, 2005 (UTC)

Magic --0--

Image

File:Scrotum.Jpg

Is this photo really necessary? I notice that there are very few photos on the female pages, such as clitoris (no photos), vulva (two text book photos), labia (no photos), vagina (text book again)... The diagram is plenty for an educational encyclopedia.

I suggest removing the photo. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EaZyZ99 (talk • contribs) 21:33, October 24, 2005 (UTC)

Just for ease of discussion, the image is Image:Scrotum.jpg. Please remember to sign your comments with ~~~~, thanks. It can be argued the image does accurately represent one testicle being lower than another, an important thing to show. But I couldn't care less if its done with a real photo, or illustration. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I suggest removing it as well...Chooserr 15:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why people keep trying to remove images from articles. A picture is worth a thousand words! Yes, some pictures are better than others and, like RoyBoy, I don't particularly care if the subject of the article is illustrated with a photograph or a drawing, but don't remove images without replacing them with something better. Simply removing an image for the sake of removing it is pointless and doesn't improve the article --Craig (t|c) 02:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

This picture is pornographic and unnecessary. I suggest a diagram to replace it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.245.221.209 (talk • contribs) 17:13, November 16, 2005 (UTC) (sockpuppet of EaZyZ99)

It is not intended to cause sexual excitement, and does not depict erotic behavior, so it is not pornography. See WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored_for_the_protection_of_minors Talk:Clitoris/Image_discussion and Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer. Indium 07:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The image is out of place and disgusting. There is really no need as it doesn't add anything to the article of importance. As far as the discussion about one testicle hanging lower than the other, a drawing or diagram would show that...and that really would be more useful on the testicles page, not the scrotum page. I still suggest removing the image. Will anybody second that? EaZyZ99 20:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with this

Thelastemperor 13:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the photo at the German scrotum page. Gilliamjf 05:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Disgusting? Are you a man-hater? It doesn't add anything of importance? So you think it's unimportant what the body part actually looks like? Should we remove pictures of eyes, noses, tongues, ears, and toes too? Klafubra 01:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I also feel the photographs is unnecessary and too graphic. Though it is not pornographic, the diagram is educational enough as is. That photo is extraneous and ought to be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.163.149.124 (talk • contribs) 14:04, December 16, 2005 (UTC)

per concensus, the photo will be removed as it does not add anything to the article that the diagram doesn't. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.245.221.209 (talk • contribs) 18:19, December 16, 2005 (UTC) (sockpuppet of EaZyZ99)

Discounting your sockpuppet vote and anonymous posts (which I have added signatures to above), there is no consensus to remove the image. I will restore it now, please do not remove it again until you have consensus. —Locke Cole 07:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

--------

I agree with Locke Cole and Craig and truely most people who have posted here (nto counting ghost-votes from one user ;)) about that the picture should stay. Looking at Eazy's contributions the last 100 have pretty much only had to do with removing material from articles about intimate parts of the body. As cited earlyer Wikipedias policy is not to remove slighly explicit pictures if they have an ilustrating educational value.

I think that a great deal of the readers of this article are people in their pubertity interested in if they are "normal" (atleast that's the feeling i remember from when i was in that age), actually it would be good to have a table of many pictures so that the natural variation would be visible. Maybe the picture could be behind a link?

otherwise i see notthing wrong with the picture, it is of quite high resolution etc. 22:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

---

My observations are as follows:

• Technically, it is not a very good photo. It is poorly lit, and the subject is confused (eg, it includes too much of the legs, etc.)
• This article is about "scrotum", not "human scrotum," and I suspect we could find better free pictures if we look for them.
• That being said, unless and until we actually find a better picture, it is absolutely inappropriate to remove this one. It's the best we've got right now. If the picture offends you, too bad. Grow a thicker skin, or go find an encyclopedia to edit that is censored for the protection of minors, because this one isn't. Nandesuka 13:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Regards, Nandesuka 13:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Why not link it like the image on Autofellatio? I wouldn't want to bump into photographs without asking for them if I was researching this area, it's an image of a man's scrotum, after all. Biology teachers don't undress when they're lecturing about human reproduction, do they? (Apart from John Cleese, that is) Obli 19:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

By reading the page, you asked for the image. If you opened a paper encyclopedia to an article on "scrotum," you would expect to see a photograph or diagram (or at least, would not be surprised if you did). Nandesuka 02:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought about this and reviewed other genital pages, and decided that the image does belong, and inline too. Note that I strongly oppose the autofellatio image on the grounds that it is unnecessary and derived. Scrotum is the part itself and deserves an image. Things like autofellatio are just very simple actions involving parts that have their own articles and images, so images for such actions are needless and unencyclopedic. The scrotum image here is different.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 05:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• Yeah, you'd open an encyclopedia expecting to see a DIAGRAM, not an image of some guy's nads hanging there with his hairy legs. Come on, get real. It's not needed at all.--EaZyZ99 19:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)EaZyZ99
  • Given your frequent attempts to add Image:MSVag2.JPG to Vulva, your comment is disingenuous at best. tregoweth 22:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Well maybe not the standard home encyclopedia (allthough i would not be revolted in any way if it was there also), but a medical dictionary or some other more thorough information source on the subject in question might very well be prone to have a photograph or something. I can remember there being somewhat "explicit" pictures aready in school textbooks also. After all That's what this article is about, the scrotum, and the guy in the picture clearly has one, it being hairy is totally natural. I just can't get what you are lurking at. 82.203.174.251 02:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

also ps. your standard home encyclopedia might very well be censored to protect minors, wikipedia isn't.

Tregoweth is a piece of monkey shit. That's my comment, but I'm sure it will be deleted. EaZyZ99 00:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• No, but I will re-add the comment from another user that you deleted. tregoweth 02:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• • I don't find the photo offensive. There's nothing pornographic about it. I thought it was fairy good quality - certainly better than one I could take myself. How could the photo be offensive? Anyone on this tab just looked up SCROTUM, for crying out loud! What'd they think they see? Spongebob?

I agree. And I think the matter of people complaining and requesting censorship should end.

• Please remove it as it is unnecessary, and is not a good photo. Mace 08:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Can u get a scrotum that looks a little better this one looks weird lol and its small lol new picture needed--HurricaneRo 19:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Photo Controversy

I think photos on articles such as anatomy are important and improve quality. Obscenity is POV! This is a relevant picture. True, a better photo could be found of perhaps a more "aesthetically pleasing" scrotum (then again, perhaps average realism should be maintained)… but nevertheless it is a picture of a scrotum on an article about the scrotum. What would you be doing looking at the article if you're offended by seeing the subject of the article?

Just because some people are offended by images of sex organs, does not mean it should not be included. This is an encyclopedia... it's academic, and thus is amoral. Should we remove the image of a swastika from the article on Nazis? Of course not. But I guarantee some people are offended by that image.

Different people are offended and upset by different things, however this is NOT the responsibility of the encyclopedia, especially when it comes to censoring out relevant info. Personally, I think gangrene is disgusting. But I completely understand that if I go to that article, I will likely see a picture showing just what it is and what it looks like. If I have a problem with that (like if I'm eating) I will not go to the article, or turn my browsers images off.

The value of seeing an actual image of something is invaluable. What if I'm a female virgin, who's never seen a scrotum and wants a realistic idea of what to expect when the time comes so as not to be embarrassed? Or (as a previous poster noted) I'm a pubescent male wondering if my body looks "normal". Or just curiosity. This is completely reasonable. Just because it's naked and because it involves human sexuality does not make something pornography!

I've seen these kind of complaints all-across anatomy articles on WP, including the article for "tongue" where a person complained that the image of a tongue ring was offensive. This type of stuff just hurts the quality of the information. Wikipedia is not supposed to place value judgments on what may or may not be offensive or displeasing to some people. Come on people. Have you ever opened a medical encyclopedia and browsed the photos? Or a book about sex? Go pick up a book about puberty, it will probably have photos of what to expect.

If you have a moral problem with this then this is regretful, but it is your problem. If you have a distaste for the images, then again: your problem. It should NOT fall on WP to guess this stuff and clean articles of material some segment of the population may find unpleasant. Unless it is blatantly offensive and gratuitous, then let it be. Just because some people are uptight about this, doesn't mean that all Wikipedia visitors should be robbed of the information.

Let's try to all be mature. If they can put the Cartoon depicting Mohammed on the article relating to the Danish Cartoon Controversy, then this is really a juvenile matter, people. One last time. THIS IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA, and as such, photos make it more informative (photo-realistic visual information), whether or not you like that information is besides the point. We all have sex organs, we should all be able to see a picture of one without giggling, masturbating, or going "ewww". Please... let's stick to making these articles as informative as possible, and making sure to illustrate the content as well as is possible. Thelastemperor 13:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the photo should be in black and white!

I came to this article specifically looking for an anatomical diagram, and found this full-color picture of some guy's hairy nutsack. Some of you seem to like the photo the way it is, and some of you don't. Maybe you should follow the lead of many medical books, which publish more explicit pictures in black and white. The black and white is also good because it shows more definition of line and depth than color does. BrianGCrawfordMA 03:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

-all i tried to do is get a science project done and now i find a hairy nutsack. i couldv'e looked at my own and wouldve been just fine with a diagram. we don't need that much details. (han)

- who put up the link for teabagging? lol (han)

 i removed the offending link

It's interesting that the diagram -- arguably far more informative than the photo as it shows interior structures in glorious colors -- is totally illegible, while the photo is quite large (perhaps just to show a typical scrotum has hair?). A-giau 11:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

New Images

Please discuss changes or additions in images first. In this case, the images added were of very poor quality. Also, new images should add information that is not already in the article, or other images. Atom 20:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Atom. I have recently registered as a wikipedian and got to bussines right away.

I just made a serious, informative edition to this article (which lacked a photograph of a scrotum) and it was reverted by you.

WP is an encyclopedia, and as such, is devoted to spread knowledge, not a particular set of moral values. I must assume, thus, that you erased the the pictures because of encyclopedic reasons, and not out of prudishness.

Let me address your reasons:

• "Please discuss changes or additions in images first": This sounds to me very close to: "You need permission first in order to contribute to WP". Also, it seems to be contradictory, since you reverted my changes without "discussing the changes first". If every addition to WP should only be made "discussing the changes first", then the whole design of WP would be flawed, since it actually encourages users to edit the articles when they feel they have useful additions to make to them without asking permission first.
• "images added were of very poor quality": I am not aware of any WP policy that states that only good quality pictures are allowed to feature in the articles. This might be moot, however, since a photograph with bad quality is much more informative than no photograph at all. About this "bad quality" you refer to: Do you mean low resolution? What kind of "quality" would you consider acceptable (and thus you would presumably leave in place)? Please state this as clearly as possible, since it is crucial to the informative quality (pardon the pun) of this article.
• As for :"new images should add information that is not already in the article, or other images" The deleted images added an enormous amount of information not present in the article or the only image it features now. Namely: the different colorations that a scrotum can have, the texture of the scrotum's skin (which is very different from that of the rest of the body), the amount of hair that a particular scrotum presents, the location of the scrotum relative to the legs, the difference between 2 normal adult human scrotums (or scrota), the fact that some men shave their scrotums, etc. This list of useful information derived from the photographs can indeed go on for a long while, since, as Aristotle put it: "An image is worth a thousand words". I can see how someone would not consider these pieces of knowledge as valuable. But please, if you do not have any use for that information, do not assume that no one else does. I think that a very clear and intelligent addition to this discussion was made by Thelastemperor the 17th of February 2006. Photo Controversy

Lastly, all of this is not intended to offend anyone, but it is as strong a point as I can make in favour of something I consider a fundamental encyclopedical goal: to achieve the best posible information for the reader. If anything I posted here is percieved as offensive or as an attack, I assure you that it is not the intention, and apologize if I did not comply with any etiquette policy I might not be aware of (being new as a wikipedian). Elmer 20:53, 11 October 2006 (Central Time)

Elmer, thanks for your interest in contributing. Rest assured that I am not trying to censor anything. Wikipedia is not censored. And I am perhaps the least likely person to be offended by any image. Because articles with photographs often become controversial arguments, we are trying to make guidelines for such things. Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines. They aren't "official" they are a way for us to keep out of revert wars and other disagreements.

In this case it is an editorial decision, not based on content, but on quality.

In the case of your images, what I personally objected to as an editor was:

• They are vanity images. You as a contributor added your own picture. That is generally not acceptable in Wikipedia. If you added various images to the Wikipedia Commons site, and an editor added it to this article because they thought it was a good image, that might be different (or not, see the discussion at talk:anus). The problem is that we need to remain objective about an article, and too often people who put their own pictures in fight to have them there because they are their own pictures, rather than making editorial decisions based on the quality of the article, and what best improves that quality.
• There really only needed to be one image to illustrate the point, and you added two.
• The images you added were of poor quality (in my opinion). I mean no offense, but I edit many sexuality articles, and the ones you added did not seem to be as visually sharp and clear and to the point for the article as many others.

I think a good and clear image or photo that fits the article would be great. As an editor, I did not feel that the images you provided met that level. Perhaps if you take other photos, of someone other than yourself, and filter through to find one that is ideal for the article? Also, we can ask at Wikipedia:Requested pictures and get a variety of pictures, and choose the best quality one for the article.

Atom 13:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Because there is no image, I am going to add a picture which is encyclopedic, if anyone wants to comment, please do. Nikon307 23:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Leave It Alone

There is nothing wrong with the image just as it is shown. The other one - showing the comparison is also very good. Too many articles on anatomy show drawings rather than photos. Drawings are helpful, but we must remember that people percieved differently. It may be difficult for some to percieve an image from a drawing.

I think people are uptight over photographs of anything that suggest nudity. Thus the source of the objections. In photos of animals such as dogs, monkeys or bulls, the scrotum is clearly visible when viewed from the correct angle. Most people don't object to that or even the sight of the scrotum of an actual dog, monkey or bull. If an adult human male walked down the street naked, people would go nuts (pardon the play on words). What it is about the human anatomy (scrotum) that causes this reaction in people?

I live in a city that prides itself on the old west heritage. A few years ago some topariary sculptures were placed along Main Street. One was a Longhorn bull. Due to objections by one person, the city had the bull turned into a steer by removing the offending organ. Yikes!!

LarryMack 19:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Arterial supply

the scrotum is not supplied by the testicular arteries, these supply the testis themselves. I have updated to show the correct arteries. This imformation was taken from page 453 of Clinically Oriented Anatamy - Moore and Dalley (5th Edition). If you believe this to be incorrect please correct me 81.105.81.56 18:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Linkimage

Template:Linkimage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Of course the scrotum serves a purpose. Please don't vandalize Wikipedia! I've removed the statement claiming that the scrotum serves no purpose. Pygmypony 06:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)