Talk:Human penis

Edit request from 173.49.170.130, 20 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} After the second paragraph under ====Circumcision====, add the following, which will serve as a link to a pertinent article, namely "Gomco clamp":

173.49.170.130 (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Not done. The main article Circumcision looks at this area in more detail. Also, the image has already been added to Gomco clamp and Circumcision scar where it is more relevant.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• The Gomco circumcision scar should be used as the picture for the example of the circumcised penis, as it is how the vast majority of circumcised men have had the operation performed. The picture that is currently provided (penis-stitch-scar.jpg) is NOT a typical circumcision; it's really poorly done (with a chainsaw?) and is arguably a demonstration of a bias against circumcision rather than keeping the goal of a neutral stance.

• I couldn't agree more. This type of circumcision is very rare and is usually only photographed and distributed as a way of discouraging the procedure. The Gomco clamp creates a less noticeable scar, but most significantly, it is lower on the shaft. The picture shows a crude scar that is much higher on the shaft than normal. I mean that the scar is much closer to the head than normal. Circumcision scars are most often found on the shaft close to the base of the penis. 71.225.105.104 (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

While I think the current picture of a circumcised penis is an improvement, it still does not accurately reflect the majority of circumcised penises. The color difference between the shaft and the area above the scar line is extreme. Most circumcised males have scar lines that are much lower on the shaft and with much less discoloration. Also, the scar line appears to be ragged in an uncommon manner. DrAndrewWinters (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Racism and/or ethnocentrism

Why all pictures of penises and testis in Wikipedia's articles about the male's body are from white men?
Specially the blonde-haired penis in the infobox.

Perhaps there are not any high-quality, copyright-free, relevant images of black men available on Wikipedia or Wikimedia. The image of male pubic hair on the pubic hair article is of a black man, though. --TBM10 (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a tanned white man!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.166.6.244 (talk) 01:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you could provide some high-quality images of men of other races under a creative commons license. In other words, perhaps you could improve the encyclopedia instead of complaining about its current shortcomings. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't look like racism, but if a non-white person did the necessary then the image would be considered.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

A solution is available on this topic, anyone read this can show your support at the section Why don't we use a new penis picture less controversial?. - Pontmarcheur (talk) 06:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The colour is irrelevant. Smurfmeister (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

How is this rascism?

uncircumcised?

The label "Uncircumcised penis" shows a circumcision bias. The name of the organ is "penis". There is no other body organ labeled with the prefix "un" then the name of a body modification. For instance, we don't call a nose un-rhinoplastied if there wasn't a nose job. The word uncircumcised is used in circumcising cultures and does not represent a wold perspective. It's a discriminatory word and does not show a neutral point of view. The word uncircumcised should be dropped. Hypochristy (talk) 12:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with these points and have made some amendments to improve neutrality. --TBM10 (talk) 12:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I've partly reverted these changes, as they introduced some neutrality problems. The caption for File:Circumcised penis labelled.jpg does identify the penis as circumcised, so to be neutral we should also identify uncircumcised penes as such. The alternative would be to identify the circumcision status of neither image. But we wouldn't ordinarily caption a photograph of one black and one white child as "a black boy and a girl", because that would create the non-neutral impression that one requires comment while the other does not. Similarly we shouldn't create the impression that one kind of penis is noteworthy while the other isn't. Jakew (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Hypochristy is right in saying that we wouldn't normally identify unaltered organs as such specifically, but circumcision is still common enough that I think it's appropriate to use it as a descriptor. This, to me, is just like using "a Caucasian person" as opposed to just "a person" in a Caucasian-dominated culture - even in most Caucasian-dominated cultures, there are still enough people of other ethnicities that identifying the person as Caucasian isn't biasing for or against any particular ethnicity, it's simply a descriptor. – RobinHood70 ^talk 22:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Jakew is wrong about neutrality. Calling it an "intact penis" wouldn't be neutral. Calling it a penis is. People are born Caucasian or black and such but no one is born circumcised. It is man made and does not reflect natural anatomy. RobinHood70 is wrong about commonality. Over 80% of the world is not circumcised. This article is about natural anatomy (without defect or modification). The word uncircumcised is discriminating. Hypochristy (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

From the Circumcision article: "Global estimates by the World Health Organization (WHO) suggest that 30 percent of males are circumcised." Roughly one out of three people makes it common. Even if we accepted your figures, 1 out of 5 is still pretty common. I rather doubt, to use your comparison to rhinoplasty, that 1 out of 5 people in the world have had nose jobs. What is it in the article title that makes you think this article is about natural anatomy? The title "Human penis", to me, suggests that the article should cover all aspects of it without presumption. – RobinHood70 ^talk 00:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Commonality is just another way of saying biased. WP is about truth, not cultural relativism. Using the racial comparison above, that's like calling a black person a "non-white." The text should be changed to "intact penis" or simply "penis" since these accurately and without bias describe the natural condition. Frank Koehler (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, while it's a third of men on a global basis, the distribution is uneven, so in some countries the uncircumcised penis is rare, while in others it's the other way around. Consequently in some situations an uncircumcised penis might be more noteworthy than a circumcised one. Regardless, we need to caption images from a neutral perspective, so either we should include both "uncircumcised" and "circumcised" in the respective captions, or we should include neither. Jakew (talk) 16:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion of commonality is irrelevant. There are unaltered penises and there are circumcised/pierced/subincised/tattooed penises. If the need arises for comparisons to be drawn, these terms provide distinction while preserving unaltered status as a neutral baseline. The term uncircumcised does not. Helloweb (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

(←) I don't get the link being made between commonality and bias, so I can't respond to that. My problem with "intact" is that that's an even more biased term. It implies that a circumcised penis is "broken", and while many people think of circumcised penises that way, many also do not, and WP is not the place for activism. I think Jakew's point makes sense - either both words should be used, or neither. – RobinHood70 ^talk 17:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed numerous times on the Circumcision talk page.[1] My 2 cents worth is that some people are likely to read POV into the word uncircumcised, even when none is intended.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we use a new penis picture less controversial?

new penis picture suggested

The current main picture of human penis has good quality, thanks to the donator and editor. While some features it indicates, like blonde hair and pink skin seem unnecessarily specialized, which may confuse readers. The article already received challenges like racism and/or ethnocentrism.

To resolve this, I would suggest to use below new picture with comparable quality and more neutrality on racial characteristics. The looking of penis in the picture is more common among wider scope of different human races. - Pontmarcheur (talk) 04:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing much wrong with either photo, but the issue should not be reduced to one of race. People have said in the past "Why is it a white penis?" but this does not really matter.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Where do you see the new picture "reduce the issue to one of race"? It can be a photo of latino, black, white, asian. It reduces the controversy. But everyone can see which race the picture used in the article belongs to, that's why it gets racism challenges. - Pontmarcheur (talk) 06:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The words "if a non-white person did the necessary..." at section racism and/or ethnocentrism may have come true, it's really a good opportunity to review what we can do and how Wikipedia will behave. - Pontmarcheur (talk) 06:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the new picture is better, why not free the article from suspicion of racism and make everyone more comfortable Moscowsky (talk) 08:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the non-white argument, but I see no reason for the lead image to show shaved genitals, the vast majority of men do not shave their pubic hair. --Fæ (talk) 08:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I also agree that the shaving is less than ideal, it is not typical to do this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Since pubic hair and scrotum is NOT a physical part of penis, this should not be a blocking point. Pubic hair modification should be discussed in the pubic hair page instead of penis page. Also, even if your "vast majority" theory is true, men with blonde pubic hair should be more rare than ones who trims. Which photo should we take then? Moscowsky (talk) 08:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

And i believe the blonde pubic hair is a major reason why this article gets racism troubles, why should we let a unnecessary part of a photo bring troubles instead of make everything less racial Moscowsky (talk) 08:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The wikipedia human main page is also showing human nudity without pubic hairs, i don't see it gets any troubles, because hair trimming is necessary to show a human organ clearly. The human page also cleverly prevented racial suspicions by using photos from multiple races Moscowsky (talk) 08:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The change should be made, a new pic compatible for all races, why not50.93.205.6 (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to talk about race, but image here owns a more friendly copyright lisense, it also looks more sophisticated in organ illustration without distracting people to anything other than penis itself, so i assent to the replacement too, it's an improvement. --65.49.68.187 (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, the article has been renewed per this discussion. - Pontmarcheur (talk) 04:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I have to state my concerns over this new image. The argument is that it reduces controversy because it could belong to a man of a range of races, but it also completely alienates the majority of people who do not shave their pubic hair. --TBM10 (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The pubic hair issue is already clearly discussed in above paragraphs. Moscowsky (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is real racism against blonde white people more acceptable than ambiguous/perceived racism against other groups? For that matter why does the race of the model matter at all?----72.198.211.245 (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it's related to some historical incidents i guess, it will be a black hole to argue races (too bad for human), that's why we want the photo "compatible". Moscowsky (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The only real issue of race, is that people of differing races are attacking the in-every-other-way excellent photo because they personally do not like its presumed race, but would rather substitute a photo of their preferred race for this otherwise excellent photo. Criticisms of that nature are exactly the historical basis of racism, more to the point, it is the criticisms of the photo that are racist, exactly as though a user had posted that the photo should be changed because it is of an "_____" (fill in the blank). This is exactly the nature of the racism implired in the criticism.

Further, my own personal race is that of Polish and, since the issue has been raised, I would strongly prefer that the photo be of a Polish male penis.

I don't think you get the point of this topic. The current photo does NOT have a explicit presumed race, that's why it is chosen, to reconcile controversy and make the article more welcomed. Moscowsky^-talk- 23:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I really can't believe there is a debate about whether using a picture of a white man's penis is racist - or if showing a man with shaved pubic hair will "alientate" people. We're not trying to modernise the admission policy of a deep South country club here. Smurfmeister (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

"male humans" should be changed to "humans assigned male at birth"

The first sentence of this article is not inclusive of trans or intersex people. Having a penis is only the reason people are assigned a male sex at birth. Thus, the first sentence of this entry should ideally be changed from:

"The human penis is an external sexual organ of male humans."

to

"The human penis is an external sexual organ of humans assigned male at birth." 157.127.239.146 (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is politically correct nonsense.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

This needs a reliable source, and should be added to the article if one can be found. It is a valid point.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It is absolutely pointless to use words "assigned at birth", it helps nothing to the article. Moscowsky^-talk- 11:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The description of the penis as the male sexual organ is consistent with reliable sourcing. One of the few sources that I could find with the phrase "assigned male at birth" was here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Such a change in the opening sentence of the lede would require very good sourcing. Not "if one can be found" as above - being able to find one obscure source does not change the everyday definition of an everyday object. The social and biological issues that trans and intersex people face deserves coverage, but not everywhere/all the time. When the main sources agree. --Nigelj (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

(previoulsy 93.96.148.42) I do not understand "change the everyday definition of an everyday object" in this context. There are lots of sources to support the idea that female children are born with "male" genitalia. For example -

Reiner WG (1997) Sex assignment in the neonate with intersex or inadequate genitalia. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Oct;151(10):1044-5. PMID 9343017

Reiner WG (2002). Gender identity and sex assignment: a reappraisal for the 21st century. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2002;511:175-89; discussion 189-97. PMID 12575762

Shaw, Alison; Ardener, Shirley (2005). Changing sex and bending gender, p. 21. Berghahn Books, ISBN 978-1-84545-099-1

Diamond DA, Burns JP, Mitchell C, Lamb K, Kartashov AI, Retik AB (2006). Sex assignment for newborns with ambiguous genitalia and exposure to fetal testosterone: attitudes and practices of pediatric urologists. J Pediatr. 2006 Apr;148(4):445-9. PMID16647402

Mieszczak J, Houk CP, Lee PA. Assignment of the sex of rearing in the neonate with a disorder of sex development. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2009 Aug;21(4):541-7. PMID 19444113

Ora Hirsch Pescovitz, Erica A. Eugster (2004). Pediatric endocrinology: mechanisms, manifestations, and management, p. 253. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, ISBN 978-0-7817-4059-3 87.194.46.83 (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Each one of these is written for the extremely rare medical cases of ambiguous genitalia or gender identity disorder. The wording of our articles conforms to what is applicable for the great majority of the cases. We do not word the articles toward the very tiny minority, it would be undue weight and make for awful prose. Zad68 17:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Yup. And Wikipedia isn't here to right the wrongs of the world by confusing the hell out of our readers... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

So you think it correct to write something that is mostly accurate, and will onlycause pain or distress to a small minority of people? Who, exactly, will be confused by the idea that a girl can be born with a penis - and what about hermaphrodites ?87.194.46.83 (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Your question is irrelevant. It does not matter what I think or what you think is correct or whether it might or might not hurt the feelings of certain readers. What matters is Wikipedia policy. The Wikipedia policy guiding this is WP:WEIGHT. Article content is written to reflect the relative representation of ideas in reliable secondary aources. In this case, reliable secondary sources overwhelmingly consider the penis to be the "external sexual organ of male humans". Please familiarize yourself with WP:WEIGHT and be prepared to back up any further suggestions you have regarding article content with Wikipedia content policy and an appropriate number and selection of reliable sources. Zad68 17:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Zad68 and the others who state why we should describe the penis as a male sex organ. I've seen this discussion since it started back in August, but am only now just weighing in on it. The IP asks who, exactly, will be confused by the idea that a girl can be born with a penis. My answer is "most people," which is seen time and time again when the topic of transgender and/or intersex is brought up; but that is beside the point. Like I just stated at Talk:Fellatio#“of a male's penis”?! What about a female's penis then?, basically, it's what all sources call the penis -- a male sex organ. And even in the case of people who are transgender, the gender identity disorder that's been spoken of above, or those who are intersex, it's still considered a male sex organ by those individuals. For example, this is why someone who is physically male (was assigned male at birth) but identifies as female usually feels very uncomfortable in the body she was born in -- because it is indeed a male body. Sex reassignment surgery of course exists for this reason -- to bring the body in harmony with the gender identity. Other transwomen never get sex reassignment surgery, but they never consider the penis to be "not a penis."

As a compromise, however, since there are people with a penis who don't identify as male, I don't see a problem with changing "The human penis is an external sexual organ of male humans." to "The human penis is an external male sex organ." It's redundant to state "of male humans" anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

There is one reason for which the penis is the male sex organ, even if belonging to an individual psychologically and/or physiologically female: the penis fulfills the function of the biological male, which is production of sperm cells. That, and a transsexual woman is nonetheless biologically male before transitioning. With hermaphroditism it's different: the individual, albeit a penis-possessing individual, can be biologically female. Thus, as confusing as it is, it's valid to say, “The penis is the male sex organ,” but not quite valid to say, “The penis is the sex organ of males.” EIN (talk) 04:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Flyer22 has provided a suitable rewording. The current wording of the article does not cover non-male humans who possess this organ. It's a biologically male organ when viewed separately from the body and in relation to the female vagina, but when it is incorporated into a human body sometimes the body is not male. The article should be edited to reflect this, correcting the blind view it currently presents regarding hermaphroditism, intersex anatomy, and transgender identities.Helloweb (talk) 22:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Well said! I would like to point out that the penis does not produce sperm, but sperm and urine are emitted through it. Sperm are produced in the Testes and urine in the bladder.87.194.44.183 (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

New Photo

File:22 year old's flaccid penis.jpg I got tired of all the arguments about photos, so I have uploaded a photo of my own. Let me know what people think, I hope it is seen as an improvement of the last image, thankyou!Sheffno1gunner (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually the photo in use at this article has been stable for quite a while now, so there is no need to replace it. Also, the picture you uploaded is very low quality, and will probably be deleted. At this time Wikipedia does not need any more human genitalia images. Zad68 17:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I prefer this latest one, shows penis in natural hanging state, no shrinkage, no erection, not having been shaved, nor is the hair running wild. I'd say that this is much more representative. This penis just looks more natural and appropriate!81.149.185.174 (talk) 22:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

...One of the above is a sockpuppet... Or Sheffno1gunner and 81.149.185.174 just happens to edit the same articles. Old picture where better btw. JakobSteenberg (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I CANNOT PUT SOMETHING IN WIKIPEDIA, PLEASE DO IT FOR ME. YOUR PENIS CAN GET SMALLER AFTER CANCER

THIS IS IMPORTANT.

"After prostate cancer, the penis can become smaller." reference: http://www.goldjournal.net/article/S0090-4295(12)01152-1/abstract

excerpt: Reduced Penile Size and Treatment Regret in Men With Recurrent Prostate Cancer After Surgery, Radiotherapy Plus Androgen Deprivation, or Radiotherapy Alone.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Reducedsizeafterprostatecancer (talk • contribs) 23:19, January 15, 2013

This is a single primary source, so it has some issues with WP:MEDRS. Also, the summary says that "Of 948 men, 25 (2.63%) complained of a reduced penile size." This suggests that it was not a common complaint after treatment. This would be more relevant in prostate cancer.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)