Talk:Human penis

Rewrite the first sentence

The first sentence is way to technical. Linking to articles which explain the terms is not enough; we should replace the technical terms with less technical language - in most cases we can take this from the first sentence of the linked article.

Current version:

The human penis is an external male organ that additionally serves as the urinal duct. 

Proposed version:

The human penis is an external male organ used to deliver semen to a woman's vagina when a man and a woman have
sex. Men also use it to pee and to masturbate.

OK? filceolaire (talk) 09:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't approve of your proposed wording. For example, "pee" is not encyclopedic. And why should masturbation be mentioned in the lead? See WP:Lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

If I were to propose a change to the WP:Lead sentence, it would be "The human penis is an external sex organ that is part of the male reproductive system. After that, I'd state, "It is used for urination, and allows for the delivery of semen and sperm to a woman's vagina during sexual intercourse for sexual reproduction." Or I'd word the sentences similar to those examples. One thing to be cautious of with the "man and woman" part is that we sometimes get complaints about heteronormativity even when we are simply reporting on sexual reproduction. At Talk:Human penis/Archive 1#"male humans" should be changed to "humans assigned male at birth", you can see that we once got complaints about not considering transgender and intersex viewpoints. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2016

I am requesting to edit a statement in the second paragraph in the introductory section - "The penis is homologous to the clitoris."

I am requesting to change this statement to the following - "The penis and many of its associated structures are homologous to the vagina and its associated structures. For example, the glans penis (the head of the penis) is homologous to the clitoris."

Source: First Aid for the USMLE Step 1 (2015). Tao Le, Vikas Bhushan, and Matthew Sochat. p. 568

Spartan13002 (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Done --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 23:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Controversy section

There should be a controversy section. —User 000 name 23:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Not sure why. Also, separate criticism/controversy sections are discouraged.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed section on Penis Adaptations

This article may be further improved with the addition of this section. A specific adaptation in mind is that of how the shape of the human penis is evolutionarily adapted to deal with Sperm Competition. Additional evidence comes from Gallup et al. (2003), demonstrating that only dildos with a coronal ridge remove another's sperm from the vagina. Alternatively, this information could be displayed under a current section, such as Anatomy or Physiological Functions. NC1328656 (talk) 12:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Done

References

Expansion of the penis adaptations section.

We would like to expand the section on penis adaptations. We will do this by splitting penis adaptations into 3 types:

1. Testis and penis size (references below)

Gallup, G. G., & Burch, R. L. (2004). Semen displacement as a sperm competition strategy in humans. Evolutionary Psychology, 2, 12-23.

Masters, W. H., & Johnson, V. E. (1966). Human Sexual Response. Little, Brown and Company: Boston.

Mautz, B. S., Wong, B. B. M., Peters, R. A., & Jennions, M. D. (2013). Penis size interacts with body shape and height to influence male attractiveness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110, 6925-6930.

Weijmar Schultz, W., van Andel, P., Sabelis, I, & Mooyartm E. (1999). Magnetic resonance imaging of male and female genitals during coitus and female sexual arousal. British Medical Journal, 319, 18-25.

2. Ejaculate adjustment

Baker, R. R., & Bellis, M. A. (1989). Number of sperm in human ejaculaes varies in accordance with sperm competition theory. Animal Behaviour, 37, 867-869.

Shackelford, T. K., LeBlanc, G. J., Weekes-Shackelford, V. A., Bleske-Rechek, A. L., Euler, H. A., & Hoier, S. (2002). Psychological adaptation to human sperm competition. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23, 123-138.

Shackelford, T. K., Pound, N., & Goetz, A. T. (2005). Psychological and physiological adaptations to sperm competition in humans. Review of General Psychology, 9, 228-248.

3. Semen displacement

Burch, R. L., Gallup, G. G., Pervez, R. A., Stockwell, M. L., & Zappieri, M. L. (2003). The human penis as a semen displacement device. Evolution and Human Behaviour, 24, 277-289. (Although already mentioned, more detail can be added).

Burch, R. L., Gallup, G. G., & Mitchell, T. J. (2006). Semen displacement as a sperm competition strategy: Multiple mating, self-semen displacement, and timing of extra-pair copulations. Human Nature: An interdisciplinary Biosocial Perspective, 17, 253-264.

Let us know of any suggestions or queries! User:123hs User:JS.Chester

@123hs: Please go ahead with your suggestions, your edits will be reviewed by other editors and adjusted accordingly. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Peer review

R.g.rooney25

The addition of a section on evolved penis adaptations is good. Overall, the content is well presented and cited with appropriate research. The subheading titled 'semen displacement', in particuilar can be credited for including interesting information and appropriate hyperlinks to related pages such as 'sperm competition' and 'cuckholdry'. I have thought of a few possible ideas to improve your article further:

-perhaps include a section relating the the social influence of penis size, maybe linking it to social judgments of manhood etc.

-perhaps introduce the idea of semen displacement having evolved for the purpose of avoiding cuckholdry with the concept of promiscuity

-In order for the layperson to understand the full content of your article, it may be advisible to provide a breif explanation of certain terminology. For example, it may be worth elaborating on the 'counter-insemination strategy'.

-more hyperlinks within other subheadings. For example, under the 'testis and penis size' subheading, it may be advisible to hyperlink words such as 'penetration'. (R.g.rooney25 (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC))

@R.g.rooney25: thank you for your suggestions! I have incorporated your idea on penis size and social influence and social judgements.JS.Chester (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Update: I have hyperlinked 'penetration' under the the testis and penis size heading. Under the heading 'testis and penis size, I have edited the sentence 'To achieve this the penis needs to be a sufficient' to 'To achieve this, the penis must be a sufficient' (added comma, wording slightly changed). (R.g.rooney25 (talk) 19:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC))

Psunco

Proposed changes to Penis Adaptations:

1. Could include a sentence about ejaculation and how sperm travels up to 30-60cm when ejaculating, hence, there has been an evolutionary adaptation that focuses the release of semen at the uppermost portion of the vaginal tract

Gallup, G. G., & Burch, R. L. (2004). Semen displacement as a sperm competition strategy in humans. Evolutionary Psychology, 2, 12-23.

2. Also, including sperm competition or maybe just a hyperlink would be helpful because it is an overlapping topic.

3. Could also include a couple of sentences talking about the implications of premature ejaculation and include a hyperlink about that. References that could help:
Hong L. K. (1984). Survival of the fastest: On the origin of premature ejaculation. The Journal of Sex Research, 20, 109–122.
Grenier G. and Byers E. S. (2001). Operationalizing premature or rapid ejaculation. Journal of Sex Research, 38, 369–378.

Psunco (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Drey02

Some suggestions for the evolved adaptations of the human penis:
- maybe explain briefly what the sperm competition is? (even if it's another page, just a quick explanation to outline what is it?).
- on the ejaculate adjustment section: "This variation is hypothesised to be a male's attempt to eliminate, if not reduce, his sperm competition." maybe add a reference here to support this hypothesis?
- on the same section, maybe find out if condoms affect the ejaculate adjustment? Do men still ejaculate more when they have been separated from their partner when using contraception?
Those are just some quick ideas, otherwise the article is really well explained and structured. Hope you find this useful. Drey02 (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

NicoleKPascoulis

The addition of the Evolved adaptations section is really thorough containing lots research and clear information. I have a few suggestions for further improvement but overall it's a great section.

In the first sentence of the evolutionary section it may be beneficial to add the glans penis alongside semen displacement as this term could then be hyperlinked if people wanted more information about that specific area. The glans penis page also contains some brief information on evolutionary adaptations. The article is very clearly written but is quite scientific so it would be helpful to add explanations next to some of the more complicated terminology to ensure all readers will understand, for example fully explaining what a semen displacement strategy is. NicoleKPascoulis (NicoleKPascoulis) 17:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Concerning the photo

Why must it be noted that "this model has removed body hair"? Is it not showing? Is it so rare it must be noted? Because the photo of the vagina also has removed body hair yet it is not noted. Double standards for women? These thing always freak me out to no end. Be consistent please. 2001:1C06:504:3300:4A5B:39FF:FEEF:A18D (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it is not entirely necessary to say this. However, not all penises are shaved (mine isn't, if you really want to know).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

To me, it looks as though the lead image is of an uncircumcised penis with the foreskin partly retracted. Should this detail be added for accuracy? DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Possibly, although it might make the caption rather long. The infobox photo clearly shows an uncircumcised penis, and this is the "natural" state. For religious and other reasons, not all penises have a foreskin.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Would it really make the caption too long? I think the labels in the caption are completely redundant, and possibly "flaccid" is redundant, leaving plenty of room for "A flaccid, uncircumcised penis with the foreskin partly retracted". DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

That looks OK.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Cheers - edit done. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Why do we need to state that the penis is "uncircumcised"? Perhaps then we should describe the lead image of the female equivalent article as being "uncircumcised" also. I know that some people find the adjective "uncircumcised" as not being particularly neutral, as it implies something has been "undone", and that circumcised is the norm. If anything, the fact the pubic hair is shaved is more worth pointing out than the fact the penis is in its natural state, i.e. not circumcised. --TBM10 (talk) 09:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I personally do not care in the slightest. "Uncircumcised" is possibly redundant anyway as you cannot retract the foreskin of a circumcised penis. "Shaved" could be introduced. e.g. "A (shaved) flaccid human penis with the foreskin pertly retracted".

Article name

Please either change the name to penis, or change the name of the vagina article to human vagina. 2001:1C06:504:3300:4A5B:39FF:FEEF:A18D (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

There was a consensus a while back to split off this material into a separate article and name this one Human penis. There is now a separate article Penis for other species. Previously the article was a bit confused as the information about human biology was mixed up with biology from other species.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Human penis. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160221114041/http://archive.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/1999/02/17912 to http://archive.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/1999/02/17912
• Attempted to fix sourcing for //http:/www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13585.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit

I recently reverted a recent edit and I have been asked at my talk page to explain this?

• The edit inappropriately changed British English to US English.
• The edit changed what is a theory to a statement of fact (re penis size)
• What is a "prime example"? Why not just "example".
• Change of "testis size" to "testes size" - these matters are usually discussed in the singular, e.g. we talk about foot size, not feet size.
• Use of "likewise" in the first sentence of a para. To what does this refer?
• (in semen displacement) What is a "primary way"? Are there other "ways"?

DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments clarifying the reverted edit, we are new to Wikipedia editing and still trying to get to grips with the things you have outlined above so your comments have been very useful! We will be sure not to make such mistakes again in future edits. Thank you again JS.Chester (talk) 15:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Adding on from @JS.Chester: I would like to thank you for your comments! We have written the Evolved Adaptations section as a part of a Wikipedia project we are currently doing for a Human Sexuality module as part of our university course (our other group member is @Rcuf235:). The changes were therefore those we had made in order to refine what we had previously written, our apologies that some of these were incorrect. Since it is part of our project, we are looking to add to and edit this section in the near future, however, we shall do so in light of your comments. We would like to make changes to the language used within this section, as there is now a mixture of both British and US English. With respect to your reversions, we will ensure British English is used throughout.

Thanks again --123hs (talk) 08:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The penis is not homologous to the vagina; it is homologous to the clitoris

On January 13, 2016, Allthefoxes changed "The penis is homologous to the clitoris." to "The penis and many of its associated structures are homologous to the vagina and its associated structures. For example, the glans penis (the head of the penis) is homologous to the clitoris."

Today, I was made aware of this mistake, by ArnoldReinhold, in a discussion at Talk:Vagina, and I noted that I had remedied the text. See this edit I made, stating, "The penis is not homologous to the vagina; it is homologous to the clitoris." With this edit, SheriffIsInTown came along to revert me, stating, "That was correct, i will add the source!" I reverted, replying, "It's not correct, no matter the source you add." As seen here, SheriffIsInTown reverted me again and then self-reverted while indicating that he will source the content.

In short, the "penis and many of its associated structures are homologous to the vagina" content I removed needs to stay removed as it is incorrect and furthers misunderstanding of female sexual anatomy. I will alert WP:Med and WP:Anatomy to this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Wow... I'd like to review the source that supports changing it away from "The penis is homologous to the clitoris." The very serious problem we've got is all that content is currently unsourced... please get some sourcing for that. Zad68 02:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Flyer22, why haven't you added a pair of gold-plated sources to that already? You know that almost always ends such disputes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, in this case, the editor was vehement that he could source the content. If I had sourced my reversion, I felt that my addition would still be contested by this editor. After all, sources can conflict. But WP:Due weight is something we must also consider. And the due weight is with the clitoris and penis being homologous. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

As seen here, the editor just added a source which he says supports his reversion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

A guess that an editor might still disagree doesn't really exempt you from the need to provide sources for contested material that you restored.

It's really helpful that this editor added a source and refined the text to match it, because it helps us be certain about what we're talking about. The source says "thus, until the very end of the seventeenth century, there seemed no difficulty in holding that women had an organ homologous, through topological inversion, to the penis inside their bodies, the vagina, and another one morphologically homologous to the penis, outside, the clitoris". That bit about "until the very end of the 17th century, of course, is the fatal flaw in the assertion that this is still believed to be accurate. But this information and the source might be very handy in a ==History== section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you WAID for finding value in perhaps one of the POINTyest edits I've come across. Zad68 02:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, while I am a big believer in WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue, I recognize that this is not a "sky is blue" case. I wasn't stating that I was exempt from providing a source, but when something as detrimental as this is added to the lead of an article and the editor vehemently defends it, I will revert (once or twice) and bring the matter to the talk page for clarification. I am stating that simply adding a source for the information is not what was needed in this case. Discussing it here on the talk page is what was needed since the editor was, or is still is, convinced that he is right. I do not see that my adding a single source, or even two, to the statement in the lead would have resolved this dispute. When I bring a matter to the talk page, I am fully prepared to defend my reversion with WP:Reliable sources, as seen in this, this and this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Adding a source was not only "needed" but also "required", as we discussed recently.

You were dealing with an editor who made an honest mistake while he was trying to do the right thing, not some vandal or a kid who heard something from someone on the playground. If you'd handed him a pair of great sources the first time, then he'd probably have actually read them and immediately stopped reverting you. As it was, you were basically asking him to leave something that he sincerely believed to be wrong in a high-traffic article on the grounds that some random Wikipedia editor said she was right and he was wrong. "Trust me, I know better than you" is exactly the kind of practice that Wikipedia does not want to encourage for a content dispute. Next time, please try adding the sources the first time you restore challenged material. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Like I just stated in that recent WP:Burden discussion, "I fully intended to provide sources for the material. There is nothing in WP:Burden that states that a source has to be immediately added; in fact, it's clear that time for providing a source is dependent upon the situation (it's a case-by-case basis). I was explicitly clear that I felt that the matter needed discussion and why. And, indeed, the other editor came back with a source, which he no doubt would have used to challenge any source I would have added. Taking the time to discuss matters, including educating editors while I'm at it, and providing sources there on the talk page, is what I do. [You don't] like my approach, but I can't, and won't try to, do a thing about that." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey folks, I apologize for the bad SPER! --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 03:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Here are two on-line references I found: http://www.meddean.luc.edu/lumen/meded/grossanatomy/pelvis/homology.html https://www.dartmouth.edu/~humananatomy/part_6/chapter_38.html Perhaps you have better ones. Add some references and I, for one, will be happy to back you up.--agr (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I found a relevant, up-to-date academic textbook Human Reproductive Biology and added it, that should take care of it. Zad68 14:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

[1]good references--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

urogenitial fold

Jytdog, like I just stated here of your edits, "I'm not sure about going with the 'Most of the penis' wording since sources simply state that they are homologous, and since the labia minora is an aspect of the clitoris." From my extensive research of the clitoris, which helped me write the Clitoris article, I know that sources don't usually state that "most of the penis is homologous to the clitoris"; they usually state that "the clitoris and penis are homologous." And for what I mean about the labia minora being an aspect of the clitoris, see, for example, this 2006 Jones & Bartlett Learning source, page 85, which states, "The anterior aspect of the labia minora forms the prepuce of the clitoris and also assists in enclosing the opening of the urethra and the vagina." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes so no controversy around most of this:

The vagina is developmentally distinct from the penis and it is the vulva and penis+scrotum that all arise from the same tissues in the developing fetus. I also think we are not disagreeing about the following:

Genital tubercle >> clitoral glans in females and Glans penis in males, as well as the swelling tissues inside Corpus cavernosum of clitoris and Corpus cavernosum of penis

Labioscrotal swelling >> Labia majora in females and scrotum in males; the scrotal raphe is where you can see the fusing of the two sides of the original swelling.

So its really just some other bits. I'd like to turn this around and go from predifferentiated tissue, to what they become.

Sources first

• Manual of Obstetrics. (3rd ed.). Elsevier. pp. 1-16. ISBN 9788131225561 says on page 2 : "The labia minora (homologue of the penile urethra and the skin of the penis in the male) are thin folds of stratified squamous epithelium that arise from the urethral folds. These folds are continuous with the epithelium of the vestibule lying between the vaginal orifice and the labia majora, The labia minora vary greatly in size and shape. They split anteriorly to enclose the clitoris, forming its prepuce anteriorly and frenulum posteriorly. The labia minora contain sebaceous glands and are rich in blood supply, but are devoid of hair follicles. They fuse posteriorly into the fourchette or posterior ring of the vaginal introitus".

• Keith L. Moore, T. V. N. Persaud, Mark G. Torchia, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology 10th Ed. Elsevier Health Sciences, 2015 ISBN 9780323313483, pp 267-69 says

Up to the seventh week, the external genitalia are similar in both sexes (see Fig. 12-37.4 and B). Distinguishing sexual characteristics begin to appear during the 9th week, but the external genitalia are not fully differentiated until the 12th week. Early in the fourth week, proliferating mesenchyme produces a genital tubercle (primordium of the penis or clitoris) in both sexes at the cranial end of the cloacal membrane (see Fig. 12-374). The cloacal ectoderm is believed to be the source of the genital initiation signal that involves FgfH expression. I.abioscrotal swellings and urogenital folds soon develop on each side of the cloacal membrane. The genital tubercle elongates to form a primordial phallus (penis or clitoris). The urogenital membrane lies in the floor of a median cleft, the urethral groove, which is bounded by the urethral folds (see Fig. 12-374 to D). In female fetuses, the urethra and vagina open into a common cavity, the vestibule of the vagina (see Fig. 12-37H).

Development of Male External Genitalia. Masculinization of the indifferent external genitalia is induced by testosterone produced by the interstitial cells of the fetal testes (see Fig. 12-37C, £, and G). As the primordial phallus enlarges and elongates to form the penis, the urethral folds form the lateral walls of the urethral groove on the ventral surface of the penis (Fig. 12-38A and B, and see also Fig. 12-37Q. This groove is lined by a proliferation of endodermal cells, the urethral plate (see Fig. 12-37C), which extends from the phallic portion of the urogenital sinus. The urethral folds fuse with each other along the ventral surface of the penis to form the spongy urethra (see Figs. 12-37E and G and 12-38C; and C3). The surface ectoderm fuses in the median plane of the penis, forming the penile raphe and enclosing the spongy urethra within the penis (see Fig. 12-37G). At the tip of the glans penis, an ectodermal ingrowth forms a cellular ectodermal cord, which grows toward the root of the penis to meet the spongy urethra (see Figs. 12-26A and 12-38C). As this cord canalizes, its lumen joins the previously formed spongy urethra. This juncture completes the terminal part of the urethra and moves the external urethral orifice to the tip of the glans penis (see Figs. 12-26B and C and 12-37G). HOX, FGF, and Shh genes regulate the development of the penis. During the 12th week, a circular ingrowth of ectoderm occurs at the periphery of the glans pen is (see Fig. 12-26B). When this ingrowth breaks down, it forms the prepuce (foreskin), a covering fold of skin (see Fig. 12-26Q. The corpus cavernosum penis (one of two columns of erectile tissue) and corpus spongiosum penis (median column ol erectile tissue between the two corpora cavernosa) develop from mesenchyme in the phallus. The two labioscrotal swellings grow toward each other and fuse to form the scrotum (see Fig. 12-37.4, E, and G). The line of fusion of these folds is clearly visible as the scrotal raphe (see Figs. 12-37Gand 12-38C).

Development of Female External Genitalia. The primordial phallus in the female fetus gradually becomes the clitoris (see Figs. 12-20G, 12-37B to D, F, and H, and 12-38B). The clitoris is still relatively large at 18 weeks (see Fig. 12-21). The urethral folds do not fuse, except posteriorly, where they join to form the frenulum of the labia minora (see Fig. 12-37F). The unfused parts of the urogenital folds form the labia minora. The labioscrotal folds fuse posteriorly to form the posterior labial commissure and anteriorly to form the anterior labial commissure and mons pubis (Fig. 12-37H). Most parts of the labioscrotal folds remain unfused but develop into two large folds of skin, the labia majora.

from this I take away,

the urogenital fold >> Labia minora in females and in males >> the part of the urethra inside the penis, and the skin around the penis. The raphe on the underside of the penis is where the fold fused.

The external genitalia (vulva in females and penis +scrotum in males) arise from the same embryological tissues. The mapping of clitoris onto penis is mostly accurate but not exact. Jytdog (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

In terms of explaining this to readers, I think you need to drop the "homology" language in the first mention. They're likely to get a more accurate education if we say something like "During embryonic development, this part of the penis comes from [thing you've never heard of]; in females, this embryonic structure produces the clitoris instead of a penis". Using plain English and simple words will increase the likelihood that someone will actually understand it (rather than believing that the penis and clitoris are basically the same thing). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I love that. done here Jytdog (talk) 08:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, even though I'm not fully sure what you meant above with regard to your reply to me, thanks for the sources and for taking the time to discuss this. What I meant is that the clitoris and penis develop from the genital tubercle and are very much the same organ, except manifested in different ways due to sexual differentiation. This is why they are called homologous rather than "mostly homologous." And, of course, I noted that the labia minora is an aspect of the clitoris; it is not completely distinct from it. As for not using the word homologous because readers might not understand it, this is why, in the lead of the Clitoris article, we state "Unlike the penis, the male homologue (equivalent) to the clitoris." The word equivalent is obviously used to briefly clarify. In this anatomical case, I think it is important to link to the Homology (biology) article, even if it's a pipelink. But I agree with clearer wording. Simply stating "homologous" does not help our readers unless what that word means is clarified. Anyway, as for this edit you made, I'd change the "human development" link to "development of the reproductive system" as a pipelink. The "human development" link is a disambiguation page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)