Jump to content

Talk:Ejaculation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 77.95.161.152 (talk) at 18:26, 12 August 2011 (→‎Can someone clean this up?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

SERIOUSLY?

Is the video clip of the guy splooging really necessary? I would have liked to see a more scholarly and encyclopedic tone to this article, not be assaulted by a video still of a semen-strung penis. What possible relevance does that add to the article from a scholarly standpoint? If someone wants to see the actual process of ejaculation, they can imagine it from the text. No further visual aids are necessary! That video is tantamount to having a video of someone being murdered on the Wikipedia page for "murder."

-Totally. Can we please get rid of it? 86.158.74.181 (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This website is a total disgrace. I was looking for scientific info, not some exhibitionist posting public videos to get his rocks off. 99.61.36.78 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Agreed. An explicit image depicting the act is educative enough from a purely encyclopedic point of view. This video is inappropriate and unnecessary. --Live2create (talk) 08:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Video removed. --Live2create (talk) 08:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Video restored. See WP:NOTCENSORED. A video is more educational than a still image for processes like this. LWizard @ 17:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. I'd like to submit a request for the video of the guy ejaculating to be linked to the "Curiosity" page. Seeing as it's clear that it offers no additional educational support to this page, the only reason people click on it is out of curiosity as to what sort of video some dude took of his penis erupting would be posted on wikipedia. So, again, can someone post this video on the "Curiosity" page with the caption, "Click to see the result of curiosity". Thanks, internet!

Greater pleasure for men with larger penises during ejaculation

Ejaculation for men with above average penises (7+ inches) is more pleasurable than ejaculation for those with avergae or below-average penises, as the semen must travel the entire length of the penis, causing a longer-lasting and more heightened experience. Men with above average girth enjoy a significantly more pleasurable ejaculation due to the tension in the increased muscle during the retractions. Basically, a man with a 9 inch length and 7 inch girth would enjoy a far more pleasurable ejaculation than a man with a 5x5 inch penis. This should be noted in the article. Jerome Lundegaard (talk) 11:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a reliable source for this assertion. --NeilN talk to me 13:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Surely logic is enough? Saying larger penises enjoy more pleasurable ejaculations is like saying the sky is blue. Jerome Lundegaard (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In wikipedia that's called Original research. You need to provide a reliable source that directly makes this assertion. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And besides, it is not the length of the penis that provides pleasure, it is the prostate. Prwagner3 (talk) 20:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone clean this up?

Can someone with editorial control take care of this promptly? I have nothing against biology textbook depictions of a bodily function. However, the video and photo collection are purely pornographic. There might as well be someone posting images or videos of coitus on "appropriate" pages. Ocanada11 (talk) 01:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NOTCENSORED. There's nothing pornographic about a biological function. --NeilN talk to me 01:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you'll be there to keep people from removing a video I post of myself pooping on the "defecation" page? It's pretty plain to see that having the video on this page offers no additional educational information, but by removing it, a number of editors are afraid of that being tantamount to "giving in" to censorship. But it's not. If having the video served as educational, then taking it down because it offends some would be censoring; since that isn't the case, it's just silly to keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.73.180 (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand why people see a clearly labeled video, click the play button, then promptly get offended about it and begin to demand that it should be removed. Nobody is forcing you to watch the video. It's there for people who may want to see it, if you don't want to see it then don't watch it.

Edit request from Elixergtarist, 24 May 2011

I'd like to request that the pictures and video be removed from the page. It ads no encyclopedic value to the article.


Elixergtarist (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No consensus for this. --NeilN talk to me 16:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sex is a biological function too, but I'm not gonna video myself having sex and then post it on wikipedia. Not OK. Pornographic movies show the same "biologial functions" taking place. But they're PORNOGRAPHIC movies, not movies the family sits down to watch. Everybody uses the "wikipedia is not censored" rule to go pass the limits of what's appropriate, so then you get pics and vids of people masturbating to ejaculation and posting it on wikipedia. Ridiculous!

NO CONSENSUS?? Almost every discussion thread on this page is multiple users requesting that the inappropriate and unneccesary pictures and videos be deleted. There is a resounding consensus that they add nothing to the article, are disgusting, inappropriate, UNENCYCLOPEDIC, and perverse. This is not a whack-off forum, it's supposed to be a scholarly encyclopedic resource. If someone wants to see pictures or video of what ejaculation looks like, they can find it a million other places on the internet. It is inappropriate to have it here. 70.91.70.193 (talk) 17:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Biological Functions =! Pornography...

Then why is there not a video of female ejaculation on the Female Ejaculation page? In the interest of fairness - which is at the heart of Wikipedia - I propose that an enterprising female film herself ejaculating and upload it for use on said page.

Furthermore, I propose that videos and images be added to each of the following pages in order to add educational and encyclopedic content:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.0.201 (talk) 09:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is quite simple: those articles don't have images because none are available. You can of course suggest that someone produce images/videos and upload them (in which case they could be used in those articles), but not having images in other articles doesn't bar us from using images here so it's not a valid reason for changing this article (which I guess is what you really want). By the way: what does this have to do with “fairness” (are you saying those articles are jealous of the ejaculation article because they don't have images)? --Six words (talk) 12:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ejaculation&oldid=444479137"