Talk:Glans penis

Introduction

Why on earth does the article about the glans penis begin with a definition of the "glans penis covered by foreskin and uncovered."(in bold) It sounds quite awkward and unneccesary to make this clarification which seems self-evident anyway as the very first phrase of the article. Of course the glans is the glans, covered or uncovered by foreskin.71.224.118.11 12:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Circumcision status

The statement about men who have been circumcised is technically inaccurate. A restored foreskin can indeed cover the glans penis. DanP 00:55, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Equally, an uncircumcised man's foreskin may not cover the glans penis at all. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate Reverts

Jakew: your reverts are inappropriate. You have not provided a reason for reverting the additional of relevant factual material about the glans penis.

Robert Blair 00:34, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Meatal problems

The "longitudinal study" which is the (1988) New Zealand study by Fergusson et al., is silent about meatitis, meatal ulceration, and meatal stenosis. It may not be used to support a claim of a higher incidence of meatitis, meatal ulceration, and meatal stenosis in intact boys. See:

http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/fergusson/

Robert Blair 13:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Penile inflammation included balanitis, meatitis, inflammation of the prepuce, and conditions in which the penis was described as sore or inflammed without any further diagnostic elaboration; (2) the number of episodes of phimosis experienced by the child." ... Penile inflammation by 8 yrs: circumcised = 7.6 (11), uncircumcised=14.4 (62) http://www.circs.org/library/fergusson/ - Jakew 17:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To be more precise, one cannot tell from the article whether the reported inflammation was balanitis, posthitis, balanoposthitis, meatitis, or some other condition. One cannot say with certainty that the uncircumcised boys had any meatitis at all.

The use of the Fergusson article to support such a claim will not stand up.

Robert Blair 01:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is an inappropriate forum in which to promote circumcision. The foreskin does affect the glans penis, so a discussion of the effect of the foreskin on the glans penis is appropriate.

Robert Blair 04:34, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this is not an appropriate forum for advocating - or opposing - circumcision. It is also an inappropriate forum for a medical analysis of circumcision, but you obviously insist upon it, so I have added some more information. - Jakew 12:17, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It should be obvious that without the protection of the foreskin that circumcised boys have a high risk of meatal stenosis (narrowing of the urethra). This is why doctors tell parents to change the diapers of their infants every hour to prevent the meatal area from coming into contact with urea.

POV pushing

Robert Blair, why do you insist on pushing your POV in this article?

As I have mentioned previously, it is really not appropriate to turn this article into a miniature version of medical analysis of circumcision, but you seem to insist upon including discussion of the proposed effects of circumcision on meatal problems. I eventually decided, to the detriment of Wikipedia I confess, to let you have it your own way.

I felt that it was inappropriate to include only one "thing that can go wrong with the glans, as related to circumcision", so I included a discussion of the protective effect of circumcision against balanitis. You then felt the need to censor this information, and downplay the risks posed by balanitis. I correct your downplaying (it is often, but not always easily treatable), and add an equivalent (and supported) comment about meatal problems. You censor this. You continue to pretend that Fergusson did not study meatitis (which they demonstrably did).

Don't you understand NPOV? I'm trying to compromise with you here, but you can't have every study opposing circ and none in favour! If you want to include anti-circ stuff about meatitis, then - ok, if you insist - but you can't then turn around and say it's inappropriate to talk about balanitis. It's called balance. - Jakew 23:12, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

POV treats all viewpoints equally and allows all to be presented. Balanitis is discussed elsewhere and there is a link to that place. In any event. It is far from certain that the foreskin causes balanitis. Many believe that the oils and moisturizing agents in the subpreputial moisture help to protect against balanitis.

Meatitis does affect the glans penis and in the absence of a discussion elsewhere it is appropriate to mention it here. It really occurs exclusively in circumcised boys who have lost the protection of the foreskin while they are still in nappies. There really isn't an alternative view on this, because there is no evidence to support that view. Fergusson does not provide the support you would like to have. To use Fergusson is like a drowning man clutching at straw.

This is not an appropriate place to push your circumcision agenda.

207.69.136.199 01:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You say that balanitis is discussed elsewhere, and that's true, but so are meatal problems (in medical analysis), so that's a lousy argument. It makes absolutely no difference what some people believe, the facts speak for themselves: balanitis is 2 to 5 times as common in males with a foreskin. It is possible, I suppose, that the ingredients in smegma (there are no oils, by the way: Taylor reported that the foreskin contains no sebaceuous glands, so we're really just talking about stale urine, sweat, and dead cells) have a mild protective role that help to reduce the negative influence of the dramatically increased levels of pathogenic bacteria.

Meatitis is not exclusive to circumcised males. It is possible that it may be more common, and I agree that some evidence does indicate that. On the other hand, the fact that it cannot be diagnosed in uncircumcised males makes it difficult to be sure, or to make meaningful comparisons. How many problems go unnoticed in uncircumcised children? How often does a child complain of pain urinating, has a circumcision for suspected phimosis or posthitis, and then the true meatal problem becomes apparent? I'm quite familiar with diagnosing and fixing bugs hiding other bugs in computer software, and physician friends confirm that similar things occur in medicine.

I don't understand how you can dare to accuse me of pushing an agenda here. After all, I'm not the person trying to censor information... - Jakew 12:20, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Image used

Why does the image have to be of a sexually charged erect penis? Wouldn't it be more neutral or appropriate to show the glans penis in its natural un-erect state?--Sonjaaa 04:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The lans in its natural, un-erect state wouldn't look very good on a detail photograph. Rather shapeless and wrinkly it would be... --Imator 08:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it should show it's wrinkly normal state. Erect is too sexualized and inappropriate.--Sonjaaa 22:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Both erect and flacid states should be shown. Add information to wikipedia, not remove. Christopher 03:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That is an interesting remark. My gut feeling was "what additional information would that give", but I started thinking about how the glans grows noticeably in the erect state. It would maybe be useful to have both states for this reason. Other than that, I felt a bit confused that the diagram showed an intact foreskin, while the current penis is circumsized. Being an adult man, I of course know the difference in looks, but for underage girls going here, it's maybe a bit weird. I would think an intact penis would be more logical in this case, as the point of the article is not to show the visual effects of circumsition. -- Northgrove 22:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe underaged girls shouldn't be looking at penises?.. -unsigned

I find that the image currently being used is not appropriate for the purpose, the purpose of course is to show what the glans penis looks like, yet it has other body parts (leg testicles) in the picture, so I am replacing that picture with a more suitable one. Nikon307 16:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Nikon307's version is probably better... Simply put, a circumcised version can cause confusion with regards to the fact that the glans penis is a mucous membrane and that circumcision, while common, is a cultural rather than natural in nature. 24.173.220.30 03:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wait, if my version was better? why was it replaced with the lower quality photo, which doesn't even have a copyright tag? I'm not going to add it back (in fear of getting in trouble or something) but if someone agrees, please replace it with this one which is in high quality, is uncircumcised (like 90% of the world population), and has a copyright tag. image:Penisfrenulum.jpg Thanks. Nikon307 23:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Because no one responded, I'm going to place image:Penisfrenulum.jpg in place of the other image. Respond to this statement if you wish to revert it to the other image, thanks. Nikon307 23:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I just don't get: why replace an image when you can simply ADD another one to the article...? Wouldn't it make the article more resourcefull and complete? And FYI, estimates of the proportion of males that are circumcised worldwide vary from one sixth (12.5%) to one third (33.3%). Thank you.lopiadx 05:52, 01 June 2007 (UTC)

While I know what you're trying to say, the reason I removed it was because it lacked a copyright tag, so it had to be put up as a candidate for deletion, and to do so it has to be removed from the article. Same goes for the picture which was just posted, if it doesn't get a tag, it will be deleted in 7 days, so the uploader should probably fix that. I'm not out to remove content from wikipedia, but to contribute to wikipedia. So, if the uploader doesn't fix the problem I'll replace it before the image is deleted and the article is without a picture. Nikon307 05:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Very well. Changes made.lopiadx 08:23, 01 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Uncircglans.jpg

I recently removed this image from the page. It showed an erect penis posted by a Wikipedian. My reason for doing so is not that I have an objection to such things being published on the internet as I am not in favour of censorship. However, I think that the image was not instructional or encyclopedic and I would query the motive of people who wish to publish images of their own erect penis on Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, not a site for exhibitionism, and should contain information that all people can access freely. I would not want to see a situation where parents feel unable to allow their children access to Wikipedia because they may encounter an inappropriate image. --Vince 20:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Diagram

Imator has once removed this diagram and once reduced its size to the point of illegibility, both times saying that it was "off-topic". I don't agree -- the diagram clearly labels the glans penis at the bottom right, and shows it in context. But rather than continuing to argue through edit summaries, I recommend that we discuss the issue here on the talk page. --Arcadian 12:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't really think that this particular diagram is especially helpful because it has the entire end of the penis labeled as the glans, however a diagram that puts the glans in perspective is most important. Until a better diagram is supplied, the current one needs to stay as it is now. Christopher 02:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Scoop/plunger Function

• Should it also be noted that the evolutional purpous of the glans penis is theorized to serve as a plunger to remove any others mans semen that may have been there from an earlier sexual encounter the woman may have had as referenced in this article[1]?

That article is bulls*it. The glans is like that because nature made it like that, not because "evolution made it like that to remove other mans semen, and evolution tought it was good". People use "evolution" and "evolded" just like "god" and "god made it like that" Cuzandor 01:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Because, you see, the clitoris looks just like a d*ck. Why did "evolution" "evolved" it to that shape for one reason and "evolution" also "evolved" the penis to the very same shape "to remove other man's semen" ? I know why: because it didn't. Cuzandor 01:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)\

You may want to look at the article Evolution if that is your basis of argument. Your may find it insightfull. If you dont believe in evolution at all period you may be incorrect. It happens around us all the time[2],[3], scientists are having problems with bacteria, right on key with darwinian selection, evolving and slipping through the cracks of modern antibiotics [4],[5]by becoming resistant to the medicine. What makes you think that complex organisms like us that onced used crude tools, exibited primative instinct as shown in the way we lived, and those of us best suited to live in the unrefined world of the past weren't more geneticaly adept to live in those conditions, and those who where not as adept simply died from failure adapt alowing a situation where those adapted perpertuated only genome charecteristics to live in a given inviroment. Look at the new diseases and problems that arise from living in the modern world. Do you think that people dont die from modern technology that dident exist in the past? Seems to me people that are elvolved to be better drivers, better office workers, less proned to cancer, smarter, more tolerant to the harsh new chemicals of the modern world, and with better mental traits could be more successfull based on the architecture of thier mind would be more likely to succede and survive or perpetuate thier genes and genetic traits to the next generation! Nowdays sexual success is more than crude mechanical sex and more mind based. Some people even go to the extremes to fight against nature for a beliefe which is fine. It wasen't always this way. Just something to think about...M jurrens 21:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You didn't say anything meanful. Cuzandor 04:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I mean, anything that is worth the effort of thinking about it. Cuzandor 04:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink", especially if his mind is to closed to drink. M jurrens 14:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball Cuzandor 23:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I worded this wrong, "Glans Penis as a semen displacement device"

Notable References follow (In the PDF files search semen displacement)

• Comparative Evolutionary Psychology of Sperm Competition
• Semen Displacement as a Sperm Competition Strategy in Humans
• Spernathecal morphology, sperm transfer and a novel mechanism of sperm displacement in the rove beetle, Aleochara curtula (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae)

As you can see I have provided more than enough materials directly relating to the funtion of the glans as a semen displacement device. I knew it was true, I just needed respectable sources, from say Doctors, major universities, ect.M jurrens 21:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems legit; maybe it needs to be added with clarification. A lot of species have sperm displacement devices/practices as an evolutionary development. Some species also have anti-sperm-displacement mechanisms—for instance, sealing the female's reproductive passageway so that the sperm is trapped in there and other males cannot remove it or replace it with their own sperm. (BTW, could you title you links in the future? I did it for you this time.)--71.105.214.225 (talk) 01:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Systematic reverts from User:CB001

Why do User:CB001 prefer old ugly pictures ? You don't like newer one ? (by Béatrice)

The old photo is better, your photo is ugly. Same thing for the article "Foreskin". CB001 15:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Je remarque que le consensus dont vous semblez être le porte-parole (!!!) préfère conserver 4 photographies microscopiques absolument hideuses au lieu d'accepter les photographies du site français.

En plus vous mentez :

L'illustration de "prépuce" (photo que vous contestez) a été introduite le 3 mai 2006 sur le wiki français sans aucune discussion postérieure, en remplacement d'une photo hideuse et sombre :

http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pr%C3%A9puce&oldid=7067182

Vous pouvez le constater ici : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discuter:Pr%C3%A9puce

L'illustration de "gland" (photo que vous contestez) a été introduite le 10 mai 2006 sur le wiki français.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gland_%28anatomie%29&oldid=7192426

Avec aucune discussion :

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discuter:Gland_%28anatomie%29

Les photographies qui ont été acceptées après discussions - certe à couteau tiré - avec une restriction : un bandeau déroulant datent de plus longtemps et portaient sur "pénis" et "érection".

Vous serez aimable de quitter ce ton méprisant et condescendant et par exemple mettre aux voix comme il a été fait sur le wiki français (pour "pénis" et "érection" et non pas pour les photos que vous incriminez) la conservation des photos antérieures ou l'introduction des nouvelles photos. Merci.

Béatrice

Please, don't speak french on this talk page. CB001 16:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

comment on images

I have to saythis whole thing is pretty ridiculous. Image:Glans.jpg is not only very artificial-looking, but of much lesser quality (blurry, low-resolution) than Image:GlansPenis.jpg. And even if (and I insist on if) it actually is User:Béatrice's own member, I ask: what difference does that make? The image is better looking in any case. Circeus 14:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the 'anterior/posterior view' photo is better than both of them. Nandesuka 14:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Just saw it, and I agree. If the caption is any indication, it was probably the original. Circeus 16:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Circumcision controversy

Most of the edits to this article are people going back and forth trying to get the text to reflect "their" view of the topic of circumcision. I believe this is disruptive to the integrity of the article as a whole, and beyond the scope of the article. I believe that discussion of circumcision and which study supports what should be left to the Circumcision article or its offshoots. This article should be left to just a dicussion of the anatomical feature, what it's made of, what it does, etc.

I realize that you can't have a discussion of what it does or what it's for without acknowledging that it's different in circumcised males than in uncircumsised males. However, right now we have more text interpreting the findings of cirumcision studies than in the entire rest of the body of the article.

I propose pulling all circumcision debate out of the article. The only references to the topic should be the fact that the glans penis is uncovered by the foreskin in circumcised males, and covered by the foreskin in uncircumcised (or restored) males. Additionally, a short bit could be left in the anatomical details section pointing out that the characteristics of the glans is different in circumcised vs. uncircumcised males (dry vs. moist, etc.) and directing the reader to Circumcision for further info. That's it. Any further information in the article about "reduced disease this" and "reduced sensitivity that" is at best trying to present sides of a debate that's off topic here anyway, and at worst, a breeding ground for countless edit wars (like we've already seen here). Let's keep the edit war to as few locations as possible. --adavidw 23:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Note about slang terminology

The term 'bell end' does not refer to the glans. 'Bell' refers to glans whilst 'bell end' refers to the gathering a skin at the tip which may or may not be present on an uncircumcised penis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robin.Anderson (talk • contribs).

I have to disagree with you there. I've never EVER heard anyone refer to the glans as a "bell" (until now). "Bell end" or "bellend" always refers to the glans. Look them up at urbandictionary.com — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 23:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

They both refer to the glans. Bell is just a shortened version. ArdClose 15:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Pictures of Real Penises

The current layout of the page is very awkward, because the two images of real penises (penisfrenulum.jpg and erectpenis.jpg) are off-setting the main body of the text. Judging from the discussion above, it also seems that such images are deemed somewhat inappropriate by some wikipedians. For these reasons, I would recommend that we move these two images into the Additional Images section. The diagram that is currently at the top is more than enough for the article intro. Once the images are moved, not only would they be less "in-your-face", but the article would benefit from a much more clean-cut layout. What does everyone else think of my suggestion? Please voice your opinion.Homologeo 03:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia is NOT censored for minors, but I agree that at least the second image should be moved, as it includes much more than it should. This article is about the glans, not about the penis or the testicles. So I do sympathize with you that minors and others might not want a picture of a glans "in there face" yet they should expect a picture of a glans if that's what they type in. Though the typist who is visiting this page should see what they're looking for, they shouldn't see things which are irrelevant because they would obviously have no relevance in the page.Nikon307 21:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

My biggest concern was with the layout of the page. I would still recommend that the remaining photo of a real penis be moved to the Additional Images section. The rationale for this is provided above. As for the other image that is now missing, I guess someone decided that it was time for that image to go. I hope no one objects to the removal of that particular image. I, personally, have no qualms about its deletion. So, should the remaining image of a real penis be moved or should it stay in the intro? Please keep in mind, that a clean-cut layout is more conducive of attentive reading on the part of the reader. Homologeo 07:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the page layout requires attention and needs to be more balanced. I recommend that the images be moved to the Additional Images section. The second image shows the scale of the glans in relation to rest of the genitals and are more defined and anatomically more pronounced in this state. As for the picture showing other parts of the genital area, the picture is consistent with the sectioned diagram at the top of the article which shows the whole genital area. BigBoris 20:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

DavidShankBone has made this statement on the history of the article about my picture "There really isn't a need for a "lateral view" and many of your 20 edits seem designed to get your penis on Wikipedia - it's also just not a particularly good photo, and huge nest of hair is irrelevan(t)". Sould the picture of my glans be reinstated? Please discuss.... BigBoris 10:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I have added a close up side view of Penis Glans to demonstrate the structure in more detail BigBoris 06:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Nandesukahas removed my image, side view of Penis Glans, citing "Poor quality image" please discuss before removing BigBoris 09:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored for minors, but neither does it include unnecessary images that (a) clutter the article and (b) don't contribute substantially to the topic at hand. The genitalia articles in particular suffer from people who get a kick out of seeing their penis (or vagina) in an encyclopdia adding superfluous images. I swept this article and left what I thought was the best image in place. The side image was removed because it was low quality (poorly lit, noisy), and the Shankbone image was removed because it was not properly isolated, included details not relevant to the topic 'glans penis', and because it is noticeably worse than the existing Penisfrenulum.jpg. Nandesuka 12:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That's your opinion, but you are wantonly removing images where consensus has been reached. The Shankbone photos are not of Shankbone, but of a model. You do not WP:OWN the page and if you persist in going about trolling pages and removing my images without getting consensus, then I will bring it up on the admin board. These images are well-known, as is the rest of my work. Casting aspersions and making assumptions as to my motivations does little to strengthen your argument. --David Shankbone 14:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is my opinion. I removed your image because it poorly illustrates the topic and is of poor quality. If you feel that it is appropriate to bring up a content dispute such as this on an administrative noticeboard, by all means knock yourself out. I think you'll be disappointed with the result, though. Nandesuka 15:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

At this point, the content dispute is really one of your violating 3RR by reverting four times in a 24 hour period, and your WP:OWNing the page. --David Shankbone 15:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to reading the 3RR report. Please make sure to list the diffs carefully, so that we'll all understand my transgression. Nandesuka 15:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

David Shankbone, you said there was a consensus; please give a link to it. I'm interested to read the reasons for keeping those pictures in light of the problems Nandesuka raises about them. --Coppertwig 19:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Nandesuka was removing two images: Mine (which has been on the page since June 28) and that of BigBoris, without discussing a change when these photographs have been discussed in edit summaries and in the above discussion; I was also referring to the pubic hair issue since Nandesuka's issue seemed to be about my "spam" than about any issue (in his words). Since there was clearly a content dispute about these. Second, I disagree that mine is of poor quality on any level. It's clear, it is not a "glistening wet" glans penis like the one he wants to leave up, this is of poor quality itself and looks freshly sucked. Third, it shows how the glans penis forms toward the frenulum. Not "properly isolated" and includes details irrelevant are meaningless - If that means too much of the penis itself is show, the argument can be raised that it gives context as opposed to a lone glans penis being shown, which we already have; it is also a unique angle and a higher quality than the other photographs. I'm willing to open this up for an RfC to have the three photographs judged, and I'll abide by any determination made. Should we? --David Shankbone 20:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Now, I was just browsing the article and decided to open the discussion, and I read how DavidShankbone said that the picture of the uncircumcised penis was "glistening wet" I was just going to point out, that it is an uncircumcised penis, so, I assume that it is because as most people know, uncircumcised penis's hold moisture in the foreskin. I'm wasn't going to respond to any of this, and I'm pretty new to wikipedia, but I just wanted to make a point after I read what davidshankbone had to say. Reidhonor 02:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Glans sensitivity

The glans is only pressure sensitive just like the homologous structure in females being the pressure sensitive clitoris. Direct rubbing of the pressure sensitive organs results in pain. Nature intended an erogenous sheath of skin that covers the pressure sensitive organ. This skin is the foreskin in males and the clitoral hood in females. During masturbation or intercourse the foreskin rubs across the glans in males and the clitoral hood rubs against the clitoris in females resulting in maximum pleasure. areseepee 9 Aug 2007

Request for Comment: Which photos should be used?

• 
  Photo A
• Photo C
  Photo C

The above examples of glans penis have been used on the page at various times. It appears that the consensus is to use only two of the photographs. Which two?

• Photos A and B. Photo C looks wet and glistening, like it has been oiled or sucked; the other two photos are better quality and provide the most well-rounded views of both sides of the glans penis. The penis in Photo B is of the same model who illustrates many of the body articles, including scrotum, teeth, neck, chest, etc. Disclosure: I am the photographer of B, but it is not my dick (whereas the owners of the others are the ones who put them up). --David Shankbone 22:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the article should include images of both uncircumcised and circumcised penises, as to only include one or the other could be seriously misleading. Phot C may be glistening because the uncircumcised glans tends to be moister than the circumcised. DuncanHill 23:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the input. So you would like C and which one? --David Shankbone 23:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'd suggest that one photo is sufficient, though I will go along with two if needed. Since this is an encyclopaedia, three is excessive - does anyone seriously think that readers will look at two images and think, "hmm, I really need another photo to help me decide whether something is a glans and not a small watermelon"? My preferences are A and C, in that order. The frenulum is prominent in C, which distracts attention from the glans (the subject of the article). B fails to isolate the subject properly - a different camera angle would help (placing the glans against a neutral background, rather than the stomach), as would a close-up on the glans itself. Jakew 23:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say C and A in that order. The point about a neutral background is a good one. To have one picture would be misleading, as whichever of circumcised or uncircumcised was chosen would look odd to those users who have never seen such a thing. DuncanHill 23:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

One photo is sufficient, not two. I think A is best. The other two are not acceptable to me at all. --Blue Tie 15:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Why are the other 2 not acceptable? And if only one is to be used, why use a photograph of a surgically-altered penis? DuncanHill 15:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The picture is to illustrate the glans and pretty much focuses on that. The other two show more of the penis and look like amateur exhibitionism The first may or may not be erect. The latter two are erections. The last one looks sucked or oiled. There is no surgical alteration to the first one that is relevant to the Glans Penis topic. --Blue Tie 16:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The last one does not look sucked or oiled, it looks like it has the natural moistness of an uncircumcised penis, It does not appear to be an erection to me. The removal of the foreskin in the first one does alter the appearence of the glans. DuncanHill 16:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Look, there is a request for comment. I gave my comment. It remains. I do not agree that the last one looks natural. It looks like an erection to me. I can accept that there is some difference in appearance but the other two pictures do not show the glans very well. Those are my comments. If you prefer an argument perhaps you can post a Request for Argument somewhere. --Blue Tie 16:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I was simply responding to your comments. I apologize if you feel that by doing so I was looking for an argument, I was not. DuncanHill 16:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• I also agree that one (good) photo is sufficient, and I disagree with the initial poster's assumption that consensus already exists to use 2 (indeed, the consensus in this section seems to be that one is sufficient). As to ranking, C and A are about equal in my opinion. A has slightly soft focus and has a distracting shadow, while C has distracting specular highlights but is at least sharp. Both provide adequate detail of the glans itself, although Jake's point that C gives emphasis to the prominent frenulum is true. B is the worst of the lot: it is improperly isolated, containing many details irrelevant to the article, is poorly lit, and provides nearly no detail of the glans itself. None of them is of encyclopedia quality, but sometimes you have to take what you get. I'd rank them C, A, then B, with the quality of C and A fairly close. Nandesuka 21:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

B is the worst. C is suspicious because of the caption, a glans of an uncircumcized penis. If true, it appears that the foreskin has been manually retracted. In which case the caption should reflect that. If it can't be determined, then I would drop C as well. Dread Pirate Westley•^Aargh 17:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• None of the above are particularly good. Photos A and B are from an orthographic viewpoint, and photo C is not far off. As such, each of these views is somewhat limited. A good photo would be from an oblique angle similar to the following, but from below (from in-front, to the side and below, would show best detail). Anyone got access to a camera, a penis, and a bit of spare time?

[code]

                       _,-%/%|
                   _,-'    \//%\
               _,-'        \%/|%
             /   )    __,--  /%\
             \/_/_,-'%(%  ;  %)%
                     %\%,   %\
                       '--%'

[/code] 124.180.203.13 13:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Each of the photos has merit. I believe there should be at least a circumcised and an uncircumcised penis to show the difference, prefeably from a similar viewpoint. Since the ventral (lower) aspect has the most distinctive anatomical features with the meatus and the frenulum, that should be how it is photographed. If C is used, it should be rotated 90 deg clockwise to avoid the impression of an erection. Photo A has been cropped too close to the glans to give it a sense of relationship to the penis. Photo B distracts by being against the abdomen. It would be good to have a photograph of a dark skinned person's glans as well, to show the effects of pigmentation. --CloudSurfer 18:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• I prefer A, then C. B lacks a neutral background, and its placement against the stomach makes the photo look unprofessional. Besides which, it is less focused on the glans than on the penis itself, and the glans is the article's focus. ♠PMC♠ 23:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I have a better picture...of mine. Where should I send it to? It is better than all 3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.235.66.18 (talk) 21:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

RFC Results

Not sure there was a good consensus. Here are the results

David Shankbone: Order: A,B C. David is the photographer of B so perhaps biased

DuncanHill. Order: C, A, B

Jakew: Order: A, C B

BlueTie: A only.

Nandesuka: Order: C A B

Dread Pirate Westley: Order: A, C, B

CloudSurfer: Apparent Order: C, A, B

PMC: Order: A, C, B

Summary Results

Option	Rank 1	Rank 2	Rank 3
A	5	3	0
B	0	1	6
C	3	3	1

Statistically A stochastically dominates C which stochastically dominates B

Special comments were also added:

Only one picture needed (mentioned by 3 editors)

Different pictures than those provided are needed (mentioned by 3 editors)

Two pictures are needed to show either: Circumcised and Uncircumcised / Black vs White (mentioned by one editor each)

I think I got it right. --Blue Tie 02:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Glans sensitivity

The glans is only pressure sensitive just like the homologous structure in females being the pressure sensitive clitoris. Direct rubbing of the pressure sensitive organs results in pain. Nature intended an erogenous sheath of skin that covers the pressure sensitive organ. This skin is the foreskin in males and the clitoral hood in females. During masturbation or intercourse the foreskin rubs across the glans in males and the clitoral hood rubs against the clitoris in females resulting in maximum pleasure. areseepee 9 Aug 2007

Penis Glans: Removal

Due to the rare instance of cancer, or other issues, what would be the purpose of glans removal only? Leaving the rest of the penis intact. What effect on the patient would be experienced? Examples of side effects of surgery involving removal of the glans could include urination, obtaining and maintaining an erection, obtaining an orgasm, ejaculation. How much may some psychological effects hinge on how much of the penis is left after surgery? (Burdzzo2 19:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)).

Corpus, corporis, n.

The plural of corpus is not corpora. It is corpores. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.160.168.250 (talk) 01:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge

AFAICT, both Glans penis and Glans are referring to the same thing. I recommend they be merged. But whoever merges them, please take care not to exclude information from one or the other. I've seen far too many merges where it seems like one page is just blanked and turned into a redirect, and nothing from it was added to the retained article. Merging another article to yours is not an excuse to just delete everyone else's contributions. It would be better to retain the all the content from the redirected article, and then remove the redundant info as separate actions. That way there's a clear history of what was there/what has been removed.--71.105.214.225 (talk) 01:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there's considerable overlap, and something needs to be done. There is some ambiguity, since "glans" by itself can refer to either the glans penis or glans clitoridis. There might be a case for making "glans" a disambiguation page. On the other hand, if "glans" usually refers to the glans penis, a disambiguation page is probably unnecessary. Jakew (talk) 09:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The articles Glans penis and Glans do not refer to the exact same thing. Glans is the correct term for both the male and female version, with structural and functional differences between the sexes. It must be made clear to readers that the term "glans" is proper for both the clitoris and penis and that Glans penis and clitoral glans are divisions of Glans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owlnest (talk • contribs)

Latest edits

I'm reverting this edit, for three reasons:

• First, Wikipedia is not suitable for use as a source, as WP:V#Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it makes clear.
• Second, the source cited in support of the claim that Morris is a circumcision advocate makes no reference to the 2007 publication (unsurprisingly, as it was published the year before). To avoid original synthesis, you would need a source discussing Morris' alleged circumcision advocacy in the context of that publication.
• Third, the obvious effect of characterising authors in such a way is to poison the well, which is incompatible with WP:NPOV. Even if it were done consistently, labelling Sorrells et al as circumcision opponents, and noting that their study was funded by NOCIRC, it would still be inadvisable. To do so inconsistently is obviously unacceptable. Jakew (talk) 09:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

An obvious bias

"Szabo and Short found that the glans of the circumcised penis does not develop a thicker keratinization layer.[7] Several studies have suggested that the glans is equally sensitive in circumcised and uncircumcised males"...there is PLENTY of evidence to the contrary. While I do feel that a worthy opposing study has been added to the article since I last viewed it, I do believe (with well reason to) that the article still contains a rabidly-pro circumcision bias, as there are countless studies that show (the obvious fact) that the foreskin (the male prepuce) is one of the main centers of sexual pleasure in males, and that the glans dries out and desinsitizes just as the homologous structure in females (the clitoral hood and glans) does when the female perpuce has been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.28.43.245 (talk • contribs)

To my knowledge, Szabo and Short's study is the only published study of keratinisation by circumcision status. We cite the two studies reporting decreased glans sensation among circumcised males, as well as the five reporting equal glans sensation. Jakew (talk) 10:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Intact Penis

The word intact indicates something that has not been damaged. Those who are using the word "uncircumcised" to describe a normal penis that has not been mutilated are trying to normalize circumcision, in my opinion. I have tried to correct this and other pages, and have been accused of an "edit war." I hope that people will read this, and know the truth. Intact should be used instead of uncircumcised. Even those men who undergo foreskin restoration rarely use the word uncircumcised, instead they use restored. Women who haven't had a mastectomy are not called "unmastectomised." We need correct terminology. I AM BEING CENSORED. I AM ENDING MY FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF WIKIPEDIA SINCE THEY ALLOW THIS. "Wikipedia is not censored" I AM BEING CENSORED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingrivera (talk • contribs)

Yes, the word 'intact' does generally imply a lack of damage. That's why it's not neutral: while some people believe that circumcision damages the penis, many others do not. The word 'uncircumcised' is neutral, well-established, and simply means 'not circumcised', without implying that this is positive or negative. Please understand that Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy is not negotiable. Jakew (talk) 13:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, the phrase "intact male" means a male animal that has not been castrated. For example, a Gelding is not intact, but a Stallion is. The reversion of the article from "intact male" to "uncircumcised male" has nothing to do with censorship, it has everything to do with what a phrase means and implies. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. It makes no sense to use ambiguous terminology when "uncircumcised" describes precisely what is meant. Jakew (talk) 10:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not, we are not talking about animals here. We are talking about intact men! I would like to cite Intact America website http://www.intactamerica.org An intact penis is one that has not been mutilated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingrivera (talk • contribs)

Intact America is a lobbyist group, who oppose circumcision. As such, their goals are not the same as an encyclopaedia dedicated to a neutral point of view: while our goal is to maintain neutrality, their goal is to influence, to persuade people of their beliefs. They can be expected to select terminology that favours their cause: using "mutilated" and "intact" to describe uncircumcised and circumcised penes being an excellent example. We must choose neutral, precise terms instead. Jakew (talk) 11:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Biased language and keratinization

It is inappropriate to have the section about how circumcision does not lead to keratinization. While it may not happen to all circumcised men, it most definitely does to some men. A swift internet search will bring up dozens and dozens links that have men asking questions about what they can do to stop or reverse the process of keritanization or cracking skin on the area exposed by circumcision, whether with creams, lotions, vitamin E, foreskin restoration, etc. You can find images of circumcised penises that have a clear line of keratinization from the circumcision scar/line to the tip of the penis. Keratinization can also happen in uncircumcised men with short foreskins, on the area left permanently exposed by the too-short foreskin.

Clearly, circumcision is involved with keritanization of the glans penis in *some* men. "...the glans of the circumcised penis does not develop a thicker keratinization layer" is therefore not true and unforgivably biased, written as though it is a universal absolute.

I have tried to remove this biased part about keratinization and it was restored within seconds. The reference linked to it is about circumcision and HIV, not keratinization or long-term effects of circumcision.

I understand that there are issues with biased studies on BOTH sides of this controversial subject. I believe it is completely unethical to have ANY potentially biased info on this article, it needs to be pristinely neutral.

• Since unethical people insist on putting inaccurate information on this page, we should add an image of a circumcised penis with keratinzation on the glans and down the shaft to the circumcision line. So that people who visit the page will understand that "...the glans of the circumcised penis does not develop a thicker keratinization layer" is not true.

Feel free to cite reliable sources stating different conclusions. However, it is inappropriate to remove properly sourced, neutral material. I have retained the image you added, but have edited the caption to avoid implying that the rough texture is due to excess keratinisation, since we lack histological evidence to prove that. Jakew (talk) 10:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious that you have an agenda with circumcision, Jake. If the study actually says that keratinization does not happen at any time post-circumcision, then it's a biased study. It's awfully coincidental that the "rough texture" of the skin begins right at the circumcision line, don't you think? Gee, how did that happen? You are fabulously cognitively dissonant, but what's messed up is that you insist on taking it out on the rest of the world.

Comment on content, not the contributor. Jakew (talk) 11:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Because I found it too fantastical that the BMJ would outright state that circumcision does not have the potential to lead to excessive keratinization of the glans, I registered to read the article in full. It is mentioned as though it is an afterthought, not in conclusion, and they did not declare what you claim they did, it says "There is controversy about whether the epithelium of the glans in uncircumcised men is keratinised; some authors claim that it is not,[15] (here, they cited a mainstream medical textbook, Histology for Pathologists) but we have examined the glans of seven circumcised and six uncircumcised men, and found the epithelia to be equally keratinised." Furthermore, 7 circ'd and 6 uncirc'd elderly cadavers is not a sufficient sample to declare that circumcision unequivocally does not lead to excess keratinization, which, I suspect, is exactly why they did not do that. So, the problem here is not the study, just the interpretation of it.

Will you remove or at least rephrase the sentence to reflect what the study actually says? Or simply quote the study directly, that shouldn't be too difficult. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duchovnik (talk • contribs) 12:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Recent edit

I reverted a recent edit by 67.167.225.94, which deleted properly sourced material for dubious reasons. Two reasons were given:

• First, "deleted reference to Waskett's critique of Sorrells, as it was included by Waskett himself". This is not a good reason for deleting material. Per WP:COS: "Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant and conforms to the content policies."
• Second, "and it is inappropriate to include critiques on only one side of the argument when critiques exist on both sides" overstates the case somewhat, I fear, but in any event it would be proper to cite an example of such a critique. Perhaps 67 would be kind enough to do so, and we can see whether it would be appropriate to restructure the sentence so as to include other critiques? Jakew (talk) 09:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Calling an intact penis "un-circumcised penis" is a bias

Calling an intact penis "un-circumcised" is a bias. Un-circumcised implies that:

• Circumcised is the natural/default condition, which is wrong
• Therefor the intact penis is the unnatural/secondary condition, which is wrong and an inversion of truth
• The intact penis has not been circumcised yet but should be or will be, which is a POV

These are POVs and systemic bias (probably from generic circumcision in the United States, creating a bias about the normality of being "cut" and the abnormality of being "un-cut"). The neutral precise term for an intact penis is intact penis. Definition of the word intact: not altered; whole; untouched; complete. --89.226.117.72 (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually the reverse is true: calling an uncircumcised penis "intact" is biased and against WP:NPOV. See discussions on this further up this page. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Right. I'd also like to add that there are 52,500 pages using the term "unambiguous" on wikipedia.org. According to your (89...) arguments, that implies that ambiguity is the default/natural condition, that unambiguous is unnatural, and that unambiguous statements are not ambiguous yet but should or will be. I think it is self-evident that such arguments are nonsensical. The prefix "un-" means "not", no more, no less. The word "uncircumcised" means "not circumcised", and the implications you list cannot be found in any dictionary. Jakew (talk) 09:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong. dictionary reference "uncircumcised: 2. not Jewish; gentile. 3. heathen; unregenerate." Do you need a definition of heathen and unregenerate? Other dictionaries defining the word "un-circumcised" as "heathen", "not purified": [6] [7]. King James Dictionary defines it as "want of circumcision". This word is a negative POV and an insult. --89.226.117.72 (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I note with interest that you omit sense 1: "not circumcised." This is an article about a part of the penis. It is not about religion or purification, so it should be obvious that those senses do not apply. Jakew (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It's the first definition but one of many. This word has an insulting connotation attached to it. The proper term for intact is intact, which is a neutral word.--89.226.117.72 (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It's the only definition that applies in context. "Intact" is both non-neutral (in the sense of "constituting the undiminished entirety; lacking nothing essential especially not damaged") and imprecise (is an uncircumcised penis with a piercing intact in the sense of "not altered"?). Jakew (talk) 07:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

How are these meanings of intact non-neutral? Are the intact penises pictured in this article "diminished entirely", are they "lacking something essential" and "damaged"? No. Are they pierced, altered, tattooed? No. The word intact totally applies to them and is a neutral description of them (which is not the case with the word un-circumcised and its negative meanings and connotations).--89.226.117.72 (talk) 08:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The first definition in a mainstream dictionary such as the OED, Chambers, and Wiktionary is always the primary literal meaning. In all three of these dictionaries we find that the first definition of "uncircumcised" is "not circumcised". The other definitions are metaphoric and do not belong on this article about a point of mammalian anatomy. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The three dictionaries you cited, OED, Chambers, and even Wiktionary all note the negative connotations "heathen", "not purified", "archaic", "irreligious". These negative insulting connotations are attached to this word, this is a fact. Pretending this word is neutral is an obvious lie.--89.226.117.72 (talk) 08:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Amusingly, you seem to have misread the dictionary. "Uncircumcised" does not mean "archaic". "irreligious or heathen" is listed as an archaic sense of the word. And, as noted, in the context of an anatomy article, nobody capable of reading English at a sufficient level to understand an encyclopaedia article would interpret terms in a religious or otherwise non-anatomical sense. Jakew (talk) 08:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)