Talk:Penis

ERECTIONS

Such pictures in animals and humans is x rated catergory in the USA it is pornography and therefore not allowed under wiki rules and is also against the law (As children can see it) Wiki is allowing children to view x rated material, a criminal offence for wiki, the people who uploaded the photos and the people who added them to this page! --Meiamme (talk) 03:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Pluralis

first sentence is "The penis (plural penises, penes, penii) [...]" and later in the text it says ""Penii" is sometimes facetiously or mistakenly used as a plural form of "penis" instead of "penes" or "penises," its correct forms.".

Which one is correct?

Talking about the erection angle

The article talks about the erection angle, but only on a vertical axes. Many men have penises who curve left or right, and a table with the percentage of this type of erection would be interesting. Qubix 81.180.224.38 (talk) 04:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not a natural phenomenon. This is caused by circumcision. I believe the book "Say No to Circumcision" By Dr. Thomas Ritter (And several others I can't remember at the moment) covers this but I could be wrong, it's been a while since I read it. 208.106.104.40 (talk) 03:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I can say, from personal experience, that this is not only caused by circumcision, almost every penis bends left or right. Zeusden1 (talk) 07:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

No... many uncircumcised penises curve left and right. Fitz05 (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL erection angle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.33.231 (talk) 00:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

From what I recall, almost all penes have a slight left- or rightward curvature when erect. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This is completely untrue. Circumcision is not the reason for the curvature. The reason is biological and happens to both uncircumcised and circumcised penises. Also, the Thomas Ritter book, "Say No to Circumcision," is a POV book that has little to do with medicine. It exists to simply push Ritter's agenda and has no place as a source in this article. ask123 (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

opening pic

Suggest replaceing with File:Iceland_--_2008-08-08_13-23-17.jpg to make the article less human centric.Geni 13:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Who is going to be reading this? not a dog or a duck. a human —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgmets5 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No, but it's a legitimate question. Wikipedia is about knowledge and information. There are other Wikipedia articles on anatomy that take a broader view. But this isn't one of them. In this case, the article is priamrily about the human gland, not those of other animals. ask123 (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Erection development series

Should the erection development photo series not be focused on a "normal" penis (i.e. one that does not exhibit Peyronie's disease)? I'd shoot another one myself, but I am unfortunately deprived of the organ in question. Anyone in possession of a penis and up to the task? Jediserra (talk) 23:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

That picture does not exhibit Peyronie's disease. This diagnosis was added by an editor who is presumably not a urologist and has not examined the poster's penis medically. The original poster made no mention of having any disease, and this article states that up to 30% curvature is normal: Hence this is a normal penis and a new picture is not needed. I removed the OR from the caption (stating that a fellow wikipedian has a disease without even leaving them a talk page msg is pretty unpleasant on the part of whoever did that).Yobmod (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph 3 of Wikipedia:Image use policy#User-created images - shameless self-promotional low-quality home-made self-pics detracting from quality of article.

I have attempted to (and was reverted, with direction to seek consensus) remove 2 low-quality self-pictures of Wikimedia users' penises per paragraph 3 of Wikipedia:Image use policy#User-created images. This is not censorship - non-homemade alternatives can be found, which do not distract from the quality and encyclopedic value of the article by using home-made self pics of Wikimedia users.

Paragraph 3 of Wikipedia:Image use policy#User-created images reads: (Emphasis added)

“ Images with you, friends or family prominently featured in a way that distracts from the image topic are not recommended for the main namespace; User pages are OK. These images are considered self-promotion and the Wikipedia community has repeatedly reached consensus to delete such images. ”

I propose that self-pictures created by Wikimedia users (obviously home-made / self-produced images) both:

• (a) distract from the article's educational value by introducing exhibitionistic self-promotion
• (b) constitute self-promotion, which is in possible violation of WP:COI Conflict of Interest, to put it bluntly — they are vanity images.

I am not anti-penis (quite the opposite), and am not trying to impose censorship. But come on, are we going to keep allowing these shameless self-promotional low-quality home-made self-pictures (generally all of Caucasian wikimedia editors past their prime and with a body mass index higher than a porn company would be wanting to pay them money for their "educational" contributions? Maybe David Shankbone could come up with some educational shots the next time he goes to the Michael Lucas film set. At least they would be (a) professional quality images, and (b) not of fat middle-aged Wikipedia editors with flabby thighs and pubic areas.

Thoughts? (gets off soap box...) Outsider80^(User0529) (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I would consider them vanity/self-promotion if they were full body shots, including the face of the subject. But since the images in question focus only on the area needed for discussion/commentary I don't see them as such. I do not believe they are distracting as they're probably the best quality free licensed material we're likely to find. And having said that, if you believe you can find a better quality image that is freely licensed, by all means, add it and you likely won't be reverted (unless someone disagrees with you about the quality). But simply removing the material with no alternative available doesn't seem correct to me. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Which image? The flacid/erect circumcied d pic? Seems to have some educational value, and has no body/face, so is not vanity. Does not distract from the topic of the article, it illustrates it, as images should. I would say the same about all the images - the first being the least useful.Yobmod (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, the lede image is actually the most tasteful(IMHO) (least amateur-looking, even though it was originally a self-pic) photo on the page. (It also was the result of discussion on the subject of lede images in mid-2008, and was cropped and grayscaled by an editor other than the creator for the purpose of a lede infobox picture). A medical diagram/line-drawing would be more "informative", but there was objection by some editors at the time of not using a photo in the lede. (And labels added to self-pics always look amateurish anyway, as Commons shows) Outsider80^(User0529) (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting thought. It'd definitely be preferable to use higher-quality images, especially ones taken by medical professionals. While I know original images generally aren't considered original research, there seems to be a statement being made that the penes being depicted in these images are representative or properly illustrative of what a penis looks like. I note a comment at File talk:Erection Development.jpg which states the image may better be used to illustrate Peyronie's disease, but in the Penis article, it is marked simply as "Erection Development". Is this appropriate? I'm not sure- I'm not a medical professional and so I am incapable of identifying whether that person's penis is an appropriate illustration of normal erection development. And that's the danger- 90% of other Wikipedia readers will be equally incapable of knowing whether this is an appropriately illustrative image.

Similarly, in terms of the use of these images for vanity, there's a clear danger of the person making the image having a conflict of interest with wanting to make his penis appear as large as possible. While I'm not making any accusations, and have no evidence to do so, I think it's clear there is a risk of it that can be simply overcome by using professionally-taken images whenever possible. I hope this helps out. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

just some thoughts to add to the discussion (re: preceding point raised) : Methinks the "vanity" danger isn't in contributors making their penis look large, but in the conflict of interest/self-promotional (WP:COI) interests of a male having their penis being in an online encyclopedia, viewable by readers male & female, ages 8 to 88, around the English-speaking world. WP is not censored, but there is a high risk of COI/Self-promotion in having a Wikimedia user's penis self-pic promoted as a specimen of the human male. Most Wikimedia user penis uploaders are caucasian overweight males past a certain age. If they are trying to have their penises be specimens of the average human male penis ... most humans aren't 30-35 years old (old enough to know when you're getting a thrill off of showing your penis on Wikipedia), Caucasian, overweight users with access to a computer and a digital camera. These same uploaders will not hesitate to cry bloody murder over circumcised/uncircumcised, erect/un-erect, small/large not being represented -- but they are blind to the fact that they are flooding the page with un-notable images of overweight westerners (when most human males aren't overweight westerners, and thus it isn't a realistic representation of "specimens" of the human penis. :-) Outsider80^(User0529) (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting thoughts. One other that came to mind is the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act, also called "18 USC 2257", specifies record-keeping requirements for "producers of sexually explicit material". This usually amounts to pornography models needing to have their real names on file, usually with a copy of their driver's license, with the goal of ensuring that all models are of legal age at the time of photography. How this applies here is in that these images are being published by the WMF, and images of human genitalia may be considered "sexually explicit" (even in the case of illustrative images). It strikes me as being plainly clear that none of these self-made images are going to have 2257 documentation. While it seems pretty unlikely that any of the people posing for the images are underage, we can't really tell, can we? Of course, IANAL and I'm sure there's some special circumstances that can be considered here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

true.. I am not a lawyer either, but (FWIW) since WMF is based in the United States, Wikimedia content would fall under US law. However, just because a picture is nudity does not make it automatically fall under 2257. The most obvious examples of Wikipedia content which might fall under 2257 would be the David Shankbone photos from a gay porn set. (However, we can assume the studio (Michael Lucas) has 2257 data on file, though I am not a lawyer so I don't know if Wikimedia also would be required to have 2257 proof of age on file.) The video on the ejaculation article might also be a grey area. Outsider80^(User0529) (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Huh, actually according to WP:PORN this has been an issue before; an image was deleted back in '06 with the summary "Image would trigger 2257 record keeping requirements". While from the name of the image (creampiesex.jpg) it was obviously a form of "explicit sexual material", I wonder where the line is drawn when it comes to penis images... I suppose it's time to ask someone at the Foundation. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, upon further investigation of past 2257 discussions, it would seem that these images are probably not restricted. For example, the discussion here. An erection is probably OK, but ejaculation might not be. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest an approach that may circumvent this discussion entirely. It appears to me that by using diagrams or drawings rather than photographs to illustrate the relevant parts of the article, we could (1) present the information in a clearer fashion (a photograph necessarily includes details that are irrelevant to the discussion whereas a drawing could concentrate only on what was necessary) and (2) without bias (because the diagram could represent something that truly was average, and show only the important differences in cases where multiple diagrams become necessary, e.g. to illustrate circumcision). This would also obviate any concerns about record-keeping requirements and legality. JulesH (talk) 10:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Diagrams already exist in the article. Wikilawyers beliefs about the legal pitfalls have no bearing, as similarly explicit images are found in many educational works (or more so, anyone got shown at school the video of a couple having sex from inside the womans Vagina? This isn't porn, and doesn't come close to the definition of such. Erections and penetrative sex are now allowed in general release films in the US (eg, Shortbus).Yobmod (talk) 10:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the homemade photos clearly detract from the quality of the article. And, Locke Cole, no, the face of the person (or full body) does not need to be in the photo for it to be self promotion. It is totally conceivable that a person would be promoting himself even without having his face in the photo. After all, there's only one part of the body here that these users are trying to promote. ask123 (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

too many pics

one pic is enough to properly show this part of the male anatomy. I feel that this article is a bit excessive in displaying the penis. Also consider that too many pics might discourage readers from viewing this article. Metroid476 (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree Metroid476. Please see the previous section on this talk page for a discussion of this issue. ask123 (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Exclusively human

Non-human penises received only a fleeting mention. There needs to be more about the function and physiology of penises in other animals. 129.173.162.58 (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree. An hi-res picture of an erect horse would be a nice addition to this article and it would also be of good auspicious for the readers according to some oriental cultures. -- Femmina (talk) 11:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not really the job of Wikipedia articles to be auspicious.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest File:Iceland -- 2008-08-08 13-23-17.jpg which provides coverage of multiple species.Geni 20:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a pity that the description page of this image does not say what species are pictured here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well other pics can be found here and I think lableing them as "a selection of penises from different species" would be enough.Geni 21:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

There should be two separate articles, one specifically for the human body part and another for the part common to many different species. That is how many Wikipedia articles on anatomy do it.

Regarding your suggestion, Femmina, are you being serious? Yes, Ianmacm is right. Wikipedia isn't in the business of being auspicious. In fact, it's in the business of doing quite the opposite: providing articles that use empiricism, science and evidentiary citations to back up information. Auspices are voodoo here. Try another Wiki Portal if that's what you're interested in. ask123 (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You wanted horse penis? Well, now you've got it. ;) Man, the things I do for WP... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was semi-serious. I don't know of any particular oriental culture that considers erect horses the way I described but since the article name is "Penis", there is no reason for it to be centered on humans, so yes... I vote for the horse's picture to stay and for the circumcised guy to go. -- Femmina (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

An image to illustrate the morphological differences between species is indeed very helpful, and while we could in theory have an article that is separate on the matter, there is no point in splitting the article unless it can be shown we'd have anything to put into said article. --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 03:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Circumcision should have a section

I know the topic of circumcision can be a controversial, but I think it's worth looking at, particularly because there's a lot less controversy over it in the medical community than among lay people.

First of all, I believe that information on circumcision is worthy of its own section, not just two sentences in the section on genital mutilation. Piercing ones penis is not even remotely similar to circumcision. The latter is a medical procedure performed by a doctor/surgeon, whereas the former is a fashion statement performed by your local tattoo artist. Putting them together is like saying shirts and bulletproof vests belong in the same section in the article, Garments, because they're both worn over the chest. That would be obviously absurd.

Second, such a section should note the facts surrounding circumcision -- that is, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-cited studies on (a) the risks to uncircumcised males of contracting various health conditions & diseases and (b) the potential risks associated with actually being circumcised. Regarding the former, the Centers reported a number of large research studies on the medical reasons behind circumcision and the probabilistic risks associated with not being circumcised. And, regarding the latter, the risk is heavily affected by the fact that the procedure is often performed by persons without a medical degree, which raises the probability of infection significantly. However, statistically, when the procedure is performed by a specialist doctor, the probability of infection becomes infinitesimal.

You may read all of this information published by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention here: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm.

I welcome your thoughts... Cheers, ask123 (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Circumcision should be clearly classified for what it is: a mutilation and violation of human rights when performed on infants. Alleged benefits for this procedure, if any, are very controversial. What gives for real is scare tissue on the penis, many sensitive nerve endings missing and increased incidence of vaginitis for women. -- Femmina (talk) 23:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Femmina, that is absolutely untrue. The amount of wrong in your argument is amazing. First of all, your claim of increased vaginitis is incorrect. The medical journal Sexually Transmitted Infections or STI (sti.bmj.com) published studies as far back as ten years ago, demonstrating that the circumcision status of the male sexual partner has no effect on the transmission of vaginitis.

Second, circumcision does not diminish nerve endings unless it is performed incorrectly. In fact, there are numerous studies from the past ten years in the Journal of Urology (www.jurology.com) and the International Journal of Urology (www.bjui.org) indicating that sexual functioning is either unaffected or improved by cicumcision.

On top of these facts, there is real evidence that the procedure has medical benefits. There are plenty of large studies from, for example, the journals, STI and Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey (or OGS, www.obgynsurvey.com), indicating that circumcision decreases an individual's likelihood of contracting/spreading certain illnesses. In fact, the American Journal of Pathology or AJP (ajp.amjpathol.org) published a study in '02 (picked up by the CDC) indicating that the preputial mucosa (foreskin) has a "higher density of target cells for HIV infection than other penile tissues." There are further studies on increased suceptibility to a multitude of illnesses in the journals BMJ (www.bmj.com), STI, AJP and OGS. You can also find research at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC Literature), any of the numerous other medical journals devoted to the field or any one of America's accredited obstetrics organizations. There is, however, some controversy over whether circumcision is an imperative procedure, one that should be recommended for all men. Many doctors feel that it should be elective -- that is, an optional procedure, the administration of which is determined by the child's primary or the adult patient. But that does not diminish the results of the large-group evidenciary studies. It just means that circumcision and its benefits are optional, just like many other salubrious medical procedures.

And, lastly, your colorful description of circumcision is only your own; there are no credible medical organizations that characterize the operation as "mutilation." It's a surgical procedure with medical purposes performed by licenses doctors.

So these may be your personal opinions, but they do not represent the consensus of the medical community. ask123 (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you please take your agenda to the appropriate article? -- Femmina (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Ask, we have a separate article about circumcision, and there is no need to produce a separate section that would have very little information in it, especially when the section it is in clearly encompasses the discussion of the procedure.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 03:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Honeymane! I didn't even think to check for a separate article. That takes care of that! Cheers, ask123 (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)