Talk:Ejaculation/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3


The diagram at the top of the page claims to show the path semen takes during ejaculation. But in fact it doesn't. It appears that semen follows a green circle around the prostate. Can we fix this please? -- 07:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Archive 1

The talk page has become fairly long and the conversations have also gotten confusingly out-of-order. At the same time, it doesn't seem there are active issues under discussion now that there is consensus to compromise on linking to a free photo rather than either exclusing it or showing it in-line.
Therefore, I'm archiving all the old-talk. If I've mis-judged, please copy back any pertinent discussion which you wish to continue.
The section headings in Archive 1 are: 1: Ejaculation Velocity 2: Off Topic: Signing Signatures 3: Actual image of ejaculation? 4: Requires Cleanup 5: Use of picture 6: Protected? 6.1: Further image discussion 7: Discussion from WP:AN 8: New 11: An alternative image 11.1: Another possible alternative image 12: Moving away from the pic for a moment.
- Johntex\talk 17:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is a picture of a strong ejaculation that should help clear up any confusion. This is a clean looking photo, natural, does not involve sex, and is not embellished in any way that would make it porn. If anyone considers this porn than the human body is porn to them. That's sad! Ejaculation is necessary and natural and FREQUENT ejaculation is necessary for good health. If what we consider "frequent" is what is actually necessary for health, than perhaps we need to redefine what should be normal. --Trevor100a 11:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC). File:Ejaculation sample.jpg

- Since when is masturbation not a form of "sex"? This isn't a clinical shot of a penis ejaculating, this is a picture of someone masturbating and ejaculating on themselves. It is clearly pornographic and would be offensive to most sensible people. Attempting to shame people who are of that opinion is more "sad" than you attempting to deny the pornographic nature of it. -- Joseph S Atkinson 01:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

-- See Wikipedia:Pornography and stop reverting changes. Find a more appropriate image. -- Joseph S Atkinson 18:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


Wow, great image, but sorry it's obviously photoshopped. Removed from the article. --Tony Sidaway 03:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Obviously photoshopped in what way? LWizard @ 06:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
huh? Sorry - regardless of the debate on whether the image should be in the page (shown or linked) - deleting because it was photoshopped? Either you've got a very good eye, or I'm missing something. Looked like a stock-standard ejaculation to me... but then again, perhaps they're all photoshopped!--OzzieB 08:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Quite. --Tony Sidaway 08:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Where by "quite" you mean that all ejaculations are, indeed, photoshopped? Which you don't mean literally of course, but rather you mean that all images of ejaculation on the internet that show nice ropes of come like that are photoshopped? Am I interpreting your single-word response correctly here?
Now, I've seen enough gay porn that openly admits to being photoshopped that I believe this could be photoshopped, but I don't see how you can be so sure. Please, enlighten those of us who do not have your masterful eye for detecting the Hand of Adobe. LWizard @ 09:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
More to the point - is the contention here that the ejaculation (as presented) doesn't fit with the pre-conceived view of what an ejaculation does (or should) look like. Having first hand (sorry :)) experience, I can't say that I would say this is unrepresentative. Maybe my imagination has been getting away from me.... In short (or long), if someone's going to have a go at the image, please put their reasons up front. Or is the suggestion that we should invite readers to post their own pictures and we decide which have been photoshopped, and which are just excessively good? For me (so that I'm on the record), I don't think it is needed as an image rather than a link, but then again, I think we should be honest about our feelings (sad I know), but I would never have thought anyone would take the image off for being "quite".--OzzieB 09:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
As author of the image in question i do not see any reasonable argument in OzzieB and Tony Sidaway comments.
Could the two of you explain to me:
- What does 'obviously photoshopped' mean in this context?
- What is a 'pre-conceived view of an ejaculation'?
- Do you really want to see your ordinary pornographic cumshot picture here? After all the concerns discussed here so far?
- Wouldn´t you want to propose a better alternative next time instead of deleting content. Of course, that`s not done with two mouse clicks.
Just my 2 cents. --CSCS 19:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Minor point - my only point was that it seemed to me that TS was deleting because it didn't fit his pre-conceived vision. I do not have a problem with the photo per se at all. I don't think the reason for deletion was reasonable at all. Don't misinterpret my commennts - as I thought they were quite clearly stating that whilst I don't personally think the image is needed (rather than a link), I don't think that it should be deleted for the reason stated.
OK. Thanks. --CSCS 19:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't see how the image is obviously photoshopped. I'd like to hear from the creator of the image whether or not Photoshop was used, and if so, how. I'd also like to hear from Tony what tale-tail signs he sees that it was photoshopped. Johntex\talk 15:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
It's currently not there anyway, but I note from the EXIF data that it was indeed edited using Photoshop - but that could easily have been nothing more than desaturating the image. It's not obviously photoshopped, and even if it had been I see no reason why that would be germane to its inclusion? More to the point is whether it adds anything sufficiently helpful to the article to justify the disadvantages of showing erect male members in mid-spurt, a judgement call I leave to more experienced Wikipedians, and/or random passers-by who are troubled by its inclusion/exclusion. --Oolong 15:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
It is actually there, it is just behind a link. We agreed to do that so that people who want to see an "erect male member in mid-spurt" may do so, while at the same time "random passers-by who are troubled by its inclusion/exclusion" can still read an informative article without having to see the picture. The question of photoshop is relevant because we would not want to show the image if it gives a false impression of what ejaculation looks like. If someone adjusted contrast or made a color photo into a black and white photo that is one thing. If they used a drawing tool to add extra semem or otherwise fundamentally change what ejaculation looks like, then that sort of image does not belong. Johntex\talk 16:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree that it should be behind a link. On this particular article it should be inline. However we should find an image that hasn't been photoshopped. If the photoshopping was just a desaturation, then the author can present the pre-photoshop version and we can see whether or not it's been tampered with in any other way. --Tony Sidaway 16:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
That seems reasonable. If the author of the image doesn't want to make the original available publicly, I'd suggest he should e-mail it directly to Tony. If he can satisfy Tony that it's not fake, I at least am willing take it on Tony's word. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is the photo desaturated anyway? I think the colour version, if available, would be more appropriate, as it would better depict the colours and tones. JSIN 03:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You may be right JSIN. I don't know until I see the color version which I would prefer. I'd like to see the creator make the original version available. If he does not, we may be forced to remove the image due to concerns over how much it may have been altered. Johntex\talk 03:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
To me, it doesn't look digitally manipulated, but then again, I'm not an expert in those things. However, I don't think a decision to remove the image should be made unless there is evidence that it has indeed been altered. JSIN 05:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
We know it has been altered. The fact that it has been editted by Photoshop is visible in the meta tag if you go the the image and then ask for the full details. What we don't know is how it was altered. Johntex\talk 05:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I am actually a bit amused following this discussion. :) Let's solve the issue:
The original color shot was modified in PS by desaturating, cropping and adding some noise. Nothing was painted in or otherwise forged. I decided to post a B&W version since the web is full of cheap color shots and the intention was to to add an artistic note to the whole shebang. And that's how it's meant to be. ;) --CSCS 20:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your work in editing and uploading this photo. Why do you think a colour shot is "cheap"? And although the web may be full of them, very few of them are free. I appreciate that you wanted to add an artistic note, but perhaps the priority here, on an encyclopaedic article, is to portray the real-life event as accurately as possible, and that includes the use of colour to illustrate the colour of the ejaculate. JSIN 12:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I second the thanks provided by JSIN to CSCS. However, CSCS, I don't understand why you find the discussion amusing. Is that some sort of joke? I think we are all working to improve the encyclopedia here. I also agree with JSIN that perhaps a color picture is more informative than a black-and-white one. I'd like to ask you to upload the original version so we can discuss the modifications made to it and decide which one is better for the article. Would you be willing to do that? Johntex\talk 19:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Tony would shocked to know that every single one of my images has been edited in photoshop before uploading. I am not pasting people's heads on others bodies. Photoshop is just an easy way to edit the color values, crop images and compress it into jpeg format. I think Tony would be also shocked to know that it is easy to edit the EXIF data to make it look like it wasn't edited in photoshop if one were so inclined.--God Ω War 21:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The article says "A normal ejaculation may contain anywhere from 2 to 15 milliliters (from 3/4 a teaspoon to a tablespoon), although 1.5 to 5.0 ml is typical." How can the normal or typical lower bound be 2 and also 1.5? 16:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


The page doesn't have any information about the after effects of ejacualtion, the inability experienced by most men to get an erection again, or the lowered libedo etc. I have no scientific knowledge on these (actually why I visted the page) so it would be great if someone could add them, thanks. --Aceizace 01:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The article you're probably looking for is refractory period, which does get a link from here. It has some of the info you want, though it could use more. LWizard @ 01:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
True, if a person is not used to ejaculating regularly and often, then they are not likely going to be able to "all the sudden" perform like a stud during one spontaneous night of bliss. No wonder we are resorting to drugs so much for erectile disfunction. If you haven't practiced running, I wouldn't suggest you enter a marathon either. Fact is, those who practice sex regularly are going to be better prepared to perform when opportunity knocks. It's not rocket science. Like it or not, you need to masturbate regularly (unless you have a paid concubine which most of us don't have) and practice taking your time. Frankly, intercourse is not convenient and takes a lot of energy so most people must depend on masturbation to ejaculate regularly and as often as they really need to. I only have time for intercourse a few times a week and just don't have the time for more. I would be a walking erection if I didn't supplement it with masturbation. In today's busy world, you just can't ejaculate as much as is healthy and as much as you need without the convenience of masturbation. --Trevor100a 15:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Find a better video representation

Preferably something that isn't personal vanity of one person that they used make themselves "internet famous".

It's an accurate and scientific depiction of the act of ejaculation and I feel that it should be included in the article. JSIN 07:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The file type is recognised on my computer. I'd suggest changing the video file type to something like Windows Media Players etc. instead of .OGG

Uncited information

This article contains a large amount of uncited information. As just one example, the statement that "Studies have shown that most men can only avoid ejaculation during active thrusting for five minutes or less." If there is no credible reference for this statement, it should be deleted from the page. --HarmonicFeather 07:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


Why were my last edits to this page reverted? --HarmonicFeather 08:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Ejaculation image

Discussion on Guidelines for images in Sexology and Sexuality articles
Click here

A discussion of the topic of guidelines for images in Sexology and Sexuality articles is at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines

An image was recently added for the page, and this has been a topic of discussion here, and on other pages (see semen) before.

Here are two images that have been offered. As we all know, we do not censor on wikipedia. However, our goal is to make the article encylopedia quality, and make the article the best quality possible.

Do we want any additional images? Is the current image the best lead image? How many images of ejaculation are appropriate in the perspective of keeping the article enyclopedic, and good quality.

Are there other images available also?

How about female ejaculation? There is a seperate article about this already. Does that mean that an appropriate image for that should, or should not be part of this article?

Let's discuss this and try to conform to existing policy on the images by consensus.

  • Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored
  • Wikipedia:Profanity#Shocking_images "Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not."

Personally I am not offended by either image, nor do I find them, profane or obscene. My focus is on making the article more informative, relevant and accurate. What is the best suitable image for this purpose?

I am asking for a discussion, along with any other alternative images that may be available, or come available, and then a vote to gain consensus. All of this to be done before throwing a random image on the page.

Thanks, Atom 13:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The best representation of ejaculation was the video. What happened to it? It was there a couple of weeks ago, but now it is not only deleted from the article, but deleted from Wikipedia and the Commons. And you say that there is no Censorship at Wikipedia? Please explain.
The first ("Penis_with_Ejaculate.jpg) was added by a user who has recently begun substituting the images in articles on male genitalia with images of his own set, and who even authored an article (now deleted) as pretext for adding a series of such pictures. He was been warned to cease and desist. I think his image should be removed, as the purpose of its inclusion was to exhibit rather than inform or elucidate. I don't see what it adds to the article.
As for the other image, while I don't find it offensive either, I wonder if an image of someone masturbating is the best choice as a representative image for the topic of ejaculation. That said, I'm not sure what a suitable non-pornographic substitute would be.
I might mention that the editors of the article Sexual intercourse have not felt the need to include photographs, opting instead for drawings. I wonder if photographs are acutally necessary at all for the article Ejaculation if they've been deemed unnecessary for Sexual intercourse.
The case against including photographs would be: 1) they might attract people to the article out of prurient interest rather than for the purpose of being informed; 2) they might drive potential readers away from the article for similar reasons, only in reverse. --Rrburke 14:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
The photo does more harm than good and we should stick with line drawings on articles related to sexual acts. That is consistent with the practice of general-purpose scholarly works such as an encyclopedia. Johntex\talk 15:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with that, and I think it's more consistent with the policy that potentially offensive images should be omitted unless doing so would render the article "less informative, relevant, or accurate" and where "where suitable alternatives are available." I don't think it does; and I imagine there are. --Rrburke 17:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it looks like we lost one of the images. But the discussion is still relevant for when the next set of explicit images pops up. I edit the sexology and sexuality articles primarily, and am a member of the Sexology and sexuality Wikiproject. This issue comes up a lot, and we need to develop, more or less, self imposed community standards, and then keep with them. It helps with the issues of:

  1. ) Prude people trying to censor anything that bothers them (a picture of semen)
  2. ) Trolls trying to push the envelope as far as they can in order to squick people and create as much controversy as they can.

The fact is we aren't going to be able to develop hard and fast rules that directly applies to all images that could be used in every case. But, we can develop guidelines to help us in individual cases.

Here are some of the articles where this topic is relevant. Semen, Masturbation, Anus, Mutual masturbation, Pegging, Fisting (No picture yet), Coitus, Frot, Bukkake (No picture yet), Pearl Necklace, Anal_beads, Anal masturbation, Oral sex, Tribadism, Deep Throat (no image now, was in the past, but was controversy), Ménage à trois, List of sex positions, Dildo, Strap-on dildo, Penis, Circumcision among others.

My suggestion for a guideline would be something like:

  1. ) Wikipedia does not censor images based on sexual content, unless they meet the standard of "obscene" for the definition of Pornography under Florida law.
  2. ) The image should be directly relevant to the article, and add to the quality of the article in some way.
  3. ) We should avoid images that are likely to offend others, unless there is no other image available.
  4. ) We should use images that do not show a persons face, or make them easily identifiable.
  5. ) We prefer and desire images that are not from Wikipedia editors or users in order to maintain neutrality, and avoid vanity images.
  6. ) Given multiple images available, the best images that illustrates the point of the article should be used.
  7. ) Artwork, including engravings, illustrations, and line drawings should be preferred over pictures, unless a picture clearly is the better choice for improving the quality of the article. All images should be from the Mediacommons web site.
  8. ) If images exist already in the article, new images should not be introduced unless they substantially improve the quality of the article.
  9. ) Existing images should not be replaced unless a consensus of editors agree that alternative images improve the quality of the article.

How do these sound? How does it work for this article? How well would it work for some of the others I mentioned earlier?

Atom 18:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  • For starters, let's avoid using the word "censorship" at all. It is a loaded word that inflames passions. The plainest meaning of censorship is something imposed by outside governmental fiat, which is not an accurate description of a group of editors deciding for themselves what image should or should not be used. Johntex\talk 18:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that. Our decision should be consensus based on what the best image for the article in the context of quality. I suggested #1 because the starting point for the discussion is precisely that. Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored. Laying the foundation (desktop background) for the rest is necessary. Atom 19:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I made myself clear. If we decide to avoid having a particular image, or any image at all - it would not be censorship. It would be us making an editorial decision. Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored does not dictate to us what we should or should not do, it merely puts people on notice that Wikipedia may contain things they may find objectionable. Johntex\talk 19:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you on that. Decisions on what images to use should be based on improving the quality of the article. If we chose a line drawing over an explicit drawing of someone masturbating and ejaculating provided by one of our editors, it would be an editorial decision based on following guidelines, and consensus (by vote). Atom 19:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

"The photo does more harm than good and we should stick with line drawings on articles related to sexual acts. That is consistent with the practice of general-purpose scholarly works such as an encyclopedia". Johntex </wiki/User:Johntex> That is a great idea Johntex ! Let us strive to make Wikipedia, which is an internet encyclopedia, just like every other encyclopedia out there. The only advantage that Wikipedia has over any other encyclopedia is the ability to use digital media such as animated gifs, videos, audio, etc. in it's articles. The conventional encyclopedias you check out at the libraries can't give you that. Images are good, but all encyclopedias have them. Wikipedia should set their goals higher than that. I can't believe that here, in the 21st century, an internet encyclopedia that has an entire world of digital technology at it's fingertips agrees that they must use line drawings or other like images so they can be just like every other encyclopedia. When I first visited this page while doing research for a college class, there was an accurate video clip used that was not pornographic and not masturbation. Where did it go ? When I checked the history of the article, to my amazement, Atomation says "Atomaton </wiki/User:Atomaton> (video demonstration removed because it is non-existent". It didn't used to be non-existent. How did it get that way ? Has anyone investigated this ? Has the people who have elected not to use the word Censorship indulged in that very act ? All I can say is that it is a sad day for progress at Wikipedia.

Yes, that video clip was pretty good. I can't seem to track any history on what happened to it. My theory is that it was a copyright violation, or had no origin attached and got deleted. Atom 21:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not get the name of the video from a version of the article dating from before the removal, and then search the deletion logs or deletion log archives and look in the Edit summary for an explanation? --Rrburke 02:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the video clip was the best to illustrate the subject of the article, as it involves neither masturbation nor sex and is a video of a real ejaculation. Using line drawings simply makes it less life-like, and thus, a less accurate portrayal of the act of ejaculation. When I re-added the video to WP the Commons video was still there. Previously, it had been on WP as well and was removed, I've tried searching the deletion logs but can't find anything. As far as I remember, there was licensing information and was free. JSIN 06:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
How can you have an ejaculation video that does NOT involve masturbation or sex? Toronto1979 18:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, regarding the image, I propose that the second image be posted. If there are images in other articles, like erection, and other private parts, then the image can very well serve this article. First, the image maintains neutrality as to who is the person ejaculating as it does not show a name or a face. Second, unlike the masturbation article, this does not show how the male managed to ejaculate. Third, it shows how the semen is expelled from the organ and how must that organ be in order for it to come out. I expressed my fourth opinion at the beginning of this opinion. IF the image is from photoshop or something, there's still no privacy violation. Also, the video, while it may be an excellent source on how is an ejaculation, when I tried to downlaod it, it was asking me if I wanted to download LimeWire, a program which I have. So, for people that do not have the necessary plug ins to view the video, maybe the image can help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC).
I agree -- the second image is clearer (while the first image is accurate and has a certain childishly amusing "shock value, the second seems more to the point and less conducive to arguments). 06:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Researching The Missing Ejaculation Video

This topic is not really my "cup of tea", but on the other hand, I do love a mystery. After several hours of searching histories of earlier versions of the Ejaculation article, cross checking user talk pages of people who have edited the article and their contibs logs and talk pages, as well as various names of people mentioned in their user talk pages, and countless deletion logs, I have uncovered something rather disturbing. The ejaculation video file was deleted at 21:37, 23 September 2006 by an administrator named JzG. You would normally expect that if a file was deemed unsuitable for an article in some legitimate way, it would be deleted from the article. No big deal. However, was this file deleted over a legitimate reason ? I'll state the facts and let you decide. I'll state my opinions shortly. According to the deletion log, the reason for deleting the file from the article was "Vanity upload by indef-blocked user". According to JzG's contributions page, one minute later at 21:38 , 23 September 2006, JzG takes it upon himself to remove the file from Wikipedia along with the page containing the history, summary, PD information, discussions, edits, links, everything. Evidently, there was a duplicate copy of the file on another page of wikipedia, so another minute later, according to the deletion log, at 21:39 , 23 September 2006, that file, page, and all information was also removed by JzG, confirming Atomation's observation that " I can't seem to track any history on what happened to it". The reason stated by JzG for removing everything was "Vanity upload by indef-blocked user". Two other Wikipedia articles, "Human Sexual Response Cycle" and "Male Reproductive System (human)", were linked to the file. Two minutes later at 21:41, 23 September 2006, JzG removed those links to both articles and stated his reason for doing so as "rm. vanity spam by indef-blocked user". What Wikipedia policy allows this administrator to take it upon himself alone to judge this file or any media as vanity, and was it really vanity ? How can this administrator then declare linking this file to related articles as spam ? But the biggest question to be answered is who gave this administrator the authorization to completely remove the file and all traces that it had ever existed on Wikipedia ? According to the copy of the file that is still on the Commons, it was uploaded at 01:26, 27 July 2006. At 14:58, 30 July 2006, a user named Denniss put the file on the Commons Deletion Requests claiming that the video file was masturbation. The file was debated and discussed for 6 days and deemed not pornographic, not masturbation, and not a violation of Florida law. The file was voted on unanimously to be kept. At 22:15, 5 August 2006, an administrator named ALE tagged the video file page as "Kept". What is wrong with this picture ? The video was on the Commons and Wikipedia and being used for almost two months with no problems. The fact that the user who uploaded it was indefinately blocked from editing almost two months later for whatever reason is completely irrelevant at this point. The user stated that he made the video himself, and we are required to assume good faith on that. The moment that user uploaded that video file and released it free of copyright into the worldwide public domain on 27 July 2006, that file no longer belonged to him. It belongs to anyone, anywhere, who wants to use it for free. To think that a Wikipedia administrator named JzG would deprive us the opportunity to use this file or any media for that matter and erase all evidence that it had ever existed on Wikipedia has shocked and appauled me to the point that I have gone back and made screen caps of all the pages I have discovered so far in researching this matter. I guess the next thing to do is to e-mail all of this information to the Wikipedia Board of Directors and seek an actual investigation of this matter.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 07:42, 2006 September 26

  • Policy states that all contributions by blocked or banned users may be reverted on sight. If you think the administrator acted in error, the best thing to do is to leave he/she a message about it and allow them to explain. Also, if you are so good at researching user contributions, I suspect you already know that you are requested to sign your talk page comments with ~~~~. --Johntex\talk 16:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
hahaha Johntex, the operative word here is "Requested", not "Required". But if four little tidles will make your day brighter, here they are 19:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC). And by the way, if you would humor me further by putting up a link to that policy you are talking about as fast as you did the one about the unsigned post, my day would be brighter too. Thanks 19:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
WP:Block#Evasion_of_blocks - "Accounts and IPs used in evading a block may also be blocked appropriately. Edits made by blocked users while blocked may be reverted." - Johntex\talk 19:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind supplying my own copy of an ejaculation video, but obviously I don't want my submission to go against the laws of any state, or to be declared as pornography. How can I make it so that it would be a worthwhile submission on here? Toronto1979 18:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Toronto1979 we already have the original ejaculation video on our servers, but thanks anyway. 19:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
So we can link the video on the ejaculation page?
Not yet. The Guidelines for using images, photographs, videos, etc. on all of the Sexuality Articles on the English Wikipedia are currently being drawn up and discussed. A consensus should be approved shortly. Ts umbra 11:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The ejaculation video, is it necessary?

Wikipedia is not censored, obviously. But, I wonder if it IS necessary to have a video of someone having an ejaculation. It looked pornographic to me, and could possibly be removed or replaced? --SonicChao talk 20:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

There isn't any problem with having the video, but my concern is its prominence. This is one of those silly Wikipedia things that gets public attention, so for that reason alone I think this should be treated with care. Now, ejaculation is a simple enough concept, and I'm sure a good stillframe image is more than good enough to portray it. The video, while not "necessary", is also useful. However, I don't think the link needs to be at the very top of the page, or even necessarily in the encyclopedia entry. What I'm going to do right now is, instead, link to commons:Category:Ejaculation. Anyone looking for additional media on this topic can find it easily. Please note that I'm not trying to censor this material through obscurity; I just think that its current placement puts too much importance on it. ~ Booya Bazooka 22:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Booyabazooka, the first and last sentences of your statement above is the real issue here. The placement of the video in the article. I think that the video is important to the article because it demonstrates exactly what is described in the process of ejaculation that is written in the article. A still frame photograph can't do that. I agree that it shouldn't be at the very top of the article, but I disagree with removing a direct link to the video. In my opinion, the Commons ejaculation category link does seem to hide it in obscurity. I have moved the direct link to the video down into the article where the process of ejaculation is described in detail. I think that this is a good compromise. Infofreak 02:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Seems fine, but the formatting is still pretty ugly in my opinion. I've never seen video embedded in a wiki article like this, so I have no style precedent. Is there a floating video template? Something that looks like this? ~ Booya Bazooka 03:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Booyabazooka, I don't know for sure, but I think that the format that you just posted above and is currently being used is the standard template for video media for all Wikipedia projects. I did some checking. This ejaculation video is also being used on two foreign language Wikipedia articles on Ejaculation - nl and cs - They both use the same format, just in a different language, and they are both embedded in the articles. Infofreak 04:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The templates in the two foreign-language articles you noted are not as intrusive as ours, as they're both located at the end of the article. On English, we only have about 20 transclusions of template:video, so I would hardly call it standard. I've created a new similar template, template:video float, let's give it a try? ~ Booya Bazooka 05:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure ! Give it a try, and by the way, sorry. I didn't know that there was that many different Video Templates. The one being used is very common. The video links in the foreign ejaculation articles are at the end, but it could be because they are shorter and do not contain as much detail as the English one. Anyway, give yours a try. Infofreak 06:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Great Booyabazooka, I like it ! Infofreak 06:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

NO! It is amde by a stupid exhibitionist, who only wanted to show his obviously smelly genitalia. I will remove that piece of shit.-- 14:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Male and female ejaculation

Why is the "Ejaculation" article only about male ejaculation? The same term is used for both men and women. Shouldn't this article either cover both sexes, or summarize both and link to two separate articles, "Male ejaculation" and "Female ejaculation"? Eric-Albert 00:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Another question about the ejaculation video

Okay, this isn't about whether we should include the video or not. I'm just really curious. All the penises I've ever had anything to do with required some sort of stimulation before ejaculating. Yet in this video clip, the man just stands there with an erection, and then ejaculates. How in the world was it done? The Wednesday Island 01:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Good question. I'd speculate that either hands were involved until just before the video starts and/or there's something we can't see stimulating his prostate. LWizard @ 04:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it is just simply "Mind Over Penis". He probably practices by sitting in the "Lotus Position" for countless hours and chanting .... CUMmmmmmmmmmm ... 03:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't had the 'pleasure' of seeing the video yet, but wouldn't it be the case of nearly going over the edge, 'holding back' the ejaculation and then letting go when the camera was on? James 01:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

James, have you stopped to think about how difficult what you just described would be to actually video ? The control and coordination it would take to do this ? It would require absolute perfect timing, and the large amount of semen ejaculated by this man is convincing proof to me that it was all accomplished on the first attempt. 04:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
He masturbated, moved his hands, then let it go. It was all filmed and he just cropped the scene. He didn't have to turn on the camera or ejaculate at a precise time.

But this video disturbs me. There's an old sheet draped in the background and it's quite obvious that it is not purely for education. It's not professional at all. Something from a video I saw in 7th grade would be suitable, I think. That or it can be removed entirely. If someone did simply remove it I'd have to say that I'd replace it simply because it's all we have right now and there's no fixing it at the moment. Instead of removing it, make one that doesn't show some guy's midsection and his tiny shaved-for-the-camera penis. Make the focus only the genitalia and the ejaculation itself. Otherwise, don't complain and try to move it.

Do you want wikipedia to be taken seriously?

Because the best to go about making it a big fat internet joke is to have a picture of an ejaculating penis on the ejaculation page. Seriously. It's just common sense, it's got nothing to do with censorship or being a prude or thinking the body is pornographic, it's got everything to do with making sure that wikipedia isn't viewed as a massive joke across the internet. Sooner or later wikipedia will collapse under its own bureaucracy if you're not careful and start letting cooler heads prevail. Rudi 04:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC) ShmosesLEdsall

It has managed to avoid being a joke through much worse. Exploding whale. Autocunnilingus. I think having photographic depictions of the subjects we have articles on is one of the last of our worries. LWizard @ 04:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The Chair article has a photo of a chair, even though the concept of a chair is common sense to the vast majority of readers. Does that too somehow devalue the whole project? Or is it just topics that make some people giggle? There's really no big deal here, just an article about a valid subject with a relevance picture. ~ Booya Bazooka 05:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't condescend to me thank you very much. You well know the difference between having a picture of a chair in the chair article and a picture of an ejaculating penis. The point is that photos like this essentially make a mockery of the wikipedia project. The fact that so many people not only don't recognise this but are so zealous in their defence of these photos is distressing to say the least. It's things like this that mean that eventually Wikipedia WILL collapse under its own self importance and people WILL turn to other sources.Rudi 06:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)ShmosesLEdsall
You are entitled to your opinion. Your cultural uderstanding is much different than many other people on the Internet, and Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia is more than a million and a half articles, and a few articles with content that embarass you isn't going to harm it's reputation. The Internet, and specifically Wikipedia is its own community, with its own community standards. What you don't realize is that you, and those like you are the ones that have a skewed understanding of the community standards here. Wikipedia strives to be a comprehensive collection of human knowledge (things that can be cited and referenced) which includes all subjects, and is not censored for content. It is not intended for use at work, or for schoolchildren to do research projects, although both groups frequently use Wikipedia constructively. There are plenty of warnings and disclaimers that some of the content may not be to your liking. See Disclaimer at the bottom of this page, and from there, Content Disclaimer towards the right of the top of that page. Which says, among other things "Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, or depictions of human anatomy."
Out community culture on Wikipedia is to be open, frank and honest about everything. No restrictions based on cultural or religious taboos. No censorship based on sexual content. Content has to be directly applicable to the topic of the article, and has to be editorially sound. It has to offer information supporting the article, and be properly cited and referenced.
So, we aren't being condescending when we suggest that you are out of touch with the culture here, not Wikipedia out of touch with the culture out there. Having an image of ejaculation, in the article about ejaculation is precisely what Wikipedia is about. Atom 13:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Uncensored does not imply perverse. Frank and honest does not mean you show someone wanking in an article about ejaculation. The picture needs to be along the lines of something in a sex ed class. Just a simple penis ejaculating, not some guy attempting to to give himself a pearl necklace. (The picture on the pearl necklace page is relevant without being excessively obscene. Take note.) Less time should be spent arguing about cultural norms and more on finding a suitable, inoffensive, and relevant picture. I'm not embarrassed by this picture, I'm embarrassed for the few zealous Wikipedians who can't concede that this particular shot might not be the most suitable for this subject matter, reinserting the image and marking people who remove it as vandals. Joseph S Atkinson 04:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Joseph on what I understand to be his main point. We are are encyclopedia. Just as we don't expect to tolerate gushy prose about a sports team or video game, we don't expect to tolerate overly-graphic images. I personally think this image is on the borderline of what is overly-graphic for this article. I would recommend we consider the linkimage solution that has prevented edit warring elsewhere. Johntex\talk 04:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I was returning to say that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sexology_and_sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines need to be reviewed and this article locked to prevent further reverts. Joseph S Atkinson 04:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think protection is at all appropriate at this point. We need to build a consensus about what to do with the image. The article has not seen enough vandalism to warrant protection. Inclusion (or removal) of the image cannot be considered vandalism. Protection is generally only used for vandalism problems, which don't apply here. I welcome you to stay and discuss the merits of whether this image should be behind {{linkimage}} or not. Johntex\talk 04:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I meant a temporary lock to stop the edit war, and allow for due process. -- Joseph S Atkinson 06:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I respect that you both indicate a concern for the quality of the images. You seem to describe the image as "overly-graphic". Everyone gets to have their opinion. I looked at this image, as well as the video, and I certainly would say it is frank and honest. I don't feel that it is overly graphic. It does not show any sex act or interaction with another person. The activity is strictly limited to the topic, and does not include anything else. I think it is always a good idea, from an editorial perspective to look for and consider alternative images that would better explain a topic than no visual image, or an existing visual image. I think this image is very well suited for the article as someone seeing it gets an instant and immediate understanding of what ejaculation is when they see it, without any underlying confusion about any other aspect of sexuality. It would be hard for me to imagine an image that would work so well to help someone understand the topic, and yet be a better image (less graphic?). This image is exactly the kind of image I would think would be in a textbook in a sex-ed class. I think a line drawn image or artwork might have less chance of offending (as you seem to indicate that you are offended by the image in some way, or that you are concerned that others may be offended) but the downside is that it may be less easy to understand conceptually.
Now, as for the guidelines, we still need to work on cleaning that up more. I certainly would have to say that I think there is a fine line between what still images are frank sexuality, and which ones are sex acts. Pictures involving two people would likely be a sex act in most cases (except for some special case where it was showing two people not interacting sexually, but the article was about sexuality). And so, a linkimage migt be appropriate. Situations such as one person performing oral sex, penetrative sex, and the like would almost certainly qualify. A picture of human anatomy, or some moretion of that, such as of tghe scrotum, the breast, the penis, and such would certainly not qualify. An image like this one in ejaculation, or of a creampie, or of someone with pierced nipples would not, in my opinion qualify for a linkimage, as it is not a "sex act". Intentional, or unintentional attempts to push our guidelines from that, towards linkimaging mre and more content shold be resisted and stopped. If anything we should linkimage less and less images as society grows to become more mature, and does not view images of normal sexuality from a perspective of being "overly graphic". We aren't discussing things like crime, rape or murder within images in these guidelines, we are discussing aspects of sexology and sexuality. A predominant view regarding sexuality is that the more people know about sexuality, the safer they can be. I agree with that view. The minority view that the less people know about sexuality, the less they are likely to deviate from some arbitrary norm, would not be a healthy view in my opinion, and not where we want Wikipedia to go. Atom 15:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Atom, thanks for your thoughts. I agree with you about some images being unquestionably sex acts, and others being unquestionably not sex acts. As you say, a picture of human anatomy does not qualify. One person performing oral sex on another certainly would. To me, the ejaculation picture, the pearl knecklace picture, and the creampie picture are all intermediate cases. From a certain perspective, masturbation to the point of ejactulation is a sex act, even if done alone. The other two are images which portray the direct result of a sex act. I think it is interesting that Joseph things the pearl knecklace image is "more showable" than the ejaculation image. I would tend to place them in the other order since the pearl knecklace image is the result of an interaction between two people. I personally think the creampie image is the most graphic of the three. It combines nudity and obvious evidence of a recent sexual act. If we were going to linkimage just one of the 3, I would choose that one. We need to keep in mind that the beauty of the linkimage solution is that it has something for everyone. Those who are more easily shocked or offended are presented with an informative article still. Those who want to view the image can do so with a single click. I'm happy that we are discussing some of the pros and cons instead of just emotional "don't show that, it's disgusting!" or "don't put that behind a link - you're trying to censor me!" type arguments. I lookk forward to hearing other views. - Johntex\talk 15:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I am not a prudish as some out there may assume. I'm simply going by a common sense rationale that there are degrees of expectation on the "sterility" of images seen appropriate to topic. The pearl necklace image does not show any actual nudity, penetration, manipulation, etc. I shows a very graphic image that is completely on topic for the subject, and only that part of the act which is relevant. Consider, yourself as a parent, having to explain ejaculation to a developing child and citing Wikipedia, bringing up the page and seeing the image that was formerly on the page? One is a very natural biological function that should be treated clinically and on as much of a neutral bias as possible. The other is an undeniably graphic act which is more cultural anomaly than biological process and cannot really be illustrated less vulgarly. It also isn't as likely that school aged children would be looking up pearl necklaces in the same context as they would ejaculation (though kids will be kids). In the case of the ejaculation image, placing it behind a linkimage would be the minimum I would suggest, as an image that vivid doesn't need to be thrust onto anyone looking for "just the facts". At least behind the tag, there is some warning of its content. Preferably the image should be replaced with one that is more clinical, just a penis ejaculating. -- Joseph S Atkinson 06:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I am sure that here, or eleswhere we will see those two ends of the spectrum proclaimed again. My hope is that guidelines can help to make either less frequent.
I agree with your points that some static images appear to be (probably are) the result of what some people would call a sex act. I was against linkimaging the creampie image, but agreed because I felt the a compromise would not hurt, and it was borderline. It was not a sex act, but clearly the result of a sex act. My thought was that that particular sex act was extremely common (and probably something like it happens millions of times every day). However, apparently it was borderline enough for my perceptions that I felt that a compromise would do no harm, and could potentially avoid offending people. Because of the brouhaha that has taken place in the past on the semen image, there seems to be some kind of deep-down, primal emotional connection associated with anything to do with sperm or semen. I can't imagine the kind of arguments that would take place if someone tried to put an representative image on the bukakke article, even if it was a still photo of after the fact only showing the woman, and no men. As for the ejaculation photo, it is of ejaculation actually in progress, and not before or after. Some people would claim that the image could only be the result of a sex act. And others would argue whether masturbation was, or was not a 'sex act'. Fortunately there is no need to do that anytime soon. I could see both sides of the argument. As for the nudity aspect of the creampie image, in my mind, nudity is never a factor. Nudity is never pornographic regardless of the content. In my mind it is never innapropriate or "graphic", whatever adjectives one chooses to use. We were born nude; nudity is the normal and natural state. There is few art more beautiful than the human body in its natural state. So, to me nudity is not a characteristic that I consider when evaluating an image. The pearl necklace photo is an interesting case. On the one hand, it has no nudity, and has only one person, a person not identifiable. I discuss the nudity aspect because it may be a characteristic that others, such as Joseph S Atkinson may evaluate. The fact that there was no nudity may reduce the offensiveness for him. On the other hand, it does have semen in the photo, and suggests that a sex act has taken place. It is implied, as the person is identifiable as female, and so it would seem that a male must have come by recently. We have seen very little reversion or complaints about that image. That would lead me to believe, regarding ho others may perceive things, that representing that a "sex act" has occured recently is less important. That semen in an miage may raise the level of potential offensivness some; and that the lack of nudity in the image may reduce the level offensiveness for some. All very interesting.
Anyway, clearly we agree, and probably many other would agree that two classes of pictures, ones such as anatomy and bodily fluids might be considered as always appropriate in the correct context, and that other images, such clear sex acts like penetration and oral sex are in the class that might be best put under a linkimage to allow for content, yet avoid offending others. And, a variety of intermediate pictures that fit into the middle someplace.
Also, there is a clear distinction between live video, as well as some pictures, versus artwork. Hand drawn images of penetration and oral sex seem to be accepted just fine, where a picture of people doing the same things might likely be viewed as pornography by some.
Finally, the specific case, versus general analysis. The ejaculation image in this article would fit into the middle classe, and not either of the other clear categories. The viewer assumes what she or he wants to assume, and applies their religious/philosophical filter to what they think they see. Rather than seeing an example of ejaculation, they see a young male person who is masturbating. For some people, masturbation is a normal and healthy activity (where something very much like this image is played out hundreds of millions of times each day) and not anything to be shocked or disturbed by. Other see masturbation as something aberrant and immoral, and this image therefore the same. The spilling of seed right there on wikipedia! Quite shocking and pornographic. Of course, as most of us know, the sin of Onan was in disobeying God, not in "spilling of seed". But, the view that the spilling of seed, and masturbation as something sinful was popularized in the 1700's and has a firm place in religious teachings despite its biblical innacuracy. Regardless of ones view one way or the other (or somewhere in between) it is not our job on Wikipedia to "change the attitudes" of those other misguided folks. It is our obligation to try and remove that filter, and apply a filter of maintaining a factual approach, and representing those facts as accurately as possible. Supplying sources for information in order to justify their accuracy, and more importantly, to allow people to follow facts to the source to arrive at their own conclusions
Viewing from that perspective, mine own opinion is that ejaculation such as represented by the image is not something extremely uncommon (such as say, Coprophilia) but is in fact, extremely common. There may be few things that humans repeatedly do more frequently than masturbation or ejaculation. Certainly towards the top of the list, even more frequent than coitus. So, accurately representing it might be a higher priority than other things. The only way to show "ejaculation", and try to be less offensive would be to not show masturbation (and neither the image or the video do) (not that there is a problem with masturbation, but that is a different article, and there is the baggage mentioned above to deal with). We could make it more clinical, but I'm not sure how either image could be more clinical. In the image, should we show less of the person? Should the background be white? I don't know who it could be improved to be less offensive while still remaining an accurate image of ejaculation. And, we shouldn't linkimage every image that someone might be offended by either, so that is no solution. The video has not gotten as much attention. It does have less of the person showing, and it is behind a linkimage. Atom 16:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The problem here is that method used to ejaculate is not the topic and not relevant to the topic. Common or not is not relevant, social acceptability is not relevant, religious context is not relevant. That it be handled strictly matter-of-fact with no bias to offense should be the objective. Most reasonable people would not be shocked by an image of ejaculation on a page about ejaculation, so long as the image is not in excess of the subject as in this case. The simple fact that a person has room to see a person masturbating in the image is enough to say the image probably shows too much. This isn't a perceived "man behind the image" masturbating, which would be solely on the beholder, this really is a man masturbating. Regardless of what you personally find objectionable in your daily life, this a publicly viewable medium that reaches millions across broad demographics of social values. The question isn't whether or not you or I are offended by the image personally, but whether the image can represent the subject matter with a best effort to be as unoffensive as is reasonable to the subject. A person who finds an image of a penis ejaculating offensive when it is strictly on topic is also likely to be offended that the topic of ejaculation is even being discussed. -- Joseph S Atkinson 06:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I think you hit the nail on the head with a great deal of what you stated. Particularly:
  • "...handled strictly matter-of-fact with no bias to offense should be the objective."
  • "Most reasonable people would not be shocked by an image of ejaculation on a page about ejaculation, so long as the image is not in excess of the subject as in this case."
  • "The question isn't whether or not you or I are offended by the image personally, but whether the image can represent the subject matter with a best effort to be as unoffensive as is reasonable to the subject."
  • "A person who finds an image of a penis ejaculating offensive when it is strictly on topic is also likely to be offended that the topic of ejaculation is even being discussed."
What I may not agree with:
  • "The simple fact that a person has room to see a person masturbating in the image is enough to say the image probably shows too much." "...this really is a man masturbating."
We don't really know anything about this person, do we? We each have our conceptions about the image. He could have just had sex with his boyfriend, and pulled out to take the photo, he could have been having sex with his wife, and pulled out to take the photo. He could have been using a fleshlight, and stopped using it to take the photo. There are number of possibilities, and no facts to suggest any one. The only reason that masturbation is the first one we jump to as a conclusion is that we want to fill in that fact, even though it is not relevant to the photo. And also because all of us know that masturbation is more frequent in real life than the other options. In fact most of us think so because it is the most frequent sex act in our/their own person sex life, like most people. But, this is filtering the image and adding information that is really not there. Most of us (199,950 people who saw the image today) don't care that it "probably" was created by masturbation. A few people (50 people who saw the image today) have the idea that masturbation is wrong, and so, therefore because it looks like masturbation, the image is much more than "ejaculation". If they thought that it was one of the other examples given above, it would make no difference, as those would have been unacceptable also. Even with an "extreme" clinical image, with only the tip of the penis in view with a white background, showing semen being ejaculated would likely be objected to also by these few people. (Spilling of seed, wasting of chi, non-procreative).
The picture is of a man holding his penis and ejaculating in the direction of his own chest/chin. No matter what you imagine up to that moment, this still image is a man touching himself and ejaculating. And by the same token of speculation, what if 199,900 thought the image was offensive and 50 don't? How many stated opinions are you basing your numbers on? The reality is, most people who would find the image offensive wouldn't do anything about it at all and simply move on. The clinical image is that "best attempt" to be unoffensive to reasonable people. "Reasonable" does not include people of radical conservativism. Those people seek to censor with very biased motives. But we don't go out of our way to accost them with overly graphic content that gives them clear room to object to either. Again, I will point out that it doesn't matter what you or I find normal. Saying "it's okay because I do it, everyone does it" doesn't make it accepted openly by everyone. The question is as simple as binary, "does this image show more than is necessary to depict the subject?" And as a bonus question, "does this image have room to offend some people?" I'm hard pressed to imagine how anyone would not answer yes to both questions. And being both "in excess" and "potentially offensive", some measure should be taken to rectify at least one of those elements. At minimum, hiding the image behind an appropriate warning of graphicness alleviates the "potentially offensive" aspect, placing responsibility and risk of offense on the actual user. If he looks, and is offended, he was warned. Is that not reasonable? -- Joseph S Atkinson 01:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Any of the hypothetical scenarios would probably require him to hold his penis. The ejaculate does not seem to b headed for his chin or neck, but I don't see what that has to do with anything. It is a valid ejaculation. The hypothetical numbers, as you say, are meaningless, as we have both pointed out. We need a factual image that is on topic. Your view seems to be that this image is "excessive" and "potentially offensive", but I don't see either one in this image. It looks almost as clean and clinical as it could be. The only way it could be colder and more clinical would be to crop the image to show just the tip of the penis, and the ejaculate emerging, and omit the hand, the chest, etc. Certainly that would have a potential for less offense. I am not sure it would better describe ejaculation, but there are always trade offs. WHy don;t you, or someone else reading this crop the photo to give us that image, and then we can discuss the trade-offs? Atom 03:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Anything imagined beyond the photo is on the viewer alone. It seems to be that you keep denying that the man is holding his own member and shooting towards himself, and what seems conscious act of denial that people may have a problem with this. Considering that the image was contributed as an [example of someone masturbating], denying that it is, indeed, a picture of a man masturbating baffles me and leaves me suspect of your motives for it continued presence. I think this image's inclusion is someones prank gone on too long. I am attempting to contact an artist friend to help draw a diagram that actually details the process of ejaculation so it can be placed under GFDL. I think a crop would render the overall image too small to be worth the effort, since it is compose largely of the man's body. Additionally, this image does little to actually illustrate the process, detailing only the externally visible parts of a much more complex internal process. -- Joseph S Atkinson 09:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • "this a publicly viewable medium that reaches millions across broad demographics of social values."
Wikipedia is a community, with its own community standards. Those standards are better defined than most communities. They even indlude a content disclaimer to warn people that they may be offended by some things here. We can't take into consideration the real, or perceived audience when editing. We have to stay as on topic as possible, be objective as possible, and as factual as possible. Whether our audience is a few, or a few millions, we should focus on the quality of the article first. Atom 13:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
And I believe this community also has guidelines for images such as this as well. I'm agreed with the commitment to quality first fully. But despite a general disclaimer that some content may be objectionable, it's not unreasonable to look at specific occurrences and say "maybe we need to remind them that this specifically may be offensive." This doesn't mean becoming a nanny state, it means having some discretion as editors that the topic may be a sensitive one. I would say it's especially important when dealing with sensitive-but-natural topics (such as this one) where people expect straight forward, no frills, facts. If a person goes to the Wikipedia page about ejaculation, labeled as "ejaculation", they can expect to find information about ejaculation, the title alone serves as a warning. It's not, in my opinion, unreasonable to expect a frank image depicting the process on such a page. It is, however, unreasonable to show a more than strictly necessary image without any kind of warning of its content. In this case "image of man ejaculating" is enough to say that the image involves more than just a the physical appendage necessary to illustrate the point. Literally "man ejaculating" serves as the warning that the picture is a man ejaculating. We can go so far as to assume viewer understanding that something has to be making him do so for the sake of the picture. The image could still be found objectionable, but they took that risk unto themselves when clicking the labeled link. I would suggest "Image of Man Ejaculating (Graphic Content)" as perhaps the best label for such a linkimage.
Finally, I object that the user The Wednesday Island continually reverts the display of the image in question, despite it being a topic of controversy currently under discussion. Further, admonishing me to see this discussion in which I alone, of the two of us, am involved. I understand the process under which Wikipedia operates, but these reversions show an absence of tact. I am of the personal opinion that until a consensus is reached, the image should remain off of the main page. I will not, however, engage in any more conflicting edits, asking instead that someone more authoritative intervene in whatever matter is appropriate in such cases. -- Joseph S Atkinson 01:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, as the image has resided there for awhile, it's seems that any removal with no prior discussion is not appropriate. When an anon user, or a user that hasn't edited or commented in this article removes it without prior discussion, it is bound to give the appearance that it is based on cenosrhip, rather than on editorial discretion gained by consensus. The same would probably happen if someone threw a controversial image onto the page without prior discussion. I certainly feel that unless there is some convincing reason to remove the image that we ought to leave it on the page. Compared to the din raised by the semen image in the past, there have been relatively few complaints about this image. Myself and at least three or four other lurkers out there would likely revert an unexplained removal of the image if The Wednesday Island didn't.
Also, I would be against linkimaging this image, as it does not meet our standard for "sex act" theat we set in the guidelines. Any "act" is imagined by the viewer. Atom 03:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
According to my reading of the WIP guidelines established thus far, this image violates almost all aspects of it. Interesting that you repeatedly state that it does not. In fact, this community standard you keep writing about is defined as being based on and in compliance with [Florida's obscenity laws], which explicitly defines the acts in this image in 847.001 items 16, 20, and possibly 10 as well (SLAPS). According to Wikipedia's history on dealing with images such as this, the status quo is deletion. Your main argument for keeping this image online thus far has been the status quo of it not having been removed before now, which is a stretch considering that the image was only uploaded in early September of this past year and as best I can tell, only placed on this page in late December.
Further, my edit was noted on this very page, and not some random anonymous edit (in my real name even). Reverting the edit does constitute throwing up a controversial image without discussion, namely because the people doing the reversions are not discussing it, only labeling it's removal as vandalism. And the fact that this discussion thread even exists, and others discussions of this same image exist in a very narrow window of time, mean that something about this image is inherently offensive to more than just a few people, and thus is well past its candidacy for a linkimage tag or outright deletion. Finally, this image is referenced on this discussion page as the only photographic example of masturbation listed, as the image was submitted as an example of masturbation. And yet, despite this, you repeatedly deny that this is a picture of masturbation.
I have thus far ignored several of your attempts to make your personal stance on obscenity and religious context the thrust of this discussion, but at this point I am chaffed over it. I have repeatedly stated, and will here again, that it is utterly and wholly irrelevant to anything about this. Further, I do not care if you find the image offensive or not, nor do I care if the Pope finds them offensive either. You (and the Pope) do not represent either "the consensus" of Wikipedia, nor the population in general. My concern is for the objectivity of the article as the image is in excess of what a sizable selection, if not the majority of people, would find reasonable for the topic. It is the responsibility of the editor to put aside his ego and personal belief when writing or editing an article on any subject, to think objectively without concern for anything more than just the facts relevant to that topic. I do not see that here. -- Joseph S Atkinson 09:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I seem to recall a long, drawn-out debate about this image some time ago. It was pointed out that ejaculation is a process, not a state, and that therefore the image currently in the article would be more appropriate for the semen article. Someone created an animated image describing the process of ejaculation, and most people seemed quite happy with it. What happened to it? Exploding Boy 07:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the animated image was "borrowed" from somewhere else, and was automatically removed because there was no licensing information attached. Atom

I and others are reverting unilateral changes where they are made until there is consensus on this page, which there clearly isn't yet. I am involved in this discussion in that I'm reading it carefully; I generally only respond on talk pages if I had something constructive to say. The Wednesday Island 18:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

One other thought

JSA says amongst other things that the current image is bad because it depicts masturbation. The video does not show masturbation; if I took a still from the video, would that suit? How about if I turned the video into an animated gif? The Wednesday Island 18:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I just reviewed the video, because until this point, I never felt it relevant to the topic. (It is linked and labeled in such a way that it does not present itself forward unless a user willingly clicks to view it). Having done so, I would say that a still from this would be much more reasonable and appropriate. However, an animated GIF would be redundant with a video of the same footage on the page, as well as still potentially offensive (or at least found distasteful) by what I would estimate to be a significant enough portion of the normal viewing public. -- Joseph S Atkinson 19:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible image?

Here is a crop of the current image (second picture), per several people's comments. Frankly, I don't much care for it, myself.

The second one was added by an anon contributor. It is a still image of the current video image. I don't like it either. Atom 16:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ejaculation_sample2.jpg is as I suspected it would turn out, small and unclear. Probably more of a distraction than anything. (Thanks for trying though) Not in favor of it.
Ejaculation Educational Demonstration Still Frame.jpg is much more on the mark, but is the overall image too large? Are the relevant parts not too small when thumbnailed? If so, then maybe a crop just to add focus. Seems to also have issues with compression artifacts and clarity. (Seems to have a slight double image from video interlacing). Overall this would be my pick of the three currently. -- jsa 02:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I cast my vote for Ejaculation Educational Demonstration Still Frame.jpg too. The look of the semen in the still frame photo gives you that "in motion" effect, which is what you would want in a still photo of an ejaculation to give it realism. You can adjust the size of the thumbnail for the article to give it more clarity so you won't have to crop it. Plus, you could put the thumbnail of the still frame photo in the article with the link to the video directly below it and use it as an introduction / sample of the video too. That way, you have a more reasonable and acceptable image of ejaculation with a true to life realistic look on the article page, as well as a sample image to give the user an idea of what the video shows so they could make a more informed decision as to whether they wanted to click on the link and view the video or not. That would kill two birds with one stone as the saying goes. Infofreak 05:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I have to say that I am an advvocate of leaving the original image in, given these choices. Having a still, and a vidde of the same thing would not be my preference. I don't find the existing still to be a bad image. Atom 12:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm with Atom. The existing image is pretty good - better than the still, IMO. LWizard @ 18:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I have been sitting quietly in the background and watching this discussion run it's course and I commend everyone who has commented and respect your thoughtful opinions. Atom and I both contributed observations, recommendations, and opinions for the current and ongoing Image Guidelines Project for Sexology and Sexuality Articles. Atom has staunchly defended using the Ejaculation_Sample.jpg image that has been the primary focus of this debate and I applaude his enthusiasm. In the exchanges that I have had with Atom in the past, I also know that Adam is a reasonable person with a level head. To prove this, I submit to you an exerpt from the Image Guidelines discussions that some of you may not have read. >>>>> "An editorial decision based on "The image format that provides the most useful encyclopedic detail is always preferred." works for me. ALso, "When two images give an equal level of useful detail, the format least likely to offend is preferred." seems good. However "In many cases, a drawing is less potentially offensive than a photograph of the same subject." may be true, but it should be an editorial decision. The last sentence shouldn' be part of the guideline, I feel. Atom </wiki/User:Atomaton> 01:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, given that it has the qualifier "in many cases", I think it's always true. I would go so far as to say that it would still be true if you changed it to "in most cases", or perhaps "in most cases when judged by a western audience". I think that this idea should be included in some fashion. --Strait </wiki/User:Strait> 01:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I was replying specifically to the previous suggestion of wording. I think that the concept that we should use the least potentially offensive image when given a choice makes sense, and is incorporated already in the guideline.

"Images relating to some topics cannot be informative without also running the risk of being offensive to some. However, when deciding between two equally informative images, the one which is least likely to offend (or is likely to offend the least) should be used." Atom </wiki/User:Atomaton> 01:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)" >>>>> That very discussion and the recommended guideline proposed by Atom is at the heart of this discussion about the Ejaculation images submitted for this article. Since both images are "equally informative", which one would be the "least likely to offend" ? Lets put Atom's Image Guideline proposal to the test and vote on the two images Image:Ejaculation sample.jpg and Image:Ejaculation_Educational_Demonstration_Still_Frame.jpg Ts umbra 19:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you say. I think it is a bit premature to vote though. Voting is not the method for deciding things on wikipedia. On Wikipedia, we make decisions by consensus. A vote is sometimes used as a straw poll to see if a consensus exists. In this case, we have just begun talkign about options. The two alternative images shown above were just made days ago. Some people on Wikipedia don;t read thins but once a week, or longer. There exists the possibility that other images could pop up, and other people with ideas. We need to wait a see a bit longer. We need to discuss things more to build a consensus. Atom 22:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes LizardWizard, the current photo is an accurate depiction of ejaculation, but is the appropriate example for a Wikipedia encyclopedia article? Whether you want to admit it or not, the current photo of ejaculation is an erotic and sensualized depiction. The pose, the "6 Pack" abs, muscles tensed as he grips the base of his penis and sprays his semen across his own chest. If you will notice, everything I just described is in this photo. I agree with Infofreak that the still image from the video is less controversial and more acceptable for this article. The still photo from the video and the video itself are about as clinical and non-erotic as a video of an ejaculation could be. We now have an acceptable diagram of the male genitalia for reference, and the video to give a real demonstration. Considering that, I believe that no photo of ejaculation should be used, but if one is going to be used anyway, I think the still photo from the video should be the one on the article. 21:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

In case it's useful as a point of reference, the (since-abandoned) guideline in this area recommended that potentially offensive images should be omitted unless doing so would render the article "less informative, relevant, or accurate" and "where suitable alternatives are available." --Rrburke(talk) 21:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Image gone

As of this moment, Ejaculation sample.jpg is showing as all black to me. Deleted? Vandalized? -- jsa 14:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I requested assistance on this. It appers that all versions of the image were censored. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Censorship.3F__By_whom.3F. Atom 14:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Some admin behind the scenes playing with things, I think. When I complained, it mysteriously re-appeared. Atom 15:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't find any evidence of that. Please consider retracting your comment unless you're able to show this was the case. Proto:: 20:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

No need to retract anything. I really do have that opinion. That opinions is based on facts, which I am happy to discuss if you are interested. Bring discussion to my talk page if that is the case. Atom 01:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


I moved the picture down a section so - without censoring anything - if someone happens to random page their way to the page, at least they won't see it unless they scroll down. I wearily await the revert because I'm a big evil Nazi censor who possibly kills and eats babies, but remain hopeful. Proto:: 20:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Medical diagram?

Is it not possible to stop the wikidrama about the real-life photo of ejaculation, and start trying to illustrate the anatomical and physiological process involved? Try this Google Images search and see the sort of thing I mean. The McGraw-Hill Human Sexuality Image Bank is a good website for ideas on this sort of thing. Have a look at Man's Genitals During Sexual Response Cycle (2). That is, obviously, copyrighted, but there might be some very old medical artwork available somewhere that is public domain now, or someone could find an artist willing to do a diagram showing what goes on inside the body during ejaculation. That would be educational. Carcharoth 00:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Some more pictures. Man's Genitals During Sexual Response Cycle (1), M/F Genitals During Coitus, and Retrograde Ejaculation. Could these be added to the external links at least? Carcharoth 00:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The discussion about the ejaculation images has reached my screen. I read this comment about a Medical Diagram, so I thought that I might try to help. If I remember correctly, there used to be a diagram of the male reproductive system on the Ejaculation article and it was deleted because of a license problem or something. Anyway, I have taken the time (4 hours) and effort (steady handed concentration) to modify the existing
Male anatomy.png

(medical type diagram) GFDL file of the male reproductive system from the Commons into an erected penis version. I'm going to submit it to you here for your consideration.

Male anatomy Erect.PNG
I am not a registered user at the Commons, so one of you kind people might want to move this file to the Commons for me. I hope that this can be of help either here or maybe on another article. Thanks NightFlyer 04:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it is actually demonstrating the process of ejaculation either. For one, it contains tons of stuff that isn't fully relevant, causing an information overload. Perhaps isolating only the directly relevant labels, extending the image a tad more to show the urethral opening (it seems akward cropped as it is), and something to indicated the directional flow/sequence of the process (line with arrows? numbers with a legend? This may just look dumb though), might greatly improve (or even perfect) it. It's moving in the right direction though, informative. And we still have the video (which I have no objections to) as demonstrative. -- jsa 06:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I never meant for the medical diagram of the male reproductive system that I modified to demonstrate ejaculation. I intended it to be used as a reference diagram to the discription of the ejaculation process in the article. As a user read the article describing the different parts of the male reproductive system involved in achieving an ejaculation, the user could look at the diagram and see those parts mentioned and where they are located in the body. Then they could click on the video if they wanted and see how all of the functions come together to produce an actual ejaculation. Takng Joseph's comment into consideration, I have searched and found a U.S.Government medical diagram of the male reproductive system on the Commons. I have modified it to have an erected penis because that would be the state that it would normally be in for an ejaculation. It is a "stripped down" version of the male reproductive system with just the basics as requested. I submit it for your consideration also :

Illu repdt male.jpg

Thanks NightFlyer 23:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I hate to say this, but just modifying an image the way you did is not actually that helpful. You need to know the physiology of what is happening, and to show all the changes taking place, not just the change from flaccid to erect in the spongy tissue. Have a look at this, which shows several changes you have failed to show: elevation of testes, enlargement of testes, thickening of scrotum, enlargement of prostate, pre-ejaculation secretions (Cowper's gland secretions). Until your image shows this, it looks like someone has just photoshopped the unerect diagram to make the penis erect, which is not sufficient if you want to be anatomically and clinically accurate. Carcharoth 14:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk page template

I removed the template at the top of this page which claims the images on the article are necessary. This is for several reasons:

  1. Pictures come and go. It is not possible to say that at any moment in time all the images we have are necesary. Some may be copyright violations, vandalism, etc.
  2. Even allowable pictures are a matter of editorial discretion and opinion
  3. The template may have been placed to attempt to curtail discussion on these images, which would be inappropriate
  4. The template is not needed, discussion is continuing just fine.

Johntex\talk 07:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

See my comments on "Ben's" talk page concerning the phrasing of this template. -- jsa 08:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I've been working with Ben regarding that template. It is in cooperation with the Sexology and Sexuality project, and as you can see from his history, is being added to a list of talk pages. SInce the template is subst'd then changing int slightly is no problem. It is intended to prevent a large number of anon and uninformed from filling the talk page with complaints just because they see something they don't expect. I don't expect it will slow down any serious editor complaining about serious issues. It has been used effectively on the breast article, and there is still active discussion there. Atom 13:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Reference no. 5

I have very strong suspicions about the reliability of reference no. 5. "This nameless doc I know told me that..." Can we have some more information about the dangerous of ejaculatory abstinence over long periods of time? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tullie (talkcontribs) 02:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

I'm removing reference no. 5 and the paragraph that uses it as support. I have found absolutely nothing anywhere to corroborate what it says, and I find the claims made in said paragraph biologically implausible. Tullie 19:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Replacing the image Ejaculation_sample.jpg with another

I have replaced the current image Image:Ejaculation_sample.jpg with Image:Ejaculation_Educational_Demonstration_Still_Frame.jpg for the following reasons per the Wikipedia : Wikiproject Guidelines for Sexology and Sexuality Articles. The guidelines and my reasoning for each are as follows :

1 - When possible, avoid images that are likely to offend

“Images relating to some topics cannot be informative without also running the risk of being offensive to some. However, when deciding between two equally informative images, the one which is least likely to offend (or is likely to offend the least) should be used”. This one is self explanatory. The general overall feeling of the Wikipedia community involved in this Ejaculation Image debate has already established a consensus that the video of ejaculation currently being used on the english Wikipedia Ejaculation article as well as two foreign language Wikipedia Ejaculation articles (cs and nl) is less offensive and more appropriate for the article, so logically a still photo from the video displayed on the article would be viewed the same.

2 - All photographs and videos should be labeled honestly

The image Ejaculation_sample.jpg was originally listed in the Wikipedia Sexology and Sexuality Guidelines (00:03, 26 September 2006) as an example of “Vanity images where a Wikipedia user, usually male, submits his own image”. This image was also listed with a thumbnail on the Guidelines (15:08, 2 October 2006) as “Vanity image: masturbation”. This fact magnifies the reality that this image cannot be labeled honestly as Ejaculation or Masturbation without unwanted controversy. The image Ejaculation_Educational_Demonstration_Still_Frame.jpg on the other hand is clearly an example of Ejaculation and nothing else.

3 - Existing images shouldn’t be replaced without a consensus

“Of course random people are going to throw images in articles all of the time. But if we have a guideline that we can apply, we can forestall people throwing their own vanity image, or favorite image over the one we have established for the lead image for an article. When they do that, we can move their image to the talk page, give a quote of our guideline, and a link to it, and begin a discussion as to whether this image is a better image than the one previously decided on”. This guideline does not apply to the current image Ejaculation_sample.jpg because it is not “the one we have established for the lead image” on the Ejaculation article. The image that will be the "lead image" of the Ejaculation article has never been established and agreed upon yet. Therefore, this guideline does not apply to this image and the image can be replaced with another.

4 - All images should be from Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons is a database of media files” Rationale goes here.

The image Ejaculation_sample.jpg is not from the Commons, nor does it exist on the Commons. The image Ejaculation_Educational_Demonstration_Still_Frame.jpg is from the Commons and is currently an image file on the Commons.

All of the above guidelines have been retrieved from: [1] Ts umbra 20:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That is very interesting Ts umbra. You got my curiosity tweeked up, so I just did some checking myself. The Ejaculation sample image was uploaded by someone called Trevor100a at 21:02, 1 September 2006 and 8 minutes later, at 21:10, 1 September 2006, Trevor100a placed the image on the Talk: Masturbation page. Hmmm, so it really was a vanity trolling image from the start. I'm amazed that this image has lasted this long on here. Why didn't some Admin catch this and delete this image a long time ago ? Infofreak 23:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
See the history (and this talk page) on this. It has been the subject of tons of revert waring. Despite being overtly inappropriate, a select few Wikipedia users have been hawking this page to ensure that the image remains intact. Often citing "lack of consensus", it's fairly clear that the image isn't viewed favorably except by this minority. They have even gone so far as to reinsert the image on the page after it had been replaced. I'm more curious why noone higher up has taken action against this cabal for the childish reverts and domineering of the article beyond the reasonable scope of editorial discretion. -- jsa 01:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Please read the archives to develop your own interpretation. Another interpretation than the previous message is that there are many non-participants in the article who see the image and complain, certain that it must be pornographic. Other who just feel that images perceived by them to be "sexual" should be censored — not realizing that we don't censor in wikipedia. The majority of people who edit the article, and contribute have developed a consensus for leaving the image as it is. The long list of people who have reverted attempts to censor the article attest to that. Rather than two or three editors, it would appear to be more like eight or nine different editors in January. There are others that have kept the consensus in December. There hasn't been any edit warring in January, only the random removel of the images by a list of people, mostly anon IP's, who do not contribute to the article, and are not aware of Wikipedia policies no not censor.
The primary criteria that has been used by the group of people who support the consensus had been that the image is on topic, it demonstrates the topic well, and it does qualify according to the miller test as obscene, nor is it a sensual image. (although the topic itself is related to sexuality). We have been discussing moving the image lower in the article, as well as finding other images to replace this one. We have one alternative image, not currently favored, that could potentially replace this one at some point. We wait to see if other images might surface.
The image was not a vanity image, and does not violate WP:COI. At the time the image was put in the article, there was active discussion of several images of men and women masturbating. Trevor participated in the discussion, and offered to create and give an image. It was evaluated, and then several of the images that had been used ended up being deleted for one reason or another. So, it was an image provided to fill the need, in a way. s you see (somewhere in the archives) it was only added to the article itself after some discussion. Atom 02:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I encourage the readers to make up their own minds based on the comments and citations of this very page. However, the objections here very clearly outnumber the support to keep it, and despite that fact you maintain there is a consistent lack of consensus. The passing of the Miller test is a subjective one, to which you keep applying a very liberal personal definition and then apply that definition to Wikipedia policy. The simple fact that most people who comment on this page are objecting to it is testament that the image fails to pass the Miller test, which mandates "the average person, applying contemporary community standards." You are very much aware that this image violates Wikipedia's guidelines concerning such images and have participated in internal discussions where this image is cited as the very definition of inappropriate, obscene, pornographic, vanity, et al. All of which I have already pointed out in the very lengthy Talk:Ejaculation#Do_you_want_wikipedia_to_be_taken_seriously.3F discussion above. My issue isn't with your personal opinions, it is that that you keep stating them as cannon to people with objections, people that probably don't know any better and are thus likely to move on. This, ultimately hurts Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a public forum for your personal crusade against censorship. Please stop attempting to dissuade people's objections by attempting to define what is objectionable "by Wikipedia standards". -- jsa 06:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, obviously the community standards on Wikipedia are that we don't censor. But, that isn't the point. Study up on your miller test, it has to fail all three parts to be legally obscene, not any one of the three. In this case it doesn't fail any of the three. It meets our community standards, it does not depict patently offensive sexual conduct or excretory function, and it doesn't lack literary, artistic, political or scientific merit. The fact that it has artistic and scientific merit alone is reason enough to fail Miller. Atom 21:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is the problem, yet again. It has to pass all three clauses, all three of which are subjective and may be viewed differently by individuals reviewing it. By your personal standards this image is acceptable, and therefore you declare it as acceptable by Wikipedia standards. You are not Wikipedia, your opinion is not their policy. I find the image to stop on every Miller clause (here), in addition to every one of Wikipedia 's own clauses (here). At the minimum, the image qualifies for the linkimage tag, but you have interfered with every attempt to implement even that. Your willingness to thrust this man's penis on the world have moved far beyond editorial discretion. And to address a question you asked me on the page where the objectionable image is marked for deletion, having a cabal of silent partners to assist your revert waring doesn't make a consensus. -- jsa 15:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree with you here, jsa, and also agree that the sort of pushing allowed to go on by folks exhibiting views like Atom is a significant reason why quality editors are leaving the increasing playground of Wikipedia for projects like Citizendium. Clearly, a clinical, encyclopedic drawing is the way to go here, but good luck convincing the page-guards here of that - those who with impunity are allowed to run roughshod over very clear policy. BTW, did you all know that anything beyond a clinical drawing in this article places not only the person who added the content but Wikipedia at risk for a lawsuit? CyberAnth 03:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I support replacing the current image with a clinical, encyclopedic drawing. Is a freely licensed one currently available? Johntex\talk 05:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
The current view is a free image. If we can find a more clinical view, such as you suggest, that would be great. Let's see if we can find one, post to this page and evaluate it and come to consensus. Atom 17:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Cynberanth, please keep issues on topic. You and I apparently do not see things eye to eye. Your history of edits speaks for itself, I don't need to characterize them here to disparage you. If editors who support humanistic, open-minded, free-speech, following of Wikipedia policies (including working with other editors) convinces people like you to leave Wikipedia, that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, would it? We need a community of people who work together here. Johntex and myself have widely differing views, but have managed to respect one another, work together and remain civil. Many others choose to work together too. Your reputation precedes you. Atom 17:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding you comment "BTW, did you all know that anything beyond a clinical drawing in this article places not only the person who added the content but Wikipedia at risk for a lawsuit?" We welcome your opinion on legal matters. Religious Academics are well known for their expertise in this area. The first amendment of the constitution was enacted specifically to protect us from people like you. (Freedom of Speech, Freedom from religious persecution). You bring FUD (Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt) in your words, not clarity. Anyway, the law in the United States, and specifically in the State of Florida (where Wikipedia servers are) regarding this allows for free speech, but does not allow obscenity. "Pornography" is a subjective term, "obscenity" is a legal term. The law in Florida is subordinate to the federal law in this matter. (can not be more restrictive on free speech, but can be less restrictive). The federal law regarding what is "obscene" and what is not has been well defined and tested many, many times (as it relates to free speech). The supreme court developed the Miller test which has also been called the SLAPS[2] test, as to qualify as obscene words, or an image have to pass all three parts of the miller test in order to be obscene. Those being:

  • Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
  • Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions [1] specifically defined by applicable state law,
  • Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Let's assume that the first two prongs are arguable between us. The third prong seems most applicable here. If it fails the third prong, argument on the other two points is moot. As this image clearly has both artistic and scientific value, it fails this prong, and therefore fails SLAPS, the miller test, and is not obscene. I suspect that someone like yourself would argue whether it is artistic and scientific. I suppose that you would argue and say that a "clinical" image is scientific, while an non-clinical image is not scientific. Of course, that is your opinion, but the Supreme court would likely have a very different view. Nowhere in case law has it been suggested that a "clinical view" inherently qualifies as scientific, nor that an image must appear in a "clinical" setting to be scientific. Being scientific alone is sufficient. No one has successfully argued here that the image is not clinical, but only offered opinion. The other important part of the miller test, if you read carefully, are the words "the work, taken as a whole" (See third (LAPS) prong). This could be construed in court to mean the image in the context of all of Wikipedia, or more narrowly, as the image in the context of this very article. In either case, clearly taken as a whole, the image is in an encylopedic, educational and scientific setting. Yet one more reason it fails Miller.

Now that we have established that the image is not legally obscene, this leaves us to Wikipedia policies. These are intended to keep Wikipedia as a whole, encyclopedic, among other things. Although they are many, and confusing, clearly the policy that says that we do not censor stands out in this case. This leaves the content of a specific article up to the article editors. We editors work together to limit censorship of the article from people who have obviously not read [[WP:NOT, or the Content Disclaimer, and at the same time work for consensus to find the best content for the topic of the article.

Because this is a continuing issue on articles involving sexology and sexuality, I established guidelines to try and help (so that I don't have to describe all of this that I have taken the time to describe to you, to everyone, each time) and for you and others with opinions different from mine own (such as JohnTex) to have equal say in helping to insure that we have high quality content that meets Wikipedia standards, and is not obscene, while rebuffing censorhip wannabe's. The guidelines, a work in progress (I am asking for and value your opinion and input on it) is at [[3]]. We've been working on these since September.

FUD, by the way is chiefly used as a tactic to distract people from another direction, or to create general doubt in others minds when the user of the tactic does not have rational, objective or constructive means to otherwise do so.

Atom 17:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it not possible to separate out sexuality and sexology? And why not show the clinical and anatomical aspects of the penis and its function, rather than the sexual aspects? A medical drawing will show the anatomical and clinical aspects. The sexuality aspects merely need to cover how the sight of an erect penis (or any sexual object) can cause a sexual response in another person, but that is something that cannot be illustrated. Another approach would be to document the approach different societies have had to allowing views of erect penises (in print media and on screen, and so on). But none of this really belongs in an article on ejaculation, which only requires a discussion of the anatomical and physiological aspects (with a series of diagrams). My advice would be to set up a clear dividing line (using sections) between the anatomical and physiological aspects of sex, and the social (including pornography), psychological, emotional side of sex, which can be illustrated tastefully with 'live' pictures. It is perfectly possible to cover topics like this without insisting on certain pictures being used, and without seeing censors around every corner. Carcharoth 14:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. This article is about ejaculation, and not generally about the penis. The suggestions you make if followed, I think, would make for a better article. The images that we have currently are both clinical and scientific, but as to whether they are "tasteful" is purely subjective. My personal hesitation at removing either the image or the video of what we have is that they illustrate the topic extremely well. A person reading the article by seeing the image clearly understands the topic without even having to read much of the article. If we had another image to replace either of the two images that we currently have that had less potential for offending people, but illustrated the topic as well, I do not thinkg we would have any trouble gaining consensus for that. So far, this has not happened. The best that has been offered was a closer crop of the current image, and a screen-shot of a portion of the video that is given. Neither illustrates the topic as well, or is of equal quality, which is why neither got a consensus. It seems it would be a simple matter for someone to provide an image that would be viewed as more "clinical", or less "real". Apparently this is not the case, and so we are lucky to have even the one image that was created for use in this article. Atom 15:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Current Picture

Couldn't the current picture be called pornography? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

I surely think so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 06:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Not accurately. Atom 17:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

As indicated by the above anon IP posts, yes it is pornographic per what would be considered "community standards" in a U.S. court. CyberAnth 07:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your perspective. "Community Standards" are more than the isolated opinions of a few people who disagree (nor the unspoken opinions of the larger mass of lurkers who agree and say nothing). This community has a variety of policies and guidelines, as well as a history of past behavior (analogous to case law). As mentioned earlier, important to this are the written policies of WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored and the Disclaimer Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Combine these together and you get a community standard.

Secondly, the miller test mentions prurient interest in the context of those community standards in the first prong. The third prong says that that the work in a full context must lack artistic and scientific content (among other things -- see Miller test for full description) Reading this article, at a glance with terminology such as "hypospermia" and "medial proptic area" and "Normally, ejaculation is required for emission of sperm, which can fertilize a woman's egg and impregnate her" it would be hard to say it was not a scientific article in an encylopedia.

I understand that yourself, and some small group of others may have personal views that could make this image, honestly from your view, "taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest". But the fact that the community (Wikipedia, not the Internet) do not agree, and that it fails the third prong of Miller "Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. " means that it is not legally obscene. You also may feel that the image "the explicit representation of the human body or sexual activity with the goal of sexual arousal". So if you wish to say that you view it as prurient and erotic, and so, pornpgraphy, then you get to have your personal view. Most people just don't see a scientific still picture of one person demonstrating ejaculation in a scientific article as either erotic or appealing to the prurient interest. I know I don't.

Because there is always a basic difference between personal philosophies of life, and we have agreed to respect one anothers right to pursue their own personal philosophy we have laws to keep things sorted out. To draw the line, so to speak. The Miller test is that line to prevent some from thrusting what really is pornography into your daily life, and to prevent others from censoring normal healthy images of people, life and science from our lifes. You may argue that for you, this image comes very close to that line (as explained, it does not cross it). The way to change this would be to change the miller test. As currently in politics the pendulum has finally begun to swing back the other way, politics of the extreme right is no longer in fashion. The chances of legislation to remedy this is just slightly less likely than overturning Roe V. Wade. I suggest a pragmatic approach might be in understanding how people with basic philisophical perspectives can get along together and find common ground to accomplish important work despite their differences. Atom 12:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The relevant question is not whether the current photo is pornographic or even whether it is suitable; rather, it's whether the current photo or one of the alternatives is more suitable for the article. I gather from the lack of anyone referring to an image that is a drawing rather than a photo that the alternatives that exist right now are File:Ejaculation sample.jpg and Image:Ejaculation_Educational_Demonstration_Still_Frame.jpg. If we start from the point that one of these two images is to be in the article, then the qualities of the images that are relevant are only those qualities in which the two images differ. Thus, whether one depicts ejaculation or refrains from showing the face of the ejaculator is not something that redounds to either image's credit for our purposes, because both images do so. More importantly, that either of the images does not cross the line into pornography is similarly irrelevant, since, if I read the abundant comments above correctly, there has been little in the way of argument that one of the images is pornography but the other one isn't.
The key difference between Ejaculation_sample and Ejaculation_Educational_Demonstration_Still_Frame, to my eyes, is that the former (the current photo as of this writing), based on the angle of the shot, the physique of the ejaculator, and the oversized penis, is the sort of thing that to many readers would appear to have come from a pornographic website or a sex-partners personals ad rather than from an educational demonstration. I agree entirely with an anonymous poster from above:
the current photo is an accurate depiction of ejaculation, but is the appropriate example for a Wikipedia encyclopedia article? Whether you want to admit it or not, the current photo of ejaculation is an erotic and sensualized depiction: the pose, the "6 Pack" abs, muscles tensed as he grips the base of his penis and sprays his semen across his own chest.
I would assume that every reasonable editor would, in the context of a medical article involving sexual phenomena, with all else equal, prefer a less erotic, potentially offensive, or prurient image over a more erotic, offensive, or prurient one. The disadvantges of exciting readers' prurient interest or making them stop and ask themseles, "hey, is that porn?", in the course of a serious medical article are obvious. And while it may be true, as Atom would be no doubt quick to point out, that some readers would not perceive Ejactulaion_sample as titillating or pornographic and that whether it is perceived that way is dependent on the subjective qualities of the reader, the relevant question is which image will be perceived by more readers and more intensely as something prurient or otherwise distracting. And the answer, hands down, to that question is that Ejaculation_sample is the more distracting one, the one that is more likely either to appeal to a reader's prurient interest or to get a reader to start asking why there's porn on Wikipedia.
Many users have questioned the appropriateness of Ejaculation_sample, and no one has argued that it is preferable to Ejaculation_Educational_Demonstration_Still_Frame. It seems to me, then, that there is a consensus that Ejaculation_Educational_Demonstration_Still_Frame is a good choice, or at least not a bad choice, for the article, while no such consensus exists on Ejaculation_sample.--Atemperman 15:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Needs to be more encyclopedic.

The article seems to be only describing human male ejaculation, instead of ejaculation as a general biological function. I dunno if a squirrel feels pleasure during ejaculation for example. Klosterdev 03:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ The syllabus of the case mentions only sexual conduct, but excretory functions are explicitly mentioned on page 25 of the majority opinion.