Talk:Ejaculation/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

For The Record

On Sept. 29th, the day that this latest debate about the images on this article started, the ejaculation video on this article was viewed 974 times. From Sept. 29 to Oct.7, the ejaculation video was viewed 7,708 times. [1] From Sept. 29 until today, 5 people have complained and called for the removal of the video. If you compare the number of views that the ejaculation video has had over this time period to the number of people that have complained about the ejaculation video over the same time period, the complainers are clearly in the minority. If you go back through all of the discussion archives and total up all the people that have complained and called for the removal of the ejaculation video since it was added to this article in 2006, it doesn’t even come close to the number of people that have viewed the ejaculation video on one single day (Sept. 29 / 974 views) and did not complain about it.

As far as the legal questions about images of ejaculation being shown on this article, being that the wiki servers are in the state of Florida, I present this for your consideration from the law firm of Wagner, Vaughn, & McLaughlin, P.A. located in Tampa Florida : [2]

“ June 17 2008

Question : Nudity on an internet Encyclopia

On the website Wikipedia, there is an image on the Ejaculation article that has a picture of a human male ejaculating. The editors claim that it is not a censored website, which I can agree. However, aren't there laws against showing a Human male ejaculating on a public website illegal? It's not a pronography website either, just a website for education. The people claim that the picture is for the page, but it does not add anything whatsoever to the article. I know it is not Wikipedia to blame, but when something like this happens, what is tehre to do? Wikipedia is headquartered in Florida, US. Thanks in advance. This is serious as there have been numerous complaints with the article for the image. What is there to do and how can I get the image removed?

Answer : Re: Nudity on an internet Encyclopia

You are not likely to get the picture removed and, in my judgment, a picture of a natural human physical reaction in an encyclopedia type page is not going to be found pornographic. If you search for breast augmentation you will find a lot of pictures at doctor's web sites that show women's breasts.” (Answered by Alan Wagner, Attorney and law partner of the above mentioned law firm in Tampa, Florida). [3]

If you want to contact this website or this law firm directly to ask this question about the ejaculation video and Florida Law go right ahead, and then post the answer you get unedited and complete to this discussion.

Does the video of ejaculation add a useful component to the article and is it educational? I present this for your consideration from this “parenting advice” website. [4]

“October 2008

Question : Re: Boys and sexuality

My son, when he was in year 9, at highschool, told me that in their sex education class, they were shown a video of a penis ejaculating. I feel a bit funny about it. Is that really necessary to actually see it?

Answer : Re: Boys and sexuality

I know, seeing that can make you squirm but I feel (and this is just my opinion) it is a necessary step in teaching young boys about their sexuality and being responsible for it. If he is in year nine, then he is at a good age to see it first hand (mind you, most boys already have discovered masturbation by that age, so it's not that new to them).

You have to remember also that they know nothing about it and it's a major step into puberty, then adulthood for a boy to discover what happens with his penis when he has sexual awakenings. If they don't have the right information, and don't feel comfortable asking parents/carers about it, then when it happens it can be REALLY scary! Compare it to the old days when girls weren't told that they would bleed vaginally when their period started - I've lost count of how many women I've met/read who've said how frightened they were when it happened. And think about when you had your first child - did you want to find out everything you could about what was happening to you through pregnancy, and different birth scenarios? When you did learn about it, did it make things easier for you to accept and understand, and take away some of the uneasy feelings you may have had about what would happen during hte birth? I know it did for me. When we did the sex ed class at school, the presenter was wonderful and made them all laugh when she said "this amazing thing called ejaculation causes sperm to leave the penis at (don't quote me here!) about 200km an hour"! It lightened things up and they all had a good laugh about it, but boys being boys, it did make them all puffed up to think that their bodies could do that. All kids need to know is that they are "normal" and what is happening to them happens to everyone of the same sex, and learning about it with their peers is a great way of helping them understand and ensures everyone is armed with the same facts, not fanciful "opinions" and misinformation that kids often get hold of. In arming our son with these facts, it has helped him talk to us about what is happening with his body and (without going into too much detail) makes it so much easier for us to answer questions if and when they are asked. Just relax, and try not to show him when you feel uncomfortable because this can make him in turn feel like he shouldn't be talking to you - and it would be a shame for any child these days to not be able to be open with their parents about the changes their young bodies are going through. One great bit of advice the presenter gave us at the info night was - when you are talking to boys about serious or deep issues, remember that they don't like to make eye contact as this is confronting for them. Let him fiddle with something so he can feel a bit more relaxed while you are talking, or have a chat when you are cooking dinner and he can just hang out with you - it's much more relaxed. I also find the car is a great place to have these chats, as I am driving and not having to make too much eye contact, so he is more comfortable too. She also said that, surprisingly (or maybe not ) there are quite a lot of men who are not comfortable having these info chats with their boys! So often it is left to the Mums. I really hope this helps - it's a learning curve for all of us. I had two step daughters first up, so had only had to do the "girl" talk until recently, and it wasn't easy! But I do feel his ability to talk open and frankly with me as well as his Dad has strengthened his trust in me, and in some ways made us closer than we already were. Sorry this is a bit long winded, but there are so many things to consider - especially if your son is your eldest and this is the first time you've had to do the sex and puberty talk LOL Good luck; I hope it all goes well for you! Sharon”

The discussion ended with the Questioner making this statement : “So thanks for letting me understand a little better about the video and it's reason and importance. I think it's just best to act natural around boys and not make things too formal when talking about these things. Like you say breaking the ice with a bit of joking is helpful.” [5]

The greatest revelation in this entire dialog to me is that this kind of video is evidently considered useful and educational on an instructional / teaching level considering that a video of a penis ejaculating (possibly the video from this article) was shown in a 9th year high school Sex Education class and was supported. Infofreak (talk) 04:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow... you don't call yourself Infofreak for nothing. Thanks for the research! ^L_Wizard @ 06:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for adding more to this discussion.

However, just because something can be educational does not mean that it cannot or could not also appeal to "prurient interests" especially in this case. It also does not follow that everyone who does not like something will complain about it. Granted, it may not be exactly shocking to find a video of ejaculation on such a page on Wikipedia, but that does not mean everyone who comes here is here to be educated about the process. Is it possible that people learned about ejaculation before there was a video demonstrating it? I note that the above presenter didn't then show a video to the kids. The argument that everything needs a video does seem to have limits.

Do people have no imagination? Do we videos online demonstrating how to put pop tarts in a toaster? Is that the only way we can really understand something?

And lastly, what is the counter-argument for "there should be a video of someone having sex with a hippo (or other obscenely large bi or quadriped) to educate those who need to understand the process." I realize that this is an absurdist argument, but I want to know what the real boundary is for "this could be educational and therefore should be included" argument is. Cheers, Jtempsn (talk) 12:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

People's imagination and pop tarts aside, the answer would be no, there are ways that people could still come to an understanding of something without a video showing them what it is. However, that isn't exactly a cogent argument for removing the imagery. You can try using words alone to explain any concept, but a picture is worth a thousand words and actual video imagery demonstrating ejaculation could be very valuable to someone who has never seen it before.

With regard to "hippo-human sex videos," if that was actually a common thing which many people knew little about but many were interested in, and if there was some aspect to the process on which many people were uniformed and could benefit from learning from, and you had video footage of it that was clinical in nature (i.e., not gratuitous and prurient), then it would be fair to give it serious consideration. As with the ejaculation imagery in this article, there wouldn't be much of a rational counter-argument to be made against it's inclusion. 50.129.121.250 (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Jtempsn , here is my answers to your statements ….

You stated “just because something can be educational does not mean that it cannot or could not also appeal to "prurient interests"” How you perceive the images on this article is your problem. The examples I have listed above show common ordinary users in the real world, not Wikipedia Editors or anyone else in the “Wiki-Sphere”, using this article with it’s diagrams, video, and photo for purely educational and instructional purposes. You can take a National Geographic magazine and read the articles and look at the photos of tribal life in Africa and learn about their culture, or you can run to the bathroom with the magazine and masturbate to the photos of the topless/naked native women in the article. Does that mean that National Geographic magazine should be censored ? …. wrapped in a plastic cover like porn magazines at the gas station with a “Must Be 18 Years Of Age Or Older To Purchase” written on it ? It all boils down to the individual and their inclinations.

You stated “It also does not follow that everyone who does not like something will complain about it” I’m sure that many people saw the video and photo on this article and were shocked and/or offended, but evidently not an overwhelming number lodging formal complaints to have the images removed. When I was a teenager, my mother was greatly shocked and offended when she read “There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses”, (what kind of imagery does that put in your head ?), but she never called the publisher to demand that the verse be removed from the BIBLE !!! (Ezekiel 23:20 – New International Version). [6]

You stated “Granted, it may not be exactly shocking to find a video of ejaculation on such a page on Wikipedia, but that does not mean everyone who comes here is here to be educated about the process.” So, what did they come to an online encyclopedia article about ejaculation for ? ….. to satisfy their “prurient interests” ? I seriously doubt it !!! Easily accessible hardcore pornographic websites are literally a single click away from this page, accessible by selecting “Yes, I Am 18 Years Old” without any verification whatsoever, and contain a whole lot better “wank material” than this article.

You stated “I note that the above presenter didn't then show a video to the kids” ZOOM !!! …. That one just flew right over your head !!! The main point I was hoping you would realize from that dialog I quoted was from the question that contained this line “My son, when he was in year 9, at highschool, told me that in their sex education class, they were shown a video of a penis ejaculating.”, which means that a video of a penis ejaculating WAS SHOWN in a 9th year high school Sex Education class, which means that they considered the video not only educational, but important enough to be shown to students in school. The text does not say if the other presenter showed the video or not, but the statement “"this amazing thing called ejaculation causes sperm to leave the penis at (don't quote me here!) about 200km an hour", could have been the prelude to showing the video, but we are not told if the video was then shown or not. You assumed that on your own.

You stated “The argument that everything needs a video does seem to have limits.” Where did the argument get started that everything needs a video ? Did I miss something ? You’re the only one that I’ve read making that statement. Now we get to the “pop tarts” and buggering hippos part. Have you ever heard of the term “grasping at straws” ? Anyway, here we go ….

You stated “And lastly, what is the counter-argument for "there should be a video of someone having sex with a hippo”. Bestiality is ILLEGAL in the State Of Florida now [7] [8] .

You stated “What is the reason why this article needs a video ….” . To answer that question, I submit this quote from the written comments at the WEGO Health website [9]

“05/07/2010

My best friend is pregnant with her first child. The other day, my 12 year old daughter and only child asked me how the baby got in her belly. she will be starting her period soon anyway, so I had the "Birds and Bees" discussion with her using sexuality articles from Wikipedia in my presentation. I had trouble verbally explaining ejaculation to her and I could tell by the perplexed look on her face that she did not comprehend. Even though I was hesitant at first, I decided to let her watch the video clip of the live action ejaculation. She looked at me in amazement and said "Oh, I see now !" Her questions were answered, her curiosity was satisfied, and I was relieved that we had finally had "that talk". The live action video of a real ejaculation saved the day for this nervous mom. THANK YOU WIKIPEDIA !” and …..

“08/24/2009

Very educational and informative article, and the "realtime" video showing an ejaculation as it is happening, wihtout the sexual aspect of the act, was very helpful and central in explaining to my teenage daughter about how condoms help to prevent pregnancy. She didn't realize the force in which semen can be expelled from the penis, so viewing the video helped me to stress the importance of condom use.” [10]

In conclusion, the video of ejaculation is included on this article to add a dimension of understanding and comprehension to the subject of Ejaculation that a still photo, diagram, or text cannot. The information that I have presented in this discussion, including un-biased references from the real world outside of Wikipedia about this video, has proven that the video of ejaculation on this article is being used by parents, teachers, and others to educate and teach this subject in a healthy and positive way. Infofreak (talk) 03:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Warning would've been nice, especially in a public place

First of all, I thank you for not censoring an encyclopedia. I don't think the pictures are pornographic. However, I came across this article in a coffee shop from a pregnancy page (serves me well for clicking "ejaculation" in a public place), but I did panic a bit when pictures of fully erect pinus was on my screen in a public area frequented by very young children. Though I feel that pictures should stay, a warning either in a landing page would have been helpful. Alternatively, the pictures can be replaced by a placeholder text that loads the real picture after a user clicks on it.

I do think that wikipedia must stay uncencored. However, it should also stay friendly to children of all ages and should stay safe to be used in a public area. A balance would be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.25.28 (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Pleasure

Is there a reason why the details of the pleasure evoked by ejaculation were removed? It is a key aspect of sexuality and should be included. I also have a cite to support greater pleasure and volume of semen ejaculated with partners of high physical attractiveness, and have two sources to support the notion that men with large penises enjoy greater pleasure during ejaculation than those with small penises, due to the semen traveling the entire length of the penis. 2.219.215.227 (talk) 00:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It certainly seems to be a curious item to remove, but could you refer us to the date of removal? On an incomplete sampling of earlier versions, I don't find any reference. Maybe if we could find a suitably chaste mode of expression, instead of four-letter words like "pleasure", we would stand a better chance of educating the ineducable. JonRichfield (talk) 09:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions regarding RfC (Video)

The below comments are my suggestions (feel free to discuss) not my wishes.

Replace video file

The file is free to copy and use with no restriction.

• The file be replaced by a slow-motion version (either a doctoring of the original or an alternative from another source). This minor change would detract from the explicitness by focusing the viewers attention on the physical detail rather than how it makes them feel.
• The frame be cropped to show only the genitalia and ejaculate. This would require a letterbox framing.

These proposals look good to me. A slow motion version should be more educative, the process should be easier to see.. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

i love the idea. Jake1993811 (talk) 10:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Change how the file is presented

• The video presence on the page be masked (e.g. place in a collapsed element) with a clear heading or caption describing what to expect if shown.
  • At the time of posting this comment, I ( fg^t_c) had added an example of this idea to the article since a demo is not possible on this page due to video use restrictions. If the demo is no longer visible review the article history.

OR

• An alternative video is used that has a non photographic intro and thus shows no discernible image without the reader actively choosing to view the video. A clear heading or caption being provided describing what to expect if played.

If you look at the archives, you will see that this has been proposed many times, and rejected. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

• I personally don't think the video is disgusting or inappropriate but I can see how some might. In the interests of education I think the video is well presented. A picture paints a thousand words and a video even more. The video describes the subject. fg^t_c 04:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• It might be educational, but does anyone else think it's a little TOO much for Wiki? If a parent is okay with showing their kid this while teaching them about sex, then shouldn't they be able to decide when and where? Not find their kid watching it on Wiki? Any other thoughts? -hsxeric 28 February, 2012

That would qualify as a reason for parents to keep their children off Wikipedia, not for us to remove content. Wikipedia is not censored, nor does it provide content disclaimers (aside from the one at the bottom of every page). So the question is not, "Is it too obscene?" it's, "Does it add to the article?"

I think most articles would benefit from a brief demonstration video, this one included 68.202.48.14 (talk) 05:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Homocentric

Is not the article wrong due to being extremely homocentric?

Is not ejaculation common to all mammals as well as many other species yet the article as written implies that this is a human phenomenon. As the article is not titled 'Ejaculation in homo-sapiens' or such should the article not be about ejaculation as applied to males of all relevant species, humans can then be mentioned as just one example. kimdino (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

If you'd like to start an article on ejaculation by male animals other than humans, have at it. I don't really see a serious case of anthropocentrism, though. We aren't suppressing or deliberately ignoring other animals, we're simply talking about the most common use of the word. Similarly, we aren't being androcentric with the Ejaculation/Female ejaculation split. People say "ejaculation" in ref to male, human ejaculation and "female ejaculation" when referring to female, human ejaculation. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 January 2012

While researching sperm production and other factors that relate to pregnancy, I came accross the ejaculation page. Is it really necessary to have actual photographs and video of ejaculation? I often use wikipedia with my children beside me to study different subjects, and until now have found it to be a fairly safe sight. Please remove these graphic images. The drawings would be sufficient. I will definitely be hesitant to use wikipedia again. 76.2.48.96 (talk) 04:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

76.2.48.96 (talk) 04:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want to stop viewing these images, see Help:Options to not see an image. However, the images are kept because Wikipedia is not censored. See also Wikipedia's content discliamer. You can find past discussions about the images and videos on top of this page, in a drop-down menu. Shuipzv3 (talk) 04:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 March 2012

I was researching the life cycle of sperm when I stumbled across the Ejaculation page. I am writing to request the removal of the videos and images of an ejaculation. I don't understand what purpose this has on Wikipedia. Can someone please explain this to me? Isn't a description of what happens during an ejaculation sufficient? I am a male and find this completely inappropriate. If you don't remove it from this page, then please put a warning somewhere stating that the page contains explicit, live images. 99.169.56.31 (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Wikipedia is not censored. — Bility (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

To answer your question, friend, instead of just ignoring you, the purpose of that video, and presumably those images, is to bring sexual arousal to the exhibitionist who filmed it in the first place, who is now no doubt quite happy with the knowledge that thousands of strangers have watched him achieve orgasm. I think it needs to go too, or at least be hidden inside a clearly labelled collapsed element, as suggested higher up the page. There's a difference between censoring an image because it contains nudity and removing something which is quite clearly amateur pornography. Master Deusoma (talk) 07:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

While the reason given for declining wasn't the best, it was correct to decline this edit request. Edit requests are meant only for uncontroversial edits - both this talk page and its archive show that this isn't an uncontroversial edit. In the last RfC consensus was against removal, but given that it has been some years ago anyone can start a new RfC to see if the consensus has changed. --Six words (talk) 09:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? You were researching the life cycle of sperm, which led you to a page called "EJACULATION", which you viewed voluntarily, and you don't understand the relevance of photos and video that clearly demonstrate the actual topic of the page? Would you complain about an article on pollination that included photos and (gasp!) video of a bee visiting a flower? Surely a description is sufficient? Just because the topic is sex (animal, in this case specifically human sex), everyone is supposed to get all squeamish about it and furtively peer at the screen through their fingers? Cos while we're looking at a page called EJACULATION, we don't actually want to know what one looks like. That would be "inappropriate". Sorry, I know I'm being harsh... If you find this material... uncomfortable then that's unfortunate. Or if you have no problem with it on a porn site but don't consider it appropriate for an encyclopaedia, then what do you suppose is the purpose of an encyclopaedia, if not to inform and educate? And what better way to educate someone about a natural biological process than to demonstrate it in action? Why deliberately hide it? Because some of us (myself included) have been conditioned by our parents or broader society to feel uncomfortable about it? So the answer is to make a big fuss about it and make our own children feel uncomfortable about it too? It's just sex, that's all. We are all here because of it, and we (almost) all do it. Not really a big deal. OK, that's my rant for the day... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.117.131 (talk) 02:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 April 2012

Please delete the ejaculation video, it is unethical for kids , teenager especially female to watch. IT's too much for them to watch, it could cause social unethical activity or crime happen due to this video.

Please delete for children's morality. Thanks.

175.138.251.141 (talk) 00:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

A worldwide website cannot be bent to every reader's unique sense of morality. Your hypothesis of possible results seems completely unsupported by fact. DMacks (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Funniest complaint ever - I enjoy visiting pages like this from time to time, just to see how many new complaints the page has received, and if anyone has actually come up with a solid reason to remove content that doesn't regress to "I don't like it". I gotta say, the idea that photos and video of something that is 100% normal, natural, common and pleasurable are going to turn teenagers into criminals must be about the funniest thing I've seen so far. Thanks for the laugh! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.117.131 (talk) 02:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

picture offensive

wikipedians gotta get rid of this picture what if you are looking up this page for a science class in school and you get in trouble cuz of the images and video. What if someone is looking at this from the middle east what if they punished for doing so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.136.176.53 (talk) 08:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Why would anyone be in the least bit surprised to find pictures of ejaculation on a page at a graphics-rich website entitled and specifically about exactly that concept? No, Wikipedia will not censor itself solely to protect readers from themselves and the results of their choices of what to read. DMacks (talk) 08:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

If you are researching ejaculation in science class, I hardly think you'll get in trouble for viewing encyclopaedic material that's 100% relevant to the topic.

Agreed: photo and video is offensive

As an online encyclopedia, one that is aimed at all ages, this material is unnecessary and offensive. A compromise would be a graphic depiction in the form of a drawing. Whats next? If an article exists on terrorists decapitating people in the name of their cause, should we have a video depicting it? Porn is out there people and its not hard to find. If you need to see a man ejaculating, this is hardly the place! Robvanvee (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

See WP:NOTCENSORED as well as my response on your talk page. JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I've read through WP:NOTCENSORED 500 times and still can't quite see where it trumps WP:NOTFREESPEECH. I think that the people advocating the video and images are confusing both of these fundaments. Further, looking over these arguments, it looks like the proponents of this video and the images are enjoying the shock value of this under the guise of some kind of justifiable stand against parochial thinking. It reads as cerebral ways of saying "F you". Reminds me of teenagers.Tgm1024 (talk) 20:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I cannot fathom how you feel WP:NOTFREESPEECH applies. There is nothing about the video that apparently interferes with creating an encyclopedia. Nothing about it seems to be an attempt to explore anarchy either.

Rather, "some people may find (it) objectionable" though it is "relevant to the content". Discussion, we are told, "should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal or inclusion of content."

So, is it "appropriate"? Is it "relevant to the article that (it) appears in and ... significantly and directly related to the article's topic"? It is clearly relevant and is of the topic of the article: ejaculation.

Does it "inform readers by providing visual information"? Absolutely.

Does it "look like what (it is) meant to illustrate" Clearly.

Is it "Poor quality ... (too dark, blurry, etc.) ... too small, hidden in clutter, ambiguous or otherwise not obvious"? No. If it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion!

I am not trying to say "fuck you" to anyone or trying to take a stand against any kind of thinking. Additionally, I have not been a teenager in quite some time, but thanks (I guess). - SummerPhD (talk) 01:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Velocity?

You have statistics on volume and distance, great! But what about average exit velocity? Are there any statistics on that which could be incorporated? --87.151.19.247 (talk) 02:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to research that and get back to us. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, WP:NOR. --87.151.19.247 (talk) 03:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Only about Human ejaculation?

I'm pretty sure other mammals ejaculate too....PizzaOven (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to research that and get back to us. Unless/until we have reliable sources discussing ejaculation in other animals, we have nothing to say. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

There are many resources about this topic - it occurs in most (if not all) mammal species. Jarble (talk) 00:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

WTF?

maybe there should be videos in the different sections of intercourse as well then with a poignant zoom, smh. This is the most embarrassing article wikipedia has produced so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.58.238 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 7 October 2012‎

In addition to on-going, repetitious discussion directly above this (at Talk:Ejaculation#Agreed:_photo_and_video_is_offensive), there is old, repetitious discussion in the "Recurrent topics (links to archived discussions)" pull-down closed to the top. That you don't like it or find it offensive/embarrassing is not relevant. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

It is not about it being offensive, it´s about it being unnecesary, the policy is clear, it is not censored to add quality to the article, this does not. Maybe the picture with 4 frames OK, adds a bit information, the video does not. It is not censored but we should do our best to keep it useful for as much people as possible, this article itself will put a wide array of teenagers out of all the important information the article has... we´re definitely needlessly getting political here to pick on conservatives (which I'm not). --186.50.86.225 (talk) 02:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

This video needs to be deleted

Period. Kevin12xd (talk) 23:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Please read the discussion that has already taken place... Ellipsis... - SummerPhD (talk) 03:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Inaccurate generalization

"Most men could achieve orgasm sooner or delay it until later if they wished to do so.[citation needed] "

This sentence is misleading and should probably be removed. Or at least changed to "It can be possible for some men to influence the speed in which they reach orgasm." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seriozal (talk • contribs) 12:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

•  Done -I've removed it as unsourced and frankly dubious. Thanks for making us notice. --Cyclopia^talk 12:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but . . .

The video needs to be deleted. It is not a positive asset. Have the Wikipedia editors taken leave of their senses? They have taken leave of their sense of discretion. What's the point in such public exhibitionism, really? Rammer (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Please review the extensive discussion on this which has already taken place. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

So I did review it, what do you mean? if it was once discussed and it turned out to be your opinion then we can ever ever ever review it?. I did review the previous discussion, I´m still thinking this as well as most people checking this out. The policy is clear, Wikipedia is not censored to add quality to articles, this does not, and shows very little of us editors in our capacity to be encyclopedic and universal, maybe the pictures could stay, the video is here just to piss conservatives off, and us liberals who have a pedagogical and a universal encyclopedic sense as well. It. Does. Not. Add. Real. Value. --186.50.86.225 (talk) 02:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

If you've read the archived discussions you'll know what to do: start a new request for comment. --Six words (talk) 08:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

This is going to keep happening, over and over, until that exhibitionist's video finally gets deleted. It's never going to stop because it shouldn't be here, and it absolutely doesn't need to be here. There's no video of someone taking a crap on the defecation page, the page for "2 Girls 1 Cup" does not actually contain the shock video in question, and the page for ejaculation doesn't need to literally contain a video of a man blowing his load in order to educate the reader on what an ejaculation is. Master Deusoma (talk) 08:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

There's no video of someone taking a crap on the defecation page - There should be one, in fact. Yes, this page benefits of having a video of the actual biological process which is the topic of the article, and as such needs it. Would you object to a video of flower pollination? I doubt it. So why ejaculation should be different? Because of our irrational, cultural taboos? --Cyclopia^talk 09:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

In one of the discussion areas archived in late 2011, somebody recommended posting a diagram as an alternative for the video. The response was that it did not provide enough detail. How about a medical animation approved upon by a medical community. This video by Animated Biomedical Productions demonstrates the simultaneous movements within the penis and escretory system that the video in question does not provide. I am not against the old video, but it only provides the "what" not "why" or "how" a human ejaculates.GuyHimGuy (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

That looks like an excellent video. Can you get the company to release it under a CC-BY-SA license? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with NeilN, that video would be a great replacement for the one the article has now, if it was free. --Six words (talk) 12:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

It's disgusting. It's some exhibitionist who get's his jollies off knowing that millions of school children are watching him spew like a fire hose. Not needed. 71.212.60.187 (talk) 04:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Its NOT disgusting, it is a vital biological function---and one of the reasons why you and me even exist. "It's some exhibitionist who get's his jollies off knowing that millions of school children are watching him spew like a fire hose." Well thats just you projecting your own judgment. The video isn't sexual and it is clear. The presentation is well done and not lewd. Wikipedia is not censored, and it should not be censored, ever--lest we go into a slippery slope. 42.60.143.79 (talk) 12:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

And here ^^^ we have ever more confusion over the Wikipedian concept of "not censored". Not censored does not mean that anything goes. Please read through Wikipedia:Offensive_material#.22Not_censored.22_does_not_give_special_favor_to_offensive_contentTgm1024 (talk) 01:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing here contradicting the paragraph (that I and other editors are well aware of). If we were discussing ejaculation images in Fluid mechanics, I'd agree wholeheartedly, but we're talking of ejaculation images in the Ejaculation article. That's exactly where they belong.--cyclopia^speak! 16:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Animation

The video and the four-frame image should be replaced by an animation or illustration. Others have complained about this and the responses have been mostly irrational. The exhibitionists who contributed to these (and elsewhere) have no interest in encyclopedia projects regardless of what they and their apologists may claim. They do this for a reason and get personal enjoyment our of it. This is an objective fact. Others with more liberal-minded perspectives may or may not see this and if they do see it they may have a personal agenda about "breaking" what they consider prudish people, often due to culture or religion and what not. From a normal and more objective perspective appropriate to an encyclopedia, an animation would be more neutral and appropriate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.101.166 (talk) 06:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

And again, we first need an animation with the appropriate free-use license before we can discuss replacing what is in the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

How many legs would a lab have if we called its tail a leg? Four. What we call something doesn't change what it is. Labeling your opinion an "objective fact" and a "more normal and objective perspective appropriate to an encyclopedia" does not change that it is your opinion. Calling anyone who doesn't agree with you an "exhibitionist", "apologist", etc. doesn't change that they are simply people who disagree with you.

Objective fact: The video of ejaculation depicts ejaculation. Objective fact: The animation you want someone to create does not depict ejaculation (because it does not exist).

If you feel an animation would be better than the video, create the animation and bring it here for discussion. (How the video is not "neutral" is hard to fathom, "appropriate" is your opinion.) If you feel the animation should be removed without having anything to replace it with, you have a different case to make. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

IP, if you can get the company making this animation to release it under a free-use license, that would be very helpful. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

"The duration of the stimulation leading up to the ejaculation can affect the volume."

Is this in the source given? It isn't in the abstract. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.248.117.26 (talk) 12:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The different fluids that get ejaculated

The reason I looked up the article was to understand the clear part of the ejaculated fluid versus the white part. Sometimes the fluid is entirely white but often it is a mixture of a clear transparent part like the "white" of a raw egg and a white opaque part. My question is why is part clear and part white? If anyone knows the answer I hope they will add that to the article, thanks. Evonj (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Animation?

The video is okay for now, but an animation showing muscle contraction and fluid sources and travel would be great. Perhaps it should also show how the semen would enter a vulva? A similar animation should probably be used for coitus? Such animations would not only describe the event in greater detail, but also give these articles a more encyclopedic aesthetic. (If you you are a hyper-rational Vulcan who wishes to deny the existence of aesthetics, simply disregard that last comment--I don't want to belabor the point.) However, before I start working on it, I just want to gauge interest. If people really don't want animations, or would only substitute an extremely high-quality animation for that video, I won't bother. Please give me your opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C:A200:E5F:74FB:8709:C0DF:DD68 (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for offering to help. See this for the type of animation which could replace the video. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Ejaculation article doesn't actually describe ejaculation sources, mechanisms and processes

Does anyone else find it odd that aside from the opening sentence of the article, no attempt is made to describe what ejaculation is and the organs by which it is achieved? There isn't even a link to the prostate, much less a sentence about it. 75.156.153.74 (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree. An almost personal tone, rather than the scientific objective viewpoint, seems to pervade the article. It seems more like an "advice for adolescents" article than something from a medical textbook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.20.8.226 (talk) 05:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Health issues

"For most men, no detrimental health effects have been determined from ejaculation itself or from frequent ejaculations, though sexual activity in general can have health or psychological consequences." - Both claims need a citation. The second claim seems controversial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.153.237.217 (talk) 11:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect information

Source #5 includes false information: Ejaculation CAN be stopped by practiced contraction of the pubococcygeus muscle. This once again demonstrates the fallacy of wikipedia in that a source has been proven to be false, buy there are no "cite-able" sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleverwisdom (talk • contribs) 14:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

At the moment, all this demonstrates is that you say one of the sources is wrong. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Seconding Inappropriate complaint

Earlier commentators have noted the video and photos are inappropriate for a website that is used as an encyclopedia by people of all ages, including children, and all cultures. It is not the correct decision in this society to show an ejaculating penis on Wikipedia--the cultural norm in our progressive society is to restrict such videos moderately. That moderate restriction absolutely extends to family encyclopedias.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.5.35.16 (talk • contribs) 02:53, August 11, 2015‎

Although the content here is quite graphic, Wikipedia is very clear that it is not censored, but also that it does not give favour to offensive content: the videos and images given are supposed to be informative. Please be more specific as to which images you want removing, and which alternatives you think would be more informative in their place (keeping copyright in mind) – as I can see it, they all serve a purpose on this article, even if the images are somewhat graphic. The Lovejoy defence is not appropriate here, either; if you are concerned about viewing material, there are options to hide an image on Wikipedia. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 13:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I am shocked -- SHOCKED! I tell you -- that there might be material on the internet that we in this society (which one?) would not want children to see. Until today, I thought of the Internet as a carefully policed and heavily padded playroom for small children, supervised by a blue ribbon panel of educators and child psychologists. Next you'll try to tell me that cable TV isn't an educational resource and the street isn't a playground.

I am further shocked that this issue hasn't been raised before.

Long story short: Wikipedia is not censored.

Long story long: We discuss rape, murder, suicide, profanity, mental illness, sacrilege and, yes, human anatomy. We depict just about every part of the human body, even the naughty bits. Given that the society Wikipedia serves is the whole planet, what should we censor? Various "offensive" words (including some references to sex, various sacred names, various types of slurs, etc.)? "Offensive" information (how to build a bomb, hazardous diets, various cults, birth control, drugs, alcohol, etc.)? "Offensive" images (every jot and tittle (pun intended) of human and animal anatomy, sex acts, women who are not wearing veils, men and women with uncovered hair, men and women in physical contact, drawings of various humans and "gods", violence, gore, etc.)? Yes, you just want to remove this one thing (look around, there's plenty more you won't like). Why is your "one" concern more important than all of the others? - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Female ejaculation

Why does this article talk only of male ejaculation? I think for balance it needs to have examples of female ejaculation also. --Rebroad (talk) 09:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME, male ejaculation is generally called "ejaculation" and female ejaculation is generally called "female ejaculation".

As the two are very different phenomena, it makes sense to have them as separate topics. A similar situation exists with erection and clitoral erection. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Seriously...

A big old hairy cock with grey hairs sprouting out. Couldn't you people at least find a decent example that wasn't some creepy old guy? Sick. 71.212.60.187 (talk) 04:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry it's not the cock you dream of. That's not the reason it's there. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, perhaps it's the cock Wikipedia editors dream of - some old fart in his sixties with grey curly-whirlies... Grandpa's cock. Seriously, who needs to look at grandpa's cock? 71.212.60.187 (talk) 04:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Your complaints are off topic. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The quality of an illustrative image is off-topic? Is that YOUR hair old dick? 71.212.60.187 (talk) 05:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The image illustrates the topic. Your complaints are off topic. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

This video and pictures are not useful and yes, they are inappropriate. An animation would be far superior in giving greater detail about what is going on. It is a sorry state that immature people are allowed to destroy an otherwise useful article. Wyoungquist (talk) 06:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

@Wyoungquist: feel free to find or create a freely-licensed animation to help improve this article. DMacks (talk) 07:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

What is immature is the reaction people are having to imagery of the human body engaged in a natural biological function. If this were imagery of wonton violence no one would care, but as soon as you depict the human form it's somehow inappropriate. This image is not being used in a sexual context, it is being used for the purpose of education. Grow up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.170.67 (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

"If this were imagery of wonton violence no one would care," -- Wait, are you talking about brutality against Chinese dumplings or when the dumplings themselves commit the heinous acts? It makes a difference.209.179.21.14 (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Very ignorant Wyoungquist. There's over 6 billion people in the world, many of whom with erectile dysfunction, victims of genital mutilation, or whatnot and have no clue what ejaculation looks like. rock8591 04:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The video is quite inappropriate. I fail to see exactly what educational purpose it fulfills. @Rock8591: Your comment is highly specious. Persons with ED usually have not had ED their whole life, and will have most likely managed to sustain an erection to the point of ejaculation at least once. Secondly, I am unfamiliar with the concept of male genital mutilation. It is not a phenomenon reported on even a small scale, to the degree that it is practically non-existant. The tag about censorship states "Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to ensure a quality article and complete coverage". I do not comprehend how the inclusion of this video ensures that this is a "quality article" and ensures complete coverage. It has been pointed out that more complete coverage could be much more effectively achieved by adding more scientific information akin to that found in a medical textbook. I fail to understand why so much misguided effort is put into retaining this video, while those responsible are much more lackladaisical about the inclusion of real, quality content.

Can anyone cite a mainstream encyclopedia which inludes a graphic video or images of real-life ejaculation? Having a scientific or academic understanding of a subject does not necessarily entail having seen it. For example, one does not have to witness someone having a cardiac arrest in order to have an academic understanding of what a heart attack is.

Someone has commented also that "What is immature is the reaction people are having to imagery of the human body engaged in a natural biological function". In case you didn't know, the reaction that people have to witnessing graphic sexual imagery is not one purely directed by their ideological standpoint or their academic inquisitiveness. Reactions to seeing sexual content are highly emotional by nature, and this is something unavoidable. To try to suppress or deny this emotional reaction in the name of ideology is pointless. (I recommend you stop doing it.) Highly ideological individuals may succeed in doing so, but the average human being across the English-speaking world generally does not harbour strong enough convictions to render this possible. Their reaction will inevitably be emotional, and yes, quite possibly also one of disgust, repulsion, or offense. This has nothing to do with a conservative mindset, puritanicalism, prudishness, religious convictions, or being brainwashed, but is, for reasons very difficult to explain without a detailed knowledge and understanding of the underlying psychology of human sexuality, essentially completely natural and to be expected, even for someone who is mature and experienced and has witnessed it first-hand multiple times. The fact that it is a "biological" function or is "natural" is moot. Defecating is a natural and biological process, but I don't see any videos on wikipedia of human defecation. The exact analogue in this case would be a clear view of the anus from below as a the sphincter opens to allow several big brown turds to drop out. Disgusting? But why, it's a completely natural biological function!

Additionally, the video depicted is not one of ejaculation in its natural, biological context. The biological purpose of ejaculation is to deliver semen to the inside of the vagina so conception can occur. This occurs during coitus, and so is, in its most natural and biological setting, not actually witnessed first hand by anyone. I understand of course that perhaps in more cases than not, ejaculation occurs outside the vagina, but this is beside the point. The video shown is anything but natural.

I think it's very unfortunate that those in favour of removing the video are clobbered down by a horde of self-righteous ideologically driven people. Their pseudo-intellectual argument about this being "educational" and their over-zealous opposition to "censorship" is reaching a level which is farcical. Sometimes rational and clear-headed judgment ought to be used instead of resorting to black-and-white rules of thumb which are clearly imperfect and detrimental to the credibility of this otherwise very useful website. The problem is that those in favour of keeping the content have a seemingly "rational" argument, notwithstanding that it is full of holes, defies common sensibilities, and is clearly driven by warped ideologies. In the absence of any counter-argument whatsoever though, even a weak argument becomes a justification which appears sound. I thoroughly recommend that those in favour of removing such content should develop a more solid intellectual discourse. Fmc47 (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

What you fail to understand is that arguments based on your feelings and opinion are not going to successfully refute one based on fact - this is a depiction of ejaculation. For some reason that makes you uncomfortable, which is why your statement is so emotive. But that in itself isn't sufficient reason to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.9.41.144 (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

"The biological purpose of ejaculation is to deliver semen to the inside of the vagina so conception can occur." " understand of course that perhaps in more cases than not, ejaculation occurs outside the vagina, but this is beside the point."

There is no "biological purpose" for ejaculation. When it happens inside of a vagina and results in conception, then sometimes the species is propagated. Yes, ejaculation certainly occurs outside of the vagina more often than inside, and this is most certainly a valid point. In my particular case, thousands of ejaculations (inside and outside of a vagina) haven't resulted in a single conception. The human body wasn't designed to operate in a particular fashion with a particular result in mind. There is no 'right way' and no 'wrong way' for ejaculation to happen. It just happens. I'm fine with any depiction of a natural biologic process. Get over it. 73.177.133.8 (talk) 01:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Third Complaint - Public Exposure of Hands-On Self Gratification Designed To Shock

The original side-view "hands-off" video was enough. Now we have older men obviously gratifying themselves on wikipedia and then pretending to say that it is normal etc etc, knowing full well that they are weakly deceiving the Talk readers for their own amusement. This is flagrant "flashing". Not only do I expect the newer self gratification, masturbatory footage to be removed, I also recommend that the flasher be warned. The original footage of the side view of NO HANDS ON ejaculation was suitable for wikipedia. This is masturbatory pornography and should be limited to an article on masturbatory pornography and removed from this article. CLEARLY A SELF SATISFYING EXPOSURE BUZZ - "FLASHING". Anything you say denying this will be taken as you mocking the readers and probably giggling whilst you type, "this is very scientific" on your sticky keyboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.18.126.235 (talk) 06:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

If I understand your complaint, you are OK with video of ejaculation, but that he is "older" and actually touched his penis is problematic. You are either trolling or have some very specific rules in mind for showing erect, throbbing penises. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

As I selected the current video, I suppose I should respond here. As the article notes, few men can achieve ejaculatory orgasm without direct stimulation of the penis. Since the video depicts an ejaculation outside the context of sexual intercourse, it is almost certainly the result of masturbation. Per WP:NOTCENSORED, the article should clearly depict this, rather than adopting a prudish approach to the subject matter. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

What was wrong with the original side-on clip, which was far more 'professional-looking'? I don't object to having ejaculation depicted in a video clip, as I have no hang-ups about these kinds of thing, but I do object on the grounds that the current clip looks far less professional. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.14.106 (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

removal of video

I have removed the video in the hope that one more suitable can be found. I think the currently chosen perspective risks unnecessary triggering (i.e. face on) and too reminiscent, given the height of the camera of a man in an "assertive" position. Given that the purpose of a video is to demonstrate the act of ejaculation, a more suitable video would be shot side-on, ideally with the person in a reclined position, and perhaps with the hand not present in the photo so that the focus is not so much on the masturbatory act (which this article is not about).

I also felt removing the video was appropriate at this stage given that the photos (the four segment photo) quite adequately shows the stages of ejaculation in such a way that the video does not provide much additional information. I hope this edit is therefore not considered contentious. --Rebroad (talk) 03:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I realise an argument was made above which was that some men require physical stimulation to achieve ejaculation and therefore the video would be misleading if the hand was not present. If deemed true (which I believe it is not) this can be addressed in the article in writing. There may be some men who require physical contact at the point of ejaculation but I think these men are in the minority, and so some peer reviewed non-original research needs to be presented to make a stronger case for including the hand, IMHO. --Rebroad (talk) 03:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Removal has been proposed and rejected repeatedly. As such, I am restoring the video.

If triggering is an issue, I would suggest that visiting an uncensored encyclopedia article on ejaculation would fall under the rubric of "bad ideas". Wikipedia shows thousands of images that might be triggers for various people: very thin models, aggressive dogs, weapons and a whole lot more.

Your theory that physical stimulation is not necessary for most men to ejaculate is...interesting. Whatever. In this particular video, the guy needed to masturbate, which by all accounts seems to be a quite common activity for men who (apparently) can simply have an orgasm through shear will alone. In any case: Yes, there is a hand in the video. Our photos for Cupcake show wrappers, a plate, a table and a whole lot of other things quite commonly found with cupcakes.

The video was here for some time prior to your removal. It is now your burden to overturn that consensus, not your prerogative to demand justification for the established consensus. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:17, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

After reviewing the manual of style concerning images and the offensive material policy, I also oppose removal. The video illustrates ejaculation more effectively than the image montage alone: for instance, the image could give the impression that ejaculation entails one massive contraction. True, the text explains the process adequately, but saying that a video isn't strictly necessary is not the same as saying that it adds nothing. Your argument about a hypothetical improved clip is also unavailing: we aren't asked to choose between this video and another but between this video and none, and a lack of perfection is not grounds for removal. The depiction of masturbation in this video is harmless, and, as, Summer points out, many quality images appropriately include background. Masturbation is to ejaculation what the tundra is to the current lead image of Elephant. Lastly, while policy forbids deliberately offending readers, see WP:GRATUITOUS, Wikipedia is not a "safe space," and we do not concern ourselves with "triggers." Cf. WP:NOTCENSORED ("Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers . . . is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia."). Rebbing 10:39, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:GRATUITOUS is a guideline, but it states, "Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." So going by arguments that the video helps people to understand ejaculation, the video is fine. Going by arguments that the article is not any less informative, relevant, or accurate without the video, and/or that we don't need videos of sex acts in our sex articles to understand the acts, the video is not fine. I don't oppose or support removal of the video. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

To clarify my earlier comment: While I assume most of our readers are well aware of what ejaculation looks like, I believe that, for the naïve, the short video will add much to understanding in a way that words or still images cannot. Rebbing 04:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The arguments for restoring the video in question only justify inclusion of a video, not that particular video. A case can be made for restoring the previous video, of which the four-photo image is a distillation. It is more professional-looking, less exhibitionistic and has the advantage of consistency with the aforementioned image. Furthermore, in Wikipedia articles on ejaculation in other languages, it is one of the most common videos used for illustrative purposes (if a video is used at all). In my opinion, it's also more informative, showing the ejaculation from an angle that allows us to see more of what is going on. I'd like to see some arguments specifically against reverting to the more professional video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.31.216 (talk) 11:31, 17 January 2017‎ (UTC)

I think the current video is more illustrative of the "standard" way that the process works, so I think that ought to be the one used. But I certainly think "triggering" should never, ever be a reason to exclude material from an article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

This defence raises the question of what is meant by standard way that the process works. If by this you mean that the hand on the penis is more realistic, I would contend that to be objectively illustrative the clip should be illustrating ejaculation itself rather than ways of achieving it. Some people here are objecting on the grounds of triggering or indecency, and whilst I can see why they would feel that way I'm not squeamish about it. My own objection centres on the fact that I feel the current clip is actually less illustrative, because of the full-frontal angle and because the volume of the ejaculate and the distance it achieves is not particularly typical (the other clip was, in my opinion, a far more accurate depiction of the ejaculatory process) and on the fact that it was far more professional (dark background, semen not flying at the camera, well-positioned camera to capture just the right amount of body, etc.). I'm happy for people to disagree about this, but I wouldn't mind a more detailed defence of the current clip's illustrative capacity (beyond merely asserting that it's more illustrative), just as I have detailed here why I think it is less illustrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.158.169 (talk • contribs)

____

References

Large penis = more pleasurable ejaculation?

Is it fair to say that men with large penises feel more pleasure than average/small men when they ejaculate? There are factors such as: the semen has to travel further; more muscle contracting during climax; tighter sensation within vagina/anus; sexual confidence boost due to womens' desire for large penises etc. 172.110.215.159 (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Whatever we say in the article has to be backed with a published, reliable source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this answer from six years ago[11] suggests that a large penis does equate to a more pleasurable ejaculation. Common sense tells me this is true, so perhaps someone with journal access can find suitable references to cite it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.69.98.91 (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Yahoo "Answers" are about on par with Youtube comments. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Could we cite the source immediately following "some hundred" perhaps?

I just feel like the quotation is far enough from the source's citation that it feels like sloppy formatting or writing. @DMacks: 1) you win the award for best entire-edit-summary-euphemism. 2) Should I just leave the some hundreds of men alone? Appreciate your advice. Jasphetamine (talk) 03:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks:) How about shifting the location of the ref marker:

Alfred Kinsey measured the distance of ejaculation, in "some hundreds" of men.[8] In three-quarters of the men tested, the semen exuded[clarification needed] from the penis, "In other males the semen may be propelled from a matter of some inches to a foot or two, or even as far as five or six and (rarely) eight feet".[8]

Now it is clear that this however-many men is the study being reported. I think that would avoid needing to cite [8] again, since it is obvious that "the men tested" (next sentence) are those, and the rest of the next sentence also is clearly part of that report. We can't say any more about the "hundreds" than what the cited ref says. I do not know if Kinsey published this study with any more detail elsewhere. DMacks (talk) 03:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

That is exactly what I had in mind, I just wanted to verify that citing the source in the middle of the information from it would be okay in this instance. I did some poking around and I can't find anything about the study that indicates a firm number of test subjects. With the edit I made changing "of men" to "of men tested" and your solution for shifting the ref I think it is no longer an issue.

I'm somewhat of the feeling that the speed of ejaculation info concluding the paragraph is kind of a trivia-esque dangler but I suppose if it is sourced it is fine, even if it means the section ends in a rather flaccid and unsatisfying style.

Thanks for your help!

Jasphetamine (talk) 03:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Sounds fine. Give me a few minutes and I'll see if I can work something up again for it. DMacks (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding "exuded", the "other males" quote about long distances is a contrast to it. That means it's the medical sense of exude, meaning to ooze comparably non-energetically. Maybe just adding that wikilink would resolve it? The cited ref says "the semen merely exudes...or is propelled with so little force that he liquid is not carried more than a minute distance beyond the tip of the penis", followed immediately by the sentence we currently quote. DMacks (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, that bit isn't quoted, so maybe just drop in that exact language to make it "In three-quarters of men tested, ejaculate 'is propelled with so little force that he liquid is not carried more than a minute distance beyond the tip of the penis'" or Is that too clunky? I tend to err on the side of making articles about these subjects as plain to read as possible. If it was neuroscience, sure link and embed, but a big part of the readership for this page is going to be the "Am I normal?!" demographic. Jasphetamine (talk) 03:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

In the "am I normal" realm, it provides a dose of reality vs what people might see in porn cum shots. DMacks (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

That's why I feel it's valuable to make that information plain as opposed to obfuscated behind a medically defined word like exude. In modern vernacular "exude" is often used in the context of let's say a movie star who exudes gravitas meaning they're spraying gravitas all over the scene. I feel including the full text ensures that the "Am I normal" demo (I should write a WP:AMID essay at this point) will not be confused. Sorry if I wasn't clear earlier. Jasphetamine (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC) Jasphetamine (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

THERE WILL BE NO PORNOGRAPHIC MATERIAL, PERIOD

Depictions is a different thing, but photographies and videos are to be hosted on porn-sites _NOT_ wikipedia. One should be able to peruse any article without risking ones livelihood. There are no biologists researching for a masters degree on pornhub. NO pornographic PHOTO'S/VIDEOS. Users participating in this vandalism will be retroactively reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Addeps3 (talk • contribs) 12:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

This has been well-covered and widely and repeatedly refuted, both per the actual definition of "pornography" and wikipedia's content guidelines and policies. DMacks (talk) 12:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

As repeatedly discussed on this page (see also the talk page archives), Wikipedia is not censored. If you are concerned about "risking your livelihood", perhaps looking up "Ejaculation" at work isn't the best idea. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is not censored, it opens the possibility of someone posting a relevant image at Child pornography. Henry Hannon (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Note that these comments were from several years ago. This comparison is not new, and it's not persuasive. WP:NOTCENSORED does not mean we are obligated to include all content regardless of context or legality. Wikipedia:Offensive material and Wikipedia:Child protection both apply. Grayfell (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The Terms of Use do not allow editors to perform actions which are illegal in the State of California. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

"There are no biologists researching for a masters degree on pornhub" - How do you know? Are masters candidates in biology all complete prudes? Do they all attend Bob Jones University? Henry Hannon (talk) 06:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Per Grayfell , this is an open and shut issue today as it was years ago. It’s allowed on Wikipedia. Been here for a long time. Anyone who is so fixated on removing this damn video should just skip the talk page and try to take it to a noticeboard; see what happens. Jasphetamine (talk) 07:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Fixated? I've noticed that edits to the Ejaculation(talk) page receives rapid response. LOL! Henry Hannon (talk) 07:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

That’s because it’s one of those articles that you have to immediately jump on before it all goes to hell, in this case when you notice a new batch of people pop up after three calm years who want to argue the merits of a god damn orgasm video.Jasphetamine (talk) 07:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't get why this video has been removed. I agree that if you are offended by the material , you either are looking it up against someones request not to, or looking it up in a NSFW environment. JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Addeps3: If you're working in a school with underage pupils, the school should hide Wikipedia images by default. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Ejaculation educational seq 4.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Ejaculation.ogv

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Misleading/false assertion in the "volume" section

I have not made enough edits to Wikipedia to edit this article (as it is semi-protected), but I think I found an issue.

In the "Volume" section: "The duration of the stimulation leading up to the ejaculation can affect the volume.[12]"

The cited paper specifically says in the introduction: For the 292 semen specimens, the time taken to produce a specimen was positively correlated (r=.19, P< .005) with sperm concentration, but there was no evidence it was related to ejaculate volume (r=.08, P=.2). However, there was nevertheless a positive correlation (r=.22, P< .0005) between specimen production time and the total number of sperm in the ejaculate.

and later, in the discussion section of the paper: There was no significant within-subject relationship between time taken to produce the specimen and either ejaculate volume or percent motility.

It would appear that the cited paper is presenting evidence that leads to the exact opposite conclusion of what this article currently states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Absolome (talk • contribs) 15:56, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

More representative ejaculation animation?

Could we include an animation here that is more representative of a commonly expected ejaculation, e.g. what the text says the animation is supposed to illustrate? The currently linked animation seems to be selected exactly for showing an exceptional amount of ejaculate. (Skimming other submissions by the same user, I'm going out on a limb here and say they're less motivated by a will to educate and more by a sense of vanity, but that's more or less beside the point.)

I have absolutely no problem that it's explicit. It just does not give a good impression what most ejaculations look like outside of media optimizing for large quantity and force. -- 2003:C9:4721:1F00:6122:CA0D:E43C:4F5F (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Content section buried in boxes

Currently the contents header box gets sorted into the middle of the boilerplate boxes which makes it very easy to miss. I've tried to put it after or before but the formatting software automatically places it there anyway. -- 2003:C9:4721:1F00:6122:CA0D:E43C:4F5F (talk) 15:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I believe I fixed it. -- 2003:C9:4721:1F00:90AD:F682:6D20:FA63 (talk) 12:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2021

Revert last edit by İsmail Kendir. "Everyone knows what it looks like" is not a good reason to remove media from Wikipedia. Just Some Wikipedian (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done Indeed. DMacks (talk) 14:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

You are aware that we all know what ejaculation is, so let's not try to hinder the case. We don't have to show it for explain a thing as humankind since we discovered how to express ourselves with words. It's already explained by words, so that saves us from showing inappropriate pictures. İsmail Kendir (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:CENSOR. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

OK. This matter has come to an end. Both sides have demonstrated their moral sensibilities. I wish you a good day. İsmail Kendir (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Usually, I don't care about images, but this time the WP:CONSENSUS seems to be keep. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Ejaculation.ogv

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2022

Steve9897 (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Deleting information in one article because information is missing in another article is the first step to delete all information in all articles, i. e. destruction of Wikipedia. In the age of equality, adding a decent video of female ejaculation in that article would be appropriate instead of deleting the video about male ejaculation. WP:NOTCENSORED KEEP --2A01:C22:B9AC:BD00:1059:D545:71B5:34BF (talk) 2A01:C22:B9AC:BD00:1059:D545:71B5:34BF (talk) 09:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

It isn't appropriate to include actual ejaculation videos As for female ejaculation only one real image is used This same decency should be given to male ejaculation as well

I hope the changes will be applied In the age of equality, equal dignity and respect towards both genders are expected Steve9897 (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. See above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2023

Please remove the pictures of the penis ejaculating. Minors have access to this unlike many porn sites. This may create liability for Wikipedia if a minor views this! Thank you for your consideration! 184.59.32.204 (talk) 02:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: This has been discussed many, many times before. As mentioned in the boxes at the top of this talk page, Wikipedia is not censored. Grayfell (talk) 02:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The video of a man ejaculating is unnecessary.

There are already pictures to illustrate a male ejaculation. There is no need to show a real motion in the page. 85.31.131.82 (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

See the discussion in the section just above. Cullen328 (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

A lot of people (different ages) use Wikipedia for research. As I mentioned previously, there are already pictures to illustrate how the male ejaculation works, and therefore a video is redundant. There are other pages made for that type of content and for people that want to see a man ejaculating. I noticed that this has been a usual topic in the talk. Please, review the cersorship policy. 85.31.131.82 (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Stop fragmenting yur own discussion. Asked and answered (and then you yourself continued to discuss) in the section above. The volume of complaint has no relevance to the value of the complaint or whether it has consensus or support in policies and guidelines. DMacks (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

If you already answered everything, then stop responding, that simple. You are not providing coherent arguments but just finding ways to avoid the topic which many people think is important. If you do not want people complaining, then do something to prevent us from doing it. DO NOT reply to this message and so we can leave it, because I have understood that there is no room here for people to give an opinion and look for the best environment to everyone (every age) in WP. 85.31.131.82 (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Oui, vous avez raison, Jimmy Wales est un pornocrate. En plus, c’est un dangereux religieux extrémiste. La preuve : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion Et de surcroît, il appartient aussi à plein de sectes : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secte L’enquête le confirmera, mais ce serait aussi un serial killer : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_killer Moi non plus, je ne me laisse pas duper. J’ai aussi interdit le Larousse à mes enfants : on y expliquait ce qu’était la masturbation, la sodomie et la fellation.

— Patrice

Yes, you are right, Jimmy Wales is a pornocrate. And above, he is a dangerous religious extremist. Evidence: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion Extra, he belongs to many cults: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secte The investigation will confirm it, but maybe he is also a serial killer: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_killer No more, you're not pulling the wool over my eyes. I also prohibited the Larousse to my children: it explains what is masturbation, sodomy and fellatio.

— Patrice

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

the video is unnecessary

the video is of far poorer quality and redundant to the images provided in the article. the video should be removed. ltbdl (talk) 07:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

ltbdl, would you like to propose an alternative video? Or are you instead trying to argue that no video should be included? Are you trying to argue that including a video of ejaculation serves no useful educational purpose? Please elaborate. Cullen328 (talk) 07:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

i do not have an alternative video at hand, but the current video is of very poor quality. i will gladly replace it with something of better quality. ltbdl (talk) 07:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I do not see the quality issues that you see. Please clarify the quality issues. It is simply a brief video of a man ejaculating. If you can propose a better, more instructive freely licensed video, then please feel free to bring it here for discussion. Cullen328 (talk) 07:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

again, i do not have a better video. but the video is grainy, and the images provided are already sufficient for illustration. ltbdl (talk) 07:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

If you believe that a video of a man ejaculating is highly instructive, then I invite you to attach a video (in the appropriate content) of a real women using her vagina for showing how to put a tampon and/or a video of a real vagina discharge/ejaculation. They would also be for educational purpose. 85.31.131.82 (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Those are fine subjects to discuss on those articles' talkpages. It is predicated on having a suitable video file available. That we don't have them there doesn't mean we can't have this here. Seeing (or not seeing) X has no bearing on seeing (or not seeing) Y, unless your whole problem is WP:IDONTLIKEIT or a desire to censor something for the benefit of certain moral codes. DMacks (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. I am curious about this: Does it mean that actually we can have a short video of a couple having sexual intercourse in any term-related page? E.g. A real penetration, real felatio or real cunnilingus. Since we are talking about censorship, is this contemplated in the policy? Let's be congruent. 85.31.131.82 (talk) 20:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Nothing in WP policy appears to prohibit it by default. OF course, this here is not the place to discuss any other article, or to ask for clarification of or changes to WP content policies and guidelines. DMacks (talk) 20:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

It's sleezy. I think we get the point without a guy blowing his wad on camera. Like, really? ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 04:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

The idea is that producing a WP:PAG-based argument, either for or against the video, is very difficult. So, the status quo is unlikely to change. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

It's basically pornography. Does the video significantly improve a reader's knowledge? Doubtful. It comes across as exhibitionist and a bit creepy to have it displayed. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 07:09, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

It may not significantly improve your knowledge of the topic, but you cannot speak for others here. I get why some call this "creepy" but that's not a problem that Wikipedia can solve. The article exists for a broad range of readers, including people who (rightfully) do not want to resort to pornography for medical information, but who are still looking for this info in a visual form. Describing this as 'pornography' is not helpful and makes a lot of unfounded assumptions about why people would view this article. Grayfell (talk) 21:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

If they are looking for the info in visual form, they can go to Ejaculation videos on Wikimedia Commons. KingArmery (talk) 08:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Remove the ejaculation video and photos

Completely thoughtless or intentionally perverse to keep up any video or photos of an actual person ejaculating. Give reasons why it is both neccessary and appropriate that Wikipedia (which is for all ages) needs an actual depiction over a virtual video or drawn illustration.

Any video and photos need to be deleted. You don't need real depictions to understand the subject. That's not how teachers teach sex ed. KingArmery (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

You have brought nothing new to this topic, that has been discussed to death. Please don't waste your and our time in this way. DMacks (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't see an actual answer to what I brought up. If I've said nothing new, copy-paste the reasons why real-life depictions are necessary over virtual or drawn illustration.

Your wasting your own time if you're going to reply but say nothing. If you keep avoiding a valid complaint from people, it will keep being discussed. KingArmery (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

At the top of the page is a box labeled "Recurrent topics (links to archived discussions):" If you are on mobile you maye have to tap "learn more about this page" first. Please click or tap that box to see a list of past discussions of this issue. Grayfell (talk) 01:57, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I looked through the archives. I saw many people in agreement about deleting the video. Some also said it's an inaccurately large depiction of a cum load while others said it's a low quality video. Where is the argument that a real-life depiction is both necessary and appropriate, and how it's better than an animation or drawn illustration?

The video from the Medline Plus page on the "Sperm release pathway" is already more educational than the cumshots on Wikipedia. KingArmery (talk) 04:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Even if that's a better video, Wikipedia still has to obey copyright laws.

While our video is overly explicit, their video is overly prude. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Your argument then is that even if I found/obtained a similar video and it met your copyright needs, you would reject it because it's "overly prude." In other words, your copyright argument isn't your actual argument. Your actual argument is that you wish to have overly explicit material on this Wiki page regardless of better alternatives. What does "overly prude" even mean?

I thought based on WP:OM editors don't choose explicit material for offensiveness sake? You agree it's a better video; if you can edit this page, contact ADAM, Inc. for the right to use the video, or replace the current video with a link to the article and readers can access the better video.

Three people have replied to me. Not one of you have answered my original objection. KingArmery (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

We have answered your original objections many, many, many times in the past, so patience for rehashing this yet again is limited.

If you wish to contact that website about donating the video to Commons, you are just as free to do that as we are. Perhaps Commons:Help:Contents or Commons:Commons:Community portal would be useful, although I do not know of any specific guide or policy related to that.

If that video is donated (or another alternative can be found) you will still have to build consensus for this change. Being too prudish is a valid concern, because as has already been discussed here countless times before, this is still legitimate medical information and Wikipedia isn't censored. Grayfell (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

"Limited patience" - I guess you can now empathize with how the vast amount of people who replied feel about how the few of you keep avoiding the issues brought up.

You haven't even answered my original objection. (What is my original objection and what is your answer?) People bringing up the same objections is valid, especially when they're valid objections.

You contact them. Your argument is the video's "overly prude", so if I contact them and am able to acquire it you will reject it. I can't edit this Wikipedia page to replace the cumshot video, so I can't do anything other than trust you don't think it's "overly prude" than the "overly explicit" cumshot. You haven't defined what "overly prude" even means.

What does WP:VDC mean re: censorship? Considering I can't edit most of this page, that's not democratic; how is this not a form of censorship? What about censoring cp? KingArmery (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, and consider this a formal warning to stop assuming how others will react or edit (WP:AGF, etc.). This are just more examples of your not really demonstrating an understanding of our policies and guidelines. DMacks (talk) 00:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I said it's not democratic. I know that means it's not a democracy.

People aren't willing to answer what "overly prude" means for a video that they said may be better than this "overly explicit" video on this Wiki page. If none of you will answer that, and none of you will answer any of these other questions, I don't know what you want me to ask, DMacks. KingArmery (talk) 06:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Your 'original objection' is: Completely thoughtless or intentionally perverse to keep up any video or photos of an actual person ejaculating. It's not "thoughtless" since clearly a large amount of thought and debate has already gone into including this video. Medical information is not "perverse" just because it is related to sex. You haven't made a real objection here. There are valid encyclopedic reasons to include this information in video form, so dismissing it as "perverse" is a dead-end.

To put it another way, this is an encyclopedia article about ejaculation. A video demonstrating the topic of the article is obviously relevant and useful. Ejaculation is biologically normal, routine, and common. Many find it very unpleasant to look at, and some even consider it "perverse". This is not an excuse to censor the video. If you want to replace this with something else, you need to both propose a specific replacement and also explain why you want to replace it. Just vaguely asserting it shouldn't be in the article isn't even an objection we can answer. Grayfell (talk) 01:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

You can't read any word past the first sentence which both asks for an answer from you and explains what I feel is better?

I can't even reply further with my first objection (which you haven't read in full) because the first answer was to not waste my time.

Now I'm also being told the type of video I thought is a better representation may be better but is "overly prude" than the "overly explicit" video here. No one has defined what "overly prude" and "overly explicit" even means here, especially when we're talking about "[m]edical information". KingArmery (talk) 06:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Since the suggested alternate video is neither in the public domain nor freely licensed, it is a waste of time to discuss the comparison any further. The only alternatives worth discussing are those that can be used freely on Wikipedia. KingArmery began by boldly asserting that Any video and photos need to be deleted but quickly abandoned that absolutist stance. There is not a snowball's chance in hell that all videos and photos will be removed. They are educational. Now, we are discussing alternative videos instead. Well, find a better freely available video and then we will actually have something to discuss. Cullen328 (talk) 07:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Didn't answer me, Cullen328. Please read the *entire* topic, or don't reply.

Both my argument and question is about virtual or drawn...what exactly, Cullen? Will you or others be good faith with me and not skip sentences?

What have I been told is "overly explicit" and what have I been told that, if I could even provide (and may already be better), is "overly prude", without being given definitions?

We already have something to discuss. KingArmery (talk) 08:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I answered you by analyzing the lack of logic that cropped up in this discussion that immediately went astray. The video is educational and no better free alternative has yet been identified. You just didn't like my answer,KingArmery. Cullen328 (talk) 08:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Your green text omits what I said. In an essay, is that a legitimate quote? Let me help add context: Why does Wikipedia need an actual depiction over a virtual video or drawn illustration?

You have not given me a way to find a better alternative because I've already been told that video I mentioned (which you will avoid talking about) may already be better than the "overly explicit" one you use, but it's "overly prude". No one has told me what that even means. It seems you won't answer, Cullen, but it is what it is.

Throw me a bone, Cullen. How do you feel about the Youtube video below and either its current license or you helping me get it so we can use the video to replace the current video on this Wiki page?

"The male orgasm explained". From Healthchannel Youtube channel.

KingArmery (talk) 09:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I see a big copyright sign on the video, so that's usually unusable for Wikipedia. Does the YouTuber even own the copyright for that video? If not, only the owner may release it to being used inside Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Throw you a bone, KingArmery? Here's your bone. I watched both alternative videos that you have suggested and saw that both are copyright restricted. There is no point in further discussion of videos that are illegal to use on Wikipedia. Have you looked at all the freely licensed ejaculation videos on Wikimedia Commons? I would be happy to discuss, in detail, any freely licensed alternative. I will not waste my time analyzing videos that are copyright restricted. Cullen328 (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Anyway, this is not an "essay", so I do not lnow why you are using that term. Please read Wikipedia:Essays. This is a common article talk page discussion. And I am under no obligation to define terms used by another editor. Cullen328 (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I know it's not an essay. You keep skipping the added context I gave you, which further legitimizes the point I made.

You don't need to be obligated to still provide an answer. If the other editor doesn't provide an answer, then how will I ever receive one? KingArmery (talk) 08:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, about 50 bones (feel free to correct how many) of dudes masturbating and then blowing their loads. They show nothing else in the process than nearly the same "medically informative" video on a porn site. Glad to hear how happy you are to discuss any and all in detail. KingArmery (talk) 07:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm still waiting to hear what "overly prude" means. KingArmery (talk) 07:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

We're not WP:Wikilawyering. Just apply common sense. (Weird thing for me to say, since I believe common sense is not common, and it does not always make sense.) tgeorgescu (talk) 04:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

The video is basically pornography; Just apply common sense. KingArmery (talk) 08:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

We get it...you just don't like that people might actually see someone ejaculating and think others don't find any value in it either. But when you learn others have found value in it, you just keep saying the same thing over again. And given others have found value in it, your label of "pornography" fails. And so we're exactly as we started...you have brought nothing new to the table, so nothing changes. DMacks (talk) 08:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm quoting the logic they used, DMacks, as you can notice by the green text. If their logic is invalid, then I'm still waiting to hear what "overly prude" means.

If my "label" of basically pornography (quote me properly next time) fails because others find value in the cumshot video, are you arguing pornography has no value?

You and the other editors who have responded still have not addressed all my objections. (If you want to reply, feel free to quote the sentence that keep being skipped over in the original topic and we'll see if you do understand what it was.) As I told *you* specifically before, I don't know what you want me to ask, DMacks. KingArmery (talk) 09:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

The rules of the game: the video can only be replace with a better, freely licensed video. Otherwise, it won't get deleted. You have to comply with the rules of the game. We don't waste time splitting hairs with WP:Wikilawyering about parsing words and logical shenanigans. Provide a WP:PAG-based argument, thus not an argument based upon your own opinions (or my own opinions), or be gone from this talk page. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, tgeorgescu, I'll ignore some of what you previously said and be OK with the omissions when I've been "quoted" (possibly not by you, but by others).

The cumshots lack diversity; I notice a lot of white cocks which seem to be circumcised. They also seem to be large loads. Any POC cocks, possibly uncircumcised, on Wikimedia Commons that you know of to suggest instead? We can see if there's a consensus on which cumshot is best.

You're the editor; you'll be able to sift through the videos and link the POC ones faster than myself. KingArmery (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not the one who wants to change the status quo. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

An answer I should've expected.

Here's some videos you can watch that show more diversity than just white, circumcised cocks:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Educational_Ejaculation_Demonstration.ogg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:27_year_old_Asian_male_ejaculation.webm

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Masturbation_of_uncut_penis_and_semen_flow.webm

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Uncircumcised_man_ejaculating_(front_view).ogv

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:25-year-old_asian_male_ejaculation.webm KingArmery (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm here for the text, not for the pics/videos. So, I only intervene in discussions about those when a principle is at stake. Otherwise, I'm not bothered about which is the right picture for the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

If you don't care, then have someone who does reply. They can see my argument and watch the examples. KingArmery (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I have read your argument and watched your example videos. I do not believe that they are more informative or less sexually charged than the existing video, therefore I strongly support keeping things the way they are.

Let me just talk plainly here: in the current video it is a decidedly average guy, he's wearing a shirt, we don't see him masturbating, the video resolution is so-so, and the semen is clearly visible as it spurts its merry way out of his damn penis. It is dull, unexciting, and illustrative. Job done. Leave it alone.

If you are absolutely genuinely passionate about equal representation here, I think there could be merit in replacing the four-frame image of an ejaculating white guy penis (however it does appear uncircumcised, an issue you mentioned) with an equivalent image featuring an individual of color guy's penis. That will be a much easier lift.

I gotta say, in these challenging times, bickering about this page is the only constant left in my life. I find it oddly comforting. Jasphetamine (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)