Talk:Erection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Q: I have an issue with a picture on this article.
A: You can post a message on this page about your concern. If you add or remove a photograph from the article, do not be surprised if someone else undoes your edit within hours. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not censored. However from an editorial standpoint, debate about the inclusion or exclusion of certain pictures (or types of pictures) is a permanent fixture of this talk page.
Q: I have an issue with a certain type of penis not being represented in photographs on this article.
A: See answer to previous question.
Q: I would like to upload a picture of my penis.
A: Unfortunately, the realities of supply and demand are not in your favor. There is a large supply of Wikipedia editors willing to photograph their penis in the name of science. However, the demand is much lower. If you feel that your penis is more deserving of placement on the article page, you are free to make your case below.

Disambiguation[edit]

Is it necessary to incude the hadron subatomic particle as a disambiguation? If so, then why not include "hardon" as a disambiguation link from that article? Hanging death erection (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not think it is necessary. I removed it. Whatever404 (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

This page has its conversations archived way too quickly[edit]

Really? A comment from 4 days ago needs to be archived?

Seems like whoever's doing that wants this page to be talk free, to avoid having a discussion about the fact that there's a penis at the top of this page that can get people in trouble at work. Jabberwockgee (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The comment from a few days ago had nothing to do with the photos, and it appeared to be nonsense. Also, WP:NOTCENSORED. Whatever404 (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I do not care what the comment said. I'm also not proposing to remove the picture, although I agree with some people who proposed moving the picture further down to avoid clicking and seeing things like this. I am just complaining that anyone who wishes to participate in this debate would have to post a comment in an archived section where no one would see it or create a new one. Jabberwockgee (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
The discussion was stale, the last time anyone had posted about it was April (over four months ago). Archiving is a normal activity, see WP:AATP. Whatever404 (talk) 22:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
From WP:AATP, "There may be circumstances where it benefits discussions to keep older sections visible on the talk pages, so that newly visiting editors can see which issues have been addressed already and avoid redundant discussion" sounds like a good fit for this page, eh? And at the top of this page, "debate about the inclusion or exclusion of certain pictures (or types of pictures) is a permanent fixture of this talk page." Seems like in this case archiving goes against 2 different aspects. Jabberwockgee (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Everyone knows that there is plenty of FREE pornography on the interent. For the love of God, think about the children that will stumble across the images found on pages such as erection, penis and ejcaculation to name a few. Do the right thing and replace those images with drawings. If not, your selfish perversion getting off on posting this crap only puts the your name and your IP address (the creator of the offending articles) out there for the world to see what kind of scumbag you are. You are NOT creating knowledge for someone to access, you are creating something for you to get off on. Free porn is everywhere. Use this site as it was intended. NOW DO THE RIGHT THING AND REPLACE THOSE IMAGES WITH DRAWINGS!

Ain't happening as showing a bodily function is not pornography. The images are consistent with the images in penis, finger, foot, vagina, arm, breast, etc., etc. Bottom line: it's your responsibility to control what your child see's on the net. --NeilN talkcontribs 16:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Right, but penis, finger, foot, vagina, arm, and breast are body parts. An erection of a penis is a state of being of the penis generally associated with being sexually excited. This is not the same as a body part itself. So, all I desire is for a drawing to be at the top of this page instead of a picture, a la masturbation. On a related note, I wonder what people will think of the sentence, "My construction company will erect a building tomorrow." Jabberwockgee (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Hm... No response. Yet I'm sure if I were to move the photograph further down the page and place a drawing near the top, it would be reverted post haste. Jabberwockgee (talk) 01:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
P.S. I have no children.Jabberwockgee (talk) 01:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
But the article itself is about erection. So it'd be common sense to show an erect penis, no? --NeilN talkcontribs 02:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
According to the dictionary, erection means:
1. the act of erecting.
2. the state of being erected.
3. something erected, as a building or other structure.
4. Physiology. a distended and rigid state of an organ or part containing erectile tissue, esp. of the penis or the clitoris.
As the one this page talks about is the last definition, it seems that having an erect penis at the top would in fact be the last thing someone expects on this page, no? Jabberwockgee (talk) 23:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

So try to get consensus on moving this article to Penile erection and making Erection a disambiguation page. --NeilN talkcontribs 18:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't, but seems someone did. Also, I wanted erect to be a disambiguation page, not erection. Jabberwockgee (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. What exactly do you want to happen to the title of this page? --NeilN talk to me 19:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Nothing. I just wanted erect to not show a penis. Which it no longer does, as it's a disambiguation page now. Jabberwockgee (talk) 04:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

picture[edit]

this should be included I think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Erection_Development.jpg It shows the development in more detail —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.146.66.161 (talk) 13:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This picture is much more informative. 72.83.107.212 (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


Include downward curvature picture.

Downward curvature.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Guporani (talkcontribs) 22:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Erection Homme.jpg[edit]

I've noticed that Image:Erection_Homme.jpg has been replaced by a new file today, Image:Erect&FlacidPenis.jpg. The new image shows two states of erection, as opposed to the previous file which stays true to the caption. Please revert the changes. Tinkba (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done --NeilN talkcontribs 17:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

information about when erections and how occur in early months of life? also non-sexual causes of erection in adults? last, the physiology mentions only the penile physiology and not the neurophysiology of erection —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.23.100 (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Redirection/disambiguation[edit]

I'm not a very frequent contributor, so I have no idea how one would go about fixing this, but would it be possible not to have "hardon" immediately redirect here? I was expecting to see a list so I could pick the article on Fr. John Hardon the deceased theologian (whose first name I had temporarily forgotten), but instead I got a picture of a penis. It was a bit of a surprise.FideliaE (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

As of February 2011, someone else has realized that an erection isn't as much of a primary topic for the name Hardon as originally believed, and the page has been converted to a disambiguation. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 22:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

really?![edit]

okay these penis pictures are so wierd; there are almost no pubic hair, the testicles are so odd and look small (almost as if there is only one testi), also it left me wondering "how old are these people's pictures??" because when flaccid it looks like a baby dick. please, me (13 year old) looks more mature than that.--71.194.154.216 (talk) 02:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)--71.194.154.216 (talk) 02:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. If you want to compare penises then go to a site that offers that. But refrain from posting threads if they don't concern improving the article. ProjectPowerless (talk) 21:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps 71.194.154.216's complaint is that some of the photos used to illustrate subjects of Wikipedia articles might be confused with child pornography, especially in countries where "appears to be" is the law. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 21:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Lead image change[edit]

I propose we change the lead image to File:Uncircumcised-penis-wikipedia.jpg

File:Erection Homme2.jpg looks sleazy like some guy shot it in his bathroom. File:Uncircumcised-penis-wikipedia.jpg was taken in a medical setting by professionals, and it illustrates what an erection is much clearer and simpler.--Cuddlestheboa (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I cannot see that it offers any improvement at all. Instead, the model is abnormal, either shaven or underage. The image that is there now seems completely satisfactory to me. —Stephen (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
The model is 26 at the time of production, a model release and proof of age are available. Is there a place to upload them? File:Erection Homme2.jpg is a gross picture. This page is going to be viewed by people looking to learn, not see sleazy bathroom mirror shots. A professional image raises the quality of the discourse
Also it is obvious that File:Erection Homme2.jpg has his scrotum epilated and pubic hair trimmed very short, so your objections about hair trimming are hypocritical.--Cuddlestheboa (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Then he is shaven, not trimmed, and looks unusually underdeveloped for a mature male. The one we have looks perfectly natural and typical. Your new one offers nothing by way of improvement, but just looks odd. —Stephen (talk) 19:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Picture[edit]

How come File:Erection Development.jpg does show up in the article. Can someone fix that? LittleJerry (talk) 03:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Is that really necessary?[edit]

First off, I'm no puritan where depictions of the human body are concerned. That being said, all the dicks on prominent display are really distracting. I tutor physiology and I consulted this article initially because I wanted to know a detail about the vasodilatory mechanism. However, I didn't even finish reading the article because it looks so ridiculous! I mean, come on! It looks like the vandalism on a bathroom stall door at a sleazy tavern! While I don't agree, I can at least understand why you'd have at least one picture, but do we really need the time lapsed photos of a man's hardening cock? The bottom line is I had some serious physiological questions I wanted to address, and, as it stands, this is clearly not a serious article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.240.56.178 (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC) moved from /FAQ to main talk page. DMacks (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the 6-image composite is quite informative, particularly as it shows how the foreskin should gradually retract upon erection. This itself must be informative for many readers, including circumcised men unsure of how the foreskin behaves and uncircumcised men unsure of how their own foreskin should behave. Its certainly a much more informative image than some of those on similar sexual-related articles! Tbmurray (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but Wikipedia is does not censor or shy away from reality. Wikipedia serves as an information outlet.Eseress (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I am circumsised and recently found out that the foreskin peels back.

72.230.135.196 (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Grower/shower[edit]

Someone65 has added some material relating to slang terminology for penises that grow a lot upon erection (grower) and those that do not (shower). My initial reaction is that WP is not the place for outlining common slang terminology. Other genitals-related articles do not list or describe slang. For example, common slang for circumcised pensises is "cut" and for uncircumcised penises is "intact", but such information is to be found nowhere on WP.

If the consensus is that this material should be reinstated I'm happy to reflect and take a step back, but it's just my initial reaction that such material is not appropriate or necessary in this article, and that it could detract credibility. Tbmurray 15:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Better name for this article[edit]

I would suggest that this article must be renamed to "Penile erection". The reason behind this erection does not always mean penile erection, being a engineer, the word erection is used for any structure, or even we use as "Plant Erection" and "Structure Erection"/ "Scaffolding Erection"/ "Formwork Erection".

The name Erection is very confusing wid this article. Hope you will change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.155.80.144 (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Full Bladder[edit]

After doing some research I found that this is just another urban legend with no scientific basis. I removed the inclusion until further notice. I always thought it was possible, but apparently not. Eseress (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Video?[edit]

Maybe we can include this video under Shape and size section? It is educational, and only neutral video about article subject. --WhiteWriter speaks 21:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what it adds. The development and progress of an erection is illustrated excellently by the existing images in the article. We don't need to add a video filmed by some guy using a handheld camera in his bedroom. --TBM10 (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit suggestion[edit]

I'd like to propose that this image "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Human_penis_comparison.jpg" be added to the erection development section.

File:Human penis comparison.jpg
31-year-old Caucasian man's penis, in flaccid and erect states

I note that previous edit requests have stated that an image like this might be a worthwhile addition.

  • Not done for now: Seems to be redundant with the image already in the article. Monty845 23:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Intelligence[edit]

We do not need pornography on Wikipedia, people are not so stupid as to need fleshy pornographic photos to understand an erection. We are not creating wiki entries for aliens or other creatures, that being said no human should be forced to view an inappropriate photo as what has been posted on Wikipedia for quite some time. It is entirely unrealistic to think that children and kids or teens for that matter won't be subject to view these images by having constant access to the internet. Wikipedia should be an appropriate website.

If someone wants to go see a fleshy detailed photo of a penis they can go look at porno or develop a relationship with a man. Mind you that porno in the USA is 18+ material, however anyone is able to access Wikipedia at any age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schumeda (talkcontribs)

Images like the ones in question have been a part of a huge debate on Wikipedia in the past. However, it is not for you to decide what is and isn't appropriate unilaterally. Wikipedia is not censored. Falcon8765 (TALK) 03:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
A human penis is no less different than a human arm, foot or finger. If someone wants to learn about what an erection is, regardless of their age, Wikipedia has to provide it. I doubt an innocent 10 year old is going to accidentally stumble on to a page concerning human erections. ProjectPowerless (talk) 21:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Two to tango[edit]

It may not be up to any one person however one person did upload those fleshy detailed photos that you like so much and keep re-posting. I've read nothing but complaints about them and I am representing all of the many people who want those photos removed. I am not standing alone in this act. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schumeda (talkcontribs) 03:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of complaints you personally have received, discussion needs to take place here. The original version remains during content disputes. Quit edit warring. Falcon8765 (TALK) 03:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Maturity of information[edit]

It seems as though there has been a lack of maturity towards the word erection thus far on Wikipedia. I'm requesting more information about the word erection and its many meanings outside of the human penis and will also be researching and writing information that I find.

Please don't start new headers with each talk page message, simply use a colon to indent below the message you are replying to. Falcon8765 (TALK) 03:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


This article (Erection) has always been about the penile meaning, with other meanings at other more-specific names. Lately, several editors have changed this article to be about all meanings (or at least added substantial content about at least one other meaning). That seems to be against WP:COMMONNAME and/or WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. We'd need consensus to convert a long-standing article-topic to another, and it's definitely against WP:DAB to pollute one specific meaning's page with that from another. DMacks (talk) 14:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
A penile erection is very different than a building erection. Why is penile erection in the same articule, while clitoral erection in a separate article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Splent (talkcontribs) 00:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Having seen dissent for the "building" content both here and in the article history and no further support here for it, I have undone the inclusion of non-penis meanings. Even before the article itself are links to all the other meanings on their own pages. That's how WP:DISAMBIGUATION works...wikipedia is not a single page on all aspects and meanings of a word, but rather has specific and focused articles on each. This has been the specific meaning at this page for many years. Please seek additional input from other wikipedia editors before changing it (perhaps WP:3O?). DMacks (talk) 04:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

At what age does a boy start having erections?[edit]

(I don't remember) --Jerome Potts (talk) 07:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Second trimester.[1] DMacks (talk) 08:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

In Wikipedia commons ther is an image of a fetal erection. According Masturbation#In_history_and_society in the 17 century nannies masturbated children to get them to sleep!

Dismabiguation[edit]

@Herostratus Regarding my wikilinknk to bulge, i did not know its a prblem to link to a disambiguation page. Im a little confused now. In the edit summary myself and another editor agreed to add it to the body, so i appreciate if you self-revert. Pass a Method talk 10:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Reverts of recent edits[edit]

There are several different points at issue in this Erection article:

  • Is "morning wood" a slang term?
  • Is it the most widely recognized term for the phenomenon of nocturnal penile tumescence? [Edit: or "morning glory"?]
  • If so, are either of the phrases "informally called" or "which is also known as" appropriate to use in reference to NPT?

*Is "Morning wood" an appropriate term for a subsection heading instead of the more formal "Nocturnal penile tumescence"?

  • Is the penis displayed in the left image at the top partially engorged, and should it best be labeled as "flaccid" or "semi-flaccid", or some other term?
  • Given the series of images lower on the page, illustrating the progression from flaccid to full erection, are the two images at the top also useful to readers, or are they unnecessarily redundant? Milkunderwood (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Initial discussion[edit]

Hi Pass a Method--

I notice you have reverted my good faith edits to this article, and I wonder if you would mind explaining your objections to them. I think it would be helpful for us to try to accommodate each other's views, and see if we can reach consensus. Thanks. Milkunderwood (talk) 07:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I reverted you because the term "nocturnal penile tumescence" is mostly used in a medical setting, but rarely used in everyday language. I don't think overly formal language is useful in this setting because wikipedia is read by general people, not primarily by biology graduates. I have added some references to substantiate my claim. Pass a Method talk 07:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
And if you look at the ridiculous move request you made at Nocturnal penile tumescence (suggesting that it be retitled Morning wood), you'll see that "morning wood" is mostly American slang. Hmm, and weren't you just (wrongly) criticizing another editor about restraining text to American norms? Even if commonly used in Britain, "morning wood" is still mostly American slang and the rest of the world is generally unfamiliar with it. You have a lot of learning to do with regard to your Wikipedia editing. Wikipedia does not title its articles to slang names, or even non-slang common names, over the medical names, per WP:MEDMOS#Naming conventions. Take a look at heart attack, for example. But at least "heart attack" is used by people all over the world. "Morning wood" not so much, and it is seriously unencyclopedic to have a section titled that. Your text was also changed because one of the sources you added is being misrepresented, as is common with you. 49.212.13.55 (talk) 08:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Further, if the book references you added moments ago are at Google Books, you should add the url links for them instead of expecting us to trust you. You have proven in the past (the misrepresentation issue I just mentioned, for example) that you cannot be trusted. Access to the urls can also let us know how reliable sources are and give us the information you leave out in your reference-formatting style. 49.212.13.55 (talk) 08:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Thats false. Morning wood is not necessarily slang. I have provided references where it is used in standard english text. Morning wood is also by far the most common description according to google with 15,000,000 google hits [2] compared to only 104,000 hits for "Nocturnal penile tumescence" [3] . Pass a Method talk 10:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
What's false? Everything I said above? No, no. The only thing false may be the references you provide without urls (that you likely use them to support falsehood and misrepresent text). "Morning wood" is slang. How many doctors do you think describe this effect to their patients by saying "Son, it was just morning wood"? Granted, they likely don't describe it to their patients by its medical name either, except for sometimes when initially telling them what it is. But that doesn't stop the fact that "morning wood" is slang, even if shown as an alternate name in a medical book. Even if, let's propose, it were not always slang; it would still be mostly slang. It's not formal English at all. So showing books where it's used does not make it any less slang. It also does not make it any less true that it is mostly American slang. Nice of you to point out that it's common English. Yep, and decades ago, there was a different common name for nocturnal penile tumescence, like one of the editors pointed out in your move discussion. And let's remember that English is not the world's only language. So, yep, the "mostly American/somewhat British" part of my comment stands. And so does the part of my comment where I say that Wikipedia does not name medical articles by their non-medical names. WP:Common name does not apply here, especially since "morning wood" is only common in two parts of the world and likely won't be common in a few more decades or so. Which is why naming a section "Morning wood" is ridiculous. It's just one of various slang terms for nocturnal penile tumescence, that is common now to only a small portion of the world. But I'd be glad to bring the WP:Med project into this. 49.212.13.55 (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
The very first bulletpoint in WP:NAMINGCRITERIA is recogizability. Another bulletpoint is conciseness. You have obviously forgotten about that one. Pass a Method talk 14:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Things just go through the ear and out the other with you, no settling into your head, do they? You were wrong about wanting to rename that article, and I showed why with a Wikipedia link; common lay name does not trump common medical name. I repeat: Your common name isn't even common in most parts of the world, which is why you are also wrong to have a section titled that. You're wrong. You either don't realize that or can't accept it, or simply don't want to admit it because it's me you're debating with. 49.212.13.55 (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Per PaM: "Morning wood is also by far the most common description according to google with 15,000,000 google hits":
Just quickly googling for only a couple of other slang terms, I verify your figure, but also find

  • Morning wood: 15,100,000
  • Piss hard-on: 27,800,000
  • Piss proud: 51,500,000

I think it's unquestionable that "morning wood" is slang:

Slang is very different from the misleading phrasing "informally called".

Down in the section where I had edited the heading from "Morning wood" to "Nocturnal penile tumescence" and you then reverted back to "Morning wood", I had delinked the words boy and teenage, as being commonly understood terms, and instead linked puberty, which I thought might be more helpful. These would seem to me to be uncontroversial edits, but they were also reverted.

Another point that actually bothers me more is the labeling of the left photograph at the top. This shows a penis that is very obviously partly engorged, though not erect. This is why I had relabeled it from "flaccid" to "semi-flaccid". It seems to me that this photograph is very misleading to a young person who might wonder what a normal and completely flaccid penis might look like. In my opinion a different photo would be much more useful as an exemplar of a "flaccid" penis, but if this present photo is kept, it should at least be labeled correctly. For that matter, given that there is a series of much more instructive photographs lower down on the page, I'm not sure why either of the two photos at the top are useful at all.

My overall impression of much of this entire article is that it is assembled and written by adolescents who are somewhat insecure about their own sexuality, and are indulging to an extent in braggadocio. Milkunderwood (talk) 19:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I just linked it according to your wishes. As for the flaccid part, it is debateable whether that penis is partly engorged or not. Not all penises look alike. Pass a Method talk 19:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for agreeing to my suggestions on the linking of those three words. (Also, thanks for earlier finding cites that actually mention the terms referenced.)
I certainly agree that not all penises look alike, but just from my own observations of naked men, that photograph is of a very definitely and undebatable partly-engorged penis, and is misleading to curious youngsters.
Do you care to respond to any of my other points? Milkunderwood (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I disagree it is engorged. It looks like it is semi-erect because its slightly tilted forwards, but that can happen if someone is feeling cold too. Considering the picture was taken outside its pretty likely he was feeling cold. But we should go by what the uploader of the image says, and the uploader said it is flaccid. I agree with the uploader and also think its flaccid.
As for the morning wood part, i have provided sources where it is used in standard english text. But even if it is slang, slang is allowed on wikipedia. Pass a Method talk 21:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
My own observation has been that when a man is cold, his penis usually shrivels and retracts rather than filling. I hadn't mentioned it before, but my impression is that the scrotum also appears to be in an excited state. In any case, the series of photographs lower on the page is much more useful and informative, rendering the top two redundant. I fail to see any need for multiple photos to illustrate the same phenomenon.
I certainly agree that "slang is allowed on wikipedia". I wondered about, but did not edit, the Terminology section, which struck me as being unnecessary as well as incomplete, but ultimately harmless. What I'm objecting to is the phrase "informally called", and also the use of the same slang term for the section heading rather than the more appropriate formal term. You will note that "morning wood" is only one of a number of such slang terms, and from just comparing it quickly to two other alternative terms in a quick Google search, it is by no means the most commonly used. (I am not suggesting that substituting "piss proud" or some other term would be an improvement.) Milkunderwood (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
This image has been in place for 4 years. Hundreds of editors have seen the image, but you're the first to complain, so you're definitely in the minorty.
As a compromise I have changed the wording to "informally called", but am reluctant to change the sub-section heading. Happy editing :) Pass a Method talk 22:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 :-) I'm not at all sure that "which is also known as" is a preferable substitute for "informally called"; I'm inclined to think it's a change for the worse.
I realize the image has been on the page for a long time, but I have not checked through the history for earlier comments or possible deletions. I still believe that it is misleadingly labeled, and also that both of the images at the top of the page are unnecessarily redundant, given the much more illustrative series of images on the page.
Concerning the term "morning wood" as it appears several times in the article, as well as these other issues, I think we have reached an impasse in our efforts to reach consensus. Therefore I suggest we post a Request for Comment from the community at large, as I have now done. Milkunderwood (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Threaded discussion[edit]

Milkunderwood is saying that it may be redundant to have two images essentially showing the same thing, and at least the lower image is better because it shows more stages.

Compromise? A better compromise would be titling the section Morning erections or not having a subesection heading for it at all; it's not like it isn't already covered by the main heading (Spontaneous or random erections). I've taken this issue to WP:Med in the hope that at least one of them weighs in. 49.212.13.55 (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: I took this to WP:Med before the RfC was posted here. 49.212.13.55 (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree a subsection is not necessary. I will delete it now. Pass a Method talk 00:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Concerning the image of the so-called "flaccid" penis, I believe the following brief discussion may be relevant with regard to naive readers who may come to this Wikipedia article on penile erection:

Human penis size#Male self-perception.

Milkunderwood (talk) 03:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

If you think that penis is erect then it may be safe to say you've been watching midget men, LMAO Pass a Method talk 12:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Taking this stuff in order:
    • 'Is "morning wood" a slang term?' – Obviously yes. Calling it "informal" doesn't change that, any more than labeling a cat a "feline" changes its nature in any way. This is not Slangipedia. Other articles on sexuality are not festooned with slang terms. Listing them could be an essentially endless enterprise, and it's not an encylcopedic one. Wiktionary exists for a reason, and tings like that belong in its' entries' "Synonyms" sections.
    • 'Is it the most widely recognized term for the phenomenon of nocturnal penile tumescence? [Edit: or "morning glory"?]' – Obviously noctural penile tumescense is, because its a universal term, while all the slang terms are regional and/or subcultural. We don't have the vagina article at a name like pussy, twat, cunt, snatch, furburger, beaver (anatomy), vag, vadge, cunny, cooch, coochie, cooze, poon tang, or any other "informal" term for a reason. I'm over 40, and have lived in 6 US states, including major cites on both coasts as well as semi-rural areas in the middle, plus Canada, England and Ireland, and I never once encountered "morning glory" as a term for this before coming here. The idea that it is the WP:COMMONNAME is total WP:BOLLOCKS.
    • 'If so, are either of the phrases "informally called" or "which is also known as" appropriate to use in reference to NPT?' – Obviously no, since it isn't informal; it is not only the WP:COMMONNAME, it's also the correct formal term.
    • 'Is the penis displayed in the left image at the top partially engorged, and should it best be labeled as "flaccid" or "semi-flaccid", or some other term?' – Ask a urologist.
    • 'Given the series of images lower on the page, illustrating the progression from flaccid to full erection, are the two images at the top also useful to readers, or are they unnecessarily redundant?' – The progression series is very small. The more detailed photos at top are encyclopedically useful (or something similar would be, modulo the issue above about whether they properly illustrate the subject). The thunbnailish progression pics are also useful, for a different reason.
PS: I will laugh very hard if someone cites WP:DICK in this debate. >;-) — SMcCandish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 07:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Re: "Ask a urologist": I've posted a request; no response yet. Milkunderwood (talk) 08:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
The main reason i object to leaving out "morning wood" is because "nocturnal penile tumescence" is too formal and medicine-oriented, and most likely will never be used in day to day language. Also, "morning wood" is not as vulgar as "piss proud". It is also the most clear definition because it includes the word morning, instead of the less common "nocturnal" or the ambiguous "piss proud". Pass a Method talk 11:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Redirects exist for a reason. There are many, many slang terms for every possible sexual topic, and they all differ by region, by age of the speaker, by subculture, and so on. There is neither a reason to list them all in an article like this, nor to insert your personal favorites out of the many available. This is not Slangipedia and it's not PassaMethoditpedia. It is perfectly normal for articles on medical topics to use medical terms. I don't see any other articles on sexuality topics using some random editors' preferred slang terms in them [actually, fellatio appears to be an exception, and reads like it was written by a snickering 14-year-old as a result]. You've already been told all this by more than one editor at more than one article. "Used in day-to-day-language" is not a requirement for an article title. When there are many contenders for "most common name" – e.g. many different slang terms that each seem "most common" to the individuals who use them, got for which there is no data on widespread usage – and there is a more technical term that is universal and undisputed, that is, by definition, the most common name, in both relevant senses of "common", even if it doesn't personally seem so to any individual used to one or another of the slang terms. — SMcCandish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 06:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • RfC comment: I'm not sure whether there is anything to discuss. "Morning wood" and "morning glory" are both slang terms. The section should be called "nocturnal penile tumescence" and it should note that the subject also informally known under the slang name. Any of "flaccid" or "semi-flaccid" labels together with both images in question should be replaced by a single video sequence; I believe this video should be shot by the most vocal proponent of showing the process in detail as a remedy for this little but really lame war. As the length/importance ratio of this debate is by far more then required for tl;dr, I leave the choice of actor for the aforementioned video to the regular contributors. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Image Shortages[edit]

The current 2 photos on the article.

The two photos of erect penis on this article are both:

  • Curved shape;
  • Angle of erection at the level of 30º–60º, which only presents 30% people per the statistics chart;
  • Intact(not circumcised);
  • Foreskin always fully retracts after erection;
  • View from the left side;
  • Light skinned.

I suggest to replace the second photo with a new one that can show more diversity, will try to find one from Commons. If anyone has a good candidate, please do not hesitate to suggest. Moscowsky-talk- 03:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

New photo suggested.
I recommend this photo. It's not perfect but at least brings more diversities. With the existence of the first photo, the compare between flaccid and erect is no longer necessary. Moscowsky-talk- 02:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
AGREE. The new photograph shows a more common penis. -65.49.68.167 (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The existing images are better. --TBM10 (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The previous image was sending duplicate messages to the reader: Curved shaped; 30~60 degree of erection angle; Flaccid penis with foreskin fully covers the glans. While the new image shows another very common erection, it is less curved, 60~90 degree angle, which can represent more people together with the leading image (which is already curved and 30~60 degree). With the existence of the leading photo, the compare between flaccid and erect is no longer necessary. Also, personally i think the new image looks more focus on the erection instead of other body parts like pubic hair/scrotum, it looks neat and with fine quality. If you check carefully, the previous photo has a very blurry area near the pubic hair region; the edge of the leg (against the white background) is also poorly retouched. Although it has higher resolution, but actually provides no more useful information due to large area of blurry/blank. If you still believe the previous image is better, please explain why you think so. Moscowsky-talk- 23:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This image is not suitable since the pubic hair is shaved like a pornstar. Natural look would be more encyclopedic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.234.254 (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Why does this article only refer to humans?[edit]

I notice that this article is missing information about other species - I think it should have a broader scope overall. Jarble (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

agreed; given the title, it should properly be re-written to discuss penile erection "in general", & then human as a sub-section. Lx 121 (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Curvature does not mean Peyronie's disease[edit]

A (abnormal) curvature in the penis can have many causes (Peyronie's disease, congenital penile curvature, other acquired penile curvatures)

Retraction of the foreskin during intercourse[edit]

In the During Sexual Activity section it is implied that a foreskin needs to be retracted to undergo sexual intercourse. Not only is this unsubstantiated in the article it's also untrue. A simple google search of unretracted foreskin reveals many men discussing how sex can occur without a retracted foreskin. The article also does not seem to factor in how the length and tightness of the foreskin contributes to retraction. 58.96.89.111 (talk) 12:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Urban Dictionary as reliable source?[edit]

An editor is claiming (here and then again here that Urban Dictionary is a usable source for definitions, with an admonition to "see context matters under WP:RS". I didn't look at context matters under WP:RS since Urban Dictionary itself says "All the definitions on Urban Dictionary were written by people just like you. Now's your chance to add your own!" which makes it a wiki and prima facie not a reliable or even usable source. Not wishing to enter an edit war, I invite the editor to state his case more fully here. Herostratus (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Slang terms for erection were added to the lead in an edit of 27 April 2013, by a different editor. Since these are all duplicated in the Terminology section of the article, where they are more appropriate, I have removed the duplication from the lead.
Also see on this Talk page, above at "Reverts of recent edits", a lengthy discussion of the same topic. Milkunderwood (talk) 23:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. No indication that this is not the primary topic for the term. (non-admin closure) Apteva (talk) 02:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


ErectionPenile erection – The word "erection" has numerous unrelated meanings in the English language, so it would be more useful for erection to redirect to erection (disambiguation) than to redirect to this page. Jarble (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

  • No move. We've extensively discussed WP:PRIMARY TOPIC before, and it's been brought up to you before by others...such as at the Pregnancy article (though that guideline was not mentioned by name there, and I instead mentioned the WP:COMMON NAME policy), and you still don't seem to grasp, or rather don't seem to agree with, the notion of a primary topic. The word erection, in common use, means "penile erection" significantly more than it means anything else, and therefore most of our readers are going to be looking for this topic under the title Erection. And if you or anyone else argues that erection means anything else as commonly as it means "penile erection," I suggest you or they research that (by Googling and/or whatever other valid means) so that you or they can see that is not the case. I also agree with DMacks having reverted you on this hatnote matter, and do not understand why Asarelah reverted DMacks on it. It's safe to say that the great majority of our readers are not going to be looking for the topic of building erection when they type in "erection." Furthermore, Erection (disambiguation) redirects to Erect, and currently only three of the listings there have the word erection in them. I will ask WP:MED to weigh in on this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 02:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • No move Erection 99% of the time means penile erection. Most of the rest of the diambigs are for erect. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • No move Use of this word is not ambiguous generally, and the exceptional cases are already handled. It would only inconvenience most users to send them to a dab page when this is the page they seek in almost every case. -- Scray (talk) 11:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Note: An IP split Erection (disambiguation) from Erect; considering that the great majority of the listings there don't have the word erection in their title and rather redirect to another title or are "All pages with titles containing" entries, I don't see how necessary that disambiguation page is. But I'll leave that matter to others to handle. Flyer22 (talk) 13:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Picture (curvature)[edit]

The composite picture showing the stages of erection ends up with a not slightly curved but severely curved penis which a more useful illustration of Pyronies or similar conditions. Surely it would be better to ilustrate this progression with a more natural straight or only slightly curved penis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.238.197 (talkcontribs) 21:39, 27 October 2013‎

I tend to agree. We do have plenty to choose from. --Nigelj (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Angle[edit]

The article provides a table with the distribution of erect penis angles. But what does it tell us, how is the angle measured? Few penises are completely uncurved. Take the image in the article: at the root it has an angle of about 70° while at the glans it has an angle of about 35°. Which of the values is the correct one? Or do I have to draw an imaginary line through root and glans and measure he angle of this line?

I have no access to the original paper. Does anybody know or can look it up in the paper? --31.16.110.207 (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2014[edit]

Penis Erection Dent Down

Erected Penis Bent Down

Finger74 (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

No thanks. --NeilN talk to me 23:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Ability to control an errection[edit]

This is discussed on the first archive briefly, but it was last discussed nearly 10 years ago. Currently there is an unsourced statement saying that men can suppress erections even while being mechanically stimulated. This is contradicted by a later section saying that involuntary erections are commonplace. It's also contradictory to sourced statements in the "Male Rape" page, which indicate that men can get involuntary erections from physical stimulation alone. Suggesting that a man can easily will an erection away implies that it is impossible for a man to be forced to engage in vaginal intercourse. A better way of phrasing it may be: "The cortex can sometimes suppress erection, even in the presence of mechanical stimulation, but conscious efforts to suppress an erection are not always successful." 174.53.23.4 (talk) 08:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Given the contradictory nature, I've softened the statement. Incidentally, it looks like a paper copied the text without attributing Wikipedia. [4] --NeilN talk to me 15:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

penis[edit]

Erecsion Gabrielgarciatgi1 (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Expand[edit]

This article is relatively small considering how notable it is and how many reliable sources cover the topic. One of the ways that an article can be expanded is by giving section titles that are not as restrictive. Sociolect is broad enough to cover linguistics as well as their social usages. Hence my edit. If you revert back to terminology, I am going to assume you might want this article to remain miniscule. Pwolit iets (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I’m unconvinced that the word means what you think it means. Anyway, subheds should reflect the content, not the other way around. If an editor wants to expand a topic, they’re not going to be constrained by what sections already exist. ... richi (hello) 10:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Erection. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2018[edit]

Please change title "erection" to "penile erection"

This article is incorrectly titled "erection" rather than "penile erection." A separate Wikipedia article is titled "Clitoral erection" and the information provided therein exclusively discusses clitoral erections. This article exclusively describes penile erections but is over-broadly titled "erection." I have read the talk page on this issue. The reason given therein for declining to retitle the page is: "The word erection, in common use, means "penile erection" significantly more than it means anything else, and therefore most of our readers are going to be looking for this topic under the title Erection." While I do not disagree with that statement, it appears inconsistent with the Wikipedia page on "Disambiguation," which includes an entire section pertaining to "primary topic" with the subheading "Not what first comes to (your) mind." While it is true that the word "erection" is primarily associated with penile, rather than clitoral, erections, I would hope that anyone reviewing this request understands that this association results from of centuries of the erasure and invalidation of female sexuality, and the continuing lack of education about female sexual sexuality. I request that Wikipedia decline to further legitimize the sexist and inaccurate notion that sexual arousal by definition pertains to the male experience, and that female sexual arousal is somehow a mere subsidiary thereof.

Osita1979 (talk) 08:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC) Osita1979 (talk) 08:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: There is no policy conflict. The disambiguation policy includes the primary topic guideline: A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. Previous discussions here have established a consensus among editors that this usage of the word is much more likely to be searched-for than any other. This has nothing to so with sexual politics, merely language usage. Wikipedia does not lead attempts to change language usage, it follows them. We sometimes use the analogy of economic lagging indicators - just as those indexes and such change after the economy does, Wikipedia usage changes after the language change is widespread. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

"Nitrous Oxide"[edit]

I don't have the ability to edit this article, but I noticed the phrase: "Ultimately, the cause for erectile dysfunction is that not enough Nitrous oxide (NO) is released..." under the erectile dysfunction section.

NO is the correct compound in this case, but NO is nitric oxide, not nitrous oxide--nitrous oxide is N2O. Figured I'd mention that so a confirmed user could make the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cg389 (talkcontribs) 02:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)