Talk:Peter North (actor)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="text-align:center;"

|- | width="50px" | Articles for deletion || This article was nominated for deletion on March 23, 2006. The result of the discussion was Speedy Keep. |}

What's in a name?[edit]

My beef is with this quote:

"According to pornography scholar Stephen Strager, North's stage name, like that of many other male pornographic actors, 'expresses the controlling man-as-penis metaphor while precisely articulating the masturbator’s big-dick fantasies.'"

I couldn't find anything about Stephen Strager being a "pornography scholar," and I can't seem to find anything about his credentials. I found a book that he wrote regarding men and pornography, but that hardly qualifies him as a scholar. Regardless, this bit of trivia is irrelevant, and reflects one man's opinion that is not supported by any evidence, nor is there any indication that Peter North thought that "deeply" when choosing his name. I'm deleting this ridiculous quote. If anything, the quote doesn't belong here, but rather belongs in an article relating to the philosophy of pornography or sex.

Is the name section of the page really even necessary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.135.9.152 (talk) 11:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

What the hell is a "pornography scholar"?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.115.232 (talk) 04:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a guess: a scholar of pornography perhaps? - SummerPhD (talk) 05:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Count[edit]

The count on gay films exceeds 5. I counted 12 of them he had appeared in when I worked in a video store that "had a back room" in college. I have just checked his website and he doesn't mention any gay films. 71.28.243.246 18:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Any count of how many films a porn star has made is probably dubious, since the producers of these films often reuse and repackage scenes (or outtakes from the same shoot) under different titles and in different compilations. Rodparkes 10:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The nature of Wikipedia (and perhaps its greatest weakness) is that anyone can add or delete information. That's likely the reason for the discrepancy between the number of films he's been in.

Moreover, anyone who thinks North's cumshots are "mediocre" need to rent or download a few more from his heyday. Regardless of how many days he goes without sex, the average man does not produce that much ejaculate. It may not be unique, but it's certainly extremely unusual. (And staying on a good diet will most certainly NOT affect the amount of a man's ejaculate. That's one of many myths, along with the various supplements hocked by people like Peter North on their web sites.)

Lastly, I'm not surprised that North doesn't mention any of his gay videos on his web site (as another person pointed out); he had a habit of denying them in interviews for many years, stating at first that he hadn't done any, then that they used a stand-in for the actual sex acts, and then refusing to talk about them at all. With all the concern about AIDS that runs though the Adult Video Industry, it's no wonder he's so reluctant to come clean about them. Many female Adult Video "stars" have refused to be in scenes with bi or gay-for-pay actors.

I don't fair too badly (all things considered) when it comes to semen volume, but I have seen some of this guy's work and I am truly envious of his ability--this is the man that flows with milk and honey. But seriously, I'm attempting to research his "secret" and other related matters. It may have something to do with "the ropes". Sweetfreek 04:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


    • That's total bullshit. For the last time, Peter North's "ability" is genetic. There is no chemical that will increase the amount of ejaculate. You certainly don't help your case any by refering to it as "volume of sperm load," either. Sperm are the reproductive cells, buddy. Ejaculate is made up mostly of seminal plasma, with very little of it consisting of the actual sperm. Stop offering ridiculous advice on Wikipedia before you hurt someone. All clomiphene citrate does is inhibit the effects of estrogen; it's used by unethical bodybuilders at the end of the steriod cycle in an attempt to restore their natural testosterone and prevent the inevitable "ball shrinkage" that will doubtless occur.

major rewrite needed?[edit]

How could anyone possibly think the "North" part of his name refers to his Canadian heritage? Peter North is an obvious pun for an erection, kinda like Dick E. Normous and Hugh G. Rection. Am I the only one who sees this? The guy who keeps changing it back to the "Great White North" Canadian reference needs to ask around, see what makes more sense to people besides himself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.239.248.1 (talk) 23:40:05, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

a LOT of the stuff in this article just screams vandalism...i mean, seriously, lines like 'Often, his performances are so rigourous and athletic, that his female co-stars are left unable to walk properly for days.' and 'He is also able to produce a large number of spurts when he ejaculates (achieving a world record of 15 shots).' sound very tabloidish - and very un-encyclopediaish. not to mention there's no cite for the 'world record' claim, and the only relevant result in google seems to be this page.

so i'm gonna try to do a quick edit to just get it down to the basic facts...if someone wants to expand it again with verifiable information, that would be great. Felixjones 06:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

regarding his videography - the guy has made way way way way more straight films than gay films, yet the 'videography' created for his entry lists exclusively gay (and one bi) films...some of which are no doubt just rehases of other films already in the list, as the adult film industry loves repackaging the same stuff over and over. anyway, the 'videography' for this entry seems created for the sole purpose of bringing up his gay porn past in a negative light. with the # of films this man has been in, a full videography would be outrageously long and useless, so it should focus on notable films. certainly some of his gay films should be included, but the ratio of gay to straight films listed should be in line with reality.
so, if someone wants to make a REAL videography focused mainly on his notable straight appearances, yet including his few notable gay appearances, that's fine by me. but if it's just gonna be biased and list only gay stuff, i'll continue to remove it. Felixjones 18:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Instead of removing content, why don't you contribute by adding the information that you think is missing, i.e., pick 20 or so of his straight films and add those in? If we started deleting articless about people or events less importnant than people and events about which Wikipedia does not have articles, we'd lose half our content. The article makes it clear that he did way more straight films than gay ones, so the videography is not going to mislead anyone. You can help make this article better by contributing, rather than deleting. Zeromacnoo 13:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

because i don't have the knowledge of his career or the time needed to sort through all his films and pick out the notable ones, not to mention clean up the list of gay films to remove the ones that are just loops of old scenes - every reliable source i've seen said he did five gay films, yet there's probably at least a dozen films in that list.
as for 'You can help make this article better by contributing, rather than deleting.' - i did contribute by removing all the trash from the entry and rewriting it somewhat. and sometimes deletion is needed to better an article. Felixjones 19:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

So we have an article about someone who is known only because he makes porn movies, but the article isn't going to mention a single one (other than the one in the picture) because you don't have the time to add what you think is missing, and you're using that as a reason to delete any other mentions. Nice. Zeromacnoo 13:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

so we have an article about someone who is known only because he makes porn movies, but the article is only going to mention the gay ones - a very very very tiny percentage of the 1000+ films that he's done - 'cause someone wants to present a biased view. nice.
this has nothing to do with me. as i've said repeatedly, i'd love for someone to create a good, representative videography for mr. north. but - as i have also said - i don't have enough knowledge of his career to do it myself. making a good videography doesn't mean just going to imdb and randomly copying 20 titles - many of which would probably just be loops/rehashes anyway - it should be focused on notable movies.
if it bothers you so much, how 'bout you remake your first one to be a bit more comprehensive, instead of focusing exclusively on such a tiny area of his career? Felixjones 23:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The article never suggested that he made only gay films. It was very clear that he made over 1000 films, only a handful of which were gay. How is that biased? I have no desire to present a biased view, and no-one who read the article could get any impression other than that he was predominantly a staright porn star. It is reasonable to assume that the reader will read more than just the list. The videography that appeared before was insufficient, I agree, but deleting it instead of improving it is just plain lazy. There are a lot of articles in Wikipedia that aren't very good, but that can serve as a base of creating a better article. It is not accepted prctice to delete them because they don't meet the standard.

I have nonetheless taken a crack at expanding it to reflect his career better by listing some of the main series in which he has appeared as a regular, and by removing the gay films that were obviously loops. The staright list represents several dozen films. If you want to improve it, please go ahead. At this point, however, if you continue in your deletionism, it is going to be obvious that you are trying to cover up his gay career, rather than improve the article. Zeromacnoo 13:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

It never ceases to amaze me, the lengths to which people will go to express their homophobia...even when it comes to porn stars. I've always wondered why "straight" guys follow the careers of male porn stars in the first place. Seems a bit "gay" to me, don'tcha think?

Penis size[edit]

I edit wikipedia articles, so obviously my penis is HUGE :awesome:

None of you will EVER know this guy's penis size, because none of you will ever get a chance to measure it. This is like arguing over whether Superman or The Flash can run faster. It's all imaginary. Porn stars and their "people" never tell the truth about penis size...they always add inches. Are you people all 15 years old?

Bayareadude 18:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you bothered to even glance at any of the visual analysis and justifications listed below, or view any of the linked images?? If anything, please read my rationale below, written on March 26, 2006. Also, viewing some of the images wouldn't hurt, either. Here are some additional images I found recently, included as a refresher:
http://fapomatic.com/show.php?loc=0813&f=peter_northalexandra_silkdonkey_dicked_photos.jpg Warning: Contains explicit sexual content
http://fapomatic.com/show.php?loc=0813&f=nj_debahiapeter_northmonster_cock02.jpg Warning: Contains explicit sexual content
http://fapomatic.com/show.php?loc=0813&f=sarah_youngsteve_drakepeter_northhead2head.jpg Warning: Contains explicit sexual content
It may be very difficult to accept that North's penis is as large as it is- especially when considering how many standard deviations both his length and girth measurements exceed the average- but this entire section illustrates that fact very convincingly. Some, however, will never be convinced short of an actual ruler shot. And even then...
-Solcis 09:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I really don't need YOU to school me in the wonders of Peter North's penis. I've seen it a million times, in images much clearer and more elucidating than those you linked. You seem to want to believe it's the biggest cock in the world, so I'll leave you to your childish delusion. You might want to look up a guy called "Supreme" who poses for Thugmart.com, then we'll talk. Or how about a kid called Jeff Stryker, and another one called Rick Donovan (you may recognize him as the guy who corn-holed your idol in one of those gays videos he "never did.").

His penis is huge, he has one of the biggest penis's in porn. The reason it sometime looks smaller is due to his tremendous thickness. His penis volume is probably twice that of the average male. In the film 'The Mistress 2' he is given oral and his penis looks HUGE and it is clearly much bigger than Madisons face. The man is a complete stud.

62.56.55.99 11:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

North's penis size of 8.5" in length by 6" in midshaft girth translates into a volume of nearly 25 cubic inches. Since the volume of the average penis is around 11 cubic inches, that makes North's penis roughly 125% larger than average. To be twice as large as average, his penis would only need to be about 22 cubic inches in volume. It's clearly larger than that, especially when the more substantial girth of the base of his penis is taken into consideration. And as for North's penis being much larger than Madison's face, it's seldom NOT noticeably larger than his female co-stars' faces. Please see the links referenced below for some citations of this fact. One last thing: you're right about the size distortion on video. Any object that is very thick when compared to its length, will appear smaller than it really is when being viewed via particular angles in a picture or video. Also, the human eye tends to perceive longer objects as larger than thicker objects when, in reality, the thicker object may be of equal or greater volume than its longer counterpart.

Solcis 05:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

If you think a penis of 8 1/2 inches by 6 inches is "huge," or "one of the biggest in porn," I feel sorry for you. Hell, MINE'S close to that. Any my boyfriend's is a full 2 inches longer and thicker! And there are HUNDREDS of guys in porn who have bigger cocks than that. I think the problem is that you guys are used to watching STRAIGHT porn, where the guys are generally hired off the lot as an afterthought. Gay porn is a little more discriminating.
"I don't see how anyone can possibly believe Peter North's penis to be of average size."
It certainly is not of average size. It's somewhere in the category of 7 to 7 1/2 inches. A size non-porn star women consider huge.
Allow me to get personal, beginning with a caveat: you don't know me, nor does anyone reading this; think very carefully before alleging I'm trying to impress anyone. I'm anonymous, I wish to remain that way, and have nothing to gain by what you may or may not think of my body.
HOWEVER, as a large man with a large penis, and a couple decades experience with many women, I can say with confidence women practically ALWAYS exaggerate the size of a man's penis. Judging by many men's reactions, many of we men do the same. For instance, if you've seen the Pamela Anderson/Tommy Lee video, and think Tommy Lee is 9 or more inches long, you're one of these people who is either tricked by the camera, or has little experience with above-average penis(es). Tommy, obviously larger than North, probably has the coveted 8 1/2" you claim Peter has.
I urge you to read Asia Carrera's website, for a number of reasons:
1. She's a MENSAN (no dummy, she)
2. She says on her site that, "(s)ome of the guys do have monster weenies, but most of them are around 6-7 inches... I personally hate big dicks, and I won't work with anyone 8 or more inches if I can help it."
3. She works with Peter North, and -- putatively -- will continue to do so.
Overall, I'm getting seriously disappointed with Wikipedia as a whole. Seems the facts don't matter when all one needs is lots of time to revert pages and/or become a moderator. Unless something seriously changes, Wikipedia will continue down the path of "the world according to whoever has loads of time on their hands"-pedia.
..|..

I, too, have been blessed with a large penis, which is one of the reasons why I'm a regular contributor to Peter North's Wikipedia entry. I agree that penis size is very often exaggerated... which is why Peter North's penis size has, on many occasions, been estimated to be in excess of 10 inches. Point taken. I never disagreed.

To address your comments regarding Tommy Lee's penis, how can you determine his size relative to Peter North? How can you know he's larger or smaller without additional frames of reference? I've seen Peter perform with hundreds of women. They (their bodies) are my frames of reference. But the video with Tommy Lee only has Pamela Anderson in it. There's just no way you can know how large he is with a lone frame of reference. On a guess, I feel that Tommy's penis is close to the same length of Peter's, but Peter is quite a bit thicker than Tommy. Again, there's no way to know for sure- unless additional Tommy Lee sex tapes with additional women suddenly surface.

Regarding Asia Carrera's comments, take a look at her quote that you included. Then look here at her scene pairings with male pornstars- http://www.iafd.com/matchups.rme/perfid=AsiaC/gender=F According to this page, the largest performers that she had sex with were Julian, Peter North, Rocco Siffredi and Voodoo. Although she performed on three occasions with Rocco, she performed only once each with the other three men. Yes, you read that right: Asia Carrera has performed ONLY ONCE onscreen with Peter North. She has performed with in excess of 50 men onscreen, most of them on repeat occasions. In your quote above, Asia said that "some of the guys do have monster weenies... I won't work with anyone 8 or more inches if I can help it". Just who do you think she's referring to here?? I'll help you: she's certainly not referring to men whom she's appeared in scene after scene with.

I've presented quite a bit of material here, which clearly shows Peter North's penis to be close to 8.5 inches in length and about 6 inches in girth. But you've ignored almost all of it. Yet, you feel that Wikipedia is deteriorating and you fault its contributors. That's slightly ironic and perhaps a wee bit hypocritical, don't you think?

Solcis 07:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


I don't see how anyone can possibly believe Peter North's penis to be of average size. Please see these five links for plenty of comparative pics, which illustrate just how abnormally large his appendage really is:

http://www.yummystars.com/galleries/pn/alicia_rhodes/ Warning: Contains explicit sexual content

http://www.freepornofreeporn.com/free_pic/gallery_018/pornstar/peter_north/pooecopicda.html Warning: Contains explicit sexual content

http://fapomatic.com/show.php?loc=49&f=peter_northvery_very_big01.jpg Warning: Contains explicit sexual content

http://fapomatic.com/show.php?loc=49&f=peter_northvery_very_big02.jpg Warning: Contains explicit sexual content << here it quite clearly shows him measuring his penis to be at just about exactly 8 inches. i think thats about as accurate a measurement as you'll all get! 58.107.85.224 15:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

There are three problems with how he's measuring, though. First off, he's using a tape measure, which is twisted off to the side and not taking into account the full length, and true enormity, of his penis. Second, his pubic hair is taking away a slight bit of length off the measurement. Lastly, he's not holding the measure starting at the center, over the top of his penis, which is also costing him some length. When all these things are taken into account- including all the other pics and examples I've listed in this discussion- I think it's very clear that Peter North's penis is 8.5 inches in length by 6 inches of midshaft girth. What's more, is that these numbers are, in fact, conservative estimates. After all, his base girth is noticeably thicker than the midshaft of his penis.
Solcis 16:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

http://fapomatic.com/show.php?loc=47&f=peter_norths_pov_4tight_stretched_pussies.jpg Warning: Contains explicit sexual content

Considering the measurements of the average woman's wrists, forearms, head and hands, Peter North's listed length of 8.5 inches is a fair, if not somewhat conservative, estimate. The same goes for his reported (midshaft) girth of 6 inches. The last link shows how, in just one video, his penis manages to visibly stretch out the vagina of each one of his co-stars. He's able to do that to the vast majority of female starlets out there. It is simply impossible for a penis of average-sized girth (i.e. 5 inches) to stretch out such a high percentage of vaginas like that. Many videos featuring amateur men with average-sized penises, such as the Shane's World and College Invasion series, bear this out time and again. If your penis has a girth of 5 inches, can you stretch out a vagina like that? I think the answer is obvious.

Concerning North's reported length of 8.5 inches (measured pubic bone-pressed over the top, or dorsal, section of the penis), in the vast majority of his performances his female co-stars are able to grasp his penis with two full hands, leaving uncovered the entire portion of his glans. In many cases even a small portion of the shaft below the glans is left uncovered. Since the size of the average woman's hands is just over 3 inches in width, that easily puts North's penis at a minimum of 8 inches in length. If you don't believe me, have your wife or girlfriend grasp your penis with two hands in the same manner and see how much is left visible. With the average penis, both female hands will cover it entirely and will, in many cases, even exceed its total length. What does that tell you about North's purported length?

Solcis 09:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


What makes North fascinating to watch is his amazing force and amount of ejaculate. A very respectable reason to admire the guy. That he claims such a large penis, however, in the face of obvious contradictory evidence (i.e., just watch one of his movies) diminishes any respect one might've had for the guy.

You only have to point your mouse to penis size to see how absurd North's claim of 8.5 inches long/6 inches around is. Watch a North film for yourself: he is obviously quite large; probably a tad over 7" in length; 5" or little more in girth.

Remember - the length is measured from the top, not from somewhere in the prostate/scrotum region. And, as stated in penis size, the circumference must be measured, and averaged, from three locations. The largest measurement of a North's girth, as in most cases, would be at the base. At this point North' penis might be 6" in diameter, but at best his other two measurements will average just under 5". I.e., "official" actual girth measurement is probably just over 5".

Again, the best way to check a porn star's claims is by watching. Peter North has a larger-than-average penis, but the claim of 8.5"/6" is just plain silly. Keglined 18:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


North's reported size of 8.5 inches only reflects his length. His girth has been reported to be 6 inches around, in conjunction with his length measurement- although I am unable to find the supporting reference.

According to the Lifestyles Condoms study, a penis length of 8.25-9 inches is only found in 0.5% of all males (1 out of every 200 men). 8.5 inches is just under 3 standard deviations beyond the average penis length. The same study also concluded that a penis girth of 6-6.75 inches is slightly more common- found in 1.1% of all males (approximately 1 out of every 100 men). 6 inches is over 1.5 standard deviations beyond the average penis girth.

A combination of both such exceptional length and girth must be quite rare, but it is not clear how rare from the current stats. Regardless, the dimensions of North's penis are quite believable given the size of the population and his size relative to other Caucasian porn actors.

Solcis 14:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, this guy HAS to be a donkey wearing a man suit. Dicks that thick should be illegal. --172.161.14.126 07:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I hesitate to get involved in this inane debate, but let me just say two things. First, 8.5 inches is NOT all that big. I've been with hundreds of guys who were that large or larger, so it's not as rare as you're all making it out to be (and certainly not 1 in 200 like the condom research mentioned above). Second, none of you will ever be able to accurately assess the size of this guy's cock, so why waste so much time, space, and bandwidth dicussing it? I find it curious that a bunch of (presumably) straight men would be so involved in this discussion anyway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.202.65.250 (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Once again, please see the Lifestyles Condoms study, which conclusively proves that Peter North's penile length and girth are both statistically rare. All of the subjects were measured by technicians. Additionally, a whole 25% of the subjects were excluded because they were not able to maintain sufficiently turgid erections for the purposes of accurate measurement. All length measurements were taken from the top, or dorsal, section of the penis, lightly pressing into the pubic bone. Girth measurements were taken from the midshaft portion of the penis. 54% of the participants measured between 5.5 and 6.3 inches in length, with the average coming in at just under 6 inches. A similar percentage measured between 4.7 and 5.1 inches in girth, with the average coming in at slightly under 5 inches. The length of North's penis, at 8.5 inches, is more than 3 standard deviations beyond the average; its girth, at 6 inches, is slightly over 2 standard deviations beyond the average. (FYI, just 1 standard deviation greater than the average can be considered large.) According to this study, only 1 out of every 500 men possesses 8.5 inches or greater in penile length; about 1 out of every 100 men has 6 inches or greater in circumference. Make no mistake about it: anecdotal assertions aside, this kind of size is very, VERY large and just as rare. In fact, it may be even rarer when considering the combination of North's considerable length and girth, instead of only one or the other.
--Solcis 01:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

he is about 8 inches exactly, believe me. we also measured his ejaculate volume, after just two days 'rest' he ejaculates 9ml. he suffers from hyperspermia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.81.232 (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


Anyone saying North's penis is 7 to 7½ inches is way outta line. Mine's 7 and North's is, to me, notably longer. 8½ is a pretty good bet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.55.112.95 (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, who cares?!?![edit]

Of what relevance is North's penis size? Seriously, some people have WAAAY to much time too watch porn on their hands (pun intended) considering how long and, er, impassioned this debate is.

It's just plain silly--and oh, so high school--that this much web-page space has been wasted on such an utterly trivial subject.

And these claims about personal penis size--what could possibly be more un-encyclopedic than editors boasting about their penis size? It's hard for me to imagine anything more juvenile.

The only really relevant fact is that the vagina only has nerve endings in the first third of the canal's length. So a penis much larger than 5 or 6 inches (according to expert findings I've read, the average penis size for American men is 5.25 inches in length) isn't going to do a man much good with the ladies. Besides, the vast majority of orgasms are cause by direct clitoral stimulation. The "vaginal orgasm" is essentially a myth. Asia Carrera's statement is perfectly consonantly with reality from an ex who once told me how uncomfortable sex was with a guy much larger than North's putative "length" and "girth."

But we should keep in mind that these movies are made largely for men (despite that fact that some sociologists have reported that demo which rents the most porn videos are married couples). The statement from the sexologist about the "masturbator's big dick fantasies" is far more encyclopedic than these ad nauseum debates about North's package.

I agree that the man is a cultural phenomenon and is deserving of an article in wikipedia. But the juvenalia that surrounds it--and his organ--are just plain silly.

PainMan (talk) 10:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that this is one of the funniest discussions I have ever seen on wikipedia. I certainly want to read some more posts about "average vagina stretching" ability etc.

NPOV issues[edit]

I would have to contend that "He also has a stunningly muscular, chiseled physique." isn't exactly NPOV. ;) 70.92.174.251 00:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Idiot statement He also has a stunningly muscular, chiseled physique. Besides, he masturbates in a unique way that easily leads to very romantic sexual fantasy. just deleted. Solcis 19:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Supplement Endorsement[edit]

It has been stated that he officially said that his ejaculation amount was due to the supplement he was taking. However, someone wrote "Although according to earlier testimony, Peter North has clearly admitted that his ejaculations have always been of a high volume and that he didn't know it was above the norm until he began his career in the porn industry." Where did they cite this from? Is there any proof or is this merely hear say? If we have proof he stated his ejaculations were by the aid of a supplement and then he states that they have always been of a high volume but he didn't know until he enter the porn industry, then obviously it contradicts one another. Either that, or he (Peter North) is just lying. Either way, it would be nice to see proof of what this person has written.

Mag

I can confirm that North said something to the effect that his ejaculations have always been of a high volume, but he didn't know that until he starting doing porn. I read this a few years ago in a men's magazine. He also said in the same interview that he didn't know his penis was much larger than average until his initiation into the porn industry. This interivew may have been Maxim or FHM, but I really don't remember. I just remember the content. At the same time, though, he's claimed that his pills are responsible for his ejaculation volume. This claim about his pills has been made fairly lately and he has a personal stake in seeing them sell, so it doesn't hold much water. On top of that, no one in the porn industry has yet been able to come close to Peter's ejaculation volume, which would not be the case if his pills actually worked.

Solcis 23:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

He does state that you can view his North Pole series saying that in it he has his guys taking it and that is testimonal right there (in the endorsement). As for no one coming close to his ejaculations, there are several other guys which I've seen come close, if not surpass him. Rodney Moore's ejaculations are on par with his in many people's opinions. There are other random videos which I myself have seen in which the actors within the video produce an amount of semen competitively comparable to Peter North. However, many of these actors are just a fish within the huge sea of the porn industry. Lastly, I have heard there are supplements which one can take to increase his ejaculation amount. That's what male fertility pills do. From what I have also heard there is a supplement which steroids users take when they come off of steroids. Apparently that supplement increases semen quite a bit. I wouldn't deny the existence of a supplement helping one's ejaculation ability. Furhtermore, if indeed this supplement was a hoax, he offers a money back guarantee. Therefore, if it indeed did not work, he would be out of business quickly due to unsatisified people sending it back. One thing is for sure, and that is that he is trying to cash in on his name.

Mag

Rodney Moore's climaxes, although impressive, still don't compare to North's. In one particular video, North ejaculated about 8 or 9 times into a champagne glass. It was an average, or slightly above average climax for him. After the final drops and dribbles, there appeared to be between 1 and 2 tablespoon's worth of semen in the glass. The average man produces between 1 and 3 teaspoons's worth of semen per climax. In other words, if my observation above is correct, North produces roughly 3 times as much semen as the average man. I've seen this in other videos, where Peter and another male porn star would ejaculate at least 7 times per climax, only North's ejaculations appeared much whiter, thicker and voluminous than his co-star- even though both of them would manage around the same number of ejaculations per climax. Other male porn stars, such as Manuel Ferrara, manage to consistently ejaculate 6-9 times per climax, but don't produce the type of voluminous ejaculations that are the mark of Peter North. My own theory about this is that North somehow produces much more seminal fluid than the average man. Seminal fluid is very white and thick in its consistency, compared with the other significant portion of the ejaculate, prostate fluid (which is fairly thin and clear in its consistency). Ferrara and other so-called "heavy" ejaculators appear to produce much more prostate, rather than seminal, fluid. Moore's ejaculations have some of North's thicker, whiter consistency, but they aren't nearly as voluminous.

Solcis 04:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding North's massive and highly unusual ejaculation volume: perhaps he goes as long as he can between ejaculations, thus increasing the volume of ejaculate -- it is verified that the ejaculation volume increases the longer a male abstains from ejaculating. For instance, if a male ejaculates every day the volume of ejaculate would naturally be reduced, only a small or 'regular' amount of ejaculate would spurt forth; but if he waits a few weeks and doesn't ejaculate at all during those weeks, the volume of ejaculate increases by quite a large amount when he does end up ejaculating. This is rather common knowledge.
In short, the longer amount of time that elapses between ejaculations, the more ejaculate there is AND the orgasm is much more intense as well; however, ejaculation does occur quicker if it has been a long time since that person had an orgasm, because clearly someone who has abstained for weeks will be overeager to ejaculate (premature ejaculation) and the urge would be almost uncontrollable. So maybe North goes 2, 3, 4 or even more weeks between ejaculations (abstaining from ejaculation entirely or almost entirely between films) in order to greatly increase the volume and intensity of his ejaculation during his porn scenes. This would take great willpower however (3 or 4 or 5 or even more weeks between ejaculations -- that's monk stuff!), and if he has a partner (?) he would surely want to please him/her and himself on a regular basis. --172.161.199.143 22:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


Please delete the supplement link on sight

I just removed it again, and it doesn't stand up and is not worthy of inclusion. The active ingredient of the spam product I checked and has absolutely nothing to suggest it could increase ejaculate volume. It's just an attempt to cash in with the totally nonsense 'Peter North's secret'.

Let's not include links to penis enlargement pills or other such nonsense here.

87.74.14.78 01:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

According to Tommy Lee's biography, "Tommyland", Tommy says he had met Peter at a party and point blank asked him what he does to acheive the volume of semen that he does. I have Tommy's book, but I am NOT quoting it directly here. In short, Tommy's words were that Peter told him that the day before a video shoot, he eats a bunch of celery - not a lot of celery, but the whole bunch itself. He says that Peter told him that celery contains a ton of water and some sort of stimulant that increases semen production. Tommy further goes on to say that he has yet to try it and see if it actually works. I looked up medicinal properties of celery and found nothing to support Peter's claim. However, along with other various tidbits of trivia, wikipedia does note the following: "Celery contains androsterone, a hormone released through sweat glands said to attract women."

204.62.140.102 20:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


"Like most porn stars, North is famous for having an exceptionally large penis."[edit]

Surely most porn stars are famous for large breasts? ;) Or, to be serious, should the sentence read "Like most MALE porn stars..." Or I am being very naive about the porn business?

yes, you are being very naive.213.140.6.96 19:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Bisexuality[edit]

The term of bisexual is validly outdated. In the adult film industry it is common to have a totally straight male star performing gay scenes. Unfortunately it becomes impossible to deny such acts because of documentation. A better term for Norths sexual preferance and one that describes his current professional attitude is "Elite". Take his denial for what it is, a reflection into his own personal interest. As of current his favorite type of ADULT PARTNER is large breasted and youthful (a choice he shares with almost every other male). His lifestyle is regimented from fitness routines to nutrition practices, all in order to aid in making for a better in-scene performance. Sexual perfomance on demand makes him one of the best and most interesting male adult stars to watch. Devlopment of "hardcore" film is his best work, but he has also shown interest for more cinamatic works.


I'm suprised to see that he listed as a gay porn star even though he is most known for his hetrosexual roles. He may be bi-sexual or someone who really did somthing they werent proud of to get into porn (thus his denial).

He is currently listed as a bisexual porn star which is what he should be since he appeared in both roles according to this article. AFAIK, the term bi-sexual porn stars doesn't mean the person is bi-sexual. It just means he or she has appeared in both homosexual and heterosexual roles. This makes sense since the sexual orientation of porn stars is not that relevant. What is relevant is what roles they've played. Indeed the page say's PN is straight so I don't see any reason to doubt this especially given that as a porn star, I would assume he's unlikely to have the same inhibitations and fears some people may have of admitting their gay. I don't know who told you that bisexual mean and men who did something they're not proud of get in to porn. I don't know of any studies in this area but it would seem fairly unlikely. If you have some peer-reviewed and published studies to show otherwise, you're welcome to include them somewhere in wikipedia. N.B. I would assume he is mostly known for his heterosexual roles to you because you watch heterosexual porn. At a guess, people who only watch gay porn probably couldn't give a damn about his heterosexual roles and primarily know him for his homosexual roles. Nil Einne 22:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
If one makes gay porn that makes them gay. I don't fix cars for a living but I could. That makes me an auto mechanic, but I don't put it on my business card. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.2.12.107 (talk) 18:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think director William Higgins' (and there is no reason to doubt him) recollection about Peter's gay performances clearly suggests the actor's enjoyment for receiving anal sex. At least a "potential" for the enjoyment of gay sex must be concluded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.19.184 (talk) 02:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Peter North is bisexual. Despite what some gay porn producers claim, no actual heterosexual or straight guy is going to do any sort of porn where he has sex with other men at all. It's all just marketing on the part of the porn companies. If you need the modern day equivalent of it see Sean Cody and a lot of other gay porn sites out there. Even if he did start doing gay porns just for the money in the very early 80s why did he keep doing gay and bisexual porns and returning to both gay and bisexual pornography several times between the mid 1990s totaling 14 movies in all? This was all after he got stated in hetero porn BTW. Interviews with those who worked closely with Peter North during his gay and bisexual shoots, such as gay porn director William Higgins, reveal the persistent opinion that he enjoyed the sex he had with men. In an interview with "Manshots" magazine in the early 90s, Higgins states that North continued to "stunt butt" after he left openly performing in gay films. 71.175.29.161 (talk) 05:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The statement "no actual heterosexual or straight guy is going to do any sort of porn where he has sex with other men at all" is ridiculous. That's the kind of statement made by someone who, just because he himself wouldn't do it, thinks it applies to everyone. How can you speak for every "straight guy" on the planet without backing it up with facts, other than your own opinion and those, maybe, of your friends? Statistically completely insignificant to make such a grand statement about every "straight guy" on the planet. Just because, maybe, you wouldn't do it, in no way makes a statement about the entire population valid. Don't confuse "it turns me off to the utmost extent to even think about it" with "nobody would do it". Your statement is the furthest from being encyclopedic. 173.168.177.70 (talk) 22:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Matt Ramsey: Stop Revising Him Out of Existence...[edit]

Why do you people insist on deleting the references to this guy's work in gay porn? I keep adding it in, and someone keeps deleting it each time. The fact is, he was a gay porn actor (Matt Ramsey) first.

The degree of homophobia in Wikipedia is staggering, particularly when dealing with straight male porn stars. Were this a page dealing with a FEMALE porn star, I bet you'd all be rushing to add information about her lesbian/bi videos and proclivities, and speculations about whether she liked it, etc.

  • This isn't about homophobia. Your references likely are being deleted because you haven't cited your sources, a requirement for biographical articles. A2-computist 20:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Upon what do you base that accusation? I provided numerous references (none of which you seem to have bothered to read), and it was still deleted. You people are just a bunch of horney, homophobic ass wads who want to perceive North as heterosexual, so you delete, twist, threaten, and deny your way through it. I've had it with this whole fuckin' thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.209.26 (talk) 04:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.

It's also well known that Peter North is bisexual. So why is his orientation listed as heterosexual? No real hetero guy would do "gay for pay" porn or star in gay porn.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.103.102.92 (talkcontribs) 04:18, June 25, 2007 (UTC)

  • Perhaps he is bisexual, but we cannot use what he does on film as a basis for determining what he does off-screen. Should we list Anthony Hopkins as a psychopath merely because he so brilliantly played Hannibal Lector on screen? If you have proof from a reliable source that his is bisexual, then you can restore it. Tabercil 11:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
    • If Anthony Hopkins had ACTUALLY KILLED PEOPLE when he played Hannibal Lector, you'd have a point. But, what he did was all pretend. Getting fucked in the ass by a man with a 10-inch penis isn't exactly a summer job, ya know. It's something that requires being "into it," and I can't think of a ONE straight guy who would allow it, no matter HOW much money he owed on his credit cards. Bankruptcy is a LOT less painful, sweetie, so stop fooling yourself.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.160.226.95 (talkcontribs) 21:51, June 30, 2007 (UTC)
      • Mayhaps, but let me point out one thing: the effects of anal sex only lasts the time it takes to film it and maybe a day or two later; the effects of bankruptcy last years afterwards. So which is less painful again? And oh, your "why" is pure speculation. Tabercil 15:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Now that you've degraded the point down to basement level, I won't bother to reply...other than to say that YOU are the one who is speculating. Note my recent additions regarding Al's sexual orientation actually have REFERENCES to back them up. Unlike your homophobic rantings which are, indeed, "pure speculation."

just because he's done gay porn don' mean he gay people will do anything for money. he has done gay things but he aint gay. im deleting this soon if nobody stops shitting

        • I hope all you ever do is delete things, because your writing is DEPLORABLE! And if you delete it, I'll just revert it back into the article. It's relevant, it's well documented, and the fact that you don't like it is IRRELEVANT, buddy.

He's definately bi-sexual, wether he indulges in his private life is another matter. Consider this I'm 110% straight but for enough money (and I mean a shed load of money) I would bend over and take it like a champ. However, without Viagra I certainly couldn't get it up to do another man, for the simple reason I don't find other men sexually attractive in any shape or form. Peter North pre- Viagra was able to, so that makes him bi-sexual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.116.201 (talk) 03:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

And as more proof of his bisexuality...I feel exactly the same way about women. I'd throw up on myself and on her if I tried to have sex with a woman. Everything about them sexually absolutely disgusts me. And NO AMOUNT OF MONEY (measured by sheds, or otherwise) would get me to have sex with one. (See how offensive we can be when we try?)

Funny how many people say his sexual orientation doesn't matter, but then turn around and delete every entry that makes him seem like anything but 100% hetero (and 100% the maximum, mathematically, kids). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.215.35 (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Speculation about North's sexual orientation is irrelevant to the Matt Ramsey issue. The details of his gay porn career can and should be presented objectively. His gay porn work is a well-documented aspect of his biography, as is his reluctance to discuss it. Both can be presented without injecting opinion which results in deletion of the entire section. Let's put Matt Ramsey in the entry, reference the films he did as Ramsey, and leave it at that. Candideyam (talk) 05:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm be perfectly fine with the Matt Ramsey information, but it really needs a citation, because it is a biography of a LIVING person and they need citations for things like this. Asarelah (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

Without getting into the subject of his orientation, the end of the biography sections states that North is "openly homosexual", whereas it states the opposite in his "stats" box. I didn't make any corrections myself, since I'm honestly not bothered enough to research whether he's straight or gay.. Extenebris 10:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

    • But you WERE bothered enough to take the time to post a comment about it? Sounds to me like you ARE bothered by it.
      • Naturally I was bothered enough. Why not? Some people have sufficient interest and resources to help maintain consistency in these articles. Some only have one or the other, and make comments or edits to the extent that they feel confident/competent. Others, of course, make no contribution at all, other than filling up the talk pages with anonymous bickering. Extenebris 14:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Um, did you just contradict yourself? On Jan 18, 2007, you said "I'm honestly not bothered enough to research whether he's straight or gay," and then in November of the same year, you suddenly say "Naturally I was bothered enough. Why not?" You're a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.215.35 (talk) 21:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Make up your mind what you're arguing about. Is it the content of the article, or the way people choose to utilize the Discussion pages? You seem to be changing to the latter to avoid the former. The posts I've included about his sexual orientation HAVE reputable sources attached, yet people still choose to delete them because they don't like the information the read in them. As for bickering, you seem to be doing a good deal of that yourself; just because you sign your name to it doesn't make it any more useful or warranted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.209.26 (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I seem to have touched a nerve, though I don't really understand why. Clearly, I was pointing out a discrepancy, not criticizing any individual Wikipedian's input in the article. My comment related to an inconsistency, not to the reputability of your or anyone else's source(s). Simple as that. I see that that part at least has been straightened out now, so this is neither here nor there. Cheers. Extenebris (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Alleged Popularity in Hong Kong[edit]

I've lived over 30 years in Hong Kong and never heard any reference to Peter North being considered a sex symbol there - in fact I doubt if most people there have ever heard of him. Can anyone verify the claim in the article?

Furthermore, I deleted "parts of" before Hong Kong - it's a small place with no local/regional media, so if his shows are in fact shown there, it would be across the whole territory. Rodparkes 03:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I See a Pattern[edit]

If this guy only did gay porn flicks because he was so desperately in need of cash and so far in debt, then why did he do gay porn, then straight, then gay/bisexual again, and back to exclusively straight?

Is anyone else curious to know why, for instance, he starred in numerous gay flicks in the early 80s (1984: Wild Weekend; Young and Naughty. 1983: Boyfriend; Cousins; A Matter of Size; The Newcomers. 1982: Euromen), then starred in numerous straight flicks after that (1984: Sex Busters; Stiff Competition; Talk Dirty to Me, Part III; A Taste of Paradise; Too Good to Be True; Touch of Mischief, etc.), only to return to gay flicks (1984: Like a Horse; The Bigger the Better) then back to several DOZEN straight flicks over the next 5 or 6 years, only to return as Matt Ramsey in 1992's "Valley of the Bi Dolls"?

It seems to me that, someone who starts out in gay porn out of desperation, then worked his way out of it, would only return to having sex with guys if he had fallen on hard times. North was doing GREAT between 1985 and 1992, so why the return to gay/bi films? Unless, of course, he LIKES sex with men, eh?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.160.226.95 (talkcontribs) 22:14, June 30, 2007 (UTC)

  • Again, more speculation. We're interested in facts. Besides, how do we know that the gay films weren't all filmed all during the same time frame but released over the course of two years? Tabercil 15:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Uh, yeah. You again with your "pure speculation" comment on anything that bursts your bubble about this guy being straight. Well, go tell William Higgins, Mike Horner, and Tommy Byron (all of whom have worked with Peter North for YEARS) that they're merely "speculating." In answer to your question, the way we "know the gay films weren't all filmed all [sic] during the same time frame" is that the fucking director (William Higgins) says so. Are you finally bereft of stupid comebacks, or have you got another one up your sleeve? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.202.172.104 (talkcontribs) 04:51, July 3, 2007 (UTC)
  • I couldn't care less if Peter North was straight, gay, or bisexual; hell he could be a bisexual necrophiliac for all it matters. All I want to make sure is that any such post about his sexual orientation is solidly sourced. Wikipedia has an entire official policy that spells out exactly what should and should not go into a biography here; it's called Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. And it is quite clear on the topic of sourcing:
"We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." (emphasis original)
There is absolutely no slack space present in that paragraph. If we are going to put a contentious statement on the Peter North article that effectively says "Peter North is bisexual", the sourcing must be air-tight. Anyone ignoring that sourcing requirement leaves them open to sanction up to and including being denied editing privileges on Wikipedia. Tabercil 03:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if you'd all be taking so much time out of your lives to debate whether or not someone was of Italian decent, or whether someone was 6ft 1in versus 6ft 2in? Doubt it. The only reason this is such a hotly contested topic is that you're all a bunch of homophobes who can't handle the idea that your idol likes to have sex with guys. This illustrates the difference between evidence and proof, the former being something real, and the latter being a malleable personal opinion.

Problem with COCK information[edit]

The information in this article is used as criterion for inclusion in the list at Human penis size#Men famous for their large penis as well as Category:Men with unusually large penis. Now, more than 50 names have been included, and there have been objections raised strong enough that both the list and the category are currently targeted for deletion. Placing this posting uniformly on the talk pages of the articles concerned, I would firstly encourage editors to make sure reliable sourcing is provided to support the claims regarding penis size. Secondly, editors might wish to involve themselves in the discussions taking place at Talk:Human penis size and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. __meco 13:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If Siffredi is 22cm, 21.5 for this guy is ridiculous. I'd say 19; 20cm max, from what I saw on Google Image Search. Fairly average penis. His weight is even more ridiculous. I'm 178cm and 93kg and this guy looks nowhere near me. Muscles really don't weigh that much. I'd say he is about 82kg. But since Wikipedia is interested only in what people say about themselves, we cannot change that. By the way, he used to claim he was 6ft 2. I don't know why the adult sites have changed it to 5ft 10 1/2.Outsid3r 02:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Fairly average penis?!? Did you take a look at even one of the linked images posted above under the Penis Size section? My guess is not, since it's most obvious from those images that North's penis is, at the very least, 8 inches (20 cm) in length. Its ample girth is also very apparent. Seriously, does this (which is not even fully erect) look like a "fairly average penis" in any way, shape or form?? You'll have to forgive me for breaking out in laughter for even having to ask the question.
-Solcis 21:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
"Fairly average" for a porn star. Peter North is no Nacho Vidal and that guy is measured at just 22cm length & 16cm girth. I'm not saying North is 16cm in length. For me he is about 20cm, no more. And I downloaded a couple of his videos (yes, illegally, I'm not going to buy that crap, ever) and I don't need photos to judge his size. I've seen 9in penises rated at 13in and look as big a a woman's head with a good camera angle. From the videos I saw my opinion is steady: 20cm in length by 14.5cm in girth. If he really is 179cm, he must be around 82kg. - Outsid3r (not logged in) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.24.240.83 (talk) 19:55, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

EXPERT NEEDED! what kook wrote this article -- IT IS BADLY written! It needs clean up but among other things an 8.5" penis is only slightly larger than average! In fact I think a penis that would be considered "Large" woudl start around 10.5 inches! Certainly there are many articles on Wikipedia of porn stars and other men claiming much larger than a mere 8.5 inches! An expert on the human penis should be able to verify if 8.5 is large -- as a gay man I certainly would not date a guy who was only in the 8 inch range! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.42.65 (talk) 11:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you or your partners ever measured your penis lengths correctly. You really need to take a look at this right away to see what penis sizes are really like on the planet earth. Any human penis measuring 9 inches or greater is statistically rare in the population. How rare? Like, 1 in 10,000 rare. And that's not also including exceptional penile girth with that kind of length. Such a combination is even rarer. The Lifestyles data clearly shows this, and more than 50 year old data gathered by Kinsey also shows the same kind of proportionality. To properly measure penile length, a ruler must be placed directly over the top, or doral section, of the penis. The ruler is allowed to be lightly pressing into the skin to meet the pubic bone, in an attempt to bypass the pad of fat covering it. That's how all of these scientific studies have been conducted and it is on this basis that Peter North's penis is 8.5 inches in length. The numbers say that only 1 out of every 500 men are endowed with that kind of length or greater, irrespective of exceptional girth. Lastly, on a statistical basis, a penis that is only slightly larger than average would measure a maximum of 6.5-6.75 inches in length (i.e. within 1 standard deviation larger than the norm).
-Solcis 08:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
See, this is the problem with allowing STRAIGHT guys to pontificate on cock size. I've been with PLENTY of guys who have 9 inches or more, and I certainly haven't been with TENS OF THOUSANDS of guys. So your bullshit theory about "1 in 10,000" having a cock that big is just that...BULLSHIT. Peter North may cum a lot, and he may be very successful, but no one in his right mind would say that he has a "1 in 10,000"-sized cock. (And I'm not impressed by your quoting the "Lifestyles Condoms" research, Kinsey, or your use of statistical terms like Standard Deviations. Oh, and the word is "dorsal," not "doral.") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.210.153 (talk) 07:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This article NEEDS Serious clean-up and the tags that some one keeps removing are essential to its clean-up. An expert is needed for the penis size! 8.5 is not a large size at all! also there are many citations missing and it is written like a fan site and really needs to be improved Robin Redford 17:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey! If "Lifestyles Data" clearly show what theory on penis size than you can easily work in the appropriate citation from an expert in the field and we can start cleaning up this article... If you look at nearly every other article on the "List of Gay Porn Performers" you will see claims of 10, 12, 13 inches... hmmmmmmmm that indeed makes 8 look smaller than average (at least for a porn star!) - this article is pathetic! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.86.123.229 (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, please look at the Lifestyles survey, which was conducted by EXPERTS where the subjects were measured directly by "qualified medical staff". You can't get any more legitimate than that. Claims by gay porn performers, their agents, fans, pets, Robin Redford, 76.86.123.229, or anyone else are just that: unscientific claims based on ZERO evidence. Anyone who claims that a penis length of 8.5 inches is anything but huge, is either measuring wrong, or is seriously deluding themselves. Please get a clue.
-Solcis 07:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you work this "Lifestyles survey" into this article and reference it? You can also quote the "experts" by name. Any fan of Male porn stars will argue that 8.5" is about medium-sized as far as a porn star goes though. This article is in dire need of an "expert opinion" Roz Lipschitz 01:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh I can attest to the fact that many females might think that 8.5" in length and 6" in girth is large but FAGZ know otherwise. If there is any question, check out the other gay porn star articles and see that they all claim 9-13 inches in length and 6-8 inches in girth. While 8.5 x 6 is not a small penis it is a far cry from a large one. Though a woman might think so. Peter North is listed as a gay porn star on WP. LaniMakani 22:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Cock size of this Porn Star is average indeed and yes this article is in need of an expert! Also this article DESPERATELY needs citations and footnotes! Fuzzyred 22:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Um does anyone realize that 18.5 feet is two and a half peoples hight. --Metal to the Max! 12:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
There are a lot of problems wit this articel, 1st it is unencyclopedic and full of speculation with out citations to the speculation. Also it is like a ersonal reflection or essay and needs to be cleaned up. Many of th esources do not cite the quotations and it needs numerous additional citations!

86.149.118.138 (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

References and Citations[edit]

Depending on the day, this article is often so riddled with references and citations, that it's almost difficult to read. What I can't understand is why it keeps getting tagged with *needs additional citations*. If anything, I feel that many of the existing citations are redundant or unnecessary, and could easily be removed altogether.

Unencyclopedic is another term that's commonly tossed around here, and though I agree the article is not really something I'd expect to find in an encyclopedia, trashing it would pretty much mean that all other porn celebrity articles should be trashed as well. Such censorship however, wouldn't really be fair to those who like to learn and be entertained.

I think people should just accept the article for what it is. If it offends you, maybe it's time to move your penis-envy on to a different article, and leave this one alone. 142.68.89.66 19:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear!
-Solcis 23:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
This article is EXTREMEMY UNENCYLOPEDIC -- it has quotations from female porn stars but no references as to where they are cited. The stories about how he got his name etc need to be properly cited too. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO HAVE TOO MANY CITATIONS! [citation needed] Fuzzyred (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about?? Every citation I made says EXACTLY when, where and who say what. Please check again and you'll see this is as plain as day. As for your complaining about there not being enough citations, a Wiki admin just vetted this entire article from top to bottom and made all of the necessary adjustments. Let's put this one to bed, please.
-Solcis (talk) 07:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Gay Performer?[edit]

There are no references whatsoever to Peter North's doing any bi or gay work in this article. Yet, North's article is continuously placed on WP's list of Men who Perform in Gay Pornography... Is he straight, bisexual or gay...??? Accrding to the article he is straight and women love him -- honestly, his penis is not big enough to be really big in gay pornography... He really should be catrgorized as a heterosexual performer. Unless, of course, there is a reliable citatioon wher ehe states he is bi-sexual or otherwise... Fuzzyred (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

He did gay porn in the early 80's under the name Matt Ramsey. His IAFD listing includes his gay porn alias. To this day he still has gay fans. One of his gay videos - The Bigger the Better - is still a top seller. He doesn't like to admit it though. I remember an article that ran in Details magazine about a dozen years ago ("A Hard Man is Good to Find") where he was confronted about the gay porn, and he tried to deny it. He chalked it up to Forrest Gump-style FX work. I don't think he's gay or bi though - strictly gay for pay.Reelm (talk) 01:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Well he is on the list of gay performers and really for him to be listed as such there should be references in the article about his work as Matt Ramsay not just a list of films he did under this name. There should also be a reference in a paragraph as to why he did gay and straight films and as to whether he is bi-sexual or straight in real life - - if he indeed has gay fans, there should be no problem finding reliable sources to cite. I have followed gay porn fo rover 35 years and I never ever heard of him until I found this article on WP -- a porn star in the gay world is usually forgotten after 5 years though. Fuzzyred (talk) 16:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Would this product review for one of his first gay videos (Cousins) meet WP's standards for reliable sources? Or there's this link to the video Peter North is the Incredible Matt Ramsey. Reelm (talk) 17:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here's a more reliable source that addresses this issue. It was recently posted at AVN:

CHICAGO - Rick "Humongous" Donovan, known for his 10-inch penis and for famously topping Peter North early in his career, will be the subject of Bijou Theater's monthly Spotlight Series when it continues Jan. 14-16.

...snip...

Films slated for the series are Heroes (NOVA Productions), The Bigger the Better (which includes the infamous scene with North, who used the name Matt Ramsey) and Dynastud (VCA).

A few other sources can be found here. He's also mentioned in this article about gay-for-pay actors and the recent trend of making hetero porn for gay audiences:

(G)ay-for-pay stars (men who take money to act gay but retain industry respect because they can return to their “normal,” straight lives) in the brick-and-mortar porn world have blossomed since the trend began in the early 1980s with directors like Matt Sterling and William Higgins and XXX blockbusters like Cousins, Big Guns, and The Bigger the Better. Featuring hetero studs like Ryan Idol, Rick Donovan, and Matt Ramsey (later “reborn” as straight superstar Peter North), these all-male movies paved the way for oft-ignored straight men to become “stars”—and coined the terms “top” (assertive) and “bottom” (passive) roles in gay sex. Today, of course, gay-for-pay porn stars are commonplace.

Notice how this article identifies him as a heterosexual. And I'm 100% sure he identified himself as heterosexual when confronted about the gay porn videos. The mere fact that he appeared in gay porn shouldn't be used as an indicator of his offscreen lifestyle.Reelm (talk) 04:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you people as stupid as you seem? I think you're all so desperate to put North into the "straight" category that you're willing to twist logic to do it. Think about it this way: Could YOU have sex with a man for money? Would ANY straight man be able/willing to do that? I think most of you straight guys are probably thinking, "No way!" Yet, to avoid admitting that this guy is bisexual or gay, you're willing to assume that he has some super-human acting ability that makes HIM able to? Pathetic. If a guy isn't in prison or chemically impaired and he has sex with other guys (for money or otherwise), he's not completely "straight." Case closed! Can we finally put this to rest before you homophobes start suggesting pink triangle patches and concentration camps? Jesus!
And another thing, those "straight" guys in the videos mentioned in the above-mentioned article aren't at all straight. I've met some of them at bars in SF, NY, and Los Angeles. They pretend to be straight for the camera. It's a bit like "Victor/Victoria." A gay man, pretending to be a straight man, engaging in gay sex." And you're all stupid enough to fall for it! Do you also believe in the tooth fairy, professional wrestling, and fair elections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.209.26 (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

He's definately bi-sexual, wether he indulges in his private life is another matter. Consider this I'm 110% straight but for enough money (and I mean a shed load of money) I would bend over and take it like a champ. However, without Viagra I certainly couldn't get it up to do another man, for the simple reason I don't find other men sexually attractive in any shape or form. Peter North pre- Viagra was able to, so that makes him bi-sexual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.116.201 (talk) 03:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Peter North is bisexual, so why is he not in this category? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.238.51 (talk) 20:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Appearing in gay pornography is not enough to qualify you to be in the bi category. The biographies of living people rules state that in order for the person to be placed in any LGBT categories, that person must publicly self-identify with the label and it must be relevant to their public lives, and there needs to be a citation. I have yet to see any proof that North self-identifies as a bisexual. You are all entitled to your opinions of the man, but the article itself must follow the rules. The same rules apply to religious categories. Asarelah (talk) 00:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, an argument can be make for gay-for-pay in this circumstance. Barring clear comment from Peter himself, we're best to leave it off. Tabercil (talk) 00:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism of External Links[edit]

Again as stated before earlier on discussions, vandalism is not tolerated. It appears there is a user with the IP of 66.152.79.250 vandalizing a number of pages on here, including this one with previous edits to webcam sites. There is no reason that we should have two links to the same site especially when it is already stated in the main information box. We also do not need other links that are non-relevant to the subject topic. 66.152.79.250, please be aware that editors who persist in such misbehavior are quickly banned from Wikipedia. Thanks. JordanGekko (talk) 11:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What makes matters even more interesting, is when you click the whois for this IP, and quickly discover that it resolves to "Gamma Networking Inc."... the same company that hosts the peternorth.com domain (see whois)... and most likely all the other new URLs being introduced here as well. It would appear that someone at this web-hosting company is attempting to use Wikipedia to drive a higher volume of traffic to their own servers (@ 66.152.92.197), which in turn, most likely relates to higher profit revenue for the company. How unprofessional. Without a doubt, I firmly believe it's a safe bet to label this one as "link-spam vandalism". WikHead (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Meaning of the Name[edit]

An unsigned editor undid my edit from October 10, when I removed the following text from the opening paragraph:

Like many pornographic stage names, North's name is a pun: "Peter" is a common slang term for a penis,[5][6][7][8] so "Peter North" most likely refers to an erection.[8] It could also refer to the fact that he's a Canadian (Northern) porn star. According to pornography scholar Stephen Strager, North's stage name, like that of many other male pornographic actors, "expresses the controlling man-as-penis metaphor while precisely articulating the masturbator’s big-dick fantasies."[9] The name "North" may also refer to his Canadian or northern roots.[10]

This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and in my opinion people looking for basic information about Peter North would no be interested in theories about possible origins of his name. I removed the text again and I opening the discussion about its possible inclusion. I am specially interested in the opinion of the unsigned editor that undid my edit without a comment. UltraEdit (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

IMO, I think the text should be replaced, and reworded if necessary. It's a well referenced piece, and far more encyclopedic (for example) than a line below that states "he's circumcised" (using only a faceless photo as a reference)... THAT particular statement adds absolutely nothing to the article whatsoever, referenced or otherwise. Portions of the removed text in question, have been disputed and replaced, and even riddled with fact-tags in the past, which have all since been referenced, and have survived ongoing stable versions of the article for quite some time. Without its replacement, this article is probably in need of a banner warning that the lead section is too short. -- WikHead (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I added a summarized version of the previous text - see what you think. UltraEdit (talk) 15:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, I removed the information about the circumcision but kept the text about his penis' length. UltraEdit (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Though a bit more rewording (over time) probably wouldn't hurt, it appears that you've fully addressed the specifics of both our concerns. Thank you :) -- WikHead (talk) 10:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I think the opinions about his stage name are highly debatable. And even more doubtful is the next paragraph, 'The main antagonist (a former Nazi officer) in the Finnish comedy film Kummeli: Kultakuume was named Peter North, possibly after the porn actor'. Where's the reference for the naming of this figure? And what's the relevance of it?
Besides, the Strager fragment, while referenced, is pure speculation. It's relatively easy to find out statistically if male porn actors more often call themselves 'Peter' (or 'Dick', for that matter) than other actors or pseudonymicals in general. But 'North' is only a cardinal direction, a neutral word in itself. 'North' points to Canada, but not to sex. Both highly improbable speculations should go. Glatisant (talk) 16:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I compared the name with the other names of male pornographic actors on Wikipedia. There are 238 biographies at the moment. There's only one 'Peter', furthermore 3 actors call themselves 'Dick' and 3 'Rod' (names that arguably suggest more of an erection than 'peter', that associates with urinating and petering out). However, there are 7 'John's and 5 'Steve's. Other ordinary, unassociable names abound. So, 'Peter' appears less popular than in the general population. As for last names, there's one 'North', one 'South' and there are two 'West's. Putting one's peter to the north really sounds far fetched for saying 'my penis is stiff'.
If Alden Brown wanted an erotic surname, better options would have been names like Cummings, Gunn, Hammer, Hardcore, Hardmore, Hightower, Iron, Long, Pistol, Schwarzenpecker, Rambone, Snake or Thrust, to sum up the best from the 238. Despite the speculation of Stephen Strager, there appears to be nothing else in the name than a suggestion of Brown's Canadian roots. Glatisant (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This is just my opinion. I think the name "Peter North" is pretty obviously a clever but subtle joke on "penis upwards", meaning an erection, as suggested by many others. "Peter" is a fairly well-known nickname for penis (among many other nicknames) and north is the upwards direction on a map. Many male porn actors choose a stage name like "Dick Long", which could be a real name but obviously refers to their trade; this case is more clever, because it's not so crude and obvious. It sounds innocuous, but when you think about it, it "clicks", almost like the punchline of a joke. When I read the wiki page I was surprised to see that the origin of his stage name is "unclear" and that this explanation, which seems obvious to me, wasn't even suggested as a possibility or speculation; I think it should be. KrisBlueNZ 09:16, 07 March 2012 (UTC)

Performers not actors[edit]

How can he be in the category of "ex-patriot canadian actors"? Yes, I know we call them "porn actors", but that's no more than a euphemism. They are performers, at best "performance artists", but by any serious definition of acting, they aren't actors. BashBrannigan (talk) 07:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Kenny Gallo incident[edit]

I deleted this entire section because A) it is making claims that North was making threats and B) it is entirely sourced to Gallo, thus making this poorly sourced. We would need other third party soures to include this text.Which Hazel? (talk) 07:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I have now added more sources and triangulated the info better.Holanthony (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

North's "output"[edit]

We were having a discussion about North's legendary ejaculate and wondered what Wikipedia had to say on the matter. I'm somewhat surprised this isn't in the article. Has this been discussed before? I assume the sources must be out there, but I wouldn't know where to start looking.Which Hazel? (talk) 07:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Family[edit]

North's family is Catholic and unaware of his profession.[citation needed] LOL Erase this, because there will never be a citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:46:1A05:21D3:B14B:C43C:9B:6D69 (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Rebbing 15:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)