Talk:Human penis

Edit request from 173.49.170.130, 20 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} After the second paragraph under ====Circumcision====, add the following, which will serve as a link to a pertinent article, namely "Gomco clamp":

173.49.170.130 (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Not done. The main article Circumcision looks at this area in more detail. Also, the image has already been added to Gomco clamp and Circumcision scar where it is more relevant.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• The Gomco circumcision scar should be used as the picture for the example of the circumcised penis, as it is how the vast majority of circumcised men have had the operation performed. The picture that is currently provided (penis-stitch-scar.jpg) is NOT a typical circumcision; it's really poorly done (with a chainsaw?) and is arguably a demonstration of a bias against circumcision rather than keeping the goal of a neutral stance.

Sources

Here's an interesting source from CNN:

• Landau, Elizabeth. "How the human penis lost its spines." CNN. March 10, 2011.

WhisperToMe (talk) 03:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I've read about it. Interesting to note that monagamy is considered a reason for the human penis' appearance, when I've read otherwise that the relatively large average human penis size probably is due specifically to non-monogamy. Also, I saw a comment noting that the large glans was effectively creating a vacuum, and thus more useful for removing competition sperm than the more primitive spines. But I'm not a biologist. Further comments? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, not more useful perhaps, but efficiently similar. I have no certain info about the subject, myself, though. [1] 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, the main source seems to be a Nature article, and it would probably be better referencing it, directly. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Other languages

Can someone please add the link to the German article?: de:Penis des Menschen Thanks 84.191.59.4 (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. – RobinHood70 ^talk 20:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Past discussions from the Penis article

I know that this article was made to split it away from the Penis article. But that article originally largely dealt with the human penis. This means all the past discussions about the human penis are left there. Is there any way to merge that edit history here, so that we can archive those past discussions at this talk page? I've seen talk page merges similar to that before. Sure, it would take away from the Penis article edit history. But like I stated, most of that edit history belongs to this topic anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 17:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I know there's some ability to merge page history's, but I've never had any reason to do it on the wiki I'm an admin at, so I'm not familiar with what can and can't be done, exactly, or if there are any issues with that. I'd suggest posting on the Admin noticeboard or somewhere similar, since an admin would be required in order to do that. Even if they say there's some reason not to merge the edit histories, if you're just worried about archiving, you could probably just copy and paste the relevant discussions from that page into an archive here and make a note of it at the top of the archive. – RobinHood70 ^talk 21:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, RobinHood70. Yeah, I was thinking of doing the latter part of your comment. Flyer22 (talk) 21:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Abnormality of the penis curvature shown in the Erection Development image

Regarding the description of penis curvature on the wikipedia article about Human penis, the image shows a statistically abnormal case of upward curvature for a common human penis.

Human males in general are several times more likely to have a penis that is no greater than 30 degrees from the horizontal slant when erect than about 80 degrees upwards from the horizontal plane as shown in the image.

To show a penis that is extremely curved upwards can be misleading to the viewers who do not fully understand the statistics into thinking that this is an ideal representative of the human penis.

Therefore, I put forth a sincere request on the behalf of human viewers that an image of a different penis that fits more into the average (median) percentile of erection angle be used to replace the image currently used for depicting Erection Development. It would then be more likely that a male human being feels more comfortable with his own penis after seeing the image on this article that shows a more statistically sound representative of the Homo Sapiens penis rather than something far closer to what is more of an outlier, even if certain parts of the society view the outlier as the pornographic ideal. It would be akin to showing an image of an abnormally large clitoris on the clitoris article accompanied by a statistical chart that does not do much to prevent the effect of a large percentage of female viewers feeling inadequate with their average anatomy.

BoFox (talk) 08:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)BoFox

I would oppose the deletion/replacement of the current image. It is a high-quality image that serves its purpose perfectly and adds to the article. It is not Wikipedia's job to make "most" readers "more comfortable" with their body. Everyone knows that penises come in different shapes and sizes so we are never going to be able to have a one-image-fits-all. --TBM10 (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The picture in question is being used to demonstrate erection development and angle, which it does quite well. Yes, the upwards curvature is statistically unusual, but that's not the focus of the picture. I don't believe the image shown in any way represents a pornographic ideal. Certainly image-Googling "human penis" and the various slang versions thereof shows a variety of penises, most of which are well within statistical norms in terms of curvature.

While I can see the argument of using an image of a more "average" penis, it could also be argued that it's appropriate for an article such as this to present a suitable variety. I think the larger issue is that even if we accept the argument that a different picture is needed, can we find one that's in the public domain or has similarly liberal licensing? – RobinHood70 ^talk 17:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the existing image is abnormal, and it also fails to show variation due to environmental considerations. I so have added another similar image in "variations". High quality images are difficult to obtain, and these are far from ideal, but they are the best available to me for the moment. Timpo (talk) 08:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The insertion of that image has been reverted. It adds nothing of worthy significance to the article and I suspect may just be an attempt to have the photos of six more penises featured on the article. The existing image is not abnormal, it does its job as per the description and is of much better quality and relevance. --TBM10 (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit suggestion

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.

• There is no immediate need to add this, as File:Erection_Development.jpg is in the article. Although Wikipedia is not censored, the images are kept to the minimum necessary for illustration purposes.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• Not done for now: It is not clear why this change is needed, it seems the information is already available in the article. Please develop consensus for a change before reactivating your edit request. Monty₈₄₅ 23:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Racism and/or ethnocentrism

Why all pictures of penises and testis in Wikipedia's articles about the male's body are from white men?
Specially the blonde-haired penis in the infobox.

Perhaps there are not any high-quality, copyright-free, relevant images of black men available on Wikipedia or Wikimedia. The image of male pubic hair on the pubic hair article is of a black man, though. --TBM10 (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a tanned white man!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.166.6.244 (talk) 01:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you could provide some high-quality images of men of other races under a creative commons license. In other words, perhaps you could improve the encyclopedia instead of complaining about its current shortcomings. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't look like racism, but if a non-white person did the necessary then the image would be considered.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

uncircumcised?

The label "Uncircumcised penis" shows a circumcision bias. The name of the organ is "penis". There is no other body organ labeled with the prefix "un" then the name of a body modification. For instance, we don't call a nose un-rhinoplastied if there wasn't a nose job. The word uncircumcised is used in circumcising cultures and does not represent a wold perspective. It's a discriminatory word and does not show a neutral point of view. The word uncircumcised should be dropped. Hypochristy (talk) 12:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with these points and have made some amendments to improve neutrality. --TBM10 (talk) 12:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I've partly reverted these changes, as they introduced some neutrality problems. The caption for File:Circumcised penis labelled.jpg does identify the penis as circumcised, so to be neutral we should also identify uncircumcised penes as such. The alternative would be to identify the circumcision status of neither image. But we wouldn't ordinarily caption a photograph of one black and one white child as "a black boy and a girl", because that would create the non-neutral impression that one requires comment while the other does not. Similarly we shouldn't create the impression that one kind of penis is noteworthy while the other isn't. Jakew (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Hypochristy is right in saying that we wouldn't normally identify unaltered organs as such specifically, but circumcision is still common enough that I think it's appropriate to use it as a descriptor. This, to me, is just like using "a Caucasian person" as opposed to just "a person" in a Caucasian-dominated culture - even in most Caucasian-dominated cultures, there are still enough people of other ethnicities that identifying the person as Caucasian isn't biasing for or against any particular ethnicity, it's simply a descriptor. – RobinHood70 ^talk 22:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Jakew is wrong about neutrality. Calling it an "intact penis" wouldn't be neutral. Calling it a penis is. People are born Caucasian or black and such but no one is born circumcised. It is man made and does not reflect natural anatomy. RobinHood70 is wrong about commonality. Over 80% of the world is not circumcised. This article is about natural anatomy (without defect or modification). The word uncircumcised is discriminating. Hypochristy (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

From the Circumcision article: "Global estimates by the World Health Organization (WHO) suggest that 30 percent of males are circumcised." Roughly one out of three people makes it common. Even if we accepted your figures, 1 out of 5 is still pretty common. I rather doubt, to use your comparison to rhinoplasty, that 1 out of 5 people in the world have had nose jobs. What is it in the article title that makes you think this article is about natural anatomy? The title "Human penis", to me, suggests that the article should cover all aspects of it without presumption. – RobinHood70 ^talk 00:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Commonality is just another way of saying biased. WP is about truth, not cultural relativism. Using the racial comparison above, that's like calling a black person a "non-white." The text should be changed to "intact penis" or simply "penis" since these accurately and without bias describe the natural condition. Frank Koehler (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, while it's a third of men on a global basis, the distribution is uneven, so in some countries the uncircumcised penis is rare, while in others it's the other way around. Consequently in some situations an uncircumcised penis might be more noteworthy than a circumcised one. Regardless, we need to caption images from a neutral perspective, so either we should include both "uncircumcised" and "circumcised" in the respective captions, or we should include neither. Jakew (talk) 16:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

(←) I don't get the link being made between commonality and bias, so I can't respond to that. My problem with "intact" is that that's an even more biased term. It implies that a circumcised penis is "broken", and while many people think of circumcised penises that way, many also do not, and WP is not the place for activism. I think Jakew's point makes sense - either both words should be used, or neither. – RobinHood70 ^talk 17:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed numerous times on the Circumcision talk page.[2] My 2 cents worth is that some people are likely to read POV into the word uncircumcised, even when none is intended.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Word "grove" should be "groove"

Under "Parts," in the last sentence, the word "grove" is used where "groove" belongs.

JonRutherford (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you! – RobinHood70 ^talk 01:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Image problems

The problem with this page is that it is used by young people. As a former teacher, I am acutely aware that boys in societies where nudity is rare and sex education superficial, can have serious misconceptions of what is "normal" and may not know that variations can occur with emotional and environmental considerations, or that viewing angle can affect perception. Such ignorance can have serious consequences. The apparent obsession with 'minimizing gratuitous indecency' is misplaced, although probably all that is needed is a link to [Wikmedia commons] where there is a wide selection of images and animations- which I have been editing but is a work in progress, but I would welcome any private peer review of that media page by anyone via e-mail from anyone - the page can also be edited by established users. Alternatively, to leave a more public message click on Timpo (talk) 10:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I also have a problem with the image. Why did they use such an abnormally small penis in the images? People may see this page and think that that is normal size, but I believe a larger penis should be displayed to portray what is more average. Norbytherobot (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Its the best image available in the public domain on Wikimedia, and it does the job. It's not Wikipedia's role to make men feel more (or less) adequate about the size of their genitals. --TBM10 (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I can agree with that. It just seemed strange at first, like choosing to use a picture of a pygmy hippopotamus on the main hippopotamus page. But based on the sorry images in the public Wiki domain, I can see why they might've gone with that one. Norbytherobot (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Lead

We have a couple of different takes on why the new sentence shouldn't go into the lead, but just to explain my thinking more, stating that the penis gets erect to facilitate entry into the vagina is problematic on two counts: first, it only considers vaginal sex, where the body of the article uses the term "sexual intercourse" which, of course, doesn't necessarily have to be vaginal. Second, nowhere in the body does it state that that's the reason the penis becomes erect, simply that that's one effect of an erection. I'm no anthropologist, but I know in many species, sexual arousal is more about a display rather than facilitating intercourse itself. I suspect in humans, the "reason" for erections, if there is one, could well derive from both. – RobinHood70 ^talk 21:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

How about the addition of "the penis can become enlarged during an erection" ? Pass a Method talk 22:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to butt in here real quick: The penis actually does become erect to faciltate entry into the vagina. From biological and evolutionary standpoint. Yes, there are other sex acts involving the penis, but the penis is always trying to facilitate reproduction during sexual activity. It's not like sperm is meant to travel down the rectum or throat, for example. The Erection section says "Erection facilitates sexual intercourse though it is not essential for various other sexual activities." First, "sexual intercourse" can also mean outercourse, so, with the way this article says "various other sexual activities," it must be restricting the term "sexual intercourse" to either vaginal sex or all sex acts that entail penetration by the penis. And I'm not sure what "various other sexual activities" don't require the man's penis to become erect, except for those where he's performing a sex act to the exclusion of his penis (oral sex, fingering, handjob), but maybe the lead should be expanded to include these things. Looking at it again, it definitely needs expansion, per WP:LEAD. The only issue I saw with Pass a Method's edit is that it said "During an erection, the penis may stiffen or become enlarged." I take issue with the "may stiffen or become enlarged" part. How is the penis erect without stiffening and becoming enlarged? Are we talking about semi-erection or something? Even then, it's partially stiffened/enlarged. 50.17.15.172 (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)