Misplaced Pages

Talk:Ejaculation: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:27, 11 March 2007 editRenamed user owrgjw35p9gh8eigh (talk | contribs)2,342 edits Withdraw of picture donation← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:07, 17 December 2024 edit undoC.Fred (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators277,982 edits Proposed deletion of the ejaculation video and photos: rpa 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Biology|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Science|importance=low}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 7
|minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(14d)
|archive = Talk:Ejaculation/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Talk:Ejaculation/Archive index|mask=Talk:Ejaculation/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes}}<!--
-->{{censor}}<!--
-->{{Tmbox
|type = content
|text = {{anchor|Please read before starting}}'''Pictures and video''': If you are editing this page to contest the picture and video, then please check the archives for past discussions first. There is a "recurrent topics" lists that you can consult. See also ] and ].}}
{{tmbox|image=none|text=
{{hidden|Recurrent topics (links to archived discussions): |2=
This is not a complete list and may contain errors.


* Picture
{| class="infobox" width="270px"
**]
|-
**]
!align="center"|]<br>]
**]
----
# ] **]
# ] **]
**]
<br>
**]
|}<!--Template:Archivebox-->
**]
{{Sexology-project-guidelines-notify}}
**]
**]
**]
**]
**]
**]
**]
**]
**]
* Video
**]
**]
**]
**]
**]
**]
**]
**]
**]
**]
**]
**]
**]
*Both
**]
**]
**]
*Suggested replacements
**]
**] (moving the image down)
**] (cropped version of photo)
**]
**]
**]
**]
**]
*Replacement by an inline link (that solution was already used for a time)
**]
**]
***]
**]
**]
*Suggested additions
**]
*Other
**] (how the current image replaced an Older image that is now deleted)
**] (discussion of a now deleted image)
**] (what the message at the top of this page should say)
}}
}}
{{controversial}}
==Proposed deletion of the ejaculation video and photos==


The video and photos are indecent for use in a general encylcopedia. If you see the number of deletion requests that the user has generated: https://commons.wikimedia.org/User_talk:Richiex you can see that he is a pervert trying to get his self made porn onto the internet. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
==Never-ending Image Debate?==


:I do not understand how providing a video depicting the subject of the article could, possibly, be misconstrued as perversion.
Regarding:
:What makes the video perverse? It shows a human adult male ejaculating. The article describes ejaculation.
:No part of the video is unnecessary, please be objective. ] (]) 14:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


I personally don't think those types of pictures offensive, but there is still a controversy with unclear parameters here. Therefore, the issue is "borderline" and "debatable". <B>What I think we should try to avoid is having people come to Misplaced Pages and encountering an "unpleasant surprise" -- especially since the quality of this Wiki article would NOT be diminished in any way by excluding genital masturbation pictures, videos, or illustrations.</B> Since we have linkimages and resource links where people can find visual examples, the pictures and the controversies surrounding them is not necessary on Misplaced Pages. With a linkimage the user can have the option to see it or not see it. ] 09:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


::The video is staying. The photos are staying. This is a long established status quo.] (]) 09:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
:I'm only going to respond to your first paragraph, since I'm tired of discussions of (self-)censorship. It's true, the picture doesn't look like the majority of ejaculations - it is idealized. This is not rare. We have idealized pictures of ], ], and ] too. Encyclopedia images are rarely "average" examples - they're usually ideals. ] ] 11:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
::Sadist exhibitionists derive pleasure from exposing people to content which makes them uncomfortable.
::It's disappointing that this is a controversy. I can accept that the material is needed on the site, but it limits the usefulness of the article when the mouseover for ] is obscene. ] (]) 15:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
:# The video and images are not suitable for minors doing research on sexuality.
:# they could be construed in the public domain as pornographic.
:# These images and videos do not add to the understanding of the subject matter.
:# If some sort of imagery is deemed appropriate I would suggest a medically oriented computer animation would be better suited to the intent of wikipedia
:] (]) 00:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


::]. ] (]) 01:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
::the picture isn't needed on this page. A link to an image elsewhere is suffienct. Then people can activlty chosse to view it - as in the case of the video.


:::], Please don't say heavy-handed nonsense like this:
::i can handle a link, but a picture up front is ridiculous <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 10:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
::::''"The video is staying. The photos are staying. This is a long established status quo"''
:::A long established status quo can be set aside; ''NOTHING'' in an encyclopedia exists by some authority of tradition. And Wikipedians making mistakes is similarly a "long established status quo".] (]) 04:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
::::I acknowledge receipt of your message. ] (]) 21:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
:I agree with this. <small>(])<!-- Template:Personal attack removed --></small> ] (]) 12:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


== where does the sperm come from ==
:::: Is age even relevant? I think for something to be child porn it has to be porn (though I could be wrong). In any case, we can't very well tell the age by looking. I think based on the musculature and the size of the penis he must be done growing, so probably at least 17. ] ] 10:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


The urethra, the tube that urine and semen flow through, runs along the underside of them, in the spongy tissue of the corpus spongiosum.
::*Since everyone is insisting on having a picture, I bought one that shows less of the body of the person. Although I am still not fully convinced that we should have any pictures, this one is a good alternative. Also, the age of the person can not be judged by the picture. In addition, this is what an ejaculation looks like when fully completed (more realistic that what we have now). I'm not sure if the seller's organization info or the price paid should be included in the records/history. I'd rather not say because I don't necessarily approve of the overall site/business that sells these, but if I must, I will.


https://www.webmd.com/erectile-dysfunction/how-an-erection-occurs
I dare not publish this on the article page myself due to the reactions any little change seems to create in this article. I don't know if people would rather see this picture anyway.


in the second stage, ejaculation proper, the semen is moved through the urethra and expelled from the body. https://www.britannica.com/science/ejaculation
]


I think it is important to add this information at the beginning in the description of the article because the English-language Misplaced Pages is a measure of the reliability of information for the whole world
] 00:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


if this information is not in the English wiki, then people around the world will consider that their national wikipedia contains unreliable information. ] (]) 03:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


== No citations provided in the first few paragraphs==
I came to this page thinking of learning something new, and instead I am taken back and a little offended. Since simply that image is overly graphic and doesn't add anything that a simple drawing would give.
] 21:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


The opening paragraphs of the article contain no citations. ] (]) 20:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
:If someone could contribute a drawing, I think that would be great. I'm sick of the arguments over these types of pictures. ] ] 21:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


:See ]. ] (]) 20:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
* I was looking for a drawing or illustration, but could not find one that could be borrowed or bought. I even suggested above that we use an external link (but that didn't go over well). However, I think the picture I mentioned above ( ] ) would be less controversial (and more accurate). People are constantly deleting the image that is there now, so I think just about any new image or new idea is worth a try. I thinik one of the reasons why people keep on deleting the current image is because it shows too much of the nude body of the boy. All that skin really catches the eye, and at first glance it does look like porn. ] 10:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
::According to this article's ] lead section, semen is stored in the testicles before ejaculation. Isn't it stored in the ]s? ] (]) 19:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
:::{{re|Jarble}} <s>Semen is stored in the seminal vesicle.</s> Spermatozoa are fabricated by the testicles, but not stored therein. Normally speaking, the production of spermatozoa never stops. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/100318-men-sperm-1500-stem-cells-second-male-birth-control ] (]) 21:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
:::More information at https://medlineplus.gov/ency/anatomyvideos/000121.htm So, spermatozoa are first stored in the epididymis and then in the ampula. ] (]) 13:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
::::{{reply to|tgeorgescu}} But according to the article's lead section, semen is discharged ''from the testicles'' during ejaculation. Is the lead section incorrect? ] (]) 17:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{re|Jarble}} Testicles produce sperm cells, those cells got later mixed in other parts of the body with certain fluids. So, the testicles produce sperm cells, not semen. ] (]) 20:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)


==Quality of video==
::I don't like the ejaculationexampls001 image much. I think the current image is better. ] 12:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
**I agree a drawing would be much better. We should replace the current image as soon as a suitable drawing can be made or found. I have given numerous reasons for this in the archives. I will state them again if necesary but I don't want to take up too much space for now. ]\<sup>]</sup> 15:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
* I think that the situation is very much similar to that in any of the pages having to do with Sex. In none of the pages do we have pictures of people having sex. Simply because it lowers the Encyclopedic value of Misplaced Pages. Even if a drawing wouldn't demostrate it as well it would most certainly be more Encyclopedic and less offensive to the majority of casual Misplaced Pages viewers. I understand how we do not censor Misplaced Pages, but do you think that it would be appropraite to say, have that image in print in any sort of public place? ] 20:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


With regard to the video, I see in the discussion below charges of excessive prudishness or of overzealous defence of explicitness. I think that an important consideration has been missed in the (largely ad hominem-style) back-and-forth on the topic. I would like to hear a case made against replacing the video with another in the Wikimedia Commons catalogue, namely 'Ejaculation educational ani short reboot.webm'. This video (which features in some of the corresponding articles in other languages) not only matches the photo in the article and would therefore make the article more polished through introducing a greater degree of consistency but is also more professional-looking. Granted, Misplaced Pages is not intended to be a professional resource, but it should nonetheless aspire to a decent standard of quality. I am neutral on the topic of explicitness, but I object to the current video on the grounds of quality. At the very least, even if a case can be made against using 'Ejaculation educational ani short reboot.webm', I cannot think of any way in which the current video could be regarded as better in quality than ''any other'' alternative. Furthermore, the line that 'Ejaculation educational ani short reboot.webm' is not representative because men generally do not ejaculate hands-free misses the point too, as the inclusion of a video in the article is intended to show ejaculation itself (which includes the spasming of the penis) rather than ''means of achieving'' ejaculation. On this point as well 'Ejaculation educational ani short reboot.webm' is superior. ] (]) 16:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
* I think all of APatcher's comments have been spot-on. In an attempt to help resolve the controversy, let me observe that no one believes that a drawing would be unacceptable, and also that pretty much everyone believes that a photograph that doesn't come across as porn (regardless of whether it satisfies the technical definition of pornography) would also be O.K. Perhaps a way we could resolve this discussion would be to agree on a set of criteria that a photograph should have, and then, if we cannot find a photograph that meets these criteria, then we find or make a drawing that does.--] 04:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
:No objection here. I do think that a good-quality video is genuinely helpful on this topic, and have no objection over switching it. For that matter, I see no reason why the video even needs to be of a human ejaculating. I have not checked the Commons but would not be surprised if there are good-quality videos of stallions, rams, bucks, etc. that would serve the purpose just as well. It may be slightly better to have a photo and video that match, however. ] (]) 17:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
::The proposed video "Ejaculation educational ani short reboot.webm" is more professional and consistent with the opening image of the article. Additionally, it shows the contraction of the Bulbospongiosus muscle which the current video does not. I disagree that the video should be replaced with a video of another mammalian species.
::The article is almost entirely about human ejaculation, so it would be not relevant to include a video of some other species. There would also be a moral objection considering that any recorded video of another mammalian ejaculation would be coerced. Lastly, I would imagine that this article serves curious adolescents who wish to supplement any formal sexual education or be affirmed that the process is normal and healthy. ] (]) 07:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:::That any mammalian ejaculation would be coerced is a fallacy: one need only watch nature videos or videos of natural occurrences from zoos. That said, I have no qualms using a high-quality video of a human, provided it maintains its educational intention. Feel free to replace the video. ] (]) 01:08, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Updated. Hopefully this can be put to rest. ] (]) 05:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)


== Under-represention of women ==
*The reason Misplaced Pages has policies is to solve issues like this. The image is scientific, and is directly applicable to the topic. If some users think it is pornography, then perhaps the problem is with their perception. The image illustrates the topic extremely well. As forapatchers comments, I didn't agree with them at all. From my own personal experience, I would have to say that the image seems very accurate. Perhaps some people's semen "seeps" out when they ejaculate, but at age 50, and after approximately 10,000 orgasms, mine still looks and ejaculates pretty much like the image. The imahe is there to be representative of the topic though, not to be accurate in all cases. There continues to be people who want to censor images that they think are too sexual. That philosophy is their right, but it is a case where their views do not fit Misplaced Pages culture and polcies, not a case where Misplaced Pages should change to suite them. Misplaced Pages is not censored. Just because some small minority of people who have either been reading their holy book too much, or watching too much porno, or both happen to think that an image of ejaculation is offensive is no reason to limit them. The more that people are exposed to honest and natural images, such as this, the less they are offended by them, and the more they realize that something like this image is no more notable that a picture of a person on a bicycle. ] 21:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
{{hat|This is trolling. Feel free to contact me for background on this LTA. ] (]) 16:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)}}
**That Misplaced Pages is not censored only implies that we ''can'' have nude and sexually explicit images in articles related to nudity and human sexuality, not that we ''must''. The choice of images, and whether to display such images inline or as links, is, of course, a question of editorial discretion, to be settled by consensus. I see little support for inline markup for the photograph on this article, and strong opposition. Notwithstanding conjectural arguments that the editors concerned with this page are somehow unrepresentative of the Misplaced Pages community, there is a clear and present consensus to de-inline the image. ] 02:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Transgender folks are underrepresented in media on articles related to human sexuality. If the current video had a trans woman instead, this would improve representation and also challenge the misconception that women can't ejaculate. Also, should the gendered language in this article be changed? At the very least I would think "men" should be replaced with "males". ] (]) 00:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
<HR>
:This article is about a biological function of the male reproductive system. It has nothing to do with gender. Female ejaculation already has a full article and is linked to prominently here. There is no underrepresentation, and confusing sex and gender on a biological function would lead to just that: confusion. ] (]) 04:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
** The only problem with a drawing is it's not something that is easy to draw. Drawing liquids, in general, is difficult and rarely accurate. On the ] page, they do not have the picture on the page itself.
::Women can ejaculate male semen (this is NOT female ejaculation). @] isn't this article a violation of ] and offensive to you as a trans womxn? I guess @] thinks "not being confusing" is more important than than challenging cisnormative bigotry (cf. Matt Walsh) and following Misplaced Pages guidelines. ] (]) 12:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

:::Again, the gender claimed by someone is irrelevant here. This is an exclusively male biological function. You need to be EXTREMELY careful casting aspersions about bigotry. ] (]) 13:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
They have a little box with a note on the ] page.
::::I agree it's a male biological function in the sense that it's a function of those AMAB. However every top google result on ejaculation avoids gendered language like "men" in place of "male" and "persons AMAB" . Also, please WP:AGF, as I didn't call you a bigot. I know that you, grayfell, tgeorgescu, jasphetamine, et. al. are not bigots given your opposition to editors who think minors who want sex ed outside of porn shouldn't see educational ejaculation videos. ] (]) 13:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

:::::I have said no such thing. And Google results are irrelevant. If you want to gain traction here, you'll need to find ] sources. ] (]) 13:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
I think that is a great idea. This way, nobody gets an "unpleasant suprise", yet people who need a picture can access one.
::::::I think WP:GNL and the fact that most trans women can ejaculate semen is sufficient for most mentions of "men" in this article to be replaced. ] (]) 13:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

:::::::I do not oppose replacing all occurrence of "man" or similar with "male" in the article (excepting any direct quotes, of course). Introducing material about non-male gendered people capable of male ejaculation would require ], and I oppose on the basis only sex is relevant here, not gender. ] (]) 13:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Atemperman -- The second photo suggestion I made above is less like porn. ] The current image on the page looks fake anyway. Nevertheless, I think as long as we don't have the picture blatently on the page, it won't be such a problem. {{user|APatcher}} 00:24, 27 February 2007
::::::::Yes, please do that replacement. ] (]) 13:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

:::Also please be aware of ]. ] (]) 13:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
===Obligatory section break===
::::Thank you. Yes I realize that rules like this are important since I may be overstimulating many editors as per ]. ] (]) 13:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
I have examined it very closely, and the picture we currently have is fake. However, Atom says that it is still a good example, so I will certainly include it in the new format.
{{hab}}

My personal issue with the pictures has nothing to do with being "offended". I have worked with human sexuality images for quite some time. My problem with it is the fact that it is representative of a very small (rare) minority of men. I'm not suggesting we delete the picture and have nothing. But if we have a picture that is less pornographic and is representative of many more people (and not fake), then I think we should at least include it somewhere.

As far as censorship is concerned, the whole problem as I see it, is the fact that the current format causes major controversy. If that can be reduced or ended AND the remedy does not detract from the article, then I think we should try the remedy. ] 12:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
:I really object to the censorship here. Misplaced Pages is not censored (why else do we have articles on ], ], etc.?). All I've seen about these images is that there's a disbelief that the man who photographed himself (who has not returned to discuss anything) is that it's too unrealistic or it's someone underage because he doesn't have chest hair or something. There are no such objections to having an image of a human breast at ] or other pages that discuss the aspects of human anatomy that induce laughter in teenaged boys. I'm frankly tired of having to see all the hullabaloo concerning one image that is encyclopedic, is free for use on Misplaced Pages, and has only been discussed because of the fact that people don't believe men can look like that.—] (]) 05:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
::There is no censorship here. Using editorial discretion to decide what is encyclopedic is not censorship. Censorship is when the government or some central authority forces you to do something. It is not censorship if we reach the decision ourselves. We get that you like the image, but it is not accurate to cry "censorship" if other edits want to discuss removing it. ]\<sup>]</sup> 01:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
::I have put ] up for deletion. ] 15:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
:::On what grounds have you nominated the image for deletion? ]\<sup>]</sup> 01:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
:::: I have put this image up for deletion on the grounds that it is '''unencyclopedic'''. Now, since there is NO definition of the word unencyclopedic (a completely fictitious "wiki-only" bullshit word anyway) in the wiktionary, and nowhere else that I can find for that matter, I'll give you mine. I define unencyclopedic as meaning "unfit for inclusion in an encyclopedia", thus by saying that this image is unencyclopedic I am saying that this image is unfit for inclusion in an encyclopedia. What standard am I using as a gauge to arrive at this determination? The very sources that set the standard for encyclopedias in the first place. Print encyclopedias. Now I know that Misplaced Pages is not a print encyclopedia, but the fact that print encyclopedias set the standards for the rest cannot be denied. I searched Brittanica, and World Book for an image like ] and ]. I couldn't find a single one. I discovered that they didn't use images this graphic for examples in their sexuality articles at all. Therefore, I came to the conclusion that if the print encyclopedias that set the standards that others have followed did not use images like this, then they must consider them "unfit for inclusion in an encyclopedia", thus unencyclopedic. Since Misplaced Pages calls itself an encyclopedia, then it seems logical that this image would be considered unencyclopedic here too. My reasoning on this matter has absolutely nothing to do with censorship. Now JohnTex, I want you to tell me why you think ] is encyclopedic. ] 08:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
<HR>
I don't like the new ejaculationexample001. This article is about ejaculation, and I don't see how that image illustrates that well. It is a picture after ejaculation. It could be a candidate for the masturbation, or semen articles, if it were good enough, but is a poor example of ejaculation. Do other people think that the image is not very good for this topic? ] 23:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

* I have the whole set of the frames from start to finish. In the beginning, it shows the ejaculation spurt. But you probably won't like any of those anyway, and then it will get nominated to be deleted by someone else; so why bother? ] 00:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

----
# Ejaculationexample001 is better than the other one ] The focus of the Ejaculation_sample.jpg picture is obviously on the well-proportioned "sexy" male body rather than the tiny white line of what is supposed to be semen way off in the distance.
# Enlarge the ] picture 400% or 600% and you will notice that it has been altered. They forgot to complete or fully replace the shadow of the penis. The penis shadow has an abrupt straight line across the top rather than the natural curvature of the glans. Another indicator of a false picture is the fact that the stream of semen appears as an arc when the picture is small. But when enlarged, it is evident that it is actually made up of 3 different white-line segments that are all straight lines and completely continuous. The white line seems to be coming from behind the penis rather than the hole in the glans. At the end of the white lines is an abrupt turn or bend. If all that does not convince you, watch some of the Kinsey Institute movies on ejaculation. They just don't look like that. I did a thesis project that required me to examine exactly 1,000 different pictures and movies of men's ejaculations. This does <B>not</b> make my opinion any more important than anyone else's opinion in this discussion, but I am basing what I am saying on my experience.
# The penis in the picture is longer than 98.4 percent of all penises. It is at least 7.5 inches (or more), which puts it in the top 1.6 percentile. See http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Human_penis_size I'm not suggesting we have to find something that is exactly average or "statistically correct". But when something is as rare as that, it is a distraction from the topic supposed to be on the page. I DO NOT go around trying to censor or get people to remove genital pictures. The fact is, this one really caught my eye because it is such an unreal spectacle. This picture is not typical or even an "ideal". Rather, it is "unreal".
# I think the pic was obviously originally taken to arouse rather than to inform. Most likely, it was copied from a porn site by someone who wanted bragging rights. Porn sites have a definite reputation for enhancing, altering, or faking ejaculations and penis sizes.] 09:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
----
I was not aware it was altered. Although most of what we see every day in the movies and in ads is altered. Not a big deal for folks there. I will say that most of the pictures in the anatomy books and exercise instruction, such as the well defined muscles of the human form. Many animal and anatomy pictures in books are drawn or painted outright. It's difficult to learn the seperate muscle groups without any size or definition of the muscles. I believe Michelangelo is in for some criticism there too. Perhaps this picture can be considered in the same context. That is, a small, limp penis dripping hidden in buldging flesh with a few drips running out may be more realistic but probably not the best example for clarity. Else, perhaps a drawing is all that is needed.
] 17:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

: Well ] shows up just in time to tell us all that he was not aware that his submitted photo ] was altered? The original summary on the page for this image that Trevor wrote himself stated "A picture of Trevor ejaculating as an educational demonstration". We were led to believe by ] and your summary of this image that you were the person in the photograph and that you had made this image yourself to help settle a dispute about another ejaculation image that no one wanted to use because it had been altered. Now it sounds like you are saying that not only did you not make this photo, it is not even you in the photo. I believe that after all of the shit that we have suffered through in trying to resolve the issues about this image on this article, I believe that we deserve the honest truth about the origin of this photograph and it's copyright status. Trevor, is it you in the photo? Did you make the photo yourself? If not, where did you get it? And ] needs to come clean on his evidently fabricated story about this image too and explain to us why he "sanitized" the summary on the page of this image after the request for deletion process was over. ] 21:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
::I think APatcher is just analyzing the image too much, and again, it's more complaints against how the picture is of an atypical penis, even thinking it was shopped. That is, unless the man in the photograph is not Trevor100a.—] (]) 22:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

::Frankly the image looks pretty normal to me. You can see he has three fingers around it, and my estimate makes it at 6.5 to 7 inches. Roughly the size of my own. I would be suprised if it, or my own endowement were "longer than 98.4% of all penises." As for this other nonsense, I haven't heard anyone (including Trevor)suggest that the image has been altered. If someone feels that way, I think they should provide more than speculation. Where did you get the idea that Trevor had said that the image was not his own? As for "fabricated stories" read the archives. ] 22:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
* Three fingers is about 2½ inches in width. When I multiply that by 3 widths, it is not 6.5. And including your own penile dimensions is just not nesessary, thank you.

* But anyway, I think the more important point made above is that it is not Trevor in the picture (although he originally stated it was). In his edit summary, he said, "<I>A picture of Trevor ejaculating as an educational demonstration</I>."

* Now in his statement that he made on March 2, 2007, Trevor is implying that it is not him. It is obvious he is defending the fact that he thinks it is OK if it is altered (which he did not realize). If it were him in the picture, and he took the picture, and nobody else had rights to it, then nobody could have altered it without him knowing; and his answer would have been clear and unquestionable instead of saying he "was not aware". Now we have no idea who has or had the rights to it. I can't imagine anything that could restore credibility to it now (not that there really was in the first place).

* The picture is a pose pic for a porn site, and porn sites alter their images to enhance them. That picture is all polished up just the way the porn webmasters do it. The original intent of that picture was to arouse rather than to inform (contrary to Trevor's edit summary, where he says it was a self-made educational demonstration). Enlarge the picture to 600% and look at the shadow pattern of the penis. The shadow was accidentially cut off at the top while they were altering the ejaculation. When a shadow in a picture does not match the object, it is good evidence that someone has been altering it. (By the way, I don't mind that picture if is this is a porn site, but it is not.)

* There is another picture on the page which is not altered AND it is not <i>"a small, limp penis dripping hidden in buldging flesh with a few drips running out"</I> either. I know for a fact that the person in the other picture is about 150 pounds and has approximately a 6 inch erect penis. So, there's no "buldging flesh" or any of that other stuff Trevor mentioned. I also have the whole set of those pictures with each one depicting a different stage of the ejaculation process. The first or second frame shows a normal spurt of semen, then the pictures show how it winds down to a dribble near the end.

* You need to enlarge Trevor's pic to 400% (at least) to see evidence of altering. If someone likes the picture, they are going to be biased whether they know it or not. The same is true for the inverse of that. I'm not one of the ones who deleted it or one that encouraged its publication. I am not a "morality censor". It just is what it is to me. I'm only speaking on behalf of the fact that it has caused so much controversy, and we can have something else that is not as controversial without sacrificing the quality of the article. Besides, I think this is the only really questionable photo in any of the sexuality articles. ] 05:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

* To keep something like that just because Misplaced Pages is not censored is silly. No matter what else can be said about the picture, the fact remains -- It's a poor quality example, and others have made that same point in this discussion. At one time, I may have supported including the picture if that is all we had. It is better than nothing. However, we have other pictures and a video now that are better examples. ] 05:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

* I want to point out, that founder of Misplaced Pages, Jimbo Wales, from ] before. He has done right thing in my opinion, because serious encyclopedia is really not the place for pornography. (BTW - you can see this picture ; NSFW!) ] 23:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

== Inline Links ==

Someone removed the inline links on the grounds that it is censorship. Why would having an inline link to a picture hosted on this domain be censorship? There is nothing "censored" or cut out. It is the same exact picture. An inline link is simply another way to access a picture. In this case, it is a better way. I'm not just someone who is coming along changing pictures into links. I am an editor of the article, a contributor, and someone who is participating in the discussion. A respectable editor said above that we have come to a "consensus" regarding the actual pictures within the article. After looking at all the comments, I agree that is true. I was acting on that reality.

It's true that Misplaced Pages is not censored. It's <b>not</B> true that we MUST display these images on the article page. We are <B>not</B> required to FORCE people to view these pictures either. I think the reader should have the option to see them if they need to see them. I like having options, and so do most other people. One of the most attractive things about the Internet and Misplaced Pages is the fact that readers have the option to see content that they want to see when they want to see it. I want to put the inline links to the pictures back in because it does not detract from the article to have inline links. Someone please tell me to do it (or do it yourself if you know how). ] 10:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

<> The reason we should not linkimage this image is because there is no need. The policies that are being worked on do not suggest that this type of image should be linkimaged. I am opposed to linkimage because the purpose of images is to provide a quick clear understanding of the subject matter. If we linkimage something as normal as this, what other Misplaced Pages images would be start linkimaging? HOw about the breast article, and then the penis article, and then why not the BDSM article and the nudity article. After all, anyone could just click on the link to see them. It is just a bad idea, and an excuse to eliminate perfectly normal images that some puritan mindedn people find offends them. The solution is for people like that to get used to the idea that nudity and sexuality are perfectly normal, and see them no differently than someone riding a bicycle. ] 22:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

=

* Who is writing the "policy" and where is it? You make it sound like all this is already decided. The page http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sexology_and_sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines clearly states "References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy"." I don't even see the beginnings of a fair consensus anywhere. If those pages ARE the consensus, then what I am saying accounts for a large percentage, because there are only a handful of people saying anything. Also, I'm not the only one suggesting this sort of thing. On this page, Johntex and Atemperman also seem to be trying to be realistic and neutral.

* On the issue of morality - To defend the civil rights of that picture is just like preaching to the choir as far as I'm concerned. It's a waste of time. In the past, I have worked as a volunteer editor for two other major sexuality projects that were designed to be an outlet for liberal sexual bias (dmoz.org/Adult and rawpsy.com). It is the magnitude of this controversy rather than the issue itself that motivates me. That is why I seek to facilitate a practical compromise. Now you have someone (me) calling the picture into question based on a number of other topics besides morality, none of which are Puritan minded. If you just want to use Misplaced Pages as a platform for rights to free speech and convincing people there is nothing wrong with nudity, then you will get the controversy you're seeking. On the other hand, if you want to create the best quality articles that are realistic and useful, you may have to compromise.

* On the issue of linkimages - I think putting images behind links is a workable compromise. Misplaced Pages is not a picture gallery anyway. The article is just as clear and just as real with a linkimage. The linkimage capacity is a technological advancement of the Web. It makes things like Misplaced Pages better than a conventional encyclopedia, and I don't see any problem with using it. I'm trying to argue a moderate viewpoint here, and that is not as easy as screaming from the left or from the right.

* If the breast article, the BDSM article, the penis article, or the bicycle article end up in this kind of passionate never-ending debate, then they probably should compromise also.

* When you say it's "just a bad idea" or an "excuse to...". then debate stops making sense. Also, not everyone who wants a change is a "Puritan-minded" person. Statements like that turn this whole thing into something personal. So now I end up saying something personal since the ball is rolling? Then it becomes everyone's personalities rather than principles? Those statements also show your true reasons for being so passionate about this topic. It's just another "sex-positive" political platform. It's just another soap box to stand on to proclaim how those so-called lousy puritanical people on the right wing are infringing on our political freedoms. Doing that causes articles to be biased. Do we need political propaganda in an encyclopedia?

* Your "solution" for offended people seems questionable. People generally do not become more open-minded when they are forced to see sexual pictures in an encyclopedia. People are more likely to change their mind if they are given a choice by virtue of a subtle hint (like a linkimage) rather than forcing them to see more of what they think hate. Allowing a person to use their own curiosity to investigate these things makes users feel more "in control" and also more likely to moderate their extremist views.

] 06:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

== A suitable compromise ==

Why couldn't we remove all of the current photos and the video and just use this instead? It is no more shocking or offensive than the images that are already on the article. ] 14:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC) ]

* At least that would be real. By the way, it's not offensive in my opinion. There is no question on the intent of that video either. The ejaculation, being the subject, is very clear. As long as it is a GIF file and not some OGG extention that people need to figure out, there should be no problem.
* As far as actually doing this is concerned -- I'm not sure certain people are interested in compromises. Some people are too busy defending the civil rights of the status quo. They are bent on the issue, and anything different from what they think is labeled censorship and closed-minded. They think Misplaced Pages is a place to express "sex-positive politics". They want to cite First Amendment rights and all sorts of other legal protections rather than entertain the idea of a compromise and a solution. They figure that as long as they keep talking down any alternatives that they are somehow protecting their rights and making any dissenting viewpoints just "go away". Just about all moderate viewpoints in these discussions get chased away. Then we just have a never-ending clash between the far left and the far right. That is why this discussion truly is a never-ending image debate. ] 05:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
:: I'm not a fan of this because I find looping videos distracting. ] ] 06:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
:* (They can be edited so they do not loop continuously. It could be set to do it 5 times or so and then stop. This is done with a GIF Contstruction Set. If the user refreshes the page, it will start over.) ] 07:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

== Withdraw of picture donation ==

I am going to withdraw my picture donation from this article ] for two reasons -

(1) It seems to be causing more controversy instead of less.

(2) If the picture is going to be posted in this article with no linkimage, then it is not courteous to the public. Now I have people sending me AOL IMs and emails about it, and I don't really need that. Someone said to me that it is just not decent to make people see those pictures without a notice/linkimage. She's right. Just because Misplaced Pages is not censored should not mean that we can't try to be decent, respectful, and courteous to the end users.

She also said she originally thought the pictures were a prank, and that we lose all credibility if people assume this is all a joke. She's right again. She also said the one boy in the picture was very attractive. She liked the picture but doesn't like to have to see it with no notice/linkimage. Therefore, she's not some kind of Puritan-minded person with a right wing agenda.

We spend all this time debating and defending our rights to not be censored and our rights to freedom. Meanwhile, we're being just plain RUDE to the public by showing these pictures without a notice/linkimage. Obviously I am not exempt from this either, so I am including myself in that "we" statement.

:You '''CANNOT''' revoke a GFDL grant on a document (see ]). Your opinion as to whether the picture should be deleted is welcome, but it carries no more weight than that of any other user. It is not yours to revoke the permission. ] 00:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

* Your opinion carries no more weight than that of any other user either. I obviously '''WANT''' the picture in the '''PUBLIC DOMAIN'''. I put it in this article, and '''THEY''' (editors) complained above. That is why it is removed here. Of course, the picture might be used somewhere else. I seriouly doubt you have an interest one way or the other as far as that picture in this article. Do you? This is a tough topic. Please don't make it any tougher. By the way, that submission guideline does not really cover whatever you're trying to say here. ] 21:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

::I am not expressing an opinion here as to whether the picture should be in the public domain, or should be included in this article. I am pointing out that when you donated the picture you donated it under a perpetual licence, which cannot be revoked, as ] clearly explains:

:::However, you can never retract the GFDL license for the versions you placed here: that material will remain under GFDL forever.

::I am just making you aware of the consequences of your previous actions. ] 22:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

== TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:Linkimage}} ==

] has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ]. Thank you.<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> &nbsp; — ] <span class="plainlinksneverexpand">(]&#124;])</span> 23:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

== Blocked indefinitely because of big ejaculating penis ==

Hello! Among my previous accounts are: ] and ]. You can see my previous activity in the article in the .

I have been because of my activity in this article. Then, my explanation on ''my'' talk page has been (censored) by Ryulong and my talk page was , also by him. Could you point me to the relevant policy that warrants this? Note that after protection of my talk page I wasn't able to discuss this block with anyone on Misplaced Pages. So, I've created another user account (Von Klinker). It was, of course, blocked in no time, because of ]. But I believe avoiding unjust block is not disruptive.

This message was also from this talk page, then . Then another, very on-topic message, was also . I see that Misplaced Pages is not censored to host blatant pornography, but uncomfortable messages and users who disagree with very specific point of view are removed in no time... ] 23:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:07, 17 December 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ejaculation article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 14 days 
This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconSexology and sexuality High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconBiology Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconEjaculation is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Misplaced Pages. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconScience Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Censorship warningMisplaced Pages is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.
Pictures and video: If you are editing this page to contest the picture and video, then please check the archives for past discussions first. There is a "recurrent topics" lists that you can consult. See also WP:NOTCENSORED and Misplaced Pages:Options to not see an image.
Recurrent topics (links to archived discussions):

This is not a complete list and may contain errors.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Proposed deletion of the ejaculation video and photos

The video and photos are indecent for use in a general encylcopedia. If you see the number of deletion requests that the user has generated: https://commons.wikimedia.org/User_talk:Richiex you can see that he is a pervert trying to get his self made porn onto the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussiewikilady (talkcontribs) 19:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I do not understand how providing a video depicting the subject of the article could, possibly, be misconstrued as perversion.
What makes the video perverse? It shows a human adult male ejaculating. The article describes ejaculation.
No part of the video is unnecessary, please be objective. A Muddy Taco (talk) 14:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


The video is staying. The photos are staying. This is a long established status quo.Jasphetamine (talk) 09:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Sadist exhibitionists derive pleasure from exposing people to content which makes them uncomfortable.
It's disappointing that this is a controversy. I can accept that the material is needed on the site, but it limits the usefulness of the article when the mouseover for Ejaculation is obscene. Mkallies (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
  1. The video and images are not suitable for minors doing research on sexuality.
  2. they could be construed in the public domain as pornographic.
  3. These images and videos do not add to the understanding of the subject matter.
  4. If some sort of imagery is deemed appropriate I would suggest a medically oriented computer animation would be better suited to the intent of wikipedia
172.58.187.80 (talk) 00:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
WP:CENSOR. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Jasphetamine, Please don't say heavy-handed nonsense like this:
"The video is staying. The photos are staying. This is a long established status quo"
A long established status quo can be set aside; NOTHING in an encyclopedia exists by some authority of tradition. And Wikipedians making mistakes is similarly a "long established status quo".𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
I acknowledge receipt of your message. Jasphetamine (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree with this. (Personal attack removed) NeuroSpecter (talk) 12:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

where does the sperm come from

The urethra, the tube that urine and semen flow through, runs along the underside of them, in the spongy tissue of the corpus spongiosum.

https://www.webmd.com/erectile-dysfunction/how-an-erection-occurs

in the second stage, ejaculation proper, the semen is moved through the urethra and expelled from the body. https://www.britannica.com/science/ejaculation

I think it is important to add this information at the beginning in the description of the article because the English-language Misplaced Pages is a measure of the reliability of information for the whole world

if this information is not in the English wiki, then people around the world will consider that their national wikipedia contains unreliable information. TimurMamleev (talk) 03:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

No citations provided in the first few paragraphs

The opening paragraphs of the article contain no citations. 2601:19B:67F:D200:B943:7493:82C7:FD98 (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

See WP:CITELEAD. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
According to this article's recently rewritten lead section, semen is stored in the testicles before ejaculation. Isn't it stored in the ejaculatory ducts? Jarble (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
@Jarble: Semen is stored in the seminal vesicle. Spermatozoa are fabricated by the testicles, but not stored therein. Normally speaking, the production of spermatozoa never stops. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/100318-men-sperm-1500-stem-cells-second-male-birth-control tgeorgescu (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
More information at https://medlineplus.gov/ency/anatomyvideos/000121.htm So, spermatozoa are first stored in the epididymis and then in the ampula. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu: But according to the article's lead section, semen is discharged from the testicles during ejaculation. Is the lead section incorrect? Jarble (talk) 17:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
@Jarble: Testicles produce sperm cells, those cells got later mixed in other parts of the body with certain fluids. So, the testicles produce sperm cells, not semen. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Quality of video

With regard to the video, I see in the discussion below charges of excessive prudishness or of overzealous defence of explicitness. I think that an important consideration has been missed in the (largely ad hominem-style) back-and-forth on the topic. I would like to hear a case made against replacing the video with another in the Wikimedia Commons catalogue, namely 'Ejaculation educational ani short reboot.webm'. This video (which features in some of the corresponding articles in other languages) not only matches the photo in the article and would therefore make the article more polished through introducing a greater degree of consistency but is also more professional-looking. Granted, Misplaced Pages is not intended to be a professional resource, but it should nonetheless aspire to a decent standard of quality. I am neutral on the topic of explicitness, but I object to the current video on the grounds of quality. At the very least, even if a case can be made against using 'Ejaculation educational ani short reboot.webm', I cannot think of any way in which the current video could be regarded as better in quality than any other alternative. Furthermore, the line that 'Ejaculation educational ani short reboot.webm' is not representative because men generally do not ejaculate hands-free misses the point too, as the inclusion of a video in the article is intended to show ejaculation itself (which includes the spasming of the penis) rather than means of achieving ejaculation. On this point as well 'Ejaculation educational ani short reboot.webm' is superior. Flumpswithmumps (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

No objection here. I do think that a good-quality video is genuinely helpful on this topic, and have no objection over switching it. For that matter, I see no reason why the video even needs to be of a human ejaculating. I have not checked the Commons but would not be surprised if there are good-quality videos of stallions, rams, bucks, etc. that would serve the purpose just as well. It may be slightly better to have a photo and video that match, however. Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
The proposed video "Ejaculation educational ani short reboot.webm" is more professional and consistent with the opening image of the article. Additionally, it shows the contraction of the Bulbospongiosus muscle which the current video does not. I disagree that the video should be replaced with a video of another mammalian species.
The article is almost entirely about human ejaculation, so it would be not relevant to include a video of some other species. There would also be a moral objection considering that any recorded video of another mammalian ejaculation would be coerced. Lastly, I would imagine that this article serves curious adolescents who wish to supplement any formal sexual education or be affirmed that the process is normal and healthy. Falling2pieces89 (talk) 07:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
That any mammalian ejaculation would be coerced is a fallacy: one need only watch nature videos or videos of natural occurrences from zoos. That said, I have no qualms using a high-quality video of a human, provided it maintains its educational intention. Feel free to replace the video. Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Updated. Hopefully this can be put to rest. Jtrevor99 (talk) 05:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Under-represention of women

This is trolling. Feel free to contact me for background on this LTA. Generalrelative (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Transgender folks are underrepresented in media on articles related to human sexuality. If the current video had a trans woman instead, this would improve representation and also challenge the misconception that women can't ejaculate. Also, should the gendered language in this article be changed? At the very least I would think "men" should be replaced with "males". 24.126.12.87 (talk) 00:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

This article is about a biological function of the male reproductive system. It has nothing to do with gender. Female ejaculation already has a full article and is linked to prominently here. There is no underrepresentation, and confusing sex and gender on a biological function would lead to just that: confusion. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Women can ejaculate male semen (this is NOT female ejaculation). @Generalrelative isn't this article a violation of WP:GNL and offensive to you as a trans womxn? I guess @Jtrevor99 thinks "not being confusing" is more important than than challenging cisnormative bigotry (cf. Matt Walsh) and following Misplaced Pages guidelines. 24.126.12.195 (talk) 12:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Again, the gender claimed by someone is irrelevant here. This is an exclusively male biological function. You need to be EXTREMELY careful casting aspersions about bigotry. Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree it's a male biological function in the sense that it's a function of those AMAB. However every top google result on ejaculation avoids gendered language like "men" in place of "male" and "persons AMAB" . Also, please WP:AGF, as I didn't call you a bigot. I know that you, grayfell, tgeorgescu, jasphetamine, et. al. are not bigots given your opposition to editors who think minors who want sex ed outside of porn shouldn't see educational ejaculation videos. 24.126.11.219 (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
I have said no such thing. And Google results are irrelevant. If you want to gain traction here, you'll need to find WP:MEDRS sources. Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
I think WP:GNL and the fact that most trans women can ejaculate semen is sufficient for most mentions of "men" in this article to be replaced. 24.126.11.219 (talk) 13:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
I do not oppose replacing all occurrence of "man" or similar with "male" in the article (excepting any direct quotes, of course). Introducing material about non-male gendered people capable of male ejaculation would require WP:MEDRS, and I oppose on the basis only sex is relevant here, not gender. Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes, please do that replacement. 24.126.11.219 (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Also please be aware of WP:CANVASSING. Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. Yes I realize that rules like this are important since I may be overstimulating many editors as per WP:AUTIST. 24.126.11.219 (talk) 13:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Categories: