Misplaced Pages

Talk:Human penis: 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 14:22, 28 April 2016 editZad68 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users20,355 edits →The penis is not homologous to the vagina; it is homologous to the clitoris: added← Previous edit Latest revision as of 22:19, 30 December 2024 edit undoScottishFinnishRadish (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators61,106 edits Reverting edit(s) by Afranklady (talk) to rev. 1265982102 by Jtrevor99: Rv sock (UV 0.1.6)Tags: Ultraviolet Undo 
(343 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{skip to TOC}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{censor}} {{censor}}
{{notaforum}} {{notaforum}}
{{Notice|The ] article was split from the ] article in December 2010. As such, much of the past history of discussions about this page (and its images) can be found at ] and its archives - see ].}}
{{Controversial-issues}}
{{tmbox|style = border-color:#b00000;|type = content|image = ]|text = <div>If you find some images offensive ].}}
{{talk header|search=yes}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}} {{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Anatomy|class=C|importance=high}} {{WikiProject Anatomy |importance=high |field=gross}}
{{WikiProject Sexuality|class=C|importance=top}} {{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Men's Issues|importance=high}}
}} }}
{{Controversial-issues}}
{{Notice|The ] article was split from the ] article in December 2010. As such, much of the past history of discussions about this page (and its images) can be found at ] and its archives - see ].}}
{{Press
{{archive box|auto=yes|bot=MiszaBot I|age=180|units=days|search=yes|index=/Archive index}}
| subject = article
| author = Ben Blatt
| title = On Loins
| org = ]
| url = https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/01/wikipedias-penis-and-vagina-pages-their-colorful-history-and-popular-present.html
| date = 8 January 2014
| quote = Dec. 8, 2010: A separate human penis page is created. The editing of the penis pages mostly comes to an end as both articles are set to have limited editing privileges. This makes it impossible for users who are not editors of a set rank to make changes to the page.
| subject2 = article
| author2 = Brian VanHooker
| title2 = WHOSE DICK IS THAT ON THE WIKIPEDIA ‘PENIS’ PAGE?
| org2 = ]
| url2 = https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/wikipedia-penis
| date2 = 6 April 2022
| quote2 = Yet, through it all, there’s been one steady thing we could count on, one reliable member we could always turn to: The penis on the Misplaced Pages human penis page.
}}
{{archive box|auto=yes|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=180|units=days|search=yes|index=/Archive index}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes }} {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes }}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K |maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 2 |counter = 3
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(180d) |algo = old(180d)
Line 22: Line 39:
}} }}


== Proposal to change Top pic to Medical diagram ==
== Rewrite the first sentence ==

The first sentence is way to technical. Linking to articles which explain the terms is not enough; we should replace the technical terms with less technical language - in most cases we can take this from the first sentence of the linked article.

Current version:
The '''human penis''' is an external ] ] that additionally serves as the ].

Proposed version:
The '''human penis''' is an external ] ] used to deliver ] to a ]'s ] when a man and a woman have
]. Men also use it to ] and to ].

OK? ] (]) 09:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

:I don't approve of your proposed wording. For example, "pee" is not encyclopedic. And why should masturbation be mentioned in the lead? See ]. ] (]) 10:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

:If I were to propose a change to the ], it would be "The '''human penis''' is an external ] that is part of the ]. After that, I'd state, "It is used for ], and allows for the delivery of ] and ] to a woman's ] during ] for ]." Or I'd word the sentences similar to those examples. One thing to be cautious of with the "man and woman" part is that we sometimes get complaints about ] even when we are simply reporting on sexual reproduction. At ], you can see that we once got complaints about not considering transgender and intersex viewpoints. ] (]) 11:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2016 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Human penis|answered=yes}}
<!-- Be sure to state UNAMBIGUOUSLY your suggested changes; editors who can edit the protected page need to know what to add or remove. Blank edit requests WILL be declined. -->
<!-- Begin request -->

I am requesting to edit a statement in the second paragraph in the introductory section - "The penis is homologous to the clitoris."

I am requesting to change this statement to the following - "The penis and many of its associated structures are homologous to the vagina and its associated structures. For example, the glans penis (the head of the penis) is homologous to the clitoris."

Source:
First Aid for the USMLE Step 1 (2015). Tao Le, Vikas Bhushan, and Matthew Sochat. p. 568

<!-- End request -->
] (]) 23:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
:] '''Done'''<!-- Template:ESp --> --] <sup>(])</sup> 23:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

== Controversy section ==

There should be a controversy section. —User ''']]]''' name 23:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
:Not sure why. Also, separate criticism/controversy sections are ].--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 06:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

==Proposed section on Penis Adaptations==
This article may be further improved with the addition of this section. A specific adaptation in mind is that of how the shape of the human penis is evolutionarily adapted to deal with ].<ref>Shackelford, T. K., & Goetz, A. T. (2007). Adaptation to sperm competition in humans. ''Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16'', 47-50.</ref>
Additional evidence comes from Gallup et al. (2003), demonstrating that only dildos with a coronal ridge remove another's sperm from the vagina. <ref>Gallup, G. G., Jr., Burch, R. L., Zappieri, M. L., Parvez, R. A., Stockwell, M. L., et al. (2003). The human penis as a semen displacement device. ''Evolution and Human Behaviour, 24'', 277-289.</ref>
Alternatively, this information could be displayed under a current section, such as ] or ].
] (]) 12:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
:] '''Done'''<!-- Template:ESp -->

{{Reflist-talk}}

== Expansion of the penis adaptations section. ==

We would like to expand the section on penis adaptations. We will do this by splitting penis adaptations into 3 types:

1. Testis and penis size (references below)

Gallup, G. G., & Burch, R. L. (2004). Semen displacement as a sperm competition strategy in humans. Evolutionary Psychology, 2, 12-23.

Masters, W. H., & Johnson, V. E. (1966). Human Sexual Response. Little, Brown and Company: Boston.

Mautz, B. S., Wong, B. B. M., Peters, R. A., & Jennions, M. D. (2013). Penis size interacts with body shape and height to influence male attractiveness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110, 6925-6930.

Weijmar Schultz, W., van Andel, P., Sabelis, I, & Mooyartm E. (1999). Magnetic resonance imaging of male and female genitals during coitus and female sexual arousal. British Medical Journal, 319, 18-25.

2. Ejaculate adjustment

Baker, R. R., & Bellis, M. A. (1989). Number of sperm in human ejaculaes varies in accordance with sperm competition theory. Animal Behaviour, 37, 867-869.

Shackelford, T. K., LeBlanc, G. J., Weekes-Shackelford, V. A., Bleske-Rechek, A. L., Euler, H. A., & Hoier, S. (2002). Psychological adaptation to human sperm competition. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23, 123-138.

Shackelford, T. K., Pound, N., & Goetz, A. T. (2005). Psychological and physiological adaptations to sperm competition in humans. Review of General Psychology, 9, 228-248.

3. Semen displacement

Burch, R. L., Gallup, G. G., Pervez, R. A., Stockwell, M. L., & Zappieri, M. L. (2003). The human penis as a semen displacement device. Evolution and Human Behaviour, 24, 277-289. (Although already mentioned, more detail can be added).

Burch, R. L., Gallup, G. G., & Mitchell, T. J. (2006). Semen displacement as a sperm competition strategy: Multiple mating, self-semen displacement, and timing of extra-pair copulations. Human Nature: An interdisciplinary Biosocial Perspective, 17, 253-264.

Let us know of any suggestions or queries! ] ]
:{{re|123hs}} Please go ahead with your suggestions, your edits will be reviewed by other editors and adjusted accordingly. ] | ] | 15:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

== Peer review ==
=== R.g.rooney25 ===
The addition of a section on evolved penis adaptations is good. Overall, the content is well presented and cited with appropriate research. The subheading titled 'semen displacement', in particuilar can be credited for including interesting information and appropriate hyperlinks to related pages such as 'sperm competition' and 'cuckholdry'. I have thought of a few possible ideas to improve your article further:

-perhaps include a section relating the the social influence of penis size, maybe linking it to social judgments of manhood etc.

-perhaps introduce the idea of semen displacement having evolved for the purpose of avoiding cuckholdry with the concept of promiscuity

-In order for the layperson to understand the full content of your article, it may be advisible to provide a breif explanation of certain terminology. For example, it may be worth elaborating on the 'counter-insemination strategy'.

-more hyperlinks within other subheadings. For example, under the 'testis and penis size' subheading, it may be advisible to hyperlink words such as 'penetration'. (] (]) 18:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC))
:{{re|R.g.rooney25}} thank you for your suggestions! I have incorporated your idea on penis size and social influence and social judgements.] (]) 18:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Update: I have hyperlinked 'penetration' under the the testis and penis size heading. Under the heading 'testis and penis size, I have edited the sentence 'To achieve this the penis needs to be a sufficient' to 'To achieve this, the penis must be a sufficient' (added comma, wording slightly changed). (] (]) 19:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC))



=== Psunco ===
Proposed changes to Penis Adaptations:

1. Could include a sentence about ejaculation and how sperm travels up to 30-60cm when ejaculating, hence, there has been an evolutionary adaptation that focuses the release of semen at the uppermost portion of the vaginal tract

Gallup, G. G., & Burch, R. L. (2004). Semen displacement as a sperm competition strategy in humans. Evolutionary Psychology, 2, 12-23.

2. Also, including sperm competition or maybe just a hyperlink would be helpful because it is an overlapping topic.

3. Could also include a couple of sentences talking about the implications of premature ejaculation and include a hyperlink about that. References that could help:<br>
Hong L. K. (1984). Survival of the fastest: On the origin of premature ejaculation. The Journal of Sex Research, 20, 109–122.<br>
Grenier G. and Byers E. S. (2001). Operationalizing premature or rapid ejaculation. Journal of Sex Research, 38, 369–378.

] (]) 14:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

=== Drey02 ===
Some suggestions for the evolved adaptations of the human penis:<br>
- maybe explain briefly what the sperm competition is? (even if it's another page, just a quick explanation to outline what is it?).<br>
- on the ejaculate adjustment section: "This variation is hypothesised to be a male's attempt to eliminate, if not reduce, his sperm competition." maybe add a reference here to support this hypothesis?<br>
- on the same section, maybe find out if condoms affect the ejaculate adjustment? Do men still ejaculate more when they have been separated from their partner when using contraception? <br>
Those are just some quick ideas, otherwise the article is really well explained and structured. Hope you find this useful.
] (]) 18:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

=== NicoleKPascoulis ===


Misplaced Pages is supposed to be for all ages and not just adults, and why I do believe it may be better to have a medical diagram that is just as informative, if not even more for the lead pic. I wasn't comfortable with this but after doing a deep search on wikicommon, I found this and propose it as a replacement for lead pic.] My given reason to replace it is that if this was a medical journal for university students. Such a photo shouldn't be a problem at all. But we should remember that younger readers may be traumatised by the photo. And while I respect the Misplaced Pages community's preference for real photos, I advocate for a much more inclusive approach that considers the real diverse age readership of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 21:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
The addition of the Evolved adaptations section is really thorough containing lots research and clear information. I have a few suggestions for further improvement but overall it's a great section.


:Seconded. I can't help but wonder if uploader of current photo (info says "own work") gets off on the notion of people seeing their ugly damn dick on wikipedia. We don't need anything this graphic on wikipedia. Well, I don't anyway. I realize I was dumb to type into Bing search (for points) "What does a penis look like?" when I know very well. Didn't expect what I got when I went to the wikipedia link though. lol ] (]) 04:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
In the first sentence of the evolutionary section it may be beneficial to add the glans penis alongside semen displacement as this term could then be hyperlinked if people wanted more information about that specific area. The glans penis page also contains some brief information on evolutionary adaptations. The article is very clearly written but is quite scientific so it would be helpful to add explanations next to some of the more complicated terminology to ensure all readers will understand, for example fully explaining what a semen displacement strategy is.
] (]) 17:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


::See ]. I'm not a great fan of people uploading dick pics just for the fun of it, but this is a medical article.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 06:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
== Concerning the photo ==
:::Although Misplaced Pages isn't usually censored, its editors often remove images that they find offensive or objectionable. Many images were removed following ], for example. ] (]) 14:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
::Actually came to this page because I wondered if people have been doing that or if there had been a lot of competition to be the penis on the article .
:: and yet, apparently this was uploaded in 2012 and has been here ever since. Because it's a good representative picture. It is not being presented in a particularly erotic way, it is not erect.
:: on top of Misplaced Pages's anti-censorship policy I think having a photo is better than having an diagram abstracted away from the human form. If a child goes out of their way to look up what a human penis looks like, this gives them a more realistic impression then a Google result full of porn. And that is healthy. Just my two cents ] (]) 00:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
:I think an illustration would be better than the photo we have. It doesn't have to be a cross-section like the one above. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 19:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
::{{reply to|Crossroads}} The article already includes several illustrations that are more detailed than the one above. According to ]: {{quote|Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available.}} If this illustration is a "suitable alternative" to a photograph, should the photograph be removed? ] (]) 16:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
:::See also ] for general advice. One common pattern for an article on a sexuality-related subject is to put a diagram first and have the photo(s) later. However, there's no requirement to do this, and a labeled photo is IMO also a good approach. ] (]) 16:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
::::The best option in my opinion is:
::::* One diagram
::::* One circumcised penis
::::* One uncircumcised penis
::::* One transgender individual's penis (cut or uncut)
::::Around half of the world's men are circumcised and notable minorities are transgender or non-binary. Multiple images are also a feature of similar pages. The arguments by ZZZ don't hold up to scrunity.
::::Adding a circumcised penis into the images and going to start a discussion over the diagram/transgender individuals in a few hrs. ] (]) 18:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)


== Absence of pubic hair in photo ==
Why must it be noted that "this model has removed body hair"? Is it not showing? Is it so rare it must be noted? Because the photo of the vagina also has removed body hair yet it is not noted. Double standards for women? These thing always freak me out to no end. Be consistent please. ] (]) 22:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
:I agree that it is not entirely necessary to say this. However, not all penises are shaved (mine isn't, if you really want to know).--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 06:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
To me, it looks as though the lead image is of an uncircumcised penis with the foreskin partly retracted. Should this detail be added for accuracy? <span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 17:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
:Possibly, although it might make the caption rather long. The infobox photo clearly shows an uncircumcised penis, and this is the "natural" state. For ], not all penises have a foreskin.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 17:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
::Would it really make the caption too long? I think the labels in the caption are completely redundant, and possibly "flaccid" is redundant, leaving plenty of room for "A flaccid, uncircumcised penis with the foreskin partly retracted". <span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 18:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
:::That looks OK.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 18:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
::::Cheers - edit done. <span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 20:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::Why do we need to state that the penis is "uncircumcised"? Perhaps then we should describe the lead image of the female equivalent article as being "uncircumcised" also. I know that some people find the adjective "uncircumcised" as not being particularly neutral, as it implies something has been "undone", and that circumcised is the norm. If anything, the fact the pubic hair is shaved is more worth pointing out than the fact the penis is in its natural state, i.e. not circumcised. --] (]) 09:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
::::::I personally do not care in the slightest. "Uncircumcised" is possibly redundant anyway as you cannot retract the foreskin of a circumcised penis. "Shaved" could be introduced. e.g. "A (shaved) flaccid human penis with the foreskin pertly retracted".


In the spirit of accuracy, would it not be best to use/include a photo of an unshaven penis and scrotum, pubic hair being typical of secondary sexual development? For reference, the article for vulva includes both shaven and unshaven examples. ] (]) 03:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
== Article name ==


Please either change the name to penis, or change the name of the vagina article to human vagina. ] (]) 22:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC) :I’m more concerned about the size. The penis in this photo is very small. Can’t we replace it with something closer to average? ] (]) 19:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
::Agreed. Why would I want to see pubic hair when I could see a nice big clean shaven cock? Ahahaha, in all seriousness, I agree ] (]) 04:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
:There was a consensus a while back to split off this material into a separate article and name this one Human penis. There is now a separate article ] for other species. Previously the article was a bit confused as the information about human biology was mixed up with biology from other species.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 06:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
:::Same! ] (]) 12:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Disagree. The article should just feature one image of an uncircumcised penis. <span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;color:#00008B;background-color:transparent;;CSS">]]</span> 18:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::That does not make sense. There's many other body parts on Misplaced Pages that showcase variant traits between them. The human penis widely varies and there's no requirement that we only need one picture. At least two (circumcised and uncircumcised) are needed and I'd additionally support adding a transgender individual's penis. The majority viewpoint is for inclusion. You always removed other important info from the article in your edit change. ] (]) 18:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::idk if we even need a literal photo of a human penis here, if we do the one we have is fine. A penis is a penis. Should we have a gallery of penises of every different color, shape, size, circumcision status, pubic hair content, girth, "yaw of the shaft", etc? Is that next? Please people. ] (]) 16:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
::are you seriously arguing that the penis in the picture is TOO SMALL? This is very silly. The goal is not to produce an image most accurately representing the median flacid human penis. Really silly. ] (]) 16:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:::We should have one circumsised one uncircumcised and a flaccid and erect version of both. All unchsaven! ] (]) 09:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


== External links modified == == circumcision ==


They didn't add what circumcision is to the page ] (]) 13:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,


== Possibility of using an image of a transgender woman’s penis? ==
I have just added archive links to {{plural:2|one external link|2 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . You may add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
{{atop|No need to continue a generic chat, see ]. ] (]) 07:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)}}
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160221114041/http://archive.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/1999/02/17912 to http://archive.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/1999/02/17912
Thoughts? Others have pointed out the issues with the already existing photo but I thought this might be interesting and a little different… ] (]) 04:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
*Attempted to fix sourcing for //http:/www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13585.html
:I'll ] here to note that such a case would be hugely unrepresentative, so no. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 19:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
::Right, not as the main image, but in the body / a future gallery somewhere perhaps? ] (]) 23:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
:::So, let me get this straight, ], you're suggesting we have a gallery of dick pics? You can find that content on the Commons where there are plenty of penis images. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Clarification: are you asking for a picture of the penis of a transgender woman before vaginoplasty (which would presumably be the same as that of a cisgender man) or are you actually asking about the results of a phalloplasty on a trangender man? --] (]) (]) 16:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::No not phalloplasty, I just suggested to include the penis of a transgender before phalloplasty alongside other penis images; a variety you know what I’m saying? Small, medium/average, big, circumcised, uncircumcised, etc ] (]) 23:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Ahahaha, just a suggestion… ] (]) 23:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:::A gallery? There are already, by my count, 27 penis photos on that page. How many more do we need? This is not a penis emporium, it is an encyclopedia. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 03:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
::::You can never have enough dick pics, no? Ahahaha, in all seriousness, I just thought that because Misplaced Pages lacks pictures and galleries on transgender penises, it might be nice to include it, that’s all ] (]) 07:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Requested move 13 November 2024 ==
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).
<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #efe); color: var(--color-base, inherit); margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted var(--border-color-subtle, #AAAAAA);"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color: var(--color-error, red);">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''


The result of the move request was: '''Withdrawn''' (as expressed below) to open a merge request instead. <small>(])</small> —⁠ ⁠] (]) 23:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
----


] → {{no redirect|Penis}} – To avoid sexism and misogyny, this page should be moved to ] as there exists no corresponding 'Human Vulva' or 'Human Vagina' articles, implying that female sex and reproductive organs are less human than males'. ] (]) 17:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 03:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': This is an argument based on ], which is not binding on other articles. It was decided to have this as a separate article because it is about human biology.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 17:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Malformed''': The proposed target title is populated with non-redirecting content, and the nominator has not suggested what to do with that article. Is it suggested to just delete the current article? —⁠ ⁠] (]) 17:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
*:'''Oppose''' There is already a separate article called Penis. ] (]) 17:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
*:No, my suggestion is to merge Human Penis with Penis. And while I am suggesting rethinking these pages based on ], I'd also argue this arrangement where human male sex organs get made distinct from animal ones while human female sex organs do not goes against ]. ] (]) 18:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
*::If this is a merge proposal rather than a move proposal, you have chosen the wrong way to request that. You should use the {{tl|merge}} or {{tl|merge to}} template instead. I suggest to withdraw this malformed RM and do that instead. —⁠ ⁠] (]) 18:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::Thank you for this input. Clearly still trying to learn the protocols here. I'll create a merge proposal next, as best I can. ] (]) 22:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
*It was my mistake for suggesting a requested move discussion in the thread above, sorry about that, it should have been a merge discussion.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 18:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
:*'''Oppose''': At over 4,000 words of readable prose, there is enough content to warrant the separate article but I can’t believe we do not have a comparable article on female genitalia. ] &#124; ] &#124; 18:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: var(--color-error, red);">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] -->
</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div>


== Merge back with Penis article ==
== Recent edit ==
I'm wondering if it's time to merge this article back to ], given that Misplaced Pages has no articles for 'Human Vulva' or 'Human Vagina'. As a result, female human sexual and reproductive organs are conflated with animals, while the male human organ gets to be separate from animals. This is misogyny Misplaced Pages has no interest in perpetuating -- #shesaid. The other option, of course, is to create separate Human Vagina and/or Human Vulva articles. ] (]) 15:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)


:You could start a ] discussion, but personally I'm happy with the status quo. It was agreed a long time ago to split this into a separate article, as it is more of a human biology article than an animal one.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 16:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
I recently reverted a recent edit and I have been asked at my talk page to explain this?
::Thank you for the tip for this new editor. The solution may better involve creating a 'Human Vulva' or 'Human Vagina' article, but I'll see what the move request generates. ] (]) 17:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
* The edit inappropriately changed British English to US English.
* The edit changed what is a theory to a statement of fact (re penis size)
* What is a "prime example"? Why not just "example".
* Change of "testis size" to "testes size" - these matters are usually discussed in the singular, e.g. we talk about foot size, not feet size.
* Use of "likewise" in the first sentence of a para. To what does this refer?
* (in semen displacement) What is a "primary way"? Are there other "ways"?
<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 13:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


:To avoid sexism and misogyny, this page should be merged back into ] as there exists no corresponding 'Human Vagina' article, implying that female genitalia are less human than males'. This discrepancy also goes against ] ] (]) 23:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
== The penis is not homologous to the ]; it is homologous to the ] ==
*'''Oppose''': See my comments above. There is enough information here for a standalone article, and I don't think that the misogyny argument is all that convincing. If this were a human biology textbook, the information would not be added in with the penis of other animals.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 08:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', the split being warranted given that the topic is well-developed; readers are best served by having the content separately discussed, the readership likely to be be different for the two articles. It would be great to expand ] such that a separate human page was warranted, just as it would be great to see the same thing happen for other anatomical structures. ] (]) 03:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)


*Why is this even requested! Just dont merge back with Penis article admins ] (]) 12:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
On January 13, 2016, ] "The penis is ] to the ]." to "The penis and many of its associated structures are ] to the ] and its associated structures. For example, the glans penis (the head of the penis) is homologous to the ]."


*'''Oppose'''. Can't risk another run. Speedy close the discussion please. ] (]) 13:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Today, I was of this mistake, by ], in a discussion at ], and I See I made, stating, "The penis is not homologous to the vagina; it is homologous to the clitoris." With , ] came along to revert me, stating, "That was correct, i will add the source!" I , replying, "It's not correct, no matter the source you add." As seen , SheriffIsInTown reverted me again and then self-reverted while indicating that he will source the content.


In short, the "penis and many of its associated structures are ] to the ]" content I removed needs to stay removed as it is incorrect and furthers misunderstanding of female sexual anatomy. I will alert ] and ] to this discussion. ] (]) 01:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC) *'''Oppose'''. This seems to me to be an attempt at making a ]. If you want a ] or ] article, then ''you are more than welcome to create it'', instead of generating disruption here. &mdash; ] (]) 07:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)


*'''Oppose''', apparently, this has been a standalone article for a very long time and there is not really any good reason to change that. The argument falls under ] ] (]) 12:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:Wow... I'd like to review the source that supports changing it away from "The penis is homologous to the clitoris." The very serious problem we've got is all that content is currently unsourced... please get some sourcing for that. <code>]]</code> 02:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
:{{ec}} ], why haven't you added a pair of gold-plated sources to that already? You know that almost always ends such disputes. ] (]) 02:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC) *'''Oppose''', particularly when discussions over at ] appear to be heading the opposite direction. ] (]) 14:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)


== Higher quality female? ==
::], in this case, the editor was vehement that he could source the content. If I had sourced my reversion, I felt that my addition would still be contested by this editor. After all, sources can conflict. But ] is something we must also consider. And the due weight is with the clitoris and penis being homologous. ] (]) 02:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


What exactly is meant by {{tq|Research has shown that males produce larger ejaculates containing better, more motile sperm when mating with a higher quality female}}? I'm only familiar with such terminology being utilized by the ] and I'd hope that the usage here is of a different intention? ] ] 07:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
::As seen , the editor just added a source which he says supports his reversion. ] (]) 02:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
:::A guess that an editor might still disagree doesn't really exempt you from the need to provide sources for contested material that you restored.
:::It's really helpful that this editor added a source and refined the text to match it, because it helps us be certain about what we're talking about. The source says . That bit about "until the very end of the 17th century, of course, is the fatal flaw in the assertion that this is still believed to be accurate. But this information and the source might be very handy in a ==History== section. ] (]) 02:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


:Simply a layperson, @], but I found this: the article text was written in 2016 (]), citing , a 2011 paper in '']''. The authors, Kelly and Jennions, are ecologists or evolutionary biologists. Judging from the abstract alone, I do see {{tq|We found strong evidence that, on average, males transfer larger ejaculates to higher quality females}}. Given wording like {{tq|variation in outcomes among species}}, {{tq|multiple taxa}}, and {{tq|in a given species}}, I seriously doubt this article is specific to humans and would support moving the information perhaps to ]. That may be why it sounds manosphere: rightwing charlatans have wildly (heh) extrapolated animal studies to humans to bolster their grift. Anyway, hope that helped. ] (] '''·''' ]) 12:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Thank you WAID for finding value in perhaps one of the POINTyest edits I've come across. <code>]]</code> 02:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
:@] a couple things. a) I do think the wording here is gross and regardless of intentions, it comes off wrong. b) it's not uncommon to see the word "female" used more in the medical and biology world than you would elsewhere since it is technically a scientific term and in most cases it is simply meant to refer to AFAB. However, I do still feel like the wording here is unacceptable. Unfortunately, the one source does use the term "higher quality females" However it seems to be an article about other animals and not humans specifically so I'm thinking it's not the most appropriate. Additionally, all of the studies used are outdated per ]. I'm not sure how to proceed but based on the uncited text, outdated studies, tone, and what I would consider undue weight I'm thinking it may be appropriate to remove that section. I might just be bold and do it myself but I'll wait to see what others have to say first. ]] <sup>(])</sup> 14:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
::The paper mostly about invertebrates (spiders, crickets, slugs...), fish, and birds, but it does cite one 1989 paper on humans.
::I think we need to start tagging and blanking outdated and badly sourced content. I'll give it a go, and perhaps someone else will follow after. ] (]) 15:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Okay, I've tagged some and blanked quite a lot of off-topic content. Normally, I'd say that content might be wanted elsewhere, but there are so many ] and ] violations on this page that I doubt that it's worth copying over. (Also, it's fairly likely that someone did so years ago.)
:::About a third of the sources in this article are 15+ years old. If you see sections that I didn't tag as having bad sources, that only means that I gave up. It does not mean that I think the source is a good one. Please feel free to add appropriate tags yourself. ] (]) 15:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Could we consider transferring the removed content to the ] article, as the information about testis size and ejaculate size might be more relevant there? ] &#124; ] &#124; 15:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::If you can find a MEDRS-quality source for those claims, then I've no objection in principle to having relevant content in relevant articles. Potential merge targets include ], ], ], and others. In general, I'd suggest using the most specific article rather than ].
:::::A recent university-level textbook from the present decade would probably be a good place to start. ] has some textbooks and reference books available (], ], ], ], etc.). Most of the content will also require a re-write. For example, wording like "Research has shown" is a ] violation. ] (]) 15:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
::::This is what makes you a higher quality editor. ] (]) 15:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::@] Apologies, but what is that supposed to mean? I completely missed the point. ] &#124; ] &#124; 15:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::It's just a joke. ] (]) 15:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I thought I had said something inappropriate and was being taunted. I wanted to clarify so I could use this as a learning opportunity to avoid such mistakes in the future, but a joke is better. ] &#124; ] &#124; 15:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Yeah, I was playing off the unusual statement "high quality female" in an article about human anatomy to offer a light-hearted thanks to WhatamIdoing, saying that they are high quality for addressing the concerns that were brought up. ] (]) 16:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
::It wasn't the world female itself that worried me but the combination. Once had a neighbour obsessed with Andrew Tate that would talk about "high quality females" and that I was supposedly one because I didn't have a high body count or whatever. Weird stuff. Anyways, glad issues with this article are being addressed. ] ] 16:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Thanks for bringing this up it's important that these types of issues are dealt with. I assumed you know the context of the usage of female but wanted to clarify it for anyone who may be reading these talk pages. Looks like WAID has dealt with the issue pretty well. I agree that is some weird stuff. ]] <sup>(])</sup> 18:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
::::The work is by no means done. I'd love to see other editors jump in and fix, blank, or tag the rest of the content. ] (]) 18:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)


There is a book available that may help with the work. Having said that, I do agree with WhatamIdoing in that this article is in serious need of a major overhaul, and while I may not be a medical regular, I do have the necessary expertise needed to help here and there. I think that through collaboration, this article could definitely be improved to good article status like their ] counterparts. About high quality female, I think they meant to say that some females are more fertile than others or are able to carry more babies than others, or through natural selection are better mating options than others. I don't think it has anything to do with "body count" or any of that stuff. That's just my thoughts, do correct me if I'm wrong. ] <sup>(])</sup> 05:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
], while I am a big believer in ], I recognize that this is not a "sky is blue" case. I wasn't stating that I was exempt from providing a source, but when something as detrimental as this is added to the lead of an article and the editor vehemently defends it, I will revert (once or twice) and bring the matter to the talk page for clarification. I am stating that simply adding a source for the information is not what was needed in this case. Discussing it here on the talk page is what was needed since the editor was, or is still is, convinced that he is right. I do not see that my adding a single source, or even two, to the statement in the lead would have resolved this dispute. When I bring a matter to the talk page, I am fully prepared to defend my reversion with WP:Reliable sources, as seen in , ] and ] case. ] (]) 03:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


:Well, the source apparently wasn't even talking about humans, so I don't think it should be incorporated here. But the most good faith I could assume from that sentence was that somehow men could produce more ejaculate when looking at women they think of as ]. The thing is that attractiveness is somewhat subjective and isn't some objective thing you can measure. And women aren't objects so ranking them in terms of quality is problematic, to say the least. ] ] 06:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Hey folks, I apologize for the bad SPER! --] <sup>(])</sup> 03:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
::@], I'd be happy to see you work on this article. That book isn't the ] "ideal", but, honestly, I do think it would be an improvement compared to what we've got right now. Its publisher does a lot of "wellness" (in the sense of publishing whatever is trendy, with little regard for the scientific evidence), so I wouldn't use it for any surprising or controversial claims, but I think it's good enough for ordinary claims. And I think that what this article really needs is to focus on everyday, ordinary, unsurprising, basic claims about structure and function. ] (]) 06:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
:::{{tq|I think that what this article really needs is to focus on everyday, ordinary, unsurprising, basic claims about structure and function.}} I agree with that sentiment completely. ] ] 06:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Please note that I will mainly focus on the structural parts of the penis and its functions, and leave the rest to others. The cultural significance part of this article is ummm.....not my playing field. ] <sup>(])</sup> 06:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Those are good thoughts regarding society and they might inform how wording should be used. However, while I am very much an amateur in this topic, I can provide an assurance that the language is standard procedure and "higher quality" simply means whatever the observer thinks is better. Evolution has shaped animals to favor mates they consider to be attractive with things like symmetry and health being key features. I have no idea about the accuracy of the source but it is claiming that, on average, a male will produce more sperm (and of a higher quality) if the male perceives the female as being of high quality. The term ''quality'' concerns a guess about the likelihood of the male's sperm leading to offspring that live long enough to reproduce, thereby spreading the male's genes. As this is an article about penises, it would not be relevant to mention the corollary, namely that females perform exactly the same calculation except that they have to be more fussy because they are limited to one offspring per couple of years. There must be an article explaining all this. ] (]) 06:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::My point is that humans are complicated and anything involving them should be handled more delicately with due weight to other fields when nessecary. Making broad statements about an entire group of people is going to be inaccurate at best. For example, I have never experienced sexual attraction. So reading things like women pick mates based on their resources at ] like it's some undebatable fact in wikivoice is not ideal. ] ] 06:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::That last sentence wasn't directed quite at you, by the way. I'm just getting somewhat frustrated encountering this whenever I read biology or evolution related articles. See ] for an example of what I mean. I'm not claiming to be an expert in MEDRS and I'm generally hesitant to touch biomedical articles in the fear that I will mess them up. But I do care about the reader's experience when I see something that's iffy and probably needs to be contextualized better. Things are starting to get a bit off-topic here but feel free to start a conversation on my talk page if you want to discuss this more. ] ] 06:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::The edits made to the article here are fine; it was poorly written/sourced anyway. Other issues like this might be alleviated through liberal addition of phrases like 'on average' or 'most commonly', which are usually in the sources anyway. In evolutionary biology, it is common to study a given species primarily with reference to the population statistical norm. While animals don't mind, this may differ from how some other fields approach the human species, which shy away from generalizations. In the end, judicious wording choice, and sticking to good secondary sources when it comes to human evolution, should help with this. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 23:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::@], I think the most important thing you said was "{{xt|There must be an article explaining all this}}". There are several, and none of them are this one. ] (]) 19:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
::Re {{U|Clovermoss}}: Reading the abstract, they are not clear as to which species they are referring to, so I think they may be referring to mammals (humans included). While it is possible that males may produce more semen when having copulation with a female they deem more attractive, I doubt that's the case for all mammals, or at least all mammalian species analyzed in the aforementioned study. Much like you said above, I also don't think it's entirely appropriate to judge people, men or women, based on perceived quality. Information should be neutral and beauty is anything but. ] <sup>(])</sup> 06:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I agree that the abstract is very vague (perhaps they thought the lack of specificity would get their paper cited more often), but most of the research they rely on is not about mammals. ] (]) 19:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)


==Multiple images in article==
:Here are two on-line references I found: http://www.meddean.luc.edu/lumen/meded/grossanatomy/pelvis/homology.html https://www.dartmouth.edu/~humananatomy/part_6/chapter_38.html Perhaps you have better ones. Add some references and I, for one, will be happy to back you up.--] (]) 13:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


I'm in agreement with others here. We should at least have a circumcised (it's half of all men in the world) and maybe even a transgender woman's penis on the page. Many body part article on here have more than one picture. ] (]) 18:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
::I found a relevant, up-to-date academic textbook ''Human Reproductive Biology'' and added it, that should take care of it. <code>]]</code> 14:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
:There is a labelled photo of a circumcised penis under this section: ]. – ] 22:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
::Agreed. There are no fewer than 27 photos of penises on this page, 4 of which are circumcised. If anything, several of the uncircumcised ones could be removed. There's no need for more. ] (]) 00:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:As others have pointed out, variety is already adequately showcased in the status quo version of the article. ] (]) 12:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:19, 30 December 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Human penis 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, 3Auto-archiving period: 6 months 
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.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Human penis. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Human penis at the Reference desk.
The Human penis article was split from the Penis article in December 2010. As such, much of the past history of discussions about this page (and its images) can be found at Talk:Penis and its archives - see Talk:Penis/Archive index.
? view · edit Frequently asked questions

Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning the human penis.

To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question.

Q1:I have an issue with a picture on this article. A1: You can post a message on this page about your concern. If you add or remove a photograph from the article, do not be surprised if someone else undoes your edit within hours. Keep in mind that Misplaced Pages is not censored. However from an editorial standpoint, debate about the inclusion or exclusion of certain pictures (or types of pictures) is a permanent fixture of this talk page. Q2: I have an issue with a certain type of penis not being represented in photographs on this article. A2: See answer to previous question. Q3: I would like to upload a picture of my penis. A3: Unfortunately, the realities of supply and demand are not in your favor. There is a large supply of Misplaced Pages editors willing to photograph their penis in the name of science. However, the demand is much lower. If you feel that your penis is more deserving of placement on the article page, you are free to make your case below.
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 iconAnatomy: Gross High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy 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.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article has been classified as relating to gross anatomy.
WikiProject iconSexology and sexuality Top‑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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMen's Issues High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Men's Issues articles 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.Men's IssuesWikipedia:WikiProject Men's IssuesTemplate:WikiProject Men's IssuesMen's Issues
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
  • Ben Blatt (8 January 2014). "On Loins". Slate (magazine). Dec. 8, 2010: A separate human penis page is created. The editing of the penis pages mostly comes to an end as both articles are set to have limited editing privileges. This makes it impossible for users who are not editors of a set rank to make changes to the page.
  • Brian VanHooker (6 April 2022). "WHOSE DICK IS THAT ON THE WIKIPEDIA 'PENIS' PAGE?". MEL Magazine. Yet, through it all, there's been one steady thing we could count on, one reliable member we could always turn to: The penis on the Misplaced Pages human penis page.
Archiving icon
Archives

Index 1, 2, 3


This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Proposal to change Top pic to Medical diagram

Misplaced Pages is supposed to be for all ages and not just adults, and why I do believe it may be better to have a medical diagram that is just as informative, if not even more for the lead pic. I wasn't comfortable with this but after doing a deep search on wikicommon, I found this and propose it as a replacement for lead pic.Diagram_showing_the_anatomy_of_the_penis_CRUK_284 My given reason to replace it is that if this was a medical journal for university students. Such a photo shouldn't be a problem at all. But we should remember that younger readers may be traumatised by the photo. And while I respect the Misplaced Pages community's preference for real photos, I advocate for a much more inclusive approach that considers the real diverse age readership of Misplaced Pages. 49.195.62.91 (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Seconded. I can't help but wonder if uploader of current photo (info says "own work") gets off on the notion of people seeing their ugly damn dick on wikipedia. We don't need anything this graphic on wikipedia. Well, I don't anyway. I realize I was dumb to type into Bing search (for points) "What does a penis look like?" when I know very well. Didn't expect what I got when I went to the wikipedia link though. lol 68.52.185.132 (talk) 04:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
See WP:NOTCENSORED. I'm not a great fan of people uploading dick pics just for the fun of it, but this is a medical article.--♦IanMacM♦ 06:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Although Misplaced Pages isn't usually censored, its editors often remove images that they find offensive or objectionable. Many images were removed following this discussion, for example. Jarble (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Actually came to this page because I wondered if people have been doing that or if there had been a lot of competition to be the penis on the article .
and yet, apparently this was uploaded in 2012 and has been here ever since. Because it's a good representative picture. It is not being presented in a particularly erotic way, it is not erect.
on top of Misplaced Pages's anti-censorship policy I think having a photo is better than having an diagram abstracted away from the human form. If a child goes out of their way to look up what a human penis looks like, this gives them a more realistic impression then a Google result full of porn. And that is healthy. Just my two cents 2601:C2:781:EB50:C499:B529:E1B9:8EFC (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
I think an illustration would be better than the photo we have. It doesn't have to be a cross-section like the one above. Crossroads 19:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
@Crossroads: The article already includes several illustrations that are more detailed than the one above. According to this guideline:

Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available.

If this illustration is a "suitable alternative" to a photograph, should the photograph be removed? Jarble (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
See also Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Images for general advice. One common pattern for an article on a sexuality-related subject is to put a diagram first and have the photo(s) later. However, there's no requirement to do this, and a labeled photo is IMO also a good approach. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
The best option in my opinion is:
  • One diagram
  • One circumcised penis
  • One uncircumcised penis
  • One transgender individual's penis (cut or uncut)
Around half of the world's men are circumcised and notable minorities are transgender or non-binary. Multiple images are also a feature of similar pages. The arguments by ZZZ don't hold up to scrunity.
Adding a circumcised penis into the images and going to start a discussion over the diagram/transgender individuals in a few hrs. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Absence of pubic hair in photo

In the spirit of accuracy, would it not be best to use/include a photo of an unshaven penis and scrotum, pubic hair being typical of secondary sexual development? For reference, the article for vulva includes both shaven and unshaven examples. Lenie Clark (talk) 03:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I’m more concerned about the size. The penis in this photo is very small. Can’t we replace it with something closer to average? 2A01:4B00:88F4:CE00:ED85:96C7:B5F:C02E (talk) 19:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. Why would I want to see pubic hair when I could see a nice big clean shaven cock? Ahahaha, in all seriousness, I agree Aliy Dawut (talk) 04:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Same! RobertWikia9627 (talk) 12:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Disagree. The article should just feature one image of an uncircumcised penis. ZZ'S 18:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
That does not make sense. There's many other body parts on Misplaced Pages that showcase variant traits between them. The human penis widely varies and there's no requirement that we only need one picture. At least two (circumcised and uncircumcised) are needed and I'd additionally support adding a transgender individual's penis. The majority viewpoint is for inclusion. You always removed other important info from the article in your edit change. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
idk if we even need a literal photo of a human penis here, if we do the one we have is fine. A penis is a penis. Should we have a gallery of penises of every different color, shape, size, circumcision status, pubic hair content, girth, "yaw of the shaft", etc? Is that next? Please people. Chuckstablers (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
are you seriously arguing that the penis in the picture is TOO SMALL? This is very silly. The goal is not to produce an image most accurately representing the median flacid human penis. Really silly. Chuckstablers (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
We should have one circumsised one uncircumcised and a flaccid and erect version of both. All unchsaven! 115.130.36.86 (talk) 09:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

circumcision

They didn't add what circumcision is to the page SaPI3.142 (talk) 13:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Possibility of using an image of a transgender woman’s penis?

No need to continue a generic chat, see WP:NOTFORUM. Johnuniq (talk) 07:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thoughts? Others have pointed out the issues with the already existing photo but I thought this might be interesting and a little different… Aliy Dawut (talk) 04:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll WP:AGF here to note that such a case would be hugely unrepresentative, so no. Crossroads 19:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Right, not as the main image, but in the body / a future gallery somewhere perhaps? Aliy Dawut (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
So, let me get this straight, Aliy Dawut, you're suggesting we have a gallery of dick pics? You can find that content on the Commons where there are plenty of penis images. Liz 05:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Clarification: are you asking for a picture of the penis of a transgender woman before vaginoplasty (which would presumably be the same as that of a cisgender man) or are you actually asking about the results of a phalloplasty on a trangender man? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
No not phalloplasty, I just suggested to include the penis of a transgender before phalloplasty alongside other penis images; a variety you know what I’m saying? Small, medium/average, big, circumcised, uncircumcised, etc Aliy Dawut (talk) 23:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Ahahaha, just a suggestion… Aliy Dawut (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
A gallery? There are already, by my count, 27 penis photos on that page. How many more do we need? This is not a penis emporium, it is an encyclopedia. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
You can never have enough dick pics, no? Ahahaha, in all seriousness, I just thought that because Misplaced Pages lacks pictures and galleries on transgender penises, it might be nice to include it, that’s all Aliy Dawut (talk) 07:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 13 November 2024

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

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn (as expressed below) to open a merge request instead. (closed by non-admin page mover) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Human penis → Penis – To avoid sexism and misogyny, this page should be moved to Penis as there exists no corresponding 'Human Vulva' or 'Human Vagina' articles, implying that female sex and reproductive organs are less human than males'. Dcmcdcm-wiki (talk) 17:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Oppose: At over 4,000 words of readable prose, there is enough content to warrant the separate article but I can’t believe we do not have a comparable article on female genitalia. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge back with Penis article

I'm wondering if it's time to merge this article back to Penis, given that Misplaced Pages has no articles for 'Human Vulva' or 'Human Vagina'. As a result, female human sexual and reproductive organs are conflated with animals, while the male human organ gets to be separate from animals. This is misogyny Misplaced Pages has no interest in perpetuating -- #shesaid. The other option, of course, is to create separate Human Vagina and/or Human Vulva articles. Dcmcdcm-wiki (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

You could start a requested move discussion, but personally I'm happy with the status quo. It was agreed a long time ago to split this into a separate article, as it is more of a human biology article than an animal one.--♦IanMacM♦ 16:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the tip for this new editor. The solution may better involve creating a 'Human Vulva' or 'Human Vagina' article, but I'll see what the move request generates. Dcmcdcm-wiki (talk) 17:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
To avoid sexism and misogyny, this page should be merged back into Penis as there exists no corresponding 'Human Vagina' article, implying that female genitalia are less human than males'. This discrepancy also goes against WP:NPOV Dcmcdcm-wiki (talk) 23:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose: See my comments above. There is enough information here for a standalone article, and I don't think that the misogyny argument is all that convincing. If this were a human biology textbook, the information would not be added in with the penis of other animals.--♦IanMacM♦ 08:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the split being warranted given that the topic is well-developed; readers are best served by having the content separately discussed, the readership likely to be be different for the two articles. It would be great to expand Vagina#Other animals such that a separate human page was warranted, just as it would be great to see the same thing happen for other anatomical structures. Klbrain (talk) 03:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Higher quality female?

What exactly is meant by Research has shown that males produce larger ejaculates containing better, more motile sperm when mating with a higher quality female? I'm only familiar with such terminology being utilized by the manosphere and I'd hope that the usage here is of a different intention? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Simply a layperson, @Clovermoss, but I found this: the article text was written in 2016 (Special:Diff/717104400), citing Sexual selection and sperm quantity: meta-analyses of strategic ejaculation, a 2011 paper in Biological Reviews. The authors, Kelly and Jennions, are ecologists or evolutionary biologists. Judging from the abstract alone, I do see We found strong evidence that, on average, males transfer larger ejaculates to higher quality females. Given wording like variation in outcomes among species, multiple taxa, and in a given species, I seriously doubt this article is specific to humans and would support moving the information perhaps to Penis. That may be why it sounds manosphere: rightwing charlatans have wildly (heh) extrapolated animal studies to humans to bolster their grift. Anyway, hope that helped. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 12:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
@Clovermoss a couple things. a) I do think the wording here is gross and regardless of intentions, it comes off wrong. b) it's not uncommon to see the word "female" used more in the medical and biology world than you would elsewhere since it is technically a scientific term and in most cases it is simply meant to refer to AFAB. However, I do still feel like the wording here is unacceptable. Unfortunately, the one source does use the term "higher quality females" However it seems to be an article about other animals and not humans specifically so I'm thinking it's not the most appropriate. Additionally, all of the studies used are outdated per WP:MEDDATE. I'm not sure how to proceed but based on the uncited text, outdated studies, tone, and what I would consider undue weight I'm thinking it may be appropriate to remove that section. I might just be bold and do it myself but I'll wait to see what others have to say first. IntentionallyDense 14:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
The paper mostly about invertebrates (spiders, crickets, slugs...), fish, and birds, but it does cite one 1989 paper on humans.
I think we need to start tagging and blanking outdated and badly sourced content. I'll give it a go, and perhaps someone else will follow after. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Okay, I've tagged some and blanked quite a lot of off-topic content. Normally, I'd say that content might be wanted elsewhere, but there are so many WP:MEDPRI and WP:MEDDATE violations on this page that I doubt that it's worth copying over. (Also, it's fairly likely that someone did so years ago.)
About a third of the sources in this article are 15+ years old. If you see sections that I didn't tag as having bad sources, that only means that I gave up. It does not mean that I think the source is a good one. Please feel free to add appropriate tags yourself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Could we consider transferring the removed content to the Male reproductive system article, as the information about testis size and ejaculate size might be more relevant there? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
If you can find a MEDRS-quality source for those claims, then I've no objection in principle to having relevant content in relevant articles. Potential merge targets include Testicle#Measurement and volume, Semen quality, Human sperm competition, and others. In general, I'd suggest using the most specific article rather than Male reproductive system.
A recent university-level textbook from the present decade would probably be a good place to start. Misplaced Pages:The Misplaced Pages Library has some textbooks and reference books available (De Gruyter, Taylor & Francis, SpringerLink, Wiley, etc.). Most of the content will also require a re-write. For example, wording like "Research has shown" is a WP:MEDSAY violation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
This is what makes you a higher quality editor. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
@ScottishFinnishRadish Apologies, but what is that supposed to mean? I completely missed the point. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
It's just a joke. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
I thought I had said something inappropriate and was being taunted. I wanted to clarify so I could use this as a learning opportunity to avoid such mistakes in the future, but a joke is better. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I was playing off the unusual statement "high quality female" in an article about human anatomy to offer a light-hearted thanks to WhatamIdoing, saying that they are high quality for addressing the concerns that were brought up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
It wasn't the world female itself that worried me but the combination. Once had a neighbour obsessed with Andrew Tate that would talk about "high quality females" and that I was supposedly one because I didn't have a high body count or whatever. Weird stuff. Anyways, glad issues with this article are being addressed. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up it's important that these types of issues are dealt with. I assumed you know the context of the usage of female but wanted to clarify it for anyone who may be reading these talk pages. Looks like WAID has dealt with the issue pretty well. I agree that is some weird stuff. IntentionallyDense 18:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
The work is by no means done. I'd love to see other editors jump in and fix, blank, or tag the rest of the content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

There is a book available online that may help with the work. Having said that, I do agree with WhatamIdoing in that this article is in serious need of a major overhaul, and while I may not be a medical regular, I do have the necessary expertise needed to help here and there. I think that through collaboration, this article could definitely be improved to good article status like their vagina counterparts. About high quality female, I think they meant to say that some females are more fertile than others or are able to carry more babies than others, or through natural selection are better mating options than others. I don't think it has anything to do with "body count" or any of that stuff. That's just my thoughts, do correct me if I'm wrong. Wolverine X-eye 05:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, the source apparently wasn't even talking about humans, so I don't think it should be incorporated here. But the most good faith I could assume from that sentence was that somehow men could produce more ejaculate when looking at women they think of as sexually attractive. The thing is that attractiveness is somewhat subjective and isn't some objective thing you can measure. And women aren't objects so ranking them in terms of quality is problematic, to say the least. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
@Wolverine X-eye, I'd be happy to see you work on this article. That book isn't the WP:MEDRS "ideal", but, honestly, I do think it would be an improvement compared to what we've got right now. Its publisher does a lot of "wellness" (in the sense of publishing whatever is trendy, with little regard for the scientific evidence), so I wouldn't use it for any surprising or controversial claims, but I think it's good enough for ordinary claims. And I think that what this article really needs is to focus on everyday, ordinary, unsurprising, basic claims about structure and function. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
I think that what this article really needs is to focus on everyday, ordinary, unsurprising, basic claims about structure and function. I agree with that sentiment completely. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Please note that I will mainly focus on the structural parts of the penis and its functions, and leave the rest to others. The cultural significance part of this article is ummm.....not my playing field. Wolverine X-eye 06:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Those are good thoughts regarding society and they might inform how wording should be used. However, while I am very much an amateur in this topic, I can provide an assurance that the language is standard procedure and "higher quality" simply means whatever the observer thinks is better. Evolution has shaped animals to favor mates they consider to be attractive with things like symmetry and health being key features. I have no idea about the accuracy of the source but it is claiming that, on average, a male will produce more sperm (and of a higher quality) if the male perceives the female as being of high quality. The term quality concerns a guess about the likelihood of the male's sperm leading to offspring that live long enough to reproduce, thereby spreading the male's genes. As this is an article about penises, it would not be relevant to mention the corollary, namely that females perform exactly the same calculation except that they have to be more fussy because they are limited to one offspring per couple of years. There must be an article explaining all this. Johnuniq (talk) 06:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
My point is that humans are complicated and anything involving them should be handled more delicately with due weight to other fields when nessecary. Making broad statements about an entire group of people is going to be inaccurate at best. For example, I have never experienced sexual attraction. So reading things like women pick mates based on their resources at parental investment like it's some undebatable fact in wikivoice is not ideal. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
That last sentence wasn't directed quite at you, by the way. I'm just getting somewhat frustrated encountering this whenever I read biology or evolution related articles. See Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 113#Parental investment for an example of what I mean. I'm not claiming to be an expert in MEDRS and I'm generally hesitant to touch biomedical articles in the fear that I will mess them up. But I do care about the reader's experience when I see something that's iffy and probably needs to be contextualized better. Things are starting to get a bit off-topic here but feel free to start a conversation on my talk page if you want to discuss this more. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
The edits made to the article here are fine; it was poorly written/sourced anyway. Other issues like this might be alleviated through liberal addition of phrases like 'on average' or 'most commonly', which are usually in the sources anyway. In evolutionary biology, it is common to study a given species primarily with reference to the population statistical norm. While animals don't mind, this may differ from how some other fields approach the human species, which shy away from generalizations. In the end, judicious wording choice, and sticking to good secondary sources when it comes to human evolution, should help with this. Crossroads 23:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
@Johnuniq, I think the most important thing you said was "There must be an article explaining all this". There are several, and none of them are this one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Re Clovermoss: Reading the abstract, they are not clear as to which species they are referring to, so I think they may be referring to mammals (humans included). While it is possible that males may produce more semen when having copulation with a female they deem more attractive, I doubt that's the case for all mammals, or at least all mammalian species analyzed in the aforementioned study. Much like you said above, I also don't think it's entirely appropriate to judge people, men or women, based on perceived quality. Information should be neutral and beauty is anything but. Wolverine X-eye 06:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
I agree that the abstract is very vague (perhaps they thought the lack of specificity would get their paper cited more often), but most of the research they rely on is not about mammals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Multiple images in article

I'm in agreement with others here. We should at least have a circumcised (it's half of all men in the world) and maybe even a transgender woman's penis on the page. Many body part article on here have more than one picture. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 18:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

There is a labelled photo of a circumcised penis under this section: Human penis#Circumcision. – Anne drew 22:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. There are no fewer than 27 photos of penises on this page, 4 of which are circumcised. If anything, several of the uncircumcised ones could be removed. There's no need for more. Jtrevor99 (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
As others have pointed out, variety is already adequately showcased in the status quo version of the article. Piccco (talk) 12:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories: