Talk:Human penis - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zad68 (talk | contribs) at 14:22, 28 April 2016 (→The penis is not homologous to the vagina; it is homologous to the clitoris: added). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:22, 28 April 2016 by Zad68 (talk | contribs) (→The penis is not homologous to the vagina; it is homologous to the clitoris: added)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Skip to table of contents

Misplaced 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.

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.

If you find some images offensive you can configure your browser to mask them.

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 6 months

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 article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Anatomy High‑importance

	This 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has not yet been associated with a particular anatomical discipline.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Sexology and sexuality Top‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

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.

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 male organ that additionally serves as the urinal duct.

Proposed version:

The human penis is an external male organ used to deliver semen to a woman's vagina when a man and a woman have
sex. Men also use it to pee and to masturbate.

OK? filceolaire (talk) 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 WP:Lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

If I were to propose a change to the WP:Lead sentence, it would be "The human penis is an external sex organ that is part of the male reproductive system. After that, I'd state, "It is used for urination, and allows for the delivery of semen and sperm to a woman's vagina during sexual intercourse for sexual reproduction." 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 heteronormativity even when we are simply reporting on sexual reproduction. At Talk:Human penis/Archive 1#"male humans" should be changed to "humans assigned male at birth", you can see that we once got complaints about not considering transgender and intersex viewpoints. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2016

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your 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

Spartan13002 (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Done --allthefoxes 23:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Controversy section

There should be a controversy section. —User 0 0 0 name 23:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Not sure why. Also, separate criticism/controversy sections are discouraged.--♦IanMacM♦ 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 Sperm Competition. Additional evidence comes from Gallup et al. (2003), demonstrating that only dildos with a coronal ridge remove another's sperm from the vagina. Alternatively, this information could be displayed under a current section, such as Anatomy or Physiological Functions. NC1328656 (talk) 12:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Done

References

Shackelford, T. K., & Goetz, A. T. (2007). Adaptation to sperm competition in humans. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 47-50.
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.

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! User:123hs User:JS.Chester

@123hs: Please go ahead with your suggestions, your edits will be reviewed by other editors and adjusted accordingly. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 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'. (R.g.rooney25 (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC))

@R.g.rooney25: thank you for your suggestions! I have incorporated your idea on penis size and social influence and social judgements.JS.Chester (talk) 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). (R.g.rooney25 (talk) 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:
Hong L. K. (1984). Survival of the fastest: On the origin of premature ejaculation. The Journal of Sex Research, 20, 109–122.
Grenier G. and Byers E. S. (2001). Operationalizing premature or rapid ejaculation. Journal of Sex Research, 38, 369–378.

Psunco (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Drey02

Some suggestions for the evolved adaptations of the human penis:
- maybe explain briefly what the sperm competition is? (even if it's another page, just a quick explanation to outline what is it?).
- 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?
- 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?
Those are just some quick ideas, otherwise the article is really well explained and structured. Hope you find this useful. Drey02 (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

NicoleKPascoulis

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.

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. NicoleKPascoulis (NicoleKPascoulis) 17:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Concerning the 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. 2001:1C06:504:3300:4A5B:39FF:FEEF:A18D (talk) 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).--♦IanMacM♦ 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? DrChrissy 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 religious and other reasons, not all penises have a foreskin.--♦IanMacM♦ 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". DrChrissy 18:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

That looks OK.--♦IanMacM♦ 18:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Cheers - edit done. DrChrissy 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. --TBM10 (talk) 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".

Article name

Please either change the name to penis, or change the name of the vagina article to human vagina. 2001:1C06:504:3300:4A5B:39FF:FEEF:A18D (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2016 (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 Penis for other species. Previously the article was a bit confused as the information about human biology was mixed up with biology from other species.--♦IanMacM♦ 06:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Human penis. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{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 {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

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
Attempted to fix sourcing for //http:/www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13585.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit

I recently reverted a recent edit and I have been asked at my talk page to explain this?

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"?

DrChrissy 13:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The penis is not homologous to the vagina; it is homologous to the clitoris

On January 13, 2016, Allthefoxes changed "The penis is homologous to the clitoris." to "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."

Today, I was made aware of this mistake, by ArnoldReinhold, in a discussion at Talk:Vagina, and I noted that I had remedied the text. See this edit I made, stating, "The penis is not homologous to the vagina; it is homologous to the clitoris." With this edit, SheriffIsInTown came along to revert me, stating, "That was correct, i will add the source!" I reverted, replying, "It's not correct, no matter the source you add." As seen here, 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 homologous to the vagina" content I removed needs to stay removed as it is incorrect and furthers misunderstanding of female sexual anatomy. I will alert WP:Med and WP:Anatomy to this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:49, 28 April 2016 (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. Zad68 02:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Flyer22, why haven't you added a pair of gold-plated sources to that already? You know that almost always ends such disputes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, 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 WP:Due weight is something we must also consider. And the due weight is with the clitoris and penis being homologous. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

As seen here, the editor just added a source which he says supports his reversion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 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 "thus, until the very end of the seventeenth century, there seemed no difficulty in holding that women had an organ homologous, through topological inversion, to the penis inside their bodies, the vagina, and another one morphologically homologous to the penis, outside, the clitoris". 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. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you WAID for finding value in perhaps one of the POINTyest edits I've come across. Zad68 02:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, while I am a big believer in WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue, 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 this, this and this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey folks, I apologize for the bad SPER! --allthefoxes 03:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

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.--agr (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I found a relevant, up-to-date academic textbook Human Reproductive Biology and added it, that should take care of it. Zad68 14:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Categories: