Penis

Archived discussions Talk:Penis/Archive_1 Talk:Penis/Archive_2

==Penis (photo) enlargement== The flacced/erect photos seem a little small. I'm making them bigger. User:Eyeon 03:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==Keep the disclaimer out== I should point out - we used to have individual article tagged with individual disclaimers. When we created the general disclaimer, we removed the individual tags in favor of having every page in the database link to the general disclaimer (which, in turn, links to the content disclaimer - Wikipedia:Content disclaimer). Cantus' suggestion to the disclaimers back goes against the previously-decided policy. User:Raul654 02:30, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC) :That policy is a legalistic policy. What i mean by this is that, medical disclaimers, legal advice disclaimers, safety disclaimers and the like are there to both warn ''and'' to prevent wikipedia getting sued by people who follow dodgy medical advice and harm themselves. This warning is entirely different. IMO it is more akin to a spolier warning on an article about a book. Just as some people might read an article about Harry Potter without expecting to have the plot revealed, it is also true that ''some'' people might visit a page on a sexual organ without expecting or wanting to see a photograph.There is currently a very active debate on talk:clitoris about this. Rather than do it again here would people who are interested please comment there. There is also a vote going on that you might like to put your name too. User:Theresa knott User talk:Theresa knott 13:58, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::Come on, please. This is an encyclopedia. When you look up "penis" in an encyclopedia, you expect to see pictures of penises. Can we please assume a reasonable degree of maturity on the readers' side? User:Kosebamse 20:50, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC) I suggest we take this to the mailing list, as it affects several other pages on the project. User:Jfdwolff | User_talk:Jfdwolff 20:09, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) :I suggest it is done in public, where everyone can see and judge.--User:Irate 21:09, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC) :I agree it should be public. But it needs to be all in one place. So can we all argue on the clitoris page please. User:Theresa knott User talk:Theresa knott 21:16, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) I suggest we add two other tags to wikipedia: and . C'MON! Kids see genitals all the time - their own, for example, and possibly the genitals of others in public restrooms. Also, when the article name is "Penis" what do people think they will find?!--User:Deadworm222 18:55, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC) ==Unprotected== (Crosspost to talk:clitoris, talk:penis, talk:vagina) - Ok, the disclaimer idea has been roundly rejected. I have unprotected all 3 articles (Penis, vagina, and clitoris). Let's try to keep it civilized now. User:Raul654 00:04, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC) :Please reprotect as Cantus is vanalising.--User:Irate 02:12, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC) == Phimosis == I wasn't too surprised to find the discussion of phimosis a teensy bit doom-laden. It can be a serious condition. However I've never once been able to retract my foreskin, and have a perfectly healthy penis. The condition is not painful, indeed the foreskin is quite sensitive but is amply elastic and provides enough freedom for masturbation and sexual intercourse. --User:Minority Report 00:41, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) ==Legal concerns== I can't understand why Jakew removed a quote about the legal concerns of Australian medical authorities about routine infant circumcision. Perhaps he could explain why. User:Michael Glass 04:47, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) The focus of the article is on the penis, and we should endeavour to keep discussion of circumcision brief, with lengthier discussions in the circumcision article. The RACP remarking on some unspecified person having speculated a legal problem with circumcision doesn't exactly immediate relevance. - User:Jakew 10:51, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) *You are absolutely correct Jake, but do you think that for one moment that is going to stop your friends from attempting to slip their POV into every article they can? - User:Robert the Bruce 17:28, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) : Right or wrong, the viewpoint exists. The article should reflect that view without judging it as incorrect. Making a judgement in neither direction is perfectly neutral. User:DanP 19:07, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) Part of writing an encyclopaedia article is editing down the information to a subset that is considered relevant. The article isn't judging that POV as 'wrong', it simply doesn't mention it. - User:Jakew 19:18, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) ==Disturbing images== Wikipedia:Graphic and potentially disturbing images: “This is a proposal to regulate the policy on graphic images that could be potentially disturbing to Wikipedia users. The policy shall be discussed for a period of two weeks, also giving users a chance to draft their own policy proposals, and the voting will start on December 15 and last for one week.” For anyone who is disturbed by penis, clitoris, or any other body parts (including fingernails covered with certain shades of nail polish), that discussion and a subsequent voting seems to be a good place to voice your opinion in a way more reasonable than vandalism and edit wars like the one that is taking place on Clitoris. User:Rfl 06:20, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC) :Images of penis' are neither graphic nor disturbing. They are anatomical, scientific, correct and appropriate. Roughly half of the population has a penis, hence sees daily. --User:OldakQuill_User_talk:OldakQuill">User:OldakQuill|User:OldakQuill User_talk:OldakQuill 20:31, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) No, they ''are'' disturbing. If they disturb someone, they are, by definition, disturbing. You mean they don't disturb you.User:Dr Zen 06:58, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC) :A refresher in logic. It is always important to quantify statements. It does not follow from the fact that some people are or do X that all people are or do X. Peanuts may be deadly to some people, but we do not put them beyond the reach of all people for that reason. User:Kim �‡‘ 05:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) Some people are disturbed by pictures of dogs, maybe because they are afraid of them. If someone is SO disturbed by dogs, he will most probably not do a search on "dog" in Wikipedia!! At least that's what one might think, but no... I doubt that those who have been removing the pictures from the articles accidentally came here - they possibly had a set goal to remove all possible "disturbing images" they can find in Wikipedia. Getting back to the dog analogy, there's no way a person can completely avoid seeing dogs in his life. He must, for example, leave his apartment and outside he will most likely encounter dogs. ...Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll go delete some pictures of Dog, they're freaky.--User:Deadworm222 19:01, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC) Not to be disagreeable, but I think you miss the point. Some people want to control the access of other people to images that they find sexually stimulating or otherwise disturbing. User:Kim �‡‘ 05:11, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) == Do we REALLY need pictures? == Wikipedia is a web site easily accessible (and usually frequently accessed) by young children across the world. While in your nation, you might not have a problem with a human penis, in some countries it is a very taboo thing. Before you shoot back with "PUH-LEEZE!" and "quit being so prudish!," I would like to ask you to take into consideration other cultural concerns. After all, I feel that my culture has made quite a few cultural concessions in the name of "progressivism," and I think it's high-time the favor was returned. *I have sympathy with your position. However, it is not going to be resolved by constant reverts. I believe that there is a way in which to provide illustrations in articles relating to the human genitals which will produce both the educational accuracy and show respect for other cultures and the effect of explicit material on children. I ask you please to stop the revert war as it will serve only to harden the attitude of those who are currently driving the process of placing explicit material in the face of all comers regardless of quality on the basis of "any pic will do". Remember it is not you who has to grow up in this, what we need is a lot more maturity around here in the choice of illustrations. - User:Robert the Bruce 17:11, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC) *Wikipedia is not bowdlerized. Period. User:Raul654 11:35, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC) *I recomment you stop repeatedly reverting articles (which violates our Wikipedia:Three revert rule), get a user account, and wait a few weeks for any possible policy in the debate mentioned above to materialize. Then we can perhaps discuss the issue on this talk page and reach a compromise. Attempting to change the article by force, however, will not win you any sympathy. User:Cool Hand Luke Luke">User talk:Cool Hand Luke 12:45, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC) How about putting links to the images, rather than the images? That way, anybody fearing adverse consequences from viewing parts of the human anatomy that are normally publically visible only on statues could protect themselves from the perceived danger. That being said, the greater danger, in my experience, lies in a social situation in which some people have knowledge (or claimed knowledge) and can use that knowledge to manipulate people from whom knowledge has been withheld. "I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours," is not always a 50-50 exchange even when both people are of the same age. User:Kim �‡‘ 02:38, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC) :I would support this, especdially for the erect full-color images which are particularly taboo in many areas, and often considered offensive. I don't believe films featuring an erect penis in context, for example, can earn an R-rating in the US. User:Cool Hand Luke Luke">User talk:Cool Hand Luke 07:09, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) ::But a feature film is for entertainment not education. Plus wikipedia is intended for adults not children. If we link to the picture what other pictures will we also have to link to? Where would we draw the line - should breasts be linked to, should paintings and sketches be linked to? What about statues -are they offensive? or hair? It's all very POV. It seems to me that the only easy place to draw a line, that wouldn't keep getting redrawn over and over again as new people with different POVs joined wikipedia is to say that normal healthy body parts taken with a view to education should be shown in appropriate articles. Dead, diseased,abnormal,or hacked off body parts should be debated on the talk page. User:Theresa knott User talk:Theresa knott 09:03, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) :::I believe that standard is unworkable as it would include pornography (unless we're also committed to illustrating oral sex, anal sex, and others with photos). Should you add the qualifier, "except for pornography," you're again stuck with a sticky relativistic definition, so I don't believe such hard lines really resolve the question. (As an aside, many places ''do'' consider a closeup of an erect penis pornography.) :::Wikipedia appears to be "designed to be read and edited by anyone," so I'm not sure it's intended for adults. Indeed, you've argued eloquently about it's ''good'' for 13 year-olds to read unbiased articles and look at the pictures. However, my argument isn't about the children. As has been said, there are far better places to get sexual images than an encyclopedia. My interest is not about protecting youth from seeing this, it's for retaining editors like this one who find the image objectionable. The reason I believe R-rated movies are significant is that many adult Americans will not attend movies that can't meet this standard—it's a significant portion of English-speaking ''adults'' who uncomfortable or even offended. This might seem very quaint, but I don't think these potential editors should be dissuaded—and Wikipedia's cultural left bias enhanced—by asserting as ''a matter of fact'' that these images ''are not'' or ''should not be'' offensive. At any rate, an encyclopedia edited by community consensus shouldn't place very many editorial decisions above debate. :::At the very least, a compromise: use a black and white version of the photo, and link to the full color one from that. User:Cool Hand Luke Luke">User talk:Cool Hand Luke 09:43, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) ::::You make a reasonable point about drawing a line - I never thought of oral sex for example. So it just comes down to debate over each individual picture. So let's stick to this article alone. I do not understand you compromise above. Why is a black and white image less offensive than a colour one? I have an alternative proposal that people might agree to (though experience tells me they probably wont) What if we leave the flacid colour photo in and link to the erect one? User:Theresa knott User talk:Theresa knott 12:40, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) :::::Balck-and-white images are less life-like and less likely to offend in my opinion. I think removing color often forces viewers to take images more artistically, more clinically. However, I think your proposal sounds reasonable, though I would like at least a diagram showing the process of an erection in the article itself. User:Cool Hand Luke Luke">User talk:Cool Hand Luke 18:58, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) When I was growing up, kids who thought they knew something about sex used their supposed knowledge to take advantage of other kids. The control issues are major, and the information swapped around is of poor quality. Parents thought they were protecting their children by refusing to provide information. On a larger scale we see the same attitude coming from various people with their respective religious views. When they cannot convince people in their communities to adhere to their own values, they seek to use the law to enforce their preferences on other people. 金 I fully support the call for articles to cite documentation. Wikipedia should not supply misinformation. But to slant the truth by selectively withholding valid information is just as bad. We should always take a "major points first, minor points in order of importance" approach. Some issues, such as the composition of smegma, might eventually find a place in a really comprehensive encyclopedia, but before more important issues are covered, the minor ones can be handled by directing readers to more technical books or websites. 金 As for whether we should have an entry for fellatio, to me the question would be whether anybody would want information about that subject. Even WASP kids in conservative communities in the Mid West in the 1950s knew what a blow job was. What they did not know was that (1) you couldn't get pregnant that way, (2) you could get oral gonorrhea and other STDs, etc., etc. Some people went through a great deal of torment both because of fear of imaginary dangers and also because of being ignorant of real dangers. 金 A good model for the neutral presentation of information in this field is ''The Sex Atlas'' by Erwin J. Haeberle. ISBN: 0-8164-9124-0. "A critical summary, and a particularly handsome book. Highly recommended as a college text, for basic home or library reference, and for professionals." --'' Library Journal'' That book does have pictures of fellatio, and the people depicted do not look like porn stars trying to look sexy for the camera. 金 There is software available that will block the display of naked bodies. (I think it works by measuring the precentage of the screen that is devoted to naked skin.) People who do not want their children to know what Mommy and Daddy look like under their clothes can get that software. (Actually, I think my Safari browser will do this just by setting the right preference, and it's all free.) Alternately, we can do what the sexually explicit websites do: A "green door" with the words "Do not go beyond this point if you will violate your own values by looking at real pictures with sexual content." User:Kim �‡‘ 00:35, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC) I have uploaded a Black and white version of the photo. I will let everyone debate whether it should replace the colour pic. Personally I think that the colour one should stay--User:Clawed 22:12, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC) ---- Could someone find some anatomical drawings and use those instead? They might look more abstract and "clinical". If one had labels to the parts then that'd be even more useful. -User:Willmcw 07:19, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC) I'm not against a photo of a penis, per se. The erect one, though, is problematic. There is a diagram already, which I think serves pretty well.User:Dr Zen 07:28, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC) ==Monochrome versus color== Sorry to bring up an old question, but why is the monochrome version of :Image:Flaccid and erect human penis.jpg used on this page? There was some discussion above, and it appeared that only one editor wanted a black-and-white version, apparently because color versions are more titillating. Noone else seem to agree. Then the monochrome image was unilaterally added in place of the original color version, and noone seemed to say anything. I think the original color version should go back up. This idea that monochrome images are somehow more clinical is silly (all medical text-books nowadays have color images, for obvious reasons), and someone who is going to be offended by a color image is going to be offended by an image of an erect penis, no matter what color it is in. — User:Asbestos | User talk:Asbestos 00:14, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC) :Would there be an objection to a return of the color picture that was there before and is currently at Erection? — User:Asbestos | User talk:Asbestos 17:38, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::Done. — User:Asbestos | User talk:Asbestos 17:47, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) :::Much better! I didn't realise there ''was'' a color version of that picture. --User:Tony Sidaway|User talk:Tony Sidaway 18:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) I reverted to the black and white version which is much more clinical, IMHO. No need for a "titillating" color picture. Absolutely unnecessary. Of course the defender of all things porn present here will provide arguments against this and he will not tire on his intent to go back to a color picture until Jimbo Wales has to remove the image himself. If we discuss heatedly, this will take a couple of weeks to occur. I'll just sit here and wait :). Let the debate begin, Tony. —User:Cantus…User talk:Cantus 18:44, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC) Do stop ranting, Cantus. --User:Tony Sidaway|User talk:Tony Sidaway 18:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) :Oh, but that would make much more sense if redirected to you! —User:Cantus…User talk:Cantus 19:04, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC) :: "Cantus is reminded to discuss matters in accordance with good Wikipedia:Wikiquette, and is instructed to not engage in personal attacks, harrassment, or provocation." (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Cantus) --User:Tony Sidaway|User talk:Tony Sidaway 19:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) I don't see how a colour picture is more titillating than B/W so I reverted it back. User:Theresa knott User talk:Theresa knott 18:58, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) :I wonder why there isn't black and white porn nowadays. —User:Cantus…User talk:Cantus 19:02, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC) ::What a WP:DICK. I wonder why the medical profession doesn't solely use b/w photos anymore. If they're so clinical ... User:Limeheadnyc 19:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) Clear your browser caches, chaps. Cantus has replaced the image on Commons with a copy of the black and white one. --User:Tony Sidaway|User talk:Tony Sidaway 19:32, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) :And I re-uploaded the color version... — User:Davenbelle 20:40, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC) == The raphe pic - a new low for Wikipedia == I am interested to hear from anyone who can make head or tail out of the pathetic excuse for a depiction of the raphe. But I suppose it's inclusion will be defended to the death. Really sad for Wikipedia. - User:Robert the Bruce 07:16, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC) I defy anyone to identify that correctly without its label! I'm going to try it on the missus... nope, she couldn't. User:Dr Zen 06:56, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC) It probably would only be of interest to someone who wonders what happened to him to give him such a scar. It wasn't the first time my doctor had heard the question, and ignorance and fear are great sources of trouble in our world. User:Kim é�€��€˜ 07:51, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC) The question wasn't whether anyone would want to see one, but whether this actually was a good illustration of one. User:Dr Zen 23:26, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC) �The picture is damned close! �None can tell what it is! What we need is a picture about an intact penis and scrotum showing the raphe running from the outer pr�puce, down the shaft, over the scrotum, perineum where it ends. -- User:Walabio 01:04, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC) Well, rather than complaining about the unskillful picture-taking, how about supplying a better photo? User:Kim �‡‘ 04:54, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC) Well now, I have two reasons: # I do not have pictures about my genitals lying around # My genitals are pr�putial restoration -- not intact What we need is a food picture about the raphe in the public domain. I shall search. -- User:Walabio 05:18, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC) *Your efforts are to be welcomed. However, you should be aware that as a POV warrior whatever you produce will need to be carefully scrutinised to ensure that all is above board (so to speak). - User:Robert the Bruce 12:10, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC) **''POV warrior'' is simply name-calling, Robert. While I think the debate here is good, my question is: should this specifically be in the penis article? I realize the raphe is partially a component of the penis, but can the photo in a separate "raphe" article, and then mention and link to it in this article? My concern is that the raphe extends beyond the penis, and is not specific only to it. We don't have close-ups of, say, public hair shavings, random sections of mucosa, muscle, microscopic nerve endings, etc. and then discuss their relation to the penis as a whole. User:DanP 14:16, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC) **Not name calling Dan ... a statement of fact. Here follows three mails from anti-circumcision activist lists confirming just who are the POV warriors: - User:Robert the Bruce 14:53, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC) A call for help (and the identification of the full-time intactivists): �Vigilance on Encyclop�dia WikiPedia.Org! Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 03:22:55 +0000 ¡Hello! ¿How Fare You? Well my fellow Intactivists: The circumcisiophiliacs won this round on Encyclopædia WikiPedia.Org. The main problem is that they are more commited than we (they make it impossible for us to correct any of their lies and bias on præpuce and circumcision). Now, they go after our articles (maybe I should not have tried to expose them by writing about Circumfetishism). Hugh Young wrote complaining about me creating articles about Intactivism and Genital Integrity without consulting anyone. He was right to complain; I did create such articles without consulting. Let me just point out to things though: 1I invited other Intactivists to join me last year to join Encyclopædia WikiPedia.Org last year (within a month of that, I gave up on editing Præpuce and Circumcision because I was so badly outnumbered, that I could not do any good). 2I am the only full-time Intactivist with Michael Glass and Dan Blackham dropping in every now and then. Now that you are all temporarily here, I ask you to stay. If you would just check on our articles weekly and also præpuce, circumcision, and articles linking to them, it would truly help much. While you are at it, you can edit and start other articles. ¡Editing and starting articles is fun! Look at this cool article, which I started about Laurentia. ¡E Pluribus Unum! ¡Thanks! Ŭalabio ¡Dubya Shrub is a Saudi-Lover -- Saudi-Mite! ¡The Bin-Bushes bend over _"*FOR*"_ the Bin-Ladens! The call to arms for an editwar: �Circumcisiophiliacs attack Daivid Peter Reimer! Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 00:35:45 +0000 ¡Hello! ¿How Fare You? The circumcisiosexuals desecrate the article about David Peter Reimer. Some of us share the fate of David Peter Reimer, and the any one of the rest of us could have shared his fate. I do not care what those perverts do among themselves, but I hate the way those pædophiles go after children, and I refuse to let them vandalize David Peter Reimer. If it were not for those perverts he and his brother Brian might be alive today and the family Reimer would be much more happy. If the want total editwar, ¡we will give then total editwar! The article is here: HTTP://WikiPedia.Org/wiki/David_Peter_Reimer This is its history: HTTP://WikiPedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=David_Reimer&action=history This is the page for discussing changes to the article: HTTP://WikiPedia.Org/wiki/Talk:David_Reimer ¡Hurry! ¡Create an account, login, and help! Intactivistically, Ŭalabio ¡Dubya Shrub is a Saudi-Lover -- Saudi-Mite! ¡The Bin-Bushes bend over _"*FOR*"_ the Bin-Ladens! DanP's call for help: Need some help on Wikipedia Subject: Need some help on Wikipedia Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 15:27:55 -0700 (PDT) Dear group, I have been battling the pro-circumcision folks on Wikipedia again, hoping to list "circumciser" as a valid article entry. I have tried to keep the article as factual as possible and related to world cultures. If you are active on Wikipedia, please go to that article and give me a hand. So far, the pro-MGM side has been voting to delete, and I could use some assistance. Thanks, Dan ***(deleting massive email insertion). True or not, "POV warrior" is still name-calling, which is a cheap shot and implies something is going on beyond merely exposing the truth. Nothing in your insertion proves that, unless the only "right" POV is yours. While we may disagree on issues, that does not mean either one of us is "wrong". I have invited you consistently to share your POV, and I never discouraged your involvement. Strange that I'm agreeing with you here that the raphe photo is out-of-place, but we seem to have different views on what to do. Do you want to delete everything and make unproven accusations, or do you want to help? User:DanP 15:08, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC) ***Sorry Dan can't let you try and destroy the evidence. The use of the term "POV warrior"is tame IMO. The people around here need to understand just what you people are up to. - User:Robert the Bruce 15:42, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC) ****What are you talking about? I never claimed value-neutrality, and objected to feigned neutrality at all times, which is a trademark of the "POV warrior". Strangely, I respect your honesty with regard to your mutilation advocacy, but nothing justifies name-calling. I am baffled that you prefer the stealth and pretentious behavior, especially considering that I've been trying to agree with you on something. So what do you want to do here? User:DanP 19:49, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC) ==Penis size myths & legends== I deleted the entire section ''Penis size myths & legends'', which was a duplicate of info in the penis size article. That article has been edited to improve the discussion. -User:Willmcw 01:18, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC) I am deleting some sentences from the ''reassurances'' section on the ''air of mystery'' with regard to hypospadias. It is not a scientific term and no sources seem to be cited proving that mysterious air lies anywhere in the penis. User:DanP 22:59, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC) : I think you're right to remove this 'mysterious air' business. It seems rather nutty to me. - User:Jakew 00:45, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC) ==Political Correctness== Though it is not a huge concern, I do believe this article should use the politically preferred "intact" instead of "uncircumcised" User:68.117.69.182 :I do not see any issues of political correctness with uncircumcised. --User:Hemanshu 06:01, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) :If you ask me, intact seems more POV than uncircumcised. Also, intact detracts from the informative value of the article. The definition of 'intact' is completely undamaged, and left completely whole (unless I'm mistaken). However, the sentences in question are ''not'' comparing an unaltered penis with a circumcised one. It's comparing specifically an uncicumcised one with a circumcised one. I know it doesn't seem like a big deal, but why create confusion where there isn't any yet? I also agree with hamanshu, and I still don't know whether uncircumcised has a pro or anti-circumcision connotation. -User:Frazzydee|User talk:Frazzydee 06:07, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::Okay, now I know. -User:Frazzydee|User talk:Frazzydee 06:13, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) :Agreed, uncircumcised is more specific, more accurate and perfectly fine to use. Quite frankly, using the word "intact" makes it sound like a circumcised penis has been mutilated or something. I'm not sure if the original poster was committing vandalism or engaging in an edit war by changing the wording four times but the issue should have been brought to the talk page first. User:GabrielF 06:09, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) :Granted, that was kind of an editing war. "Uncircumcised" implies incomplete, or below standards. :I think using "intact" means that a circumcised penis is somehow "destroyed". Now I know that some people indeed consider that to be the case. However, I have known quite a few circumcised men, mostly Muslims, none of whom ever complained about being circumcised, and most indeed considered ''un''circumcised penises somewhat odd. I think that "intact" is not politically anything, and has certainly nothing to do with "political correctness", but is merely supposed to push once again the POV of the foreskin gang, people who seem to spend an incredible amount of thinking about something -- how shall I put it politely -- rather smallish? -- User:AlexR 06:12, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) :I'm not saying that I circumcised penis is bad, simply that and intact penis is, well, intact. ::But not all uncircumcised penises are intact. -User:Frazzydee|User talk:Frazzydee 06:22, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) :::Perhaps, but I think we are talking about a natural penis == MVP notice == Do we really need the MVP tag on the article page? Why not put in on top of the talk page? User:Limeheadnyc (T A L K)">User_talk:Limeheadnyc 23:33, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) :I'm going to remove it. Generally speaking, any active Wikipedian knows that this article would be frequently vandalized and an inactive Wikipedian wouldn't check his or her watchlist often enough to be of any help. It might be worth putting here, but not in the article itself, where it just looks bad. User:Everyking 00:07, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::That tag is obvious m:instruction creep. User:Raul654 00:32, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC) ==El-Bahnsawy== Please could someone explain why the following paragraph (as edited by myself) is under "Fears and Reassurances"? It isn't remotely associated with either. Unless someone can justify its inclusion in that section, it should either be moved to a different section or removed altogether. :In childhood, according to the study Paediatric penile trauma, male circumcision is the most common form of genital trauma; it occurred in two-thirds of the physical traumas examined (El-Bahnasawy 2002) [3] - User:Jakew 12:52, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) == "uncircumcised" == I find that expression un-"straight forward" too. Why not add unpierced to the description as well? Use of the adjective implies that it is an exception, and by global or european standards it is not. Isn't wikipedia supposed to be directed to a global audience? == cutoff penises == Is there any official term for when the penis gets cutoff (not circumcission, but cut from ballsack)? --User:SuperDude115 13:27, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) Is penectomy what you're looking for? - User:Jakew 15:04, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Penis

The penis (plural ''penises'' or ''penes'') or phallus is the external male sexual intercourse organ (anatomy), and, in mammals, the external male organ of urination. It is homologous to the female clitoris, as it develops from the same embryonic structure. The penis is capable of erection for use in copulation. The word is derived from the Latin word for the organ, ''"penis"'', which also meant ''"tail"''. The Latin word ''"phallus"'' (from the Greek ''"phallos"'') is sometimes used to describe the penis, though the word originally was used to describe ''images'', pictoral or carved, of the penis [http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=penis&searchmode=none]. ==The human penis== The human penis differs from some other mammalian penises by lacking a baculum, or erectile bone, instead relying entirely on engorgement with blood to reach its erect state. It also lacks the ability to be withdrawn into the groin, and is larger-than-average in proportion to body mass. ===Structure=== The human penis is made up of three columns of erectile biological tissue: * the two corpora cavernosa and * one corpus spongiosum The corpus spongiosum lies on the underside (known also as the anatomical position) of the penis; the two corpora cavernosa lie next to each other on the upper side (anatomical position). The end of the corpus spongiosum is enlarged and cone-shaped and forms the glans penis. The glans supports the foreskin or prepuce, a loose fold of skin that in adults can retract to expose the glans. The area on the underside of the penis, where the foreskin is attached, is called the frenum (or frenulum). The urethra, which is the last part of the urinary tract, traverses the corpus spongiosum and its opening, known as the meatus, lies on the tip of the glans penis. It is both a passage for urine and for the ejaculation of semen. Sperm is produced in the testes and stored in the attached epididymis. During ejaculation, sperm are propelled up the vas deferens, two ducts that pass over and behind the bladder. Fluids are added by the seminal vesicles and the vas deferens turns into the ejaculatory ducts which join the urethra inside the prostate gland. The prostate as well as the bulbourethral glands add further secretions, and the semen is expelled through the penis. The raphe is the visible ridge between the lateral halves of the penis, found on the ventral or under side of the penis, running from the meatus (opening of the urethra) across the scrotum to the perineum (area between scrotum and anus). === Relation to female genitals === The glans of the penis is homologous to the clitoris, the corpora cavernosa are homologous to the body of the clitoris, the corpus spongiosum is homologous to the vestibular bulbs beneath the labia minora, and the scrotum is homologous to the labia minora, labia majora and clitoral hood. The raphe does not exist in females, because there the two halves are not connected. === Erection === ''Main article: Erection'' Erection is the stiffening and rising of the penis which occurs in the sexual arousal male, though it can also happen during non-sexual, and at times awkward situations. The primary physiological mechanism that brings about erection is the autonomic dilation of arteries supplying blood to the penis, which allows more blood to fill the three spongy erectile tissue chambers in the penis, causing it to lengthen and stiffen. The now engorged erectile tissue presses against and constricts the veins that carry blood away from the penis. More blood enters the penis than leaves until an equilibrium is reached (equal volume of blood flowing into the dilated arteries and out of the constricted veins). A constant erectile size is achieved at equilibrium. The vasodilating effects of the drug ''sildenafil citrate'' (marketed as Viagra®) have been found to be efficacious in treating certain forms of impotence and erectile dysfunction. Erection enables, although is not essential for, sexual intercourse and some other sexual activities. Although the average erect penis points approximately horizontally, it is common and normal for an erect penis to have any of a wide range of vertical angles, from nearly vertically upward to nearly vertically downward, depending on the tension of the suspensory ligament which holds it in position when erect. ===Size=== ''See main article penis size'' In comparison to body size, the human male penis is among the largest of the primates. One study has found that the average human penis is 5 inches (13 cm) in length when fully engorged with blood during arousal, though this varies quite a bit.In some cases the penis is over 10 inches long. The size of a flaccid human penis has an even greater variation in both length and width that often does not correspond to the size when fully aroused. When a man with a relatively large flaccid penis has a normal or below average length penis when fully aroused, or when a man with a relatively small flaccid penis has a normal or above average length penis when fully aroused, they are sometimes known by the slang terms "showers" and "growers" respectively. ===Normal variations=== Depending on temperature, a flaccid (not erect) penis of normal size can withdraw almost completely within the body. Such a penis will be of normal size when erect - not unusually small. Other variations: * ''Pearly penile papules'' are raised bumps of somewhat paler color around the base of the glans and are normal [http://www.studenthealth.co.uk/leaflets/NormalVariantsInAnogenitalSkin.htm (Picture of them on a human penis)] * Fordyce's spots are small, raised, yellowish-white spots 1-2mm in diameter that may appear on the penis, as well as the inner surface and vermilion border of the lips of the face, and are normal. See ''Pearly penile papules'' for a picture. * ''Sebaceous prominences'' are similar raised bumps on the shaft of the penis, located at the sebaceous glands and are normal. * Phimosis, an inability to retract the foreskin fully, is harmless in infants and pre-pubescent males, occurring in about 8 percent of boys at age 10. See Phimosis for a more complete discussion. ===Disorders affecting the penis=== Oedema (swelling) of the foreskin can result from sexual activity, including masturbation. It appears worrying but so long as the foreskin is in its normal position and blood flow is present it's harmless. See ''paraphimosis'' for situations where the foreskin can't be moved to its normal position or the swelling persists. If the condition recurrs regularly, medical advice should be obtained, since it can be a symptom of conditions such as chronic heart disease. (''[http://www.links.net/vita/corp/catdick/ description of a case resulting from sexual activity, with pictures]'') ''Pathological Phimosis''--where a non-retracting foreskin is accompanied by pain or physiological distress, or affects physical hygiene, requires treatment which can be surgical or non-surgical according to the severity of the condition. See Phimosis for more details. Paraphimosis is an inability to move the foreskin forward over the glans. It can result from fluid trapped in a foreskin which is left retracted, perhaps following a medical procedure, or accumulation of fluid in the foreskin because of friction during vigorous sexual activity. Applying pressure to compress the glans, then moving the foreskin to its normal position is the initial procedure to follow, perhaps with the assistance of a lubricant. Placing the penis in normal granulated sugar can reduce the swelling via osmosis. If the condition persists for more than several hours or there's a sign of lack of blood flow, a hard glans with no erection or an inability to urinate, it should be treated as a medical emergency. In Peyronie's disease, anomalous scar tissue grows in the soft tissue of the penis, causing curvature. Severe cases can benefit from surgical correction. A thrombosis can occur during periods of frequent and prolonged sexual activity, especially fellatio. It is usually harmless and self-corrects within a few weeks. Pudendal nerve entrapment is a condition characterized by pain on sitting and loss of penile (or clitoral) sensation and orgasm. Occasionally there is a total loss of sensation and orgasm. The pudendal nerve can be damaged by narrow hard cycle seats and accidents. Penile fracture can occur if the erect penis is bent excessively. A pop or cracking sound and pain is normally associated with this event. Emergency medical assistance should be obtained, after which long term consequences are usually prevented. In one study [http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046/j.1464-410X.1996.86420.x/abs/], the few patients suffering permanent penile curvature were the ones who had waited longest before seeking treatment. In diabetes, peripheral neuropathy can cause tingling in the penile skin and possibly reduced or completely absent sensation. The reduced sensations can lead to injuries for either partner and their absence can make it impossible to have sexual pleasure through stimulation of the penis. Since the problems are caused by permanent nerve damage, preventive treatment through good control of the diabetes is the primary treatment. Some limited recovery may be possible through improved diabetes control. Impotence, sometimes called erectile dysfunction or ''ED'', is the inability to have and maintain an erection sufficiently firm for satisfactory sexual performance. A wide variety of generally effective treatments are available. Diabetes is a leading cause, as is normal aging. Priapism is a painful and potentially harmful medical condition in which the erect penis does not return to its flaccid state. The causative mechanisms are poorly understood but involve complex neurological and vascular factors. Potential complications include ischaemia, thrombosis, and impotence. In serious cases the condition may result in gangrene, which may necessitate amputation. ====Developmental disorders of the penis==== Hypospadias is a developmental disorder where the meatus is positioned wrongly at birth. Hypospadias can also occur iatrogenically by the downward pressure of an indwelling urethral catheter.[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9554017] It is usually corrected by surgery. A micropenis is a very small penis caused by developmental problems. ====Psychological disorders related to the penis==== *koro - delusion of shrinkage of the penis and retraction into the body *penis envy - the contested Freudian belief of a woman envying men for having a penis ===Altering the male genitalia===

''A circumcised penis pictured right''

''Main article: genital modification and mutilation'' The most prevalent form of genital alteration in some countries is circumcision: for various cultural, religious, and more rarely medical reasons, part or all of the foreskin is removed. In many cases, such as in some United States hospitals, the frenulum and part of the shaft skin is also removed. Less commonly, the penis is sometimes body piercing or decorated by other body art, usually for the purpose of aesthetics, or increased sensitivity. Piercings of the penis include the Prince Albert piercing, the Apadravya piercing, the Ampallang piercing, the dydoe piercing, and the frenum piercing. Foreskin restoration or stretching is a further form of body modification. Other practices which alter the penis are also performed, although they are rare in Western societies without a diagnosed medical condition. Apart from a penectomy, perhaps the most radical of these is subincision, in which the urethra is split along the underside of the penis. Subincision originated among Australian Aborigines, although it is now done by some in the U.S. and Europe. ===Fears and reassurance=== Possibly due to shame inculcated in regard to genitalia, some people suffer from misunderstandings and resultant fear. Penis panic is a kind of hysteria that appears to be culturally conditioned and largely limited to Sudan, China, Japan, and South-east Asia. As mentioned earlier, the raphe is the visible ridge between the lateral halves of the penis, found on the ventral or under side of the penis, running from the meatus (opening of the urethra) across the scrotum to the perineum (area between scrotum and anus). This "scar" is actually the "biological zipper" that closes the urethra during the normal course of fetal development. When the urethra does not close normally, the resulting condition is called hypospadias. Surgery is required to close the urethra. Treatment may involve multiple surgeries and attendant pain. Other beliefs involve the idea that masturbation can cause insanity or blindness. In childhood, according to the study ''Paediatric penile trauma'', male circumcision is the most common form of genital trauma; it occurred in two-thirds of the physical traumas examined (El-Bahnasawy 2002) [http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bsc/bju/2002/00000090/00000001/art02741] ==Non-human penises== Most marsupialia, except for the two largest species of kangaroos, have a bifurcated penis. That is, it separates into two columns, and so the penis terminates in two ends. The barnacle has the longest penis for its own length: up to twenty times the length of the animal. It is popularly believed that the dolphin has prehensile control over his penis, but this is an urban legend. The Icelandic Phallological Museum is devoted entirely to collecting penis specimens from all the land and sea mammals living in Iceland. The museum has received a legally-certified gift token for a future specimen belonging to ''Homo sapiens''. ==See also== *Autofellatio *Foreskin *Gland *Impotence *Lingam *Penis envy *Phallic symbol *Priapism *Penis removal *Circumcision *Sexual intercourse *Masturbation *Sexual slang *sheath *Penis game *Penis enlargement *PDE5 - Viagra, Cialis and Levitra *Sperm *Testicle *Vas deferens *Vulva ==External links== *[http://www.neo-tech.com/penis/ Penis Size Chart] (actual-size chart suitable for printing out and comparing) *[http://www.afraidtoask.com/members/index.html AfraidToAsk.com's Male Genitalia Guide] *[http://www.my-penis.org/ All About the Penis] *[http://www.the-penis-website.com/ The Penis Website] *[http://www.penisowner.com/pom/pom.html Shagnasty's Penis Owners Manual] *[http://www.the-penis.com A Website About the Penis and Male Sexuality] *[http://www.edu.uni-klu.ac.at/~amiklaut/dr_nick/answer19.htm Summary Penis Size data] *[http://www.the-penis.com/mythsandfacts.html Details Penis Size Data] *[http://www.indiana.edu/~kinsey/resources/bib-penis.html Kinsey Institute on the penis] *[http://www.askmen.com/sports/health/health4.html Ask Men about penis] *[http://www.circumstitions.com/Glossary.html A Glossary of the Penis] Note: This is an anti-circumcision website. *[http://www.cirp.org/pages/anat/ Anatomy of the Penis - Mechanics of Intercourse] Note: This is an anti-circumcision website. andrology reproductive system Sexual anatomy gd:Bod ms:Zakar simple:Penis su:Sirit

See other meanings of words starting from letter:

P

PA | PB | PC | PD | PE | PF | PG | PH | PI | PJ | PK | PL | PM | PN | PO | PR | PS | PT | PU | PW | PX | PY | PZ |

Words begining with Penis:

Penis
Penis
Penis-breath
Penis-envy
Penis-melting_Zionist_robot_combs
Penis/Archive_1
Penis/Archive_2
Penisbird
PenisCone
Penises
Penistone
Penistone_Grammar_School
Penistone_grammar_school
Penistone_Line
Penistone_Line
Penistone_line
Penisula_Tiger_Snake
Penisula_tiger_snake
Penis_bird
Penis_bone
Penis_captivus
Penis_enlargement
Penis_enlargement
Penis_Envy
Penis_envy
Penis_envy
Penis_Envy_(album)
Penis_Envy_(record)
Penis_Envy_(record)
Penis_extension
Penis_game
Penis_game
Penis_juice
Penis_Landscape
Penis_length
Penis_melting
Penis_panic
Penis_panic
Penis_pump
Penis_pump
Penis_reduction
Penis_removal
Penis_removal
Penis_Ring
Penis_sheath
Penis_size
Penis_size
Penis_sleeve
Penis_snatcher
Penis_Snatchers
Penis_splitting