Talk:Penis fencing

Untitled

Dammit, I shouldn't have clicked the link to frot.--Planetary 05:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL Raul654 05:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, curiosity killed the flatworm, as they say.--Planetary 06:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Man, too bad this article does not tackle human penis fencing.

ROFL--66.32.76.81 23:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Swordfight! 130.101.14.214 (talk) 14:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Real?

Is this for real? --Christopher Kraus (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Raul654 (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I was sure the species name was vandalism, but sure enough, it's real. What a strange, dirty-sounding coincidence. Bolddeciever (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Pseudobiceros hancockanus? 76.79.237.162 (talk) 11:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Toxic semen being used to kill foes whilst fighting with penis sheath swords?! Now THAT sounds like reality TV I'd watch. By crikey. Edaemus (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Pierce or absorb?

Re: "Two hermaphroditic flatworms attempt to pierce the skin of one another with one of their penises. The 'winner' is the organism that inseminates the other; the winner becomes the father. The sperm is absorbed through pores in the skin", which is it? Is the skin pierced and the sperm delivered to the underlying tissue, or is the sperm delivered outside of the skin and absorbed? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, confusing insemination mechanism of different species? It seems that many flatworms have genital pores, into which the penis ("copulatory bulb" in planarians) is inserted.[1] Another problem with the statement is that this site states that in penis fencing species both individuals often succeed in piercing/inseminating the other, which would mean that both "win" and "lose" simultaneously. -- Donald Albury 15:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Could someone with some expertise please fix the article? I would do it, but you really don't want to see the results of an engineer writing about biology... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, my background is linguistics and computers. :) -- Donald Albury 19:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is there some ridiculousness and/or bias inherent in the application of the concepts of "winning" and "losing" here? Ha ha, you lost, you have to be the mother! 71.210.9.86 (talk) 07:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, penis fencing does appear to be a contest, with the goal of inseminating the opponent without being inseminated. In addition to the higher cost of producing fertilized eggs compared to producing sperm, the "loser" suffers damage to its skin. Talking about "winners" and "losers" is figurative speech that may be too informal. What do you suggest to replace that language? -- Donald Albury 10:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Penis fencing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080326155753/http://www.sciencenews.org:80/pages/sn_arc98/2_14_98/fob2.htm to http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc98/2_14_98/fob2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)