Talk:Human penis

Proposal to change Top pic to Medical diagram

Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia community's preference for real photos, I advocate for a much more inclusive approach that considers the real diverse age readership of Wikipedia. 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♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Although Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 ^-talk- 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 Wikipedia: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^Z'S 18:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

That does not make sense. There's many other body parts on Wikipedia 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?

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 ^-talk- 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 ^{Read! Talk!} 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 Wikipedia 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: This is an argument based on WP:OTHERCONTENT, which is not binding on other articles. It was decided to have this as a separate article because it is about human biology.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 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? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  Oppose There is already a separate article called Penis. Kolano123 (talk) 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 WP:OTHERCONTENT, 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 WP:NPOV. Dcmcdcm-wiki (talk) 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 {{merge}} or {{merge to}} template instead. I suggest to withdraw this malformed RM and do that instead. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 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. Dcmcdcm-wiki (talk) 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.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 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. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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♦ ^{(talk to me)} 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♦ ^{(talk to me)} 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)

• Why is this even requested! Just dont merge back with Penis article admins RobertWikia9627 (talk) 12:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Can't risk another run. Speedy close the discussion please. Ahri Boy (talk) 13:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. This seems to me to be an attempt at making a WP:POINT. If you want a human vagina or human vulva article, then you are more than welcome to create it, instead of generating disruption here. — The Anome (talk) 07:29, 27 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 [1] 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 ^(Contribs) 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. Wikipedia:The Wikipedia 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 ^(Contribs) 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 ^{(talk to me)} 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 ^{(talk to me)} 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 Wikipedia: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 ^-talk- 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 ^{(talk to me)} 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)