Talk:Ejaculation/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Other

This article seems somewhat heterosexual-biased. 64.69.92.77 17:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

it also seems gay. guys don't want to see some guys cumming. and girls would want to see a better picture

the new digarm(sp) is much better than the photo of the guy.... now someone needs to get a good on to put on the female ejaculation article.--68.185.111.78 08:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

now the diagram sucks. who messed with it. it was better as a GIF and animated--68.185.111.78 17:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe 7,200 as the average number of times a man ejaculates in his lifetime. This figure is plausable as the number of time a man has sex in his lifetime but that ignores the significant number of times he ejaculates from masturbation. Does anyone know where the figure came from and any ideas of how to derived a more accurate one?

This is an article on EJACULATION - so doesn't need a load of sperm "facts". I've removed these but kept the ejaculation "facts". Will look at them in detail later and then edit/remove depending on their veracity.asdf

Removed "Also, the use of marijuana and other substances may kill or damage sperm." as it is usually debunked as a myth.

I'm pretty damn open minded and all, but do you REALLY need to make that picture the first thing you see? How about putting it as an external link. It could quite easily put someone off from reading the rest of the article.

On second thought, I don't think it even adds any value. Its not captioned or properly formatted. I think that someone tried to pull this off as vandalism, but that it hasn't been realized yet. I'll revert once someone reformats it, puts a caption, and verifies the copyright status. But for now, its gone. --Comrade009

Suggest including a picture may help this article. --Rebroad 16:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Although wikipedia is not censored for minors its a bit rich bringing this fact up when wikipedia links directly to pornography sites and features erect penises and naked breasts on other pages. This photo is not pornographic and serves to illustrate the title of the article. It should be left as is.

I've added an anatomical diagram. If anyone wants to use the source image to make a new diagram with an erect penis (as is anatomically appropriate for this article), please feel free to do so. -- The Anome 16:23, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

A recent edit of mine was reverted without explanation. The edit explained the involvement of the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems in ejaculation and erection, and removed some repetitions and an unrelated external link. In the absense of good reasons not to do so, I will restore those edits in two days. AxelBoldt 05:10, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I had notified user:Doug22123 on his talk page and he replied, saying that he'd prefer to keep the link to anorgasmia. So I kept that link, restored the rest, and he now reverted everything again, without additional discussion.

I am reverting, awaiting discussion. AxelBoldt 23:49, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How come we can't have a picture of a guy blowing his load? I think it would really add to the dynamics of the page.207.157.121.50 12:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)mightyafrowhitey

I question the discussion regarding how men and women tend to view the force and volume of ejaculation. In particular, the statement that: “a low volume ejaculate that simply oozes out may disappoint a partner as this implies that not much time has passed since the last ejacualtion, especially if the last ejaculation was with another partner.” I'm not familiar with any women who actually believe this, and the article doesn't provide any corroborating references.Snorgenhorpher 04:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Edited to remove a load of material that is really just someone's intuitions - and is not supported by any evidence - much of it added by 24.199.153.49.

Ejaculation Velocity

The quoted average ejaculation velocity is clearly wrong. Given a "muzzle velocity" of 28 mph or 12.5 meters per second, an erection angle of 30 degrees and a penis height above ground of one meter, I get an ejaculation distance of 15 meters, or close to 50 feet. That's better than a Super Soaker! See the Wikipedia "Trajectory" article for the physics formula I used. Therefore I am removing the urban legend / email forwardable figure.

Off Topic: Signing Signatures

Please sign your name by using 4 tildes (~) after your post it helps keep discusions clearer (See WP:SIG) Mike Beckham 13:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Actual image of ejaculation?

Beneficial or repulsive to have an image of an ongoing ejaculation?

--Dkristensen 18:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it's pretty repulsive. A more scientific image could be preferred.. --notwist 13:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Probably both beneficial and repulsive. Since Wikipedia does not prioritize avoiding repulsion, we should certainly add an image to the article. ^L_Wizard @ 08:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

What's so repulsive about the beauty of ejaculation? It's a natural thing that many men do all the time. 12.219.74.52 03:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Remember,Wikipedia is not censored for minors. The image should stay IMO, but I won't make that decision unilaterally. --Disavian 01:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

the image is not needed ... it adds nothing to the article... execept porn--Acethebunny 15:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Then replace it with something else. Either it stays, or something else goes there. This article is too long to not have a picture. I was going for compromise, by only linking it; if you want to look at it, you can; if you don't, you don't. --Disavian 17:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Wikipedia is not guaranteed to be censored for minors does not have any import here. That is a legal disclaimer warning people that we can't be in 100% control of what some vandal posts here, and that it is not our fault if a minor stumbles upon information. That doesn't speak to whether we should deliberately show pornographic images. Imgages of ejaculation are images of a sexual act and are therefore pornography under US law. If you don't like it, you should campaign to change the law, but we can't pretend the law does not exist. There is also the problem of people's perceptions. Legal issues aside, showing pornography in an encyclopedia lowers its credibility in the eyes of the common reader. Johntex\^talk 15:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No, the policy that speaks to whether we should deliberately show images of sexual acts is WP:WIAGA. Good articles have pictures that illustrate them. We include the picture because it adds to the article. In other words, it has serious scientific value. ^L_Wizard @ 15:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No, that policy speaks to pictures generally, not photos specifically. "Photo" does not equal "illustration". Johntex\^talk 02:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you there. However, I think a photo is the best way to illustrate this article. Currently, it has a diagram. The current diagram is not so good for a number of reasons, some of which have been discussed below. In any case, I think a diagram alone is insufficient to illustrate the act of ejaculation. It does a good job illustrating the physiological mechanism of ejaculation, but I don't think any diagram of that sort will do a good job of capturing the act in a more everyday way.

The only other option worth considering, it seems to me, is a drawing (if you can find a painting of ejaculation, though, then after I got over my shock I'd consider it). However, I think that a photo is almost always more informative than a drawing of the same thing: it's an inherently more accurate depiction. This seems especially true of ejaculation. Looking at, for instance, Ejac.jpg, I can't imagine a drawing that captures the color and consistency of ejaculate so well. Fluids are hard to draw. I'm willing to debate this on a case-by-case basis, since it may be that you can find or create a drawing that surprises me, but I don't expect you will.

In that case-by-case vein, the immediate discussion should probably be whether we include Image:Ejac.jpg (once we have a version without overlaid text) in the article or not. I, of course, think that we should. It does a good job illustrating the article. Someone who has never witnessed an ejaculation could get a much better idea what one is like by viewing that image, and that, it seems to me, is really the bottom line for inclusion of any image. ^L_Wizard @ 03:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Lizard. However, I think you are focusing in a little bit too narrowly. How well the image illustrates the article is one (important) consideration. A second important consideration is legality. A third is credibility and encyclopedic nature. It is important that our project appeal to a wide range of readers and for it to be taken seriously by the mainstream press and reviewers. With those considerations in mind, a 80% informative illustration may be better than an 95% informative picture when you look at the overall help/harm to the project. There has been good consensus in the past to use informative illustrations - we can do that without spending a lot of time to try to reach a new consensus. With all that left-over time, we can improve this and other articles in many ways. Just looking at this one article, for example, it has zero in-line references. That would be a far better use of our time than re-opening the photo question, in my opinion. Johntex\^talk 04:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding legality, there's a reason I linked "serious scientific value" to Miller test previously. I think that an image that could be pornographic in other contexts, when used in an encylopedia with the intent to inform the reader, passes the "SLAPS" test and is not legally pornography.

I doubt we two will ever agree on the "encyclopedic nature" of explicit sexual photos. I am of the belief that an encyclopedia that does not censor its work to conform to a culture's taboos is more encyclopedic than one that does. We also seem to disagree on the importance of Wikipedia appealing to mainstream press and reviewers: I think our goal of making the most complete encyclopedia possible outweighs making it appeal to the public. I see no contradiction in the statement that the best encyclopedia ever may be so offensive that it is used by no one (though I don't think that's true; my point is that Wikipedia should be judged by its content, not by public opinion).

I also don't think that the previous consensus to use drawings (I presume you refer to the widespread use of drawings for sexual positions) applies here. Ejaculation is not a sexual position. I have not seen any line drawings of bodily fluids, and doubt I ever will (ejaculation isn't a bodily fluid, but it does involve one). The photo at autofellatio has good consensus, and the consensuses at pre-ejaculate and female ejaculation aren't bad, so I could just as well invoke those and say we shouldn't re-argue them. I'd be willing to make a link to the image, as they do at autofellatio, if you want. ^L_Wizard @ 04:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I can also accept a link to a photo. I think giving people fair warning that they are about to view an explicit photo is a good stand legally, morally, and for the sake of credibility as a mainstream reference. Johntex\^talk 04:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hm, this really is a tough issue. I though could imagine having a picture of a real ejaculation in the article and I´d like to propose this (please ignore the copyright text for now): Image:Ejac.jpg

--CSCS 09:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

CSCS, welcome to Wikipedia. We can't "ignore" a copyright notice, not even for a short time. Non-free images do not belong on talk pages - ever. I have linked to the image rather than to have it displayed. Johntex\^talk 15:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

hi johntex. thanks for the welcome, the modification and the info. actually the copyright lies by me and the text overlay of course can be removed in case the pictures is used in the article.

what still is not completely clear to me is the procedure regarding this picture topic: who will, and at what point in time, eventually decide on the issue?

cheers

--213.196.243.153 22:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi CSCS. Thanks for releasing the picture publicly, though we'll want a version without text overlay if we do use it.

Now, to your question of who will make the decision. Ultimately, we (the people who care about the issue) will reach a consensus (note that all links in this paragraph are to Wikipedia policy pages). There are a number of ways this could happen. The best way is for polite discussion to continue here on this talk page until we find a solution that everyone can agree to. In practice, this is rarely sufficient for contentious issues like inclusion of explicit images. We may end up gauging the community feeling by having a vote. If it turns out that one side has much more community support than the other, that may be evidence of a consensus or convince the minority to bargain differently. If things get really bad, we need to request outside commentary or mediation.

If you want an example of the consensus-reaching process in a similar case, go through the talk page archives of Autofellatio and its associated images. If you can find where all the discussion took place, you'll be able to see how that article first established consensus against deletion, then consensus that it should have an image, then consensus that it should inline a drawing and link to a photo. The case is a bit abnormal in that the founder of Wikipedia commented, but you can see how the decision was made ultimately by the community nonetheless. ^L_Wizard @ 22:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

hi Lizard. thanks very much for the explanation which helped a lot to understand the consensus-based decision finding.

regarding the copyright text in the image: i am actually not allowed to overwrite the pic. is this behaviour intended?

thanks

--CSCS 00:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that behaviour is intended by the system. If you are ready to upload a new version without the text there are two options: (1) An administrator (such as myself or many others here) can delete the original and then you can upload a new version for consideration, or (2) you can upload the new version under a new name. Option number one is probably preferable since copyrighted images that aren't actively used in articles will get deleted eventually anyway, but it makes work for someone else. If you want me to delete the original just let me know (here or on my talk page) and I will do so. Johntex\^talk 03:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Requires Cleanup

Pfffft, anyone got a kleenex? 81.179.124.89 20:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Hahahahahahaahahahaahahahaah perhaps cleanup isn't the best tag to use on this page ;) 67.175.85.188 11:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey come on!! That picture is too messy, it's JUST NOT CLEAN ! The best picture would be a clean penis where you can see the semen coming out in a clean trajectory....

that would be better... but only as a link and not an image with a warning saying what it goes to--Acethebunny 15:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Use of picture

The picture illustrates the article. It seems a large puritan streak exists among wikipedians. If this is offensive then why don't remove all pictures and references that may offend. Its not as if the picture was pornographic. Why not go and remove all the links to pornographic websites? This is censorship pure and simple. 125.209.176.44 03:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing against showing the picture !!! I just need to say, is that guy circumcised ? AND you know what I think this picture might illustrate a fetish, a fetish in which a guy loves to get sperm on himself, I mean, he really needs to clean the mess he made on himself! 16:41 7 June 2006 -5 eastern time.

The picture is here to stay until a better one replaces it. Wikipedia is NOT censored for the protection of minors, therefore all decency standards are irrelevant. Other articles have images illustrating them even for mundane things that we all know what they look like. See Paperclip. Therefore, this article has an image to illustrate the subject matter. Any argument to link to the picture, convert it to a line drawing or otherwise obfuscate the image is solely based on it's offensiveness and shock value. Ergo, the argument is invalid. Wikipedia is NOT censored.--God Ω War 21:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure of exactly how I feel about the image. My first thought was that someone was just trying to make a point about how uncensored Wikipedia really is and that the picture really doesn't demonstrate anything but that. But then I got to thinking that, well, I'm a guy, I know exactly what it looks like when someone ejaculates--it's entirely possible that others may not be familiar with such an image. In any case, however, I don't think that the image should be *right there* out in the open at the head of the article. It may well be quite a shock to someone in our quite prudent culture to see such an image upon loading the article and may drive some away from the article and, perhaps, from Wikipedia altogether. Might I propose adding the image to MediaWiki:Bad image list such that it will be displayed inline? That or we could simply replace the image with a link to the image. I certainly think that something must be done about it, and I'm willing to compromise. Another issue--I find the name of the image to be quite unrepresantative to what it depicts. Perhaps the image should be deleted and uploaded again at Image:Ejacutlation.JPG; cum is a slang term and not particularly professional. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Your argument simply stated - It is shocking/offensive/uncomfortable to some-people/you therefore you want to delete/hide/obfuscate it. Wikipedia is not censored. The argument is not even relevant.--God Ω War 07:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to delete, hide, or obfuscate it, nor am I schocked, offended, or made uncomfortable by it. As an aside, I worked in the porn industry for a year. I do, however, find its placement and intentional shock value to be unnecessary and not particularly helpful to readers. Your only argument on behalf of this image is that Wikipedia is not censored (hell, even I've made a better argument on behalf of keeping the image), which suggests to me that the one motive for keeping the image as it is currently is to simply make that point to all of our readers. I would like to hear some arguments for keeping the image as it is currently other than stating Wikipedia's not censored. If I stuck a picture of my erect penis on the Muhammad article and then screamed WP:NOT censored, they'd all think me mad and ban me till the end of eternity. Until you can convince me that the image, in its current placement, is a necessary and descriptive illustration of this topic and must be in this academic article, I think it should be replaced with a link to the image, a diagram, or another scientific depiction. Frankly, I tend to believe that the image is there for shock value and to make a point alone--while it's not shocking me, it's not something I would expect to find in an encyclopedia article. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I am by no stretch of the imagination prudish in any way; However, to suddenly find that image whilst browsing an encyclopedia? Personally I find it offensive and completely inappropriate. The simple question should be "does this add anything to the actual content from an informational aspect?" The answer is a resounding NO. I believe some guy is probably "getting off" ('cuse the pun) at the fact his penis is splashed all over the 15th most popular website in the world. I am removing it - there is no consensus and if reverted this should go to RfC. - Gl e n ^T_C (Stollery) 04:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The picture seems okay to me. If you go to an article called ejaculation I don't think you should be that surprised to see ejaculation. Since many of the people reading this article will be too young to ejaculate or to have had sex and thus witness another's ejaculation, it's not unreasonable to have a picture. --Tony Sidaway 04:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that, as I stated above, but I still would argue that I don't feel the image need be right there. Would it be so awful to keep from displaying the image in-line? At least then the reader can decide for himself whether or not he wants to view the image, or load it up on his computer at work or at school. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds a tad prudish to me. Where's the beef? --Tony Sidaway 04:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Whilst I am here may I point out how ludicrious the Wikipedia is not censored for minors argument is. I completely agree with the sentiment, however why don't we have some graphic pictures of anal sex, the Dirty sanchez, Donkey punch and even pedophilia while we are at it? Its crazy to say just because we're not censored we should have graphic images throughout. - Gl e n ^T_C (Stollery) 04:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is a tad prudish. I just think it's obvious that many people are shocked by the image, and I find that, because of that, it detracts from the effect of the article. MediaWiki:Bad image list was created for these reasons, and I think that could be a good solution here. I personally have no problem with the image, and it doesn't bother me personally to see it there (though I also have to say that I'm not learning much from seeing it), but obviously it is bothersome to many and thus should perhaps not be *right there*. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not even close to prudish but, as I've noted here, "Wikipedia is not censored" is, in my view, not an excuse to shove hard-core pornography gratuitously into someone's face—and, make no mistake, this is hard-core, gratuitous and an excuse. It should also be noted that, while the Internet essentially renders municipal age restrictions moot, most websites that deal with straight-up hard-core porn (er, pun not intended) at least make the effort to restrict access to images like this one. An inline link, I believe, is fine; its current presentation is nothing more than exposition. RadioKirk talk to me 04:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)My two cents: I also, am by no stretch of the imagination prudish or inclined to censorship, nor am I offended by the image (I actually kinda like having it here), but I do think this picture was probably put here for shock value more than anything else. The fact that it's so large further makes me think it is for shock value. I can also see the possibe usefulness of such a picture, especially for someone who has never witnessed or undergone this event (I didn't know what to expect the first time, so I can safely assume many others wouldn't either). Anyway, maybe make it smaller or put it further down in the text with a warning that it may offend some viewers. The Ungovernable Force 04:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not at all an advocate of censoring Wikipedia. I've argued, and continue to argue, for keeping certain images that users have objected to on similar grounds to this one. In this case, however, I'm against.

This image doesn't illustrate ejaculation so much as ejaculate. Ejaculation is a process, not a thing; what would be far more suitable on this page would be a diagram. I think an image of semen would be appropriate as well. +

The current image, however, is too amateurish. It's somehow more pornographic than is strictly necessary. At a bare minimum it needs to be cropped, and would probably be less pornesque if it was black & white. Exploding Boy 04:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

added after edit conflict with Exploding Boy; it seems that I agree with his remarks.

The picture doesn't actually show ejaculation—at least, not at all clearly. It shows an erect penis covered in semen, with perhaps a hint of motion blur that is suggestive if one already knows what the process of ejaculation looks like. In other words, it's not an informative image and it therefore doesn't help the article.

While Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors, Wikipedia is edited mercilessly; this includes the removal of images that fail to effectively illustrate an article's subject. In general, processes are much better illustrated by movies than by still frames. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

MOVIE!!! Lol, that would be something. Do you have one in mind? Seriously, that actually isn't a bad idea--it will illustrate ejaculation much better than the current picture. The Ungovernable Force 04:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I question the degree to which ejaculation is well illustrated by a picture, really. I mean, I'm all about illustrations on, say, cumshot, but in the case of ejaculation, it seems to me that the concept is fairly banal, and also based more on motion than on still images, and thus not really well-served by a picture. Video, perhaps? Phil Sandifer 16:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

While the concept may seem banal, it's an unknown event to many younger readers who are not old enough to ejaculate themselves or to have sex with someone who does; some women who have never had sex with a man, and men who have never masturbated, have not witnessed it either, and it would be hard to visualize--the often explosive flow of white fluid from the urethra is quite unlike anything else that they may have experienced. Having a simple, non-pornographic but explicit illustration here would show such readers what it's about, and would save them from searching porn sites. --Tony Sidaway 17:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for a useful diagram once someone comes up with one, but we should not have a photo of ejaculation. Ejaculation is a sexual acts. Explicit photos of sexual acts are pornography. Pornography does not belong in an encyclopedia. Johntex\^talk 18:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Protected?

Wasn't that just a tad bit preemptive? One revert and it's protected ... wow. The article needs a lot of work other than the image, and I don't think the dispute is all that heated right now. I'm not going to unprotect, but I'd appreciate if Alkivar would reconsider for the time being.AmiDaniel (talk) 04:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, shouldn't be protected with that right on the top there. Let discussion go a while, and prtect after a while. Isn't protection punitive and not preventive? (I may be wrong, just asking) Ch u ck^(척뉴넘) 04:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Further image discussion

Protected? Give me a break; that image is pornography and is an example of someone abusing the system. Put the damn image inline or link it, don't have it be the first thing you see when you come to the article; there are kids on this thing!! --Julien Deveraux 04:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

There are indeed likely to be kids reading this encyclopedia. If we have a picture here they can see an ejaculation without surfing for porn. I think that's actually a good example of the kind of thing an encyclopedia should be doing. --Tony Sidaway 04:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Utterly, utterly incorrect, in my view. An encyclopedia is here to educate, not titillate, and the article's initial aim (with the image present) is for the latter. Descriptions or even an inline link to those who wish to see the image will far better serve the purpose of education. RadioKirk talk to me 04:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me also add that the reaction to your assertion would be, "dude, we don't have to surf for porn, we'll just go to Wikipedia and claim 'research'!" RadioKirk talk to me 04:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I guarantee that this image will ban more kids (by there parents) than it teaches. Ch u ck^(척뉴넘) 04:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

A picture says a thousand words, and can help illustrate something far better than words ever can. Besides, going to a page title "Ejaculation" will probably ban them regardless of the picture or lack thereof. The Ungovernable Force 04:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

(3rd edit conflict!) C'mon Tony you don't agree that there's possibly a better way to handle this? ('cuse the pun again :) Like giving the reader a choice or even (as TUF has suggested) even making the image so not-in-your-face-ish?? - Gl e n ^T_C (Stollery) 04:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Before the discussion continues, everybody needs to relax and take a gander at Wikipedia contains content you may find objectionable. Graphic images are acceptable on Wikipedia if they serve a purpose, including those that depict human body parts and fluids. The question is whether this particular image is good for this particular article. Exploding Boy 04:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Did it, done it, read it (grin). However, "contains content you may find objectionable" is a far cry from "intentionally shoves it in your face". Also, please, please forgive me for finding your username unintentionally hilarious in context... :D RadioKirk talk to me 04:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

As to your first comment, there are many images currently in Wikipedia articles that are comparable to this one. I just don't think this one is a very good image, and I also don't think it illustrates the topic very well. As to your second comment, not at all. I believe it was Henry Rollins who so wisely said Life is short; get off as much as possible. Exploding Boy 04:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but the image and its presentation are two different things. And, it's bedtime, so I'll get off now... ;) RadioKirk talk to me 04:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You can't tell me that pun was unintentional... Exploding Boy 04:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you're right, I can't... ;) RadioKirk talk to me 12:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

CanadienCaesar and his annoying op friend are being stupid. This page is only being protected because those of us who feel that its simply an abuse of the system are just being ignored. I think its funny that people can be prevented from editing an encyclopedia that 'everyone is supposed to be able to edit.' LOL --Julien Deveraux 05:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I figured I'd throw in my two cents, even though they seem to be largely unneeded at this point. For a little background, I have some experience with several sexual-related articles here on Wikipedia, most notably List of sex positions. This general discussion has come up several times, and my general position is this: Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors; however, this in itself does not encourage us to be unnecessarily explicit. I feel that images should be as explicit as is necessary to illustrate the phenomenon; no more, no less. In this particular case, I thought the live image was a little more explicit than is necessary. Am I wholly opposed to a live image on this page? No; however, I think if we were to go along that path, it should probably be an image from the side, showing only the penis and ejaculate. To go along with that above argument, I think if it could be accurately and informatively portrayed without a live image, such as via a descriptive (but tasteful) drawing, that would probably be best. In addition, the current animated gif seems to do a decent job of showing the scientific nature of the phenomenon. Anyway, just thought I'd put in some comments for general discussion. Thoughts are welcome. E WS23 (Leave me a message!) 05:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors is just a disclaimer stating that we can't 100% control what gets posted here, and that minors should therefore browse Wikipedia under adult supervision. The line drawings at List of sex positions are clinical in nature and set the right tone for what we do here. A photograph would not be appropriate. Johntex\^talk 15:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion from WP:AN

I think we may need some input from the more experienced editors on this one. My view: while Wikipedia is not censored, neither is it shove-it-in-your-face hardcore porn. If the picture isn't gratuitous, its location certainly is. RadioKirk talk to me 03:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Whilst not an admin (so perhaps not appropriate I voice my opinion here) I am by no stretch of the imagination prudish in any way; However, to suddenly find that image whilst browsing an encyclopedia? Personally I find it offensive and completely inappropriate. The simple question should be "does this add anything to the actual content from an informational aspect? The answer is a resounding NO. I believe some guy is probably "getting off" ('cuse the pun) at the fact his penis is splashed all over the 15th most popular website in the world. Get rid of it. Please. - Gl e n ^T_C (Stollery) 04:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I've suggested on the talk page, I think the image is descriptive and could be a helpful guide for someone completely unfamiliar with ejaculation, few as they may be. However, I certainly agree that the image should not be *right there* and am a proponent of displaying it inline, either forced through technical means or by choice. Anyway, please comment there, as right now it's just me against God O War. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Have done so, and in fact I have also removed the picture. I am a 31 year old male, (who happens to enjoy pornography BTW) and suffice to say if I find the pic offensive then God help most of the population in general when they see it. Can we RfC this or something? - Gl e n ^T_C (Stollery) 04:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Whilst I am here may I point out how ludicrious the Wikipedia is not censored for minors argument is. I completely agree with the sentiment, however why don't we have some graphic pictures of anal sex, the Dirty sanchez, Donkey punch and even pedophilia while we are at it? Its crazy to say just because we're not censored we should have graphic images throughout. - Gl e n ^T_C (Stollery) 04:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, there are those of us who think we ought to have pictures, even "graphic" ones, in each of those articles as well (provided that they truly have an illustrative effect and are otherwise encyclopedic). Joe 04:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Said image is currently a candidate for speedy deletion... NSLE_(T+C) at 04:42 UTC (2006-06-09)

I just deleted that image from it's nomination on WP:CSD as a copyw unknown image over a month, but may have done so in error. If anyone still has the image and reuploads it with a valid copywrite status, I will not delete again. — Xaosflux 04:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! May I ask for some feedback as to how appropriate it was for an admin to revert an image that is obviously so controversial back into the article and then completely protect the article from editing by anyone other than sysops? Surely whilst there is no consensus an image that some find offensive should be removed until further discussion has taken place? And why the heck would full protection be placed after one' change has been made??? Anyone help me here? - Stollery 04:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Which sysop reverted the image into the article and then protected it? --Tony Sidaway 04:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Not taking sides, but to clarify what happened. One admin reverted it back, and then a different one protected it two minutes later. | (Chuck) 04:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes correct, my bad. Still the question remains, why the hell protect it with the controversial image included whilst discussion is still taking place? - Stollery 05:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The standard operating procedure in the case of a dispute is to protect the article. --Tony Sidaway 05:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

When there is edit-warring over the article yes. I found the protection all to preemptive and have unprotected after long awaiting and not receiving a response from Alkivar. Consensus seems to be for unprotection. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with your unprotection; the situation had moved on. I think Alkivar did the right thing by protecting early (I asked on the admin channel). I think once you get into removing and replacing images it's a pretty volatile situation (editors have been sanctions for removing images) and so protection is a useful tool in such cases because it focuses attention on discussion rather than the outrage that was being expressed to various degrees prior to protection.. --Tony Sidaway 05:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

New Image

The caption needs to be changed, but the page is protected. Can an admin do it please? The Ungovernable Force 04:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

New Picture

The old cum.JPG was deleted and I accidentally added a new picture with the same name. The new picture should be Image:Ejaculation.gif. Please make it that and unprotect, since this should solve edit warring. Ch u ck^(척뉴넘) 04:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"Edit warring"?! One change was made! - Gl e n ^T_C (Stollery) 05:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said potential edit warring, see my comment above that I thought it wasn't warranted. Ch u ck^(척뉴넘) 05:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

WOW a movie! Cool! However, I'm a little disappointed that the moving blue line doesn't explode out of the penis whale-blow-hole-like at the end. Also, why is the penis flaccid? It's not very common for ejaculation to occur when the penis is not erect... Exploding Boy 04:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Haha, "Exploding Boy" wants it to explode (no insult, just comical:) ) I think this is better than before, can someone please change the picture and the caption. Thanks. Ch u ck^(척뉴넘) 04:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL @ Exploding Boy as well. That was really comical... :D -→Buchanan-Hermit ™/?! 05:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, though. While I think the image is great, I think the penis should be pictured erect, which is how it actually works, rather than flaccid, which is very rarely how it works. Exploding Boy 05:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Eah, sometimes strange things happen. Regardless, this picture illustrates pretty good the "process", aside form the erectlessness. However, I didn't create the picture, and wouldn't know how to change a gif. In any case, the picture should be that itty bitty thing that I acidentally upload to cum.JPG. Ch u ck^(척뉴넘) 05:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"itty bitty thing" - I thought you were referring to the old pic and I was cracking up lol :) How does one accidently load a pic under the wrong name? - Gl e n ^T_C (Stollery) 05:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Because I clicked on the red image link and it took me to the upload a file page. I uploaded the new file and didn't realize that it kept the Cum.JPG in the filename field (normally it changes it to the filename from your computer). Ch u ck^(척뉴넘) 05:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I see said the blind man :) Thanks for the reply - Gl e n ^T_C (Stollery) 05:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Since when has semen been blue?! That plus the unerect nature of the image does make me think a better diagram is in order. I don't feel like looking on the net for one though, for fear of what I might find (and how the other person who uses this computer might react). The Ungovernable Force 05:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree a better diagram is needed, and I also don't fell like looking, however, I feel that this is a good stop-gap measure until someone can find one. Ch u ck^(척뉴넘) 05:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Protection

Is there any reason why the page continues to be protected? Exploding Boy 05:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Aren't you an admin. Can't you unprotect, or is there a proccess to go through that I don't know about. Or does the protector have to unprotect it? Just wondering. Chcknwnm (Chuck) 05:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well yeah, but since I don't know who protected it in the first place, and why, I'm wondering whether there's some other reason it's still protected. I will unprotect it soon though, if nobody else does or if no one provides any reason why I shouldn't. Exploding Boy 05:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Alkivar protected it. Since the image causing the "edit warr" has been deleted there's absolutely no reason why they'd be a problem if unprotected now - Stollery 05:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Even if it's not unprotected, I think enough people would agree to put the bigger pic up and change the caption. Chcknwnm (Chuck) 05:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I've now unprotected it per statements above at #Protected?. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not a bad picture, though I have my quibbles and I'm a little dubious about its anatomical accuracy--someone else remarked on the oddity of the little prostate dance in that image. I think the one that was deleted was more educational because it showed the effects quite graphically, and also showed the most usual state of the penis during ejaculation--erect. --Tony Sidaway 05:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I like the diagram, but yeah--blue cum? And, as you said, how does one ejaculate when one's penis is flaccid? /me goes hunting... AmiDaniel (talk) 05:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course Daniel, haven't you heard of Blue balls?! lol~ - Stollery 05:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Ejaculation can occur in sleep, and I believe this is without erection. --Tony Sidaway 05:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Not in my experience--God Ω War 06:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It is possible to ejaculate without being erect, but for most men the vast majority of the time, this isn't the normal way it happens. Exploding Boy 13:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so much concerned with this; the anatomical diagram does show some important stuff--the origin of the semen in the testes, the tortuous route from there to the urethra and delivery. The "blue worms" and their funny little dance in the prostate are distracting but not a killer.

What does concern me is the lack of sourcing for this supposedly PD image. How do we know that it's really a free image? --Tony Sidaway 14:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

An alternative image

What do you think of ~~this~~ [Edit: unfree, oops], or a cleaned up version of it? Seems to have all the information the current diagram has, with fewer flaws. LizardWizard @ 07:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I like that better I think. I'm not a big fan of animated gifs in articles honestly; I find them distracting. This one I could support. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it free? --Rory096 07:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this is better. Chcknwnm (Chuck) 07:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If it's free. --Rory096 07:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, I forgot to check that whole freedom thing. Whoopsies. I'll look into it, but I doubt it. ^L_Wizard @ 07:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the slowest server in the world just coughed up their copyright notice. Sorry. LizardWizard @ 07:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Remember that a specific copyright notice is not necessary to make a picture non-free. All pictures on the net and elsewhere must be presumed to be non-free unless a statement of authorship and a release for general publication under GFDL-compatible terms can be located. --Tony Sidaway 14:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, but once I find a copyright notice I stop looking for the statement of authorship and release. ^L_Wizard @ 19:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well surely some enterprising young Wikipedia could create their own image taking the best of the current two. Exploding Boy 19:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I could make this into an *animated* image as current

Another possible alternative image

I could make this (first slide) into the same animated image exactly same size and amination as the image on the page now, but with the penis more "at attention" - what are your thoughts? Again, not ideal but at least a tad more realistic? - Gl e n ^T_C (Stollery) 20:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

And, I could even make the "blue worms" ~~red green black~~ white even :) Just a thought anyway - Gl e n ^T_C (Stollery) 20:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You probably shouldn't put too much effort into it until the copyright status of the source image is resolved. FreplySpang 23:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If you mean creating your own image based on this one but behaving like the other one, then great. Exploding Boy 00:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want a free image of penis to start with (and then modify), I suggest this one from the NIH. ^L_Wizard @ 02:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Is the new one supposed to be animated? If not the caption reading "shoing the path of semen" is misleading, as it only shows the anatomy of the male area. Ch u ck^(contrib) 07:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Moving away from the pic for a moment...

This article really needs some work. For example, am I the only one who thinks the statement

“

Ejaculation is a reflex which usually cannot be stopped once it has started without painful cramping and/or hemmoraging occuring

”

is ridiculous? Isn't that what we told girls in our teens? (right along with the pain associated with being aroused without orgas, lol). Serously, I know from personal experience that this is a load of rubbish, but after my last edit was reverted in under 60 seconds I aint touching this one! Thoughts? - [[User:Stollery|] 20:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe if the sentence ended at "started." Exploding Boy 00:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Of

An enormous amount of tripe is talked about ejaculation. Delete the nonsense. Of course when you start ejaculation you feel as if it's the most important thing in the world, but in the course of a long lifetime with a hit rate of somewhat more than 1.0 I've had enough (intriguing hiatus inserted for dramatic effect) interrupted ejaculations to establish that the worst one can expect to happen is an abnormal interest in programming computers. --Tony Sidaway 03:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that is abnormal! Yeah, the painful thing is stupid. The Ungovernable Force 07:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

What about the after effects? like how it feels funny to urinate.--God Ω War 03:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Or when you do, how it comes out in two directions? --Disavian 03:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)