Talk:Human penis

Images

Since this wiki is supposed to be for those who are not native english speakers, it's feasible that someone might not know what "penis" means, and there is no reason for explicit pictures such as those on this page to be there, waiting to shock some poor person. Wikipedia's policies allow for explicit pictures, so I left them there and instead leave it open to discussion here whether or not to remove it; but I think it would be better to have either a medical drawing or no picture at all, to be considerate of those who might accidentally stumble on this page.

it's allowed on the big boy wikipedia. why do foreigners have such puritannical sensibilities? 67.172.61.222 23:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It gets big and hard.

How about this one? This picture is on the testicle page.NickGorton 20:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree - showing a biological illustration is one thing - a series of photos of a real erection is another.

Wrong tone

This page reads like its for young children and not native English speakers.--68.95.167.119 05:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC) (English Wikipeida user: ZacBowling)

That's the point.—This unsigned comment was added by 122.162.137.125 (talk • changes) 11:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

What's the difference? Children, like non-native learners, are in the process of learning the language, and both need it to be simple and slow. That's why you associate this "tone" with childishness. 84.202.252.37 (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with ZacBowling. This page still uses words that are not common in basic English vocabulary. With a small (English) child, this works because one can then explain each thing to the child; however, a non-native speaker shouldn't have to click every other word because he/she had not used the word "intercourse" before.

"morning wood?" This term is more appropriate in National Lampoon or a Robot Chicken episode. Is Wikipedia a serious reference or a repository for adolescent euphemisms?

Reference checking?

I removed the line about Robert Dickinson and the largest known penis. Did the name not sound suspicious to anyone else? An article by the name cited exists, but none of the other information on it was true.

Wasn't that fact on the main page under the Did you know? section? It seems like some thought should put into this before it is removed. 12.175.211.41 (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

[Untitled comment]

Those should definitely be taken down. That is blatant pornography, and it was irresponsible to put them there in the first place. I'm going to take them down now, and if it is deemed appropriate, my edit can be undone. But, hopefully, we can save some poor non-native speaker an awful shock. Openbysnapping (talk) 21:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

As I responded to you on your user talk page, Wikipedia is not to be censored. I restored the photo. Kansan (talk) 07:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Despite the common misconception, a photograph of an isolated body part is not pornography. Pornography is when its intention is to be arousing. Clinical photographs, however unexpected, do not fall under such. {{Sonia|talk|en}} 07:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

This is an Encyclopedia, a book of "learning" a place for "information" there's no pornographic design or intent to this article or picture. Myself I would rest easier knowing that someone for whom I care about was getting "This" nature of information Here, rather from "unknown" places. Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 14:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Explicit images can disgust quite a few people worldwide. I am for hiding them at least. Trudoholic (talk) 11:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Wrong picture

The picture supposedly showing a circumcised penis actually shows a penis with its foreskin held retracted with tape. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.136.112 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the tape was there for post-surgical purposes? — Regards, Truth's Out There _{(speak the truth)} 04:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Balance

This article is not balanced. 1) There is not enough on urination (visvis sexual aspect of the organ). 2) There is no mention of the organ in nonhumans. 64.53.191.77 (talk) 01:47, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

responding to point two, this article is on the human penis hence there is nothing about penises on animals --Tsugaru let's talk! :) 20:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

It also advocates circumcision which is definitely a form of unnatural body mutilation. If someone is for this, it doesn't mean everybody is. It has been done through ages as a community initiation ritual when other peoples have other ugly initiation rites: scarring, knocking out front teeth, tattooing. Some Africans will advocate female genital mutilation, lip disks and neck rings. For prevention of breast cancer let every woman remove breasts, will you? Trudoholic (talk) 11:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

pictures

In this Article not much pictures shows of a circumcised penis

Not every Man have a foreskin.

--Nalanidil (talk) 13:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, there is a picture showing a circumcised and an uncircumcised penis in the article --Tsugaru let's talk! :) 20:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)