This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Seriously...
A big old hairy cock with grey hairs sprouting out. Couldn't you people at least find a decent example that wasn't some creepy old guy? Sick. 71.212.60.187 (talk) 04:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry it's not the cock you dream of. That's not the reason it's there. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well, perhaps it's the cock Wikipedia editors dream of - some old fart in his sixties with grey curly-whirlies... Grandpa's cock. Seriously, who needs to look at grandpa's cock? 71.212.60.187 (talk) 04:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Your complaints are off topic. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- The quality of an illustrative image is off-topic? Is that YOUR hair old dick? 71.212.60.187 (talk) 05:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- The image illustrates the topic. Your complaints are off topic. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- This video and pictures are not useful and yes, they are inappropriate. An animation would be far superior in giving greater detail about what is going on. It is a sorry state that immature people are allowed to destroy an otherwise useful article. Wyoungquist (talk) 06:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- @Wyoungquist: feel free to find or create a freely-licensed animation to help improve this article. DMacks (talk) 07:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- What is immature is the reaction people are having to imagery of the human body engaged in a natural biological function. If this were imagery of wonton violence no one would care, but as soon as you depict the human form it's somehow inappropriate. This image is not being used in a sexual context, it is being used for the purpose of education. Grow up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.170.67 (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- "If this were imagery of wonton violence no one would care," -- Wait, are you talking about brutality against Chinese dumplings or when the dumplings themselves commit the heinous acts? It makes a difference.209.179.21.14 (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- This video and pictures are not useful and yes, they are inappropriate. An animation would be far superior in giving greater detail about what is going on. It is a sorry state that immature people are allowed to destroy an otherwise useful article. Wyoungquist (talk) 06:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- The image illustrates the topic. Your complaints are off topic. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- The quality of an illustrative image is off-topic? Is that YOUR hair old dick? 71.212.60.187 (talk) 05:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Your complaints are off topic. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well, perhaps it's the cock Wikipedia editors dream of - some old fart in his sixties with grey curly-whirlies... Grandpa's cock. Seriously, who needs to look at grandpa's cock? 71.212.60.187 (talk) 04:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Very ignorant Wyoungquist. There's over 6 billion people in the world, many of whom with erectile dysfunction, victims of genital mutilation, or whatnot and have no clue what ejaculation looks like. rock8591 04:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
The video is quite inappropriate. I fail to see exactly what educational purpose it fulfills. @Rock8591: Your comment is highly specious. Persons with ED usually have not had ED their whole life, and will have most likely managed to sustain an erection to the point of ejaculation at least once. Secondly, I am unfamiliar with the concept of male genital mutilation. It is not a phenomenon reported on even a small scale, to the degree that it is practically non-existant. The tag about censorship states "Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to ensure a quality article and complete coverage". I do not comprehend how the inclusion of this video ensures that this is a "quality article" and ensures complete coverage. It has been pointed out that more complete coverage could be much more effectively achieved by adding more scientific information akin to that found in a medical textbook. I fail to understand why so much misguided effort is put into retaining this video, while those responsible are much more lackladaisical about the inclusion of real, quality content.
Can anyone cite a mainstream encyclopedia which inludes a graphic video or images of real-life ejaculation? Having a scientific or academic understanding of a subject does not necessarily entail having seen it. For example, one does not have to witness someone having a cardiac arrest in order to have an academic understanding of what a heart attack is.
Someone has commented also that "What is immature is the reaction people are having to imagery of the human body engaged in a natural biological function". In case you didn't know, the reaction that people have to witnessing graphic sexual imagery is not one purely directed by their ideological standpoint or their academic inquisitiveness. Reactions to seeing sexual content are highly emotional by nature, and this is something unavoidable. To try to suppress or deny this emotional reaction in the name of ideology is pointless. (I recommend you stop doing it.) Highly ideological individuals may succeed in doing so, but the average human being across the English-speaking world generally does not harbour strong enough convictions to render this possible. Their reaction will inevitably be emotional, and yes, quite possibly also one of disgust, repulsion, or offense. This has nothing to do with a conservative mindset, puritanicalism, prudishness, religious convictions, or being brainwashed, but is, for reasons very difficult to explain without a detailed knowledge and understanding of the underlying psychology of human sexuality, essentially completely natural and to be expected, even for someone who is mature and experienced and has witnessed it first-hand multiple times. The fact that it is a "biological" function or is "natural" is moot. Defecating is a natural and biological process, but I don't see any videos on wikipedia of human defecation. The exact analogue in this case would be a clear view of the anus from below as a the sphincter opens to allow several big brown turds to drop out. Disgusting? But why, it's a completely natural biological function!
Additionally, the video depicted is not one of ejaculation in its natural, biological context. The biological purpose of ejaculation is to deliver semen to the inside of the vagina so conception can occur. This occurs during coitus, and so is, in its most natural and biological setting, not actually witnessed first hand by anyone. I understand of course that perhaps in more cases than not, ejaculation occurs outside the vagina, but this is beside the point. The video shown is anything but natural.
I think it's very unfortunate that those in favour of removing the video are clobbered down by a horde of self-righteous ideologically driven people. Their pseudo-intellectual argument about this being "educational" and their over-zealous opposition to "censorship" is reaching a level which is farcical. Sometimes rational and clear-headed judgment ought to be used instead of resorting to black-and-white rules of thumb which are clearly imperfect and detrimental to the credibility of this otherwise very useful website. The problem is that those in favour of keeping the content have a seemingly "rational" argument, notwithstanding that it is full of holes, defies common sensibilities, and is clearly driven by warped ideologies. In the absence of any counter-argument whatsoever though, even a weak argument becomes a justification which appears sound. I thoroughly recommend that those in favour of removing such content should develop a more solid intellectual discourse. Fmc47 (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
What you fail to understand is that arguments based on your feelings and opinion are not going to successfully refute one based on fact - this is a depiction of ejaculation. For some reason that makes you uncomfortable, which is why your statement is so emotive. But that in itself isn't sufficient reason to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.9.41.144 (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Health issues
"For most men, no detrimental health effects have been determined from ejaculation itself or from frequent ejaculations, though sexual activity in general can have health or psychological consequences." - Both claims need a citation. The second claim seems controversial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.153.237.217 (talk) 11:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Incorrect information
Source #5 includes false information: Ejaculation CAN be stopped by practiced contraction of the pubococcygeus muscle. This once again demonstrates the fallacy of wikipedia in that a source has been proven to be false, buy there are no "cite-able" sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleverwisdom (talk • contribs) 14:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- At the moment, all this demonstrates is that you say one of the sources is wrong. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Seconding Inappropriate complaint
Earlier commentators have noted the video and photos are inappropriate for a website that is used as an encyclopedia by people of all ages, including children, and all cultures. It is not the correct decision in this society to show an ejaculating penis on Wikipedia--the cultural norm in our progressive society is to restrict such videos moderately. That moderate restriction absolutely extends to family encyclopedias.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.5.35.16 (talk • contribs) 02:53, August 11, 2015
- Although the content here is quite graphic, Wikipedia is very clear that it is not censored, but also that it does not give favour to offensive content: the videos and images given are supposed to be informative. Please be more specific as to which images you want removing, and which alternatives you think would be more informative in their place (keeping copyright in mind) – as I can see it, they all serve a purpose on this article, even if the images are somewhat graphic. The Lovejoy defence is not appropriate here, either; if you are concerned about viewing material, there are options to hide an image on Wikipedia. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 13:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- I am shocked -- SHOCKED! I tell you -- that there might be material on the internet that we in this society (which one?) would not want children to see. Until today, I thought of the Internet as a carefully policed and heavily padded playroom for small children, supervised by a blue ribbon panel of educators and child psychologists. Next you'll try to tell me that cable TV isn't an educational resource and the street isn't a playground.
- I am further shocked that this issue hasn't been raised before.
- Long story short: Wikipedia is not censored.
- Long story long: We discuss rape, murder, suicide, profanity, mental illness, sacrilege and, yes, human anatomy. We depict just about every part of the human body, even the naughty bits. Given that the society Wikipedia serves is the whole planet, what should we censor? Various "offensive" words (including some references to sex, various sacred names, various types of slurs, etc.)? "Offensive" information (how to build a bomb, hazardous diets, various cults, birth control, drugs, alcohol, etc.)? "Offensive" images (every jot and tittle (pun intended) of human and animal anatomy, sex acts, women who are not wearing veils, men and women with uncovered hair, men and women in physical contact, drawings of various humans and "gods", violence, gore, etc.)? Yes, you just want to remove this one thing (look around, there's plenty more you won't like). Why is your "one" concern more important than all of the others? - SummerPhDv2.0 15:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Third Complaint - Public Exposure of Hands-On Self Gratification Designed To Shock
The original side-view "hands-off" video was enough. Now we have older men obviously gratifying themselves on wikipedia and then pretending to say that it is normal etc etc, knowing full well that they are weakly deceiving the Talk readers for their own amusement. This is flagrant "flashing". Not only do I expect the newer self gratification, masturbatory footage to be removed, I also recommend that the flasher be warned. The original footage of the side view of NO HANDS ON ejaculation was suitable for wikipedia. This is masturbatory pornography and should be limited to an article on masturbatory pornography and removed from this article. CLEARLY A SELF SATISFYING EXPOSURE BUZZ - "FLASHING". Anything you say denying this will be taken as you mocking the readers and probably giggling whilst you type, "this is very scientific" on your sticky keyboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.18.126.235 (talk) 06:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- If I understand your complaint, you are OK with video of ejaculation, but that he is "older" and actually touched his penis is problematic. You are either trolling or have some very specific rules in mind for showing erect, throbbing penises. - SummerPhDv2.0 12:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- As I selected the current video, I suppose I should respond here. As the article notes, few men can achieve ejaculatory orgasm without direct stimulation of the penis. Since the video depicts an ejaculation outside the context of sexual intercourse, it is almost certainly the result of masturbation. Per WP:NOTCENSORED, the article should clearly depict this, rather than adopting a prudish approach to the subject matter. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- What was wrong with the original side-on clip, which was far more 'professional-looking'? I don't object to having ejaculation depicted in a video clip, as I have no hang-ups about these kinds of thing, but I do object on the grounds that the current clip looks far less professional. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.14.106 (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- As I selected the current video, I suppose I should respond here. As the article notes, few men can achieve ejaculatory orgasm without direct stimulation of the penis. Since the video depicts an ejaculation outside the context of sexual intercourse, it is almost certainly the result of masturbation. Per WP:NOTCENSORED, the article should clearly depict this, rather than adopting a prudish approach to the subject matter. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Female ejaculation
Why does this article talk only of male ejaculation? I think for balance it needs to have examples of female ejaculation also. --Rebroad (talk) 09:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Per WP:COMMONNAME, male ejaculation is generally called "ejaculation" and female ejaculation is generally called "female ejaculation".
- As the two are very different phenomena, it makes sense to have them as separate topics. A similar situation exists with erection and clitoral erection. - SummerPhDv2.0 16:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Exactly. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)