Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:17, 8 February 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ejaculation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 5 days

Misplaced Pages is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sexology and sexuality High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pictures and video If you are editing this page to contest the picture and video, then please check first the archives for past discussions. There is a "recurrent topics" lists that you can consult. See also WP:NOTCENSORED and Misplaced Pages:Options to not see an image.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Full subject index (start here)

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

The videos are gone - what a relief

The page is currently better than it has been in ages, not that I am checking it daily! Oh and remarkably even with them gone - Misplaced Pages is still not censored - look it even says it at the top of the discussion page!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.164.15 (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It was recently readded because Misplaced Pages is not censored. -NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits) 03:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok - In the efforts of improving the page I am taking the video out. Please do not quote Misplaced Pages is not censored, because removal of material from an article in an effort to improve it does not necessarily equate to censorship.82.18.164.15 (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

How does removal "improve" the article? --NeilN 22:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Some content can be unnecessary, and result in an article looking sleazy. The discussion page covers the reasons for removal, and I concur with most of what has been written in support of the removal.

Misplaced Pages, Where you can get your jollies

As has been said, perhaps it's finally time we began accepting submissions for video examples of Defecation since it's a vital biological process, or maybe Vomiting and Childbirth. That last would certainly be more informative than the :17 clip of some intrepid, brave sould willing to bare all for the sake of...science.

I object to the words: 'Misplaced Pages is not censored', as kneejerk and unthought-out catchwords. Of course Misplaced Pages isn't 'censored'; that particular folly is the exclusive prerogative of bad governments. In a private-property setting, between consenting adults, i.e., on Misplaced Pages, there can be no censorship--but there sure as hell can be agreed-upon aesthetics. It would be in poor taste to loop videos or .gifs of people shitting on each other for sexual pleasure. It would be in poor taste to replace the smooth glossy grey backgroud of Misplaced Pages's frontpage with hyper-flickering seizure-inducing psychedelics, or tiled images of catbutts. It would be in poor taste for a person to embed an audio recording of themselves annunciating the word Nigger, on that particular page, and it would be a grand leap of faith to assume the person embedding the recording wasn't doing so for their personal gratification since there are myriad other words needing explicit pronunciation for an international audience.

We all know why there are so many 'volunteers' for this page's apparent prime real estate. The sum of all human knowledge? Well, certainly we're all being instructed in detail on the apparent sexual proclivities of some of our contributors.

Here's the thing: I don't need to know that/those contributor's address, or license plate number, and I don't need to know the processes of his reproductive organs. In other words, this discussion may as well be about some guys posting pictures of their Mustangs, on the Ford Mustang page.

I certainly don't think my two cents here will suddenly spark some common sense; there are clearly parties in this article much more deeply invested than myself. But consider this: every second spent whinging and complaining, or defending and un-editing and banning and re-editing everything involved with this video, has been a wasted second; wasted because some guy gets off on having people see him come. I feel like if I went to the article on the American Revolution I would come across some paint-sniffing 15 year old's Sharpie-drawn interpretation on how George Washington 'busted a cap in dem Brit pansy-asses, yo.'

Screw academic appropriateness, screw lucid illustrations, screw the scientific process and objective media-vetting--because, after all, we at Misplaced Pages accept all comers.

How very noble, Misplaced Pages. **slow clap**Ektogamut (talk) 11:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Images and Captions

I think captions should be as concise as possible. If the photo shows a penis, we don't need to say "male" in the caption.

Also, captions should be "standalone" and NOT refer to each other. Thus, if one photo ends up being changed, it wouldn't be necessary to adjust the other photo's caption.

The average ejaculation is roughly the volume of a teaspoon. I don't see that being exceeded in either image, though there is a very large spurt shown in the controversial image at top. Frankly, I don't think it's easy to judge volume by viewing liquid flying through the air.

I wonder if we can discuss alternatives to the top image, which IMO is misleading because it shows semen already on the penis before the contraction, thus it doesn't demonstrate the initial spurt. Martindo (talk) 23:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The sequence of still images (from a video) at the top of the page is not accurately captioned. The four images only show one spurt and the "abundance" is somewhat a matter of opinion. I could go with changing "abundant ejaculation" to "abundant spurt" in the caption.

Also, why is there a reference to a scholarly article in the caption? The images do NOT come from the article, so such a reference is misleading. If the intention is to justify "abundant", then info should be inserted in the caption to demonstrate (prove?) that the volume shown fits the range of "abundant" described in the article. Martindo (talk) 00:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Guys, please take out the video, it doesn't add any value now that diagrams have been placed in, this is a place where everyone should be able to come, we don't want parents not letting their kids use wikipedia. If it were absolutely necessary to add value fine, but it's not, so what point are we trying to make here with that video? why not have an article with all the info and leave the video to the rest of the Internet? is there any encyclopedia out there that includes such a video? c´mon, some common sence here...

Ejaculation volume: more details?

Paragraph 3 of the Ejaculation Phase section refers to the relatively abundant flow in early spurts, the average number of spurts and contractions, and the correlation of spurts with volume (namely, higher volume is from more spurts, not bigger spurts).

However, all of this appears to refer to a well-rested ejaculation (so to speak). Do we have any reliable references on how volume and number of spurts change in subsequent orgasms during the same evening?

The Volume section does address the issue in general terms:

Adult semen volume is affected by the time that has passed since the previous ejaculation; larger semen volumes are seen with greater durations of abstinence.

But then it goes on to discuss disease conditions.

Can we get info that enables a "Subsequent Orgasms" (or similarly named) section to be placed after Refractory Period under Phases?

Here's something from the page on seminal vesicle:

About 60% of the seminal fluid in humans originates from the seminal vesicles, but is not expelled in the first ejaculate fractions which are dominated by spermatozoa and zinc-rich prostatic fluid.

I've asked for clarification of that info in the relevant Talk page. It might be worth adding to the Ejaculation page somewhere. Note that the "main page" of semen quality refers primarily to sperm testing, damage to sperm, etc. Perhaps "semen composition" would be a useful section to add to the ejaculation page, with a "main page" link to semen?

BTW, the Volume and Quality sections don't belong under the larger heading Phases. I propose a new umbrella heading for them (and possible additional material). How about "Characteristics"? Martindo (talk) 02:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I think some answers are given in this paper ]. At least the title contains "accessory gland secretions". Unfortunately, the abstract has no information about the volume and I don't have access to the full paper. Habbo42 (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The Video is WAY Inappropriate

I'm sorry, I just think the video is really unnecessary. I understand there are enough perverted men who want to blow their load in a public setting and this is the best they can do, but the video really serves no purpose what-so-ever. The article and diagrams are descriptive enough. There are tons of articles where a video could enhance an understanding, but no video is present. Yet, for some reason the "Ejaculation" page requires a video of a guy blowing his load on camera. I know I sound "childish" or what the hell ever, but it's really disturbing. I mean, if this video is necessary, perhaps we should post a video of a guy getting sucked off on the Blow Job page. Or perhaps we could post a nice "educational" video on the "Child Porn" or "Bestiality" page. Hey, I'm just trying to be "medical" and "open minded" and whatever else you all think separates you from a freaking voyeuristic pervert who just wants everyone to watch him blow is freaking load.68.50.114.44 (talk) 06:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you all know, I removed the video... seeing as how it's, you know, fucking inappropriate as hell...68.50.114.44 (talk) 06:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

See WP:NOTCENSORED. A video conveys better an action than an image. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Cool, well I'll put up a video of someone beating the shit out of a child, because a video of "child abuse" is a lot better than the description offered in that article. 68.50.114.44 (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

That would depict an illegal act. Misplaced Pages does not host such material. --NeilN 01:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a serious difference between what is illustrative, and what plays to the prurient interest. Would a reputable encyclopedia include this sort of video? I highly doubt it; it seems that some things are better left to the imagination. Whats worse, god knows who made this movie; if it was made in a hospital by a doctor, that might be one thing; this video is clearly an amateur shot of some guy shooting a 4-roper. I vote to take the video down.Cdtew (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: Read your own damn guideline; according to WP:NOTCENSORED, "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Misplaced Pages readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available".

I highly highly doubt that you could find a majority of Wiki USERS (not editors) who think this video is the most appropriate option.Cdtew (talk) 23:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

1) We don't care who took the video (why would we?) as long it meets our licensing agreements. 2) As per Eric, ejaculation is an action and the video shows the action, making it relevant. 3) No one is forcing anyone to press the Play button... --NeilN 23:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You're still not looking at the guideline; re-read the part that says "and NO EQUALLY SUITABLE ALTERNATIVES ARE AVAILABLE." I have a feeling that some editors on here have a social policy axe to grind in favor of having this video on the site, but I'll be damned if that doesn't defy what Wiki stands for.

Aside from that, consider the fact that this video has no sourcing, no description beyond a bare tagline, and no explanation to provide any sort of scientific or cultural viewpoint of what's going on. If there's not some sort of guide as to HOW this sort of image is used, any random pervert could post a video of him/herself taking a shit or peeing on a person's face as an "illustrative" exhibit.Cdtew (talk) 01:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Read the guideline yourself. What do you propose as a suitable alternative to the video? --NeilN 01:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

An animated anatomical diagram would be perfect; I am new and don't do these sorts of things, but there are literally hundreds of them on this site. Find someone, and they could do it in less than an hour. That would be 100% more informative and 100% more appropriate than this voyeuristic sham of an "illustration".Cdtew (talk) 02:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you want the video replaced, it's up to you to find or come up with a better alternative, not anyone else. --NeilN 03:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I thought Wiki was a "community" full of "cooperation" to achieve the best results. You're full of it. Find me a guideline that says that, and I'll eat my hat, but otherwise, stop pushing your viewpoint on everyone else. Hell, if I didn't know better, I'd bet that you took that video of yourself -- it looks like the ultimate vanity shot.Cdtew (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a community but you can't say, "I want this changed and I want you to do the work to change it" (well, you can, but basically you're hoping that other editors who share the same viewpoint as you will do the work). Come up with a better example the community can look at and other editors will comment on it. If you wish, you can follow the instructions here and see what responses you get: Misplaced Pages:Requested pictures. --NeilN 15:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to jump into the middle of the discussion, but I agree with those who oppose this video. It's just repulsive, it's very, very very, reasonable to assume that many viewers, of both sexes, would find it to be exaggeratly realistic, to say the less. In the same line with those who support the video, one can add to the article on excrement a video of himself shitting. Whats the difference? do you realy find any fundamental difference aside for these you can made out of nothing with play of words? More, it seems that this video is the only disputed point in the article, and as there is no good consensus on it, I stongly suggest to remove it.--Gilisa (talk) 08:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That assumes your supposition that the "play on words" is "nothing". Obviously people disagree. And being repulsive is your personal opinion. If we went by opinions, half the pictures in articles dealing with body parts involved in sex would be removed or, dealing with another topic, any representation of Muhammad. Lastly, no user is forced to play the video. --NeilN 16:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You see, that's what I ment with play of words, because obviously the vast majority of the articles on body parts don't include a video that was uploaded by one the users of Misplaced Pages. They mostly, if not all times, include photographs or illustrations instead. I don't have any intention to blame you for exhibitionism, but this movie can easily look as such to the average article reader. So, I plead you to consider it again. --Gilisa (talk) 08:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The video is unnecessary as well as inappropriate. The text along with the two diagrams at the top of the page are all that is needed to describe this topic. Postoak (talk) 08:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it exceeds the most forgiving standards of any Encyclopedia, including Wiki ones. Also, I truely believe that it wouldn't be too far reaching to describe this video as 18+ one, but we know that Wiki is not age limited and that, for example, children attending to sex education classes could get to this video by accident. It add nothing to the quality of the article and it's in bad taste, I suggest we remove it a.s.a.p.--Gilisa (talk) 09:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, according to , there are exceptions to the image selection principle of choosing the "image that best illustrates the point"-and it seem that this video is by no doubt an exceptional that is not supported by this principle and is considerd as "vanity image". Another, even if debated principle is that "Photographs or video of sexual acts should be hidden behind links". There are also other clauses that this video skip over,maybe even according to Florida state laws.--Gilisa (talk) 09:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not censored for children, articles can have images and videos to understand better its subject, and a video shows best the action of ejaculation. (An image sequence in the line of File:Ejaculation_educational_seq_4.png could be a good replacement.) --Enric Naval (talk) 03:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem to ignore thse: . There is no need for further illustration, the photos we already have are more than enough ( they describe the issue fully, and are not offensive). More, as I wrote, there is no consensus on the video here, and it's also the only disputable issue in this article. So,again, I remove it.--Gilisa (talk) 07:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Misplaced Pages is not censored. Here's your past discussion Talk:Ejaculation/Archive_14#Survey_on_the_Video which resulted in no consensus to remove the video. Start an RFC if you want to change consensus. --NeilN 07:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You are both repeatedly ignore these ones . As for the RfC, I have no intention to open new one now (even you can't predict the results from one vote to another) as WP consensus is no stronger than WP guidelines. It may take some time, but I'm pretty much optimistic about the chances that this movie will go down, eventualy. For now I don't have much time to deal with it-but hopefully soon I will take this issue for decision.--Gilisa (talk) 07:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You are ignoring Misplaced Pages is not censored, which is a policy, and you are citing a proposed guideline from a wikiproject to support your position. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"Heroic" ejaculations

I am concerned that some descriptions in this article refer to the most impressive ejaculations, in terms of number of contractions, amount of fluid and so forth. Most men will have less impressive ones. I think heroic ones should be labelled as such to avoid men feeling inferiority that they don't reach that level. Unless there is hard evidence I would err in that direction. I have made a few edits with this in mind.

I gulped a bit when I saw the ejaculation video, but I have to admit it is educational (as well as arousing). However, I would like to change the caption to "Video of a robust ejaculation" from "Video of an ejaculation" to suggest that it is not average, but I did not immediately see how to do that. I believe the amount of semen is on the high side. It is probably a young man who has not ejaculated in several days. It also looks to me like the man is using voluntary contractions of his abdomen to make it go on longer (or seem to). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bart119 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

more thoughts on videos without altering the page, just thinking outloud

Regarding the presence of videos of ejaculation. 1. Why not have them be available but only after both a disclaimer and hidden away so they are not available to minors and as soon as you open the first page? 2. As for "objectionable", well, that's debatable and probably will not be resolved as there will be as many fans as haters. 3. Nobody seems to have brought up the free speech argument? It's not entirely unimportant. 4. Regarding "child pornography", etc, well, certain things are not LEGAL and the LAWS prohibit us from having on here, not the laws of morality which would very between people. 5. Regarding other body functions such as vomiting and childbirth. There really isn't a whole lot offensive about either one of those, again, those can probably be placed behind a secondary screen and a warning, child protection system but are hardly "inflammatory" in nature. Same for defecation, it might be "gross" to think about but ultimately is a universal human experience. Similar to trying to prohibit breast feeding in public, the less you "think" about it, the more normal it actually becomes. 6. It's interesting to note how "inflamed" the passions have become, almost similar to debating the appropriateness of sex ed in school in junior grades. Might we learn something from those debates? 7. It's going to be hard to decide whether the video is educations, self promotional, gratuitous, excessive, etc. Why not have a number of different videos, all with neutral unemotional captions? That would remove the "self promotion" effect, as the "offender's" video will be one of 6 available to be clicked, again, all available only after appropriate warnings/precautions? There could be one with "average" and "diminished" and "apparently excessive" appearing ejaculations available, so that the viewer could actually be educated about the range of this human experience. Just my two cents? Don't even know if it helps, or just clutters the wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albicor (talk • contribs) 04:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. You may want to read the Misplaced Pages:No disclaimers in articles guideline. --NeilN 04:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages objectionable content
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class medicine articles
• Mid-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• Start-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• High-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles