This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Sexology and sexuality Start‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. 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 articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Your complaints are off topic. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The image illustrates the topic. Your complaints are off topic. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Wyoungquist: feel free to find or create a freely-licensed animation to help improve this article. DMacks (talk) 07:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"The biological purpose of ejaculation is to deliver semen to the inside of the vagina so conception can occur." " understand of course that perhaps in more cases than not, ejaculation occurs outside the vagina, but this is beside the point."

There is no "biological purpose" for ejaculation. When it happens inside of a vagina and results in conception, then sometimes the species is propagated. Yes, ejaculation certainly occurs outside of the vagina more often than inside, and this is most certainly a valid point. In my particular case, thousands of ejaculations (inside and outside of a vagina) haven't resulted in a single conception. The human body wasn't designed to operate in a particular fashion with a particular result in mind. There is no 'right way' and no 'wrong way' for ejaculation to happen. It just happens. I'm fine with any depiction of a natural biologic process. Get over it. 73.177.133.8 (talk) 01:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

1. PenisesPenisesEverywhere. Seriously, delete all those spammed images of penises. 108.65.82.117 (talk) 00:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll review the talk page, you'll see there have been much stronger arguments than "because I said so" in the past. Those were not convincing. Yours is less convincing. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

A whole video? That would be more than enough. A still frame sequence (like the one in this page) would suffice. The video could be removed from the page (keeping the grid of 4 pictures, as it would be sufficient). 108.66.234.235 (talk) 23:57, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 108.66.234.235/108.65.82.117, seriously. - SummerPhD^v2.0 06:41, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is the new video more detailed?? 108.66.233.20 (talk) 02:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the video in the hope that one more suitable can be found. I think the currently chosen perspective risks unnecessary triggering (i.e. face on) and too reminiscent, given the height of the camera of a man in an "assertive" position. Given that the purpose of a video is to demonstrate the act of ejaculation, a more suitable video would be shot side-on, ideally with the person in a reclined position, and perhaps with the hand not present in the photo so that the focus is not so much on the masturbatory act (which this article is not about).

I also felt removing the video was appropriate at this stage given that the photos (the four segment photo) quite adequately shows the stages of ejaculation in such a way that the video does not provide much additional information. I hope this edit is therefore not considered contentious. --Rebroad (talk) 03:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I realise an argument was made above which was that some men require physical stimulation to achieve ejaculation and therefore the video would be misleading if the hand was not present. If deemed true (which I believe it is not) this can be addressed in the article in writing. There may be some men who require physical contact at the point of ejaculation but I think these men are in the minority, and so some peer reviewed non-original research needs to be presented to make a stronger case for including the hand, IMHO. --Rebroad (talk) 03:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removal has been proposed and rejected repeatedly. As such, I am restoring the video.

If triggering is an issue, I would suggest that visiting an uncensored encyclopedia article on ejaculation would fall under the rubric of "bad ideas". Wikipedia shows thousands of images that might be triggers for various people: very thin models, aggressive dogs, weapons and a whole lot more.

Your theory that physical stimulation is not necessary for most men to ejaculate is...interesting. Whatever. In this particular video, the guy needed to masturbate, which by all accounts seems to be a quite common activity for men who (apparently) can simply have an orgasm through shear will alone. In any case: Yes, there is a hand in the video. Our photos for Cupcake show wrappers, a plate, a table and a whole lot of other things quite commonly found with cupcakes.

The video was here for some time prior to your removal. It is now your burden to overturn that consensus, not your prerogative to demand justification for the established consensus. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:17, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the manual of style concerning images and the offensive material policy, I also oppose removal. The video illustrates ejaculation more effectively than the image montage alone: for instance, the image could give the impression that ejaculation entails one massive contraction. True, the text explains the process adequately, but saying that a video isn't strictly necessary is not the same as saying that it adds nothing. Your argument about a hypothetical improved clip is also unavailing: we aren't asked to choose between this video and another but between this video and none, and a lack of perfection is not grounds for removal. The depiction of masturbation in this video is harmless, and, as, Summer points out, many quality images appropriately include background. Masturbation is to ejaculation what the tundra is to the current lead image of Elephant. Lastly, while policy forbids deliberately offending readers, see WP:GRATUITOUS, Wikipedia is not a "safe space," and we do not concern ourselves with "triggers." Cf. WP:NOTCENSORED ("Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers . . . is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia."). Rebbing 10:39, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GRATUITOUS is a guideline, but it states, "Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers^[1] should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." So going by arguments that the video helps people to understand ejaculation, the video is fine. Going by arguments that the article is not any less informative, relevant, or accurate without the video, and/or that we don't need videos of sex acts in our sex articles to understand the acts, the video is not fine. I don't oppose or support removal of the video. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my earlier comment: While I assume most of our readers are well aware of what ejaculation looks like, I believe that, for the naïve, the short video will add much to understanding in a way that words or still images cannot. Rebbing 04:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

____

The new video is from the front, making it less professional, not from the side. The original side view image was better. What was wrong with it? Perhaps the penis in it was shorter than average. I'd say it was about 4 inches. The 4 segment grid looked more like an average size penis. The new video, however, did feature a larger than average size penis. I'd say it was about 8 inches. 108.66.233.61 (talk) 13:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]