Talk:Ejaculation

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 Wikipedia? 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 sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 14 days

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Biology Mid‑importance Ejaculation is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Science Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science 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.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

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

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

The video and photos are indecent for use in a general encylcopedia. If you see the number of deletion requests that the user has generated: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Richiex you can see that he is a pervert trying to get his self made porn onto the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussiewikilady (talk • contribs) 19:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand how providing a video depicting the subject of the article could, possibly, be misconstrued as perversion.

What makes the video perverse? It shows a human adult male ejaculating. The article describes ejaculation.

No part of the video is unnecessary, please be objective. A Muddy Taco (talk) 14:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The video is staying. The photos are staying. This is a long established status quo.Jasphetamine (talk) 09:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sadist exhibitionists derive pleasure from exposing people to content which makes them uncomfortable.

It's disappointing that this is a controversy. I can accept that the material is needed on the site, but it limits the usefulness of the article when the mouseover for Ejaculation is obscene. Mkallies (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. The video and images are not suitable for minors doing research on sexuality.
2. they could be construed in the public domain as pornographic.
3. These images and videos do not add to the understanding of the subject matter.
4. If some sort of imagery is deemed appropriate I would suggest a medically oriented computer animation would be better suited to the intent of wikipedia

172.58.187.80 (talk) 00:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CENSOR. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jasphetamine, Please don't say heavy-handed nonsense like this:

"The video is staying. The photos are staying. This is a long established status quo"

A long established status quo can be set aside; NOTHING in an encyclopedia exists by some authority of tradition. And Wikipedians making mistakes is similarly a "long established status quo".𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge receipt of your message. Jasphetamine (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The urethra, the tube that urine and semen flow through, runs along the underside of them, in the spongy tissue of the corpus spongiosum.

https://www.webmd.com/erectile-dysfunction/how-an-erection-occurs

in the second stage, ejaculation proper, the semen is moved through the urethra and expelled from the body. https://www.britannica.com/science/ejaculation

I think it is important to add this information at the beginning in the description of the article because the English-language Wikipedia is a measure of the reliability of information for the whole world

if this information is not in the English wiki, then people around the world will consider that their national wikipedia contains unreliable information. TimurMamleev (talk) 03:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The opening paragraphs of the article contain no citations. 2601:19B:67F:D200:B943:7493:82C7:FD98 (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CITELEAD. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article's recently rewritten lead section, semen is stored in the testicles before ejaculation. Isn't it stored in the ejaculatory ducts? Jarble (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jarble: Semen is stored in the seminal vesicle. Spermatozoa are fabricated by the testicles, but not stored therein. Normally speaking, the production of spermatozoa never stops. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/100318-men-sperm-1500-stem-cells-second-male-birth-control tgeorgescu (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More information at https://medlineplus.gov/ency/anatomyvideos/000121.htm So, spermatozoa are first stored in the epididymis and then in the ampula. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu: But according to the article's lead section, semen is discharged from the testicles during ejaculation. Is the lead section incorrect? Jarble (talk) 17:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jarble: Testicles produce sperm cells, those cells got later mixed in other parts of the body with certain fluids. So, the testicles produce sperm cells, not semen. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the video, I see in the discussion below charges of excessive prudishness or of overzealous defence of explicitness. I think that an important consideration has been missed in the (largely ad hominem-style) back-and-forth on the topic. I would like to hear a case made against replacing the video with another in the Wikimedia Commons catalogue, namely 'Ejaculation educational ani short reboot.webm'. This video (which features in some of the corresponding articles in other languages) not only matches the photo in the article and would therefore make the article more polished through introducing a greater degree of consistency but is also more professional-looking. Granted, Wikipedia is not intended to be a professional resource, but it should nonetheless aspire to a decent standard of quality. I am neutral on the topic of explicitness, but I object to the current video on the grounds of quality. At the very least, even if a case can be made against using 'Ejaculation educational ani short reboot.webm', I cannot think of any way in which the current video could be regarded as better in quality than any other alternative. Furthermore, the line that 'Ejaculation educational ani short reboot.webm' is not representative because men generally do not ejaculate hands-free misses the point too, as the inclusion of a video in the article is intended to show ejaculation itself (which includes the spasming of the penis) rather than means of achieving ejaculation. On this point as well 'Ejaculation educational ani short reboot.webm' is superior. Flumpswithmumps (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No objection here. I do think that a good-quality video is genuinely helpful on this topic, and have no objection over switching it. For that matter, I see no reason why the video even needs to be of a human ejaculating. I have not checked the Commons but would not be surprised if there are good-quality videos of stallions, rams, bucks, etc. that would serve the purpose just as well. It may be slightly better to have a photo and video that match, however. Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]