August 2010 (UTC) 

 ::::::::::::::::If there is no consensus, thats fine. This is however not to do with policy. As you know Cyclopia, wikipedia policy does not state what has to be be permitted, only what may be permitted. You have not answered any of the main reasons given  (but have instead in bad faith said that those who object are doing so because they are "puritans" ). Obviously not every article needs to be illustrated, but where that helps an article and there is material which corresponds to the text of the article, that may if it has illustrative value and there is consensus be included. Currently, the video / four plate unbalance the illustration of the article towards masturbatory ejaculation. The article is not specifically about ejaculation as it occurs following masturbation, yet anyone looking at the page would think that it was. Also why is it so important to you to illustrate this article with the video / photos. It was illustrated before the video and four-plate were in, it would still be illustrated if they were removed. As we have discussed there is illustrative value when readers would be unfamiliar with something - say for instance liquid nitrogen - but an illustration both of water (in a jar), and of a masturbatory ejaculation have practically nil illustrative value. The article on water you will notice does not insult readers intelligence with such an obvious illustration.   14:34, 24