Talk:Penis/Archive 2

message: From last version by 80.191.66.199:
:The average human penis is 5 inches (15 up to 17 cm) in length when fully engorged with blood during arousal
Are we implying that metric people on average have longer penisses? :p -- Ferkelparade 23:38, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It is but one of the many advantages of the SI system. -- Karada 12:23, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Five inches is normal??  I thought about six inches was the minimum you could have without getting embarrassed.  Just goes to show how much pressure society puts on men...  Chameleon 10:58, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metric conversion 

message: My sentence relating male and female anatomy was removed as "unwieldy". Unless the information is considered wrong or irrelevant, I suggest that its unwieldiness be removed by editing, rather than by deleting. I have restored it, in its own section. AxelBoldt 15:15, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The new section works considerably better than where it had been, though we may want to include something on why the two anatomies are homologous.  Do we have an equivalent section on vulva? - jredmond 16:28, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, there's a section in the vulva article listing the homologous male structures. As to why the structures are homologous: males and females use almost the same genome, and it's much easier and more efficient to make slight modifications to a single body plan than to come up with two different plans altogether. Rather than have one section of the genome make an ovary and another section make a testicle, you use just one section to form the common precursor of both and then change things slightly towards the end, under the action of hormones. If something's easier and more efficient, evolution is more likely to find it. However it doesn't always find it: even though the vas deferens and the fallopian tube perform a very similar function, they are not homologous but constructed separately from scratch. AxelBoldt 17:51, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Maybe better to put into homologous? Since it isn't really specific to the penis. AxelBoldt 00:27, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparative anatomy 

message: :"Possibly due to shame incolcated in regard to genitalia, some people suffer from misunderstandings and resultant fear."
Ouch.  I think I know what that sentence's author is trying to convey - some people have issues with their own genitalia - but I can't think of a prettier way to phrase it.  Someone please help!!! - jredmond 21:43, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  This sentence in the "Fears and reassurance" section is ugly... 

message: ----
	Robert Brookes and his sockpuppets vandalize this article.  I would like to take a poll about the contested sections:
	Robert Brookes removes information about hypospadias and the raphe.  This is the diff.  I believe that the the version of Robert Brookes is incomplete.  I would like to take a poll.  For preventing ballot-stuffing, I suggest that only people registered before 2004-10-01T00:00:00 GMT/UTC have the right to vote in this poll.  I propose that the poll last until the end of the week.  I shall define the end of the week as 2004-10-10T00:00:00 GMT/UTC.
	Now that we established the rules, let us define the questions:
	¿Should we include the information that circumcision sometimes cause iatrogenic hypospadias and that the raphe runs from the præpuce to the perineum?
	Yes:
#	Ŭalabio 08:17, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)
I recently registered but am voting anyway, since I made other contributions.  How about adding a little about penis wrinkles?  Walabio, you're writing English, not Spanish, so there's no inverted punctuation. lysdexia 05:35, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not yet figured out why in the world Robert would oppose these parts of the article.   Even the proponents of circumcision are aware that the outcome varies, and now the Friends of Robert even mess with the frenulum article.  This is a bit like opponents of circumcision deleting every extremely rare foreskin problem, which we are certainly not doing.  Complications of hypospadias are common enough that I think it should be there.  Perhaps we should add other complications of circumcision (skin bridges, keloids, suture tunnels, etc.).   If paraphimosis and oedema are residing right in this article, why can't we include facts about circumcision problems?  Or would Friends of Robert rather we just delete every problem on both sides from this article?  DanP 23:19, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: 	Poll	

message: ----
	Since the poll was coming out one sided, I let it run a few more days.  100% of respondents agree to include the information about the raphe and hypospadias.  I declare the poll closed and the information should be included.
	Ŭalabio 01:34, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)
----
LOL ... what was the number of participants? The results are binding on no one. - Robert the Bruce 10:02, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: 	Poll Closed	

message: DanP inserted the claim that hypospadias can be iatrogenic (e.g. caused by medical treatment). Has anyone heard of this? JFW | T@lk 20:07, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've not heard of this. What mechanism is DanP suggesting for this? Pre-natal effects of hormone therapy? Botched surgery? -- The Anome 08:16, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "Iatrogenic" means "caused by doctors", so "iatrogenic hypospadias" is a fistula caused by medical error. Not exactly plain English!Michael Glass 03:33, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Iatrogenic hypospadias