Talk:Penis/Archive 1

message: the correct plural is "penes". (maybe this should be noted on the page itself).
:The correct plural is also "penises", which (being regular) is more memorable. Marnanel 17:16, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The plural of "penis"

message: I'd like to change this sentence:
: Erection is required for sexual intercourse and other sexual activities.
-- because erection is not essential to intercourse. However it's certainly helpful -- Tarquin 23:28 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)
:Is it really intercourse without an erection? -- 202.124.102.131 20:17 Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)
::If it's sexually pleasurable and it involves insertion of the penis in the vagina, then I'd say it's probably intercourse.  The wording as it stands "for some activities" is ugly, I'll try to find something better. --Minority Report 01:51, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Whether erection is necessary for intercourse

message: Over in talk:circumcision there was a thrilling debate over whether the foreskin is in fact part of the penis. I move this talk here in order that experts in the field may examine the issue and provide relevant information. Martin
What the hell is the foreskin if not part of the penis?
: The problem (and this isn't your fault) is that most people have accepted a social bias which misunderstands basic human biology. Non-biologists are usually confused about the human body, and imagine that parts that are near each other are really the same.  This is very common, and I can't blame anyone for thinking this way.  But its wrong.  Biologically, one can trace the development of both the penis and the foreskin surrounding the penis from separate embryological tissues.  Even at birth the penis and foreskin are separate; you can even grab the foreskin and pull it far back, totally exposing the penis.  You can remove some, or all, of the foreskin, without touching any of the penis itself. RK
:::I'm no doctor or biologist, but I have a foreskin and it's definitely part of my penis.  Theanthrope 02:41 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)
:::RK, your statement doesn't really prove anything; one could just as easily say, "Biologically, one can trace the development of the foreskin and the rest of the penis from separate embryological tissus. Even at birth the foreskin is separate from the rest of the penis; you can even grab the foreskin and pull it far back, totally exposing the rest of the penis. You can remove some, or all, of the foreskin, without touching any of the rest of the penis." It's a question of definition. Ruakh 16:08, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry to be rude about this, but it's ridiculous to assert that the foreskin is not part of the penis.  It is attached to the penis, distal from the body itself, and not attached to any part of the body but the penis.  Its function specifically accrues to the penis itself; it has no function for any other body part.  When a penis is fully erect and the foreskin is retracted, it is not even apparent as a separate part of the penis!  And many body parts or organs have more than one embryological derivation -- the adrenal glands, for instance.  Or the penis itself.  The nervous tissues and the skin tissues differentiate from the ectoderm so early on that they are effectively different embryonic paths.  Do we then say that the nerves in the penis are not part of the penis?  Or do we say that the hair on your head is not part of the head?  Or this: the spinal cord originates separately from the vertebrae:  do we say that because of this, the spinal column only includes one, and not the other? jaknouse 20:48, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Whether the foreskin is part of the penis

message: We need a picture....
Your prayers have been answered! :-P All the images come from http://www.luckymojo.com/faqs/altsex/penis.html and I searched around the site trying to find a copyright notice but to no avail and due to the nature of the page (a faq for alt.sex) I think they should be OK. --BL
: You should probably email Elf Sternberg <elf@halcyon.com> to ask for permission. See wikipedia:boilerplate request for permission. Martin 13:05 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
:: The address is dead --BL
::: I found Elf's current address and emailed him. Here's the reply:
:::: The original asfaq was placed under a Creative Commons license, but it has been a long time since I did any work on any of the FAQ materials. ... I think at this point I would be comfortable putting the work under the GFDL, yes.
::: So the copyright issue is now solved. Hooray! --Card 19 Nov 2003
It's strange that photos of Penis are allowed but photos of Vulva have been removed, though both originate from the same site (alt.sex FAQ, http://www.luckymojo.com/faqs/altsex/) -- 210.214.131.161 18:41, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Whether we should include a picture