Talk:Penis/archive6

message: I see that recently additional info was added to the penis size section on "showers/growers". The cited info is true, but it's stated here in a way that is a little misleading (as of dec 17th, 06). 
The source cited indicates that "showers" and "growers" may grow the same (additional) length during an erection, but the increase (percentage wise) is more drastic for the "grower" because he starts with less length. What the means in the real world is that if you take an average person with a 2 inch flaccid penis and an average person with a 6 inch flaccid penis, and they grow the same amount, the 2 inch grows to 5 inchs erect (grower 150% increase), and the 6 inch grows to 9 inches erect (shower 50% increase). So by volume the shower would still be at least twice the size erect as the grower (probably more since girth slightly correlates to length).  
What this means that the whole shower/grower thing isn't a big equalizer like some people say or as possibly implied here (in wiki article). A small flaccid penis may grow more then would be expected (percentage increase), but it will still typically grow to much less final size then someone large flaccid (i.e. 5 vs 9 in previous example). 
Wits 22:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shower/Grower

message: Since when does Wikipedia have images saved individually saved at different resolutions? It is perfectly fine to have only the hi-res image and use it at a smaller resolution in the article, as I have just put it. If anybody objects, I can look up the appropriate guideline. Right now this makes monitoring vandalism a lot easier, as one image less is being objected to it. — Mütze 17:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The larger version was on MediaWiki:Bad_image_list, and could not be displayed in articles--Clawed 06:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see. Well, since that seems to have been cleared up, [[:Image:penis reduced.jpg might just as well be proposed for deletion, since it's redundant. — Mütze 12:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:penis reduced.jpg]] and [[:Image:penis corrected.jpg]] are the same image 

message: ...so let's do something...
:I see none of this in the history of her article. Iolakana|T 11:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Laura Welch Bush currently correctly redirects to Laura Bush, the redir had been vandalised to point here instead of the correct article.  It was fixed this morning by the same anonymous editor as left the connent above. -- AJR | Talk 13:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That's just normal, random vandalism, hardly worth noting. — Mütze 11:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I got redirected here from Laura Welch Bush... 

message: Why is it always bigger than average sizes? Their size seems to be always around ~11+ inches. Is that natural?
: some guys are naturally that big.. but wtf porno have you been watching? most of the stuff I watch has guys of varying average sizes to above average sizes 65.125.133.211 15:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Penis size in pornography? 

message: To stop the current war I propose that everyone vote for which Image should be the main photo for the article. Please select the Image you think is best for the main photo and then sign your with your username ~~~~ The current choices for the image are:
*:Image:Penis corrected.jpg
*:Image:Flaccid and erect human penis corrected.jpg
*If you want to add any other images from Wikipedia Commons to the list, then please do.
#Image:Penis corrected.jpg --Clawed 03:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll

message: What's the homologous counterpart to the frenulum in females? The clitoral hood?
:Where is it written that every piece of anatomy must have a homologue in the opposite sex?  I'm not saying the frenulum doesn't have one, but you seem to be operating from the assumption that it necessarily must.  Kasreyn 04:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is also the frenulum -- inside, yes, the clitorol hood, which is homologous to the foreskin. Scix 01:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual Homology - Frenulum? 

message: Most of Internet-frequenting people must be quite immature to have the penis page locked. You think only an insignificant number of people would do this--not a great deal of the visitors!! Comments?
:It's more a matter of learning from your mistakes. Every time somebody vandalises the article, some one has to clean up the mess. Forcing the the casual visitor, intent to have a bit of fun for a minute, to log in before his misdeed, greatly decreases the frequency of people posting immature comments of the caliber "DICKS R GAY LOL". On the other hand, anybody who wishes to contribute helpfully will probably be ready to create an account and start a long and fruitful career of enriching everybody's experience with Wikipedia. — Mütze 21:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's analogous to saying only guilty people don't want their houses searched. Creating an account is extremely inconvenient. — Sd1234561 22:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With the difference that nobody is forced to make a contribution. Having your house searched is hardly avoidable if a group of policemen ist knocking on your front door. If the registration process already scares you off, the contributions might not have been worth it anyway. — Mütze 23:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying that anybody is forced to make a contribution, I'm saying that just because somebody doesn't want to register doesn't mean they intend to do some harm, or doesn't want to "contribute helpfully". They may be turned off by the registration process for a different reason. In the same way, people may not want their houses searched, not because they are guilty, but because of some other reason. Concerns for privacy are good reasons in both cases. Sd1234561 7:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly, the loss of their contributions is a price, that Wikipedia has to be able to pay, in order to keep this article clean. But that is Wikipedia's loss, not the potential contributor's. — Mütze 10:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure the analogy to searching your house is proper - your house is private, but Wikipedia is very, very public.  It's an encyclopedia, and as such a little bit of accountability and effort may prevent people from posting or editing without thinking.    Would you trust an anonymous source claiming to be authoritative?  I say that, yet I definitely think it's still important for anonymous users to be able to edit - after all, other people will eventually read the article and correct any errors, but I have no problem with the minimal limits placed on problem articles. Logging on isn't that big of a deal, and most people can set Wikipedia to automatically log them on, assuming they're using their own computer or computer account.(Elustran 02:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Sadly, it's not just immature people.  Breast is currently being revert-warred by someone who claims that they are concerned that certain images may cause WP, which they consider to be a good research tool, to be blocked from computers in libraries and schools.  While their attitude (of wanting WP to be available to students) is commendable, it's not appropriate for a local community to dictate its preferences to the world audience WP serves.  If governments and schools choose to mandate censoring of their access to WP, it's a damn shame, but it's not our fault or our problem.  Kasreyn 05:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the possibility of having a "possibly offensive" image tag of some sort so parents, schools, etc who want their kids to have access to Wikipedia but not to certain classes of imagrey can still use the site?  It might be an unworkable plan, require too much overhead, etc, but then again, there may be some conventions already in place to support that kind of limited blocking. (Elustran 02:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  my goodness 

message: removed http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1874818,00.html -- 172.173.27.163 11:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transplant 

message: Discussion on Guidelines for images in Sexology and Sexuality articles	
Click here                                                            	
I hear ppl complaining alot about the pics posted for articles like "Penis" "Vagina/Vulva" "Anus", but if you're going to that page, dont just expect information; pics are naturally going to be there. PPl are complaining also (ive seen it) that kids might veiw these types of pages... wtf would they be doing there? If they typed it in its their parents and or guardians who should be teaching them, not wikipedia... save it for school for actually studying and learning about the human anatomy.  Had to get that out of my system, sorry.
This discussion of images applies to numerous other articles, most of the sexology and sexuality oriented.  I have begun a discussion of the broader topic on Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines to have people participate in working on a guideline consensus (not a policy, or rules, as that hasn't been possible in the past).  Having a consensus of people who have hashed this out and agreed on some guidelines will help in the future to combat against the types of problems we have had in the past.  (Prudish people pushing their POV, Trolls trying to create controversy, Vanity images, etc.)  Of course it won't be a solution to all problems, and they will still need to be dealt with on a case by case basis, but there really isn't a need to rehash the entire barrel of pickles on every image on every sexuality based page, and then again when someone tries to change an image.   Atom 01:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pics 

message: It seems odd to say "penis" comes from Latin, but not what Latin word it comes FROM. Is there a Latin word "Penis" that means "Penis"? I seem to recall it's related to a word menaing "tail"... Scix 01:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not "related to" a word meaning tail, it is a word meaning tail. penis, penis - neuter - tail. 128.220.223.61 04:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: Penes is correct since the word is Latin.  Penises is an English barbarism.  I'd like to change the article.--Loodog 02:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the plural of penis is penitentiary. Gzuckier 15:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sure your changes will be very welcome in the Latin version of Wikipedia.  This, however, is the English version.  So, no matter how barbaric you think us, we'll stick to our English plurals where they exist, thanks.  --Nigelj 18:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't confuse a barbarism with being barbaric.  The former means that it is an illegitimate creation from usage.  See also: "nukular".  In English, words take their plurals from their respective languages.  See also: testes, octopi, alumni adhering to etymological roots.  Penes is correct.--Loodog 06:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is extremely ironic that you list "octopi" as adhering to "etymological roots" when the Latin plural is octopodes (octopus is a third declension noun, not a second declension noun like fungus).--Sd1234561 08:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone, please check a(ny) leading dictionary before going nuts about all this.  One can use EITHER 'Penes' or 'Penises'.  In common speak, 'Penises' is more used and 'Penes' is more used in medical terminology.  So there's no reason for a big argument over this. CaveatLectorTalk 13:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever we choose, we don't even have consistency in the article.--Loodog 13:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  plural 

message: I understand that Wikipedia is not censored, and all that, but do we really need A DOZEN fucking penis photos here?  Won't one, or maybe two suffice?  I find this all very telling. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.69 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 25 October 2006  (UTC)
:Actually, none of the photos are of a penis engaged in sexual intercourse. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 04:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: One too many cocks

message: While I am completely against censoring, I do not want my daughters seeing ANY ERECT penises until they are no longer writing reports.  I am no Christian, but I believe this is one area that images might be left disallowed.  I don't show them mine, and I'll fight your right to show them yours.  Should we have pictures involved in articles about child molestation.  The line was drawn correctly by NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC.  These images will make children LESS LIKELY to use this as a reference.  Additionally, WHO'S is it?
Sorry, WAS would be correct.
According to the US censors, and, I believe any censors in any country, images of the erect male penis are XXX.  Kids should be able to use this site.
I have removed the images.
75.69.207.170 18:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Showing a photograph of an erect penis is no way comparable to child molestation" because the latter depicts a morally wrong and abusive act of violence that should never take place while the former illustrates an anatomical fact, devoid of normative value.  Additionally, removal of penis pictures is the top of a very slippery slope (i.e. do we remove vagina pictures, labium pictures,  the 6 pairs of breasts from the breast page).  It is appropriate due to context.  Take the movie Kinsey (movie), for example, which was able to show an erect penis entering a vagine and which went through US censors.--Loodog 23:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually there's a more moderate issue that came to mind when I reviewed this: one set of images appears twice (the uncircumsized penis).  Perhaps that gives the impression of gratiutousness.  Wouldn't it be better to remove the duplicate? Durova 17:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NO PICTURES 

message: There is clear consensus that this article can, must, and will continue to have technically good and encyclopedic photographs of the human penis, because however much others might dislike it, Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors.  However, there seems to be some disagreement about whether or not there is consensus for this image, :Image:SOA-Herpes-genitalis-male.jpg, to be in the article.  Although voting is evil, I'd like to take an explicit headcount anyway.  Please sign your name below in the appropriate section.  Nandesuka 13:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment:It is about the penis, not the anatomy of the penis.  Herpes has nothing to do with the penis, except, as in this case, when it is an STI that infects the penis, like many other disorders and disease affecting the penis.  Atom 02:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It's 14:8, and there's a very compelling argument made from the majority—herpes is only one thing that could possibly happen to a penis. The image doesn't inform the reader of the penis (which is the article's intent, I believe) at all. Should we not have images of warts, burns, piercings, gonorrhea, infections, etc. as well, if that's the standard? I think "a few months" is far too long to wait for anything so minor that notably detracts from the article, but I suppose we could wait until January before deciding what's to be done. Berserk798 23:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The current count has been unchanged since November; don't kid yourself. Why do we need to illustrate the diseases that can inflict the penis? You've never presented a good reason as to why diseases should be illustrated outside of their respective articles. Yes, the penis can be inflicted with herpes—what's the reason to illustrate it here? It can be inflicted with just about anything—I guess we need pictures of all kinds of diseases and injuries if that's our logic. The complaint that all of them are Caucasian can be dealt with seperately; I want to start a project to obtain more clinical photos that are more representative of the average penis anyway, and it can be addressed if new pictures are obtained (the ones we currently have are unusually small). Berserk798 04:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I see that it hasn't changed since November.  So, no consensus may be reachable.  We are barely able to have just less than two-thirds of the people agreeing on one perspective.  The picture is in the section to illustrate disease of the penis (the section) in general, not a specific disease.  I agree that having other pictures to choose from, especially more clinical ones, would be helpful in editing the article.  Consider that any image that shows disease of the penis will likely squick someone.  Most diseases of the penis are not as photo capable, or are generally STD's, and not specific to the penis (Syphyllis, Chlamydia, etc). DO you really think you could find another photo that would illustrate diseases of the penis, generally, any better? Atom 12:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I recommend actually reading the article on Consensus.  Quoting: "This issue is controversial, and there is no consensus about having numerical guidelines. That said, the numbers mentioned as being sufficient to reach supermajority vary from about 60% to over 80% depending upon the decision, with the more critical processes tending to have higher thresholds."  Of course, we had LESS than 60% support removing the photo.  The vote was to help gain consensus, (or so it was advertised) NOT a majority vote on whether it should be there or not.  I was not suggesting that we needed 95%.  What I was saying is that Nandesuka stating that there was a "strong consensus", when there was not even enough votes to make the 60% often considered to be a weak consensus was a mis-interpretation of the facts, or a misunderstanding of what consensus is.  Quoting again "Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy, so simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate. However, when supermajority voting is used, it should be seen as a process of 'testing' for consensus, rather than reaching consensus." Atom 21:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes,"While the most important part of consensus-building is to thoroughly discuss and consider all issues, it is often difficult for all members in a discussion to come to a single conclusion. [...] While consensus-building is still the preferred method, some contributors have also come to use a supermajority as one of the determinations." We have a 63% majority; it's unreasonable to wait several months, or possibly even a year, for a true consensus. Berserk798 23:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, consensus is about people deciding to work together, and moving to convince one another using good faith and reasoning.  Some may prefer majority rule over consensus, but Wikipedia is consensus driven by policy.  Working by consensus often does not take very much time.  In the event that people can't come to consensus, there is usually a reason.  Either further efforts (such as recommending a different picture) or using rational argument could sway people one way or the other.  If people are in a hurry to make a change, and no consensus can be reached, that has to tell you something.  I respect the good faith effort of the 14 people who felt that the image should not be there, even without clear consensus.  Maybe at some later time people will look at things differently, who knows.  I'm mystified as to how in a section discussing diseases that affect the penis, an image of a penis, with a disease affecting it, could be seen as "tangential" and "serving no purpose".  Atom 02:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "If people are in a hurry to make a change, and no consensus can be reached, that has to tell you something" Please enlighten me as to what it says, because I don't think there are alterior motives to be had. To clear your mystification, the image does nothing to inform the reader of disorders affecting the penis; all it does is illustrate an outbreak of herpes. Really, no image illustrates the topic of "disorders affecting the penis". It really doesn't need any illustration. "Disorders" is such a broad topic, you would require a collage of several images to even come close to illustrating it apporpriately. "Clear consensus" hasn't been found, but there is a very clear majority and has been quite a bit of waiting. I think that if clear consensus comes in the future we will act, or not act, accordingly. Until a consensus is reached (which will probably take several months, if not longer), the majority should be able to have its way. Is that really unfair or against Wikipedia values? Berserk798 23:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with you that we should have mode clinical images.  We don't want a picture that is representative of all diseases of the penis, we want one (and had one) that is representative of the section "Disease of the penis".  That is, one image of the penis with a disease.  It doesn't matter whether the disease is limited only to the penis, it matters that in the example the diease shown affects the penis.  Atom 21:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The more we discuss this, the more I see that there needs to be a minor change in the "disorders affecting the penis" section. Out of the ten disorders listed, two of them (thrombosis and herpes) are not specific to the penis. Either we need to mention the numerous other STDs that can affect the penis (there are more than just herpes), or we should just remove the mentioning of thrombosis and herpes. Seriously, you can get herpes on your face—why does it deserve mention in the section about penile disorders? Does anyone honestly think that herpes is a penile disorder? I always thought it was simply a virus that anyone (even people without penises) could get. Berserk798 23:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I guess I don't realize it.  Well, I don't realize your point.  The herpes picture was, in fact a bone fide disease of a penis, and we wanted an image of an actual disease of the penis.  Had it been a picture of herpes on someone's lip, or of a syphylis cancre on someone's thigh then it would not have been appropriate for the section on disease of the penis.  Atom 21:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Herpes is not a penile disease. It can affect the penis, but it is not a disease specific to the penis. Did you not just say that diseases not specific to the penis shouldn't be chosen to be illustrated? Berserk798 23:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Funny, the image shown seemed to show a penis, diseased with Herpes. I don't think the section is titled "Diseases that only affect the penis, and not any other part of the body".  Atom 02:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Herpes is not defined as a disorder that affects the penis—it's a virus that can affect the penis as well as a vagina or even your lips. Again, the list is extremely short and should probably be changed to "Penile disorders" and have herpes and thrombosis removed from it. That would make more sense. Herpes is an STD and a virus that is very distantly related to the organ that this article deals with. It doesn't really belong unless you plan to list and illustrate every single problem that can affect a penis, but doesn't necessarily. Berserk798 23:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *sighs* "Penile disorders" or "Disorders of the Penis" means diseases that affect the Penis, not disease that affect ONLY the penis.  This article is not about herpes, or STI's, it is about the penis.   If a disease can adversely affect the penis, then it should be fair game for discussion in the section on diseases that affect the penis.  I would suggest that in general, STI's could be mentioned generally, with a link to the STI's article.  Also, some kind of image of a Penis affected ins ome way by a disease would fit in that section.  We don't want a picture of every disease that affects the penis, or evey disease that affects only the penis, but a general, representative image of one disease for illustrative purposes.  Atomaton 
You're wrong. Just because herpes can affect the penis doesn't mean that it needs to be talked about in the penis article at all. It's not mentioned once in the vagina article. Do you know why? Because herpes isn't directly relevant to the vagina. It's just a virus. It's not something that happens specially to the penis, or the vagina, or genitals in general. Therefore, it's not "fair game", nor should our articles be made up of "fair game" anyway. We should have directly relevant and informative things to say about our topic on hand. We seriously don't need to illustrate a penis infected with a disease. It informs the reader of nothing but what the disease looks like. It's not appropriate for the penis article. If you want to put a picture of a disease somewhere, put it in its appropriate article. Before you tell me how we "just need it" again, explain what it informs the readers of and why we need it. Berserk798 23:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of Herpes picture 

message: I have noticed that the picture of uncircumcised penis (UncircumcisedPenis.jpg) only appears as link, not as picture. Can anyone fix it since it is useful for comparision with circumcised one? Thanks. Wikichaser 19:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncircumcised picture disappeared? 

message: I don't feel that the choice of words is an issue of political correctitude, but rather a question of accuracy. Would one call a man with both arms a non-amputee? Using the term "uncircumcised" to describe an intact, natural, normal penis perpetuates the typically American, myopic misconception that a penis with its foreskin surgically amputated is natural or normal, when the exact opposite is true. "Uncircumcised" clearly implies to the reader that the surgically altered penis is medically normal. In countries where genital mutilation is uncommon, or even illegal, a circumcised or "cut" penis is unquestionably viewed as abnormal and unnatural. I think it all depends on how one wishes to see himself.
--MrEguy 10:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It also depends upon whether one wants to use correct, neutral, precise language or not. Any dictionary will define 'uncircumcised' as 'not circumcised', which is precisely what is meant. The term 'intact' is a) loaded, and b) a much less precise term that does not specifically refer to the presence or absence of a foreskin. A penis that has a scar, a tattoo, or a piercing is not intact, though it may well be uncircumcised. Jakew 10:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop editing this term in articles in which it appears. "Uncircumcised" is common usage and widely understood to apply to the penis, "intact" is neither. You say, "it all depends on how one wishes to see himself". That is a point of view. Please see Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View.—Chidom talk  19:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  The wikipedia penis article is not the place to promote views of genital integrity.--Loodog 22:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have phrased it "normal" and "circumcised", myself. Or "natural" and "circumcised". However you look at it, circumcised is clearly not natural or normal. Jeffpw 20:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure.  "uncircumsized" as "normal", that's a far more neutral way to go.--Loodog 21:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The Wikipedia entry for "penis" is a good place to bash Americans. No, really. It is. Ask that guy. BonniePrinceCharlie 22:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Intact" vs. "Uncircumcised"

message: SOmeone PLEASE change the word JESUS back to Penis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.109.134.154 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 28 November 2006
:The vandalism you're mentioning was removed (with a little "help" from User:AntiVandalBot ;-) ) over an hour before you commented. -- AJR | Talk 20:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the human JESUS?? 

message: Can someone please add something on the 'meat' v. 'blood' penis, fact or fiction, details, medical terminology, difference in physical function etc.
Thanks.
--H
24.199.114.52 04:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "meat" v. "blood" 

message: What is the standard or correct way to measure length and girth of the penis.
 
 LENGTH: Does one measure the penis from the scotum to the tip or does one measure it from the top side to the tip. The measurement varies greatly? Are measurements taken when erect or flaccid?
 GIRTH: Does one measure at the base/on the shaft/or head of penis? erect/flaccid? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4myego (talk • contribs).
:Simple enough.  Length is measured while erect, along the top (dorsal) surface, from the juncture of the penis and body, to the tip of the glans.  Girth is measured while erect, at the widest part of the penile shaft (not the glans), wherever that widest part is on the particular man being measured.  HTH, Kasreyn 23:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Penis size? 

message: Censored, that is.
I would like someone to provide a good reason why this article does not have, as lead photo above the fold, a quality photograph of the object under consideration in its natural state.  I don't want this to become a policy-quoting war, but this sort of chilling effect reaction boils my blood.
This is an encyclopedia intended for mature readers, with a very comprehensive and airtight content disclaimer.  We do not need to be pre-emptively censoring ourselves when there is valid information to be delivered.
See Jim_Douglas's cogent and elegant explanation on Talk:Breast:  .
There is no reason to treat a penis any differently from any other object we might have an article about, except for social taboos which have no place here.
I await the (remember:  good) reason.  Cheers, Kasreyn 08:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All the sections have accompanying images relevant to that section. If you find an image appropriate to place at the top then please give us a link to it, so it can be discussed. WP:NOT is no reason to include be a lead image, only if it improves the article.--Clawed 09:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: And note that this article is about penises both human and non-humen, so a photo of a human penis(es) would not make a good representive image for the article.--Clawed 09:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, but it is, mostly, read by humans. --Nigelj 20:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A good point.  I feel that a photo of a penis of some kind would be the best intro.  Failing any other objective criteria for picking which species' penis to display, I say we show one from the only species known to edit and read Wikipedia.  Kasreyn 23:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clawed, do you (or anyone else?) have a reply to the above re: appropriateness of human lead image?  Cheers, Kasreyn 00:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:NOT 

message: I don't think that WP is the place for this. Even in medical school, you deal mostly with diagrams not photos.
I'm a 20 year old male... so this picture doesn't offend me one bid..... but this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA people. Lest try and keep up the respect level. Just because it doesn't offend YOU doesn't mean it is appropriate for EVERYONE of ALL AGES --The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bensonic (talk * contribs) 03:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, WP is not intended as an encyclopedia for "everyone of all ages".  It is intended as a collection of all human knowledge (or such was the original hype, regardless of how it's turned out).  If adults in various parts of the world do not wish their children to see certain content on Wikipedia, it is their responsibility to chaperone their children's internet usage.  Censorship is not only not our responsibility, it's a waste of our time and not even something we could do competently if we tried.  Kasreyn 07:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: We do the best we can with what we have.  There seems to be a dearth of men willing to share images of their penis with the world.  Perhaps you or someone you know might help us out by uploading a better image.  Remember, WP is a project anyone can help with!  Kasreyn 07:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PHOTOS inappropriate 

message: This is horrible picture that adds nothing to the article. I can't ev en read this article because of how revolting it is.
Why don't the other disses have a picture if this one does?
In response to the above unsigned comment:
I agree and have removed said picture. Bennyboyz3000 13:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  REMOVE genital herpes picture. 

message: Is it possible we can add different pictures of different kinds of Penises of people who are not white?--Jack Cox 19:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Varieties of Penis?

message: Listen, we've discussed it before and it keeps coming up.  Hard coding the image to a fixed px size, or frame, doesn't allow the users preferences to be respected.  It forces a HUGE lede image on the person, even if they choose to use small default thumbs in order to be discreet, or because they just like them better that way.  If someone can't read the text, they can merely click on the image to read it.
This topic has been discussed at length in many places, hence the work of myself and others recently at Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy#Forced_image_size.  The result has been a large consensus, and a recent change in the policy to clarify it further.  Changes were made at Wikipedia:MOS#Images and Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Displayed_image_size which read:
*Specifying the size of a thumb image is in general not recommended: without specifying a size the width will be what the reader has specified as preference, with a default of 180px (which applies for most readers). However, the image subject or image properties may call for a specific image width in order to enhance the readability and/or layout of an article. Cases where specific image width are considered appropriate include:
:* On images with extreme aspect ratios
:* When using detailed maps, diagrams or charts
:* When a small region of an image is considered relevant, but the image would lose its coherence when cropped to that region
AND
"In articles, if you wish to have a photo beside the text, you should generally use the "thumbnail" option available in the "Image markup" (this results in 180 pixels wide display in standard preferences default setting)."
=== The problem:===
The large majority of users don't know how to set their preferences, or don't do so.  This leaves the default thumb size at 180px.  This is sized just right for most people under most circumstances.  Since this image we are discussing has print that reads rather small at 180px, some editors feel that needs to be larger.  This probably fits into the exception clause "When using detailed maps, diagrams or charts".  This is an editorial decision that needs to be made, and not a unilateral decision by one editor because they personally don't like to click on the image to view it.
The are pro's and con's, and an editorial decision needs to be made to determine:
*Should we follow the standard established of allowing the user to decide the image size they prefer, or should we force a larger image on them, to insure that the text is readable by all users without clicking on the image?
:**Yes, use thumb.  Let the users decide what they want.  The few people who can't read it can just click on the image.
:***Pro: Article is cleaner.  Many people can read the text just fine.  Most people don't care to read the text anyway, and the few that can't just have to click on the image to read a larger version.
:***Con:  Points made in the image may be missed by some.  Not everyone knows that they can click on the image to read a larger version.  Some people have small screens.
:**No, force a large image on all users, so that text is immediately readable under all circumstances.
:***Pro:Everyone can read the text, no matter what.
:***Con: If someone wants images to be discreet, or wants the image at a certain size (larger or smaller) because of their monitor or vision, they can't have their preference.
*If we are going to force the image to a larger size, what size is appropriate, given the many sizes of monitors and screen resolutions?
:**Force it to as large as possible.  Then it will be readable by even people with small screens.
:**Force it to Frame, and then it will be the actual image size.
Atom 12:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of lede image, use of thumb 

message: The large majority of users don't know how to set their preferences, or don't do so.  This leaves the default thumb size at 180px.  This is sized just right for most people under most circumstances.  Since this image we are discussing has print that reads rather small at 180px, some editors feel that needs to be larger.  This probably fits into the exception clause "When using detailed maps, diagrams or charts".  This is an editorial decision that needs to be made, and not a unilateral decision by one editor because they personally don't like to click on the image to view it.
The are pro's and con's, and an editorial decision needs to be made to determine:
*Should we follow the standard established of allowing the user to decide the image size they prefer, or should we force a larger image on them, to insure that the text is readable by all users without clicking on the image?
:**Yes, use thumb.  Let the users decide what they want.  The few people who can't read it can just click on the image.
:***Pro: Article is cleaner.  Many people can read the text just fine.  Most people don't care to read the text anyway, and the few that can't just have to click on the image to read a larger version.
:***Con:  Points made in the image may be missed by some.  Not everyone knows that they can click on the image to read a larger version.  Some people have small screens.
:**No, force a large image on all users, so that text is immediately readable under all circumstances.
:***Pro:Everyone can read the text, no matter what.
:***Con: If someone wants images to be discreet, or wants the image at a certain size (larger or smaller) because of their monitor or vision, they can't have their preference.
*If we are going to force the image to a larger size, what size is appropriate, given the many sizes of monitors and screen resolutions?
:**Force it to as large as possible.  Then it will be readable by even people with small screens.
:**Force it to Frame, and then it will be the actual image size.
Atom 12:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The problem:

message: We need a good image to be representative of body modification of the penis, such as a prince albert piercing, or penis self-mutilation.  One general image to represent that section, not multiple images to represent every possibility.  Atom 21:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. It can go in it's appropriate article, "genetial modification and mutilation". Berserk798 23:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Altering the male genitalia 

message: somewhere we should put that size doesn't matter, its the motion of the ocean...
or how a penis fucks
71.62.10.130 23:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  yeah so 

message: " flaccid (non-erect state)" should surely read "flaccid (non-erect) state"? Timothy James 21:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grower or Shower Style