Talk:Ejaculation/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Nominated for deletion

Note that Atom nominated the photo and video for deletion. The debates were closed due to being in the wrong forum but can be found here and here. Anyone can re-nominate in the proper forum of course but I strong suspect it'd be a futile exercise. --NeilN talk to me 21:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily - consensus can always change.DMSBel (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I was unaware that these were on the commons site. I should have looked more closely. Several of the editors here seemed to feel that the images were objectionable. I hoped for a fair forum from many editors to express their views on the images. Obviously, I am of the opinion that the images are appropriate within a limited context. Atom (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

If you are talking about the 4 photos - then the context that they orginally came from is the limited context within which they are appropriate - ie. "Krooga's" porn channel.DMSBel (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Formatting of notes in table

{{editprotected}} I propose a change to the formatting of the table in Ejaculation#During puberty. The change involves: (1) removing the table numbering ("Table 1"), which I believe is non-standard and unnecessary; (2) removing unnecessary upper-case from the table title—we don't capitalize every word in section headings, and so probably shouldn't in table titles; (3) replacing the manually-formatted notes with {{ref}} and {{end}}; and (4) identifying the notes with letters rather than numbers to avoid confusion between notes and citations.

The appropriate code to implement all changes is:

{| class="wikitable" border="1"
|-
|+ Semen development during puberty
! Time after first <br>ejaculation (months) 
! Average volume <br>(milliliter)
! Liquefaction
! Average sperm concentration <br>(million sperm/milliliter)
|-
| 0
| 0.5
| No{{ref|no-liquify|a}}
| 0
|-
| 6
| 1.0
| No{{ref|no-liquify|a}}
| 20
|-
| 12
| 2.5
| No/Yes{{ref|some-liquify|b}}
| 50
|-
| 18
| 3.0
| Yes{{ref|all-liquify|c}}
| 70
|-
| 24
| 3.5
| Yes{{ref|all-liquify|c}}
| 300
|}

{{note|no-liquify|a}}Ejaculate is jellylike and fails to liquify.<br />
{{note|some-liquify|b}}Most samples liquify. Some remain jellylike.<br />
{{note|all-liquify|c}}Ejaculate liquifies within an hour.

I don't expect this to be controversial, but I am proposing it here per Wikipedia:Protection policy#Full protection, which states:

Any modification to a fully protected page should be proposed on its talk page (or in another appropriate forum).

and because my involvement in the RfC and VP discussions could qualify me as an 'involved' editor to some extent, even though this edit is unrelated to the issue that resulted in protection of the page. -- Black Falcon (talk) 08:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you had to go to that trouble, but by all means make some edits to other parts of the article if you can.DMSBel (talk) 11:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Very minor amendment needed to the opening sentence

I think it would be appropriate to add the words carrying sperm to the opening sentence. Seminal fluid is that in which spermatazoa are carried.

It would then read as follows Ejaculation is the ejecting of semen (carrying sperm), from the male reproductory tract,....

Ok with everyone?DMSBel (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm on the fence as a reader could click on semen to find out the details. But if a change is going to be made, it should read (usually carrying sperm). --NeilN talk to me 14:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely. You can be sterile and ejaculate nonetheless. It seems redundant to me, but "usually carrying sperm" can also be fine. --Cyclopiatalk 15:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes if you mean by sterile complete lack of sperm in the semen then yes you are correct, one can ejaculate seminal fluid which contains no sperm. Male infertility however can be for an number of reasons other than total lack of sperm. For instance low sperm-count. I think usually is right though. DMSBel (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The photos

Just wondering what others think - do the photos add significantly to the understanding of the topic of the article?

IMO they seem to be redundant while the video is in. DMSBel (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

If the video is in the photos are probably somewat redundant. --NeilN talk to me 23:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the photos are valuable, so people aren't forced to play the video to get the information. There are those who might not even have the technical capability to play embedded videos. Equazcion (talk) 23:54, 25 Feb 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Equazcion. That said, the issue has been discussed above and discussion has been closed few hours ago. Can we close this one too per WP:HEAR? --Cyclopiatalk 00:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The discussion was archived, but by no means "closed". There is still no clear consensus either way. If consensus cannot be achieved then dispute resolution may be sought. The film is not available to some readers and, for them, the photos illustrate the topic.
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  04:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I personally don't see how either video or the photos contribute anything to the article--besides the uneasy feeling that someone somewhere is getting off on others watching him get off. Drmies (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
From a purely technical standpoint, there is nothing wrong with using such photos to illustrate a topic. I am still a bit on the fence about the video, though. (See my comment below in the Rfc.) Such a film appears to be quite an innovation in Wikipedia sexual-related articles, and I'm not certain that such a trend should continue. If with this debate we set a precedent allowing such a film, then where will it lead? There are several other much more sexually-oriented articles in this encyclopedia. How famous/INfamous do we want to make this information resource?
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  00:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

As in other articles, more images can shed a different light in the topic. In this case I feel the video brings a great deal of value to understanding the topic. The photo's are good supplementary material, but do not offer as much as the video. Atom (talk) 04:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

  • I don't know what different kind of light one could want here--unless it's a non-encyclopedic light. The text describes well enough what goes on, and there is a lot more to that text, actually, than the video shows. Understanding the topic? Come one. No, you're looking at a guy who enjoys watching people watch him come, that's what you're looking at. Drmies (talk) 04:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't see how the subject in the video's motivation for filming it should enter into the equation. Would it make you feel better if an identical film were provided with a different "actor" who didn't "like it"? Or would you still be unhappy with the video's inclusion? Equazcion (talk) 04:45, 26 Feb 2010 (UTC)
      • What if I said yes? And is that the only one of my arguments you noticed? How about this: I believe that a video and a sequence of four photos is visual overkill which overwhelms the article. I also don't really believe in some sort of New Critical approach to art and to images: these images don't come value-fee, devoid of background, intention, historicity, and desire, and if we have information that pertains to a fuller interpretation and appreciation of an image or a work of art, we would deprive ourselves by not taking it into account. That certainly applies here, it seems to me, and your effort to make it appear as if this video, in the context of a Wikipedia article, is completely value-free is not very successful. Drmies (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
        • It is completely successful. Show me a guideline or policy that says we can't accept material from sites most of us would consider "seedy". Policy requires us to check if it's not illegal and licensed properly, article guidelines asks us to discuss if it's useful. That's it. --NeilN talk to me 05:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
        • In all of that comment I don't even see an attempt at some practical reason to consider the itention of the subject when considering its inclusion. Frankly you sound like you're saying we just shouldn't "give him the satisfaction". If there's really any more to it (and you should ask yourself if there really is), I'm listening. Equazcion (talk) 05:13, 26 Feb 2010 (UTC)
          • That's cause you didn't read very carefully. In my last comment I wasn't talking about any kind of intention. Equazcion--I should ask myself if there is? You know me better than I do? Also, I should hope I sound like I'm saying that we shouldn't give him the satisfaction, because I thought that's what I was saying pretty explicitly. But I have little more to say to you gentlemen, and you have little to say to me. Neil, you are undoubtedly right that there is no explicit or implicit guideline forbidding seedy material. Well, you don't need rules for everything, and just cause something is not forbidden doesn't mean it ought to be allowed. If there appears a consensus on this talk page that the video is seedy, then it's gone. That's a part of article guidelines (which, by the way, will never dictate inclusion--it is up to editors to make that decision). I'm just registering my vote here. Drmies (talk) 05:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
            • Sorry, you're wrong. "Seedy" is a point-of-view value judgement and local consensus can't trump policy. If it could, the images on Muhammad would be gone because they're "blasphemous". --NeilN talk to me 05:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
            • My original reply to you might be misunderstood. I was referring to sites being seedy, not the material. --NeilN talk to me 05:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
            • Consensus isn't about voting. Rationale is a big part of it. Not wanting to give satisfaction to the subject in an image wouldn't fly as a reason to remove it. I'm focusing on that aspect of your argument since the others have been addressed so extensively already, but to repeat, the value of the video and photos is the same as for the vagina article, the penis article, or the Mona Lisa article -- a visual representation for those who want to see what the article topic looks like. A picture is worth a thousand words after all, and a video that much more so. The text being good "enough" (according to your assessment) is no reason to exclude an image in those instances, and therefore isn't here either. Equazcion (talk) 05:45, 26 Feb 2010 (UTC)
NeilN, You said you were refering to sites being seedy, not the material. What is it that makes some websites seedy? Also NeilN can you show were policy says we must include content, even if deemed to be unsuitable by several editors? Policy really cannot arbitrate here it seems to me. DMSBel (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
It can, and it must. On the side of who wants the images: WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:IUP . On the side of who wants to delete them: Nothing. --Cyclopiatalk 15:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
You cannot ignore policy just because it stands in the way of making changes you want. And everyone has their own definition of "seedy". I was trying to make the point that where the material comes from is irrelevant in this case. --NeilN talk to me 17:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
So basically for you Cyclopia it is that ULIKETHEM + there is no policy against DMSBel (talk) 15:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
A consensus of editors has clearly stated that the content is well suited for the article. You are one of the several editors who has declared it unsuitable. Several editors is not really a consensus for removing valuable content. There would be no reason to put the video in this article except for the fact that is directly applicable to the article, and substantially improves the article. Atom (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a "consensus of editors". We are talking about the photos btw. DMSBel (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Rationale needs to be more than "they illustrate" or "they are supplemental", as we already have two illustrations. I am asking in what way do the "the photos" add significantly to the understanding of the topic of the article"?DMSBel (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I answered your question already above. Equazcion (talk) 15:26, 26 Feb 2010 (UTC)
You are basically saying someone might not be able to play the video. So the photos replicate more or less what is in the video?DMSBel (talk) 15:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The photos replicate what is in the video, yes. The value in that is to provide a fallback for those with technical problems viewing videos, as well as to provide information without people having to play the video. It's not uncommon in articles to have both animated and still visuals. The stills provide info at a glance while the video is there in case people want to see the entire realistic sequence. I'll also note that the video doesn't play automatically on loading of the page; people who want to play it can click play, others don't have to. Equazcion (talk) 15:54, 26 Feb 2010 (UTC)
It's fairly easy to get a plug-in or whatever is needed to enable video to be played, can't see many people having a problem here. I am using Windows XP which is 8 years old and I didn't have to set up anything or download anything to get the video to play. DMSBel (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • So--on the side of the includers, we see that since this stuff is not forbidden by policy it should be included, that's what it boils down to. [Let me make this clear: I think that's a crap argument.] Equazcion, if you think that these videos and images are so necessary, then, for this article to be encyclopedic, you owe it to the people, perhaps, to supplement other articles as well. Fingering (sexual act), for instance, has no illustration for "anal fingering"--perhaps you can find a way to provide that material. Drmies (talk) 16:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
So moral judgements are ok then for determining content - "there would be nothing wrong"DMSBel (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
No, it's a technical judgement. --Cyclopiatalk 18:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Drmies, reading what's been written above, it doesn't appear to me that their argument boils down to "since this stuff is not forbidden by policy it should be included." The real issue in contention is whether or not the images help a user understand the subject better. The anti-censorship policy states that Wikipedia contains content that some readers "consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so," and that articles "may include images which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content." Hence, the debate here should focus on whether or not the images help the reader better understand the topic at hand.--AzureCitizen (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
And I have tried to do that, though as a student of literature I present different kinds of arguments, on occasion. One argument--the mere fact of a guy spooging just by thinking is so unusual (as far as I know anyway, but I'll ask around) that it really takes away from any educational use. E.g., if he has help, digitally or otherwise, does his stomach still make these strange motions? And, seriously, what precisely do we learn from this image?

BTW, I disagree with your assessment--I think I summarized the other party's argument pretty well. They have not mentioned a single biological factoid that one can glean from the video and the images that one cannot get from the text. They seem to think that this is a one-way street: those who want to delete should argue for deletion and the default is keep. That may work in AfD discussions, but not in these kinds of cases. Yes, Cyclopia, there might be something wrong, and your grammar, "there would be nothing wrong," as if your stating some law of the universe, obfuscates that it is some people who think there would be nothing wrong with that kind of image. I'm really tired of this idea that removing some image would be censorship, that some sort of default is to include everything no matter the source. An image, video, or even text has to have encyclopedic value, it has to help the article in some scientific, objective, pedagogical way. No one has yet argued any benefit for these images, and I am not surprised at that. But, Azure, I appreciate your calm and deliberate response. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Plenty of people have pointed out potential benefits above. Either you haven't read through the comments or recently archived material or are choosing to ignore their arguments. --NeilN talk to me 17:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


In regard to the cumshot video masquerading as educational information on this page: Seems this was a big topic back in February; sorry I'm late for the show. I suppose I should be happy; the last time I visited this page, the “educational” video was of some guy masturbating to completion. Now we have a minor upgrade, in that the video superficially appears to be more clinical. Unfortunately, that is just not good enough. I’m surprised how easily some of the editors of this page have let themselves be taken in by the laughable assertion that this video somehow offers educational value. Fundamentally, it does not - unless, that is, the reader is a cretin who cannot picture something from reading the words and really *needs* a video to get the idea. I would submit that one cannot design an encyclopedia article around such users. No, the video's inclusion on the page is an embarrassment to Wikipedia – that is, if Wikipedia is ever to be taken seriously as an encyclopedia. I suppose the editors who have made the point that this video significantly adds to the article would find me a shade more willing to accept their argument if any – ANY - of the following pages had an embedded video of a human performing the act:

Feces page (no), excretion page (no), defecation page (no), Saliva page (no) , expectoration page (no), Urination page (no); urine fetishism page (no), Mucus page (no), Automucophagy page (no), anal sex page (no), anal fisting page (no), bestiality page (no), crush video page (no), Homicide page (no), terrorism page (no), al qaeda in iraq page (no), decapitation page (no), Nick Berg page (no).

Now, can someone please explain to me again why the ONLY page among these that shows a video of a human being performing the act is the ‘Ejaculation’ page, and explain to me why, in light of the aforementioned fact that it virtually *stands alone*, said video is not, in fact, gratuitous. It’s a ‘money shot’, pure and simple, appealing largely to vulgar interest, but providing little educational benefit. While Wikipedia should never be censored, it should have at least a modicum of refined sensitivity, lest it be confused with sleazy, XXX websites, or so much of the declassé, low-brow rubbish residing on the Internet. Ask yourself this: would it be seen in other famous encyclopedic publications? If not, think twice and then again before inclusion. Otherwise, you risk helping to drag this once noble experiment that is Wikipedia down into the laughingstock that it is now in real danger of becoming (not just referring to this page). It has always been an uphill battle for us to achieve respect for Wikipedia among the educated. For awhile, I thought we were turning the tide, but this page makes me wonder. I think that the burden of proof that the video adds to the article rests squarely with those who think it does (add). To date, I have found the arguments for inclusion less than persuasive, to say the least.Rodney420 (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Now, can someone please explain to me again why the ONLY page among these that shows a video of a human being performing the act is the ‘Ejaculation’ page, and explain to me why, in light of the aforementioned fact that it virtually *stands alone*, said video is not, in fact, gratuitous. - Thanks for pointing out the fact that these pages lack useful videos (There are some of the pages you cite where copyright problems or other legal challenges may make inclusion problematic, but at least a half of them would benefit from a video -defecation, urination, decapitation for example). I hope someone will provide these. As for becoming a laughingstock, yes, we risk this: by censoring content on the basis of puritanism, we risk being laughed at, for sure. --Cyclopiatalk 19:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Meta-pinion? Time for an evaluation of our motivations?

Normally I would suggest that a discussion of the ideals expressed as encyclopedic to not be within any particular page. But these conversations specific to the graphic examples are very interesting to me. Sorry to sound overly cumbaya on you all, but in many cases I really do believe that each side of this issue hold the motivations of the other side as suspect. There really is an impasse here that is simply not going to ever be resolved. I don't know how wikipedia is designed to get past such a thing. And no, "Discussion" veiled ire isn't going to do it.Tgm1024 (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)



The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


ok well those videos/photos made me barf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.73.233 (talk) 02:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of four plate image

The four plate image I put in the article just before it was protected seemed to generate controversy. I feel that it is appropriate and adds useful information to the few images in the article. However, some people disagree. There has been consensus for the video in the past, but not necessarily the four plate image. I have read all of the recent comments on this, and I feel it is best to pull the image until I am sure there is consensus. Wikpedia is not a democracy. However -- I am polling to see if we have consensus for inclusion or not. Please feel free to express yourself as much as you like. Atom (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep in the article, it adds supplementary information, is useful if a wikipedia reader cannot run the video. For me the source of the image is of little importance, the capability of the image to add information to the article is. Atom (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep per Atom. It is a clear image of the article subject, therefore it is of obvious and immediate informative value, and it nicely complements the video. That said, polling is definitely not the way to go in cases like this. Also, local consensus does not trump general consensus established in policies and guidelines (i.e. editors cannot decide to disregard WP:NPOV within a single article, even if they all agree), and in this case WP:IUP and WP:NOTCENSORED allow the image to stay by any standard. Similar cases happen, for example in Muhammad images are kept per WP:NOTCENSORED despite continuous requests to remove them; in The Mousetrap the play ending is revealed per WP:SPOILER despite continuous requests to remove it. There is no poll to be done: the images can stay, and therefore should stay unless a policy-based reason for their removal comes up. --Cyclopiatalk 20:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep per general practice. Videos are good for those who want to take it a step further and see the whole sequence, while photos are good for at-a-glance information. Many articles containing videos or animation contain stills as well. There is also the accessibility aspect. Maintaining accessibility means making information available even to those whose access is limited to outdated equipment and/or software. Just because you (a particular user) have no trouble playing embedded videos doesn't mean everyone won't. Equazcion (talk) 20:33, 26 Feb 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:NOTCENSORED and the photo is a good representation but we don't go overboard (note that I have not yet formed an opinion if adding the pic and video is going overboard). For example, we place images of Muhammad below the fold so to speak as a slight compromise. --NeilN talk to me 20:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment In my view, I am evaluating whether is should be kept, or not based on the qualitative value to the article. I am asking opinions on that, not on whether it should be censored or not. This would be in the context of the article, which includes the other text and image content. Of course it should not be censored -- but does it add valuable information to the article? Atom (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. First an on-topic comment about the stills: I am of the general opinion that they can be kept, however there is another factor that I am not sure has been discussed. "Innovation". I have looked through most of the links on templates such as {{sex}}, {{sexpositions}} and {{sexual urban legends}}, and I have found in nearly all cases that they use simple sketches and drawings, some ancient reliefs and art (paintings and sculptures) to depict whatever sexual topic about which they inform readers. There are very few photos in any of the article links and, on an off-topic (in this section) note, I came across no films/videos at all. While I didn't visit all of the links, I sampled more than enough to conclude that the result of this debate about the stills (and the film) might begin a new trend in Wikipedia sexual-related articles. Imagine a graphic film used in missionary position, doggy style and even 69? So we may want to ask ourselves where might this discussion take us in the long run? Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  00:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Imagine a graphic film used in missionary position, doggy style and even 69?. Yes, I can imagine that. What would be the actual problem with that, provided it is brief and illustrative? --Cyclopiatalk 00:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I honestly don't know, Cyclopia. I am merely pointing out the extended scope to which this discussion might lead, and I ask the question, "Is it really up to us?" Is it up to just a handful of editors to set this precedent? Judging by the lively discussion this subject has sparked and enjoyed, the final decision (about inclusion of the film) might have to be made by Jimbo and/or Snow themselves? Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  01:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) This is an interesting point that I've brought up before during discussions related to this general debate. The general rule seems to be that for sexually explicit imagery involving more than one participant, where explicit genital contact is involved, photographs are not allowed and are replaced with drawings or cartoons. The reasons this unspoken rule has developed are debatable, but generally, it only applies in those situations. The closest applicable comparison I can find to this article is vaginal lubrication, where photographs are used. Equazcion (talk) 01:08, 27 Feb 2010 (UTC)
I must have missed that, Equazcion, so sorry. Seems you've raised a valid and important issue that might bring the implicit "rule" to a head? (no pun intended) Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  01:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: Also, I think Talk:Autofellatio/FAQ can be a useful read of a very similar case to this one. --Cyclopiatalk 00:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually, that is one I personally find about as disgusting as any image can get (would that be called "autophobia"?). However, I do still find it of value to the topic of self-oral. This whole idea may eventually lead to warning-type hatnotes and the inclusion of such graphic displays far enough down in the article so that it does not appear the moment the page loads. This might even lead to parental-warning ratings such as the film industry uses? Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  01:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Doubtful -- WP:No disclaimers. Equazcion (talk) 01:20, 27 Feb 2010 (UTC)
Yes, as that guideline points out, there are existing disclaimers found at the bottom of all pages in the monobook skin, such as this one, for example. Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  01:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment:Interesting is the discussion found here for this image File:Sex_intercourse.jpg. And in the Masturbation article, this image is okay. This is interesting. A discussion to delete an image -- Yet it stays because most of their arguments are "I Don't like it". Another interesting thought is that there are alternative images for this page at I don't see any I like better than the four plate images. And yet another long discussion about whether to censor or not at Talk:Autofellatio/Archive_8#Allowing_readers_to_make_the_article_work-safe. Lastly, there are a couple of images on the erection and penis articles, and hardly any objections at all. This makes me wonder that there is so much objection on this Ejaculation article. The differences between the two seem to primarily be the emission of semen. Atom (talk) 02:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Atom: a. just because very explicit pictures are found in other articles doesn't mean they have to be in here. b. you have yet, in your extensive contributions, to explain what precisely these images add to the text--and NeilN, despite your clamor and pointing, you also have yet to produce a positive reason for inclusion (surely, if these arguments and your feelings are so strong, you wouldn't mind summarizing for the cause). c. all this crying about censorship is boloney: "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article" is what WP:NOTCENSORED says--well, how is it appropriate? The video--just because it is a guy ejaculating? If the guy would be spooging onto the back of a pornstar, would that be just as appropriate? It is certainly more "natural" than some dude coming with no hands--let's face it, that's special, in fact so special as to be extraordinary. (I asked around yesterday--we don't know of anyone who can do this.) And "extraordinary" means of limited encyclopedic value. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, precisely, because it is a guy ejaculating. If the article were about something other than a guy ejaculating, then it might be inappropriate to show a guy ejaculating, but under the circumstances it seems like a good reason to keep them in. What precisely the images add is a visual depiction of the article topic, just like the Mona Lisa article or the vagina article would have. What you have yet to explain is how this article is so different from those topics as to warrant no visuals depicting the subject. Equazcion (talk) 17:51, 27 Feb 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) - to Drmies: I know you asked Atom, but if I may answer the questions myself:
  • a)True, but they're there for this policy. We're simply pointing at what is regular, accepted practice.
  • b)They are explicit images of the article subject. Therefore is of encyclopedic value. There is no other justification needed to include images -check policy.
  • c)They are appropriate in being images/video of the article subject. An ejaculation video involving another person would be just as appropriate, provided that there is permission from both subjects. Yes, the fact the guy ejaculates with no hands is a bit weird. But it depicts very clearly the article subject. That's the only point. If you have better, free images, feel free to include them. --Cyclopiatalk 17:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Cyclopia, what you say is "it exists so it's encyclopedic." Sorry, but that's BS. Policy does not say "include anything connected to the topic"--and it certainly does not say "include explicit images even if they are so strange that it took a cum artist to make it." I have yet to hear any significant detail that images and video add. And no one has addressed the strange stomach movements the guy makes, for instance. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The image depicts the article topic, and is therefore relevant. The fact that he makes stomach movement that you don't understand is not a reason to exclude it; and besides which, such stomach movements are actually fairly characteristic of ejaculation, and not strange at all. The abdominal muscles often react to orgasm in males. Equazcion (talk) 18:29, 27 Feb 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Makes no significant contribution towards understanding of the article topic. I have said previously that most readers simply do not expect to see or need to have this depicted. The medical and educational information that the writing provides is amply illustrated by the first two images. So basically I am against inclusion because the photos (and the video) provide no medical, scientific, or educational value beyond what the article already contains.DMSBel (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
    • There is no specific inclusion rationale needed to include an image that depicts the article topic. All articles, describing topics where legally-displayable images are available, do include images. The burden of proof is therefore on those advocating exclusion. Equazcion (talk) 18:18, 27 Feb 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes there is. There needs to be relevance. Duh? Drmies (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
        • The image depicts the article topic. It is therefore relevant. As with Mona Lisa, this is all the rationale required. Equazcion (talk) 18:26, 27 Feb 2010 (UTC)
          • Equazcion, you keep raising such "might-be" good issues, such as the question of legality. How do we know that these images are considered "legally displayable" for this purpose?  —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  18:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
            • Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Censor_offensive_images and Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Legal_issues. If there were legal problems with such images, the Foundation would have acted long ago. --Cyclopiatalk 18:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
              • Maybe, maybe not. Especially as regards the precedent-setting video.  —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  00:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
                • If someone in good faith thinks there are legal issues then they need to contact the Wikimedia Foundation. Us peons don't decide these things :-) --NeilN talk to me 04:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
                  • I checked all the policies and guidelines available to us that concern the legal aspect. The main concerns are for copyright-infringement issues and for defamation-of-the-image's-subject issues. So it appears that there are no issues of illegality inasmuch as the still photos and the film are concerned.  —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  20:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep: I've read comments here against inclusion to the effect that no one has offered a reason stating precisely why these images add to the context and understanding of the article. I would offer this for consideration: if you are an adult male, and you are editing this article, you may be assuming that there is simply nothing to learn here by seeing graphic images of ejaculation. Presumably, if you're like 99% of most men, in all liklihood you are familiar with the process and have experienced it firsthand. Approximately half the population, however, is female. Among women, some have seen a man ejaculate, but there are many who have not, including women who have had sexual intercourse but still haven't seen the process of ejaculation itself. Reading something can be informative, but a picture is worth a thousand words and much more illustrative. In every other Wikipedia article, an educational picture and/or video which depicted something that potentially half the population had never seen before would be valued for inclusion with the text. What's the problem here?--AzureCitizen (talk) 18:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Image seems to depict the subject. I don't see anything "excessive" about it. Why are we arguing about this, again? – Luna Santin (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete The photo is redundant to the video. Both the photo and video on the article is clutter. The video is more informative [] and the argument that the photo is there for people with slower connections or can’t play the video isn’t based on policy. Wikipedia is not required to make their articles accommodating for people with slower connections or who lack the proper video codecs for their media players. NightFlyer (talk) 04:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually it is. See Wikipedia:Accessibility. For example, images are required to have a text alternative for those who can't even view those. By extension of that logic it seems rather reasonable to provide still images for those who can't view videos. Equazcion (talk) 04:21, 18 Mar 2010 (UTC)
  • Your edit has been reverted because the consensus appears to be leaning toward Keep. Also, in this case, no such change should be made until this RfC has been closed. When the RfC closes, and if the final decision is to "Keep", then perhaps there can be found a better position for the image maybe a bit further down in the article? But for now, please do not delete the image.
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  04:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep it Months ago I thought that maybe the video was enough, then I thought that static images provided added value because you can see the, ah, "action" in more detail and with four stages at the same time, the Accessiblity guideline has convinced me that the four plate image is good for inclusion along the video.
Then again, let's remember that for an average male there is no need for images, but this article can be visited, for example, by females who have never seen an ejaculation before. Let's not even get started with:
  • men who have problems ejaculating and want to see the "normal" action.
  • the girlfriends of those men, who might want to compare.
  • men who can ejaculate but cannot have an erection
  • male children who are entering puberty and want to see what is that thing about "white pee" coming out of your "wee-wee" (yeah, using those images for sexual education is legal in the US).
  • female children being curious about what they are supposed to do with guys when they grow up
  • women who never had sexual relationships with men (because they are heterosexual virgins or because they are lesbians)
  • etc.
Again, from the viewpoint of a male who has no problems to ejaculate (or who now has andropause or impotence, but had no problems to ejaculate when he was younger), the images of the article are wholly unnecessary. And most editors of wikipedia seem to belong to that population. But those are not the only readers of the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I should point out that the points you make concern the uses of the video to various groups. This is not being debated -- the issue at stake is whether they have encyclopaedic value. The uses for people evaluating their boyfriends does not concern us. Sinbadbuddha (talk) 01:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment The discussion of the photo and video on this article is full of editor’s extensions of logic that have been cancelled because it was not specifically wiki policy. I’ve read the accessibility policy and it says nothing about keeping or adding media because of slow internet connections or being unable to view a video because of a media player problem like Cyclopiatalk said in the discussion above. The section about images pertains to text and captions for the blind and the only thing in that policy the even comes close to the argument of not being able to play the video is the part about CSS and Javascript Support for readers that have browsers and devices that have limited of no support for these. The final word on that is “however, consideration for users without CSS or JavaScript should extend mainly to making sure that their READING EXPERIENCE is possible”. I think that the four plate photo is not needed because of redundancy and the video is more informative since ejaculation is a physical action that creates visible motion. To ram the adherence to strict wiki policy down the throats of the ones that want the four plate photo removed from the article, and then allow what Equazcion (talk) calls extension of logic to be applied to the wiki accessibility policy to keep the photo in the article is hypocracy. NightFlyer (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
    • On Wikipedia, when you make arguments that hang on the specific wording found in policies, rather than on their spirit, it's generally called wiki-lawyering here. Our policies aren't laws (WP:NOTSTATUTE). Try to see the bigger picture (no pun intended). The principle behind maintaining accessibility with regard to javascript etc applies just as well to media other than text: If someone can't read something because of lack of javascript support, that's bad, and we try to accommodate that limitation somehow; so if someone can't see a visual depiction of something due to lack of video support, it makes sense that we'd try to accommodate that just as well. Just because there's no policy explicitly stating that isn't a good argument against. Equazcion (talk) 22:56, 18 Mar 2010 (UTC)
    • Geeez, I have to point this out: the images inserted right next to the text are part of the reading experience. For comparison, imagine that you are reading a book that has pictures to illustrate the subject. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Just a note here, the point of contention brought up is often that things on this page are found offensive to a such a degree that this page is constantly under request to remove the video/image. Since the wiki rules note that this is valid provided other resources can be used to explain the subject (note, doesn't have to be explained just as well) it seems as though the argument becomes a quasi power trip by those shouting for no censorship. Particularly when, since the rules say a pic or video that is offensive should be reconsidered to a similar object that can portray the information, and yet the argument as to the value of the information is that there is not specific set of criteria making the information more valid. So on the one hand, the keep it people want something defining for proof of overly offensive and the delete it people want proof of inclusion rationale... people are using nonsense rhetorical circles to battle one another. It's ridiculous to say that both video and photo are needed to understand the concept. That the concept needs anything more than a hand drawn image is, honestly, laughable as far as imparting the information. It's not about imparting information; it's a group of people fighting against those they see as prude and those "prude" people fighting against people who they see as morally indecent people. Could we just let all of that go? There's no reason a drawn image can't suffice and reasonably satisfy most parties to prevent the near constant barrage of e-peen battles on this talk page. --PseudoSX —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.223.105 (talk) 07:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
It's ridiculous to say that both video and photo are needed to understand the concept.: Funny, I find ridiculous exactly the opposite. A hand drawing is the worst possible solution -ugly, and akin to WP:OR in some respect (it would be a personal interpretation). And why a drawing should be less offensive than a real-life pic? Nonsense. --Cyclopiatalk 09:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
The opinion offered by you was "the concept needs anything more than a hand drawn image is, honestly, laughable as far as imparting the information", and yet other people (not just Cyclopia) say just the opposite, that the video is more enlightening for them. Is it possible that different people perceive it differently? What about someone with a different experience base than yours, perhaps more unfamiliar with the topic, and so, not going on the same assumptions that you have. Can you predict whether the video or the still image is more useful for that person, or for a range of people? The discussion is more than just rhetoric. We have pretty much worked out the no censorship issue. That is not the point now. The discussion has last been about whether both images are necessary or useful to the quality of the article. The consensus seems to be that both add different things for different people. Even people who seem to be bothered by the explicit nature of the image seem to agree that one or both displays the topic well. Atom (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


It appears no further input is going to be added to this discussion. As an uninvolved editor I'll put a button on it so it can be archived for future reference (and I don't doubt the issue will be breached again). 6 editors (inc. Luna Santin) are in favor of the image's inclusion in the article while 2 editors oppose it. Although not the largest sampling of editor input, it appears the brunt of reasonable arguments for or against have been put forth by both sides with a clear majority of editors in favor of image inclusion (I hesitate to call it a consensus with such limited input). As the article already reflects this conclusion, there is no need to make any change to it.

Dissent is based in the belief that the detail of text obviates the image's inclusion or that the image is simply unnecessary with a video clip already illustrating the exact same process. The former holds little water as any properly written article should thoroughly detail its subject without illustration - the purpose of the added images is to enhance and present the material in a different way. However, the latter argument certainly presents a potentially valid justification for exclusion. While a rebuttal exists in the fact that some users may lack the means to properly view the video, I haven't been able to dig up any guidelines or precedent with regard to multiple formats visually illustrating the same thing. The use of embedded video throughout the project is still largely in its infancy and many such stylistic guidelines have yet to be established. As such, if this matter is revisited in the future, I would recommend requesting input from a wider audience in an effort to do just that.
--K10wnsta (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Video

No videos for female ejaculation?

Edit request from 124.169.120.110, 5 October 2010

Photo frames

Suggestion:

While I can find references to prostate conditions, I can't find any description of semen production in this page. I feel this page would benefit from either a short paragraph about semen production, or a link to the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.130.186 (talk) 08:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

No need to continue repeating the same over and over, by both sides. Novel and unequivocal policy-based arguments can be posted in another section, if found.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Four Frame Photo

Four Frame Photo clearly identified earlier (see archived discussion) to be from an online pornographic video, and therefore unsuitable for an educational article likely to be of interest to a wide audience.DMSBel (talk) 14:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is something you should read. --Cyclopiatalk 14:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Cyclopia I appreciate your concern about censorship, and mostly agree with you, however that issue is not a live one in this instance. Generally it is more pertinent to suppression of textual content. The issue here is one of tone. The tone of an encyclopedic article which straddles or overlaps the sexuality and medicine categories should be clinical, photos which originated on a pay-to-view voyeuristic/exhibitionist porn channel (see archived discussion) are not clinical in nature, neither is a uncouth home-made video. I am going to delete the photos again (not to provoke, but because they clearly do not help to give the article a clinical tone).DMSBel (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Don't expect me to get into a pointless discussion again. The issue was discussed to death in the preceding months and consensus was for images to stay. You're being disruptive. Please stop. --Cyclopiatalk 01:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Maintaining a clinical tone is what matters here. I concur with Bdell555's comment that "while this imagery may advance "knowledge" an inch it compromises Wikimedia's mission to be a broadly accessible and respected resource by a mile." What do you think Cyclopia? DMSBel (talk) 11:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
That you should stop circumventing WP:NOTCENSORED, you and your IP socks. --Cyclopiatalk 12:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I really don't think there is any point then continuing to discuss with you Cyclopia. I don't think you are going to engage in any serious discussion on this and I don't think you are interested in improving this article or looking at ways it could be improved, or discussing problems with it. I don't know what you are really doing here at all. You seem to just want to defend the status quo at all costs. I am not going to stand for slanderous allegations either - My username is DMSBel that is my one and only account. If you do not retract your slanderous allegation about sock-puppetry I will be reporting you. DMSBel (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Give it up, DMS. We don't have to rehash thoroughly-discussed decisions each month just because you want to. I'm sorry, but you should have been here for the preceding discussion. Maybe in a few more months the decision can reevaluated. LWizard @ 17:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I had not commented on this page for months, I don't come by once a month to delete either. The source of the material is unreliable, how it got by I do not know. Except I know I did not defend it or support it. However I will continue to remind people that it is from a online pay-to-view porn channel and was not made for either medical, or encyclopedic use (placing the caption "educational video" on it does not make it so), but rather the intention is sexual arousal of the viewer. There is no such material to my knowledge in existence from a reliable source, because no online or printed encyclopedia, or other research tool, deems it necessary or in good taste to illustrate beyond diagramatic medical illustrations and animations. DMSBel (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I apologized on my talk page for the sock accusation, which I gladly retract. As for the rest, yes, there is no point in discussing with me: I told you clearly from the start that there is no point to engage in discussion about this issue unless novel and strong policy-based arguments come out: in which case you can open a RfC. Until that moment, I consider removal of the image as disruptive editing close to vandalism. Oh, and you are free to rant about the demise of WP on your blog. Bye. --Cyclopiatalk 00:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Cyclopia, we don't need what you consider to be "novel" arguments. Unreliable source, and that the images are from a video made with the sole intention of sexual arousal are sufficient policy based arguments here for removal. The censorhip policy cannot be interpreted in exclusion to other policy, it does not trump other policy and guidelines, and should not be used as a kind of trump card. See WP:GAME. If you still disagree with me I suggest you take the issue to Mediation. DMSBel (talk) 14:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


This is an old argument. One you proposed previously, and caught no support for. The source of the original photo, or rather the "alleged" source of the photo, and the "intent" of the photo or people taking it is not relevant. Atom (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok then time for Arbitration on this. Had thought of going to mediation first, but as there is no compromise available in this instance seems pointless, and I would prefer a decision on this.DMSBel (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
So -- When you are a lone editor and can not win support for your view, you should go to mediation or arbitration? Please see [] for the last discussion. Several others precede that one. We get that you don't like the image. We respect that your opinion is that the image is pornographic. We understand that you would be happier if the image was not in the article. The pertinent argument though is whether the image illustrates the topic well or not, or if another image would illustrate the topic better than this image. I am not sure that the argument "I don't like it and no one else will agree with me." will fly well with arbitration. Does the image illustrate the topic well or not? Other editors think it does. Is it a copyvio or in violation of any of WIkipedia's policies? Other editors do not think so. Atom (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
There is support for my view. Shall I include you in the request for arbitration? DMSBel (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I am happy for them to ask my opinion. Atom (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok I am adding Atom, and Cyclopia as involved parties DMSBel (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


Note that this image was ALREADY discussed previously in RfC with a result that the image should be kept. Talk:Ejaculation/Archive_16#Discussion_of_four_plate_image Atom (talk) 02:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Atom you stated in the arbitration request that you have a "background in sexology" - could you say what this background is? Not sure if you just mean you have edited other articles on the topic on wikipedia, or if you are refering to some qualifications outside of wikipedia? Would you mind clarifying what you mean by "background"? DMSBel (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Isn't this article anthropocentric? Human beings are hardly the only species to experience ejaculation. Gatoclass (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

That's quite true. Feel free to add content on non-human ejaculation, of course. --Cyclopiatalk 22:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Anything to be said about ejaculation in other species would in my view be more relevant to the article on Animal Husbandry. Perhaps there should be a sentence in the intro here, stating that this article deals with ejaculation as an aspect of human physiology.DMSBel (talk) 15:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
The topic of Animal Husbandry is about breeding of animals, among other things. So, things related to the breeding of animals should be there. Things related to ejaculation should be in this article. Atom (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Anthropocentrism

WP:THINKOFTHECHILDREN is not a Wikipedia policy. WP:NOTCENSORED is. End of story

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A plea for sanity

The conversation about the ejaculation video and pictures has been framed in terms of censorship/freedom of speech. Instead of going into the legal intricacies of what is or what isn't allowed on wikipedia's webpage, how about we think generously and altruistically about the children of this world. Normally, to see ejaculations one has to sign in to a password-protected porn site. Wikipedia's page is nothing of the sort, so let us remember back to a time when we were not all desensitized by the glut of online porn, when the innocence of our children was something to uphold and protect (and when people knew that letting a child see a graphic sexual act was a breech of his innocence) - in short, when ejaculation was something a boy saw first when his own body performed it.

Wikipedia could dance around and around on the censorship issue, and perhaps win on those grounds and continue to broadcast these images, but wikipedia has a social responsibility. Of course a common response will be, "Why is it harmful for a child to see a real ejaculation? This happens! It's biological!" People have been so desensitized by the saturation of sexual images in our society that the answer to this is no longer in reach. It's because these images titillate, they arouse (at least in those that haven't been been over-exposed to porn) and have the potentional to induce a child into the seamy world of online sexual addiction, that a child should be protected from them. That's why. Does anyone have a heart for this issue? Can anyone be sensate and feeling enough to want to spare children from the under-world of online sexual perversion? Does anyone still appreciate the difference between sexual health and sexual perversion?

We could trumpet our "right" to express, educate, disseminate freely and without hindrance, but could we shift the debate to the responsibility we have to our children. PLEASE - let's think about others and remember the children. And don't say it's the children's fault for finding the page. Nathanpgw (talk) 15:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is the current situation with regard to this page.
After the last RFC on the four plate the editor who closed it stated that he would hestitate to say there was any consensus for keeping the image (please see archive). So the the pictures are simply there because that is the status quo. Well that was three or four months ago. A couple of editors who keep reverting deletions are quite simply either agenda driven, or unable to listen to reason, or both, Cyclopia for instance is a hard-core Inclusionist. Well folks Wikipedia self-censors itself all the time. The no-censorship policy is to do with extra-institutional censorship (ie from outside wikipedia), not editorial discretion. In the ARBCOM I filed (which was declined as I did not realise at the time they do not deal with content disputes) the committee stated that they hoped good editorial judgement would be exercised here. DMSBel (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
TLDR: Don't leave your children alone in front of the computer/TV. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


"...spare children from the under-world of online sexual perversion?" We should also protect them from people who would make them believe that a normal biological process should be seen as sexual perversion. The role or parents, among other things, is to guide their children appropriately and give them proper context. "It's because these images titillate..." They may titilate you, but that is your personal issue. Do you find an image of someone picking their nose titilating to you? Is hearing about someone farting titillating to you? The way that people (including children) determine the context of an act or an image is by how others treat it. I think every editor on Wikipedia agrees that children should be protected from porn. They don't need to be protected from learning about normal biological and sexuality topics though. The issue is that your cultural upbringing, like many others, has trained you to be embarrassed about anything related to sexuality, and so, anything sexual in nature that is seen in the public forum is perceived as some form of erotica, or worse, pornography. Human sexuality is healthy and a normal part of life. Being sexually excited about something or someone, and learning to deal with it appropriately in a healthy fashion is also a normal part of life. Characterizing anything sexual in nature that occurs in the public forum as Pornography is a lack of skill in properly dealing with that. It is a common fault. It is something that we should all be forgiving about in others, but not allow to propogate. Atom (talk) 00:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Atom you are wrong. You also are an perennial case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You willfully ignore the evidence that the four-plate photos are from a porn site (it's all proven in the archived discussion) and thus porn, it is not my or any other editors subjective appraisal - it is an objective fact, that you refuse to acknowledge. You say children should be protected from porn, but you refuse to support the image being removed. Rather by sleight of hand you try and make it out that those requesting it to be deleted are pervs. It is not a "lack of skill" on anyone's part but rather a refusal to deal with reality on your part. You may not care whether imagery is pornographic. Myself and other editors however are able to tell the difference between imagery made for educational use which is clinical in nature and that which is made for voyeurs only. No one is characterizing everything sexual in nature as porn, no one wishes to remove the top two illustrations. I am leaving the film-clip out of the discussion for the moment, because I think despite it being uncouth it might not (unlike the four-plate image and the video they are from) have been made for voyeurism.DMSBel (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion. The issue is that you look at it from an absolute perspective, rather than a relativistic perspective. The context of where and how an image is used is important. If a sexually explicit image is used on a web site where access to erotic and pornographic images are provided for money, it would be fair to call one of those images pornography (In that context). If the same image is used in say, the National Geographic Magazine, or in sex education textbook, or Wikipedia (within its proper topic) then that is a different context, and that same image is not pornography. An image is not inherently pornographic, just because it is sexual, or sexually explicit, or just because one or more persons perceives that image as "sexually arousing". In this case, the provenance of the image is important from a copyright perspective, but not from the perspective of whether or not it is pornographic. The fact that it is used in an educational article within Wikipedia, on the proper topic, in the proper way means that, in this specific context, it is not pornographic. This same image may very well be perceived by some people in another context as pornographic. You continue to assert that the image in question was created with the specific intent that it "was made voyeurism". First of all whether it was made for voyeurism has nothing to do with it. Second, the very word "pornographic" is subjective on a person by person basis. The Miller test is the test used to determine if it is obscene or not, not your personal perspective. Thirdly, you have given no proof that it was created with the intent of "voyeurism", only asserting that to be the case. (You have shown that is currently is on such a web site -- but that happened after it was created, suggesting nothing about the "intent" of the original image." Lastly, even if it had been created with the intention of it being pornographic, the very fact that it is used in an educational context means that it is not pornographic in that context.
In other places you made your argument, it was thoroughly discussed, then we had an RfC, and then you filed a Request for Arbitration. In all cases your view did not prevail. I respect your desire to do what you think is right. But, in this case, there seems to be no consensus for your view. Atom (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There was no consensus about the four-plate photo

Censor vs. Freedom to aquire knowledge

You have all been had

Please remove the pictures... please

AN/I thread

Is it really necessary to have two pictures of ejaculation?

Greater pleasure for men with larger penises during ejaculation

Can someone clean this up?

SERIOUSLY?

Edit request from Elixergtarist, 24 May 2011

If Biological Functions =! Pornography...

Removed pictures on the basis that they did not provide educational content - medical diagrams, animations, or a photograph by medical agencies that describe this act can be found to replace them

Obscene Pictures/Video Violate Florida State Law -> Must be Removed

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI