Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Erection article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
Frequently asked questions
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||
|
1, 2 |
Is it necessary to incude the hadron subatomic particle as a disambiguation? If so, then why not include "hardon" as a disambiguation link from that article? Hanging death erection ( talk) 22:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Really? A comment from 4 days ago needs to be archived?
Seems like whoever's doing that wants this page to be talk free, to avoid having a discussion about the fact that there's a penis at the top of this page that can get people in trouble at work. Jabberwockgee ( talk) 14:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Everyone knows that there is plenty of FREE pornography on the interent. For the love of God, think about the children that will stumble across the images found on pages such as erection, penis and ejcaculation to name a few. Do the right thing and replace those images with drawings. If not, your selfish perversion getting off on posting this crap only puts the your name and your IP address (the creator of the offending articles) out there for the world to see what kind of scumbag you are. You are NOT creating knowledge for someone to access, you are creating something for you to get off on. Free porn is everywhere. Use this site as it was intended. NOW DO THE RIGHT THING AND REPLACE THOSE IMAGES WITH DRAWINGS!
So try to get consensus on moving this article to Penile erection and making Erection a disambiguation page. -- NeilN talk ♦ contribs 18:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
this should be included I think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Erection_Development.jpg It shows the development in more detail —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.146.66.161 ( talk) 13:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree. This picture is much more informative. 72.83.107.212 ( talk) 19:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Include downward curvature picture.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Guporani ( talk • contribs) 22:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I've noticed that Image:Erection_Homme.jpg has been replaced by a new file today, Image:Erect&FlacidPenis.jpg. The new image shows two states of erection, as opposed to the previous file which stays true to the caption. Please revert the changes. Tinkba ( talk) 17:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
information about when erections and how occur in early months of life? also non-sexual causes of erection in adults? last, the physiology mentions only the penile physiology and not the neurophysiology of erection —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.23.100 ( talk) 21:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not a very frequent contributor, so I have no idea how one would go about fixing this, but would it be possible not to have "hardon" immediately redirect here? I was expecting to see a list so I could pick the article on Fr. John Hardon the deceased theologian (whose first name I had temporarily forgotten), but instead I got a picture of a penis. It was a bit of a surprise. FideliaE ( talk) 21:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
okay these penis pictures are so wierd; there are almost no pubic hair, the testicles are so odd and look small (almost as if there is only one testi), also it left me wondering "how old are these people's pictures??" because when flaccid it looks like a baby dick. please, me (13 year old) looks more mature than that.-- 71.194.154.216 ( talk) 02:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)-- 71.194.154.216 ( talk) 02:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I propose we change the lead image to File:Uncircumcised-penis-wikipedia.jpg
File:Erection Homme2.jpg looks sleazy like some guy shot it in his bathroom. File:Uncircumcised-penis-wikipedia.jpg was taken in a medical setting by professionals, and it illustrates what an erection is much clearer and simpler.-- Cuddlestheboa ( talk) 17:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
How come File:Erection Development.jpg does show up in the article. Can someone fix that? LittleJerry ( talk) 03:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
First off, I'm no puritan where depictions of the human body are concerned. That being said, all the dicks on prominent display are really distracting. I tutor physiology and I consulted this article initially because I wanted to know a detail about the vasodilatory mechanism. However, I didn't even finish reading the article because it looks so ridiculous! I mean, come on! It looks like the vandalism on a bathroom stall door at a sleazy tavern! While I don't agree, I can at least understand why you'd have at least one picture, but do we really need the time lapsed photos of a man's hardening cock? The bottom line is I had some serious physiological questions I wanted to address, and, as it stands, this is clearly not a serious article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.240.56.178 ( talk) 23:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC) moved from /FAQ to main talk page. DMacks ( talk) 22:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I am circumsised and recently found out that the foreskin peels back.
72.230.135.196 ( talk) 23:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Someone65 has added some material relating to slang terminology for penises that grow a lot upon erection (grower) and those that do not (shower). My initial reaction is that WP is not the place for outlining common slang terminology. Other genitals-related articles do not list or describe slang. For example, common slang for circumcised pensises is "cut" and for uncircumcised penises is "intact", but such information is to be found nowhere on WP.
If the consensus is that this material should be reinstated I'm happy to reflect and take a step back, but it's just my initial reaction that such material is not appropriate or necessary in this article, and that it could detract credibility. Tbmurray 15:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest that this article must be renamed to "Penile erection". The reason behind this erection does not always mean penile erection, being a engineer, the word erection is used for any structure, or even we use as "Plant Erection" and "Structure Erection"/ "Scaffolding Erection"/ "Formwork Erection".
The name Erection is very confusing wid this article. Hope you will change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.155.80.144 ( talk) 08:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
After doing some research I found that this is just another urban legend with no scientific basis. I removed the inclusion until further notice. I always thought it was possible, but apparently not. Eseress ( talk) 18:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Maybe we can include this video under Shape and size section? It is educational, and only neutral video about article subject. -- WhiteWriter speaks 21:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I'd like to propose that this image " http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Human_penis_comparison.jpg" be added to the erection development section.
I note that previous edit requests have stated that an image like this might be a worthwhile addition.
We do not need pornography on Wikipedia, people are not so stupid as to need fleshy pornographic photos to understand an erection. We are not creating wiki entries for aliens or other creatures, that being said no human should be forced to view an inappropriate photo as what has been posted on Wikipedia for quite some time. It is entirely unrealistic to think that children and kids or teens for that matter won't be subject to view these images by having constant access to the internet. Wikipedia should be an appropriate website.
If someone wants to go see a fleshy detailed photo of a penis they can go look at porno or develop a relationship with a man. Mind you that porno in the USA is 18+ material, however anyone is able to access Wikipedia at any age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schumeda ( talk • contribs)
It may not be up to any one person however one person did upload those fleshy detailed photos that you like so much and keep re-posting. I've read nothing but complaints about them and I am representing all of the many people who want those photos removed. I am not standing alone in this act. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schumeda ( talk • contribs) 03:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
It seems as though there has been a lack of maturity towards the word erection thus far on Wikipedia. I'm requesting more information about the word erection and its many meanings outside of the human penis and will also be researching and writing information that I find.
(I don't remember) -- Jerome Potts ( talk) 07:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
In Wikipedia commons ther is an image of a fetal erection. According Masturbation#In_history_and_society in the 17 century nannies masturbated children to get them to sleep!
@Herostratus Regarding my wikilinknk to bulge, i did not know its a prblem to link to a disambiguation page. Im a little confused now. In the edit summary myself and another editor agreed to add it to the body, so i appreciate if you self-revert. Pass a Method talk 10:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
There are several different points at issue in this Erection article:
*Is "Morning wood" an appropriate term for a subsection heading instead of the more formal "Nocturnal penile tumescence"?
Hi Pass a Method--
I notice you have reverted my good faith edits to this article, and I wonder if you would mind explaining your objections to them. I think it would be helpful for us to try to accommodate each other's views, and see if we can reach consensus. Thanks. Milkunderwood ( talk) 07:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Per PaM: "Morning wood is also by far the most common description according to google with 15,000,000 google hits":
Just quickly googling for only a couple of other slang terms, I verify your figure, but also find
I think it's unquestionable that "morning wood" is slang:
Slang is very different from the misleading phrasing "informally called".
Down in the section where I had edited the heading from "Morning wood" to "Nocturnal penile tumescence" and you then reverted back to "Morning wood", I had delinked the words boy and teenage, as being commonly understood terms, and instead linked puberty, which I thought might be more helpful. These would seem to me to be uncontroversial edits, but they were also reverted.
Another point that actually bothers me more is the labeling of the left photograph at the top. This shows a penis that is very obviously partly engorged, though not erect. This is why I had relabeled it from "flaccid" to "semi-flaccid". It seems to me that this photograph is very misleading to a young person who might wonder what a normal and completely flaccid penis might look like. In my opinion a different photo would be much more useful as an exemplar of a "flaccid" penis, but if this present photo is kept, it should at least be labeled correctly. For that matter, given that there is a series of much more instructive photographs lower down on the page, I'm not sure why either of the two photos at the top are useful at all.
My overall impression of much of this entire article is that it is assembled and written by adolescents who are somewhat insecure about their own sexuality, and are indulging to an extent in braggadocio. Milkunderwood ( talk) 19:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Milkunderwood is saying that it may be redundant to have two images essentially showing the same thing, and at least the lower image is better because it shows more stages.
Compromise? A better compromise would be titling the section Morning erections or not having a subesection heading for it at all; it's not like it isn't already covered by the main heading (Spontaneous or random erections). I've taken this issue to WP:Med in the hope that at least one of them weighs in. 49.212.13.55 ( talk) 00:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Concerning the image of the so-called "flaccid" penis, I believe the following brief discussion may be relevant with regard to naive readers who may come to this Wikipedia article on penile erection:
Milkunderwood ( talk) 03:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
The two photos of erect penis on this article are both:
I suggest to replace the second photo with a new one that can show more diversity, will try to find one from Commons. If anyone has a good candidate, please do not hesitate to suggest. Moscowsky -talk- 03:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
This image is not suitable since the pubic hair is shaved like a pornstar. Natural look would be more encyclopedic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.234.254 ( talk) 01:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I notice that this article is missing information about other species - I think it should have a broader scope overall. Jarble ( talk) 18:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
agreed; given the title, it should properly be re-written to discuss penile erection "in general", & then human as a sub-section. Lx 121 ( talk) 16:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
A (abnormal) curvature in the penis can have many causes (Peyronie's disease, congenital penile curvature, other acquired penile curvatures)
In the During Sexual Activity section it is implied that a foreskin needs to be retracted to undergo sexual intercourse. Not only is this unsubstantiated in the article it's also untrue. A simple google search of unretracted foreskin reveals many men discussing how sex can occur without a retracted foreskin. The article also does not seem to factor in how the length and tightness of the foreskin contributes to retraction. 58.96.89.111 ( talk) 12:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
An editor is claiming ( here and then again here that Urban Dictionary is a usable source for definitions, with an admonition to "see context matters under WP:RS". I didn't look at context matters under WP:RS since Urban Dictionary itself says "All the definitions on Urban Dictionary were written by people just like you. Now's your chance to add your own!" which makes it a wiki and prima facie not a reliable or even usable source. Not wishing to enter an edit war, I invite the editor to state his case more fully here. Herostratus ( talk) 16:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. No indication that this is not the primary topic for the term. ( non-admin closure) Apteva ( talk) 02:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Erection → Penile erection – The word "erection" has numerous unrelated meanings in the English language, so it would be more useful for erection to redirect to erection (disambiguation) than to redirect to this page. Jarble ( talk) 01:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
The composite picture showing the stages of erection ends up with a not slightly curved but severely curved penis which a more useful illustration of Pyronies or similar conditions. Surely it would be better to ilustrate this progression with a more natural straight or only slightly curved penis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.238.197 ( talk • contribs) 21:39, 27 October 2013
The article provides a table with the distribution of erect penis angles. But what does it tell us, how is the angle measured? Few penises are completely uncurved. Take the image in the article: at the root it has an angle of about 70° while at the glans it has an angle of about 35°. Which of the values is the correct one? Or do I have to draw an imaginary line through root and glans and measure he angle of this line?
I have no access to the original paper. Does anybody know or can look it up in the paper? -- 31.16.110.207 ( talk) 15:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Penis Erection Dent Down
Finger74 ( talk) 23:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
This is discussed on the first archive briefly, but it was last discussed nearly 10 years ago. Currently there is an unsourced statement saying that men can suppress erections even while being mechanically stimulated. This is contradicted by a later section saying that involuntary erections are commonplace. It's also contradictory to sourced statements in the "Male Rape" page, which indicate that men can get involuntary erections from physical stimulation alone. Suggesting that a man can easily will an erection away implies that it is impossible for a man to be forced to engage in vaginal intercourse. A better way of phrasing it may be: "The cortex can sometimes suppress erection, even in the presence of mechanical stimulation, but conscious efforts to suppress an erection are not always successful." 174.53.23.4 ( talk) 08:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
This article is relatively small considering how notable it is and how many reliable sources cover the topic. One of the ways that an article can be expanded is by giving section titles that are not as restrictive. Sociolect is broad enough to cover linguistics as well as their social usages. Hence my edit. If you revert back to terminology, I am going to assume you might want this article to remain miniscule. Pwolit iets ( talk) 21:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Erection. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change title "erection" to "penile erection"
This article is incorrectly titled "erection" rather than "penile erection." A separate Wikipedia article is titled "Clitoral erection" and the information provided therein exclusively discusses clitoral erections. This article exclusively describes penile erections but is over-broadly titled "erection." I have read the talk page on this issue. The reason given therein for declining to retitle the page is: "The word erection, in common use, means "penile erection" significantly more than it means anything else, and therefore most of our readers are going to be looking for this topic under the title Erection." While I do not disagree with that statement, it appears inconsistent with the Wikipedia page on "Disambiguation," which includes an entire section pertaining to "primary topic" with the subheading "Not what first comes to (your) mind." While it is true that the word "erection" is primarily associated with penile, rather than clitoral, erections, I would hope that anyone reviewing this request understands that this association results from of centuries of the erasure and invalidation of female sexuality, and the continuing lack of education about female sexual sexuality. I request that Wikipedia decline to further legitimize the sexist and inaccurate notion that sexual arousal by definition pertains to the male experience, and that female sexual arousal is somehow a mere subsidiary thereof.
Osita1979 ( talk) 08:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC) Osita1979 ( talk) 08:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.Previous discussions here have established a consensus among editors that this usage of the word is much more likely to be searched-for than any other. This has nothing to so with sexual politics, merely language usage. Wikipedia does not lead attempts to change language usage, it follows them. We sometimes use the analogy of economic lagging indicators - just as those indexes and such change after the economy does, Wikipedia usage changes after the language change is widespread. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't have the ability to edit this article, but I noticed the phrase: "Ultimately, the cause for erectile dysfunction is that not enough Nitrous oxide (NO) is released..." under the erectile dysfunction section.
NO is the correct compound in this case, but NO is nitric oxide, not nitrous oxide--nitrous oxide is N2O. Figured I'd mention that so a confirmed user could make the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cg389 ( talk • contribs) 02:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 04:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 07:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 06:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
the opening paragraph describes it as a phenomenon, yet tens of thousands of people in the world have erections right now. 2600:8805:2300:31D:78A8:A9E0:487A:793E ( talk) 03:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Revert today's edit by Styy4fvtd, or restructure the sentence to list colloquial terms. "Boner" is certainly not a clinical term for an erection. Just Some Wikipedian ( talk) 19:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I was searching for erection as in for a building, and was greeted by some *ahem* "interesting" images. I think that many people looking for erection as in construction would not want to see this. May we please move this to a different title and make "Erection" a disambiguation page? Thanks! Félix An ( talk) 14:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
social not sexual, two distinct and rich subjects on this topic deserve separate sections. As almost always in wikipedia, if a medic can write it, then only a medic will write it. Obtuse (catheter) tube view everywhere. Neurorebel ( talk) 06:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The § See also section lists "Nipple erection", which links to Nipple - which isn't very useful, as searching that article for "erect" yields zero results. A more useful target would be the separate article Nipple stimulation, which has a comprehensive section on § Physiological response.
- 2A02:560:590B:8C00:8AD:C5BD:40F9:E7D8 ( talk) 14:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
More visuals 2A01:4C8:C0A:A427:FD9B:9FF6:BCF7:A778 ( talk) 01:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
It's been 12 years! 73.124.156.117 ( talk) 06:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
The sources of this section seem woefully inadequate. The first is a 1975 paper that merely concludes that an erection is somehow affected by conscious thought/fantasizing, but as far as I can tell it makes no mention of the actual biological functions behind the phenomenon, which is what it's being cited for. The second source is a online medical magazine article that just talks about techniques for losing an unwanted erection, such as taking a cold shower or going for a jog. This section seems incomplete at best to me, and the following section is even worse. I'm not an expert on this topic though, but I figure we must have learned more about this since the 1970s? 2607:EA00:107:3C07:90F:795C:6FA5:B0DA ( talk) 23:46, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
That's the natural state of a penis for the majority of world population, unmutilated. It would have been of note if there were any surgical modifications, a lack of it isn't notable. Remove "uncircumcised". DocumentingEvil ( talk) 21:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
{{
Edit semi-protected}}
template.
M.Bitton (
talk) 15:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)are simpler, clearer, and more suitable as page images. Joansedana ( talk) 16:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
There's a bit detailing the average size of the organ, there's no other body part on Wikipedia that has such dimensions. A lot of people, like myself who are below the average face anxiety perpetuated by such unvarifiable statistics, and whether it's 3in or 12in, the size isn't relevant to erection capability. 2A04:4A43:8DAF:FFAF:2D70:D6D4:2CE1:B016 ( talk) 16:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Erection article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
Frequently asked questions
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||
|
1, 2 |
Is it necessary to incude the hadron subatomic particle as a disambiguation? If so, then why not include "hardon" as a disambiguation link from that article? Hanging death erection ( talk) 22:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Really? A comment from 4 days ago needs to be archived?
Seems like whoever's doing that wants this page to be talk free, to avoid having a discussion about the fact that there's a penis at the top of this page that can get people in trouble at work. Jabberwockgee ( talk) 14:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Everyone knows that there is plenty of FREE pornography on the interent. For the love of God, think about the children that will stumble across the images found on pages such as erection, penis and ejcaculation to name a few. Do the right thing and replace those images with drawings. If not, your selfish perversion getting off on posting this crap only puts the your name and your IP address (the creator of the offending articles) out there for the world to see what kind of scumbag you are. You are NOT creating knowledge for someone to access, you are creating something for you to get off on. Free porn is everywhere. Use this site as it was intended. NOW DO THE RIGHT THING AND REPLACE THOSE IMAGES WITH DRAWINGS!
So try to get consensus on moving this article to Penile erection and making Erection a disambiguation page. -- NeilN talk ♦ contribs 18:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
this should be included I think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Erection_Development.jpg It shows the development in more detail —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.146.66.161 ( talk) 13:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree. This picture is much more informative. 72.83.107.212 ( talk) 19:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Include downward curvature picture.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Guporani ( talk • contribs) 22:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I've noticed that Image:Erection_Homme.jpg has been replaced by a new file today, Image:Erect&FlacidPenis.jpg. The new image shows two states of erection, as opposed to the previous file which stays true to the caption. Please revert the changes. Tinkba ( talk) 17:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
information about when erections and how occur in early months of life? also non-sexual causes of erection in adults? last, the physiology mentions only the penile physiology and not the neurophysiology of erection —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.23.100 ( talk) 21:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not a very frequent contributor, so I have no idea how one would go about fixing this, but would it be possible not to have "hardon" immediately redirect here? I was expecting to see a list so I could pick the article on Fr. John Hardon the deceased theologian (whose first name I had temporarily forgotten), but instead I got a picture of a penis. It was a bit of a surprise. FideliaE ( talk) 21:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
okay these penis pictures are so wierd; there are almost no pubic hair, the testicles are so odd and look small (almost as if there is only one testi), also it left me wondering "how old are these people's pictures??" because when flaccid it looks like a baby dick. please, me (13 year old) looks more mature than that.-- 71.194.154.216 ( talk) 02:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)-- 71.194.154.216 ( talk) 02:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I propose we change the lead image to File:Uncircumcised-penis-wikipedia.jpg
File:Erection Homme2.jpg looks sleazy like some guy shot it in his bathroom. File:Uncircumcised-penis-wikipedia.jpg was taken in a medical setting by professionals, and it illustrates what an erection is much clearer and simpler.-- Cuddlestheboa ( talk) 17:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
How come File:Erection Development.jpg does show up in the article. Can someone fix that? LittleJerry ( talk) 03:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
First off, I'm no puritan where depictions of the human body are concerned. That being said, all the dicks on prominent display are really distracting. I tutor physiology and I consulted this article initially because I wanted to know a detail about the vasodilatory mechanism. However, I didn't even finish reading the article because it looks so ridiculous! I mean, come on! It looks like the vandalism on a bathroom stall door at a sleazy tavern! While I don't agree, I can at least understand why you'd have at least one picture, but do we really need the time lapsed photos of a man's hardening cock? The bottom line is I had some serious physiological questions I wanted to address, and, as it stands, this is clearly not a serious article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.240.56.178 ( talk) 23:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC) moved from /FAQ to main talk page. DMacks ( talk) 22:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I am circumsised and recently found out that the foreskin peels back.
72.230.135.196 ( talk) 23:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Someone65 has added some material relating to slang terminology for penises that grow a lot upon erection (grower) and those that do not (shower). My initial reaction is that WP is not the place for outlining common slang terminology. Other genitals-related articles do not list or describe slang. For example, common slang for circumcised pensises is "cut" and for uncircumcised penises is "intact", but such information is to be found nowhere on WP.
If the consensus is that this material should be reinstated I'm happy to reflect and take a step back, but it's just my initial reaction that such material is not appropriate or necessary in this article, and that it could detract credibility. Tbmurray 15:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest that this article must be renamed to "Penile erection". The reason behind this erection does not always mean penile erection, being a engineer, the word erection is used for any structure, or even we use as "Plant Erection" and "Structure Erection"/ "Scaffolding Erection"/ "Formwork Erection".
The name Erection is very confusing wid this article. Hope you will change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.155.80.144 ( talk) 08:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
After doing some research I found that this is just another urban legend with no scientific basis. I removed the inclusion until further notice. I always thought it was possible, but apparently not. Eseress ( talk) 18:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Maybe we can include this video under Shape and size section? It is educational, and only neutral video about article subject. -- WhiteWriter speaks 21:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I'd like to propose that this image " http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Human_penis_comparison.jpg" be added to the erection development section.
I note that previous edit requests have stated that an image like this might be a worthwhile addition.
We do not need pornography on Wikipedia, people are not so stupid as to need fleshy pornographic photos to understand an erection. We are not creating wiki entries for aliens or other creatures, that being said no human should be forced to view an inappropriate photo as what has been posted on Wikipedia for quite some time. It is entirely unrealistic to think that children and kids or teens for that matter won't be subject to view these images by having constant access to the internet. Wikipedia should be an appropriate website.
If someone wants to go see a fleshy detailed photo of a penis they can go look at porno or develop a relationship with a man. Mind you that porno in the USA is 18+ material, however anyone is able to access Wikipedia at any age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schumeda ( talk • contribs)
It may not be up to any one person however one person did upload those fleshy detailed photos that you like so much and keep re-posting. I've read nothing but complaints about them and I am representing all of the many people who want those photos removed. I am not standing alone in this act. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schumeda ( talk • contribs) 03:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
It seems as though there has been a lack of maturity towards the word erection thus far on Wikipedia. I'm requesting more information about the word erection and its many meanings outside of the human penis and will also be researching and writing information that I find.
(I don't remember) -- Jerome Potts ( talk) 07:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
In Wikipedia commons ther is an image of a fetal erection. According Masturbation#In_history_and_society in the 17 century nannies masturbated children to get them to sleep!
@Herostratus Regarding my wikilinknk to bulge, i did not know its a prblem to link to a disambiguation page. Im a little confused now. In the edit summary myself and another editor agreed to add it to the body, so i appreciate if you self-revert. Pass a Method talk 10:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
There are several different points at issue in this Erection article:
*Is "Morning wood" an appropriate term for a subsection heading instead of the more formal "Nocturnal penile tumescence"?
Hi Pass a Method--
I notice you have reverted my good faith edits to this article, and I wonder if you would mind explaining your objections to them. I think it would be helpful for us to try to accommodate each other's views, and see if we can reach consensus. Thanks. Milkunderwood ( talk) 07:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Per PaM: "Morning wood is also by far the most common description according to google with 15,000,000 google hits":
Just quickly googling for only a couple of other slang terms, I verify your figure, but also find
I think it's unquestionable that "morning wood" is slang:
Slang is very different from the misleading phrasing "informally called".
Down in the section where I had edited the heading from "Morning wood" to "Nocturnal penile tumescence" and you then reverted back to "Morning wood", I had delinked the words boy and teenage, as being commonly understood terms, and instead linked puberty, which I thought might be more helpful. These would seem to me to be uncontroversial edits, but they were also reverted.
Another point that actually bothers me more is the labeling of the left photograph at the top. This shows a penis that is very obviously partly engorged, though not erect. This is why I had relabeled it from "flaccid" to "semi-flaccid". It seems to me that this photograph is very misleading to a young person who might wonder what a normal and completely flaccid penis might look like. In my opinion a different photo would be much more useful as an exemplar of a "flaccid" penis, but if this present photo is kept, it should at least be labeled correctly. For that matter, given that there is a series of much more instructive photographs lower down on the page, I'm not sure why either of the two photos at the top are useful at all.
My overall impression of much of this entire article is that it is assembled and written by adolescents who are somewhat insecure about their own sexuality, and are indulging to an extent in braggadocio. Milkunderwood ( talk) 19:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Milkunderwood is saying that it may be redundant to have two images essentially showing the same thing, and at least the lower image is better because it shows more stages.
Compromise? A better compromise would be titling the section Morning erections or not having a subesection heading for it at all; it's not like it isn't already covered by the main heading (Spontaneous or random erections). I've taken this issue to WP:Med in the hope that at least one of them weighs in. 49.212.13.55 ( talk) 00:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Concerning the image of the so-called "flaccid" penis, I believe the following brief discussion may be relevant with regard to naive readers who may come to this Wikipedia article on penile erection:
Milkunderwood ( talk) 03:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
The two photos of erect penis on this article are both:
I suggest to replace the second photo with a new one that can show more diversity, will try to find one from Commons. If anyone has a good candidate, please do not hesitate to suggest. Moscowsky -talk- 03:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
This image is not suitable since the pubic hair is shaved like a pornstar. Natural look would be more encyclopedic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.234.254 ( talk) 01:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I notice that this article is missing information about other species - I think it should have a broader scope overall. Jarble ( talk) 18:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
agreed; given the title, it should properly be re-written to discuss penile erection "in general", & then human as a sub-section. Lx 121 ( talk) 16:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
A (abnormal) curvature in the penis can have many causes (Peyronie's disease, congenital penile curvature, other acquired penile curvatures)
In the During Sexual Activity section it is implied that a foreskin needs to be retracted to undergo sexual intercourse. Not only is this unsubstantiated in the article it's also untrue. A simple google search of unretracted foreskin reveals many men discussing how sex can occur without a retracted foreskin. The article also does not seem to factor in how the length and tightness of the foreskin contributes to retraction. 58.96.89.111 ( talk) 12:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
An editor is claiming ( here and then again here that Urban Dictionary is a usable source for definitions, with an admonition to "see context matters under WP:RS". I didn't look at context matters under WP:RS since Urban Dictionary itself says "All the definitions on Urban Dictionary were written by people just like you. Now's your chance to add your own!" which makes it a wiki and prima facie not a reliable or even usable source. Not wishing to enter an edit war, I invite the editor to state his case more fully here. Herostratus ( talk) 16:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. No indication that this is not the primary topic for the term. ( non-admin closure) Apteva ( talk) 02:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Erection → Penile erection – The word "erection" has numerous unrelated meanings in the English language, so it would be more useful for erection to redirect to erection (disambiguation) than to redirect to this page. Jarble ( talk) 01:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
The composite picture showing the stages of erection ends up with a not slightly curved but severely curved penis which a more useful illustration of Pyronies or similar conditions. Surely it would be better to ilustrate this progression with a more natural straight or only slightly curved penis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.238.197 ( talk • contribs) 21:39, 27 October 2013
The article provides a table with the distribution of erect penis angles. But what does it tell us, how is the angle measured? Few penises are completely uncurved. Take the image in the article: at the root it has an angle of about 70° while at the glans it has an angle of about 35°. Which of the values is the correct one? Or do I have to draw an imaginary line through root and glans and measure he angle of this line?
I have no access to the original paper. Does anybody know or can look it up in the paper? -- 31.16.110.207 ( talk) 15:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Penis Erection Dent Down
Finger74 ( talk) 23:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
This is discussed on the first archive briefly, but it was last discussed nearly 10 years ago. Currently there is an unsourced statement saying that men can suppress erections even while being mechanically stimulated. This is contradicted by a later section saying that involuntary erections are commonplace. It's also contradictory to sourced statements in the "Male Rape" page, which indicate that men can get involuntary erections from physical stimulation alone. Suggesting that a man can easily will an erection away implies that it is impossible for a man to be forced to engage in vaginal intercourse. A better way of phrasing it may be: "The cortex can sometimes suppress erection, even in the presence of mechanical stimulation, but conscious efforts to suppress an erection are not always successful." 174.53.23.4 ( talk) 08:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
This article is relatively small considering how notable it is and how many reliable sources cover the topic. One of the ways that an article can be expanded is by giving section titles that are not as restrictive. Sociolect is broad enough to cover linguistics as well as their social usages. Hence my edit. If you revert back to terminology, I am going to assume you might want this article to remain miniscule. Pwolit iets ( talk) 21:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Erection. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change title "erection" to "penile erection"
This article is incorrectly titled "erection" rather than "penile erection." A separate Wikipedia article is titled "Clitoral erection" and the information provided therein exclusively discusses clitoral erections. This article exclusively describes penile erections but is over-broadly titled "erection." I have read the talk page on this issue. The reason given therein for declining to retitle the page is: "The word erection, in common use, means "penile erection" significantly more than it means anything else, and therefore most of our readers are going to be looking for this topic under the title Erection." While I do not disagree with that statement, it appears inconsistent with the Wikipedia page on "Disambiguation," which includes an entire section pertaining to "primary topic" with the subheading "Not what first comes to (your) mind." While it is true that the word "erection" is primarily associated with penile, rather than clitoral, erections, I would hope that anyone reviewing this request understands that this association results from of centuries of the erasure and invalidation of female sexuality, and the continuing lack of education about female sexual sexuality. I request that Wikipedia decline to further legitimize the sexist and inaccurate notion that sexual arousal by definition pertains to the male experience, and that female sexual arousal is somehow a mere subsidiary thereof.
Osita1979 ( talk) 08:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC) Osita1979 ( talk) 08:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.Previous discussions here have established a consensus among editors that this usage of the word is much more likely to be searched-for than any other. This has nothing to so with sexual politics, merely language usage. Wikipedia does not lead attempts to change language usage, it follows them. We sometimes use the analogy of economic lagging indicators - just as those indexes and such change after the economy does, Wikipedia usage changes after the language change is widespread. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't have the ability to edit this article, but I noticed the phrase: "Ultimately, the cause for erectile dysfunction is that not enough Nitrous oxide (NO) is released..." under the erectile dysfunction section.
NO is the correct compound in this case, but NO is nitric oxide, not nitrous oxide--nitrous oxide is N2O. Figured I'd mention that so a confirmed user could make the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cg389 ( talk • contribs) 02:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 04:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 07:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 06:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
the opening paragraph describes it as a phenomenon, yet tens of thousands of people in the world have erections right now. 2600:8805:2300:31D:78A8:A9E0:487A:793E ( talk) 03:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Revert today's edit by Styy4fvtd, or restructure the sentence to list colloquial terms. "Boner" is certainly not a clinical term for an erection. Just Some Wikipedian ( talk) 19:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I was searching for erection as in for a building, and was greeted by some *ahem* "interesting" images. I think that many people looking for erection as in construction would not want to see this. May we please move this to a different title and make "Erection" a disambiguation page? Thanks! Félix An ( talk) 14:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
social not sexual, two distinct and rich subjects on this topic deserve separate sections. As almost always in wikipedia, if a medic can write it, then only a medic will write it. Obtuse (catheter) tube view everywhere. Neurorebel ( talk) 06:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The § See also section lists "Nipple erection", which links to Nipple - which isn't very useful, as searching that article for "erect" yields zero results. A more useful target would be the separate article Nipple stimulation, which has a comprehensive section on § Physiological response.
- 2A02:560:590B:8C00:8AD:C5BD:40F9:E7D8 ( talk) 14:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
More visuals 2A01:4C8:C0A:A427:FD9B:9FF6:BCF7:A778 ( talk) 01:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
It's been 12 years! 73.124.156.117 ( talk) 06:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
The sources of this section seem woefully inadequate. The first is a 1975 paper that merely concludes that an erection is somehow affected by conscious thought/fantasizing, but as far as I can tell it makes no mention of the actual biological functions behind the phenomenon, which is what it's being cited for. The second source is a online medical magazine article that just talks about techniques for losing an unwanted erection, such as taking a cold shower or going for a jog. This section seems incomplete at best to me, and the following section is even worse. I'm not an expert on this topic though, but I figure we must have learned more about this since the 1970s? 2607:EA00:107:3C07:90F:795C:6FA5:B0DA ( talk) 23:46, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
That's the natural state of a penis for the majority of world population, unmutilated. It would have been of note if there were any surgical modifications, a lack of it isn't notable. Remove "uncircumcised". DocumentingEvil ( talk) 21:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
{{
Edit semi-protected}}
template.
M.Bitton (
talk) 15:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)are simpler, clearer, and more suitable as page images. Joansedana ( talk) 16:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
There's a bit detailing the average size of the organ, there's no other body part on Wikipedia that has such dimensions. A lot of people, like myself who are below the average face anxiety perpetuated by such unvarifiable statistics, and whether it's 3in or 12in, the size isn't relevant to erection capability. 2A04:4A43:8DAF:FFAF:2D70:D6D4:2CE1:B016 ( talk) 16:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)