![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The picture is somewhat offensive, maybe it could be changed to something a little more scientific and less pornographic.
The picture really serves no purpose. shaddix 11:41, 01 January 2006
It clearly serves *a* purpose, which is to illustrate the topic of the article. However I do think the photograph is a bit jarring when included in-line. Perhaps a link to the image with a clear explanation would do the trick?
That seems fine, as long as it is not the same image. shaddix 9:30, 02 January 2006
There is nothing wrong with the original image. The license is good and the image clearly depicts the subject matter. I fail to see what makes the image "pornographic" except, perhaps, that the model has a well-developed physique. But that is not a reason to exclude an otherwise accurate and useful image.
I get really offended by all the moral fanatics pushing to eliminate all images that are sex-related. This picure is not pornographic, it clearly depicts the subject, which happens to be sexually related. The picture is perfectly suited to its context and is not gratuitous, or even arousing. It is not the job of an encyclopedia to censor its images for the purpose of placating a handful of fanatics. THe picture should remain on the web page, accesible as an accurate depicture of something for all who seek knolwedge about that thing.
The porn picture has to go. Young kids look stuff up on this site they dont need to see such graphic sexual images..GROSE!!!!!!!!!
its "gross" not "grose"
THIS picture is too much, i was taken back when i saw it, u cannot even see the preejaculate, it would at least be better to have a close up of only the head, then at least the picture would have something to do with the subject
^^^ he's right
~No, he's not right. You can see the secretion quite plainly. Its the clear goo oozing out of the meatus. One doesn't need to be Dr. Ruth to point it out. If there were an image of copius amounts of the stuff dripping down to the floor, that'd be considered vile by the same people pronouncing the current pic pornographic. Its really tragic that we've taken to censoring ourselves with mere accusations that something is "grosse" and hysteria about the chance that children might see something that some think they should not. There are other images of precum available (check google). Many of them are closeups that do not include a man's genitals protruding from a jock strap...a dead giveaway about hte image's pornographic origins. The truth is though that people aren't offended by the image's origins...they're offended by the image which, in its context, is totally non-pornographic and appropriate. It could be the most unsexy pic from a medical text, and they'd react similarly, because people are so hysterical about sex.
This is a sad day on wikipedia, when we find ourselves shutting off every image with accusations of "pornography", simply because the nature of the topic makes us uncomfortable.
Excellent, I'll just go add pictures of people taking a crap on each other on the coprophilia page. 21:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
About picture. I think it should have some kind of warning that content is for mature audiences only. 93.106.22.62 ( talk) 17:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Merriam Wesbter defines pronography as "the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement". This picture is not intended for sexual excitement, it is intended for information purposes only. Those who refer to information as "grose" are preoccupied with sex and porn. The fact that it is a link and not a picture on the page is enough of a warning. Children who go looking for gross pictures will indeed find it but those who use wikipedia as an encyclopedia(which it is) will find it if they need a visual guide. And anyways what kid who isn't looking for something gross would be looking up pre-ejaculation. All in all the picture should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.18.143 ( talk • contribs)
I was very shocked with the picture in this page. If we want to start depicting real pictures in the encyclopedia, then maybe we should start putting pictures for "Male/Female Ejaculation", "Masturbation", and "semen" ... They would be "accurate and useful images" woudn't they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.229.38.177 ( talk • contribs)
The picture to my mind is not a problem within the article 'Pre-ejaculate', but when come across as a result of redirection from Preseminal fluid - currently on the front page under AIDS. Those clicking on Pre-ejaculate are likely to expect a graphic representation, and so the image is fine; those clicking on Preseminal fluid may well not be familliar with the term and hence be offended at the image. Perhaps the image could be moved lower down the page so that users are aware of what article they are reading before being presented with the image. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rcrowdy ( talk • contribs) .
We so far have one person for the picture per edits (Circeus) one person for the picture but accepting of the link compromise (LizardWizard), one person against the picture but accepting of the link compromise (192.68.228.4), one person for moving the picture further down the article (RCrowdy) and one person for the link compromise (myself). I think the link is winning. Lyrl 02:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Profanity is a guideline, but as a policy, Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia:Content disclaimer clearly state:
and
I utterly fail to see how this image (certainly less offensive than, say, Image:Autofellatio 2.jpg or Image:Penis corrected.jpg) breaks any established policy. I think a point has been clearly made on this talk page that this image is, from past consensus,both clearly appropriate and not offensive to a majority of people. That is why I firmly believe it should stay, and would actually favor its inclusion in the lead paragraph. Circeus 02:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
{{linkimage|Cowper fluid penis drip head on.JPG|head}}
{{linkimage|Cowper fluid penis drip front.jpg|front}}
{{linkimage|Cowper fluid penis drip front close.JPG|close}}
{{linkimage|Cowper fluid penis drip side.jpg|side}}
I know you are having trouble deciding on the image usage for this article, so I've got a few non-erotic photographs showing the pre-ejaculate in a non-sexual context. I think these images do a good job of showing the anatomical function without being distracting. There are four to choose from. Here for your consideration. --
678901 21:43, 20 August 2006.
On the first paragraph, the last word inside the starting bracket was missing a closing bracket, I have edited this to include the closing bracket.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.175.232 ( talk) 10:11, 18 May 2006
While I think the image deserves a prominent place in the article, the reverting has to stop. It is counter-productive to consensus building. I think many of you are making good-faith efforts to discuss the issue here on the talk page. I also think that there is currently no consensus for either removing the image entirely nor having the image inline.
Circeus makes a good point, though. Wikipedia is not censored is policy, while Wikipedia:Profanity is only a guidline. I do worry about Circeus' statement that the image is, "both clearly appropriate and not offensive to a majority of people." It is not clearly appropriate. If it were, this discussion would not be taking place. As for a majority of people... I'd like to see where you got your statistics.
To sum up my rambling:
I really fail to see the problem with this image, it's not in itself erotic, pornographic or lewd, and seems appropriate. If this is an encyclopedia we must consider whether it will be helpful to those who access it; young boys may who are confused/ignorant/insecure about what is happening to their bodies are likely to find this reassuring. I cannot believe that this image will be the cause of prurient fascination; it's hardly centre fold stuff Gleng 07:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I really don't buy into the arguement that it is pornographic, however, the image is certainly jarring. I know 'jarring' isn't really a wikipolicy, but I see no reason why the image cannot be left as a link so that particularly squeemish people don't get an eyefull of precum, pun intented. It also seems like it be a good middle ground between those that want it deleted and those that want it kept. CaptainManacles 21:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
WP isn't a medical textbook, so readers should maybe have the choice of whether or not they want to see "lewd" photos when the image may be somewhat discretionary (as opposed to articles like vagina). -- Nectar 21:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Some lonely nerd made this picture in order to get a few jollies from posting explicit pictures of themselves in an "educational" fashion. I say go ahead and take another's advice and post pictures of people taking craps on each other on the coprophilia page. It's the same deal. Both are unnecessary - a textual description will do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.63.28 ( talk • contribs) 13:44, 2 December 2006
In the most recent discussion (this section) there are two people who want to delete the image altogether (first anon poster and Calbaer), and one person who supports inclusion of the picture but does not specify inline vs. link preference (second anon posteR). Calbaer also indicates his support for the compromise position of linking the picture. I fail to see how this could be interpreted as consensus to make the picture inline, as implied by JeffGent in his recent edit to the image.
To restate my own position (from many months ago), I support either a linkimage, or placement of the inline image at the bottom of the article, where it is unlikely to be the first thing to load. An image is fine, but having it be the very first thing one sees when coming to this article is something I oppose. There was opposition from both sides when I first proposed moving the image to the bottom of the article (people completely opposed to inline image, and people completely opposed to not having the image at the very top of the article), so the compromise of linkimage at the top of the article won out. Lyrl Talk C 23:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I have added a pic of a more viscious higher flow natural variation BigBoris 07:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm gonna replace that one that had barely any flow that was just an enlargement of the head with a better example. Yes it is my own penis and I am proud of it. Crowdedcar 22:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Lyrl! I thought it was okay to see, but I guess that's just because it is my own. I appreciate your help in fixing my picture. Crowdedcar 00:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I propose that, as originally added in this diff by 67.187.114.75 at 21:22 on 9 May 2006 (UTC) and reverted to many times since by many different editors, this image be inline. — Jeff G. 00:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Template:Linkimage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Jeff G. 22:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The second picture seemed fine to me, about the same level of palatability as the first. It also showed that there is variation in "normal". I don't see any reason to remove it, but a recent edit ( diff) said the picture needed to be discussed on the talk page. Lyrl Talk C 02:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a picture of a natural high flow variation of pre-ejaculate from bulbourethral (Cowper's)glands.
This is valid representation of a genetic variation in a natural human male population.
BigBoris
10:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Is it really that difficult to revert the occasional vandalism this page gets? It's nothing on the order of what condom gets, for example, and that page is only rarely semi-protected.
While the vandalism is annoying, constructive edits are also made by anonymous editors - such as the spelling correction just two days ago. I believe avoiding having to revert a few edits a month by anonymous users (I count four for the entire month of June) is not worth forgoing the constructive edits such users make. Lyrl Talk C 22:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I found it necessary to include here this testimony of mine about the use of this page, as there seems to be much problems about if to use the picture or not. First some background: 1. I am highly educated male with 30-40 years of age. 2. My native language is not English.
Some time ago I decide to find out what makes the liquid that under certain circumstances comes from my penis so slippery. I simply wanted to find the chemical composition for it. However, I did not know what that liquid is called in my native language or in English. The internet was the most easily available source, so I used it. But without exact word it was pretty difficult to find what you are looking for. After I found the English word pre-ejaculate in a rather fitting context, I guessed I was getting close. However, the word did not exist in my dictionary, so I needed to look more. I had no idea what the Cowper's glands were, so several places where I found some kind of explanations WITHOUT PICTURE, did not make me sure that I had the right word. But when I figured to check the word from Wikipedia I knew I got the right word. And I was really helped by the (original?) picture on the page, which was at the time directly seen as the page opened.
My point with this testimony is that the picture was really useful for me. Maybe my case is not the most common one, but anyway it is a case. After I knew the word and was sure it was right, getting my hands on the chemistry was not that difficult at all. So whatever you decide, please do not remove all the pictures or links to pictures from the page. Eeeerio 14:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, i am not saying the pic (i think its 2) is "GROSE!!". The only thing im saying is the fluid doesnt exactly look like precum. It just looks like regular ole cum. Discuss.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.174.137 ( talk) 07:53, 17 August 2007
OK EVERYONE PLEASE SEE Wikipedia:Content disclaimer Blacksmith talk Editor Review 08:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The images in this article were hidden with the linkimage template, which, when used, causes images to be hidden with a text link, requiring readers to click the link to display the image. There is no reasonable rationale for hiding these images. See Penis, Foreskin, Vulva, Vagina, Clitoris, Labia, Labia majora, Labia minora. The linkimage template is not used in any of these articles. These body parts are clearly visible. Hiding the images that show a bodily fluid that is issued during sexual arousal is a form of censorship and it is inappropriate for Wikipedia. If the genitals can be shown when they are unaroused, why cannot they be shown while aroused? The genitals are acceptable, but sex is not? Ridiculous. 68.163.219.59 22:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
The reason i did not explain was that i assessed this as vandalism - i don't have to give a reason if i believe its vandalism and I gave a reason on yr talk page, which i would say in the first instance is an appropriate place for discussion. As for Bullying? Preposetrous, and definitely bad faith. One I have had no involvement in this page until last night when i was monitoring changes by unsigned IPs. Saw the warning not to change the image links, lengthy discussion on the talk page,given the attention pages like this get from vandal/trolls I have to make a fairly quick assessment about the nature of the edit. You seem quiet familiar with policy for an anon 3tmx 13:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't revert your changes because of any preference as to the content of the page nor am I attempting to 'strong arm' a particcular version of this page - it was becasue the template was ignored and no attempt of discussion made beforehand . In fact I resent the accusation of bullying as i made the revert in good faith. 3tmx 14:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
What if, as Lyrl said, we were to include the images inline, lower in the article? I support this idea. 68.163.219.59 20:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The linkimage template has been deleted ( Deletion discussion). What should we do with the images in this article? I see three options:
Others may have other ideas, too. Hopefully we'll come to a consensus fairly quickly. Lyrl Talk C 14:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The current description says that the fluid is both "secreted by the urethra" and "secreted by the Cowper's glands". I'm no expert on pre-ejaculate, so I don't know which one it is, but I sure don't think it's both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.30.217.108 ( talk) 00:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I came to read the article, but since I can't quickly collapse the two images of penises IN ANY WAY, I'm not going to read it. Before I go however let me just say: I'm an adult, over thirty, and have no problems with obscene images on Wikipedia. But the closeup of a penis as I'm trying to read text about a specific fluid? Give a guy a break, will ya? At least make it POSSIBLE to read the text. I seriously doubt anyone who comes here looking to read the text from beginning to end, as I did, will makes it through.
If nothing else, how about a "readibility link" (a la disambiguation links) that says "For a version of this article without images, click here:", so that after glancing at the images I can read the article without looking at a closeup of a penis.
It might be hard for you guys to see, but it's like reading a medical textbook with your roommate's dick hanging over it and onto the page. Not my cup of tea.
I cant really understand why you gentleman bother so much about the images, well actually for me is like seeing or reading a medicine book or wathching a TV show based on breast implants or something like that, have you ever see how they only cover the woman nipples and leave all the rest open to the view of everybody, well is very simple, the human body is like that, this is all about what we really are and what we actually do, please the pictures are very important, I remember when I was a teenager did not know nothing about all this and if I would have and image to explain me what it was it would be more clear, but as an adult now, I have to say that I dont really mind about seeing the images, it is not disgusting if you think that the human being is a sexual creature, morality and estetic are out of this matter, I will not feel bad showing my children the article to explain them about the human fluids and the risks of AIDS, seeing the things as natural as they are you will not find it so bad, at least that your opinion about sexuality would differ from the natural and simple points of view —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
190.241.57.206 (
talk)
06:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I changed the wording from "Studies have demonstrated the presence of HIV in pre-ejaculate" to "the pre-ejaculate of an infected person" because it seemed to imply that HIV was always present in the pre-ejaculate. I don't think anyone would think that it was, but still, it reads better that way.
86.14.41.79 ( talk) 05:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I've read this talk page, and there's a clear consensus that the graphic images are totally disgusting to most readers, and prevent people from reading the article. There is absolutely no justification for this. I can only suspect that whoever keeps reinstating the images is just having a bit of fun.
Personally I wasn't willing to read the article until I'd got rid of these pictures.
If any serious contributors feel strongly that these images provide useful information (I highly doubt this), they can upload them to wiki commons (if that hasn't been done already, I can't bring myself to check) and provide links to them.
Please do not revert this change - it's highly selfish to hi-jack an article for your own fun and games. People may genuinely need the information here, and firstly won't be able to open such a page in the workplace, and secondly don't want to be put off their dinner.
Be more considerate.
Palefire ( talk) 11:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The Pictures again.
Why do we need to see dicks along with the precum? This is not an exhibit for people's excesively lonely activities. Change pictures for more objective, scientific ones and seek mental help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.150.207 ( talk) 14:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the picture that was added yesterday. First, it did not add additional value to the article: watery pre-ejaculate and higher-flow pre-ejaculate are already pictured. Second, the photograph was not composed in a way that made the pre-ejaculate the focus of the picture. The two included photographs show only the end of the penis in focus, and the pre-e fluid takes up a significant portion of the photographs. The picture added yesterday shows both legs and the entire male genitalia in focus, and the pre-e fluid - in addition to taking up a comparatively tiny portion of the photo - is out of focus. Lyrl Talk C 23:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I recently uploaded three high-resolution pictures to Commons, in which I have tried to capture the nature of this fluid:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pre-ejaculate1.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pre-ejaculate2.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pre-ejaculate3.jpg
I have tried to be more artsy than pornographic, and I think I have succeded pretty well. Feel free to add any of them to the article: I won't do it myself, since such edits seem to be controversial. (And seeing that they are my pictures, it's only fair that someone else should judge their merit.) I would propose that one of the first two could be a leading picture. In particular Pre-ejaculate2.jpg is, in my humble opinion, of good quality, informative, and above all tasteful, and so would fit there. Pre-ejaculate3.jpg could be added to the gallery, and replace Precum1.JPG which is not very representative. (Honestly, that looks like semen to me.) -- Quaterego ( talk) 20:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Can't someone just draw it with ink? And really, an image is quite unnecessary as "clear, colorless, viscous fluid" describes it completely. Adding a dripping penis seems to be just an outlet for exhibitionists. Angry bee ( talk) 13:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I am just a regular old wikipedia user who basically never contributes. In my opinion there's no need for the picture. I was shocked by it. Not because it's pornographic: it may or may not be, I don't know, and I wouldn't really be shocked by pornography as such. There's just no need for a picture of an aroused, dripping penis in an encyclopedia. The article describes it fine. 68.52.132.98 ( talk) 15:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Surely those looking this up are quite familiar with anything graphical shown. Why browse for such a topic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.28.154.129 ( talk) 17:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
The picture is somewhat offensive, maybe it could be changed to something a little more scientific and less pornographic.
The picture really serves no purpose. shaddix 11:41, 01 January 2006
It clearly serves *a* purpose, which is to illustrate the topic of the article. However I do think the photograph is a bit jarring when included in-line. Perhaps a link to the image with a clear explanation would do the trick?
That seems fine, as long as it is not the same image. shaddix 9:30, 02 January 2006
There is nothing wrong with the original image. The license is good and the image clearly depicts the subject matter. I fail to see what makes the image "pornographic" except, perhaps, that the model has a well-developed physique. But that is not a reason to exclude an otherwise accurate and useful image.
I get really offended by all the moral fanatics pushing to eliminate all images that are sex-related. This picure is not pornographic, it clearly depicts the subject, which happens to be sexually related. The picture is perfectly suited to its context and is not gratuitous, or even arousing. It is not the job of an encyclopedia to censor its images for the purpose of placating a handful of fanatics. THe picture should remain on the web page, accesible as an accurate depicture of something for all who seek knolwedge about that thing.
The porn picture has to go. Young kids look stuff up on this site they dont need to see such graphic sexual images..GROSE!!!!!!!!!
its "gross" not "grose"
THIS picture is too much, i was taken back when i saw it, u cannot even see the preejaculate, it would at least be better to have a close up of only the head, then at least the picture would have something to do with the subject
^^^ he's right
~No, he's not right. You can see the secretion quite plainly. Its the clear goo oozing out of the meatus. One doesn't need to be Dr. Ruth to point it out. If there were an image of copius amounts of the stuff dripping down to the floor, that'd be considered vile by the same people pronouncing the current pic pornographic. Its really tragic that we've taken to censoring ourselves with mere accusations that something is "grosse" and hysteria about the chance that children might see something that some think they should not. There are other images of precum available (check google). Many of them are closeups that do not include a man's genitals protruding from a jock strap...a dead giveaway about hte image's pornographic origins. The truth is though that people aren't offended by the image's origins...they're offended by the image which, in its context, is totally non-pornographic and appropriate. It could be the most unsexy pic from a medical text, and they'd react similarly, because people are so hysterical about sex.
This is a sad day on wikipedia, when we find ourselves shutting off every image with accusations of "pornography", simply because the nature of the topic makes us uncomfortable.
Excellent, I'll just go add pictures of people taking a crap on each other on the coprophilia page. 21:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
About picture. I think it should have some kind of warning that content is for mature audiences only. 93.106.22.62 ( talk) 17:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Merriam Wesbter defines pronography as "the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement". This picture is not intended for sexual excitement, it is intended for information purposes only. Those who refer to information as "grose" are preoccupied with sex and porn. The fact that it is a link and not a picture on the page is enough of a warning. Children who go looking for gross pictures will indeed find it but those who use wikipedia as an encyclopedia(which it is) will find it if they need a visual guide. And anyways what kid who isn't looking for something gross would be looking up pre-ejaculation. All in all the picture should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.18.143 ( talk • contribs)
I was very shocked with the picture in this page. If we want to start depicting real pictures in the encyclopedia, then maybe we should start putting pictures for "Male/Female Ejaculation", "Masturbation", and "semen" ... They would be "accurate and useful images" woudn't they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.229.38.177 ( talk • contribs)
The picture to my mind is not a problem within the article 'Pre-ejaculate', but when come across as a result of redirection from Preseminal fluid - currently on the front page under AIDS. Those clicking on Pre-ejaculate are likely to expect a graphic representation, and so the image is fine; those clicking on Preseminal fluid may well not be familliar with the term and hence be offended at the image. Perhaps the image could be moved lower down the page so that users are aware of what article they are reading before being presented with the image. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rcrowdy ( talk • contribs) .
We so far have one person for the picture per edits (Circeus) one person for the picture but accepting of the link compromise (LizardWizard), one person against the picture but accepting of the link compromise (192.68.228.4), one person for moving the picture further down the article (RCrowdy) and one person for the link compromise (myself). I think the link is winning. Lyrl 02:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Profanity is a guideline, but as a policy, Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia:Content disclaimer clearly state:
and
I utterly fail to see how this image (certainly less offensive than, say, Image:Autofellatio 2.jpg or Image:Penis corrected.jpg) breaks any established policy. I think a point has been clearly made on this talk page that this image is, from past consensus,both clearly appropriate and not offensive to a majority of people. That is why I firmly believe it should stay, and would actually favor its inclusion in the lead paragraph. Circeus 02:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
{{linkimage|Cowper fluid penis drip head on.JPG|head}}
{{linkimage|Cowper fluid penis drip front.jpg|front}}
{{linkimage|Cowper fluid penis drip front close.JPG|close}}
{{linkimage|Cowper fluid penis drip side.jpg|side}}
I know you are having trouble deciding on the image usage for this article, so I've got a few non-erotic photographs showing the pre-ejaculate in a non-sexual context. I think these images do a good job of showing the anatomical function without being distracting. There are four to choose from. Here for your consideration. --
678901 21:43, 20 August 2006.
On the first paragraph, the last word inside the starting bracket was missing a closing bracket, I have edited this to include the closing bracket.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.175.232 ( talk) 10:11, 18 May 2006
While I think the image deserves a prominent place in the article, the reverting has to stop. It is counter-productive to consensus building. I think many of you are making good-faith efforts to discuss the issue here on the talk page. I also think that there is currently no consensus for either removing the image entirely nor having the image inline.
Circeus makes a good point, though. Wikipedia is not censored is policy, while Wikipedia:Profanity is only a guidline. I do worry about Circeus' statement that the image is, "both clearly appropriate and not offensive to a majority of people." It is not clearly appropriate. If it were, this discussion would not be taking place. As for a majority of people... I'd like to see where you got your statistics.
To sum up my rambling:
I really fail to see the problem with this image, it's not in itself erotic, pornographic or lewd, and seems appropriate. If this is an encyclopedia we must consider whether it will be helpful to those who access it; young boys may who are confused/ignorant/insecure about what is happening to their bodies are likely to find this reassuring. I cannot believe that this image will be the cause of prurient fascination; it's hardly centre fold stuff Gleng 07:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I really don't buy into the arguement that it is pornographic, however, the image is certainly jarring. I know 'jarring' isn't really a wikipolicy, but I see no reason why the image cannot be left as a link so that particularly squeemish people don't get an eyefull of precum, pun intented. It also seems like it be a good middle ground between those that want it deleted and those that want it kept. CaptainManacles 21:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
WP isn't a medical textbook, so readers should maybe have the choice of whether or not they want to see "lewd" photos when the image may be somewhat discretionary (as opposed to articles like vagina). -- Nectar 21:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Some lonely nerd made this picture in order to get a few jollies from posting explicit pictures of themselves in an "educational" fashion. I say go ahead and take another's advice and post pictures of people taking craps on each other on the coprophilia page. It's the same deal. Both are unnecessary - a textual description will do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.63.28 ( talk • contribs) 13:44, 2 December 2006
In the most recent discussion (this section) there are two people who want to delete the image altogether (first anon poster and Calbaer), and one person who supports inclusion of the picture but does not specify inline vs. link preference (second anon posteR). Calbaer also indicates his support for the compromise position of linking the picture. I fail to see how this could be interpreted as consensus to make the picture inline, as implied by JeffGent in his recent edit to the image.
To restate my own position (from many months ago), I support either a linkimage, or placement of the inline image at the bottom of the article, where it is unlikely to be the first thing to load. An image is fine, but having it be the very first thing one sees when coming to this article is something I oppose. There was opposition from both sides when I first proposed moving the image to the bottom of the article (people completely opposed to inline image, and people completely opposed to not having the image at the very top of the article), so the compromise of linkimage at the top of the article won out. Lyrl Talk C 23:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I have added a pic of a more viscious higher flow natural variation BigBoris 07:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm gonna replace that one that had barely any flow that was just an enlargement of the head with a better example. Yes it is my own penis and I am proud of it. Crowdedcar 22:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Lyrl! I thought it was okay to see, but I guess that's just because it is my own. I appreciate your help in fixing my picture. Crowdedcar 00:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I propose that, as originally added in this diff by 67.187.114.75 at 21:22 on 9 May 2006 (UTC) and reverted to many times since by many different editors, this image be inline. — Jeff G. 00:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Template:Linkimage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Jeff G. 22:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The second picture seemed fine to me, about the same level of palatability as the first. It also showed that there is variation in "normal". I don't see any reason to remove it, but a recent edit ( diff) said the picture needed to be discussed on the talk page. Lyrl Talk C 02:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a picture of a natural high flow variation of pre-ejaculate from bulbourethral (Cowper's)glands.
This is valid representation of a genetic variation in a natural human male population.
BigBoris
10:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Is it really that difficult to revert the occasional vandalism this page gets? It's nothing on the order of what condom gets, for example, and that page is only rarely semi-protected.
While the vandalism is annoying, constructive edits are also made by anonymous editors - such as the spelling correction just two days ago. I believe avoiding having to revert a few edits a month by anonymous users (I count four for the entire month of June) is not worth forgoing the constructive edits such users make. Lyrl Talk C 22:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I found it necessary to include here this testimony of mine about the use of this page, as there seems to be much problems about if to use the picture or not. First some background: 1. I am highly educated male with 30-40 years of age. 2. My native language is not English.
Some time ago I decide to find out what makes the liquid that under certain circumstances comes from my penis so slippery. I simply wanted to find the chemical composition for it. However, I did not know what that liquid is called in my native language or in English. The internet was the most easily available source, so I used it. But without exact word it was pretty difficult to find what you are looking for. After I found the English word pre-ejaculate in a rather fitting context, I guessed I was getting close. However, the word did not exist in my dictionary, so I needed to look more. I had no idea what the Cowper's glands were, so several places where I found some kind of explanations WITHOUT PICTURE, did not make me sure that I had the right word. But when I figured to check the word from Wikipedia I knew I got the right word. And I was really helped by the (original?) picture on the page, which was at the time directly seen as the page opened.
My point with this testimony is that the picture was really useful for me. Maybe my case is not the most common one, but anyway it is a case. After I knew the word and was sure it was right, getting my hands on the chemistry was not that difficult at all. So whatever you decide, please do not remove all the pictures or links to pictures from the page. Eeeerio 14:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, i am not saying the pic (i think its 2) is "GROSE!!". The only thing im saying is the fluid doesnt exactly look like precum. It just looks like regular ole cum. Discuss.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.174.137 ( talk) 07:53, 17 August 2007
OK EVERYONE PLEASE SEE Wikipedia:Content disclaimer Blacksmith talk Editor Review 08:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The images in this article were hidden with the linkimage template, which, when used, causes images to be hidden with a text link, requiring readers to click the link to display the image. There is no reasonable rationale for hiding these images. See Penis, Foreskin, Vulva, Vagina, Clitoris, Labia, Labia majora, Labia minora. The linkimage template is not used in any of these articles. These body parts are clearly visible. Hiding the images that show a bodily fluid that is issued during sexual arousal is a form of censorship and it is inappropriate for Wikipedia. If the genitals can be shown when they are unaroused, why cannot they be shown while aroused? The genitals are acceptable, but sex is not? Ridiculous. 68.163.219.59 22:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
The reason i did not explain was that i assessed this as vandalism - i don't have to give a reason if i believe its vandalism and I gave a reason on yr talk page, which i would say in the first instance is an appropriate place for discussion. As for Bullying? Preposetrous, and definitely bad faith. One I have had no involvement in this page until last night when i was monitoring changes by unsigned IPs. Saw the warning not to change the image links, lengthy discussion on the talk page,given the attention pages like this get from vandal/trolls I have to make a fairly quick assessment about the nature of the edit. You seem quiet familiar with policy for an anon 3tmx 13:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't revert your changes because of any preference as to the content of the page nor am I attempting to 'strong arm' a particcular version of this page - it was becasue the template was ignored and no attempt of discussion made beforehand . In fact I resent the accusation of bullying as i made the revert in good faith. 3tmx 14:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
What if, as Lyrl said, we were to include the images inline, lower in the article? I support this idea. 68.163.219.59 20:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The linkimage template has been deleted ( Deletion discussion). What should we do with the images in this article? I see three options:
Others may have other ideas, too. Hopefully we'll come to a consensus fairly quickly. Lyrl Talk C 14:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The current description says that the fluid is both "secreted by the urethra" and "secreted by the Cowper's glands". I'm no expert on pre-ejaculate, so I don't know which one it is, but I sure don't think it's both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.30.217.108 ( talk) 00:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I came to read the article, but since I can't quickly collapse the two images of penises IN ANY WAY, I'm not going to read it. Before I go however let me just say: I'm an adult, over thirty, and have no problems with obscene images on Wikipedia. But the closeup of a penis as I'm trying to read text about a specific fluid? Give a guy a break, will ya? At least make it POSSIBLE to read the text. I seriously doubt anyone who comes here looking to read the text from beginning to end, as I did, will makes it through.
If nothing else, how about a "readibility link" (a la disambiguation links) that says "For a version of this article without images, click here:", so that after glancing at the images I can read the article without looking at a closeup of a penis.
It might be hard for you guys to see, but it's like reading a medical textbook with your roommate's dick hanging over it and onto the page. Not my cup of tea.
I cant really understand why you gentleman bother so much about the images, well actually for me is like seeing or reading a medicine book or wathching a TV show based on breast implants or something like that, have you ever see how they only cover the woman nipples and leave all the rest open to the view of everybody, well is very simple, the human body is like that, this is all about what we really are and what we actually do, please the pictures are very important, I remember when I was a teenager did not know nothing about all this and if I would have and image to explain me what it was it would be more clear, but as an adult now, I have to say that I dont really mind about seeing the images, it is not disgusting if you think that the human being is a sexual creature, morality and estetic are out of this matter, I will not feel bad showing my children the article to explain them about the human fluids and the risks of AIDS, seeing the things as natural as they are you will not find it so bad, at least that your opinion about sexuality would differ from the natural and simple points of view —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
190.241.57.206 (
talk)
06:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I changed the wording from "Studies have demonstrated the presence of HIV in pre-ejaculate" to "the pre-ejaculate of an infected person" because it seemed to imply that HIV was always present in the pre-ejaculate. I don't think anyone would think that it was, but still, it reads better that way.
86.14.41.79 ( talk) 05:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I've read this talk page, and there's a clear consensus that the graphic images are totally disgusting to most readers, and prevent people from reading the article. There is absolutely no justification for this. I can only suspect that whoever keeps reinstating the images is just having a bit of fun.
Personally I wasn't willing to read the article until I'd got rid of these pictures.
If any serious contributors feel strongly that these images provide useful information (I highly doubt this), they can upload them to wiki commons (if that hasn't been done already, I can't bring myself to check) and provide links to them.
Please do not revert this change - it's highly selfish to hi-jack an article for your own fun and games. People may genuinely need the information here, and firstly won't be able to open such a page in the workplace, and secondly don't want to be put off their dinner.
Be more considerate.
Palefire ( talk) 11:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The Pictures again.
Why do we need to see dicks along with the precum? This is not an exhibit for people's excesively lonely activities. Change pictures for more objective, scientific ones and seek mental help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.150.207 ( talk) 14:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the picture that was added yesterday. First, it did not add additional value to the article: watery pre-ejaculate and higher-flow pre-ejaculate are already pictured. Second, the photograph was not composed in a way that made the pre-ejaculate the focus of the picture. The two included photographs show only the end of the penis in focus, and the pre-e fluid takes up a significant portion of the photographs. The picture added yesterday shows both legs and the entire male genitalia in focus, and the pre-e fluid - in addition to taking up a comparatively tiny portion of the photo - is out of focus. Lyrl Talk C 23:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I recently uploaded three high-resolution pictures to Commons, in which I have tried to capture the nature of this fluid:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pre-ejaculate1.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pre-ejaculate2.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pre-ejaculate3.jpg
I have tried to be more artsy than pornographic, and I think I have succeded pretty well. Feel free to add any of them to the article: I won't do it myself, since such edits seem to be controversial. (And seeing that they are my pictures, it's only fair that someone else should judge their merit.) I would propose that one of the first two could be a leading picture. In particular Pre-ejaculate2.jpg is, in my humble opinion, of good quality, informative, and above all tasteful, and so would fit there. Pre-ejaculate3.jpg could be added to the gallery, and replace Precum1.JPG which is not very representative. (Honestly, that looks like semen to me.) -- Quaterego ( talk) 20:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Can't someone just draw it with ink? And really, an image is quite unnecessary as "clear, colorless, viscous fluid" describes it completely. Adding a dripping penis seems to be just an outlet for exhibitionists. Angry bee ( talk) 13:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I am just a regular old wikipedia user who basically never contributes. In my opinion there's no need for the picture. I was shocked by it. Not because it's pornographic: it may or may not be, I don't know, and I wouldn't really be shocked by pornography as such. There's just no need for a picture of an aroused, dripping penis in an encyclopedia. The article describes it fine. 68.52.132.98 ( talk) 15:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Surely those looking this up are quite familiar with anything graphical shown. Why browse for such a topic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.28.154.129 ( talk) 17:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The picture is somewhat offensive, maybe it could be changed to something a little more scientific and less pornographic.
The picture really serves no purpose. shaddix 11:41, 01 January 2006
It clearly serves *a* purpose, which is to illustrate the topic of the article. However I do think the photograph is a bit jarring when included in-line. Perhaps a link to the image with a clear explanation would do the trick?
That seems fine, as long as it is not the same image. shaddix 9:30, 02 January 2006
There is nothing wrong with the original image. The license is good and the image clearly depicts the subject matter. I fail to see what makes the image "pornographic" except, perhaps, that the model has a well-developed physique. But that is not a reason to exclude an otherwise accurate and useful image.
I get really offended by all the moral fanatics pushing to eliminate all images that are sex-related. This picure is not pornographic, it clearly depicts the subject, which happens to be sexually related. The picture is perfectly suited to its context and is not gratuitous, or even arousing. It is not the job of an encyclopedia to censor its images for the purpose of placating a handful of fanatics. THe picture should remain on the web page, accesible as an accurate depicture of something for all who seek knolwedge about that thing.
The porn picture has to go. Young kids look stuff up on this site they dont need to see such graphic sexual images..GROSE!!!!!!!!!
its "gross" not "grose"
THIS picture is too much, i was taken back when i saw it, u cannot even see the preejaculate, it would at least be better to have a close up of only the head, then at least the picture would have something to do with the subject
^^^ he's right
~No, he's not right. You can see the secretion quite plainly. Its the clear goo oozing out of the meatus. One doesn't need to be Dr. Ruth to point it out. If there were an image of copius amounts of the stuff dripping down to the floor, that'd be considered vile by the same people pronouncing the current pic pornographic. Its really tragic that we've taken to censoring ourselves with mere accusations that something is "grosse" and hysteria about the chance that children might see something that some think they should not. There are other images of precum available (check google). Many of them are closeups that do not include a man's genitals protruding from a jock strap...a dead giveaway about hte image's pornographic origins. The truth is though that people aren't offended by the image's origins...they're offended by the image which, in its context, is totally non-pornographic and appropriate. It could be the most unsexy pic from a medical text, and they'd react similarly, because people are so hysterical about sex.
This is a sad day on wikipedia, when we find ourselves shutting off every image with accusations of "pornography", simply because the nature of the topic makes us uncomfortable.
Excellent, I'll just go add pictures of people taking a crap on each other on the coprophilia page. 21:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
About picture. I think it should have some kind of warning that content is for mature audiences only. 93.106.22.62 ( talk) 17:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Merriam Wesbter defines pronography as "the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement". This picture is not intended for sexual excitement, it is intended for information purposes only. Those who refer to information as "grose" are preoccupied with sex and porn. The fact that it is a link and not a picture on the page is enough of a warning. Children who go looking for gross pictures will indeed find it but those who use wikipedia as an encyclopedia(which it is) will find it if they need a visual guide. And anyways what kid who isn't looking for something gross would be looking up pre-ejaculation. All in all the picture should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.18.143 ( talk • contribs)
I was very shocked with the picture in this page. If we want to start depicting real pictures in the encyclopedia, then maybe we should start putting pictures for "Male/Female Ejaculation", "Masturbation", and "semen" ... They would be "accurate and useful images" woudn't they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.229.38.177 ( talk • contribs)
The picture to my mind is not a problem within the article 'Pre-ejaculate', but when come across as a result of redirection from Preseminal fluid - currently on the front page under AIDS. Those clicking on Pre-ejaculate are likely to expect a graphic representation, and so the image is fine; those clicking on Preseminal fluid may well not be familliar with the term and hence be offended at the image. Perhaps the image could be moved lower down the page so that users are aware of what article they are reading before being presented with the image. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rcrowdy ( talk • contribs) .
We so far have one person for the picture per edits (Circeus) one person for the picture but accepting of the link compromise (LizardWizard), one person against the picture but accepting of the link compromise (192.68.228.4), one person for moving the picture further down the article (RCrowdy) and one person for the link compromise (myself). I think the link is winning. Lyrl 02:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Profanity is a guideline, but as a policy, Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia:Content disclaimer clearly state:
and
I utterly fail to see how this image (certainly less offensive than, say, Image:Autofellatio 2.jpg or Image:Penis corrected.jpg) breaks any established policy. I think a point has been clearly made on this talk page that this image is, from past consensus,both clearly appropriate and not offensive to a majority of people. That is why I firmly believe it should stay, and would actually favor its inclusion in the lead paragraph. Circeus 02:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
{{linkimage|Cowper fluid penis drip head on.JPG|head}}
{{linkimage|Cowper fluid penis drip front.jpg|front}}
{{linkimage|Cowper fluid penis drip front close.JPG|close}}
{{linkimage|Cowper fluid penis drip side.jpg|side}}
I know you are having trouble deciding on the image usage for this article, so I've got a few non-erotic photographs showing the pre-ejaculate in a non-sexual context. I think these images do a good job of showing the anatomical function without being distracting. There are four to choose from. Here for your consideration. --
678901 21:43, 20 August 2006.
On the first paragraph, the last word inside the starting bracket was missing a closing bracket, I have edited this to include the closing bracket.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.175.232 ( talk) 10:11, 18 May 2006
While I think the image deserves a prominent place in the article, the reverting has to stop. It is counter-productive to consensus building. I think many of you are making good-faith efforts to discuss the issue here on the talk page. I also think that there is currently no consensus for either removing the image entirely nor having the image inline.
Circeus makes a good point, though. Wikipedia is not censored is policy, while Wikipedia:Profanity is only a guidline. I do worry about Circeus' statement that the image is, "both clearly appropriate and not offensive to a majority of people." It is not clearly appropriate. If it were, this discussion would not be taking place. As for a majority of people... I'd like to see where you got your statistics.
To sum up my rambling:
I really fail to see the problem with this image, it's not in itself erotic, pornographic or lewd, and seems appropriate. If this is an encyclopedia we must consider whether it will be helpful to those who access it; young boys may who are confused/ignorant/insecure about what is happening to their bodies are likely to find this reassuring. I cannot believe that this image will be the cause of prurient fascination; it's hardly centre fold stuff Gleng 07:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I really don't buy into the arguement that it is pornographic, however, the image is certainly jarring. I know 'jarring' isn't really a wikipolicy, but I see no reason why the image cannot be left as a link so that particularly squeemish people don't get an eyefull of precum, pun intented. It also seems like it be a good middle ground between those that want it deleted and those that want it kept. CaptainManacles 21:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
WP isn't a medical textbook, so readers should maybe have the choice of whether or not they want to see "lewd" photos when the image may be somewhat discretionary (as opposed to articles like vagina). -- Nectar 21:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Some lonely nerd made this picture in order to get a few jollies from posting explicit pictures of themselves in an "educational" fashion. I say go ahead and take another's advice and post pictures of people taking craps on each other on the coprophilia page. It's the same deal. Both are unnecessary - a textual description will do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.63.28 ( talk • contribs) 13:44, 2 December 2006
In the most recent discussion (this section) there are two people who want to delete the image altogether (first anon poster and Calbaer), and one person who supports inclusion of the picture but does not specify inline vs. link preference (second anon posteR). Calbaer also indicates his support for the compromise position of linking the picture. I fail to see how this could be interpreted as consensus to make the picture inline, as implied by JeffGent in his recent edit to the image.
To restate my own position (from many months ago), I support either a linkimage, or placement of the inline image at the bottom of the article, where it is unlikely to be the first thing to load. An image is fine, but having it be the very first thing one sees when coming to this article is something I oppose. There was opposition from both sides when I first proposed moving the image to the bottom of the article (people completely opposed to inline image, and people completely opposed to not having the image at the very top of the article), so the compromise of linkimage at the top of the article won out. Lyrl Talk C 23:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I have added a pic of a more viscious higher flow natural variation BigBoris 07:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm gonna replace that one that had barely any flow that was just an enlargement of the head with a better example. Yes it is my own penis and I am proud of it. Crowdedcar 22:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Lyrl! I thought it was okay to see, but I guess that's just because it is my own. I appreciate your help in fixing my picture. Crowdedcar 00:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I propose that, as originally added in this diff by 67.187.114.75 at 21:22 on 9 May 2006 (UTC) and reverted to many times since by many different editors, this image be inline. — Jeff G. 00:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Template:Linkimage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Jeff G. 22:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The second picture seemed fine to me, about the same level of palatability as the first. It also showed that there is variation in "normal". I don't see any reason to remove it, but a recent edit ( diff) said the picture needed to be discussed on the talk page. Lyrl Talk C 02:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a picture of a natural high flow variation of pre-ejaculate from bulbourethral (Cowper's)glands.
This is valid representation of a genetic variation in a natural human male population.
BigBoris
10:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Is it really that difficult to revert the occasional vandalism this page gets? It's nothing on the order of what condom gets, for example, and that page is only rarely semi-protected.
While the vandalism is annoying, constructive edits are also made by anonymous editors - such as the spelling correction just two days ago. I believe avoiding having to revert a few edits a month by anonymous users (I count four for the entire month of June) is not worth forgoing the constructive edits such users make. Lyrl Talk C 22:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I found it necessary to include here this testimony of mine about the use of this page, as there seems to be much problems about if to use the picture or not. First some background: 1. I am highly educated male with 30-40 years of age. 2. My native language is not English.
Some time ago I decide to find out what makes the liquid that under certain circumstances comes from my penis so slippery. I simply wanted to find the chemical composition for it. However, I did not know what that liquid is called in my native language or in English. The internet was the most easily available source, so I used it. But without exact word it was pretty difficult to find what you are looking for. After I found the English word pre-ejaculate in a rather fitting context, I guessed I was getting close. However, the word did not exist in my dictionary, so I needed to look more. I had no idea what the Cowper's glands were, so several places where I found some kind of explanations WITHOUT PICTURE, did not make me sure that I had the right word. But when I figured to check the word from Wikipedia I knew I got the right word. And I was really helped by the (original?) picture on the page, which was at the time directly seen as the page opened.
My point with this testimony is that the picture was really useful for me. Maybe my case is not the most common one, but anyway it is a case. After I knew the word and was sure it was right, getting my hands on the chemistry was not that difficult at all. So whatever you decide, please do not remove all the pictures or links to pictures from the page. Eeeerio 14:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, i am not saying the pic (i think its 2) is "GROSE!!". The only thing im saying is the fluid doesnt exactly look like precum. It just looks like regular ole cum. Discuss.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.174.137 ( talk) 07:53, 17 August 2007
OK EVERYONE PLEASE SEE Wikipedia:Content disclaimer Blacksmith talk Editor Review 08:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The images in this article were hidden with the linkimage template, which, when used, causes images to be hidden with a text link, requiring readers to click the link to display the image. There is no reasonable rationale for hiding these images. See Penis, Foreskin, Vulva, Vagina, Clitoris, Labia, Labia majora, Labia minora. The linkimage template is not used in any of these articles. These body parts are clearly visible. Hiding the images that show a bodily fluid that is issued during sexual arousal is a form of censorship and it is inappropriate for Wikipedia. If the genitals can be shown when they are unaroused, why cannot they be shown while aroused? The genitals are acceptable, but sex is not? Ridiculous. 68.163.219.59 22:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
The reason i did not explain was that i assessed this as vandalism - i don't have to give a reason if i believe its vandalism and I gave a reason on yr talk page, which i would say in the first instance is an appropriate place for discussion. As for Bullying? Preposetrous, and definitely bad faith. One I have had no involvement in this page until last night when i was monitoring changes by unsigned IPs. Saw the warning not to change the image links, lengthy discussion on the talk page,given the attention pages like this get from vandal/trolls I have to make a fairly quick assessment about the nature of the edit. You seem quiet familiar with policy for an anon 3tmx 13:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't revert your changes because of any preference as to the content of the page nor am I attempting to 'strong arm' a particcular version of this page - it was becasue the template was ignored and no attempt of discussion made beforehand . In fact I resent the accusation of bullying as i made the revert in good faith. 3tmx 14:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
What if, as Lyrl said, we were to include the images inline, lower in the article? I support this idea. 68.163.219.59 20:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The linkimage template has been deleted ( Deletion discussion). What should we do with the images in this article? I see three options:
Others may have other ideas, too. Hopefully we'll come to a consensus fairly quickly. Lyrl Talk C 14:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The current description says that the fluid is both "secreted by the urethra" and "secreted by the Cowper's glands". I'm no expert on pre-ejaculate, so I don't know which one it is, but I sure don't think it's both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.30.217.108 ( talk) 00:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I came to read the article, but since I can't quickly collapse the two images of penises IN ANY WAY, I'm not going to read it. Before I go however let me just say: I'm an adult, over thirty, and have no problems with obscene images on Wikipedia. But the closeup of a penis as I'm trying to read text about a specific fluid? Give a guy a break, will ya? At least make it POSSIBLE to read the text. I seriously doubt anyone who comes here looking to read the text from beginning to end, as I did, will makes it through.
If nothing else, how about a "readibility link" (a la disambiguation links) that says "For a version of this article without images, click here:", so that after glancing at the images I can read the article without looking at a closeup of a penis.
It might be hard for you guys to see, but it's like reading a medical textbook with your roommate's dick hanging over it and onto the page. Not my cup of tea.
I cant really understand why you gentleman bother so much about the images, well actually for me is like seeing or reading a medicine book or wathching a TV show based on breast implants or something like that, have you ever see how they only cover the woman nipples and leave all the rest open to the view of everybody, well is very simple, the human body is like that, this is all about what we really are and what we actually do, please the pictures are very important, I remember when I was a teenager did not know nothing about all this and if I would have and image to explain me what it was it would be more clear, but as an adult now, I have to say that I dont really mind about seeing the images, it is not disgusting if you think that the human being is a sexual creature, morality and estetic are out of this matter, I will not feel bad showing my children the article to explain them about the human fluids and the risks of AIDS, seeing the things as natural as they are you will not find it so bad, at least that your opinion about sexuality would differ from the natural and simple points of view —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
190.241.57.206 (
talk)
06:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I changed the wording from "Studies have demonstrated the presence of HIV in pre-ejaculate" to "the pre-ejaculate of an infected person" because it seemed to imply that HIV was always present in the pre-ejaculate. I don't think anyone would think that it was, but still, it reads better that way.
86.14.41.79 ( talk) 05:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I've read this talk page, and there's a clear consensus that the graphic images are totally disgusting to most readers, and prevent people from reading the article. There is absolutely no justification for this. I can only suspect that whoever keeps reinstating the images is just having a bit of fun.
Personally I wasn't willing to read the article until I'd got rid of these pictures.
If any serious contributors feel strongly that these images provide useful information (I highly doubt this), they can upload them to wiki commons (if that hasn't been done already, I can't bring myself to check) and provide links to them.
Please do not revert this change - it's highly selfish to hi-jack an article for your own fun and games. People may genuinely need the information here, and firstly won't be able to open such a page in the workplace, and secondly don't want to be put off their dinner.
Be more considerate.
Palefire ( talk) 11:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The Pictures again.
Why do we need to see dicks along with the precum? This is not an exhibit for people's excesively lonely activities. Change pictures for more objective, scientific ones and seek mental help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.150.207 ( talk) 14:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the picture that was added yesterday. First, it did not add additional value to the article: watery pre-ejaculate and higher-flow pre-ejaculate are already pictured. Second, the photograph was not composed in a way that made the pre-ejaculate the focus of the picture. The two included photographs show only the end of the penis in focus, and the pre-e fluid takes up a significant portion of the photographs. The picture added yesterday shows both legs and the entire male genitalia in focus, and the pre-e fluid - in addition to taking up a comparatively tiny portion of the photo - is out of focus. Lyrl Talk C 23:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I recently uploaded three high-resolution pictures to Commons, in which I have tried to capture the nature of this fluid:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pre-ejaculate1.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pre-ejaculate2.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pre-ejaculate3.jpg
I have tried to be more artsy than pornographic, and I think I have succeded pretty well. Feel free to add any of them to the article: I won't do it myself, since such edits seem to be controversial. (And seeing that they are my pictures, it's only fair that someone else should judge their merit.) I would propose that one of the first two could be a leading picture. In particular Pre-ejaculate2.jpg is, in my humble opinion, of good quality, informative, and above all tasteful, and so would fit there. Pre-ejaculate3.jpg could be added to the gallery, and replace Precum1.JPG which is not very representative. (Honestly, that looks like semen to me.) -- Quaterego ( talk) 20:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Can't someone just draw it with ink? And really, an image is quite unnecessary as "clear, colorless, viscous fluid" describes it completely. Adding a dripping penis seems to be just an outlet for exhibitionists. Angry bee ( talk) 13:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I am just a regular old wikipedia user who basically never contributes. In my opinion there's no need for the picture. I was shocked by it. Not because it's pornographic: it may or may not be, I don't know, and I wouldn't really be shocked by pornography as such. There's just no need for a picture of an aroused, dripping penis in an encyclopedia. The article describes it fine. 68.52.132.98 ( talk) 15:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Surely those looking this up are quite familiar with anything graphical shown. Why browse for such a topic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.28.154.129 ( talk) 17:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
The picture is somewhat offensive, maybe it could be changed to something a little more scientific and less pornographic.
The picture really serves no purpose. shaddix 11:41, 01 January 2006
It clearly serves *a* purpose, which is to illustrate the topic of the article. However I do think the photograph is a bit jarring when included in-line. Perhaps a link to the image with a clear explanation would do the trick?
That seems fine, as long as it is not the same image. shaddix 9:30, 02 January 2006
There is nothing wrong with the original image. The license is good and the image clearly depicts the subject matter. I fail to see what makes the image "pornographic" except, perhaps, that the model has a well-developed physique. But that is not a reason to exclude an otherwise accurate and useful image.
I get really offended by all the moral fanatics pushing to eliminate all images that are sex-related. This picure is not pornographic, it clearly depicts the subject, which happens to be sexually related. The picture is perfectly suited to its context and is not gratuitous, or even arousing. It is not the job of an encyclopedia to censor its images for the purpose of placating a handful of fanatics. THe picture should remain on the web page, accesible as an accurate depicture of something for all who seek knolwedge about that thing.
The porn picture has to go. Young kids look stuff up on this site they dont need to see such graphic sexual images..GROSE!!!!!!!!!
its "gross" not "grose"
THIS picture is too much, i was taken back when i saw it, u cannot even see the preejaculate, it would at least be better to have a close up of only the head, then at least the picture would have something to do with the subject
^^^ he's right
~No, he's not right. You can see the secretion quite plainly. Its the clear goo oozing out of the meatus. One doesn't need to be Dr. Ruth to point it out. If there were an image of copius amounts of the stuff dripping down to the floor, that'd be considered vile by the same people pronouncing the current pic pornographic. Its really tragic that we've taken to censoring ourselves with mere accusations that something is "grosse" and hysteria about the chance that children might see something that some think they should not. There are other images of precum available (check google). Many of them are closeups that do not include a man's genitals protruding from a jock strap...a dead giveaway about hte image's pornographic origins. The truth is though that people aren't offended by the image's origins...they're offended by the image which, in its context, is totally non-pornographic and appropriate. It could be the most unsexy pic from a medical text, and they'd react similarly, because people are so hysterical about sex.
This is a sad day on wikipedia, when we find ourselves shutting off every image with accusations of "pornography", simply because the nature of the topic makes us uncomfortable.
Excellent, I'll just go add pictures of people taking a crap on each other on the coprophilia page. 21:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
About picture. I think it should have some kind of warning that content is for mature audiences only. 93.106.22.62 ( talk) 17:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Merriam Wesbter defines pronography as "the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement". This picture is not intended for sexual excitement, it is intended for information purposes only. Those who refer to information as "grose" are preoccupied with sex and porn. The fact that it is a link and not a picture on the page is enough of a warning. Children who go looking for gross pictures will indeed find it but those who use wikipedia as an encyclopedia(which it is) will find it if they need a visual guide. And anyways what kid who isn't looking for something gross would be looking up pre-ejaculation. All in all the picture should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.18.143 ( talk • contribs)
I was very shocked with the picture in this page. If we want to start depicting real pictures in the encyclopedia, then maybe we should start putting pictures for "Male/Female Ejaculation", "Masturbation", and "semen" ... They would be "accurate and useful images" woudn't they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.229.38.177 ( talk • contribs)
The picture to my mind is not a problem within the article 'Pre-ejaculate', but when come across as a result of redirection from Preseminal fluid - currently on the front page under AIDS. Those clicking on Pre-ejaculate are likely to expect a graphic representation, and so the image is fine; those clicking on Preseminal fluid may well not be familliar with the term and hence be offended at the image. Perhaps the image could be moved lower down the page so that users are aware of what article they are reading before being presented with the image. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rcrowdy ( talk • contribs) .
We so far have one person for the picture per edits (Circeus) one person for the picture but accepting of the link compromise (LizardWizard), one person against the picture but accepting of the link compromise (192.68.228.4), one person for moving the picture further down the article (RCrowdy) and one person for the link compromise (myself). I think the link is winning. Lyrl 02:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Profanity is a guideline, but as a policy, Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia:Content disclaimer clearly state:
and
I utterly fail to see how this image (certainly less offensive than, say, Image:Autofellatio 2.jpg or Image:Penis corrected.jpg) breaks any established policy. I think a point has been clearly made on this talk page that this image is, from past consensus,both clearly appropriate and not offensive to a majority of people. That is why I firmly believe it should stay, and would actually favor its inclusion in the lead paragraph. Circeus 02:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
{{linkimage|Cowper fluid penis drip head on.JPG|head}}
{{linkimage|Cowper fluid penis drip front.jpg|front}}
{{linkimage|Cowper fluid penis drip front close.JPG|close}}
{{linkimage|Cowper fluid penis drip side.jpg|side}}
I know you are having trouble deciding on the image usage for this article, so I've got a few non-erotic photographs showing the pre-ejaculate in a non-sexual context. I think these images do a good job of showing the anatomical function without being distracting. There are four to choose from. Here for your consideration. --
678901 21:43, 20 August 2006.
On the first paragraph, the last word inside the starting bracket was missing a closing bracket, I have edited this to include the closing bracket.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.175.232 ( talk) 10:11, 18 May 2006
While I think the image deserves a prominent place in the article, the reverting has to stop. It is counter-productive to consensus building. I think many of you are making good-faith efforts to discuss the issue here on the talk page. I also think that there is currently no consensus for either removing the image entirely nor having the image inline.
Circeus makes a good point, though. Wikipedia is not censored is policy, while Wikipedia:Profanity is only a guidline. I do worry about Circeus' statement that the image is, "both clearly appropriate and not offensive to a majority of people." It is not clearly appropriate. If it were, this discussion would not be taking place. As for a majority of people... I'd like to see where you got your statistics.
To sum up my rambling:
I really fail to see the problem with this image, it's not in itself erotic, pornographic or lewd, and seems appropriate. If this is an encyclopedia we must consider whether it will be helpful to those who access it; young boys may who are confused/ignorant/insecure about what is happening to their bodies are likely to find this reassuring. I cannot believe that this image will be the cause of prurient fascination; it's hardly centre fold stuff Gleng 07:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I really don't buy into the arguement that it is pornographic, however, the image is certainly jarring. I know 'jarring' isn't really a wikipolicy, but I see no reason why the image cannot be left as a link so that particularly squeemish people don't get an eyefull of precum, pun intented. It also seems like it be a good middle ground between those that want it deleted and those that want it kept. CaptainManacles 21:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
WP isn't a medical textbook, so readers should maybe have the choice of whether or not they want to see "lewd" photos when the image may be somewhat discretionary (as opposed to articles like vagina). -- Nectar 21:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Some lonely nerd made this picture in order to get a few jollies from posting explicit pictures of themselves in an "educational" fashion. I say go ahead and take another's advice and post pictures of people taking craps on each other on the coprophilia page. It's the same deal. Both are unnecessary - a textual description will do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.63.28 ( talk • contribs) 13:44, 2 December 2006
In the most recent discussion (this section) there are two people who want to delete the image altogether (first anon poster and Calbaer), and one person who supports inclusion of the picture but does not specify inline vs. link preference (second anon posteR). Calbaer also indicates his support for the compromise position of linking the picture. I fail to see how this could be interpreted as consensus to make the picture inline, as implied by JeffGent in his recent edit to the image.
To restate my own position (from many months ago), I support either a linkimage, or placement of the inline image at the bottom of the article, where it is unlikely to be the first thing to load. An image is fine, but having it be the very first thing one sees when coming to this article is something I oppose. There was opposition from both sides when I first proposed moving the image to the bottom of the article (people completely opposed to inline image, and people completely opposed to not having the image at the very top of the article), so the compromise of linkimage at the top of the article won out. Lyrl Talk C 23:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I have added a pic of a more viscious higher flow natural variation BigBoris 07:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm gonna replace that one that had barely any flow that was just an enlargement of the head with a better example. Yes it is my own penis and I am proud of it. Crowdedcar 22:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Lyrl! I thought it was okay to see, but I guess that's just because it is my own. I appreciate your help in fixing my picture. Crowdedcar 00:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I propose that, as originally added in this diff by 67.187.114.75 at 21:22 on 9 May 2006 (UTC) and reverted to many times since by many different editors, this image be inline. — Jeff G. 00:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Template:Linkimage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Jeff G. 22:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The second picture seemed fine to me, about the same level of palatability as the first. It also showed that there is variation in "normal". I don't see any reason to remove it, but a recent edit ( diff) said the picture needed to be discussed on the talk page. Lyrl Talk C 02:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a picture of a natural high flow variation of pre-ejaculate from bulbourethral (Cowper's)glands.
This is valid representation of a genetic variation in a natural human male population.
BigBoris
10:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Is it really that difficult to revert the occasional vandalism this page gets? It's nothing on the order of what condom gets, for example, and that page is only rarely semi-protected.
While the vandalism is annoying, constructive edits are also made by anonymous editors - such as the spelling correction just two days ago. I believe avoiding having to revert a few edits a month by anonymous users (I count four for the entire month of June) is not worth forgoing the constructive edits such users make. Lyrl Talk C 22:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I found it necessary to include here this testimony of mine about the use of this page, as there seems to be much problems about if to use the picture or not. First some background: 1. I am highly educated male with 30-40 years of age. 2. My native language is not English.
Some time ago I decide to find out what makes the liquid that under certain circumstances comes from my penis so slippery. I simply wanted to find the chemical composition for it. However, I did not know what that liquid is called in my native language or in English. The internet was the most easily available source, so I used it. But without exact word it was pretty difficult to find what you are looking for. After I found the English word pre-ejaculate in a rather fitting context, I guessed I was getting close. However, the word did not exist in my dictionary, so I needed to look more. I had no idea what the Cowper's glands were, so several places where I found some kind of explanations WITHOUT PICTURE, did not make me sure that I had the right word. But when I figured to check the word from Wikipedia I knew I got the right word. And I was really helped by the (original?) picture on the page, which was at the time directly seen as the page opened.
My point with this testimony is that the picture was really useful for me. Maybe my case is not the most common one, but anyway it is a case. After I knew the word and was sure it was right, getting my hands on the chemistry was not that difficult at all. So whatever you decide, please do not remove all the pictures or links to pictures from the page. Eeeerio 14:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, i am not saying the pic (i think its 2) is "GROSE!!". The only thing im saying is the fluid doesnt exactly look like precum. It just looks like regular ole cum. Discuss.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.174.137 ( talk) 07:53, 17 August 2007
OK EVERYONE PLEASE SEE Wikipedia:Content disclaimer Blacksmith talk Editor Review 08:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The images in this article were hidden with the linkimage template, which, when used, causes images to be hidden with a text link, requiring readers to click the link to display the image. There is no reasonable rationale for hiding these images. See Penis, Foreskin, Vulva, Vagina, Clitoris, Labia, Labia majora, Labia minora. The linkimage template is not used in any of these articles. These body parts are clearly visible. Hiding the images that show a bodily fluid that is issued during sexual arousal is a form of censorship and it is inappropriate for Wikipedia. If the genitals can be shown when they are unaroused, why cannot they be shown while aroused? The genitals are acceptable, but sex is not? Ridiculous. 68.163.219.59 22:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
The reason i did not explain was that i assessed this as vandalism - i don't have to give a reason if i believe its vandalism and I gave a reason on yr talk page, which i would say in the first instance is an appropriate place for discussion. As for Bullying? Preposetrous, and definitely bad faith. One I have had no involvement in this page until last night when i was monitoring changes by unsigned IPs. Saw the warning not to change the image links, lengthy discussion on the talk page,given the attention pages like this get from vandal/trolls I have to make a fairly quick assessment about the nature of the edit. You seem quiet familiar with policy for an anon 3tmx 13:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't revert your changes because of any preference as to the content of the page nor am I attempting to 'strong arm' a particcular version of this page - it was becasue the template was ignored and no attempt of discussion made beforehand . In fact I resent the accusation of bullying as i made the revert in good faith. 3tmx 14:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
What if, as Lyrl said, we were to include the images inline, lower in the article? I support this idea. 68.163.219.59 20:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The linkimage template has been deleted ( Deletion discussion). What should we do with the images in this article? I see three options:
Others may have other ideas, too. Hopefully we'll come to a consensus fairly quickly. Lyrl Talk C 14:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The current description says that the fluid is both "secreted by the urethra" and "secreted by the Cowper's glands". I'm no expert on pre-ejaculate, so I don't know which one it is, but I sure don't think it's both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.30.217.108 ( talk) 00:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I came to read the article, but since I can't quickly collapse the two images of penises IN ANY WAY, I'm not going to read it. Before I go however let me just say: I'm an adult, over thirty, and have no problems with obscene images on Wikipedia. But the closeup of a penis as I'm trying to read text about a specific fluid? Give a guy a break, will ya? At least make it POSSIBLE to read the text. I seriously doubt anyone who comes here looking to read the text from beginning to end, as I did, will makes it through.
If nothing else, how about a "readibility link" (a la disambiguation links) that says "For a version of this article without images, click here:", so that after glancing at the images I can read the article without looking at a closeup of a penis.
It might be hard for you guys to see, but it's like reading a medical textbook with your roommate's dick hanging over it and onto the page. Not my cup of tea.
I cant really understand why you gentleman bother so much about the images, well actually for me is like seeing or reading a medicine book or wathching a TV show based on breast implants or something like that, have you ever see how they only cover the woman nipples and leave all the rest open to the view of everybody, well is very simple, the human body is like that, this is all about what we really are and what we actually do, please the pictures are very important, I remember when I was a teenager did not know nothing about all this and if I would have and image to explain me what it was it would be more clear, but as an adult now, I have to say that I dont really mind about seeing the images, it is not disgusting if you think that the human being is a sexual creature, morality and estetic are out of this matter, I will not feel bad showing my children the article to explain them about the human fluids and the risks of AIDS, seeing the things as natural as they are you will not find it so bad, at least that your opinion about sexuality would differ from the natural and simple points of view —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
190.241.57.206 (
talk)
06:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I changed the wording from "Studies have demonstrated the presence of HIV in pre-ejaculate" to "the pre-ejaculate of an infected person" because it seemed to imply that HIV was always present in the pre-ejaculate. I don't think anyone would think that it was, but still, it reads better that way.
86.14.41.79 ( talk) 05:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I've read this talk page, and there's a clear consensus that the graphic images are totally disgusting to most readers, and prevent people from reading the article. There is absolutely no justification for this. I can only suspect that whoever keeps reinstating the images is just having a bit of fun.
Personally I wasn't willing to read the article until I'd got rid of these pictures.
If any serious contributors feel strongly that these images provide useful information (I highly doubt this), they can upload them to wiki commons (if that hasn't been done already, I can't bring myself to check) and provide links to them.
Please do not revert this change - it's highly selfish to hi-jack an article for your own fun and games. People may genuinely need the information here, and firstly won't be able to open such a page in the workplace, and secondly don't want to be put off their dinner.
Be more considerate.
Palefire ( talk) 11:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The Pictures again.
Why do we need to see dicks along with the precum? This is not an exhibit for people's excesively lonely activities. Change pictures for more objective, scientific ones and seek mental help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.150.207 ( talk) 14:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the picture that was added yesterday. First, it did not add additional value to the article: watery pre-ejaculate and higher-flow pre-ejaculate are already pictured. Second, the photograph was not composed in a way that made the pre-ejaculate the focus of the picture. The two included photographs show only the end of the penis in focus, and the pre-e fluid takes up a significant portion of the photographs. The picture added yesterday shows both legs and the entire male genitalia in focus, and the pre-e fluid - in addition to taking up a comparatively tiny portion of the photo - is out of focus. Lyrl Talk C 23:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I recently uploaded three high-resolution pictures to Commons, in which I have tried to capture the nature of this fluid:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pre-ejaculate1.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pre-ejaculate2.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pre-ejaculate3.jpg
I have tried to be more artsy than pornographic, and I think I have succeded pretty well. Feel free to add any of them to the article: I won't do it myself, since such edits seem to be controversial. (And seeing that they are my pictures, it's only fair that someone else should judge their merit.) I would propose that one of the first two could be a leading picture. In particular Pre-ejaculate2.jpg is, in my humble opinion, of good quality, informative, and above all tasteful, and so would fit there. Pre-ejaculate3.jpg could be added to the gallery, and replace Precum1.JPG which is not very representative. (Honestly, that looks like semen to me.) -- Quaterego ( talk) 20:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Can't someone just draw it with ink? And really, an image is quite unnecessary as "clear, colorless, viscous fluid" describes it completely. Adding a dripping penis seems to be just an outlet for exhibitionists. Angry bee ( talk) 13:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I am just a regular old wikipedia user who basically never contributes. In my opinion there's no need for the picture. I was shocked by it. Not because it's pornographic: it may or may not be, I don't know, and I wouldn't really be shocked by pornography as such. There's just no need for a picture of an aroused, dripping penis in an encyclopedia. The article describes it fine. 68.52.132.98 ( talk) 15:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Surely those looking this up are quite familiar with anything graphical shown. Why browse for such a topic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.28.154.129 ( talk) 17:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)