Talk:Glans penis/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Calling an intact penis "un-circumcised penis" is a bias

Calling an intact penis "un-circumcised" is a bias. Un-circumcised implies that:

• Circumcised is the natural/default condition, which is wrong
• Therefor the intact penis is the unnatural/secondary condition, which is wrong and an inversion of truth
• The intact penis has not been circumcised yet but should be or will be, which is a POV

These are POVs and systemic bias (probably from generic circumcision in the United States, creating a bias about the normality of being "cut" and the abnormality of being "un-cut"). The neutral precise term for an intact penis is intact penis. Definition of the word intact: not altered; whole; untouched; complete. --89.226.117.72 (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually the reverse is true: calling an uncircumcised penis "intact" is biased and against WP:NPOV. See discussions on this further up this page. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Right. I'd also like to add that there are 52,500 pages using the term "unambiguous" on wikipedia.org. According to your (89...) arguments, that implies that ambiguity is the default/natural condition, that unambiguous is unnatural, and that unambiguous statements are not ambiguous yet but should or will be. I think it is self-evident that such arguments are nonsensical. The prefix "un-" means "not", no more, no less. The word "uncircumcised" means "not circumcised", and the implications you list cannot be found in any dictionary. Jakew (talk) 09:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong. dictionary reference "uncircumcised: 2. not Jewish; gentile. 3. heathen; unregenerate." Do you need a definition of heathen and unregenerate? Other dictionaries defining the word "un-circumcised" as "heathen", "not purified": [1] [2]. King James Dictionary defines it as "want of circumcision". This word is a negative POV and an insult. --89.226.117.72 (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I note with interest that you omit sense 1: "not circumcised." This is an article about a part of the penis. It is not about religion or purification, so it should be obvious that those senses do not apply. Jakew (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It's the first definition but one of many. This word has an insulting connotation attached to it. The proper term for intact is intact, which is a neutral word.--89.226.117.72 (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It's the only definition that applies in context. "Intact" is both non-neutral (in the sense of "constituting the undiminished entirety; lacking nothing essential especially not damaged") and imprecise (is an uncircumcised penis with a piercing intact in the sense of "not altered"?). Jakew (talk) 07:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

How are these meanings of intact non-neutral? Are the intact penises pictured in this article "diminished entirely", are they "lacking something essential" and "damaged"? No. Are they pierced, altered, tattooed? No. The word intact totally applies to them and is a neutral description of them (which is not the case with the word un-circumcised and its negative meanings and connotations).--89.226.117.72 (talk) 08:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Some people think the foreskin is essential, and that circumcised penises are damaged, but others disagree. Using language favouring the former belief is non-neutral. Jakew (talk) 08:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

And yet, no one asked to call circumcised penises "un-intact" and "damaged". You are the one using a non-neutral word on the "other type" because of your subjective views. What you say about using a language favouring a belief is totally what you do when you call something intact "un-circumcised".--89.226.117.72 (talk) 08:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not necessary to call circumcised penises "damaged". Consider describing white children as "evolved" as in: "comparisons of black children and evolved children show that...". It's clearly non-neutral (to put it mildly) because of the implication that black children are not evolved, even though that isn't stated explicitly. Jakew (talk) 08:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

In your example, you can also describe black children as evolved. The fact that you can't describe a circumcised penis as intact is not a matter of words but a matter of objective reality. You don't want to call intact penises intact, because you think it will show that circumcised penises are not intact. The question is simple, for you: is a circumcised penis intact? [3] --89.226.117.72 (talk) 09:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that a circumcised penis is intact in some senses of the word, yes. For example, I'd say that it is intact in the senses of "uninjured", "undefiled", and "not damaged". In the sense of "not altered", of course, it isn't intact. But this is missing the point, I fear. Jakew (talk) 09:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The first definition in a mainstream dictionary such as the OED, Chambers, and Wiktionary is always the primary literal meaning. In all three of these dictionaries we find that the first definition of "uncircumcised" is "not circumcised". The other definitions are metaphoric and do not belong on this article about a point of mammalian anatomy. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The three dictionaries you cited, OED, Chambers, and even Wiktionary all note the negative connotations "heathen", "not purified", ""archaic", "irreligious". These negative insulting connotations are attached to this word, this is a fact. Pretending this word is neutral is an obvious lie.--89.226.117.72 (talk) 08:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Amusingly, you seem to have misread the dictionary. "Uncircumcised" does not mean "archaic". "irreligious or heathen" is listed as an archaic sense of the word. And, as noted, in the context of an anatomy article, nobody capable of reading English at a sufficient level to understand an encyclopaedia article would interpret terms in a religious or otherwise non-anatomical sense. Jakew (talk) 08:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

These connotations are still attached to this word, and many understand it that way. And about these meanings, only the OED categorize them as archaic.--89.226.117.72 (talk) 08:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge

AFAICT, both Glans penis and Glans are referring to the same thing. I recommend they be merged. But whoever merges them, please take care not to exclude information from one or the other. I've seen far too many merges where it seems like one page is just blanked and turned into a redirect, and nothing from it was added to the retained article. Merging another article to yours is not an excuse to just delete everyone else's contributions. It would be better to retain the all the content from the redirected article, and then remove the redundant info as separate actions. That way there's a clear history of what was there/what has been removed.--71.105.214.225 (talk) 01:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there's considerable overlap, and something needs to be done. There is some ambiguity, since "glans" by itself can refer to either the glans penis or glans clitoridis. There might be a case for making "glans" a disambiguation page. On the other hand, if "glans" usually refers to the glans penis, a disambiguation page is probably unnecessary. Jakew (talk) 09:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The articles Glans penis and Glans do not refer to the exact same thing. Glans is the correct term for both the male and female version, with structural and functional differences between the sexes. It must be made clear to readers that the term "glans" is proper for both the clitoris and penis and that Glans penis and clitoral glans are divisions of Glans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owlnest (talk • contribs)

oppose merge; as stated above "glans" & "glans penis" ARE NOT synonymous. there is an important difference, & "glans" merits at the very least a "disambiguation plus" page of its own.

Lx 121 (talk) 08:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed changes

I would like to propose a few changes. The topic of circumcision should be a "see also" not part of this article. The numerous other Wikipedia articles on circumcision cover this subject. In addition, the Morris/Waskett "study" isn't really a study. It's more of a propaganda piece by two non-MDs pushing a point of view. Furthermore, that "study" has numerous flaws and logical errors. Morris & Waskett are not reliable sources, they are not medical researchers, and they are not held in any sort of esteem in the scientific or medical communities. In fact, Morris has been discredited by his Australian contemporaries on numerous occasions. Also, Morris/Waskett have a conflict of interest as they run a pro-circumcision propaganda website. Crimsoncorvid (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to justify removing all circumcision-related in-article content because the sources do indeed mention it.

But, regarding your request to remove Morris & Waskett,  Done Zad68 00:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

"See also" link to circumcision article still absent--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 04:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

That is because it is wikilinked directly from within article content. Per Wikipedia's Manual of Style, "'See also' section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body." Zad68 04:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Soft and Gentle Probing Reduces Resistance

    I believe that an evolutionary change could serve more than one adaptive function, and that therefore, I do not imply that other contributors are wrong.
    Without recorded references, and without demeaning any other theory, I suggest that the glans' form evolved to increase the pleasure experienced by the female during the "start" of intercourse, when the glans meets the labia and vulva. In this theory, the soft and gentle glans causes gentle flexing of the pre-vaginal parts, including tugging on the clitoral hood.  The key word for the female is "gentle". The pleasure from this flexing helps the female to relax her vaginal muscles and accept complete entry of the penis which, of course, would enhance the likelihood of pregnancy.  Also, with a more pleasurable experience in memory, the female is more likely to welcome and encourage intercourse at later times. 

  With this theory in mind, before love-making the male can plan for continuous, superior flexing of the vulva and tugging on the clitoral hood throughout intercourse.   In preparation, he cuts pieces of foam rubber to fit into finger cots; then he uses fine medical tape to attach the filled cots to the sides of his erect penis.  Foam rubber and the glans flex in a similar way.  

  In this way, the thrusting penis does not merely slip past the labia and clitoris.  It gently and continuously pushes and tugs on both.   The effect might be enhanced --- or at least the male might be amused --- if the female knows nothing about the advance preparation. 

  The germ of this idea came to me about a decade ago from one paragraph in the novel THE RED TENT.  FYI: THE RED TENT appeals to women more than to men.

    In 2005 I sent a description of my idea, along with a finger cot with foam rubber inserted, to three male acquaintances. One man stopped communication right then. Another man ridiculed my idea. But the third man wrote back, "Maybe you are on to something."

    I believe that the third man does not think as I do, but that he is quite comfortable with talking about sex in mixed company. My guess is that one or more women told him of possibilities.

    Also, if this idea were to catch on -- which I do not expect -- then a urologist could develop permanent inserts or attachments to eliminate the need for finger cots.

    Furthermore, the concept could be applied to strap-ons for lesbians.  The cost of strap-ons would increase, but there are wealthy lesbians.    PoRusskii (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Other animals

The article's lead section (in its present state) is misleading: it implies that the glans penis only occurs in humans. However, it is present in many other mammals as well. Jarble (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. The page is unprotected. 124.148.212.42 (talk) 11:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Antxvz

Under "Medical considerations," this article solely focuses on a potential complication that results from circumcision. It ignores the well-documented health benefits of circumcision, which include the prevention of certain forms of cancer and sexually transmitted diseases such as AIDS. The scientific basis for these health benfits is so definitive that infant circumcision is promoted by the World Health Organization and the American Academy of Pediatrics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antxvz (talk • contribs)

Latest edits

I removed the alleged theory that the shape aims at maximising pleasure because it had no sources and is inconstistent with scientific evidence from the latest 50 years https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8c09xz-La0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.81.130 (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm reverting this edit, for three reasons:

• First, Wikipedia is not suitable for use as a source, as WP:V#Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it makes clear.
• Second, the source cited in support of the claim that Morris is a circumcision advocate makes no reference to the 2007 publication (unsurprisingly, as it was published the year before). To avoid original synthesis, you would need a source discussing Morris' alleged circumcision advocacy in the context of that publication.
• Third, the obvious effect of characterising authors in such a way is to poison the well, which is incompatible with WP:NPOV. Even if it were done consistently, labelling Sorrells et al as circumcision opponents, and noting that their study was funded by NOCIRC, it would still be inadvisable. To do so inconsistently is obviously unacceptable. Jakew (talk) 09:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Penis Glans: Removal

Due to the rare instance of cancer, or other issues, what would be the purpose of glans removal only? Leaving the rest of the penis intact. What effect on the patient would be experienced? Examples of side effects of surgery involving removal of the glans could include urination, obtaining and maintaining an erection, obtaining an orgasm, ejaculation. How much may some psychological effects hinge on how much of the penis is left after surgery? (Burdzzo2 19:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)).

After remove glane can re grow Geetgauri (talk) 10:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Content based on 1947 paper

Content was added here and restored here about possible complications of circumcision, based on a 1947 paper. Per WP:MEDDATE we don't use references that old for content about health. I will also note that our article on Circumcision, which is closely watched, doesn't mention this at all. I looked at the recent reviews about complications of circumcision that are cited there, and this is either not mentioned or described as being very rare. It is therefore entirely UNDUE here. Jytdog (talk) 22:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes definitely way to old. Good removal Jyt. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• Anat09IMG 0034.jpg (discussion)
• Glans Penis of A Human.jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Homology

I deleted the statement that the glans was homologous with the glans clitoris but this was reverted without reference. This claim of homology between these parts of the male and female body is very common however it is incorrect. While the penis and the clitoris are homologous the glans of both are not. The glans penis is the distal end of the corpus spongiosum extending beyond the corpus cavernosa. The glans clitoris on the other hand is the distal end of the corpus cavernosa not the corpus spongiosum. In the female the corpus spongiosum is like the corpus cavernosa in two equal parts each side of the body, meeting distally in the midline far from the glans. See Grays Anatomy referred to in the article. They are therefore not homologous structures. Tyreric (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Tyreric, we go by what WP:Reliable sources state. In the case of anatomy content, we go by WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. As is clear by this 2011 "Practical Urology: Essential Principles and Practice" source, from Springer Science & Business Media, page 67, "The glans penis is homologous to the clitoral glans, the corpora cavernosa are homologous to the body of the clitoris and the corpus spongiosum is homologous to the vestibular bulbs beneath the labia minora." There are no reliable sources, WP:WEDRS-compliant or otherwise, that state that the clitoral glans and penile glans are not homologous. And even if there were, they would be outlier sources and we would still give our WP:Due weight to the usual description that the clitoral glans and penile glans are homologous. We'd treat those outlier sources as WP:Fringe. Anyway, anatomy and medical sources are very clear that the clitoral glans and penile glans are homologous and why. We do not go by our own original research; see WP:Original research. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Rephrase needed?

This is confusing here: Some researchers have suggested that the glans has evolved to become acorn, mushroom or cone shaped so that during copulation it acts as a semen-removal device in the vagina of previous sex partners. It looks like saying it won't remove semen from a man's present sexual partner, and might mislead readers into thinking it aids contraception. A clarifying rephrase would be in orderCloptonson (talk) 09:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I adjusted it. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)