Talk:Scrotum

Question

What fills the area between the skin of the scrotum and the testes? Muscle? Lymph? Blood? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.250.226 (talk • contribs) 19:13, June 8, 2005 (UTC)

I dunno. But I got a pocketknife and duct tape if anyone has a little brother I can borrow. 68.97.208.123 13:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I belive you have just made Internet History --81.156.155.129 14:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Image:Scrotum.jpg

File:Scrotum.Jpg

Is this photo really necessary? I notice that there are very few photos on the female pages, such as clitoris (no photos), vulva (two text book photos), labia (no photos), vagina (text book again)... The diagram is plenty for an educational encyclopedia.

I suggest removing the photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EaZyZ99 (talk • contribs) 21:33, October 24, 2005 (UTC)

Just for ease of discussion, the image is Image:Scrotum.jpg. Please remember to sign your comments with ~~~~, thanks. It can be argued the image does accurately represent one testicle being lower than another, an important thing to show. But I couldn't care less if its done with a real photo, or illustration. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I suggest removing it as well...Chooserr 15:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why people keep trying to remove images from articles. A picture is worth a thousand words! Yes, some pictures are better than others and, like RoyBoy, I don't particularly care if the subject of the article is illustrated with a photograph or a drawing, but don't remove images without replacing them with something better. Simply removing an image for the sake of removing it is pointless and doesn't improve the article --Craig (t|c) 02:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

This picture is pornographic and unnecessary. I suggest a diagram to replace it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.221.209 (talk • contribs) 17:13, November 16, 2005 (UTC) (sockpuppet of EaZyZ99)

It is not intended to cause sexual excitement, and does not depict erotic behavior, so it is not pornography. See WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored_for_the_protection_of_minors Talk:Clitoris/Image_discussion and Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer. Indium 07:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The image is out of place and disgusting. There is really no need as it doesn't add anything to the article of importance. As far as the discussion about one testicle hanging lower than the other, a drawing or diagram would show that...and that really would be more useful on the testicles page, not the scrotum page. I still suggest removing the image. Will anybody second that? EaZyZ99 20:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I prefer the photo at the German scrotum page. Gilliamjf 05:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I also feel the photographs is unnecessary and too graphic. Though it is not pornographic, the diagram is educational enough as is. That photo is extraneous and ought to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.149.124 (talk • contribs) 14:04, December 16, 2005 (UTC)

per concensus, the photo will be removed as it does not add anything to the article that the diagram doesn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.221.209 (talk • contribs) 18:19, December 16, 2005 (UTC) (sockpuppet of EaZyZ99)

Discounting your sockpuppet vote and anonymous posts (which I have added signatures to above), there is no consensus to remove the image. I will restore it now, please do not remove it again until you have consensus. —Locke Cole 07:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

--------

I agree with Locke Cole and Craig and truely most people who have posted here (nto counting ghost-votes from one user ;)) about that the picture should stay. Looking at Eazy's contributions the last 100 have pretty much only had to do with removing material from articles about intimate parts of the body. As cited earlyer Wikipedias policy is not to remove slighly explicit pictures if they have an ilustrating educational value.

I think that a great deal of the readers of this article are people in their pubertity interested in if they are "normal" (atleast that's the feeling i remember from when i was in that age), actually it would be good to have a table of many pictures so that the natural variation would be visible. Maybe the picture could be behind a link?

otherwise i see notthing wrong with the picture, it is of quite high resolution etc. 22:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

---

My observations are as follows:

• Technically, it is not a very good photo. It is poorly lit, and the subject is confused (eg, it includes too much of the legs, etc.)
• This article is about "scrotum", not "human scrotum," and I suspect we could find better free pictures if we look for them.
• That being said, unless and until we actually find a better picture, it is absolutely inappropriate to remove this one. It's the best we've got right now. If the picture offends you, too bad. Grow a thicker skin, or go find an encyclopedia to edit that is censored for the protection of minors, because this one isn't. Nandesuka 13:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Regards, Nandesuka 13:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Why not link it like the image on Autofellatio? I wouldn't want to bump into photographs without asking for them if I was researching this area, it's an image of a man's scrotum, after all. Biology teachers don't undress when they're lecturing about human reproduction, do they? (Apart from John Cleese, that is) Obli 19:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

By reading the page, you asked for the image. If you opened a paper encyclopedia to an article on "scrotum," you would expect to see a photograph or diagram (or at least, would not be surprised if you did). Nandesuka 02:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought about this and reviewed other genital pages, and decided that the image does belong, and inline too. Note that I strongly oppose the autofellatio image on the grounds that it is unnecessary and derived. Scrotum is the part itself and deserves an image. Things like autofellatio are just very simple actions involving parts that have their own articles and images, so images for such actions are needless and unencyclopedic. The scrotum image here is different.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 05:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• Yeah, you'd open an encyclopedia expecting to see a DIAGRAM, not an image of some guy's nads hanging there with his hairy legs. Come on, get real. It's not needed at all.--EaZyZ99 19:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)EaZyZ99
  • Given your frequent attempts to add Image:MSVag2.JPG to Vulva, your comment is disingenuous at best. tregoweth 22:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Well maybe not the standard home encyclopedia (allthough i would not be revolted in any way if it was there also), but a medical dictionary or some other more thorough information source on the subject in question might very well be prone to have a photograph or something. I can remember there being somewhat "explicit" pictures aready in school textbooks also. After all That's what this article is about, the scrotum, and the guy in the picture clearly has one, it being hairy is totally natural. I just can't get what you are lurking at. 82.203.174.251 02:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

also ps. your standard home encyclopedia might very well be censored to protect minors, wikipedia isn't.