RationalWiki's 2020 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2021.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $3500Goal: $3500

Talk:Penis

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
"A fertile genitalia being linked to a fertile creative imagination, it is speculated that J. S. Bach had 23 children because his organ had no stops." —[1]

Uh, I don't get it. Would someone help me out here? Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 00:53, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Which part don't you get? He almost managed to have a child in every key! ħumanUser talk:Human 00:57, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Language quirks[edit]

Why is it that we use an "applicator", but we never "applicate" anything? Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 00:09, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

The verb form is "apply". But how is this relevant? 138.16.21.199 (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Ideas.[edit]

Well, I hate to say it... but one of the biggest fields of woo which we don't cover on RW is what I'd call, "Penis Woo." All of that spam, the penis pumps and the questionable pills. I'm reluctant to start it, though, as I imagine it'd end up being filled with bad jokes and be more snark and than useful content. With it being very on mission, do you think we could do a decent article on that stuff? DalekEXTERMINATE 02:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Bad jokes and snark are not incompatible with useful content, as long as we do deliver useful content. Given the generally ridiculous obsession with hypermasculinity that weenie woo entails, I'm all for producing a laceratingly snarky yet informative article. EVDebs (talk) 06:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The art of penis waving[edit]

"Religion is like a penis. It's okay to have one. But it's not okay to whip it out and wave it around in public." Why not? What's wrong with public nudity? TK (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

"Religion is like a penis. It's fine to have one. It's fine to be proud of it. But please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around. And PLEASE don't try to shove it down my children's throats. "
That's the version I heard.--Dumpling (talk) 03:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Average Penis Size[edit]

This article claims that half of all men have below average penis length. This assumes that penis length has a symmetric probability distribution. Is there any evidence for this? — Unsigned, by: Trymers / talk / contribs

While I do not claim any expertise when it comes to statistics, I think I can parse this out for your. If average= those at the median, then it would follow that half of the bifurcated population would be above average and its mirror group would be below. 06:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC) C®ackeЯ
Well mean, median, mode are all deferentially effected by skew, but Trymers is correct that a skewed enough distribution can change the percentages that fall above and below a mean. In other words, mean is highly sensitive to outliers. Tmtoulouse (talk) 06:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Nope. Assumes normal distribution.Tielec01 (talk) 06:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

We're citing a 1996 article in a urology journal, which makes it a hassle to check how the average was calculated. Surely there must be an online source we can cite. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 09:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The drive-by-poster is actually pretty close to the mark, there are obvious severe methodological problems with almost every study into penis size, and the extant studies tend to point to non-normal distributions. If you do assume normal distributions, take the conservative mean and SD statistics (probably still an overestimation) then calculate the probabilities you can see how unlikely it is that anyone ever in the existence of the world has a penis above 9 inches, but allegedly people do, so perhaps size is non-normal. Tielec01 (talk) 09:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Mission[edit]

This doesn't seem very mission-related, and there's already an article about penis enlargement.--Krejtalk 01:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I've heard from users here that our primary demographic is male basement dwellers. Seems pretty on mission for that. –Inquisitor Sasha 01:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Isnt that cute, no.--MikallakiM 01:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Like many articles, this could be quite mission and useful, but as written - it's just not. maybe we make a sub set called "shitty articles that some day someone might somehow think could do something useful".  ;-) since there is already a penis enlargement page, and we have tons of other articles on men where the rare important issues about penis (like circumcision) go, i think we should junk this guy.Green mowse.pngGodot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 20:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Agree (mostly) with WfG. aspects of this are covered in other articles. The only on-mission bit is about size, and men's constant worries about "is it too small." If that's not on-mission, delete. If it is, move to penis size. SophieWilderModerator 20:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
That part is very very on mission. I just assumed it was *in* the penis size article. i don't know if it's bunk that women "like big men" or not, but it sure is a woo inducing idea. :-)Green mowse.pngGodot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 23:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • hi, I'm new here and not looking to edit, just wanted to say this is one of the most wonderfully written things I have ever read. Extraodinarily dry humour. Me gusta. 74.15.64.242 (talk) 02:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

This article was fun and smart back in about 2008. Now it is a bunch of crap and a dumping ground for poorly written anti-religion screeds. Kill it with fire! ħumanUser talk:Human 02:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that its missionworthiness is questionable at best. We already have an article on penis enlargement, and nothing in this article as it is written makes it worth keeping. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 10:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Links[edit]

Over 80 pages link here. PLEASE check this stuff before deleting a page, people. These links either need removing/fixing as appropriate, or the page should be restored, possibly as a fork or redirect to something else (dunno what). ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)