File talk:Ejaculation educational ani short.gif

  Muss das sein in einer für Kinder jederzeit abrufbaren Enzyklopädie? Wenn ich könnte, würde ich es verbieten! — 以上未签名的留言是由该用户加入的： Tom666 (留言 • 贡献) 13:20, 25. Okt. 2008 (UTC)

Was ist daran so schlimm? Das ist die normalste Sache auf der ganzen Welt.

In der Hinsicht, dass dieser Artikel ggf. von Kindern zu didaktischen Zwecken verwendet wird, ist diese Sequenz natürlich ein Teil der didaktischen Funktion des Artikels. --KenanSulayman (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Das ist reine Pornographie, keine Didaktik!

I'm not from Germany, but know enough to understand the above.. I agree, I really think this is pornography rather than an educational animation. Any legitimate online encyclopedia would not show this. There would be an illustration, or an animated illustration. Showing a real random person cumming in this article is EXTREMELY UNPROFESSIONAL!!! It's kind of messed up. This NEEDS to be removed. I'm not some prude, I just think it's wrong and inappropriate to have this here. What if like some 10 year old girl or boy stumbles across this page? They shouldn't be seeing this, and although I'm not a lawyer I would say it's borderline, if not completely, illegal for them to see it. This needs to be examined immediately, and replaced with a more appropriate illustration or animated illustration. The guy who uploaded it simply is getting a thrill out of the exhibitionism, and that's the only reason he did it.

---

What nonsense. How is an animated illustration inherently more "professional" than an animated photo sequence? Define "legitimate online encyclopedia". While you are at it, define "prude" and then explain how you are not one. If a 10 year old boy or girl (to use your completely arbitrary example) "stumbles across" this page (explain how THAT's going to happen!) then they will probably learn what it looks like for a human male to ejaculate. (Hint: That probably gives you a clue about how they "stumbled across" the page...) Why should they be actively prevented from knowing this? Do you think they will somehow be harmed by this knowledge? And that the harm will be greater than if they'd seen an illustration? Clearly you are not a lawyer, so perhaps it's safest for you not to make comments about the legality of viewing this sequence. Meanwhile, your assumptions about the motives of the uploader are baseless and unwarranted. I can imagine countless ways this sequence could have been made in a LESS objective / illustrative / sterile / "professional" way (dare I say "tasteful"), but not many ways it could be improved.

OK... maybe I'm being a bit harsh, but seriously... calm down and try to be objective about this. No need for hysterics. -- 12 May 2009

In my humble opinion this sequence is clearly pornographic (to be honest and to show that I am not of a prudish nature - I jerked off myself twice whilst whatching this beautiful ejaculating cock) but also educational at the same time. However the amount of semen makes the animation a candidate for the Guiness book of records. 212.27.185.253 12:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's stick to facts rather than opinion.

One person that viewed it obtained sexual stimulation from viewing it. Is it education or pornography? Difficult to say. Some people get off to looking at National Geographic. I would say that it depends on the intent of the man posting it. It's impossible to state fact about that without communicating with him.

I am a woman with a very healthy sexual appetite, and I did NOT stumble across this page by accident. That concept is ridiculous.

This guy is in a state of full sexual arousal (the hard fact can be seen) and moreover he is having an orgasm - these are the facts. And I can also confirm the fact that I do not get off by simply looking at National Geographic This extremely graphic (and esthetic) image has the power to arouse other human beings - hence it is also clearly pornographic. 212.27.185.253

Bitte schaut euch doch mal diese Sequenz an:

.. mir ist dieses gif im Internet begegnet und zeigt meines Erachtens die gleiche Person: http://rapidshare.de/files/47090812/1142497986643.gif.html hab ich Recht? Wie sollte man darauf reagieren?

Quelle ist offline

This gif has been in use for many years. It is in line with Wikipedia policy and standards. The only reason to object to it is personal attitudes towards normal bodily functions. The gif's legitimacy should not be in question. How the gif is used in a given article is what matters. In my view, the gif should not be deleted. BigBearLovesPanda (留言) 02:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Educational or misleading?

In my experience at least my human males don't ejaculate nearly as much volume of semen as this gif portrays. Maybe a little misleading to the young people who stumble across it (since the people above seem to care so much about these young people)?

The endless loop may not be strictly necessary, and make it seem like it's more than it is. Though it is a pretty impressive volume, in my experience it seems like it's in line with what most young men can produce given a few days recovery, and following prolonged stimulation of perhaps 40-60 minutes. -- 66.216.235.124 22:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

What's really misleading is that your average guy can't just stand there and shoot like that without a little help. 70.153.97.41 18:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

That is a great deal of semen. Looks good.

The gif has been in use on one form or another for many years. It is not the gif that is illegitimate but the way it may be used in a given article. This particular image does not purport yo represent a regular 5ml ejaculation. It is clearly an example of hyperspermia and just because it and its derivatives are used in other articles should not have any bearing on the legitimacy of the gif itself. I support keeping the gif BigBearLovesPanda (留言) 02:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

What value does it add?

I don't think this is appropiate for all public, I underestand many people are fine with their 6 year old girls/boys looking at this, but it has to be also tolerantly underestood that many people wouldn't want their 6 year olds doing so.

Also, from an educational perspective, what value does it add to show an actual video/picture like this? in any case if whoever is studying ejaculation wants to see one they can google any porn video in seconds.

i say leave it it's just the reproductive part of a male that makes a guy or girl want to suck it!

The gif has been in use on one form or another for many years. It is not the gif that is illegitimate but the way it may be used in a given article. This particular image does not purport yo represent a regular 5ml ejaculation. It is clearly an example of hyperspermia and just because it and its derivatives are used in other articles should not have any bearing on the legitimacy of the gif itself. I support keeping the gif BigBearLovesPanda (留言) 02:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

your image is good

Well,em, that's really a beautiful dick and perfect shots,but I think,for the educational purpose,there should be a commentary under this image or just make a video to tell everybody that this is ejaculation and how to do on ours dick can have this affect or other things.If you just shoot,only adults can know how it works,but a 13-year-old boy will not,maybe that he will think his penis is sick because your dick's powerful shots. Don't think it is a porn thing.

@above: i think youre right. this is way too much and way too white. probably nutritional supplement or spinach. 84.119.45.13 23:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)--

Cums and cums again!!!!!!!

Block Image

This is vandalism

I think it would be much more appropriate for a young person wanting to learn more about the human body and sex to see this video, than go to a porn site on the web.

This is factual and non-pornographic. It only shows what human male ejaculation looks like and consists of. It does not show two persons engaged in sex. This is about as simple as you can get and still show what ejaculation consists of. This footage does not even contain masturbation.

I am sure many of the older viewers (like me) only wish they had had good, educational sites to go to when they were young, rather than those silly, cut-away drawings that made absolutely no sense.

98.87.6.36 22:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The gif has been in use on one form or another for many years. It is not the gif that is illegitimate but the way it may be used in a given article. This particular image does not purport to represent a regular 5ml ejaculation. It is clearly an example of hyperspermia and just because it and its derivatives are used in other articles should not have any bearing on the legitimacy of the gif itself. I support keeping the gif BigBearLovesPanda (留言) 02:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

The last time the image was nominated for deletion was more than a decade ago. I'll it's not currently a problem Trade (留言) 02:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

what gif is this? i cant find a working link to it 2600:1700:5022:7070:1C68:D68E:6ACE:5D5B 01:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)