Talk:Semen/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

antidepressant properties

A user on reddit pointed this out, and gave me permission to post it here. Might be usefull

The wikipedia article cites several sources as the rationale behind semen's antidepressive qualities.

The first citation is a blog post referencing a gallup study done in 2002 with 293 participants. (Not very convincing science, not to mention the fact that even the researchers themselves admitted to lack of certitude.)

The second citation is a New Scientist article referring to the same study.

The third citation is a book by one Judith Sachs, with the dubious title of "Nature's Prozac: Natural Ways to Achieve Peak Mental and Emotional Health". Very Oprah'ish.

The fourth citation is a scribd excerpt that also has the following piece of scientific excellence: "Most of female criminals and arrogant school principals (Many principals are nuns) are found devoid of sex." It speaks for itself.

And the fifth citation is a secure link to the already-mentioned Gallup article.

So, in conclusion, all of these claims that are at least partly credible are based on one study that had few participants and did not take into account the actual relationship status and emotional state of participating women.

Hope it helps, El sjaako (talk) 12:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Creepy glowing black semen image by RichieX

I deleted this because (1) it doesn't look like semen with those weird iradescent black edges and odd black lumps of sperm caused by the lighting and shadows. I've seen enough semen in real life & porn to know that it's not BLACK and SHINY. That's just not normal. If anyone wants to see cum, they can google any porno site - and see a normalass picture of it. This was the most bizarre picture of semen I have ever seen. The fact that RicheX is apparently a pube-less exhibitionist, based on his contributions to wikipedia, didn't help matters... but that's not the sole reason I deleted it (and believe it just should remain deleted.). Frankly, I'd much rather see cum spattered across a woman's face in this article than the black, glowing balls of semen that were in this picture. That would be far less disturbing. Thank you Angelatomato 13:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

In this picture, the semen sits upon a black fabric, which wets and darkens it and shows through the transparent contents of ejaculate, and makes the light reflection on this wet substance stand out. It is not black, it is not glowing, and it's not disturbing if you know a little bit about semen composition and understand how wetness darkens colors and reflects light. But for these optical tricks brought on by the environment, it is not a very good example picture. -- AvatarMN 22:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it is important to have a picture of human semen on this page because it demonstrates the subject matter in a way relevant to the readers (humans). Pilotbob 03:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is important to have a picture. But we don't need a poor quality photograph like this one from a terrible source. The image should be removed until a more suitable one can replace it, preferably one showing semen in a lab setting so it can be viewed in an academic manner instead of being sloppily displayed smeared on a piece of furniture. --12.170.26.98 10:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

We do need a different photo. I don't care who it comes from or anything, I just think that semen in a person's palm or on flat piece of glass would be a better picture instead of a pic that makes it look like its glowing. Asarelah 04:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This is disgusting, I don't want to see that stuff it is gross. This article is subpar! Eric DiDio (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User Richiex is a wikipedia exhibitionist, whose ejaculate is in the photograph, part 2

OH COME ON PEOPLE!! MY FRIENDS AND I HAVE BEING JOKING ABOUT THIS PAGE FOR NEARLY A YEAR! I HONESTLY CANNOT BELIEVE THIS PICTURE STILL HASN'T BEEN DELETED!!! 09/11/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.8.123 (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This rather important topic was taken off this page and not archived for some unknown reason, so I thought to continue it here to advance discussion of it. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Richiex User RichieX is a troll, who as evidenced by his contributions page, has taken photographs of his own naked body in a variety of graphic images, very likely to troll wikipedia for exhibitionist reasons. Several of his pictures were nominated for deletion by wikicommons, he doesn't have an actual userpage meaning that in spite of his "contributions" he wasn't particularly interested in feedback or being a part of the wikipedia community with regards to discussion over said contributions. The image of his ejaculate that is now on the page is a cropped version of a photo which previously included part of the man's genitals in the picture. The bottom line is that there are a trillion better-quality photographs of semen readily available via a mere google image search that could suffice in the stead of a low-quality image that takes the idea of "original research" ridiculously too far, and why the image even needs to be up there at all given its quality/nature is a mystery. --68.111.70.104 22:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Took picture off. Movietrailer 00:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Not archived? It's the very first discussion on the January archive.Prometheus^-X303- 09:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I feel that this image is more suitable for an Ejaculation subject, and should be removed until a more clinical image can be found. This is clearly not in context with the rest of the article, and not a very professional photograph. Movietrailer 11:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This is an old discussion, that has been rehashed many times, (See archives). See the discussion further below reegarding the current consensus. Removing the image is against that consensus. If you have tried to remove the image eight times in three days, and been reverted every time that is a sign that your opinion to remove the image is against consensus. If you read WP:3RR it says "Editors may still be blocked even if they haven't made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behaviour is clearly disruptive." and "The bottom line: use common sense, and don't participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting multiple times, discuss the matter with other editors. If an action really needs reverting that much, somebody else will probably do it — and that will serve the vital purpose of showing that the community at large is in agreement over which course of action is preferable." Atom 15:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Removing the image isn't against consensus. "Consensus" was only achieved because vocal critics eventually stopped paying attention to the controversy because of your bias towards keeping the pic and infuriating and insulting behavior as a senior editor. <spetz>.71.187.179.213 20:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed the logs several times and I still fail to see this "consensus" you keep talking about. A minority of editors such as yourself seem intent on keeping the image here for whatever strange reason that I cannot fathom. Most of the posts by users have been against the image for generally the same reasons. --66.75.238.69 11:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This discussion should focus on the content,not the editor who added it. It seems completely plausible that even a notorious exhibitionist can sometimes make useful contributions. Interestingstuffadder 19:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

How is this a useful contribution then? It is an ugly image that was created by a user photographing his own ejaculate. Congratulations, we now have an image that is a mocking point undermining the credibility of wikipedia as a resource. --66.75.238.69 11:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I Agree. Richiex is a exhibitionist, the picture should be deleted because someone could be offended. (My english is bad) (Spanish: Estoy de acuerdo, Richiex es un exibicionista y la imagen debería ser borrada porque alguien podría ofenderse) Berfito 22:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. if a user does a search for "Semen", they should not be shocked to come across an image of it. --John T. Folden 03:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not watching "semen", it is how it is presented. The photo is already a running joke on The Register mocking User-Generated content. The photo itself shows without any explanation required, that this was morbidly ejaculated (why isn't it shown, say, in a test tube?) 148.244.43.169 01:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

What's morbid is the controversy such a simple image produces among a select few. I fail to see how a picture of a test tube would be more clear than a clear image of the item in question itself. --John T. Folden 04:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

A test tube or petri dish photo WOULD be a clearer image than a bad photo taken of spunk on someone's sofa. --64.58.148.66 09:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

A petri dish might work fine, provided there's a dark background. A test tube would not. Feel free to submit a pic. --John T. Folden 00:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what the huge problem is. The image might be bit unprofessional, with the semen just on a couch or whatever that cloth is, but if a user uploads a pic of his semen in something like a petri dish as mentioned above... what is the problem with that? Exhibitionist or not, it's still human semen. You don't have to be in a laboratory to jack off. 66.190.142.200 (talk) 01:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think I have a petri dish somewhere around here. I may come back to this article later. Wink, wink. 66.190.142.200 (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Addition to Cultural Aspects

I added some information to the "martial arts" section regarding Chinese culture and semen.

Good. I think we need more information added to this section, for instance hyppocrates shared aristotle's view on the subject of semen retention. DRAGOMIROV 04:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

could you add please la:Eiaculatum, thank you

Could you add please la:Eiaculatum, thank you--85.1.75.238 21:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

done -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion from November 2006-January 2007

What happened to the discussion from that period. Why is it not archived? 24.248.9.162 04:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea, but the discussion over the disgusting image that exhibitionist troll user RichieX put up of his own semen can still be read in them. Hopefully eventually the image will be taken off permanently, since I have yet to see one credible argument as to why low-quality content created by a user trolling wikipedia with pictures of his penis should be included anywhere on wikipedia except in a humorous parody article. --68.111.70.104 13:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Of what I read, only two people wanted to keep that image up. How is that a consensus? 24.248.9.162 03:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Feature Picture

Make sure to vote for the picture of human semen as a featured picture at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Semen ChicagoPizzaYumm 22:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC) This does not appear to be a valid link.

:Image:Semen2.jpg

The image was deleted without following any process by user:Danny. Atom 15:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Not out of process, a user can delete images on sight if they believe that they are of no use to Wikipedia, pose no value, are illegal, and a large amount of other things. Cbrown1023 15:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

No, that is not true. We have a deletion process, including a speedy delete process. That process was not followed. Whether the image is of no value, or illegal is a matter of perspective and discussion. In this case, clearly neither was the case. It does not violate 2237, as it is not a sex act, there are not even any people in the image. After months of discussion by dozens of people to come to consensus on the use of the image in the semen article, including a compromise to place it lower in the article, it would be hard to argue that it is not used, or of no value. Atom 15:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the image; we'll see what happens next.

Could someone please summarize the previous discussion at the top of this talk page?

Fred-Chess 16:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I see that the image is back on the commons site, but not appearing on the Wikipedia semen article? Perhaps the image name on Wikipedia is salt'ed? It does not seem to be on the MediaWiki:Bad image list. Atom 16:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be visible now. Thanks, to whomever, Atom 20:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

"By dozens of people?" Last I checked, the comments in support by two or three people is not "dozens." 24.248.9.162 20:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Please look at the archives. Dozens is more accurate than two or three. This debate has been going on for about a year and some consensus seemed to have been arrived at after a lengthy process of discussion, with many arguments on both sides. Interestingstuffadder 20:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it looks to me like a number of people have participated at one time or another. If you mean did all of them vote for the recent consensus? Consensus is not normally by vote. Obviously for the past month it has been quiet, and people have been satisfied with the compromise moving the image lower in article. We all would like if we could find a good image to replace the current one. Until then it seems to be a compromise acceptance.

Here are the people that I have seen discuss the issue in the past year or so: Atom, Prometheus, zzuuzz, Johntex, Scix, The Linguist, Slickshoes3234, Trevor H, Tim1988, Interestingstuffadder, Yourebustedyo, carlb, Daniel Olsen, walot, 67.23.140.120, CerealBabyMilk, Darksun, Zero1328, Nycmstar, Erielhonan, PHDrillSergeant, 134.225.12.50, Andrew 8754, Offensiveandconfusing, 209.172.240.254, BanyanTree, 66.75.238.69, 72.76.248.151, 68.5.45.126, 66.212.48.76, Fallom, 128.220.159.42, 24.58.14.1, Ronnierosenthal, MMad, Quadzilla99, 66.167.202.101, Rockules318, 24.243.60.29, Robb0995, Kirvett, 204.90.50.252, 75.3.204.100, 24.58.14.1, Pymkinkin, Rlcuda, 68.44.192.170, ckules318, 68.5.45.126. Each offered opinions, and discussed.

Here are the people who actively edited the article since 3 december when the compromise to move the semen image to the middle of the article was made. (That is to say editors, rather than lurkers): Kirvett, Robb0995, Obacoomb, Uriel8, Zzuuzz, Atomaton, PrometheusX303, BanyanTree, SchmuckyTheCat, Erielhonan, KenFehling, Danny Yee, Salad Days, and Wafulz. Since the compromise, the image has been removed against consensus, without discussion three times, and was replaced back on the page by one of the editors above.

In all of January, it has not be removed even once.

We have a consensus, and actively or passively, all of these people are supporting it. If we leave things as they are, then it should remain quiet. If someone decided to move the image to lede position, it would start a war on consensus anew.Atom 20:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is locked from new or unregistered users altering it (otherwise I would have done so myself) and regardless of how many people feel strongly against it, a minority (which appears to be the case here) can still re-edit and restore something all they like until intervention is made. Additionally, the people you've gone back and looked for to support are still small in number compared to those against it. You're making an argument for consensus based on very faulty reasoning indeed, Atom. I would also add that many have tried and grown frustrated with the antics of users like yourself, who effectively have stonewalled this discussion in a manner worthy of being dubbed one of the many "lamest edit wars" of wikipedia. This image is an embarrassment to wikipedia, and users like yourself using such disingenuous tactics over something as ridiculous as a user-created image of their own bodily fluids are an embarrassment as well. --68.111.70.104 14:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please provide some evidence for your claims about a "minority" "stonewalling". When I look back at the discussion, it does not seem at all clear that an overwhelming majority has opposed this picture. Also, your majority/minority reasoning itself is faulty. Wikipedia operates by reasoned consensus, not majority votes (see WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY). Moreover, many of the voices opposing this photo have said things along the lines of "that's gross", which is certainly not a valid wikipedia rationale. Interestingstuffadder 14:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for a good explanation. I can see your perspective well, and how you view things. I hear you saying that a series of anon IP's and a few Wikipedia users have one opinion, and a handfull of editors have an opposing opinion. The reason that the article is protected against anon edit is because a series of random people who aren't familiar with Wikipedia policies or our community culture remove an image that they think is pornographic. They often aren't personally offended (some are) but they think that the image is someone's vandalism, or not appropriate because children might see it, or that all explicit images must be contrary to an encyclopedia. (They have a variety of well meaning reasons). In your case, you could register, which would give you more anonymity, in a way, than the IP address, and participate in building this article in a few days. If you don't want to go to that level of effort, then you are probably the kind of anon that we don't want to edit the article, because someone who feels that way probably is not aware of Wikipedia policies that we do censor, and have not read the content disclaimer that warns ALL users "Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers." And also don't know about WP:AGF or WP:CON and WP:CIV.

There is a mindset, not universally shared, but common, that there are a set of people who actually contribute to an article by improving it with citeable, verifiable information relevant to the topic, add pictures, offering editing and layout enhancements, etc. The contributing editors, even when they have very different perspectives, work together, and usually hash out differences of opinions to make the article better. Then there are a set of people who "drive-by" the article, have not participated in the discussions (as you obviously are) but just cut out whatever they disagree with in the article (for political, religious, philisophical reasons). Or, in the rare case, they criticize on the talk page, but don't contribute. These contributing editors, with differing opinions, tend to feel a sense of ownership and protection of the article. After spending dozens of hours to finely tune the article, and discuss in depth issues related to the quality of the article with other contributing editors (which includes listening to the drive-by participants) they resent when someone who has never even seen the article before decided to make some large edit that undoes their hard work and efforts to find consensus with others. You view these contributing editors, in this article, as a handful of people acting against a mass of dissent, when they view themselves as hard working participants that have tried hard to work together to build an article, and protect it against an uniformed mass of well-meaning vandals. Atom 15:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

In that case I will be registering to remove the image. This has gone on long enough. --68.111.70.104 21:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The picture is a disgrace, makes me sick.

>>It's images like this that makes wikipedia a joke. Please, the picture of the bottle of horse semen is good enough. If you're gonna post a picture of human's semen, have the semen be in a cup or tube...

I am going to quite deliberately butt in here without reading the archived debate and just state that this picture is utterly pointless and expendable, in my opinion. And as BBF3 would say, "I left it at that". Lfh 21:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

After reading a bit of the discussion, it seems that the concensus is that the picture, although relevant, is in no way medical or scientific. As pointed out, a simple Google image search would give over 40,000 pictures of semen, in both scientific and pornographic settings. After sifting through the first page in the name of sceintific integrity (ew...), I found that a few of those are obviously more medical in nature than the splotch on Wikipedia's page. Why not leave the horse picture on and remove this pointless pic? SivArt 06:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added another pic of human semen in a condon, a typical collection device. Also added the pics in a gallery format to aid with the visual layout of the article BigBoris 23:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

BigBoris, how does that picture add to the article? Also, you claim that the semen was produced during intercourse. It could have been just as easily (if not more easily) produced by masturbation.

I don't think that the original picture was removed for a good reason, even if it did become famous on the internet. People looking at this article probably want to see human semen, not horse semen. Bare in mind that female virgins who have never seen the stuff probably want to know what it looks like before they will in most cases be inevitably impregnated with the stuff will read this page accordingly. I don't think it should be in a test tube, but perhaps an unphased individual could wank onto something less suggestible than a bit of carpet to finally settle this. Perhaps a sheet of glass, photographed in front of a non-suggestively coloured background. I ain't putting pictures of my own semen up, but I'm sure there's people out there who are less timid than I could help out here. Any unembarassed masterbaters up for the "challenge"?

TfD nomination of Template:Linkimage

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. (talk|contribs) 23:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I just jacked off on my coffee table and am submitting the subsequent photo to Britannica for consideration in their upcoming edition. The picture up right now is ridiculous and makes this place look like an unprofessional, perverted junk show. Show some class and delete this picture immediately.

Excuse me....

Why on earth is there an a picture of semen on a pair of pants? I'm not against having a picture, just something a LITTLE bit more classy please! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.163.120.175 (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Pants, huh? I always thought it was a curtain or a couch. It looks too taut to me to be a pair of pants. Salad Days 22:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I always thought it was the Statue of Liberty. 87.112.84.60 15:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That picture lacks class alright.83.233.58.55 21:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Why slugs?

It seems completely random that slugs are mentioned near the start of this article. It could equally read that "Semen is ... secreted by ... male or hermaphroditic animals, including badgers" or "...wombats" or whatever. I guess what is meant is that slugs are examples of hermaphrodites but that is not what the text actually says, and is irrelevent in an article on semen anyway.80.229.220.14 02:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect information?

This website disagrees with the information provided on the table. http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/menshealth/facts/semenandsperm.htm

April 2, 2007 12:29 AM EST —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.91.217.2 (talk) 04:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

2 Things 04/29/2007

First off, the first paragraph should be re-done, possibly broken into more parts. Someone else had added a discussion thread about the weird inclusion of slugs - and he's right. It just doesn't make any sense.

The picture?! I mean, what the hell? I'm not for censorship, but the picture looks like the end result of a high-school sense of humor and a digital camera. I'm not sure about the merits of the horse-retrieval device at the top, but at least it appears to be some pseudo-professional application. If I can find one, would anybody object to my replacing the current "stain" photo with one of, say, semen in a Petri dish? How about any container that might have been built with collecting bodily fluids in mind? I don't know how this has sneaked under the radar for so long, but this screams prank.

Lastly, and this is a minor point, the section on "Composition" has a brief mention of the flavor of semen. Is this necessary under the banner of academic pursuit? As always, your comments are welcome.--Legomancer 07:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd happily trade both current pictures for something clearly visible in a Petri dish, or similar receptacle. I'm afraid I don't see a problem with the mention of smell or flavor, however. As 'distasteful' as that may be to some, it is applicable to certain mature acts out in the real world. I'm sure more than one person has wondered why it tastes like that and thanks to Wiki now they know.  :-) --John T. Folden 01:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. One person saying "Flavor" has academic value of any kind certainly allays my slight trepidation (yay thesaurus!).

My next goal as a human being is to find (or create) a picture of, uh,medical harvesting of semen.

I just want you people to know the lengths I go to. I post a good number of pictures, mostly anonymous, as a result of sending weird-sounding emails making requests. Just imagine what this raft of messages to trained medical professionals will read like... Just so as you know.  :)--Legomancer 01:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

As long as the Petri dish is against a dark background. The normal pale colours of, say, a lab, are a bit rubbish for showing what semen looks like. Vimescarrot 18:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Oooookay. I don't even want additional information on this. Most labs are slow to respond to my requests, to put it lightly. I'lll continue working and keep you posted.--Legomancer 01:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Semen cause blindness?

does semen cause blindness?--Spiderman3venom 02:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No. Semen is a natural bodily fluid. It can no more induce blindness than blood, or sweat, or urine. The old wives tale of masturbation causing blindness is completely baseless and was spread primarily to discourage said behavior. The consituents might cause some minor eye irriataion if introduced directly into the eye, but this would in no way be permanent. Hope that helps, --Legomancer 01:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This is original research so i wont add this to the article, but actually it causes considerable irritation, i wouldnt describe it as minor....certainly more irritating then say water...probably on par with a fairly strong soap. 58.105.184.125 22:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you, just trying to sound clinical. When I said, "Minor irritation" I meant temporary, and less painful than a soldering iron - you know, like when the doctor warns you of the "slight pinch" you'll feel during a spinal injection. A person's diet, general health, hydration level, exposure to chemicals and myriad other things affects what comes out of his body. You might have just been lucky enough to find someone with a PH level your eye found offensive. Disease awareness probably suggests you avoid contact with any bodily fluid, particularly in mucous membranes - but in the interest of science see if you can work out a few weeks worth of wildly varying diets and vitamins and come up with a less caustic solution. :) --Legomancer 03:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This has absolutely nothing to do with the article. If you want advice about sex, look elsewhere, it isn't hard to find information about the world's most loved subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HandGrenadePins (talk • contribs) 14:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"breeding purposes"

why is "breeding purposes" between quotation marks like it's some sort of euphemism, i mean, it's as if it's implying it's going to be consumed or used for something else. --AnYoNe! 22:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I had the same reaction to that edit, as well. Unless someone can explain it, I think it should be reverted. --John T. Folden 02:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion to the wiki-gods-that-be

These pages have directly material which should be referenced and added: Quotations from Aristotle about semen with references: Aristotle on Semen Quotations from Hippocrates with references: Hippocrates on Semen Democritus, Ancient Greek Philosopher: Democritus on Semen Claudius Galenus of Pergamum (131 - 201 AD) Ancient Greek physician and philosopher. His works on medicine & philosophy total 22 volumes.: Galen

Then there is the plethora of 19th century & 20th century doctors referenced on the site. I think that would make this page a lot better than having pictures of horse semen in a bottle. I do not think their ideas on the value of semen should preclude them from this site. It is not more scientific to be able to break down the constituents of semen without ascertaining it's value for health which was the concern of the previous era of doctors. As108 02:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Since there has been no comment in 2 weeks on my comment I am going to propose the following to be added to the article. I do not know if I should add it directly to the page, so I will use this as the staging area. If there are any objections kindly bring it to notice.--As108 00:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

2.2 Cultural Aspects

Aristotle wrote on the importance of semen as follows: "For Aristotle, semen is the residue derived from nourishment, that is of blood, that has been highly concocted to the optimum temperature and substance. This can only be emitted by the male as only the male, by nature of his very being, has the requisite heat to concoct blood into semen."¹

"Sperms are the excretion of our food, or to put it more clearly, as the most perfect component of our food"²

If men start to engage in sexual activity at too early an age... this will affect the growth of their bodies. Nourishment that would otherwise make the body grow is diverted to the production of semen. ... Aristotle is saying that at this stage the body is still growing; it is best for sexual activity to begin when its growth is 'no longer abundant', for when the body is more or less at full height, the transformation of nourishment into semen does not drain the body of needed material.³

Footnotes:

1. Salmon, J. B., Foxhall, L., (1998), Thinking Men: Masculinity and Its Self-representation in the Classical Tradition, (Routledge), pg 158

2. Sumathipala, A., Siribaddana, S.H., Bhugra, D., (2004), Culture-bound syndromes: the story of dhat syndrome. British Journal of Psychiatry. 184: 200-209, table 2

3. Aristotle & Kraut, Richard (1997), Politics, (Richard Kraut, trans.), Oxford University Press, pg 152 [1]

No one had anything to say, and I spent the time to learn some Wikipedia syntax so I added to main page As108 01:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Good job; mankind owes you one. Mikael Häggström 17:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

      Good. DRAGOMIROV 05:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

two session photo

Perhaps it should be said that he semen condom photo is "Two sessions worth of semen deposited in condom after sexual intercourse." (from the image-description page). Best, --24.63.210.237 15:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Nobody finds this worth noting on the edit-protected page? ... --24.63.210.237 20:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Human seminal plasma protein hypersensitivity (SPH)

I took out the following sentence: "The semen of a disease-free individual is harmless on the skin."

The human seminal plasma protein hypersensitivity (SPH) is similar to an allergy to semen, so it is possible, in rare cases, that a person may be allergic to semen. Because of this disorder, a person can become over sensitive anywhere on their integumentary system.

References:

• Go Ask Alice! - Columbia University's Health Q&A Internet Service (http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/0252.html)
• American Journal of Reproductive Immunology 52 (1), 42–44 - The Approach to Conception for Women with Seminal Plasma Protein Hypersensitivity (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1600-0897.2004.00180.x)
• Allergy and Asthma Proceedings, Volume 25, Number 4, July-August 2004 , pp. 261-262(2) (Localized Seminal Plasma Protein Hypersensitivity)

— Enigma55 ^{(talk • email) 00:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)}

reduces a strong stomach aches

Also uncommon to belief semen also reduces a strong stomach aches, pains and sometimes Nauisia. Most people have not realized this but recent studies by Brown U. have descovered proof of these occurences.

ANTI-DEPRESSION: okay, so my comment kinda has to do with the above "claim" - "semen cures anti-depression." seriously?! is that even NECESSARY? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.165.40.166 (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Semen in Espionage

Okay, can someone please enlighten me as to how on Earth the claim of semen making "good invisible ink" is relevant to the purpose of this article. Pastel kitten (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It's entertaining - and referenced! What more do you want? 71.110.135.133 (talk) 05:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I loved that section, even funnier with the surname of the one who discovered that... Relevance? Well, obviously it's documented in the history books and have to do with semen. — Northgrove 01:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see a better reference for this. I'll admit I did remove the section too hastily, but it appears to be similar to the "inventor of the toilet" urban legend.TheKhakinator (talk) 09:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Semen

Hi! I have a question:
I have a picture of semen under UV-light. But I can't put it into the article. So please could anybody do it for me??

Image:Sperma unter UV-Licht und ohne UV-Licht (Semen with and without Ultraviolet).JPG|thumb|Semen und UV

--Daffman1408 (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. I added it to the Semen in popular culture section. --Auric (talk) 03:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Taste of Semen

Given the popularity of oral sex, I'm surprised there is no discussuion on the taste of semen. Why not??

This is a page for discussing the article, not the subject itself. If there was a section in the article treating about the taste of semen as a relevant information for the reader, it would've been appropriate to discuss parts of the text here in order to make edits on unwanted information. But discussing the taste itself is not an appropriate topic here and I suggest it would be removed from the talk page. 65.92.22.144 (talk) 08:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

203.2.218.145 (talk) 03:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, having taken part in snowballing, it does have a very unique taste, I think there should be an article on it, if not, I might prepare to right something up.--General kaiden (talk) 05:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleting inappropriate image

Since no one else has bothered to do so, I'm deleting the recently added [Image:SemenInCondom.jpg] as being inappropriate. A picture of human sperm semen in a petri dish would be one thing, but in a used condom, no. Heck, it's not even a normal amount: the description on the image's source page specifically says "Two sessions worth of semen deposited in condom after sexual intercourse." Clearly an image added here merely for the exhibitionist value. There are lots of xxx sites where the poster can post stuff like this and get his jollies, but WP ain't one of them, IMHO. Textorus (talk) 02:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. See WP:NOTCENSORED. If you have a better picture, go ahead and put it up, but don't delete a perfectly relevant picture just because you find it distasteful. Furthermore, your accusations of exhibitionism against whoever put it there are uncalled for. You have have no way of knowing his motivations. Asarelah (talk) 04:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

And you do know his motivations? Censorship is not the issue here, Asarelah, appropriateness is. Wikipedia is not a porn site, it's an encyclopedia. There is a difference. But do what you please, this user DGAF. Textorus (talk) 04:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Porn is supposed to be sexually arousing. There is nothing arousing about a used condom. I do not his motives, but I am giving him the benefit of the doubt. Asarelah (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest to replace the amatorial Image:semen2.jpg with the better looking and more encyclopedic Image:Human semen in petri dish.jpg. 88.149.245.182 (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I kind of object to the appearance of the Semen2 pic, even though I am usually anti-censorship (and I have read Wikipedia's policies on this, so I know it's not grounds in itself to remove the image). I just cannot imagine any other encyclopaedia in the world using such an image to illustrate its article on semen. Then again, maybe it's right that we should be pioneering explicit illustration. After all, most people will identify that pic as better representing semen than the one in the Petri dish, just from their own experiences. My concern with Image:Human semen in petri dish.jpg too is that the colour is so off, because of the surface it has been photographed against. It makes the semen look orange, whereas Image:Semen2.jpg is a much more realistic-looking appearance. That's why it still has a place here, though I think we should be aiming to replace both of them with a single better picture. leevclarke (talk) 04:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. This has nothing to do with censoring Wikipedia, this has entirely to do with removing a completely irrelevant image, the sole imaginable purpose of which is that the producer (no pun intended) wants to demonstrate to the world at least two things: (1) he can produce sperm, and (2) he doesn't know that you're not supposed to reuse condoms. I'd be willing to bet a paycheck that the semen in that condom is (1) not the result of sexual intercourse (contrary to what the caption and image description say) and, if it's not watered out or in some other way adulterated, (2) at least part of it has been in the guy's refrigerator or freezer. In long, there is nothing useful that can be learned from this image except that (1) its producer is an exhibitionist and (2) he's white. The image should not only be removed from the article, it should be removed from Wikimedia altogether, unless someone wants to put it into a new article on Immaturity, exhibitionism, lying, and unsafe sex practices. Cheers, Tomer^talk 02:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see the history of the article, and archives of the talk page. That image has debated many times before, its bad points and good points. Removing an image without discussing it and gaining consensus, on this article anyway, it not appropriate. We would have no imagaes otherwise. I respect your opinion of the many hypotheticsl origins and motivstions of that image, but that really isn't relevant. Atom (talk) 19:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Semen

Hello

I have a very "odd" question to ask. My best friend and her boyfriend have alot of oral sex and she has stated that his semen taste like blood. What would cause this? He did use to drink alot of beer, what alcohol cause this to happen? Please advise. Thank you very much for your help Sincerely, (Profplutoid (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC))ProfPlutoid

Alcohol certainly can make semen taste bad, but as for tasting of blood specifically, it could be a burst blood vessel. This can be caused during the force of ejaculation, and is not necessarily a problem. Is there any visible redness in the appearance of the semen? leevclarke (talk) 04:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talkpages are not advice fora or chatboards. Please use this venue to discuss the article at hand. Tomer^talk 02:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point, sorry.  :-$ leevclarke (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

How many is too many?

How many pictures of human semen does this article need? It seems as if it's suffering the same problem that the penis article used to suffer -- people, who are proud of their own deed, taking pictures of their genetals/semen and posting them on Wikipedia for the world to see.

One picture demonstrating what human semen looks like, and PERHAPS the picture demonstrating what horse semen looks like, should be sufficient. The other photos are redundant, and add nothing of value whatsoever to the article other than demonstrating the exhibitionist tendencies of the people who posted them.

Oye oye. Tomer^talk 02:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I vote to keep the dish photo and the horse photo, and get rid of the photo of the semen on the cloth. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 02:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If we're voting, I'm inclined to agree. The petri dish is a bit sterile, but the cloth image is more appropriate for the Masculout article. Clearly, however, someone is highly enamored of the completely-unrelated-to-this-article two-spunks-in-a-rubber image, which is not only not appropriate for any existing (or imaginable future) article, but especially not to this one (and even more especially, not in the "composition of semen" section!)... Tomer^talk 03:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It was just an opinion --- we aren't voting. The images here each offer something unique to the article. We wouldn't want to remove any of these. Atom (talk) 04:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand what's going on here. Tomer^talk 13:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to be uncivil. You should assume good faith wp:AGF. I regularly monitor nearly 500 sexology and sexuality articles, and have watched this one for some time. Every now and then someone like yourself notices the article, decides that they are offrended, and tries to remove one or more images without prior consensus. The image that you have repeadetld removed has been in the article for a couple of years now. it is a perfectly good image and illustrates vsaluable information. I saw your earlier comments about wanting to reduce the number of images, but in general, we want to continue to find MORE images that a relevant to articles. We don't need a great deal of redundancy, but a new image that offers new information is alway welcome. We have no need to reduce the images in this article, as there are only four images, and they each offer something unique. The placement of the image you have removed wasw discussed in the past, and placed there by a consensu of editors at the time. I respect your desire to remove images that you find offense from Wikipedia, but this would be the wrong article for that. I read your earlier post, and respect your opinion on the matter, but I don't feel that your opinion overides long time consensus on the article. There is nothing obscene or offensive in this article, it is about semen. Removing the images without gaining consensus first is not desired, please don't remove the images again. Atom (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

My saying you clearly don't understand what's going on here was neither uncivil [sic] nor an assumption of poor faith...it is a statement of opinion. Let me state it as a fact this time: If you know what's going on here, you're intentionally acting like you don't. Nobody has said anything about reducing the number of images in the article, except by removing poorly chosen images. A crappy image does not improve the quality of any article, even one in which the image is relevant (which is not the case here). Nor have we said the image is offensive. The image serves no constructive purpose in this article. In what way are you arguing that it is relevant to the subject of "Semen", especially to its makeup (the subject of the section you're so enamored of keeping the image in)? Your consensus arguments don't follow any school of logic of which I'm aware, since the rest of what you say indicates that there never has been any consensus. Please clarify what value you see in the image, and how the value you see in the image is related to the article at hand and failing that, propose an article in which this image might be more appropriate. Thanks, Tomer^talk 02:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Reasoning

I'm not following the reasoning for the following diff -- [2]. Please explain. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I monitor and watch primaily sexology and sexuality articles on Wikipedia, with about 500 articles in that area on my watch list. This area seems to get a high number of vandalisms, page blankings, and image removals. In this specific case, on the semen article, the editor wanting ro remove the images seems to have good intentions, I don't mean to imply bad faith. But, the images on that article have been there for some time. Those specific three images have existed on the article for more than a year with no issues, and no one wanting to remove them. Several of these images have been argued over and over for many years. An editor sees the article for the first time, feels offended for some reasons -- often expressing that the image is prurient, low quality or inappropriate -- reasoning I classify as rationalizing why the inage should be removed without saying that it offends them. A number of other editors, myself included, often need to discuss what the merits of the images are, sometimes they gto away, sometimes there is an edit war, and eventually the issue drops, until the next time.

In this case I see discussion along those lines on these images. The same arguments as before, stated differently, by a different person. All three images offer a unique and interesting view of the topic, helping someone who sees the article to better understand the topic. They aren't identical images.

As the images have been on the article and survived attempts to remove them before with a number of editos participating, I feel that they are defacto consensus images. I feel that one editor dropping into the article and removing the image violates the long standing consensus and risks yet another edit war just about an image. Certainly there are a range of opinions about the images, and many perceptions about what they think they see. The image in the petri dish was added when someone wanted to add a more clinical image. The problem with it, of course, is the coloration, and the orange color masks the coloration of the semen. The one on the fabric background is interesting in that is shows the texture and consistency of the semen better than any other image -- even if the pattern is a bit odd. The image of the horses penis and semen was added because someone wanted to only have animal semen but not human semen -- and we kept the image. The condom picture is interesting in that is shows the color and fluid consistrency of the semen better than any other image. Also, it gives an idea of the quantity of ejaculation (although one has to read the image to see that it is two ejaculations) but that is minor. Objections to the image because "one should not re-use condoms" is an example of the rationalizations that sime people use to try to remove something that they just don't personally prefer.

In general I am an advocate of more images over fewer images. When some new editor pops in and wants to remove the images, yet again, often with the same lame reasons form before, I'm prone to just putting them back. That often resolves the issue without an edit war. Atom (talk) 13:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If there are editors serious about discussing the images, yet again, from an objective perspective, I am fine with that. We can discuss it and build a new consensus. For the moment though, removal of the images against a long standing consensus by a single editor is not appropriate. If we have that discussion again, it should be based on the quality of the images available, what each image can offer for the article, etc. Arguments that there are too many images, or that we should not have human samples, or suppositions about the motivation of the person who submitted the image all seem to spurious. These current images have been in the article for more than a year without problems, there should be no immediacy to remove them. That is, I don't think anyting about the images presents urgency. I would like to keep the article stable without an image being removed every time a new editor sees the article for the first time. Atom (talk) 13:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a bit too much text for my weary eyes (I apologize, but the number of articles you watch is non of my concern and I would appreciate an attempt to stick to the question asked). The main problem with what I managed to skim over seems to be that you are asserting a "long standing consensus" (link please?). Another problem seems to be that there is really no value in statements like "an objective perspective" (see: WP:CIV) when dealing with established editors. You may have a different perspective on the article and believe some picture contribute while I on the other hand might have a different view and don't see the value in two images of human semen.

I'd apprecaite an explanation to why you believe there is an added value for an encyclopedia by adding a "semen on couch" image. If that explanation does not satisfy me, then I may try and explain why I disagree and if we fail to reach consensus, we can try dispute resolution. That is how Wikipedia works.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I noticed you half replied to this question, but I'd appreciate it if you bring it out (read: copy/paste) of the non relevant material.

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Like yourself, I am busy. I don't care to argue with you, or anyone else. I don't own the article, but I do protect it from drive by editing as well as vandalism. If you want to discuss the merits of changes that will improve the article, let's do that. You might consider focusing on the text first. The images have been here for more than a year without substantial uproar. Prior to that, there had been. The year with the images is a de facto consensus on the content. I have no problem with discussion and building a consensus on adding additional images, moving images around, or removing images if there is a discussion and a new consensus is formed. Drive by editing of the article where someone removes an image for unspecified images, without discussion will get reverted by me, and others watching the article immediately. Discussions (like yours) endeavoring to improve the quality of the article are great. Removing an image because you don't like the image, or your perception that is is poor quality, or that the original posted might have had sordid motivations isn't acceptable though. It is perfectly fine if you don't see the qualities of the images that others see, or if we view them differently. Atom (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Please,

1. Avoid uncivil suggestions. Stick to content, not editors alleged conduct (per "drive by editing") or understanding (per "an objective perspective").
2. Answer the above highlighted question. i.e. please provide an explanation to why you believe there is an added value for an encyclopedia by adding a "semen on couch" image.
3. Unless you have proof of a discussed consensus, stop mentioning it as fact - it is not a persuasive nor is it a legitimate argument for keeping the article in bad shape. The current situation where we have three images of human semen is just ridiculous.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC) clarify 00:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sir: I'll express myself as I please, thank you. The consequence of how I use my words will be my failure or success at communicating to others. I am obviously failing to communicate with you. This a talk page and its purpose is opinion as well as fact (in the context of the article). Which BTW your comments are not addressing. If you have advice to me on editing and etiquette, I invite you to express yourself freely on my talk page. Atom (talk) 09:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no doubts that I have failed to persuade you, as you have had no intention of being persuaded. Your opinion that the article is "in bad shape" is welcome, but just another opinion, and each of us editors contributing to this article have one. The history of the article and the talk page express many of those on this. I agree that the article could be improved, and nearly every article I contribute to, or for that matter on WIkipedia could be improved. Having contributed to a number of GA and FA's, I think I have a general idea of that process. Your process, which someone might characterize as "slash and burn" is not generally viewed as contributory. You could edit the text, add citations, and more to the point, contribute or locate images more to your liking if you are not satisfied with the current images. At one time this article had no images, and now it has four images. Each of the contributory, even if flawed in some way. Your view (which as I said has as much weight as any other editor) may be that no images are better than the existing one. My view (an apparently others in the past) has been that one flawed image was better than none, and then an additional image was better than just that one, et cetera, which is how we ended up here. As we do not have a gallery of 90+ images (as occured on the breast article at one time, our focus should be on improving the quality of the images, and not on delitionism and wasted time criticizing the writing and communication styles of other editors. You note I have not directed any energy at how improvements in your etiquette, writing and communication style could benefit us all, which I think fairly someone could do. As, again, I have tediously typed more than a sentence, I know most of this has been a wasted effort. Let me go on to a new section, and keep it brief. Atom (talk) 09:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you contribute to the article in a positive way please, rather than attacking others who don't share or agree with your opinions. As you are wasting my time, and I am apparently wasting yours, let's both find something more productive to do. Atom (talk) 09:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

For an encyclopaedic entry on this subject, only pictures taken in a scientific environment should be included. ephix (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. That does not echo Wikipedia policy, but is good advice for contributors to follow in the future. Also, as the images are in an encylopedia, they are by definition "encyclopedic". I think "clinical" or "scientific" are good things to strive for. When better, more clinical images are contributed, we should use them. Atom (talk) 09:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

While it is true that prior consensus supported the use of Image:Semen2.jpg, I have a strong impression there was a strong feeling of "until a more clinical image can be found." Image:Human semen in petri dish.jpg, which seems to have been uploaded after the lengthy discussions you're citing, seems to me to be a far more clinical image. I have the greatest sympathies for your prior efforts to keep an image on this article (I'm usually pretty high on the WP:NOTCENSORED horse, myself), but I frankly think this newer image is superior. There is consensus to have images on the article, but we're not obliged to keep every picture of human sperm, ever. It's crucial to remember that consensus can change to fit new circumstances. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, your recollection that the petri dish image was provided by someone who objected to the same image being discussed is accurate. And replacing this image with that one was indeed our intent. The petri dish image is more clinical, but it had/has the issue of orange coloration, distorting the color of the semen. For that reason the other image remained and the new image was only additional. I agree with all of your points regarding editorial discretion. From your words along side the other vocal editor it seems that we should have a survey and discuss in order to build a consensus for removal of the image. Atom (talk) 13:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Survey to gain consensus to remove an image

An editor has suggested a removal of the Image:Semen2.jpg. For various reasons he does not find the current image to be appropriate for the article. I am starting this survey to discuss opinions in an attempt to gain consensus to remove the image.

Feel free to state your position on the proposal to remove the lead image by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions. Comment period to end September 18 2008.

• Oppose The image has been in the article since August of 2006, when it replaced Image:Semen.jpg[3], a much poorer image. The image has been discussed numerous times before and continued to have consensus in the past. As a result of past discussion a new, more clinical, image was produced, now in the article Image:Human semen in petri dish.jpg. That was the intention but the new image was has a orange colored background that distorts the color of the semen, and so the original image (one being discussed) was kept as well. More importantly, I think that this image offers additional information that the clinical image. This image has its faults, no doubt. Some detractors have called it the result of a man masturbating onto a couch. This is the reason it was pretty much agreed that a more clinical image was desirable. Despite the attempt to attach negative imagery, the image has many good qualities. The color and consistency of semen, as well as an idea of what a normal ejaculation size and pattern may look like. Both absent in the other images. There is no reason that this image is essential to the article, but I think that an editor removing it because it is not as clinical as they would like is a bad reason. Atom (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment According to my own count, 5 editors have expressed agreement with removing some of the superfluous imagery just on the section above us (i.e. #How many is too many?). So, do we really need to open an RfC for this one?
  As a confidence building move, though, I've went ahead and improved the levels on the petri dish image so the background colors are not as problematic as in the original. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC) add 14:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Have a survey in order to gain consensus is standard procedure. I see no RFC on the matter at the moment. My rough count is that editors Jaakobou and Tomer have discussed removing this image. Recently editor Luna Santin gave no clear position, but expressed that it should be discussed, which is why we are discussing it. "It's crucial to remember that consensus can change to fit new circumstances." The purpose of the survey is to poll and to work together to find consensus instead of the endless bickering of a few people.

The problem with changing the image of the petri dish is, again, it was done without discussion or consensus. Removing images that have standing consensus on articles where there is frequent controversy is bad manners at the least. Taking a further look, the coloration on the new image you recommend seems artificial, as if it has been brightened. The orange background still distorts the coloration. I prefer the original, with its faults over a digitally enhanced artificial version. Atom (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Cultural aspects

I would like to rework the cultural aspects section. Input and ideas are solicited from anyone who has ideas about additional information and cultural perspective regarding the topic. Many cultures and religions, current and past have held semen as sacred, not just the few mentioned. Atom (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Change of lede image without discussion or consensus

I can appreciate that the editor (Jaakobou) who changed the lede image had the best of intentions, to try and improve the problems with the current image. The two problems with this are:

1. It is an image that has been in the article for some time, and changing it upsets a standing consensus. Changing the image wihtout even discussing it first is not appropriate. Citing WP:BOLD is not satisfactory justification for that.
2. The original image does have some color issues. Primarily the orange background distorts the color. But -- artificially modifying the color of the image changes it from an accurate representation to an innacurate one. Enlarging or cropping the image might be acceptable, but changing the color of the semen to something you find more pleasing or easy to see may appeal to you, but is not faithful to how it actually looked when the picture was taken. This is an encylopedia, not a sci-fi story.

Please desist in edit warring in order to push your image over the long time consensus. In previous sections I have sought to avoid conflict and to find consensus and you choose not to participate. Your disruption of an appropriate consensus process is not acceptable. Atom (talk) 03:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the change is being made with both discussion and consensus... – Luna Santin (talk) 03:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain yourself? The editor plainly says "As a confidence building move, though, I've went ahead and improved the levels on the petri dish image so the background colors are not as problematic as in the original." having changed the image before discussing it with anyone. His rationale on the edit summary were "please see WP:COMMON, WP:BOLD, WP:BURO)" probably not something that someone who was discussing and workign with others first would say? Also, the image that he had been discussing was the Image:Semen2.jpg, and not the Image:Human semen in petri dish.jpg that he altered and replaced. Could you tell me where the consensus for making an artificially colored version of the lede image was discussed, and exactly who he built conensus with before changing the lede image? It was not on the article talk page. Atom (talk) 03:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You named an objection to the image, and an editor made a move to address your concern in apparently good faith. Images are regularly edited for better color balance on Wikipedia without complaint. Consensus clearly supports the use of the petri dish image; if you'd rather we instead use the version you agree is inferior, I must admit I'm confused. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned an objection that I had and have to the lede image, in the context of the survey on removing the image Image:Semen2.jpg. There was at no time any discussion of changing the lede image. The discussion was about an entirely different image. Your description of his change is "edited for better color balance". My perspective was that in my opinion the orange background distorts the color of the semen. The problem is not that the semen should be different, but that the background should be neutral. That can't be fixed by "color balance", it is fixed by photographing the image on a neutral background. His editing did not remove the background, but rather, made it much brighter. And in the process the semen is changed from its natural color, to an almost white shade that clearly was not the color of the original as photographed. Atom (talk) 04:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I did say "for better color balance" and I'll happily stand by that, comparing the edited version with the original. To me it seems like you're offering conflicting arguments, first complaining about the coloring in the first image and then complaining about efforts to fix that problem. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did complain. I said that the orange background causes the color to not show accurately. It is the flaw in the image. It can't be fixed. The image offers value none the less. Did the other editor remove the orange background? Did he take another photo with a neutral background? No? I guess he did not address my complaint. He did change the color of the semen itself. Was the original the correct color? Well, not, as the orange background messes that up. Is the new color that was chosen better represent the true color? Well, we have no way of knowing that. The best guess we have is the original image, even with its faults. We do know that the altered color is fictitious and certainly incorrect. Atom (talk) 05:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, of course, you did not address the point that Jakkabou did not discuss the change first. He changed the lede in an act of WP:BOLD. He clearly did not buiuld any consensus for change if he did not even discuss it first. So you like the newer image better after being clor enhanced? That's fine, but don't suggest that the change was made as part of any consensus or agreement. Atom (talk) 05:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You're being rather obtuse. The above threads clearly demonstrate prior discussion from a variety of users. It appears the only user who objects to this change is, in fact, you. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You suggest that he acted in good faith, and I always start with someone by assuming good faith, and alter my perception based on their actions and behavior. Based on those criteria I no longer feel that assuming good faith is appropriate with that editor. I again point out the edit summary to indicate his state of mind at the time he changed it. "please see WP:COMMON, WP:BOLD, WP:BURO)" and in the context of no prior discussion. Please have the opinion that you like, but clearly his actions, as previously stated would be considered by most people to be more in the direction of disruptive, and less in the direction of consensus building. Atom (talk) 04:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I would hold that an editor impeding progress by holding out against obvious consensus is being more disruptive, but we may have to agree to disagree on that count. ;) – Luna Santin (talk) 04:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The image has been in the article for at least a year, untouched. That is the standing consensus. Attempts by one editor to change that image without building a new conssus violates the standing consensus. When two editors suggest changing it, it is more than just one person with a drive by edit, and attempts at a new consensus can be made to replace the standing consensus. As I started a survey respecting the view of those two editors in an attempt to build a new consensus towards their stated goal, that is called working to build a consensus, not "holding out against obvious consensus". Trying to change the standing consensus repeatedly is disruptive. Trying to discuss and mediate is not disruptive. If we allowed the article image to change every time an editor saw the article for the first time, we would have no stability. The image would change daily. That is why on articles where there is often conflict, changing the image without gaining conensus first is not appropriate. Also, I point out that two editors witrh a difference of opinion against one other editor is a majority, and not a consensus. Lastly, consider a broader context. Over a period of a year, 20-30 editors may contribute to this article. Over the narrow span of two or three days that the current changes have been attempted, those editors don;t view the article. Some check in every few months, of in a year. The consensus previously formed is not just about the three people who are active over that small timeframe, but respecting editors who will come into the article again months from now, and their previous consensus participation. Maybe I am not expressing clearly. Consider a more concrete example. In the article Pearl_necklace_(sexuality), which I have participated and monitored since its inception in 2006. A number of editors have participated over the life of the article. An image was placed and consensus was reached. Recently one editor decided to remove the image without discussing it with others. A normally very quiet article with few participants diasgreed, and so to build consensus they offered a survey to discuss the images deletion. Take a look at where that has gone in a few days. Talk:Pearl_necklace_(sexuality)#Image_Removal With something like 24 editors participating, and a variety of opinions and comments from others. Building consensus is not about two editors try to force a change on an article, but giving many people an opportunity to participate. That takes time. That process of protecting the standing consensus is not "holding out against obvious consensus", especially when we are talking about two editors who have never even contributed to the article in the past. Atom (talk) 05:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a variety of editors have contributed to past discussions; no, the current options were not available at the time most of those discussions took place; no, the majority of users participating in those past discussions did not indicate they would support the use of all images, forever; yes, the majority of users participating in those past discussions indicated a preference for a more clinical, encyclopedic image -- one which we now have. If you're going to pretend to speak for editors past, the least you could do is actually support what they were saying at the time. "This image has been here a long time" is not a reason unto itself, not as used in prior discussions, and certainly not if a clearly superior alternative is available and already present. First you suggest users who don't discuss every last aspect of a change are disruptive, and now you suggest users who "repeatedly" discuss changes are disruptive? A few days ago you boldly proclaimed this isn't a vote, and now you want us to vote. You can't have it both ways. This is a wiki: people are going to edit, articles are going to change over time. At best what you're practicing here is obstruction or apparent ownership of an article, since you seem to be suggesting users should be ignored completely unless they wrote half the article, and since it seems all changes must meet with your personal approval. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I'm not sure where ytou ar coming from. I have said since the very beginning that consensus should dominate, discussed consensus over and over, asked for a survey (not a vote) to start a consensus communication process, and recommended and complimented you in starting the RFC (which I was in the process of at the time you did it.) The RFC is a consensus building process. You suggest I obsctruct and display apparent onwebership of the article, even though I explained to you in several places that trying to prevent rapid change of the images in the article (which is a problem in the sexology an sexuality wikiproject articles, such as this) is not obstruction, but a method of protecting the styanding consensus from drive by editing and vandalism. I certainly am guilty if slowing down the process of letting one editor do whatever he pleased with the article, in favor of building a discussion to work out what was best for the article. That consensus building process takes time. If an editor is too impatient to build consnesus, and prefers to be WP:BOLD then I suggest that they stay away from controversial articles, such as exist in the Sexology and Sexuality area ([Female Genital Cutting]], circumcision, breast, penis, Pearl_necklace_(sexuality), BDSM, [[penis], anus, bukkake and the like. All members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality porject contribute in monitoring these kinds of articles. Vandalism and drive-by editing where someone removes an image they don;t like is extremely common. You call it obstruction and Ownership, I call it protecting the integrity and consensus of volatile articles. Also, I have never said anything remotely related to "suggesting users should be ignored completely unless they wrote half the article" I have said just the opposite. I asked editors to contribute to the article, rather than being deletionist. Also, I have never claimed anyone needed my approval. I may be an experienced editor, but like yourself, am just another editor with another opinion. What I did say is that people should discuss removing an image on the talk page before doing that, and discuss changing the lede before doing that. Doing either of those without prior discussion on a volatile article interfers with the standing consensus that occured after the last time someone swooped in and removed an image because they didn't like it. Deleting an image or changing the lede without discussion first is hardly an effort to build consensus, or respect a standing consensus. Obstructing that effort by asking for consensus discussions first would not be called WP:OWN. Atom (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment regarding images

For the time being, I've removed the {{RFCsoc}} template. Feel free to put it back if anyone feels that's premature. Thanks to all who participated! – Luna Santin (talk) 21:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Currently the lead of the article features three images (in order of appearance): Image:Human semen in petri dish.jpg, Image:Semen2.jpg, and Image:Horsesemen.jpg. A color balanced version of the petri dish image (not currently on the article) is available at Image:Human semen in petri dish2.jpg. For background, recent discussion threads above include #How many is too many?, #Survey to gain consensus to remove an image, #Change of lede image without discussion or consensus, and now this one.

While I do respect the intent of the straw poll above, I don't believe it fully addresses the issues at hand and would prefer to deprecate it in favor of this section. Specifically what I believe we're asking is this: how many images do we want in the lead, and which images will be used?

Again, the current options are (in alphabetical order)...

• Image:Horsesemen.jpg
• Image:Human semen in petri dish.jpg
• Image:Human semen in petri dish2.jpg
• Image:Semen2.jpg

I respectfully request the input of the wider community on this issue. Thank you for your time. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment - By my perspective, there isn't a pre-requisite for a semen image in the lead. Human semen can appear next to the description of human semen (I'd prefer only the petri dish2 image), and horse semen extraction should appear next to a new still unwritten small section for "artificial extraction of semen [for artificial insemination]". Anyways, in my perspective, the question should be: "how many images of Human semen do we want in the article, and which images will be used?". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment - First let me clear the air. We need a fresh start. I have insisted on a consensus building process in removing an image or changing the lede. The RFC and the previous survey and the discussions they bring are that process. There is a long standing consensus on the article content, and one editor trying to remove images without discussion harmed that consensus. I'm fine with building a new consensus. I think that anything in the article is fair game for that discussion. The number of images, the placement of images, the addition of sections to support images, the introduction of new (on topic - quality) images, the change of the lede image and more. I'm committed to following the outcome of any consensus that we can build together. I am against random changing of images on the article every time an editor sees the article for the first time.

We all have differing opinions about images, what they represent and how many are appropriate in order for an article to be encyclopedic. I favor more images, rather than less. Ideally, a lede image that is directly related to the topic, so that the topic is clearly and easily understood at a glance. Each section can, and ideally should have it's own image or images (appropriate to illustrate the content of that section well). We don't duplicate or redundant images of the same things. But, in this case, different images of semen with differing perspectives are desirable. The more, the better, up to the point that a new image does not offer anything unique to the article. The images, ideally are should be scientific or clinical in nature for this article, but that is not a requirement. Given two images of the same thing, the more clinical should prevail. If an image offers some value, but no clinical version is yet available, it should remain in the article until such time as a better image can be produced.

The five existing images are, in my opinion, not well placed, but all valuable to the article. The least valuable is Hematospermia illustration , because it is an illustration, not reality. Yet, it offers value. Next least valuable is the Image:Semen2.jpg image as it has a dark background and the texture and splatter pattern offer unique information that some readers find value in. It should be moved lower in the article, I think. The Image:Horsesemen.jpg image shows a non-human species of semen, and so that offes great value, and probably should be in a section about non-human animal semen. The current lede image, Image:Human semen in petri dish.jpg is the most clinical image. It has a number of good points and bad points the bright orange background I view as its chief fault. ALthough I dislike that background the image offers another perspective. I am against altering that image as seen in Image:Human semen in petri dish2.jpg as it makes the background even brighter, and changes the color of the semen, and there is no way to know if the new color is more accurate or less accurate. Sticking with the original source seems like the best, conservative approach on that. I prefere the current Petri dish image as the lede, although I would like to see a new image, better than that eventually produced for the lede. Atom (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment — I find it odd how much thought goes into the placement of images here. Really we deep down forgetting the need to be encyclopaedic in all our articles and to be bold in making changes to improve the article. Atom, you seem to have the idea (judging from this dispute and the one at Breast) that diagrams/illustrations are not as valuable as photographs. This isn't true. Whichever image relates to the text in the article on the left hand side of the image most is the most valuable image. The image of hematospermia appears next to its relevent section, which is good, it should stay right where it is.

The semen in a petri dish image seems to me the most appropriate for opening the article as it is in a scientific context, like the article. The second image appears to be the work of someone who got a little excited whilst editing and decided to throw it into the article. The image of horse semen being collected is useful, but should not be the lead image as it's not as good quality, and doesn't relate to the generality of the article itself.

That is my opinion. I do not feel like placing any more time into these image disputes (either here or at Breast) because it seems that some people are getting overly worked up by consensus-building rather than encyclopaedia-building. Be bold in your edits, consensus is only there for the things that are really essential to resolve. Image placement is hardly such an area. —Cyclonenim^T@lk? 21:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. It looks like we agree on most of this. In this specific case (as in breast, I place more value on an image than on an illustration, not in all cases. We see differently on the consensus issue too. If every BOLD trumped Consensus, then the images in most sexuality articles would change and then be deleted numerous times in a day. I am all for encyclopedia building, so why is it that editors who have never seen the article choose to delete the images, rather than offering citable content? People can come in all day long and add citeable content with no issues. Images are inherently subjective, and not objective. So, once an article establishes a consensus on images, they should be left alone until there is a good reason to change them. Or, at least that is my view. Atom (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"someone who got a little excited whilst editing" LOL. Luckily, he had a camera at hand so he could record the result of his excitement :) --Enric Naval (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment - It's entirely appropriate for this article to be adequately illustrated, but the preponderance of images definitely makes it feel cluttered. Of the images already on the article, the petri dish seems the best. I prefer the color-balanced version (unlike you, Atom, I'm not really worried about "reality", because cameras have a very limited dynamic range: it's not really true that an un-altered image is "more real". The color-balanced version looks a bit more "real" to me, subjectively). The "splatter" image and the "used condom" image feel both unprofessional and exhibitionist to me. The horse semen image I'm neutral on; it feels like it could belong in the article, but probably not cluttering up the lede. Hope this helps.Nandesuka (talk) 22:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment Two of the images, the money shot on someone's couch, and the used rubber, come off as sophomoric instead of encyclopedic. I agree with the above that one shot of the petri dish, and one of the 'collection process' are sufficient. The other two really come off as 'Huh huh, look what I got onto wikipedia!' though I'm sure (As sure as AGF lets me be) that's not the creator's intent. ThuranX (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC) (Sorry, was thinking photographs, not ALL images: The illustration works fine for me where it is, and is the most encyclopedic and formal of all the images, wish this article had more such formal illustrations.)ThuranX (talk) 22:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Personally, I think the petri image, the horse image, and the illustration are the only necessary images. The rest appear more to be out of gratuitous use than actual encyclopedic merit. This article is about semen, not about cum shots.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment For the petri dish image, the color-balanced photo looks actually more natural and with more accurate coloring. Last time I checked human semen was not brown. The original photo just had poor lighting and background. At most it has been over-corrected, but it's still better than the non-balanced one. For the horse image, looking at commons:Category:Semen, it's the only photo of non-human semen that we have, and this article is not called Human semen or Exclusively human semen, so that should be kept. For the condom image, as other editors noted, the amount of semen on the condom is from two sessions and it's making a bad job of reallistically showing how a ejaculation looks like on a condom. Also, it should probably go into Condom. For the black couch image, it shows the consistency and color of semen on a better way than the petri dish image, so I'm all for keeping it. I would probably move the black couch image to the appeareance and consistency section (as it makes such a good job of showing it) and drop the condom image. This would also solve the clutter on the lead. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I would recommend removing two images. The horse semen image and the human semen in petri dish image (plus the illustration) are surely sufficient to illustrate the article, unless we have some microscope images showing significant differences between different species' semen. Exploding Boy (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

As best as I can read it, discussion so far seems to support using Image:Human semen in petri dish2.jpg and Image:Horsesemen.jpg in the lead, for purposes of identifying human and animal semen, and then Image:Hematospermia.jpg at its current position to illustrate the hematopermia section? Enric proposed moving Image:Semen2.jpg to the current position of the condom image, for purposes of illustrating its consistency (which it might do a better job of, really); I believe that was one of the purposes for which Atom had previously favored using Semen2.jpg, and would be amenable to doing that as a compromise. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I did perceive a few people stating a preference for Image:Human semen in petri dish2.jpg but I am not sure a consensus. Although I prefer the original over the second image, the distinction is small -- what I really prefer is a better clinical image for the lede -- but now image is provided for that yet. It is the best we have. Image:Horsesemen.jpg should defintely stay, but I would like to see it moved to a section on non-human animal semen once we have a section for that. I suppose a second lede is as good a place as any until then -- probably better than as a gallery image at the bottom of the article. I appreciate the attempt at compromise. It would be nice to maintain the Semen2 image, as if one overlooks the negative characteristics, it has other positive characteristics (consistency of semen). However, the ejaculation article image and video does show some of the other characteristics. I could live with it being removed, as long as it is a consensus decision, and not just one editor who removes it because it squicks them. Atom (talk) 13:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Current Consensus of Images - statement

I think that the discussed changes to the article have been completed. I appreciate the viewpoints of the people who participated in building a new consensus for the images on this article. I wanted to go to the effort to discuss this in this new section so that we have on the record where we are, so that months, or years later when an editor sees one of these images and decides to remove it, that defending a standing consensus will be easier.

This is the diff from the current state.[4]

• It has the Image:Human semen in petri dish2.jpg image as the lede. I think that also, Image:Human semen in petri dish.jpg is eligible for the lede as it is essentially the same image. We have discussed a desire for a better lede (clinical, petri dish) with a neutral background, but replacing the lede image with different image should require discussion and a new consensus, when and if that time comes.
• The image Image:Horsesemen.jpg is a secondary lede image. It has been discussed to move that image into its own section on non-human animal semen at some point. I don't see that movement of the image to that section(or similarly named section) when the time comes should need to be controversial.
• The Image:Semen2.jpg is in the "Appearance and consistency of human semen" section because the image was viewed as adding the element of semen consistency and appearance to the article. It should not be removed just because one editor is squicked by it, or that it may be viewed as unencylopedic by an editor.
• The Illustration Image:Hematospermia.jpg is in the "Blood in the semen" section
• There are currently no other images, or an image gallery. The consensus currently indicates that these specified images are not too many for the article, and that other (appropriate) image for other sections could benefit the article (but not additional images in the lede.)

I welcome any comments or corrections from the people who helped to bring the current consensus, and will correct the above as needed. Atom (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

My only comment is "nice work, thanks!" Nandesuka (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, too. Pleasure arguing working with you! :) – Luna Santin (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Semen in espionage

Why this is in cultural aspect section? This should be in a separate new section titled "Non-sexual usage". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Spooge in slang

Spooge is also a slang term "You are a total spooge...." etc. Substitute for "Tool," "Pain in the butt," "Douche-bag," or "Dummy," etc.

Very popular in the auto retail business. A Spooge can be a customer who can't buy because they have bad credit or a customer who has no chance to buy due to unrealistic reasons. i.e "I had no shot at a deal with that Spooge!"

It's not just semen, if you think it is, then maybe YOU too, are a Spooge.... Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 18:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Jizz in My Pants

I thought I'd inform any editors interested in Semen that the article Jizz in My Pants is currently up for deletion. Thank you. Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 22:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Changed pictures

More accurate depiction of common semen. Horse picture unnecessary.

-Axmann8 (Talk) 09:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add that in reading this article I was induced to feel nausea thanks to the two extant pictures. Just FYI. Vranak (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

What is the point of two human semen images?

I understand the one in the dish since it appears to shown in a mature way. However, the second one on a cloth seems unnecessary. Can we remove that image?

Maybe we can replace it with another species semen since this is wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doomzaber (talk • contribs) 02:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Semen & its functions other than conception

Kevin: As a responsible editor, it is incumbent on you to examine the facts before you dismiss content out of hand and arbitrarily expunge it. You have deleted very well-referenced scientific material (semen article) that may also be found on other Wikipedia pages unmolested. Just because something strikes you as "absurd" does not mean that it really is! Study it out please, and you may learn a few things...JGabbard (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

In point of fact, some of the alternative uses for semen may actually be medically efficacious. But they aren't really employed in general practice. And I suspect they were noted more as part of a semen fetish, than as part of bona fide research into actual alternative uses to which semen is put. There's a reason you won't find an "alternative uses of semen" section in the Encyclopedia Britanica, and it ain't due to a shortage of paper. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 08:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Kevin: The veracity and relative significance of facts are not predicated upon the suspected motives of those who state them. Also, it may be said that $2 bills "aren't really employed in general practice," but the lack of prevalence of their use in no way impugns their validity as currency. You need to relinquish your personal bias against the subject matter itself. Until such time as you have proven the references and research on each individual point to be bogus, the material should remain unvandalized.JGabbard (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No "vandalism" has taken place. I have simply removed quasi-pornographic, degenerate filth that has no place in an encyclopedia. It should also be noted that I didn't check all your sources, but the ones I saw didn't appear notable. I'm sure most of the others wouldn't as well, since reputable publications seldom publish on such inane and perverse topics as semen ingestion. I think Wikipedia should follow their example, and refuse to include such material here as well. KevinOKeeffe 13:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Kevin: Your cursory review of references is insufficient grounds for this futile edit war, which is a waste of both your time and mine. Honest and frank discussion, however, can be quite fruitful. However, you must first have something to discuss. Please have an open mind and take some time to consider the material presented in the various references, all of which have passed the test on other Wiki pages. Please understand, I have zero interest in advancing prurient concerns, but only the simple facts of health.JGabbard (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Both of you: Thanks for discussing (I note the edit warring that preceded this... not good) Please continue discussing this here, and avoid further edit warring. If necessary, do an WP:RfC on the question here on this page. Kevin: Using terms like "quasi-pornographic, degenerate filth" when discussing article contributions probably is not the most effective way to assure others that you can edit from the Neutral Point of View ... ++Lar: t/c 00:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but isn't it a little ridiculous that this section is even being seriously proposed? "Alternative uses for semen" is a preposterous notion. How is this not implicitly obvious to any reasonable person? Is there any evidence any significant number of people is actually engaged in these alternative uses? This seems to come under the WP:Fringe strictures.

Additionally, I wonder if its really appropriate to cut & paste stuff off my Talk page, and post it here, in order to apparently create the impression I have been active on this article's Talk page (when, in point of fact, this is my first edit here). I probably would have worded my opinions somewhat more delicately, had they been intended for public consumption. But I was merely making edits to my own Talk page, and while certainly all editors & other users are free to peruse my Talk page at any time, in reality, I was engaged in what I thought was the functional equivalent of a private conversation (albeit with someone who has a penchant for editing articles in such a way as to promote the human consumption of not only semen, but also urine, and possibly other substances genitally secreted - who knows?).

If the powers that be at Wikipedia believe that just under twenty percent of our article on human semen ought to be dedicated to the (seemingly overstated) medicinal benefits of consuming semen, then what can I say? I disagree with them. Most reasonable people would be inclined to regard such a site as less of an encyclopedia, and more of a public laughingstock. I shouldn't be forced to edit war over this issue with some eccentric who has distasteful ideas about the proper role of human bodily secretions. An Admin should step in and rule in favor of Wikipedia being a proper encyclopedia that is under adult supervision, and remove this quasi-cannibalistic nonsense. How is this even controversial?

I realize I have worded things somewhat more strongly than is ideal, but I really couldn't figure out any way to honestly express my opinion on this topic that wouldn't come off a trifle abrasive. With that said, how about a compromise? Why not a separate article on alternative medicinal uses of semen? While personally, I would prefer the information not exist anywhere at this site, it does seem like a reasonable compromise to me. After all, are such theories about the medicinal benefits of eating semen really within the mainstream of medical thought & practice? Surely not. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 02:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If you've JUST been edit warring on this topic and NOT using the talk page at all, then I may have misjudged, I should have handed out a 3RR block first I guess. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt (which you can thank JGabbard for). Here's an idea, review WP:NOTCENSORED before you return to this conversation, as well as WP:FRINGE. It may well be that 20% of this article devoted to this topic is indeed undue weight, or that the topic should be forked off to a separate article. Or maybe not. I take no position. Talk it out... but you won't get anywhere casting aspersions on JGabbard, or anyone else, as you're doing, above. Realising you're being abrasive is a good start. The next step is to not be abrasive. ++Lar: t/c 05:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I have created a new article: Medical uses for human semen. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 09:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure about this, it looks like a WP:POVFORK: since you can't remove it, you dump it into another article. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Besides the fact that it's clearly unverifiable original research, since semen has never been "used medically." Exploding Boy (talk) 02:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you drawing a semantic distinction? Because I'd be happy to rename the article. Otherwise, I think your point is correct ie., that the information included in that article (whether termed "medical uses" or "functions other than conception"), is innately flawed, by simple virtue of the fact that these alternative "functions" are not actually in use within the larger society. Its fringe eccentricity, rather than a meaningful depiction of semen's function within actual human societies. When the practices outlined in that article are actually embraced by the medical community, and undertaken by some statistically significant portion of their patients, then it becomes Notable. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 05:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I changed the title to "Health effects", which also describes better the subsections, and added that these health effects could have future medical applications. (for now, I have never seen a medician say "you need to take more semen for your depression, here you have a recipe for the sperm bank, maybe in a couple of decades xD or maybe "you need to suck more your husband and make sure to swallow", although some medician somewhere might be doing this in some country like Holland, we would need a source saying that this happens) Enric Naval (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Proteins in human semen and their affect on women

Hey folks, I was looking this up in my own curiosity and noticed that there was no mention of it in this article, and yet I am pretty certain that scientists have isolated proteins in human semen that affect a womans mood and behavior to some degree. Am I missing something or is this something that should be added? I know at least this is true in drosophila melanogaster (fruit fly) and humans have the same exact protein in their semen. Jason Parise (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Dental health, dubious

I tagged the sentence on semen being good for teeth. It is supported merely by a joke news article, which is not reliable for scientific claims. The link to the science journal just confirms the mineral content of semen, saying nothing about its use in dentistry.

Skeletal muscle paragraph has the same problem. We cannot simply give sources for the effect of hormones on women, and conclude that semen would have the same impact.YobMod 17:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps YobMod is aware of a superior or more plentiful source of testosterone for women whose levels are too low??

Regardless of the facts about either substance, I somehow doubt that semen treatments will ever become commonplace in professional dentistry, although the industry certainly should replace fluoride, which is both harmful to teeth and toxic. Also, I saw nothing jocular in the shortnews reference. There is serious, verifiable information there, and they list their source as MSNBC.JGabbard (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

MSNBC is also not a reliable source for controversial science claims. If a woman has too low a level of testosterone, she can go to her doctor and get testosterone tablets/patches/injections, or simply change their diet to testosterone boosting foods, all of which is beside the point. Even if semen contains testosterone, that does not lead make it a useful source - dose-response, bioavailability, digestion, metabolism, all have a role to play, which is why medical formulation take so long to perfect. Semen contains testosterone, therefore is good for low-testosterone women to eat is unscientific sythesis.YobMod 08:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

NBC has the highest rated evening newscast in America, yet you say MSNBC is unreliable?? Where is the disconnect here? I'm not claiming that semen ingestion is necessarily superior to synthetic hormone patches. It either may or may not be. But whether the quantities of the various nutrients would be considered therapeutic or merely supplemental is not the point. It is listed to simply show one more way that the components of semen are beneficial to the body, to whatever degree. Therapeutic is "good," but supplemental is also good.JGabbard (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• It's more than dubious, it's ridiculous--JGabbard is overly fond of original research. None of the sources attached to the article even talk about the ingestion of semen for the purpose of dentistry. The ratings of MSNBC are entirely irrelevant; science is relevant. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit confict)

1) Being a popular news broadcaster does not make any anouncement from them a scientifically reliable source, especially when not based on actual science.

2) It being a good supplement is a medical, scientific claim, therefore needs scientific sourcing. I take it from your resistance to providing the scintific source that no actual study on the effect on semen on teeth has ever been done?YobMod 18:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not know that no studies have been done yet, however, the references verify the ingredients (amounts notwithstanding), and that these two ingredients are essential to the formation and preservation of tooth enamel is not in doubt either. It is true that 2 + 0 = 2, but 1 + 1 = 2 is not any less true! No OR needed.JGabbard (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Youn are clearly not a biologist then. Your logic leads to "hair is full of amino aicds, therefore eating hair is good for those with protein deficiencies". 1 + 1 simply does not equal two in biohemistry, where bio-availability, comlexation, dose-response play a role, as any scientist will tell you.YobMod 23:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Musculoskeletal support

It has two sources:

1. http://www.managingmenopause.org.au/content/view/69/111/
2. http://www.aphroditewomenshealth.com/news/20020311214759_health_news.shtml

None of them mentions ingestion of semen. The second one says

"Currently, the only way to replace testosterone in women is through an injection every two or three weeks, but a testosterone skin patch may be available in the future."

The main point of the section "Semen can provide the body with testosterone" is unsupported by any reference, I suspect that the testosterone is simply destroyed in the stomach or not absorbed, or not absorbed in enough quantity. Anyways, it requires a source --Enric Naval (talk) 23:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This assumption that stomach acid destroys any nutrients from semen is a flawed premise. SUNY research indicated the following: The question many people will ask is whether oral sex could have the same... effects. "Since the steroids in birth control pills survive the digestion process, I would assume that the same holds true for at least some of the chemicals in semen," Gallup says. Section restored. http://www.matchdoctor.com/blog_49492/Semen_acts_as_an_anti-depressant.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by JGabbard (talk • contribs) 17:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed from article

The entire health benefits section is problematic, with far too much reliance on blogs and vague preliminary studies to be useful, verifiable or encyclopedic.

1. *Antidepressant: Semen is a powerful organic antidepressant because of its content of mood-enhancing hormones such as epinephrine, dopamine, oxytocin and serotonin, and it has thus been called "Nature's Prozac."

None of those sources actually says what is being claimed. The "Nature's Prozac" claim in particular is nowhere to be found (except in the title of one book that appears to be about natural antidepressants). All these sources are blogs, and they all appear to be the same article with slight modifications. The first article quoted, the source for "Semen is a powerful organic antidepressant," actually states "Gallup seems to be indulging in a little hyperbole here. He may have demonstrated that semen enhances mood, but he certainly hasn't proven that it's an anti-depressant.

2. "Studies suggest that seminal plasma both prevents and fights cancer, particularly breast cancer,. In fact, this source says "we have demonstrated that seminal plasma and PGE2 can promote the expression of tumorigenic and angiogenic factors, in cervical adenocarcinoma cells via the EP4 receptor, EGFR, and ERK1/2 signaling pathways."

3. "reducing risk by "not less than 50 percent."

Again, this study says: "The risk of developing breast cancer within the same population in the U.S. is 5 times greater in women who use barrier methods than in women who use non-barrier contraceptive methods."

3.

• Preeclampsia prevention: A study in Immunology of Reproduction said that semen contains a substance which might condition a mother's immune system to accept better the "foreign" antigens found in the fetus and the placenta during pregnancy, keeping blood pressure low and thereby reducing the risk of preeclampsia. They found that womans with high levels of preeclampsia correlated with fathers that had low levels of sHLA antigens in semen, an antigen that helps with transplantations. This would show that regular exposure to the baby's father's semen, especially orally, would help make a woman's pregnancy safer and more successful, because she is absorbing her partner's antigens. The results were not very significant in relation to the control group, so more research is needed to verify this.

This abstract from a study clearly states "The present study shows that oral sex and swallowing sperm is correlated with a diminished occurrence of preeclampsia . . . Preliminary data show lower levels of sHLA in seminal plasma in the preeclampsia group, although not significantly different from the control group. An extension of the present study is necessary to verify this hypothesis."

Exploding Boy (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

When i review papers, "not significantly different" means nothing can be said, as the difference is within the realm of error. Any such claim is essentially admitting that no evidence was found. Agree with removal until better sources are found and consensus is formed to add it.YobMod 17:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

merge from Spermophagia

I'm proposing a merge because almost the content in that small article is either already here or easy to merge. The only part that could be useful for a separate article would the stuff about New Guinea. However, since there is only source for such things, it can't be expanded to make a separate encyclopedic topic that deserves a separate full article. Also, the article name is not very spread in scholar texts, so it's sort of a neologism. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I would oppose a merge because seminophagia (a.k.a. spermophagia) actually receives even more hits than the general semen page does (as many as 5500 in a single day!), which indicates strong interest in this specific sexual act and the particular aspects concerning this subject.JGabbard (talk) 02:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The page would still be there, it would just redirect to Semen#Ingestion or something like that. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Exploding Boy (talk) 02:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support. JGabbard's arguments don't hold much water, considering that the term "seminophagia" does not exist and "spermophagia" is completely undefined. I'm still waiting on JGabbard to explain whether this topic is about a sexual fetish, a health matter, a cultural tradition, or what--let alone for them to back it up with significant coverage and discussion in reliable sources. I agree with Enric that the New Guinea stuff is the most interesting and notable--but even that could be subsumed in the Semen article, under a cultural heading. But this ingestion thing, that's one editor's hangup. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support merge. Is not enough (reliably) cited infomation at the sub-article to need a separate article, so would be better for readers to be merged here. A section redirect would allow any interested readers to still find all the information, but it will be held to a higher standard here. Maybe in the future there will be enough sourced and written to warrant splitting a sub-article back out, but at the moment there is not.YobMod 09:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support merge. It stops the spreading of what is basically the same information in two forms, and duplicates efforts needlessly (making us have to keep an eye on what's going on in two different places, when really the one is enough). Additionally, JGabbard seems intent on including paragraphs with unverifiable sourcing, and as he has what seems to be a personal attachment and interest in the "seminophagia" article, I would discredit his contributions. Margaridas (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't this page long enough and disorganized enough already?? This merge seems to have been counterproductive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.24.214.106 (talk) 12:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The AfD was properly voted on and the consensus was to merge with this page. You could have voted there if you wanted to show your opinion. As it was, I removed a lot of the WP:OR before merging.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Composition material of Semen

We need a chart of the percentage of matter and types of constituents in semen.1 page 1017:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faro0485 (talk • contribs)

Redirect from "cum"

Searched for "cum". Got redirected here. Okay, yes, should have seen that a mile away, it's late and I'm tired. But could you possibly add a transwiki link to Wiktionary's article, or at least a word of explanation, for those of us that were looking for the history of the Latin word that glues two other words together and didn't expect to... er... get an eyeful? 217.39.3.66 (talk) 22:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Easy done, I changed the redirect for a dismbig page.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Age of male and quantity of semen produced

It seems generally true that as the male ages, the quantity of semen produced decreases, and the ability to produce ejaculation easily (masturbation) also decreases. This may or may not also have something to do with the libido, and there seems to be a point where the sexual urge is gone and semen is no longer produced.

---

R Richards, NJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.149.130 (talk) 13:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Health Risks

i do recall reading somewhere about a woman who was swallowing her partners sperm and she ended up growing a excessive amount of thick body hair all over her body (true story)- this is a risk for any woman who swallows sperm everytime a woman does this she is becoming more and more male and absorbing a male hormone .a doctor will also acknowledge this .

and nowhere in the health risks section does it mention the fact up to around 70% of sperm is made up of urine. 24 november 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.235.82 (talk) 11:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You need to cite some reliable source saying these things. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Semen2.jpg figuring on the page

Would someone please remove this trolling picture from the article? It does nothing but frustrate readers and ridicule the context, moreover there is a perfectly adept picture in the beginning of it, and I fail to see the need of use of this one a couple of paragraphs below.

Thank you, 65.92.22.144 (talk) 08:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, this is unnecessary

Why are we whining about 2 pictures of semen? Having visual aids not only keeps the readers attention, but it breaks up the walls and walls of text.

Well, venting aside (someone's going to delete it, regardless) I think that since Wikipedia is not I repeat, in case you haven't heard: NOT censored, we should be more liberal with the pictures. Maybe one every two or three headings for an article this large? BlacknumberEx (talk) 02:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia takes itself way too seriously for a picture like this to have stayed up for so long on the semen article. Its very comical how many editors have come to the defense of this image. Its pretty obvious to anyone that the guy is an exhibitionist who enjoys trolling by getting his home made porno up on Wikipedia. There's nothing "encyclopedic" about a picture of the end result of someone splattering a cheap couch. I agree with the person who said that it should be up on the cum shot article instead. This guy RichieX should get a barnstar for ultimate Wiki troll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.199.33 (talk) 11:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Only one image is necessary to show the appearance of semen. Further images serve no encyclopedic purpose and clutter the layout while making the page take longer to load. Nevard (talk) 14:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

@BlacknumberEX, you are most likely this RichieX person who keeps posting pics of your own cum. Although Wikipedia is uncensored, it ISN'T a porn fetish site involving semen. What is the actual purpose of having human fluid on different stuff for an encyclopedia? There isn't any. You are correct that there should be more pictures in the article, however, they should not be multiples images of human semen on different items. Instead, images of other species, as well as microsopic ones should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doomzaber (talk • contribs) 12:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Source 42 accuracy

Source #42 points to a page that this article cites out of context. Information listed under the "Urban Myths" section is listed here as fact. Xeanor (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me look into that. Thanks. Atom (talk) 00:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The text says "The semen of heavy smokers and drinkers tends to carry a more acrid taste." and points to reference http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/electronic-publications/stay-free/10/semen.htm "The Taste Below the Waist" Which is in article listing Urban Myths. The statement gives a variety of anecdotal statements, and attributes one woman to having said "I've discovered that although there is a general almond taste to all men -- different men taste a little differently AND depending on how much a man drinks, smokes, and what he's eating -- the semen ranges in bitterness. ". I suppose the reference is pointing to a source that states what the article says. I don't consider the article a good reference though, even if that statement made is accurate. SO I left the text, and removed the reference. SOmeone can find a better reference when they have time. Atom (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Images

You know, in this article I've yet to see one diagram showing the structure of sperm or extracellular matrix, but I see plenty of guys jizzing on couches and posting it on wikipedia. For fucks sake, pull yourselves together. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

For those images you want to look at Spermatozoon. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No, spermatozoon is about animal sperm cells specifically. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Humans are animals. Mammals, primates, to be more specific. Atom (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Buddy, did you completely miss the massive, idiotic discussion above relating to the pictures of semen? Never mind that the exact purpose of a picture in the "Appearance and consistency of human semen" section is unclarified. If one were to deduce the "obvious," that the picture there should illustrate the variety in consistency and appearance of semen, one would then realize that the picture has no more value than the one at the beginning of the article. But then, you would have to wonder, Why the fuck is there an "Appearance and consistency of human semen" section to begin with? That's the point at which you would realize that this article sucks, and that the minutia-scraping fucktards involved with this article are using it as a debate staging area, with no intent of actually making it a good article to begin with!24.80.246.114 (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

"Cum"

Is the fact that Mansfield Smith-Cumming liked to spray semen all over the place for use as "invisible ink" (or, according to this article anyway) why semen is called "cum" sometimes? Perhaps someone should research this, and work it into the article. 64.30.108.152 (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should. :-p Tomer^talk 03:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

image reversion suggestion

It seems to me that the current image of semen by Axmann8 is of lower quality (glare, messiness) than the old image by Jchoi30 (as adjusted by Jaakobou). Was this change made by consensus? If not, I propose we revert back to the previous image. However, I realize the change was made a while ago and there is a lot of controversy over images on this page, so it's just a suggestion :) Soiducked (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the newer image was better until it was removedLarryisgood (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate image by RichieX

As others have pointed out, that picture seems to exist for the sole purpose of fulfilling some kind of exhibitionist fantasy for this user. Since this article already has a much more neutral image linked at the top I fail to see why a second image is even necessary, much less one of such low quality and which was probably posted with malicious intent. Could we please remove it? 91.89.38.5 (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I think some of the images on this article are distasteful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.95.185 (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

DISTASTEFUL - HA,HA,HA - Mine tastes like strawberries, apparently........ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.41.191.13 (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the image is inappropriate - it adds absolutely nothing to the article (there are already plenty of images), and seems too exhibitionist. I would like to see it deleted; it's not tasteful and it's pointless nquinnathome1 (talk) 23:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is RichieX's inappropriate splotchy image still on this article? Even the 'user contribution' semen at the top of the page is bad enough but trolls keep putting back the old splotchy spunk picture. Come on people, this page is on lamest edit wars over this and wikipedia's new policy of removing inappropriate images will demand this be taken down for good. Stop it already.--71.107.198.159 (talk) 04:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not remove images because they offend someone. This is an article on semen, so it's normal that it has pictures of actual semen. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a more suitable replacement of higher quality, making Richie's image redundant. I have removed it. Erielhonan 22:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

: Well, it's back again (not my doing)Larryisgood (talk) 13:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Missing information on Composition of semen

Hi,

From the perspective of HIV transmission by semen it becomes clear that the section lacks some components. The sentence: "Seminal plasma of humans contains a complex range of organic and inorganic constituents." is rather vague for an encyclopaedic article. Nothing explains how the plasma makes it from the blood into the semen, and which constituents can make that jump or not and why (eg, what kind of membranes are passed). It turns out HIV particles can get through.

Secondly, semen contains leukocytes (white blood cells). The page makes no mention of this.It seems especially the omission of the presence of leukocytes is a grave one if one describes the composition of semen.

Online it seems not evident to find information about this, although the information is definitely available somewhere: http://www.umc.sunysb.edu/urology/male_infertility/SEMEN_ANALYSIS.html

http://www.andrologyjournal.org/cgi/content/abstract/15/4/343

http://www.aidsrestherapy.com/content/2/1/11

Im a complete layman and not a good writer either, so Im not going to touch the article, but it would be great if someone with expertise would review that section. 78.23.200.28 (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

the semen photo

that picture is completely offensive, uncouth at best. Can you not find one in perhaps a more sterile seeming environment like in a medical setting? is it even necessary to have a photo? could it not just as easily be a diagram explaining the ejaculatory process or drawing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.125.102.141 (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

No, because that would be CENSORSHIP, and the free love folks around here could not stand for that! 24.248.9.162 22:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

emulsification is erroneous term. Correct term is liquefaction.

Finally, the photo is gone... 129.174.184.3 05:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)"

Wikipedia is not censored. Do not remove the photos under the rationale that you find it obscene or disgusting. That's not a valid reason. Malamockq 19:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a valid reason, if the picture actually is obscene. Now, the picture as it stands now is uncouth, and thats as good a reason as any to change it.82.18.164.15 (talk) 03:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Since when does censorship mean that "anything goes?" I guess snuff films should also be on here... Rockules318 23:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there's nothing wrong with an article on snuff films. Feel free to make one if there isn't one already. --John T. Folden 19:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What about child pornography? If an editor took a bunch of photos and videos of children--like, below the age of 11-children--doing various pornographic things, his own work, and then put them into a Wiki article, not only would there be no worthy enough rationale for taking them down, but any visitor to the article could arguably be breaking American and I believe international law by viewing child pornography. After all, if someone seeks out information on child pornography, they shouldn't be surprised to see it or, pardon the pun, come across it.

Or what about researching amputation? Should a researcher not be surprised to find one or more of his appendages missing because he dared ask the question?

<spetz>.71.187.179.213 20:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not a comparable situation, as you *should* know. In that case it would involve two people in the photo and if the photographer lived in an area where the age of consent is above the age of the other individuals then he may be breaking laws in his own country by posting them BUT I don't think Wiki itself has any restrictions against it. Your ramble about amputation is just silly, sorry. --John T. Folden 23:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You're free to post whatever you want. Just don't be surprised if the FBI shows up to your front door 20 minutes later because you were actually stupid enough to post child porn on Wikipedia. And no, no one else would get in trouble if they viewed the page, just you. --24.19.251.143 (talk) 06:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I like that a photograph of human semen is considered as offensive as a film depicting an actual murder.

1337wesm 03:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess some people have nothing else to do than to be offended by a picture of semen...? That's just silly. Exigence 05:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not a good picture of semen. It looks black for heaven's sake... am I the only one who sees this? It's freaky weird. 24.91.135.118 13:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that a picture is OK. I don't think it's a bad idea to have images of semen on the semen page. Come on guys, seriously, semen isn't illegal. It's not the same as child pornography. However, the SOURCE for the image reads "my penis" and this is just silly and (while I did laugh for a good minute), I think it should be removed. Either correct the source to read the USERNAME of the photographer, or remove the picture altogether since the person who took it is obviously not serious enough to contribute to the article or, even worse, is very excited by the fact that his semen is the example given on wikipedia. -Laikalynx 19:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the most annoying thing about the picture is that is looks like the following series of events happened: Some bored member of the Wikipedia community noticed that there was not a picture of human semen on this page, so he wanked off on the spur of the moment, erupted all over the nearest surface, took a picture of his "issue" and then uploaded it onto this page. I don't find this vulgar so much as I find it lame. The picture could definitely be improved upon. Come on, people--let's work on this. --68.173.15.204 20:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored? That's the funniest joke I've heard all year. Anyway, what is the need of showing a picture of human semen when you can't even distinguish the main ingredient (sperm) from the "money" picture? A more appropriate picture would be showing a picture of the sperm cells (such as a diagram). Armyrifle (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

That picture is disgusting! It needs to go! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.0.31.37 (talk) 23:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

That picture is so gross, you should get rid of it, it does not help anything and just makes this site look like a porn studio. Liquidblue8388 (talk) 00:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me spell it out for you WIKIPEDIA-IS-NOT-CENSORED. 68.14.9.113 (talk) 22:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

But editors are obligated to obtain higher quality images than something made by an exhibitionist troll. This ongoing argument is completely absurd, and it is a small wonder why this page is on lamest edit wars. Get rid of the 'user contributions' of semen and find a stock medical photo for pete's sake. --24.25.217.76 (talk) 07:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes I get tired of hearing this "there is nothing better to replace it with so it stays" style of argument. If someone is not going to bother their backside to look for a better image, what are they even commenting on keeping a poor one for. It just means even though they know someone has pointed up a basic problem with the article, they cannot be bothered to do anything about it. People can point up problems with the article and should. If they can also help to improve it that would be good too. But too often someone who has done nothing on an article chirps in with a pathetic "there is nothing better". As I have said people who point out problems should offer solutions if presently possible. But also those who come here and say in effect "just leave it as it is" would be better just not bothering to comment. I don't see any problem with removing a poor image till a better one is found. A poor quality image is not always better than none at all. In any case I have proposed one at the bottom of this page. 82.18.164.15 (talk) 05:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

If it really matters that much, someone make a new photo in a proper plastic cup as used to collect semen samples, but not with a lid on, because that defeats the purpose of a "Visual Aid" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.52.92 (talk) 01:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The money shot on the couch (yes, it's been discussed to death)

I am myself starkly against censorship and firmly believe that any content, no matter how much it ruffles anyone's feathers, should be included here if it adds value to the article.

Having said that, can everyone step back for a minute and consider this from a broader perspective? Can you honestly say that you would envision Image:semen2.jpg being included in the pages of any reliable, legitimate encyclopedia? Again, don't get me wrong; I have nothing against including pictures of semen or any other pictures (that aren't outright illegal). My issue is with the fact that this image is badly lit, of low quality, even slightly out of focus, and has not been taken with any kind of proper photography equipment. And yet it's been included.

Furthermore, if you look at the other contributions of the uploader (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Richiex) it becomes blatantly obvious that this user is an exhibitionist who uses Wikipedia to get himself off. He does not intend for these images to improve this or any other article, as is further evidenced by the inferior quality of the specific image in question.

If the only supposed merit of this image is that its [very professional] basement couch background shows semen consistency better than other available images, then my opinion is that this single advantage doesn't outweigh the various disadvantages. Since many of the other sections in the article lack accompanying images, I don't see what the problem is with removing this image until a better one can be found for that section.

This has nothing to do with censorship, so please don't pull that card. This is an issue of Wikipedia's credibility as an encyclopedia. We need to re-examine things if we can take some random pervert's amateur snap of his cumstains on a couch and consider it of sufficient quality to include on an encyclopedia page. 168.122.246.234 (talk) 02:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

"Money shot"? Insert coin. LOL 79.2.61.153 (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Meh. I could take it or leave it. While I agree that the image is most definitely in poor taste (and redundant), it DOES demonstrate what human semen looks like. However, I imagine most everyone over the age of 14 has seen it up close at one point or another - everyone knows what semen looks like. Does anyone know Wikipedia's policy on redundant images, or does that fall under "common sense?" We could also compromise and replace the image with something a little more tasteful, seeing as to how one Wikipedian suggested that images break up long chunks of text and make the article more aesthetically pleasing. Maybe a labeled illustration of a sperm cell? I know sperm has its own article, however I see nothing wrong with showing an image of one of the primary components of semen. Comments? Agree? Disagree? Chrisbrl88 (talk) 11:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC) (edit: sorry for the repeated saves - I noticed a typo and my browser is acting up.)

See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Semen2.jpg

A proposed alternative is File:Human semen in petri dish2.jpg. Krinkle (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

What I can't and I suspect a considerable number of others can't understand is what value it adds if there is already a picture. It is clearly not even a candidate for a main illustration and would last a short time if it was substituted. It adds absolutely no value. It's that simple. As there has been no one else objecting to it being taken out for several months (ample time to say something) and there is a better picture already could someone take it out. Thanks 82.18.164.15 (talk) 03:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)