Talk:Semen/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Photo Discussions

Please read this section before beginning a new discussion on the photographs in the article. Your objection/suggestion/comment has probably been made before. You may add to these discussions as you wish, as long as your comments are relevant and appropriate. Remember also to sign your comments. Prometheus-X303- 19:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Picture Needed

This article badly needs a picture. Latinlovinglatino 18:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

uh I don't think we need a picture including a penis Rizla 03:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm removing the picture until a suitable one can be found (maybe just crop the current one) --Ziplux 05:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Unclear why this needs to be cropped or deleted. Entirely non-scintilalting image. Semem does come from the penis, so a bit of penis does not seem enturely out of place. Interestingstuffadder 21:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Right, whoever uploaded this picture asserts that they are its creator. Therefore, whoever uploaded this picture has masturbated onto a piece of glass and photographed the results for the world to see. Call me crazy, call me old fashioned, but isn't that incredibly creepy?
Creepy as hell, I agree. But it is also a completely legitimate depiction of the article's topic, even if it is a bit gross. Interestingstuffadder 05:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it is just me, but the stuff in the picture looks more like glue than semen.
It is semen. The original picture (which has now been cropped), also featured a bit of erect penis. Interestingstuffadder 11:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this really needed..?Darkahn 07:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks to me like a solid rationale has been provided for keeping the pictures and doing so is consistent with wikipedia policy and precedent. Interestingstuffadder 11:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I have decided to remove the image as I think there is certain article that is -in nature- "unillustratable" by a photo. Article "semen" is one of these. Description by text the image of semen is sufficient enough for the reader to visualise it.

Please, do not link the article to the image again. Anatomy

It seems, however, that you are not the final arbiter re what is includable on wikipedia. I have provided plenty of rationales and wikipedia precedents that support keeping this image. Also, your "description by text the image of semen is sufficient enough for the reader to visualise it" rationale for removing this image could be applied to most any image on wikipedia, so it doesn't reall hold up. At the end of the day, this looks like censorship. As such, I will restore the image. Thanks. Interestingstuffadder 16:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Whoever shot that photo, what were you thinking? Now we all know what you do to please yourself! --Frithraes! 19:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
We don't know what "they" did, we know what someone did. Can you really put semen with a face as you could a face with a name---don't answer that. What I'm trying to say is that this is not offensive at all. It is only a photograph of a human specimen. Not as encyclopedic as some ejaculate on a black background or something, but it is the best this user could come up with (no pun intended). I am much more concerned with the image link on the creampie page: Image:Creampiesex.jpg. Our semen photo is not pornographic at all while this one...well. This looks like a box of Kroger vanilla ice cream melted on her lap.

Picture of Semen

I am not quite sure if I need to see a a picture of semen when I look it up. Maybe have it set to pop up when a link is clicked. It's not like its showing semen in a petri dish; the picture gives the impression that someone just got finished masturbating and spewed the stuff everywhere.

--The Linguist 20:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

SERIOUSLY!

--Slickshoes3234 02:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

If it were in a petri dish, would the people complaining stop? I have my doubts. See the lengthy discussion below. --Scix 20:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

As was mentioned on the site that pointed this out to me, it looks like porn, in a petri dish or other clinical setting would be more appropriate --Andrew 8754 12:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Entirely agree! This is an aesthetically repulsive picture I wouldn't expect a child to be able to encounter here, for exactly the reason The Linguist has cited. Scientifically, it is also inaccurate, as the sample sits on an absorbent medium and therefore, its water content depleted, appears more viscous than in nature. But the real problem is, it is inappropriate, and detracts from the entry. If a picture is to be used, it should be a more "clinical" one, surely. This is bordering on tastelessness, in the same way a picture of a recently aborted foetus might, if not very carefully set up. Would one put a picture of vomitus on an entry on that topic? Yuk! We have to have boundaries for this sort of graphic, don't we? I am no prude, and have taught sex ed. to uni students, but I believe young kids shouldn't encounter this sort of image here. Not in this "raw" way, on this site, and most adults surely won't want to. (signature added 2 days after original insertion; author forgot at the time) Trevor H. 02:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Horse Picture

Is that horse picture necessary? It has overtones of vandalism, though if some text was included explaining why horse semen is collected, then maybe it is valid. Amigan 22:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

First off, I don't appreciate the suggestion that my addition of the horse picture was vandalism. This is a page about semen, so an illustration of how horse semen is collected for breeding purposes seems entirely relevant. Also, I will add soe text explaining what is going on in the photo. Latinlovinglatino 23:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I wasn't suggesting that it was vandalism, just that it could come off as such without any text in the article pertaining to the photograph. Amigan 00:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Anatomy (talk · contribs) removed the image with this explanation: (Remove the illustration as it is unnecessary. Please do not link to it again) --Ted 13:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
The image of horse semen does not need to be removed given that it is relevant to the subject. Sweetfreek 08:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a question and pardon me if it seems naive. The objection to this photo seems to be under the impression that the tan-colored thing is actually the horse's penis -- but it looks to me more like some sort of rubber aparatus. I've seen horsewang before, and it never looked like that -- though I admit I have never harvested horse semen, and I could be mistaken. Actually, reading the horse breeding article, I am VERY doubtful that this is a photo of a penis.

Would the photographer be willing to answer this question for me, please? Scix 05:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

?

The main question to be answered: is the picture REALLY necessary? would the this page be downgraded without the picture? would people understand "semen" without looking at the picture?

The fact is, wikipedia is full of pictures of items that everyone has seen (see paper clip). It also is not censored and contains legitimately illustrative pictures even when they might be a bit edgy (see human feces (and accompanying discussion) or penis; also note that these are also things that most people have seen before). The pictures currently included in this article are as non-scintillating as possible and illustrate semen in animal (husbandry) and human contexts. They are relevant to this article. They shouldn not be deleted. Interestingstuffadder 13:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with having the original picture. However, I think the horse one goes a bit over the top. It is entirely plausible that a viewer of wikipedia would not know what semen looks like, and a picture adds to the article. Amigan 14:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
To me, the rationale for the horse picture is that it 1) provides a non human image; 2) puts semen in a different context -- that is, animal husbandry. Interestingstuffadder 16:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
But this article is about semen, not animal husbandry. Mammalian semen generally looks the same across species. Amigan 15:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
You make a good point re article not about animal husbandry. But I would still argue that this image is relevant because it relates to semen and helpful because it puts semen in a non human and decidedly non-sexual context. Interestingstuffadder 16:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Consensus on images

WP is all about community consensus, and perhaps an AfD-style opinion gathering would be nice on the two images currently in the article (Image:Semen.jpg and Image:Horsesemen.jpg). --Tim1988 talk 15:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Personally, I'd prefer to see Image:Horsesemen.jpg kept and Image:Semen.jpg removed. I feel it's already described well in the one image. --Tim1988 talk 15:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep both imagesIt seems to me that the two images perform distinct functions for this article. semen.jpg provides a clear image of what semen is. Horsesemen.jpg puts semen in context (here non human and decidedly non sexual. Interestingstuffadder 15:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep [:Image:Horsesemen.jpg]] and remove Image:Semen.jpg. Johntex\talk 02:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep both ..I agree with user:interestingstuffadder's point about distinct contxts. There is also an argument for human and nonhuman. Yourebustedyo 14:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I found this page through a Google image search for "semen" while researching variations in ejaculate within the human species (seriously). Not only do I think both pictures should be kept, I think more human samples should be added, creepy as that might be. A visitor
  • Image:Semen.jpg needs to be replaced with one taken through a microscope. At the scale used in the present image, yes it does look like glue and no it doesn't convey much in the way of useful information. JMHO. --carlb 20:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep both despite what people's personal feelings are about the images, they document the subject in question in various uses. --Daniel Olsen 04:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep both Sad to say, not everyone knows what the stuff looks like. "It's gross" is not sufficient reason to keep it from being depicted accurately in its most common forms. A microscopic photo in addition might not be a bad idea, or maybe there already is one under sperm that is sufficient? FURTHER NOTE: I'm pretty sure that's not the horse's penis. All the objectors seem to be under the impression that it is. Scix 05:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Doesn't anyone else find it a bit weird that a picture of the remnants of some guy's masturbation session is on the page?
"A bit weird" is pretty much irrelevent to the discussion. Scix 00:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep both, however make it so the user has to click a link in order to view them. I don't know exactly how it's done but i've seen it before, the name of the image followed by the description, and you have to click it. --Swalot 23:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
This has been done (unless someone vandalises the link back to the full picture again)
uh sorry I've seen only "vandalized" versions of the page so far.. --Swalot 02:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

No need for the linkimage, as the image we have is fine. See consensus discussion above. linkimage is for images that are sexually explicit. This image is of semen, not people having intercourse. We are looking, waiting for a better photo, but this will do for now. Atom 02:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone mind if I remove the HORSECOCK?!

Please...it's just like... I had to remove the yiff picture and um...

I don't want to wikipedia random shit and find a horsecock alright?!

Hi, welcome, see Wikipedia is not censorsed. I've reverted your edit.--Andeh 19:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Just for clarification, Wikipedia is not censorsed does not prohibit us from using {{linkimage}}. Linkimage is a very useful tool to prevent people from inadvertantly viewing sexually explicit images. At the same time, it preserves the images for those who want to see them. Whether or not we want to linkimage these pictures is up to us an editorial decision. Censorship has nothing to do with it. Johntex\talk 23:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
As an experienced editor, I oppose using linkimage here as I consider it to constitute censorship. Look around wikipedia -- eg penis, breast, human feces -- edgy photos are frequently included where they are relevant to the topic at hand and when efforts to use linkimage emerge they are generally rejected. These images are of a non-sexually explicit nature -- one is a simple photo of the substance in quesiton and the other presents semen in an animal husbandry context. It seems like overkill and, yes, censorship to hide notable images. Interestingstuffadder 23:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Censorship is really not an accurate word to use. We have the freedom to choose either path, no one is censoring us. For clarity, I am not suggesting the images here are sexual in nature nor that they be linkimaged, but we should not take an extremist stance against the idea of linkimage as a useful tool. Johntex\talk 00:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I support inclusion. If a reader seriously gets offended by images of animal genitals they won't be seeking out articles about semen. Ashmoo 04:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
This is not quite true. The main falacy there is that it assumes that the reader knows what the word means. They may very reasonably hear the word in conversation and go to look it up. The statement also ignores the fact that they may have following an internal link, which could be made to read like any word. Johntex\talk 22:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Image compromise suggestion

I have a suggestion, how about something like this picture? Turkey semen. While I am totally against censorship, I am all for aesthetics (meaning GOOD pictures). I think that the Turkey semen picture is quite informative (shows basically the same thing as the "human semen" picture), it is "free" (USDA), and I doubt that anyone would be offended by it. Hope this helps--DO11.10 17:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Latest image war

The two pictures have been consensus for a long time. Please do not remove them, or add images. The "precum" picture some vandal added for fun is not consensus, and is not relavent to this article. Let's discuss changes first. A new image should add something meaningful to the article. The existing semen article has been debated, and found to be fine for many many months, and we should leave it be until someone can find another, better image of human semen. Atom 18:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding preceding request Atom, surely any appeal NOT to edit an article in Wikipedia is ENTIRELY unWiki! You are appealing to us to leave it alone, to arrest its evolution, basically. The idea that any person has authorial editing rights (do this, don't do this) makes this a censorship issue. "Should" or "shouldn't" issues show a desire to control the article somehow. Wiki evolves, it is not prescribed by "those who know best". Please don't assume possessiveness over materials here, the whole of Wiki belongs to all Wikipedians. Trevor H. 02:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I added the pre-cum image, not for reasons of vandalism (and I resent such a suggestion) but because I thought it added something to the article - it's an existing image from Wikipedia Commons, in case anyone was wondering. Sorry for not discussing it first but I'm quite new to Wikipedia and I thought that you were just supposed to "be bold" and add something to an article if you thought it made it better. 87.113.20.140 21:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to offend. In my opinion, although it is an interesting image, I think that it is too off topic -- Certainly for the lead. If there were a section that discussed Pre-ejaculate it might go well there. That's just my opinion. Even the image of semen has been pretty controversial, even though the article is specifically about semen. Atom 03:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't there a section on Pre-ejaculate? --Scix 03:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can add one. Probably no one has because it would say (See article pre-ejaculate).

Facial pic

Is this really needed??? What does it add to the article, other then to document a particular sexual practise? One I have no person problem with, but it just seems out of place. Make a article about cum facials if you need it, but this is the wrong page (nice pic btw, its just in the wrong place IMO!) -- lawrence@aslak.net


Semen picture

This is fucking revolting, utterly disgusting and totally unrequired. Whether you think this is a question of "censorship" is neither here nor there. This is totally unencyclopaedic and anyone who supports it being here is disturbed. what is wrong with you people? Cum under a microscope - fine, but this is just a vanity picture. I can't even seem to revert it to the non penis showing version of the photo. Ugh.--I'll bring the food 01:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There's no penis. And please take a moment to consider the possibility that your revulsion is your own. If you are disgusted by an image of semen on a petri dish or in a beaker, why would you even look at the article? Scix 03:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I have decided to remove the picture as people keep reverting it to the uncropped version.
Seems a silly reason to remove something; how about replacing it with a better one? In any event, the picture currently seems to be a black square. Scix 03:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with I'll bring the food. Any idiot can upload a picture after they have masturbated. Can't we get a microscope photo instead?

Yeah this is pretty much completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia.--67.23.140.120 06:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

My problem with the photo isn't that it is particularly offensive... I've viewed plenty of pornography (intentionally and unintentionally) during my time on the internet, and seen plenty of things far worse than this. My main problem with it is the extreme low quality of the photograph, combined with the lack of any warning about it. Because of the heavily crosslinked nature of wiki, I ended up at this article through the progression from looking at chemical structures of putrescine, then cadaverine, which linked to Semen. I was greeted with an eyefull of it (no pun intended) first thing in the morning while eating my cereal. My main issue, after the initial shock of seeing someone's wad blown on the page, was that the image itself is horrible. I've never examined any of my semen too closely, but I'm pretty sure it didn't have a magical rainbow of veiny structures throughout it. I also tried to keep it off the couch cushions, but that's another story. I'm tempted to take a photograph of some semen on a proper background using studio lighting, but unfortunately it's far too early in the day to produce any. ElGordo 15:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It can certainly have that appearance. A black background and a glass dish would be nice and clinical. --Scix 01:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a funny picture. CerealBabyMilk 11:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

"This section may require cleanup"

Oh. My. Lord. Best pun ever.

Semen Photo

The commenter below is a troll. His interest in seeing more "shots" of semen is non-representative.

Leave it and add more photos of different "shots" of semen. I think the picture was interesting. Seeing a variety of different photos portraying the same thing would be interesting as well. Don't be closed minded and restrictive. Also, a microscopic image should be added too. It makes sense to have a close up and then a microsopic shot of human semen, don't you think? Maybe a microscopic image of the horse semen as well.

I think we need a better photo. I think that having a dual photo of human semen in a petri dish on the left, and a microsopic picture (of semen, not just sperm) on the right would be a great lead picture. Atom 15:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed the caption to read better. Atom 15:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is going to get content blocked

Re the photo, If people don't stop adding their vanity pictures then there are going to be either content warnings on all those pages that have to be scrolled through, or the site wikipedia is going to be blocked by surfcontrol and net nanny etc, or schools will block it from viewing from their students. Or the USA government will sue them for not following COPPA (wikimedia is florida based after all). No elementary school in their right mind would allow students onto wikipedia if people keep uploading their homegrown porn.

unclear what is porn about this. wikipedia is not censored. Interestingstuffadder 20:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
this is not the first instance of someone seeking "internet notoriety" by putting homemade explicit pictures on wikipedia. There is a difference between censoring and putting in a scientific photo instead of something someone put on wikipedia to brag to their friends about. Look around some of the other articles in this category. If something is not done about then things will end up either blocked or with content warnings due to USA laws.

The law in the U.S. considers pornography to be "obscene" content. There is nothing "obscene" about semen, it is natural and normal. Regardless of the long-term consequences, being blocked or not, Wikipedia is not censored. Atom 20:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Then put in a scientific photo of it and not a picture someone is using to brag about themselves with and get their jollies by uploading their personal photos to wikipedia. Why not addition of something with a microscope in addition to that replacement.

I agree. See my note earlier in history suggesting a sample in a cup along side a microsopic photo. However, until someone volunteers that, this photo will have to do. What makes you think that this photo is "a picture someone is using to brag about themselves with and get their jollies "? Aren't you reading something into it that does not need to be there? It looks like ejaculate on a brown background. Do you find it offensive because it suggests that someone ejaculated at some point in the process? Atom 22:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason someone is using this photo to brag is because the license data on it is wrong, this photo was scraped from a different forums site on the internet dedicated to self-pics of a sexual nature.
Everyone who objects is doing so based on their own interpretations, not on the actual subject at hand, as far as I can see. Personally, I think it would be unconscionable to not have a 1x photo of the substance described in the article. If it makes the protestors feel better, they can go to a fertility clinic and acquire photos in beakers and test tubes. I don't think it makes a lick of difference, but hey, if it makes them feel better. Honestly, why would someone even go to an article marked "semen" if all they're going to do is get upset at the photos? (signed) Scix 22:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Then put it in a link and not as the first thing you see on the page since everyone agrees they need a better image. There is huge precedent for reducing it to a link. In fact there is even precedent for removing it altogether ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Group_sex&diff=prev&oldid=56494053 ) but linking it would suffice until it is replaced.

The predecent you speak of is several places (as I supported in the creampie (sexual act) article for moving to Linkimage.) I'm aware of what it is. In this case, we are talking about semen, not anything sexually explicit, and not anything that is shocking. If you read consistently the discussions regarding this in this talk page, there is no consensus or discussion of moving it to linkimage, and the consensus has been for leaving the image, but replacing it with a better one at some point. You have changed, or reverted this four times today, with no previous discussion or attempts to gain consensus on your edit. You haven't explained your position or perspective for others to idenity with or explain. You've claimed several times unexplicably, that the image is pornography, but not why you feel that way. There are no people in the photo, there is no sex act, and nothing sexually explicit in any way. It is a picture of sperm, on a brown background. I'd sure like to know what there is about this photo that you find to be explicit or "obscene". Atom 00:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, Wikipedia:Etiquette, and Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Also, you might look at Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Atom 00:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually there is consensus for linking it and you are the one who is violating 3RR - but I will let it slide this time. (unsigned)
You have an interesting definition of "consensus." Good thing you're letting it "slide" Scix 04:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

This discussion of images applies to numerous other articles, most of the sexology and sexuality oriented. I have begun a discussion of the broader topic on Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines to have people participate in working on a guideline consensus (not a policy, or rules, as that hasn't been possible in the past). Having a consensus of people who have hashed this out and agreed on some guidelines will help in the future to combat against the types of problems we have had in the past. (Prudish people pushing their POV, Trolls trying to create controversy, Vanity images, etc.) Of course it won't be a solution to all problems, and they will still need to be dealt with on a case by case basis, but there really isn't a need to rehash the entire barrel of pickles on every image on every sexuality based page, and then again when someone tries to change an image. Atom 17:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Latest Semen Photo revert war

Anonymous users keep removing the image, despite what appear to be consensus on the discussion page and wikipedia policy (Wikipedia is Not Censored). I've reluctant to re-add the image because of the 3RR, so can an administrator step in and make the situation clear? --Darksun 22:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


I will report anyone who removes the image three times under wp:3rr. If you disagree, please add your comments in here and discuss it. Otherwise you are making changes against consensus. Atom 22:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the image is inappropiate. Yes, it does not qualify as pornographic or something, so there's nothing obscene about it, but it looks unclean and unprofessional looking, and there could be a much better picture than that. It's just a white splatter on the carpet or something, and it could easily be anything. I would suggest someone going to a sperm bank and asking for permission for photos of sperm samples. That would look much better. - Zero1328 Talk? 23:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe you could do that for us? Or if someone could get such a photo so that it is available to us. In the mean time, let's stick with the vote and consensus agreed upon ealier. Atom 00:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I'm really willing to get a photo myself, my dignity would take a large hit. - Zero1328 Talk? 00:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You suggested going to a lab and getting pictures of a sample. They don't have to be pictures of your samples. And they would probably have a microscope that takes photographs there. Atom 02:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a waste of time to me. The photo clearly shows what semen looks like. A splat in a petri dish might look more clinical, but it'll still be a splat. Also: Why not use the photo used in sperm if a microscopic photo is wanted IN ADDITION? --Scix 05:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with the photo as is, however I think a more clinical photo would make the article better quality from an encyclopedic perspective. Clearly, for whatever reason, the existing photo bothers some people. I'm thinking that the pattern makes them visualize someone actually ejaculating, and that squicks them as being too personal, or erotic, or something. (like ejaculation doesn't occur 500 Million times a day in the world.) Anyway -- we can argue about the right for some photo to be there, or we can focus on a good faith attempt to make the article the best it can be. Atom 13:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the photo is in poor taste. While I agree that a photo of semen is applicable to this page this one is not. I think the fact that this contoversey is not so much about having a photo at all but having this photo. I'm also not in favor of leaving this up until a better one is found - we should not have a photo just for the sake of having one. I recommend this is removed. --Nycmstar 12:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain, for those of us that are clueless, what it is about this picture that you find "in poor taste". I'm sure that to you it is obvious, and you wonder how others could not think otherwise. To me, and aparently others, there is nothing about it that seems in poor taste. The long term solution is for someone to bring a better image to the wikimedia site. Atom 13:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Is that REALLY a horse penis?

I've asked above, but it got buried. There still seem to be people who think the horse semen photo includes a picture of the horse's penis. I am fairly sure that the object shown is just rubber tubing. The original photographer hasen't answered, but the article on veterinary insemination describes the device used, and putting a glass beaker on the end of the horsewang doesn't seem right. Might the caption be altered to clarify? --Scix 05:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
seems fine to me. only a prude would want it changed.

Yes, of course it's rubber tubing. Seems to me that they attach it over the horse's penis like a condom. You can see the end of it inside the top of the glass section. Master Deusoma 00:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

BIG vote in favor of getting rid of the 'human semen' photo

Lord knows I'm not a prude, and I even hang out at 4chan.org's /b/ imgboard, where disgusting stuff like this is commonplace. But I posted a {{prod}} on the image page because, "Image is too graphic and non-objective. It is essentially porn, and inappropriate in use for a NPOV article on the subject." It diminishes Wikipedia; this image is childish and rude, and should be removed.

First, this has been discussed time and time again, and it has always been for keep. Someone like you comes in and sees it and for some loses their objectivity. This is an article about semen. A picture of semen is appropriate here. Semen isn't something pornographic, as the article isn't about sex. The images have no people. Perhaps you think it looks vulgar because ot looks like it may have been ejaculated. Well, I have news for you. All semen is ejaculated. That is an intrinsic part of semen, and is one of the reaosns why that image is a good one. If you prefer human semen in a test tube, that would be great, but I have asked someone to contribute such a picture, and so far no one has produced one. HOw can a picture os semen, in the semen article diminish wikipedia? Get a clue please. Atom 10:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I would have removed it myself, but I see that it's an active controversy so let's take the debate to the deletion discussion page.  Erielhonan  talk | contribs   仕方が無い   03:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Although you might find the image vulgar, keep in mind that Wikipedia is NOT censored.. The image shows exactly what it says it shows, and is tagged correctly. Thus, in the eyes of Wikipedia, there is nothing wrong with it. Cheers! ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 18:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Response to your post on my talk page: Saying that Wikipedia isn't censored isn't exactly accurate. It doesn't censor blindly for content, but if you were to edit the Semen page to say something like "semen is the manjuice that comes out of a guys dick when he's done fucking something (usually his own hand)", it would get reverted as vandalism. And if you did that a couple more times you'd be given a vacation from posting.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and there are plenty of editors and admins here who want to keep it encyclopedic. And that means changing content to suit the purpose. To me, and to other users that image is grafitti on the page it appears.
I don't object to images of porn on a page about porn. And I wouldn't object to semen2.jpg if it were used to illustrate the sort of content that one might find on the /b/ imageboard at 4chan.org, or at encycopediadramatica.com. I think in the article it's in isn't the best use of the image. The article is meant to address a clinical topic, and the image makes it seem vulgar and childish. I will seek an appropriate replacement image.
Honestly I feel like the KEEP side of the argument is being pushed by a bunch of unserious people who are mostly asserting their 'right to be disruptive'. Erielhonan talk | contribs 仕方が無い 19:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I understand that you are somewhat offended by the image. Unfortunately, sometimes, when all sides will be offended either way, Wikipedians must choose the least offensive side. This does cause disputes and arguments and, sometimes, wars--but these things must be tolerated in order to keep the structure of the Wiki community sound. My best advice: tolerate it as much as you can, and when you can't tolerate it any more, rant about it on the talk page. Remember one of my favorite quotes: "It is always sound business to take any obtainable net gain, at any cost and at any risk to the rest of the community." - Thorstein Veblen
Cheers. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 20:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Reply to your reply: Please reread my arguments, and realize that I'm not talking about personal offence. You are moving the debate to me as an individual, and away from the appropriate of the image, which has repeatedly been called into question. Ad hominem, I think they call it, and it's not a legitimate debate tactic (even if it is effective).
Just because I say the image is vulgar I don't place a personal, emotional judgement on it. It's an objective observation. Conventional wisdom, and a significant number of comments on the article's talk page, indicates that it's in bad taste, which makes it unsuitable where it sits. It seems to me that most of the arguments in favor of keeping the image don't address appropriateness or alternative images except in passing. The main argument is free speech which isn't a driving tenant in editorial policy. The image in its current use is unencyclopedic, and I will continue to push for its removal and/or replacement even if the IfD fails.
Last observation: The "KEEP" camp seems to me to be a vocal minority taking on the appearance of a majority. Historically (on the article's talk page) when someone protests the image they are responded to with empty-sounding arguments about free speech, censorship, and unsupported claims of appropriateness. The style of argument employed by most supporters could be used to justify anything if it were logically valid. Fortunately for the rest of Wikipedia, it is not. Erielhonan talk | contribs 仕方が無い 20:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I am one of the people who has continued to stop the censorship of the image. We have taken votes over and over and the consensus is always KEEP. The people who wander in and try to deleter it without even reading the history of the talk page are the minority. A majority of us are protecting it. As I have said before, it is a picture of semen in the semen article. (how is that am unsupported claim of appropriatness? Is it not really semen? Does semen not really look like that? ) So, you don't think that a picture of semen should be in the semen article. Most people disagree with you. Atom 10:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Folks, let me reiterate, it's not about personal offence, it's about encyclopedic value and appropriateness. And it's not about me, it's about the image. If supporters would keep the debate on that level and make supported arguments (like WHY it's appropriate, not "cos we got a right to do this"), there might be a real debate and not the "no you" debate this has devolved into.  Erielhonan  talk | contribs   仕方が無い   21:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You need some kind of point to stand on. Could you explain why a picture os semen in the semen article is not of encyclopedic value? Or, maybe how such an image is not appropriate? If it is truely more about your personal opinion, could you explain those things? The pictures of a penis on the penis page, masturbation on the masturbation page and breasts one the breats page and an anus on the anus page pretty much saya everything. Atom 10:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact the the picture is of semen does not justifies its inclusion. Surly you would not accept any picture of a vagina or anus or penis just because that was what it showed. I think the example of the picture of the vagina is a particularly good on, it is graphic and explanatory and genuinely informs the reader. I did not seen any graphical image masturbation on the masturbation page. The picture as it stands is not particularly useful and is not distinguishable in the current picture from any number of other white viscous fluids. --134.225.12.50 11:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I edit a wide variety of sexology and sexuality articles. Many of these have images. I've been working on guidelines for people who edit in those areas to use for images so that we can avoid the kind of random censorship that happens here, while trying to put informative, no offensive images in articles that add to the quality of a given article. Discussion of this is at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sexology_and_sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines.

In consider this article, an article on semen, to be loosely in the sexology area, even though it is more anatomical or medically related. Both of the pictures of semen are appropriate in this article. They would be innapropriate in an unrelated article. This picture is normal semen, and not unusual in any way. Various people have objected to the photo in the past, for a variety of reasons. Often, they seem to feel, for some reason, that it is offensive, or pornographic, but just assume that other people see the same thing in the photo. I can tell you that most of us don't get at all what it is you find offensive about the photo. You need to explain what aspect of the photo you find offensive more clerarly. So far, I have heard people say that they think it looks like someone just masturbated on a couch, or that it looked like the sperm had been ejaculated, or that the photo should be more clinical or medical in nature. My opinion of these explanations vary. On the one hand, I would like a more clinical specimen myself. And, as soon as someone puts such a photo on the Commons web site, we can consider using it as a better alternative. So far no one has offered this. To those who suggest it is in some way pornographic, I am puzzled. I think perhaps they have been watching too much porn. To read into the image that it was someone masturbating for a vanity image, or that it was such on a couch is pure speculation and imagination on their part. As to it looking as if it might have been ejaculated, I am confused as to why that would be a negative aspect. I would think that since that is the normal delivery system for semen, that it would be a positive. There is nothing pornographic, or explicitily sexual or erotic about the photo at all, in any way. To read that into it is more imagination than anything else.

Semen is perfectly normal, healthy, and perhaps quite miraculous bodily fluid. This is merely an image of a bodily fluid, much like on the Human urine article, or the Blood article. It is related to sexuality or anatomy in the same that the breast, anus, scrotum, vagina and penis articles are. Not suprisingly some few people want to remove those pictures too, claiming that they are somehow pornographic.

As I have said, this has been argued before, many times. The consensus is, and will likely remain that the image will stay until a better, more clinical sample is offered. Atom 15:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


I don't think the picture should be deleted from wikipedia, it might have appropriate uses on other pages, but I do think that it should be removed from this article. --Andrew 8754 10:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Remove Semen Photo

Maybe A Pic Of Semen In A Test Tube? Offensiveandconfusing 20:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Remove picture - I think the current picture semen2.jpg is not appropriate for this entry. A more clinical picture would be more appropriate, unfortunately I can not find one to offer as a replacement. I think however, that the article would be better with the picture removed if no appropriate substitute can be found. --Andrew 8754 10:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Semen splatter image

Is it just me, or does anyone else think that the image of the semen splattered on the cloth looks like the Statue of Liberty?

Ya know, I was thinking the same exact thing when I first saw the pic, but I couldn't place it for some reason!! LOL. Somewhere inside me I knew it was the Statue of Liberty, but I couldn't make the connection. Very good, and VERY funny!! Peace.
thumb|200px|Human semen
Liberty Statue
Liberty Statue

A point to stand on

In response to - You need some kind of point to stand on. Could you explain why a picture os semen in the semen article is not of encyclopedic value? Or, maybe how such an image is not appropriate? If it is truely more about your personal opinion, could you explain those things? The pictures of a penis on the penis page, masturbation on the masturbation page and breasts one the breats page and an anus on the anus page pretty much saya everything. Atom 10:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no macroscopic, in situ, amateur photograph of blood on the blood page, sweat on the sweat page, urine on the urine page, pus on the pus page, bile on the bile page, lymph on the lymph page, or even tears on the tears page. If you want to make comparisons based on categories, I think that bodily fluids is a more valid category than sex parts. Semen isn't an organ, it's an excretion. Heck, there isn't even a photo of vaginal secretions on the vaginal secretion page.

Taken in this light, would it be encylopedic to show an image a pool of blood on asphalt on the blood page? Or a picture of a sweaty jockstrap on the sweat page? Or a used bandage on the pus page? Or a booger on the nasal mucus page?

Semen is a viscous fluid that only looks like it does in that photo when a male ejaculates in certain circumstances, and then it only looks like that for a few minutes before it cools and changes chemical properties and physical appearance. It's a misleading photo that only captures a very limited and immature perspective of what semen is. A poorly-lighted photo of a blob of cum on the floor doesn't really add any value to the article aside from shock value. I can't imagine a situation where a photo like that would be included in any professionally-published encyclopedia or journal. It is of little substantive or instructive value. It detracts from the seriousness of Wikipedia. I don't even see a need for a replacement photo.

I wish that the admins here would let professionalism prevail and stop accepting the arguments in favor of this image. I have not read one argument in favor that isn't ultimately based on defiance. This controversy is essentially in its small way a hijacking of the intent of Wikipedia, and IMHO work toward a solution should be sponsored by an individual in the Wikifoodchain who ranks higher than rank-and-file admins. If a workgroup is assembled to find this solution, I'd be happy to volunteer for it.

 Erielhonan  09:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Latest Photo Removals (12-2-06)

The consensus on the semen photo was KEEP, but IP only editors seem to think their opinion overrules that. It does not. Prometheus-X303- 01:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not so sure you can claim such consensus. Although I am of the opinion, like others, that a picture of human semen is wholly appropriate to this article, I agree with others that this particular picture is truly awful. What's with the black stuff? I would normally revert the type of censorship that this article attracts, but with such a truly awful picture I can't bring myself to do it. The picture is so wrong, inaccurate even, that it shouldn't be used, IMO. -- zzuuzz (talk) 02:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I am quite sure that somebody can create a better image. My main objection is that this looks like it was taken on a couch or something, but the image is not bad enough to be deleted. Prometheus-X303- 02:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Then we are agree we need another picture. My main objection is that the picture is inaccurate, and likely to give people the impression that semen is usually black, and looking like it's decaying. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

A CONSENSUS? From who? The consensus was that it wasn't worth wasting to the time to get in a revert war with the half-dozen of you who seem to think this photo has redeeming qualities.

Here's a couple arguments against it:

1. It's revolting. 2. It does not contribute to the encyclopedia. It looks exactly like horse semen. 3. It strongly implies a mental image of some geek jerking off on a chair. 4. It overshadows the text of the article.

The argument that "it'll just have to stay until someone ejaculates into a petri dish" has no merit at all. It isn't the difference between 'slight merit' and 'substantial merit'; it's the difference 'completely detracts' and 'tolerable'. A clinical picture is a compromise; that people would accept it does NOT imply the current image is acceptable in lieu of something better.

Every encyclopedia has quality control. Every argument in favor of keeping has been purely anti-authoritarian. There have been NO arguments for the image as anything representative of the quality to which Wikipedia aspires.

If that's the best picture there is, I say, don't post it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.172.240.254 (talk • contribs)

See #Consensus on images above. I see five to keep both, two to remove the human image and one to keep both but do a linkthrough, I presume through {{linkimage}}, though nobody seems to have followed through with that. Not a clear as some discussions I've seen, but still for inclusion. Given that, removal of the images by random anons is probably best characterized as vandalism rather than a content dispute. If anyone wishes to propose another poll to see where people are on the removal, image link and keep options, they are of course free to do so, though the opinions of anons tend to be given less credence due to the possibility of sockpuppetry. - BanyanTree 04:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The consensus discussion above was related to a different picture, Image:semen.jpg We are now discussing Image:Semen2.jpg, which is completely different. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I will support another poll (providing it is done correctly) and see that the article is kept according to the outcome. As for the arguments against it put forth by 209.172.240.254, I am sorry that this picture inspires such thoughts in your mind, but that doesn't mean it does to everybody. Many people are likely to be offended (or even aroused) by the images on Wikipedia, but we can't censor these unless they are shown to be inappropriate. Being a picture of human semen, it is appropriate. Any other photo of semen will still be a photo of semen, and due to the fact that any such image will most likely have to be made by an editor, I seriously doubt that it will have the sterilized quality that some people can't live without.Prometheus-X303- 05:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
See my non-IP editor comments against, above. (I'm by far not the only non-IP editor; please note this is not just anonymous 'anti-vandals' who find this image wholly inappropriate for this usage.) I support not a user poll (which can easily be tricked by surreptitious, off-Wiki canvassing) but a working group of editors, sponsored by a bureaucrat or higher-ranking individual, that seeks a permanent solution to this controversy. I'd like to see a management solution here, because the user-based "poll" solution has proven entirely unsatisfactory to a large number of readers.
I find 209.172.240.254's description to be entirely apt. It evokes degrading mental images, it's unencyclopedic, it overshadows the rest of the content of the page, and it is a complete distraction in the editorial evolution of this article.
So what I'm going to do as another interim solution is, when the pic inevitably gets re-reverted, I'll post it as a gallery-sized thumb at the very bottom of the text of the page. If I don't get to it, someone else please do. The image will still be there, the content of the page will not be changed though the layout will be altered, and it should stay that way till a (hopefully managerial) solution is reached. This has gone on far too long, and needs to be resolved for good.  Erielhonan  09:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I re-included the image but altered the dimensions and the layout. Perhaps this will suffice till we can get to a permanent solution.  Erielhonan  10:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, at least that has the air of a proposal. I realize the original poll was for the inclusion of Image:Semen.jpg, but it appears that Image:Semen2.jpg was chosen as being less controversial. I'm not sure that the users who want the Semen2.jpg removed really want it replaced with Semen.jpg, which would certainly be supported by the poll. (As a sidenote, commons:Category:Semen has hardly any images, which I find odd.)

As for "the user-based "poll" solution has proven entirely unsatisfactory to a large number of readers", that's the nature of a poll. Some people lose. The civilized thing to do is refrain from starting an insurgency. I have reprotected the page with the images, as they were when I unprotected the page. I will not let sockpuppetry determine the nature of this page. As for a "managerial" solution, you all seem to be a few steps away from that. See Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

That only dog I had in this fight was ensuring that my review of semiprotected pages didn't result in any major problems. Unprotecting this page clearly did, given the extensive sockpuppetry that resulted. After reprotecting, I am going to take my dog and go away. If anyone needs admin assistance, I'd be happy to lend a hand if you drop me a line. Otherwise I wish you the best in resolving your disagreement. - BanyanTree 13:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Anti depressant properties and hormones?

I added the external link to gallups study. I think it is strange that this wiki article doesn't really mention anything about the hormones in semen and there possible functions. Also I wondered where the following hormones are produced, and where do they enter semen? Quote from Gallup:

"Hormones inseminal plasma include testosterone, estrogen, folliclestimulating hormone and luteinizing hormone, prolactin,and a number of different prostaglandins".

Quite clearly testosteron is important for the female sexual appetite, on top of the mood influence Dr Gallup is speculating about. Unfortunately, I can't find any other research being done to test his conclusions. It has been four years since his study. I would say very interesting stuff...

This article is also interesting, although probably not nice enough to link on the from the main article...

This article even claims semen contains oxytocin. That's kind of cool, but where are the scientific reports?

Ok, found one

This women seems to be in a Hormone replacement therapy study of swallowing semen. How curious the world of semen can be???

Energy Source of Sperm Cells

Fructose being the energy source for the sperms in the semen is questionable. The mitochondria that powers the locomotion of the sperm cells is known to require the simple sugar glucose for fuel (Kreb's cycle). I am not a specialist of biology and I hope that the author or anyone of authority would look up on that and maybe have this page in order. Wander apr 09:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Frutose is pretty easily converted to glucose, I would think that the enzymes necessary would be present, or that the cell could just uptake fructose and phosphorylate it anyway (remember that fructose 1,6 bisphosphate is a step in glycolysis) 203.5.70.1 06:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Opening Phrase

Isn't Jizz slang?

Its a popular type of music. horseboy 17:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC) That's hilarious, but yes, it is a slang term for it. Summoned 17:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Semen & Skin

As for semen being good for skin, it is an interesting claim. I have not heard any actual scientific discussion on this, but I do know that semen cotains a good quantity of zinc. Zinc is an ingredient in many commercial skin lotions and dandruff shampoos and is very good for the skin. It therefore stands to reason that semen could be used as a kind of natural "zinc cream". Food for thought. 209.217.75.162 20:14, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi there. I've split the text into section headings. I've also added a section on nutrition. See the link that I added for source information on this.

Also, I think that zinc should be listed in the composition of semen. I will leave it up to others decretion to make this edit. 209.217.75.162 09:20, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sperm in semen could be carrier of exogenous (viral) DNA into offspring. Originally the scienctific paper was scorned, but stood firm, and has been accepted in vitro fertilization procedure with limited application as of now.

Sperm cells and foreign DNA: a controversial relation. Bioessays. 1998 Nov;20(11):955-64. Review.

Bulky DNA adducts in human sperm: relationship with fertility, semen quality, smoking, and environmental factors. Mutat Res. 2003 May 9;537(1):53-65.

Interaction of exogenous DNA with the nuclear matrix of live spermatozoa. Mol Reprod Dev. 2000 Jun;56(S2):235-237.

//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=2720785

Indiana Nik03:22, Jan 20, 2005 UTC

It should be noted that the Mutation Research paper listed above ("Bulky DNA adducts...") addresses a different issue - the experiments it describes do not relate to viral DNA and spermatozoa. Abstraktn 06:53, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

P0lyglot (and others), I have been searching around for references to semen's supposed benefit to skin and I have come up short. I asked a professional nurse and she immediately refuted the claim.

I have restructured this document somewhat to move these claims into a separate paragraph. sunbeam60 00:14, 2004 Jan 19 (UTC)

are there historical references that semen is good for the skin? Xah P0lyglut 01:07, 2003 Dec 12 (UTC)

Lifetime/durability if frozen in liquid nitrogen...

Improvements

This article could be fleshed out, but I don't know enough to attempt it myself. Things I noticed that are missing:

  • explanation of the composition of semen (why is there fructose and salt in semen? Does it feed the sperm somehow?)
  • the properties of semen and how that might help to get a woman pregnant, and how long can the sperm survive outside the man's body, what in semen helps this?
  • are there more cultural beliefs about the properties of semen that could be added? That paragraph is interesting, but could be longer.
  • and what historical beliefs did we have about semen? Fabiform 22:42, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)


I have been adding some information with the aim of giving some depth to the scientific content of the article. There's a lot more that can be added, for example I agree with Fabiform that the reason(s) for particular constituents is worth discussing. At the moment I'm not satisfied that the article as a whole reads well enough... Abstraktn 08:30, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The following have info about research on an immunosuppressive component in semen:

http://www.reproduction-online.org/cgi/content/abstract/111/1/135 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9272209&dopt=Abstract http://www.biolreprod.org/cgi/content/abstract/52/6/1209 http://www.iapg.cas.cz/uzfg/gb/12/veselsky.html http://molehr.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/5/3/220 * http://content.febsjournal.org/cgi/content/full/265/2/703 http://www.asiaandro.com/1008-682X/1/87.htm http://www.reproduction-online.org/cgi/content/abstract/127/5/581 http://www.biolreprod.org/cgi/content/abstract/59/1/202

--Doug Hockin 15:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Pregnancy

I think that specifying a 'successful' sterilization is necessary. I was under the impression that in rare cases for example after a vasectomy, a man's body can fix the snip and become fertile again. Aren't men checked every few years to make sure they're still sterile? (I haven't googled on any of this; this is just from my memory, so correct me if I'm wrong of course!) Fabiform 22:49, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I didn't remove "successful". Evercat 22:52, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No you didn't. Sorry. (I confused myself when I saw 'sucessful' highlighted in red because it'd been changed) I see you just corrected my spelling in two places. I must remember to spellcheck. Thanks for following in my wake and picking up the pieces.  ;) Fabiform

I changed the section under pregnancy, where it said a woman could get pregnant "at any time." Contrary to what our sex ed teachers would have us believe, this absolutely is not the case. There is a 1-2 day period in which an egg can be fertilized, and sperm can live in the female tract for up to 5 days. So even the best odds are a week-long period each cycle in which a women can become pregnant.

Taste

I noticed that someone added a section on taste. Are there any actual references to back this up, or this just vandalism? 64.26.167.34 22:51, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

i took the following from the article

==Taste== Although some people find the taste of semen objectionable, it can be improved if the man consumes more fruit, less meat, and avoids alcohol and tobacco. [[Asparagus]] should definitely be avoided. The article needs something about taste but not this. If anyone can find some decent sources about this that would be great. The bellman 23:03, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

I've heard from several reliable sources that fruit, meat and other foods do play a role in taste, and I'm not talking anecdotal evidence here. Off the top of my head, I can only remember one definite source: Sue Johanson's show. I don't remember the episode number or anything, but if someone has the time to dig through her archives, go nuts. If I recall correctly, she also mentioned something about a drug one could take to alter the taste. --LuciferBlack 14:55, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
Everything you've listed is anecdotal.

The smell of semen is characteristic of strongly basic amines:putrescine, spermine, spermidine and cadaverine. The idea of offensive taste of semen regarding men who eat meat may have some scienctific basis as meat contains large amount of lysine and arginine (basic amino acids) which are the starting point for more stongly amines putrescine, cadaverine, spermine, etc. Indiana Nik 03:08, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

I have read some where on the internet that if you are into the taste of semen then before all that you should have the guy eat minty gum and have him eat mints. The article sugested altoids because they are strong and the semen does not stink as much or does the taste doesnt taste that bad after the mints.

Asparagus makes it taste disgusting. horseboy 17:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I heard that chilli peppers can make it taste sweeter, is there any evidence of this? — Soupisgoodfood 13:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Semenex is a product designed to alter the taste and it has some explanations to the research behind it on it's website. I have tried it and it does work though the best results are obtained by avoiding tobacco, alcohol, red meat, salty foods and, of course, asparagus, while drinking large quantities of water (1.5 times recommended) and upping the fruit intake.

Noted sex expert Drew Pinsky has stated that there is no verifiable way to make semen taste better. A common joke on the Loveline radio show is that once you drink enough pinapple juice to make your s--- taste like pineapples, your semen will taste the same. Photomikey 23:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Semen and transmission of disease

The disputed connection between HIV and AIDS is highly controversial. A more in-depth discussion of the conventional and alternate hypotheses is better suited to another page - the information included here could be merged with the "Alternate Theories" section of the AIDS page. Abstraktn 00:31, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Connection between HIV and AIDS are for the most part scientifically proven and I see no evidence to suggest that the opposite view is in anyway becoming more mainstream. Therefore I will be removing the passage regarding this which is the way it should stay until someone else can respond with evidence that proves that this viewpoint is becoming more mainstream in any substaintial amount. wwahammy

external links

It seems that the last two external links are to news/public interest sites that are far removed from primary sources. Furthermore, they are all about the same subject. The first three are public interest sites, too, and don't seem very authoritative or scientific, though the articles themselves are. Should this section be revamped? DDerby 00:35, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Semen and skin again

The claim that:

Other cultures believe semen to have beneficial qualities when applied to the skin ...

is too outlandish and unspecific to remain in the article if it isn't substantiated. If it at least said "the so-and-so culture believes" or something similar, it would be possible to verify the claim. Of course, a real source would be even better. --SKopp 22:52, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Difference between "sperm" (the term that refers to a secretion or substance) and "semen" (another term that also refers to a secretion or substance)

I would like to have the difference between the terms "sperm" and "semen" clarified on the article. When I say "sperm" here, I don't mean the spermatozoa (aka sperm cells), but the substance. Now I know that some people will answer that the difference between the two terms is a "semantic" (as some people say loosely) difference, but I'm not interested in that kind of answers. What I want is to know the practical difference between "sperm" (again, the noun that refers to a substance, not the spermatozoa contained in the substance) and "semen". I ask this because I have noticed that there is a difference in usage that depends on context and/or situation. For example, I have noticed that for some (or maybe all) animals only the term "sperm" is used (when referred to the substance, not the spermatozoa in the substance), but the term "semen" does never appear. So what I'm asking here is: Where is the exact limit between "sperm" (again, the substance, not the cells) and "semen"?

And please, please, I beg you, don't start talking about the noun "sperm" that means a spermatozoon, but about the other noun "sperm" that means the substance.

If you know the answer, please modify the article accordingly, by explaining the difference between the two things or the two terms that refer to the two things. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 19:50, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Google/Google Fight method

I'm gonna try to use the Google/Google Fight (http://googlefight.com) method by looking at the relative frequencies of the signifiers "sperm" and "semen" in texts found by Google. Of course, if you know the accurate, dead-on answer to the above question, please answer it here and/or modify the article accordingly, or help find a better method to answer the question.

Of course, one problem of this method is that Google does not distinguish between sperm (=spermatozoon) and sperm (=substance). Also, Google does not show the exact sentence where the terms appear, unless we read citation by citation.

For example, for jellyfish and sperm, the Google search would be sperm jellyfish. If the name of the animal is composed of two or more words, phrase search is used with quotation marks. As usual, there is no case sensitivity in Google searches.

animal term results relative frequency of "sperm" multiplied by 100 "spunk" results (as suggested by User:Veryblueboy)
sperm semen
Lutjanus 648 300 68 11
fish 735,000 260,000 74 117,000
human 1,970,000 651,000 75 126,000
reptile 54,200 16,200 77 6,610
insect 218,000 58,200 78 10,400
salmon 272,000 54,100 83 15,100
grasshopper 43,400 6,260 87 861
jellyfish 55,200 4,830 92 28,700
"Canis lupus" 4,110 380 92 47
"red snapper" 9,700 527 95 863
  • NOTE: Google Fight's results also include results in languages other than English, so the table has to be edited again by restricting results to English.

What about "spunk"? horseboy 13:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't think there is any special meaning to "sperm" when used to refer to "semen" rather than "spermatozoon". I don't think frequency of co-location is a good indication of semantic difference; scientists are more likely to use "semen" or some other term, and are more likely to be talking about the reproduction of non-human animals. There's also no need to do original research to establish usage; just check a good dictionary, like the OED. I see that Merriam-Webster online makes no special annotations. [1] -- Beland 03:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, I saw those definitions on Merriam-Webster dictionaries before asking the question, and I'm not satisified. A dictionary is just a dictionary. A dictionary doesn't give the details. There's a difference between "sperm" and "semen", even if the dictionary doesn't mention it. Anyway, thanks for the suggestions.

Dictionary method

sperm semen
Oxford Dictionary of English, Second Edition 1 [MASS NOUN] semen. ORIGIN late Middle English: via late Latin from Greek sperma 'seed', from speirein 'to sow'. [MASS NOUN] the male reproductive fluid, containing spermatozoa in suspension. ORIGIN late Middle English: from Latin, literally 'seed', from serere 'to sow'.
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate® Dictionary, Tenth Edition (14c) 1 a : SEMEN ME, fr. MF esperme, fr. LL spermat-, sperma, fr. Gk, lit., seed, fr. speirein to sow; prob. akin to Arm p'aratem I dispense (14c) : a viscid whitish fluid of the male reproductive tract consisting of spermatozoa suspended in secretions of accessory glands ME, fr. L, seed, semen; akin to OHG s†mo seed, L serere to sow — more at SOW
Merriam-Webster's Medical Desk Dictionary 1 : the male impregnating fluid : SEMEN a viscid whitish fluid of the male reproductive tract consisting of spermatozoa suspended in secretions of the accessory glands and esp. of the prostate and Cowper's glands
American Heritage Dictionary 2. Semen. Middle English sperme, semen, from Old French esperme, from Late Latin sperma, from Greek. A viscous whitish secretion of the male reproductive organs, containing spermatozoa and consisting of secretions of the testes, seminal vesicles, prostate, and bulbourethral glands. Also called seminal fluid. Middle English, from Latin sēmen, seed, semen.
Wiktionary 2. (physiology) Semen 1. Male ejaculate

As you can see, the dictionaries redirect you from sperm (the substance) to semen, and they give no clue as to whether there's a difference. But there is a difference, at least in usage. What I care about here is not just a semantic difference (if there is one), but also a difference in usage. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 15:29, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Why not use spunk instead? horseboy 17:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Semen breakdown in vaginal environment

How is the semen broken down in the vaginal environment? How long does it take and what happens to the various seminal components.

On a diet?

Semen is 15 calories per average "serving".

Useful to know ;) - Tredanse 13:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Pagan stuff

I removed the following because the reference to "Garrot" is unclear, and the view of "some pagans" is not balanced against the views of "other pagans" (or most?). This discussion of "sex magic" probably belongs in its own article, not briefly and superficially treated here, where it sounds more like a moral panic akin to a blood libel. The Dogandpony 05:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

In some pagan circles, semen is viewed as a magical fluid which harnesses the power within the male. It is not uncommon in some communities for a pagan Priestess to copulate with two or more males at the same time to harvest their semen[citation needed]. It is believed that in doing so an increase in power is transferred from the males into the body of the female (Priestess). Harvesting of the ejaculate and subsequently mixing it within the body of the female is believed to greatly increase the power within the female. (Garrot-1998)

Unverified and Suspicious text under "Sacred Semen"

Challenged Text:

"Early Gnostic Christians worshiped the phallus, anointing themselves with semen. They also drenched the Eucharist in human semen before consuming it and, on Palm Sunday, along with the palms, a phallus was borne in the Christians’ celebratory processions."

This is certainly controversial enough to merit multiple citations, especially since the lumping together of the many different Gnostic groups and their exact relationship to Christianity is a delicate subject.


Challenged Text:

"In early Christian belief, the angel Gabriel gave Mary a lily, commemorated as the fleur-de-lis, which magically filtered God’s semen into Mary’s body by way of her ear."

Dubious and desperately needs citations, as this does not seem to be found in what would generally be thought of as "Early Christian thought" and in fact contradicts the Christology of the canonical Gospels and the patristic writers. Not even in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible does God even have semen in the first place, and in what "early Christian" text does Gabriel even carry a lily, let alone give it to Mary? This does not even seem like something the Gnostic gospels would say. Is this vandalism? If not, let's have sources.

Flybane 03:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

"Swallow that cum!" Removed

"Females... swallow that cum!" was removed. It can be offensive and is certainly not appropriate in an encyclopedia context.

not to mention it is vandalism. --Philo 10:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Term Usage

It seems most people refer to semen as sperm, which its not. The Republican 23:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


Horse masturbation

I feel sorry for the person that has to give the happy-ending to those horses.--24.59.186.128 20:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Sacred semen: Sources

The whole Sacred Semen section is highly dubious. Starting with 'in pre-industrial societies...'. Does this mean ALL pre-industrial societies, are modern non-industrial societies included?

The rest of the article repeatedly says 'it was believed' without stating which culture(s) it is referring to. Many of the assertions seem highly dubious and aren't attributed to any source. It also assumes that ancient societies were matriarchial, which is a highly contentious issue and not very well accepted by historians, anthroplogist or paleontologists. Ashmoo 04:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


Consumption of Semen

"Semen is very tasty and rich in potassium, making it an excellent substance for consumption."

That is most definately a matter of opinion.

Should that even be mentioned? semen isn't for eating you know.


Semen and fruit

Apparently, if you eat fruit, then your semen will taste good to an oral sex partner. Maybe if anyone knows about this in detail, they can add to the article.

I heard that all the vitamins and minerals in a fruit will make a larger volume of ejaculate, but I don't really believe this either. I don't think any molecules that create taste would last through digestion and metabolism. However, both of these hypotheses are quite testable. Any takers. I'll buy the peaches and pears, but I ain't tasting. MMKAYY?

Can we protect this article?

It seems like this may be one of those vandalism-prone articles that could be protected? --Scix 22:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Is Semen Swallowing Harmful?

Hi, I am into fellatio. And i always swallow all the semen after he ejaculates. Can doing so result in some disease transfer? Does anybody have aby idea of the same? Please mail me if you have any knowledge of the same, i need to know that desperately. Thanks. user:Bunny4cunny

Swallowing semen is extremely common, and many, many people do it. It is however, not safe from the perspective that you speak of, in potential transfer of disease. The possibility of transfering HIV is very small, but has been shown to be possible. Also, other sexually transmitted diseases/infections (see [Sexually transmitted disease]]) can be transferred through oral sex. Atom 14:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Atom gives a good answer here, except I am not sure I would call the risk "small". Looking just at HIV, our article on HIV explains that the risk of contracting HIV through receptive fellatio (that is, performaing oral sex on a man) is about 1 in 10,000. You might be able to do it every day of your life without being infected, or it could happen next week. As Atom says, HIV is only one disease that could be transmitted this way. If you want to lower the risk, use a condom and or ensure that each and every sexual partner is tested regularly for sexually transmitted diseases. Johntex\talk 16:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
To clarify, in my opinion, based on extensive reading, the risk of getting HIV is small, and small in comparison to other ways that you could get infected by HIV[2]. (I believe one in 10,000 is probably innacurate -- too high. As far as I know, there have been like three documented cases ever.) The risk of other Sexually Transmitted Diseases is not small. HPV is a poor example, as about 60% of the population has HPV at any given time, and almost everyone has had it at one time or another. Even people who have never had sex, including oral sex often have one form or another of HPV.
What is important here though is that there are many other sexually transmitted diseases that are much more serious that can be more easily transfered via oral sex. Herpes Simplex, Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, among others. Johntex points out that a long term relationship with people (monogamous or polyfidelitous) that you know are not infected (because they test regularly) reduces the risk as much is possible, other than abstaining from any form of sex altogether.
If you are a young teen, and your partner is telling you that you can't get pregnant, and can't get disease from giving them oral sex, and so it is "safe" then they are very wrong.
Atom 17:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)



Vandalism protection

I added a "protect" banner after an annonymous editor changed the image seven or so times (once WHILE I was editing) to movie photos. --Scix 08:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The banner didn't do any good. An anon just removed it. Prometheus-X303- 12:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I thought adding the banner actually DID something?? --Scix 17:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: the most recent edit: Obviosuly, something more than adding the banner is required, someone please explain to to me. The article certainly NEEDS protection. --Scix 18:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Request protection at WP:RPP. hth. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Done. Sorry, I thought the banner was magic, heh heh. --Scix 18:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


Can we clean this talk page up?

Most long talk pages have many topics, as this one does, however, it seems that every time somebody has an issue with the semen photo, they neglect reading the other discussions and start a new heading. Currently, there are about 7 sections concerning the semen photo. Is there any way to combine these sections, or at least encourage editors to join the ongoing discussion instead of starting a new one? Prometheus-X303- 15:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I second this. Combine them if you want, I won't touch any of the changes you make. Besides, they all deal with the same group of issues, and some of them are essentially doubles and/or inadvertent responses to each other.
If you are going to combine, in the section dealing with comments on the photos it might be a good idea to make each current top-level section a subsection under a new ==Photo Discussion== section. I am in favor of a clean-up, but I wouldn't want to change the overall flow of the commentary to make it appear more in-line than it actually is.  Erielhonan  02:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Done. It can probably use a little more work, but I think it's much better than it was. I simply moved the sections together. I didn't re-order them or remove any content. Prometheus-X303- 19:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

belongs in sacred?

Ancient Egyptina religious belief, creation myth/legend, held the people were created from divine semen; one of the gods masturbated and as the semen came to the Nile valley surface, the first people sprang up. I can't remember which god, but... I think this deserves inclusion if only because it suggests a demonstrable tradition almost as long as human history (written) has existed. 67.86.174.12 09:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's a bit vague. If you can find some sources, make the inclusion, or put them here so a registered user can. Prometheus-X303- 08:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Semen milky->clear

I've long noticed that my semen, when first emitted, is milky white in color and thick in texture, like jelly or pudding. Then over the course of about two minutes, it becomes clear and much thinner in texture, more like thin nasal mucus. I've been trying for years to find out why, and whether there is some biological purpose to this change. I've mentioned my observation to many other men, and every one has either confirmed my observation or said they never noticed; none has said that they didn't find this to be true. I've also asked several doctors, including a urologist; they all agreed with my observation but none knew why this happens or what its purpose might be. I've Googled this question repeatedly with various search terms, but never turned up anything that seemed relevant.

If any of you knows anyone—perhaps a specialist such as a fertility doctor, or a biochemist—who could answer this question, and can include it in this article, I think it would be a valuable datum. And I would be eternally grateful.

AmateurHistorian 09:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Famous people who produce semen

Possibly worth a list? DJ Green Lantern has, I believe that John Updike as well. Any others? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.52.62 (talk) 21:10, 2006 December 2 (UTC)

I think the only way that could possibly be notable is if the person that produced it (through the manufacture of their own organs) were female.  Erielhonan  22:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)