Talk:Semen

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

In Popular Culture

I've cleaned up a bit of awkward language, removed the info about drinking horse semen in Jackass 2, and removed a poorly formatted line about a bit from Ali G (tv show? movie? not specified) that was only peripherally about the subject at hand.

As semen becomes less of a taboo in the US it turns up in more films and TV shows (fgzample [Jizz in my Pants]] and at least one other SNL sketch loosely based on American Pie, Family Guy, etc). I am assuming, in this edit, that the list of films extant in the article has already been vetted for notability/relevance. Fliponymous (talk) 03:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

@Fliponymous Ali G is a TV show, the clip that person mentioned can be seen here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOpAjLstDzo Mramz88 (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Second picture is clearly vandalism (it looks totally crude, unclinical). Someone take it out. The top-picture (in the petri dish) is poor, but I guess it might have to stay till something better is suggested.82.18.164.15 (talk) 03:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed alternative picture for top of article

As wikipedia aspires to be professional we could do with a better picture at the top of the article. Correct me if I am wrong, I think most people agree its uncouth, and a bit crude. I found the following [[1]] just doing an internet search, it shows both the seminal fluid and sperm as seen under a microscope.

The reasons (not in any order of importance, though I think the second one is reason enough on its own) I think this is a good substitute are as follows:

1. It shows the seminal plasma/fluid surrounding the spermatazoa

2. It is both educational and illustrative. Most people seem to be more interested if you show them something magnified under a microscope. For instance if someone says would you like to see a glass of water, or would you like to see water magnified to x10000, which would you choose? This doesn't go for everything obviously.

3. It fits very well with the very first sentence of the article which states: Semen is an organic fluid, also known as seminal fluid, that usually contains spermatozoa.

4. It gives the reader some understanding of the density/population of spermatozoa within the seminal fluid.

5. It is clinical, and therefore well suited to an encyclopedia.

6. Having briefly searched the internet it is the clearest one I have seen.

7. It is actual semen. (stating the obvious I know).

8. It seems to be common use, at least I have seen it on a couple of websites.

Anyone else agree with it being used at the top of the article (ie. as a replacement)

82.18.164.15 (talk) 03:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)