User:Seedfeeder

Seedfeeder This user is a member on the English Wikipedia. (verify) This user has their own category on Wikimedia Commons This user is a member of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality. project talk | all talk page changes This user is a   Mechanical Engineer. en This user is a native speaker of English. es-1 Este usuario puede contribuir con un nivel básico de español. wiki-2 This user is an intermediate Wikipedia editor. Wikipedia is not censored. Content contributed by this user is released into the public domain. This user has been awarded three Barnstars on Wikipedia.

Welcome

"Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment." -Wikimedia Foundation

So the question is... how does deleting content because you feel that it is "not notable", "unencyclopedic" or "offensive" jibe with the above statement? Hmm?

About those illustrations...

In the discussion page of several articles where my images are displayed, there have been comments left questioning either the relevance of the inclusion of the image or in some cases there is even discussion about the specific content of the illustration itself.

My apologies, but I do not engage in debate over the content, nor the inclusion or removal of images that I have created as this could rightfully be construed as a conflict of interest. Feel free to remove any image if you feel that you have provided sufficient justification for your edit. If I find an image (not just the ones that I have created) that have been deleted from an article without discussion, I reserve the right to revert the edit.

I come from a philosophical viewpoint that every Wikipedia article should have all forms of media available associated with it. Images, audio, and video. All articles, without exception. So any argument predicated on "an image isn't necessary" is one that carries absolutely zero weight. None.

I can describe the Eiffel Tower exhaustively, give every dimension and detail, but nothing will captivate the viewer more than a simple image; yet an image can't convey how the tower was built, what it's made out of, how long the construction took… that's what the body of text is for. In concert, a quality article accompanied with supporting images only increases the reader's understanding of the subject.

Thanks for reading. Hopefully I won't twist an ankle stepping down off this soap box...--SeedFeeder (talk)

Googling yourself (and other fun stuff to do in the dark)

So a few days ago I recently discovered that you can view the number of page views for a given article on Wikipedia. So I see that my user page has garnered roughly 100+ hits (some days 250+) a day for a couple of weeks. I didn't think anything of it. 100 hits is pretty weak for the internet, after all. That was until I started looking at the stats for other users... they were like 1 or 2 hits a day. Even very active prominent editors were logging less than 20 a day, so I was like "What gives?". So I Googled "wiki" and "seedfeeder"... Things became a little more clear. Apparently my images have become infamous/famous to some very small degree. There are various forums decrying my work as the work of Satan or celebrating it as the 472nd greatest invention since sliced bread. So what do you think?

Post your support or opposition below:

Support Regarding exposition to minors: if your children are actively searching for these kind of topics in Google or Wikipedia, it's because 1) they already have a slight idea of them (at least that they are sexual acts); and 2) they feel ready to know more. So, I see little reason as to why having these images here is going to expose minors to content that they don't know about. Also, I find that the images themselves do little to expose sexual (or 'sensitive') topics when they are embedded in an entire article detailing the subject matter. Thus, banning the images in an effort to avoid 'offensive' content then would also entail banning the article, and that's not towards an open encyclopedia. If you as an individual would not like to expose your children to these kind of stuff, then do what a parent should be doing: setting parental controls for these articles and most importantly, the sites that would take these sexual acts 'out of decency' and present them in a distorted, indecent context. But do not endorse the censorship of Wikipedia.

Opposition Beautiful artist work, but nevertheless it's just porn. Nothing wrong with porn, but Wikipedia is not the right site for that stuff. I think it's undesirable to show this stuff to minors, and furthermore there's no added value for most articles. A woman with semen on her face looks like a woman with semen on her face. A woman with a fist in her vagina looks like a woman with a fist in her vagina.

Opposition Just because you traced porn doesn't mean it's not porn. Sad excuse for a closet exhibitionist.

Support http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Sex_drawings_by_User:Seedfeeder

             you're welcome

Support Just wanted to say that you have helped Wikipedia. We should all be more helping to each other.

Support Hi, found your stuff on reddit. Are you a user there?

Support Images are very nice! Thanks a lot!

Support I find your illustrations very well done. I actually came here to see if I could find a list of them, but it appears not. Is there one?

Support I had no idea Bukakke, of all things, could possibly be demonstrated so tastefully. You are a god.

Support . Your image of the strap on girl with the guy is so good I have nominated it as a featured picture. BTW. I am an artist myself so cheers!!!......y ole!. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Support. These images are so well done, that they even make me randy.

Support Its nice to see tastefully drawn imagery for a wide variety of adult subjects. Your images do a very good job of narrating the issue at hand without going overboard. Your artistry is great. --Dividends (talk)

Support. Not only are your illustrations very well done, it strikes a perfect balance between those who want no illustration and those who want an explicit photograph. Keep up the good work. By the way, what happened to your gallery? 66.191.19.68 (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Support. 100%. I believe the illustrations are better than a photograph as they depict the subject in question cleanly and in a streight-forward, no-nonsense technical manner that can be easily referenced. Also to the above commenter, I found [this] on Google. Perhaps a good start?--King0lag (talk) 14:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Strongest Support Ideal for an encyclopedia also extremely well done --DFS454 (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Support. I agree strongly with your stance on media. And you're a damn good artist anyways. 76.166.182.19 (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Support. Necessary, well done, and promoting safe sex practices. After all, Wikipedia is meant to be the sum of all human knowledge, and imagery of sex is, I suppose, part of that! James.Denholm®^{Talk to me...} 10:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Support. Your illustrations very well done. You provide true-to-fact depictions of human sexual practices. You showcase the beauty of human sexuality. Keep up the great work.Yesitsnot (talk) 07:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Support. Very good drawings, keep it up! What's next? Dirty Sanchez? -Gazongagizmo (talk) 00:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Support. They look good. If you are accepting requests, I'm aware of a few sexuality-related articles that could use a quality illustration. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 23:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Support Your pictures are pleasant to look at and at least as clear as photographs. Most importantly they don't have the look or feel of pornography: many editors object to images they feel are "pornographic" and anyone visiting a Wikipedia sexuality page should not feel they've stumbled into a disreputable part of the web. As a note of caution though, I should mention one excellent editor User:Joie de Vivre did get denounced as an uppity lesbian on local talk radio!! --Simon Speed (talk) 02:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Opposition The drawings are well done, and they are not vulgar, nice work! ummmm then I think I should´ve written support--24.80.134.198 (talk) 06:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Support. Your illustrations are excellent for Wikipedia and definitely fill a much-needed niche. Keep up the good work!-Schnurrbart (talk) 04:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC) Speedy Support They give me a childish laugh every time I see them. :)

Support Prolactin -> Breast orgasm -> Mammary intercourse -> Wiki-mam-intcs.png -> User:Seedfeeder -> Gallery -> User talk:Seedfeeder. Your images are great. --George (talk) 11:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Support "A picture's worth a thousand words" is a gross underestimation. Dorfl (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Support Your work is a credit to this encyclopedia. The Wednesday Island (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Support I mostly lurk, but had to pop in to shout a hearty BRAVO at your work. Seriously, good work on finding an agreeable way to depict alternative sex. --92.104.55.141 (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

comment Satan is lord of this world, he deals with reality, not fantasies. Some of the actions depicted in these cartoons would be rare/unlikely in the real world. Indeed they do give one a childish laugh- but is that the work of an encyclopaedia? Just saying. Not saying it's not fun, though. Sticky Parkin 21:36, 20 April 2009 (UT

comment You're in the b3ta newsletter - that'll generate a few hits.  Chzz  ►  15:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Support, yo. Kudos for making that pegging illu'. I just love it when people aren't all uptight about life. If everyone were like you and me, there'd be no taboos, right? skribb (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Support Well done mate, great drawings- and just like your story above says, I found your user page by wondering "who on Earth drew that," just after confirming my understanding of the bukkake concept. Educational and hilarious :) Keep up the good work, and don't worry about the nut-job Christians rebelBodhi

Support When I first saw one of your illustrations I was immediately taken by it. They are high quality, tasteful enough not to appear pornographic, yet realistic enough to be appealing. Furthermore, these illustrations manage to get the point across very nicely without appearing schematic. Thank you for showing the world that sex can be beautiful and doesn't have to be "cheap". TFrenay (talk) 19:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Support All drawings are tasteful and informative. However when you say that all articles require "Images, audio, and video. All articles, without exception." I would like to disaggree. Unless of course you would be willing to provide an illustration for a subject such as Nihilism.

Support. The quality of your images ("tasteful enough not to appear pornographic, yet realistic enough to be appealing" (as one of the above supporters puts it) complement the quality articles that Wikipedia should attain. Even those articles that would include generally questionable but informative content, e.g. sexuality. Animeronin (talk) 15:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Support Your drawings are tasteful, attractive without being smutty. Very high quality. Are you sure you aren't an anatomy illustrator?

Opposition Because only people that are interested and supportive would even leave a comment, just as I am supportive and leave support.

Both support and opposition Your images are beautiful. There is only one that I disagree with, it is the image on the fellatio page. Before you get mad, hear me out. I find the picture to be distasteful because it reinforces negative sterotypes of permiscuity in african american females. From the image, it can be gathered that she is married (see the ring), but she is performing fellatio on an unmarried white man (lack of ring). Safe to conclude he is not her husband. Why not have a same race picture?? All other images on that page are of people of the same race. If it is not meant to be damaging, how come the image could not have been of a white woman on a black man?? Many white people would be offended, as I and other african americans find this image offending. I don't know how to edit it, I tried, but it didn't work (sorry), but please use the image from the oral sex page that shows a woman giving head to a man while in a 69. That image is not demeaning. Or better yet, if you want to ensure racial diversity, why not have the image of a black man AND a black woman? Then the page will have images of blacks, whites, and asians on the same page. Thanks.--Obscure323 (talk) 18:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to add a few words to this. I think it's a very valid concern, I have a different perspective/interpretation though: Being from a different country (somewhere in the wilderness of Western Europe), I had never heard of that stereotype before. Now that I have, I'm wondering whether that ring is actually there on purpose (well, of course it's on purpose, but whether the impression it made on you was the intended one is what I'm trying to say). But of course I'll give Seedfeeder the benefit of the doubt, one ring (and lack of ring on the part of the male) seems little basis too suspect someone of spreading racist messages (also, over here we wear the wedding ring on the (hidden) right hand). That's really not fair. Quite on the contrary I think it's great that an interracial couple was depicted. I just figured they were married, never noticed the "clue" of the missing ring.

Here's what I'm really getting at though: Like I said, I never heard of this stereotype and I feel like that's good news, isn't it? From a perspective of a European (and I'm sure many other international readers/viewers feel the same), all I see is a very sexy, beautiful woman (that said it's of course purely encyclopedic ;-) but that's a different topic).

Oh, and of course: Support 78.34.118.113 (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment: What about this picture? It includes just the position you were asking for, and has been available since july 2008, it seems to me. But I would agree that the pictures can be a bit stereotypical with yuong and fit, beautiful long-haired girls and short-haired guys, mainly white people seemingly from the western world, having sex. Apart from that, the images are good illustrations. --83.185.3.71 (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC) (user:flinga on svwp)

Sigh... Who even said it's a wedding ring? Actually it could just as well be a simple ring. You're reading too much into it, not everything is political. I suggest to focus your attention on things of greater significance, as this is quite annoying.

Maybe it's just me but it looks like an engagement ring more than a wedding ring. And of course he wouldn't be wearing an engagement ring of his own. If they want to celebrate their engagement with a round of 69 fellatio, why not capture the moment in cartoon form.

I love how it is only offensive when it is a black girl and white guy, but the picture of a white girl getting creamed in the face is okay. I think that picture is offensive because it promotes the ideal that white girls are whores. Honestly, I think you are more upset over this particular interacial couple because you have a grudge against the white male and do not want to promote relationships between white men and black women, but I bet you think the other is okay. Observation from an Arab.

What we're all forgetting here is that if that woman liked it then she should have put a ring on it.

Support Fantastic illustrations, don't change a thing. I am a black woman from the UK and I find them to be perfectly acceptable. Keep up the good work! -- Chantelle A.

Support Your images successfully provide a detailed visual aid, whilst not crossing inappropriate boundaries. My only opposition is that not enough diagrams on Wikipedia are as well done as yours!

Support- your pics are great but could you make one for a girl on girl licking vagina scene and a guy licking vagina scene? thanks and your other pics are great!

Support I would prefer photographs of actual people adorn articles, personally, but as long as we are going with illustrations yours are colorful and tasteful, and it is good that the illustrative sexual images all over the wiki should be in the same style. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Support Your art is absolutely exquisite... I was blown away by your portfolio, and even more by the images on your commons profile page. Domo arigato Mr. Seedfeeder. --220.16.156.216 (talk) 06:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Notwithstanding your notable artistic talent, the inclusion of many of these pictures has forced me to put Wikipedia (the whole site) on the SafeSite 'forbidden' list for my childrens' computer. My 'oppose' has nothing to do with religion. Instead, it has to do with not wanting to expose my young children to graphic pictures that would take an 'over 21' ID card to purchase in an adult book store. (For reference, I myself, as an adult, am not offended by the pictures, and I believe any adult should be able to view them if they so choose - but not my underage children, thank you.) Joe Hepperle (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

In what area are you that children can't view educational drawings? I had a book containing similar pictures to these when I was 12, my mom bought it for me, and it helped me understand biology/sex. I think you greatly overexagerate the restrictions on these types of images- in most of the western world these would not be banned for children's viewing. As an example, in the united states, these images would not be considered obscene, as the conduct is not patently offensive (being normal behavior) nor devoid of artistic, educational, or other non-carnal merits. Moreover, it would not be considered pornography if these images were bound into a book containing the various article's that they illustrate, in most countries. As it is not actual people, and their are substantial educational uses, indeed the entire article is for education not titilation, it would not generally be considered pornography. Just cuz someone might be arroused by it doesn't mean its pornographic. Some people are turned on by sweaty socks or other everyday things. This does not make pictures of them pornographic unless they are presented for sexual stimulation rather than other uses. Anyways, excuse the rant, this stuff just interests me. Obvious I have no intent to presuade you one way or the other how to raise your children, and I agree with your stance that it should be an adult's choice whether to view such content. Regards. --Δζ (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out, you can block just a single Wikipedia page, you know? You don't have to block the whole thing.

Support I like your images, I find them both tasteful and informative. I think you should continue doing what you're doing. I Feel Tired (talk) 03:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Support Lucky WP got a good artist for risqé material. Could you imagine if our only choice was Tram Pararam or something? --Kaizer13 (talk) 01:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Support Very good work you've done there. I would be quite interested if you actually draw them by hand or if you make use of any software to create them. Maybe you could write some lines about the creation process? Best regards.

Support Would be great if you made a post on http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA !

Support Perfect imaging for an encyclopedia. The drawings are very precise and tasteful. It's great to have people like you making constructive contributions to this amazing site. Very well done!

Support Your work is absolutely amazing. I HAD to share it with my audience here: http://dogandponyshowwebsite.com/adult-illustrations-on-wikipedia-by-seedfeeder-nsfw Keep up the great work!

Support I love your work. It's tasteful, informative, and well-done. Thank you for putting forth the effort of contributing.

Support I noticed your analoral image seems a little outdated, due to the lack of lighting and shading. Improving it or making a new one would be great. Otherwise nice work.

Support I love the detail that you put into your work - your pictures have a beautiful realism that is unspoilt by a grittiness that would only serve to make them appear tacky. Wikipedia needs images of such calibre, and I want to thank you for producing and sharing them with the world. :) --Muna (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Support You are doing a service to promote sex-positive values. Your pictures are appropriate for a wide audience when pornographic pictures would not be appropriate. Blue Rasberry 23:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Keep up the great work! --Jon Ace ^{T C} 19:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Support Your work is incredible. Simply incredible. Thanks for sharing your talent with the rest of us, and please don't let the nay-sayers stop you! - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Support Absolutely, absolutely. I have just one complain: many pages that OUGHT to be illustrated with REAL PEOPLE DOING REAL FUCKING SEX are, instead, illustrated with your fine drawings. This is frustrating!!!! .. ok, I said it, I feel better now. Good work =D --187.40.230.165 (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Support I would go as far as to say that they are the 471st greatest invention since sliced bread. My hat off to you sir. ---JMenkus ^T 23:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Support Wow, this is both great art and highly useful! I like how the balanced use of simplicity and detail together create an image that is both very striking and easy to read. Could you share more about your process? Cherry Cotton (talk) 08:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Super-Support Very good images! Even if there is a slight controversy, Wikipedia isn't going to work without images that describe the article visually or else it'll just be a boring black words on a white background encyclopedia. Blaze10001 (talk)

Ambivalent: I am not opposed to mixed race marriages, but having what appears to be the same black woman with a white man in one image and black man in another DOES imply promiscuity. While I am duly impressed with your monogamistic, heterosexual works, the woman's face in Semfac01.png seemed a little off to me. --Studio 126 (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

How is the woman's face in Semfac01.png off? Who would really enjoy semen on their face?

I mean structurally off. Her face seems almost two-dimensional compared to your other faces. --Studio 126 (talk) 06:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Support Wikipedia should not be censored.--183.178.89.134 (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Support (Strong): I find your work to be very tastefully done and in keeping with Wikipedia's high standards. I have no issues with any of the subject matter, nor do I find any of your work distasteful or inappropriate. FrankTownend (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Support: Just wanted to say I love the faces and expressions in Wiki-spoons-sp.png, I think they're impressively realistic.

Support: It's great work, but I'd like to see you use your talents to create a few depictions of male homosexuality. Every single one of your pictures feature women and honestly that's just so terribly dull. Less talk, more cock kthnx.