Talk:Semen/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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 for the petri dish image)

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

That image belongs to articles like Spermatozoon or Sperm. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. But I would like to wait and see what other editors think. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

(by the way, this was raised before at Talk:Semen#Images. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC))

Correct - that photo is of sperm not semen. Also to use it would be a copyright violation, and it would get deleted very quickly.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

need citation on topic 4.3

In the section 4.3 it explains semen as "sarced" in among Buddist and Daoist. I live in a buddhism country and have never heard such thing. Ruxo (talk) 01:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

spotted another one.....

hi

Also spotted this 'In humans, seminal fluid contains several components besides spermatozoa' As previously stated you have the meanings of semen and seminal fluid mixed up. Seminal fluid does not contain spermatozoa. Semen is a mixture of spermatozoa and seminal fluid. Seminal fluid contains Zinc, acid phosphatase, citric acid and glucose amongst other things and is produced by the prostate gland the epididymidis. The testes produce the spermatozoa independantly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.233.102 (talk) 11:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry just one more

Hi

you are still quoting the semen parameters from the 1992 WHO manual, there have been two updates of the manual since then. The current parameters are stated in the 'WHO laboratory manual for the Examinatio and processing of human semen' 5th edition published in 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.233.102 (talk) 11:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

If you have the book then fix it  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:29, 13 January 2011 (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.

Why was this section removed? I demanded that it was brought back. It is relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.19.115 (talk) 11:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

unable to edit

am unable to edit things as this is a protected article so have posted my views in this discussion. WHO manual is available free on line in PDF format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charh (talk • contribs) 11:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Remove advertisement

The reference to "Ron Jeremy" should be removed, as it is clearly an advertisement for one (of many) products. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.141.201.241 (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Picture change

It must be said that the current picture is poor, Lighting and the conditions are awful, and it doesn't really show all that much about it http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Human_semen_in_petri_dish2.jpg that is a picture also here on Wikipedia which does show it far far better I suggest that these are switched, that image wasn't found by me, but from a contribution to the discussion page of the original image

For Mathamatics, Leave Science behind (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Semen Ingestion - Taste and Quantity, severe error citing source 46

I am posting a suggested change here because I do not have sufficient privileges to edit this semi-protected article.

The first sentence of section "Taste and Quantity" currently reads: "One source has noted that "...women praise the taste" of semen.[46]"

The meaning of this statement is completely the opposite of what is stated in the reference.

Reference 46 = Staines, L. What women want Rodale, 2000, ISBN 1579540937, p.236. Segments of this book can be viewed for free on Amazon's "Look Inside."

The actual text on page 236 is primarily first-person accounts/opinions from people who find swallowing semen distasteful. The quote the original author of this article may have misunderstood actually reads, "Let's put it this way: We didn't hear one woman praise the taste of semen. (One respondent compared its smell to the household cleansing product Soft Scrub with bleach.)" Either this sentence and the reference should be deleted, or the sentence should be edited to a direct quote from the text stating that no women interviewed for the text praised the taste of semen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowgray (talk • contribs) 00:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I have verified that this is correct, and I have changed the text to "Women usually dislike the taste and smell of semen." That is more in line with what the source says. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Health effects - Cancer prevention, severe error citing source 12

Source states that seminal plasma introduced into vagina or anus exacerbates already present pathologies. It does not "prevent and fight cancers" in this situation. As far as I saw, the source does not say anything about seminal plasma causing pathologies.

FYI, source 13 and 14, support the statement in the article that semen reduces the risk of breast cancer by "not less than 50 percent." So, that part is correct.

Source 12

Muller, Melissa; Kurt J. Sales, Arieh A. Katz and Henry N. Jabbour (2006). "Seminal Plasma Promotes the Expression of Tumorigenic and Angiogenic Genes in Cervical Adenocarcinoma Cells via the E-Series Prostanoid 4 Receptor". Endocrinology (The Endocrine Society) 147 (7): 3356–65. doi:10.1210/en.2005-1429. PMID 16574793. Retrieved 2009-08-13.

Link: http://endo.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/147/7/3356?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=Jabbour&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.52.60.226 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 27 May 2011

I tried to fix the problem, but I can't interpret the paper well. Please review my changes. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Marking as answered, edit was made. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 6:55pm • 08:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Semen as adhesive or binding agent

There is evidence that both blood and semen were used as adhesive or binding agents in many cultures. Unfortunately the same discomfort with the topic that mars this article and makes it seem humorous in places has prevented the topic from being explored adequately. One not-uncommon use for semen was as a binding agent for bowstring wrapping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.42.220 (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Such a minor edit, I feel bad making a whole section about it, but...

Under the components and contributions chart, I feel like the word "vasectomy" should also be a link to the article. As of now, the only link to that article is in the related links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NashvilleTechie (talk • contribs) 19:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

why

why do i have to block this site? my doughter shoudlnt have to see this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jake1993811 (talk • contribs) 06:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica

Under Spiritual Views it is stated that "Some chapters of the Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica practice the consumption of semen during the Gnostic Mass, composed by Aleister Crowley." While this may have been true at one time, it is certainly not the case today. Unfortunately there are no published sources that I can cite on this matter. I'd like to evaluate the source cited for the claim in the article, but there is insufficient information in the citation to find it. The source is a 5-volume work with articles by many different authors. The citation offers only a page number. In which volume is the Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica discussed? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thiebes (talk • contribs) 00:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Got the source through interlibrary loan, and the cited page number of the first volume says nothing at all about this organization. I have removed the claim. If this source information can be corrected to provide some support for the claim, great, add it back. Otherwise this should not be here. (BTW I do know the claim is untrue due to my status as a priest ordained in this religion and having access to unpublished internal documentation, but I realize that can't be used as it is original research. Nevertheless the source doesn't support the claim.) --Thiebes (talk) 05:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Sperma unter UV-Licht und ohne UV-Licht (Semen with and without Ultraviolet).JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Sperma unter UV-Licht und ohne UV-Licht (Semen with and without Ultraviolet).JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Sperma unter UV-Licht und ohne UV-Licht (Semen with and without Ultraviolet).JPG) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

False fructose concentration in second table

The fructose concentration in the second table of semen contents seems to be wrong. The citet literatur (Ref. Nr. 6, Owen 2005)gives a fructose concentration of 272 mg/100ml (on page 466), but the table shows 27.2 mg/100ml. This also creates a conflict with the value for fructose of "2–5 mg per mL" (given in the first table for the products of the seminal vesicle) which is close to Owen 2005 but about tenfold of the value in the second table. 94.220.190.33 (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Most of the numbers on that table are correct. However there is one major mistake and some minor ones. As you have presented the volume of Calsium with one decimal, then all others should be presented the same way. Correct numbers for that table are Chloride (mg) 142.1, Citrate (mg) 529.4, Fructose (mg) 272.1, Glucose (mg) 102.1, Lactic acid (g)62.1, Potassium (mg) 109.1 Numbers "In average volume"-table are divided by 3.4 (ml). Calculation result is then multiplied by one hundred. You know your math, just fix that table. | Evangelion Angel | 91.154.217.63 (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Deleting "nutritional value" section, please read my reasoning and revert back if you disagree

The three main statements in this section are:

1] Semen is primarily water, but contains trace amounts of almost every nutrient the human body uses.

2] It has somewhat higher amounts of commonly deficient minerals, such as potassium, magnesium, and selenium.

3] One typical ejaculation contains 150 mg of protein, 11 mg of carbohydrates, 6 mg fat, 3 mg cholesterol, 7% US RDA potassium and 3% US RDA copper and zinc.

Statement #1 is uncited, with a "citation needed" tag from 2009. Scientifically, it sounds quite inaccurate ("semen has almost every nutrient our body uses"?).

Statement #2: What does "higher" refer to? Higher than what? And what exactly does "commonly deficient minerals" mean? In the cited reference I can find no mention of selenium. I also don't think that the article lists magnesium as a semen component.

For Statement #3, the cited reference is probably not a RS and the statement also correctly holds a "not in citation given" tag.

The other two sentences of the section, which I haven't mentioned, are based on #3, so they are dubious too.

I don't disagree that semen can have a nutritional value to someone who ingests it, but I think this section is poor. I see that the composition of semen is already discussed in a previous section of this WP article, in what seems -from a first glance- to be more seriously written. However, if we want to highlight the nutritional value of semen ingestion, we should do so more carefully. Wawawemn (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiloop (talk • contribs)

Ejaculation on a petrii dish as the main photo?!

Whose idea was this?! This is frankly grade school behavior not to mention disgusting.

I propose that this photo is either placed way down in a spoiler, or that it is removed all together.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichMPaul

Agreed. Ebdollah — Preceding (talk • contribs) 18:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored.Asarelah (talk) 21:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

unsigned comment added by 2.98.196.166 (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Before the pictured is removed (if it even should be removed): What picture would you like instead? The picture shows exactly what this article is about, semen, in a non-sexual way. I would personally like to see a microscopic photo of semen added, but not instead... because this is what semen looks like. Removal of this picture because it is "disgusting" seems a bit odd to me. It is a body fluid, half of us produce is, shown in not only a non-sexual way but quite clinical setting as it is in a petri dish. I say it should stay. --JakobSteenberg (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I think with a bit of work, a much better and less gross looking picture could be fashioned. Maybe there are some pictures available in medical text books. But that picture does look like someone vomited mal-formed semen out of their penis. It should be noted that semen doesn't always look like that; it can be clear, opaque (white), and also mottled like in the mentioned picture. 109.176.191.72 (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Placed way down in a spoiler or removed? Why? Is this objective depiction of a bodily fluid in the context of a scientific / academic discussion offensive to your sensibilities? That reeks of censorship and seems a bit ridiculous to me. I'll admit that sample is a little funky looking (would you prefer I take a picture of a nice, more uniformly white emission for you?) but the picture is illustrative of what this substance (sometimes) looks like, and it even places it in an objective, somewhat "scientific" looking context. Your objection makes no sense to me , and it seems like it's based on either "moral" grounds, or plain dislike / distaste. If you dislike the image or find it distasteful, I invite you to not view it, as is of course your right. Regarding the comment about medical textbooks-- such textbooks do have images like this. Further, they're probably copyrighted. How about we all just act like mature adults who have seen bodily fluids before, and leave it up in the name of science? Just my 2 cents on the matter... 24.34.63.39 (talk) 21:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Now it has been replaced with a microscopic photo of 5 spermatozoa, which I think should be removed given that the article is about semen, not spermatozoa. And a picture of semen (preferably 4 pictures, to show the variance it can have in appearance) should be SOMEWHERE in the article, at least in the section:"Appearance and consistency of human semen", if not in the intro/main picture. JonyRijo (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The nutricional table in the section "Composition of human semen" has one value wrong

The value of fructose in 3.4ml should be 0.938, like calcium; not 9.25 like it is now. JonyRijo (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Requires clarification

It is noted in the section "Physical benefits" that "An average ejaculation (3.4 mL) contains approximately the same amount of protein as the white of an egg", and the related reference provides no data. Can someone update this section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.91.42.106 (talk) 06:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Vasectomy vs. semen appearance

Mention if vasectomy affects the appearance of semen/archive 4. Jidanni (talk) 05:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Blocked!

Unfortunately, This page is blocked in Saudi Arabia. I sent a message to Communication and information technology commission (Government commission that's responsible about internet in Saudi Arabia).

I'm waiting there answer. I hope they unblock it as soon as possible. Ziad (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

those guys really hate (some) knowledge. 93.130.34.240 (talk) 13:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2013

Please kindly correct the average concentration of fructose from 27.6 mg/100 mL to 272 mg/100 mL as is supported by the following excerpt from page 462 of the same reference cited as the source of the physical and chemical properties of semen listed on the page (Owen & Katz, 2005):

"The mean average fructose and glucose concentrations in the studies we reviewed were 272 mg/100 mL and 102 mg/100 mL, respectively."

The link to the article is http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2164/jandrol.04104/pdf

Thanks!

Abu Wan (talk) 16:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Well spotted. Looks like it was a copy-paste error based on the calcium concentration. Done, thanks. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

"sig figs"

Someone change this to "significant figures" or at least "s.f.s" before I have an aneurysm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shalashaska824 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2014

i Can´t edit, I´ve been analizing the table and I´ve found two mismatches between the information in the table and the information given by the source,

Urea and Lactic Acid are given in g (which is wrong and crazy), but in the source are given in mg (which is alright) MarianoTamola (talk) 15:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Health?

Dosen't the semen get mixed up with urea from the penis? Does it still contribute positively to health if swallowed?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.195.105.53 (talk • contribs) 07:30, July 16, 2014‎ (UTC)

No, the prostate and the Ejaculatory duct prevent this from happening. As for health benefits of ingestion, more research is needed.--Auric talk 15:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Some men have toxic sperm ...., if absorbed by a woman, then this leaves a trailer enzyme behind, in either the gut or ovaries. It can sometime take years after the sexual occurrence for the allergy to be triggered ...., this can happen at times of high stress in the woman's life. If she comes in contact with the same man who gave her the faulty enzyme then his pheromones can trigger the enzyme which can cause a severe skin reaction. Apparently the enzyme, when activated can prevent the woman from loosing weight as the enzyme stops the bodies cells from loosing fluid ...., it can also make asthma type conditions occur ...., and affect levels of seratonine and can trigger bouts of depression and negativity, whilst lowering the woman's sex drive and making her feel sexually unattractive to other men. All triggered by the Pheromone activating the dormant enzyme, which can be years old. It can take two weeks for the enzyme to shut down again ...., but the woman cannot be in proximity to the man in that period of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.25.81.194 (talk) 01:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Semen and depression

I have some doubts about the merits of including claims about semen's alleged antidepressant effects. These claims are based on a single study that is over 10 years old now and that has never been replicated. The study itself was correlational in nature, and its actual main finding was that condom use in women was correlated with depression. The authors claimed that this provides evidence that women who have unprotected sex are less depressed because they were exposing themselves to semen, but this conclusion is highly speculative. No biological evidence was provided that the trace chemicals found in semen (in minute amounts) really do have antidepressant effects, the authors simply suggested that they might. A reasonable alternative explanation consistent with the data is that condom use leads to depression symptoms and that semen has nothing to do with it. I know that WP is not the place for original research but my point is that presenting what is a medical claim based on a single highly speculative primary source that has not been independently corroborated might not be appropriate and may be misleading. Thoughts? --Smcg8374 (talk) 08:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, Smcg8374. This information was not backed by a reliable source, so I have removed it. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

LT910001 (Tom), regarding your removal, two of those three sources pass the Popular press and Other sources exceptions of the WP:MEDRS guideline. But I agree that better sources are needed for this matter. While Psychology Today and New Scientist can be acceptable medical sources, I don't see their use in this case as enough for the claims in question. Flyer22 (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Flyer22. It is my understanding we try and use reliable secondary sources for biomedical information. This was cited by a survey, which is a primary source, and two editorials. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, LT910001 (Tom), you are of course correct that Wikipedia prefers WP:Secondary sources, especially for biomedical information. Flyer22 (talk) 23:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe the Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast spoke about that somewhat recently (it is hosted by a medical doctor) and they basically said the article was bunk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.252.200.103 (talk) 05:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Semen is not the same as seminal fluid

Hi

The first line in the article states that 'Semen is an organic fluid, also known as seminal fluid, that may contain spermatozoa'. This is not correct. Semen is the term for the substance ejaculated from the penis. It consists of seminal fluid, spermatozoa, and other cells. Can this be changed please as it is misleading.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.233.102 (talk • contribs) 08:10, January 13, 2011

Merrian-Webster's Online Dictionary doesn't agree: it defines seminal fluid as:

1. semen
2. the part of the semen that is produced by various accessory glands . . . [;] semen excepting the spermatozoa

Wiktionary similarly defines seminal fluid simply as semen. Nonetheless, I have no objection to removing it from the lede. Rebbing 22:11, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Paste from article

We'll need some significantly stronger sourcing to say this. Sizeofint (talk) 04:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Post-conception functions

Work carried out by reproductive expert and psychologist Gordon Gallup from SUNY-Albany suggests that swallowing semen could provide a cure for morning sickness. He hypothesizes that pregnant women vomit as a result of their bodies rejecting genetic material produced by the sperm as a foreign substance (i.e., fetus and placenta), but that by swallowing and ingesting the antigens in the sperm of the baby’s father, they can build up immunity. Gallup's earlier research delineated the antidepressant properties of semen, especially pertinent postpartum. Semen's beneficial effects during gestation have also been demonstrated in research on the treatment of preeclampsia.

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Semen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hunyuantaijiacademy.com/Articles/On%20Qigong.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160406133611/http://fxylib.znufe.edu.cn/wgfljd/%EF%BF%BD%C5%B5%EF%BF%BD%EF%BF%BD%DE%B4%EF%BF%BD%D1%A7/pw/diogenes/dlpythagoras.htm to http://fxylib.znufe.edu.cn/wgfljd/%B9%C5%B5%E4%D0%DE%B4%C7%D1%A7/pw/diogenes/dlpythagoras.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Clarify references to American institutions

There is a reference to the "Food and Drug Administration". Please add "(USA)" after it. English is used globally, therefore specific national references such as Food and Drug Administration should be identified according to the country of origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.153.251 (talk) 11:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Is the picture of the semen on the petri dish really necessary?

see title — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.31.194.198 (talk) 00:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? Kevin12xd 07:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Poorly executed image

Is there really not a better image we could use in place of w:File:Male Sex Organs & Ducts .jpg? It is useful but poorly executed. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 22:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC) Removed. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 17:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Color?

I tried to find information about the color, but this article was completely useless for that. What exactly gives semen the whitish color? And is it the same color for all animals, or is there variation? I know that heavy smoking can give it yellowish tint, or so I've heard claimed. It's hard to find information on whether that's true. Etc. If there's any research available about this topic, it should be added to the article. 81.197.65.28 (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

life cycle of semen

I miss the following information, please add it.

"The body can happily cope with unused sperm, with no impact on fertility or sex drive. If it doesn’t come out in a wet dream the body will absorb what it doesn’t use or need." (https://www.themix.org.uk/your-body/mens-health/semen-facts-7278.html)

And "What is the life cycle of a sperm cell? Once sperm have completed their development, they remain in the epididymis. When a male ejaculates, fluid from the seminal vesicles joins the sperm to make semen. If a male does not ejaculate sperm, the body eventually breaks down and reabsorbs them." (https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/325906#sperm-life-cycle) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elie Hague (talk • contribs) 21:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Elie Hague: There are very strong requirements for making medical claims, see WP:MEDRS. Usually, WP:BLOGS and news outlets aren't considered reliable enough for that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

"Man sauce" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Man sauce. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 2#Man sauce until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

"Man cream" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Man cream. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 4#Man cream until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Too much focus on humans

This something I keep noticing with articles like this they are too human centric. Like semen occurs in many other species.

Maybe an article on human semen would be ideal.CycoMa (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

What about the slang term: Cum

it's usually referred to as Cum nowadays so that should be included in the article. 82.17.221.173 (talk) 20:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but its a slang term. The scientific name is Semen. Jiniesjams (talk) 04:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

How

When putting cover of penis in and out a white liquid comes out. This is semen.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.215.181.141 (talk • contribs) 09:59, May 24, 2012

I am constantly saying this too, but I fear that Wikipedia will censor our heterodoxy, brother. Isthistwisted (talk) 08:07, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Semiprotected Edit Request For Copyright Reasons April 2022

The artistic photo depicting snowballing appears to be subject to a 2012-2022 copyright. The other webpage in question is https://www.deviantart.com/blackclouds1/art/what-s-an-over-kill-12-284585551. The upload on that page claims that it was downloaded from wikipedia but comparison of the upload time stamps for both servers indicates that the photo was uploaded the same date, giving rise to a strong legal presumption under the U.S. Copyright Act that the file is protected under a 2012 copyright where its use here constitutes apparent copyright infringement. The file should be removed from the article and/or deleted from all Wikipedia servers to avoid the possibility of a DMCA notice / copyright infringement action. 98.178.191.34 (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done I don’t know what you’re talking about, it’s not a photo and Seedfeeder made that image. It was originally uploaded to Wikimedia Commons in 2008. The copyright licensing on the DeviantArt copy is garbage and the copy itself probably violates DeviantArt’s TOS as publicly viewable 18+ content and copyright violation/plagiarism. This isn’t even our job, it’s WMC’s. Dronebogus (talk) 01:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Great, so then I'll advise Deviant Art to investigate the matter and remove the false copyright notice from the page. 98.178.191.34 (talk) 01:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good, thank you. Dronebogus (talk) 09:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Can seminal fluid fertilize an ovum?

The article's intro says that seminal fluid can fertilize an ovum. Surely that is incorrect and confusing? I think clarification should be given. Grand Dizzy (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

That is how many species have evolved… BlackAdvisor (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits

While not incorrect, the recent additions are probably beyond the scope of this specific article BlackAdvisor (talk) 13:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Just Plain Wrong

I think it is incorrect to say semen originates in gonads.......and other reproductive organs ...... blah blah blah

I've always understood, and I'm 99.99% certain, semen originates in the prostate. 99.99% of it, by volume, that id. The other 0.01& comprising spermatozoa originating in the testes. Is this not correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.210.84 (talk) 09:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2022

In Society and Culture section, QiGong subsection,

I strongly suggest to remove the following line: "[...] so masturbation is considered "energy suicide" amongst those who practice this art."

It does not provide reliable sources and it seems biased. 2A02:2F07:A206:1700:4937:FEFE:DAA8:9E3A (talk) 23:45, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Taoist gurus recommended a lot of craps, e.g. sex with pre-menstrual girls. It does not mean that Wikipedia endorses their views. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I see the expression "energy suicide" in reference no. 27. Sorry about that. Although I don't know how reliable that source is. Also, I find that calling QiGong an "art" in this particular context can be biased. P.S. Sorry if I am not posting here in the Talk page correctly, it's my first time doing it. 2A02:2F07:A206:1700:4937:FEFE:DAA8:9E3A (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Hormones in semen

This article needs an edit to include all the hormones present in semen and readily absorbed in the vagina. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/08/semens-secret-ingredient — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.119.249.31 (talk) 02:49, May 24, 2019 (UTC)

Snowball for you. None for me just for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.32.151.167 (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2022

The proper spelling is seaman Tylerbltn (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: wrong Cannolis (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)