Talk:Semen/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: Picture of Semen

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Horse Picture

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: But this article is about semen, not animal husbandry. Mammalian semen generally looks the same across species. Amigan 15:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: ?

message: 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)
replies: text: Just for clarification, Wikipedia is not censorsed does not prohibit us from using .  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Does anyone mind if I remove the HORSECOCK?! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Image compromise suggestion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Semen Photo 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Latest Semen Photo revert war 

message: 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)
thread_title: Is that REALLY a horse penis?

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

message: 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)
thread_title: A point to stand on

message: 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)
thread_title: Energy Source of Sperm Cells

message: Isn't Jizz slang?
Its a popular type of music. horseboy 17:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening Phrase

message: 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)
thread_title: Semen & Skin

message: 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)
thread_title: Improvements

message: 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)
thread_title:  external links 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Semen and skin again 

message: 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  	results	relative frequency of "sperm" multiplied by 100	"spunk" results (as suggested by User:Veryblueboy)
animal term  	sperm    	semen  	relative frequency of "sperm" multiplied by 100	"spunk" results (as suggested by User:Veryblueboy)
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)
replies: text: 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                                    	sperm                                                                                                                      	semen                                                                                                                                                                                                           	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	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                                    	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                    	2. (physiology) Semen                                                                                                      	1. Male ejaculate                                                                                                                                                                                               	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)
thread_title:  Difference between "sperm" (the term that refers to a secretion or substance) and "semen" (another term that also refers to a secretion or substance) 

message: sperm                                    	sperm                                                                                                                      	semen                                                                                                                                                                                                           	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	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                                    	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                    	2. (physiology) Semen                                                                                                      	1. Male ejaculate                                                                                                                                                                                               	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)
thread_title: Dictionary method

message: Semen is 15 calories per average "serving".
:Useful to know ;) - Tredanse 13:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On a diet? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unverified and Suspicious text under "Sacred Semen" 

message: "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)
thread_title:  "Swallow that cum!" Removed 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Horse masturbation

message: 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)
thread_title: Sacred semen: Sources

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

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: belongs in sacred?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Semen milky->clear 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Famous people who produce semen 

message: Substituted at 22:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment