The result was merge to Semen. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In a nutshell, this article is a combination of Original Research and Synthesis. For starters, the very definition of the term cannot be proven--because the term is not accepted. See this, for instance: only two of the hits seem related to the present topic. The first relevant hit is in a publication called Excerpta medica, Volume 3, from which we only get a snippet. The second, Kama bhog: foods of love, is a book in which the term occurs once, and this book is hardly by a well-known publisher in the field of sexuality, biology, or anthropology. The second, from Sex and drugs, is even less reputable. (The author of this article never saw fit to find or included these references.) All other hits are related to the biological term, and refers to plants, gnats, and such; Google Scholar offers nothing. Certainly a noteworthy term, supposedly employed in the various fields claimed in the lead, would have been better-known. The Oxford English Dictionary, for instance, doesn't list it either. The article used to be called Seminophagia, a term invented by its author--there are no hits for such a term; it does not exist in any real sense.
The article itself is a mixture of strange references pulled from all over the place. We find (or found, in earlier versions) pseudo-scientific references to the benefit of swallowing sperm for dental health, for musco-skeletal support, etc. There are very few references here that pass muster (I cleaned them up once or twice; the article's main editor reinstated them). One of the articles that this editor keeps reinserting might pass muster: I present to you "Semen acts as an anti-depressant"--I have pointed out many times to the editor that this article discusses the vaginal 'consumption' of semen, not its swallowing (an essentially oral activity). While I don't wish to essentialize the difference between the vagina and the mouth, they seem sufficiently different at least in an accepted biological sense. Without wanting to prejudge your response, I wish to point your attention to the recently introduced "In popular culture" section, which points to Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle, a delightful comedy, as exemplifying spermophagia. It does not, of course, but it is typical of the way in which this article attempts to make every reference to swallowing semen count.
To summarize: a non-existing (or barely existing term) term is beefed up by unreliable references that cannot even establish what the article is about. If there is anything to this thing at all, it is to be found in the second paragraph of the "Cultural practices" section--but this is already found in the Semen article, with a better reference than the Getting It webzine. In fact, a lot of the material in the present article has been or is also found in Semen--to some extent one might call Spermophagia a POV fork, of a very particular POV.
I apologize for this lengthy statement; I foresee strong responses and wanted to be as complete as I could here, even without digging up the long discussions on various talk pages and the move from Seminophagia to Spermophagia--this is to be found in the article history and the various talk pages, incl. the deletion by the main editor of a "merge" proposal which, it is granted, wasn't making much headway. I propose delete, not merge, since I propose that whatever is valuable in this article is duplicate information. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because the name of this article was changed to "semen ingestion," reverted, and then switched to yet a third title, some of its history was not retained and so not all of its authors have yet been notified of this debate, including its creator (NOT me, as has been assumed). This history should somehow be restored and earlier contributors informed. All the wikilinks still read "seminophagia," its original and proper name. This title should be restored simply because it relates to the semen article and not to the sperm article. Additionally, it is impossible to swallow sperm without also swallowing semen, so in the strictest sense "spermophagia" is a practical impossibility and at the very least is a term of incomplete description. Also, not all of the properties of semen referred to in the article are contained in sperm itself. This article cannot properly be merged into "semen" because a big ruckus was made about it being called "spermophagia" rather than "seminophagia," a linguistically proper term, whether neologism or not. (Google recognizes it, correcting the inaccurate 'semenophagia' spelling.) So if it must be moved anywhere, the "sperm" article is the only place left for "SPERMophagia." This article certainly relates to fellatio, but cannot be merged there either because to do so is to deny the existence of felching and also ignores other ways that semen is sometimes consumed, such as after masturbation.
Just because some may find the subject matter "distasteful" (pun intended!) is certainly not grounds to eliminate an article entirely, as if the subject did not even exist. There is a strong undercurrent by a small group with a vendetta against this topic (and its related subject matter) who are apparently highly averse to performing this act and so are sarcastically disdainful of those who advocate it. There are 3 million other articles to choose from, and surely they could and should find something else to read.
This page is basically just about a very popular sexual fetish, of which scores of other such pages exist. But the medically verifiable content of this article is both astonishing and radically significant, attributing to it far greater validity. Although it has yet more potential for development, I believe we have a comprehensive analysis of the subject, as medical research now stands. When an article typically garners 4000-5500 hits in a single day, that fact alone would surely in most people's minds provide more than ample justification for its existence! That actually places it into the top 1-2% of all articles on Wikipedia! The compelling interest clearly far outweighs the repulsion of a few, even if that were the criteria.
This article is a work in progress. If some of the references are poor then let's upgrade them, not tear down someone else's efforts and arbitrarily delete entire sections. Contribute and improve instead of detract and undermine! A poorly referenced statement does not equal a false statement. While blaming it on synthesis or O.R., what seems to have actually drawn the most ire is the research that is clinically proven, referenced and verifiable.JGabbard (talk) 02:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, this article, under its various imaginary names, has run its course, and while it was fun, it is time to move on and build an encyclopedia based on reliable sources and not on imagination and synthesis. Drmies (talk) 05:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]