Talk:Smegma

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Smegma. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050914114048/http://www.horsecity.com/stories/090101/hea_beans_ML.shtml to http://www.horsecity.com/stories/090101/hea_beans_ML.shtml

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) 04:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs spoiler'd images

This and basically every article involving genitals should only have images that are viewed on an "opt in" basis by covering the image and only showing it when clicked on. Articles like this are extremely difficult to read due to the repulsive imagery. Now I know some people might disagree but I think most people would agree with me. 2601:646:8600:2C60:C1BC:7D7F:343B:EDD3 (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

See Help:Hiding images for how you can do that on your end. The community has repeatedly and soundly rejected any and all forms of censoring images directly, including show/hide boxen. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 18:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Male smegma - update and more info needed -

Most of the references for this section are half a century old. Surely urologists have a better understanding of the sources and functions of this substance by now?

Also, I still don't KNOW, after reading the article, whether circumcised males produce smegma at all!

Finally, is it not possible to add a clear picture, similar to that for females, of a normal amount of smegma on a natural (uncircumcised) penis? Yes, I'm aware of the edit warring and shock! horror! responses of prudes on this talk page over a decade ago. But there's now no such photo. Surely an Encyclopedia doesn't let the small minds win?! yoyo (talk) 08:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Picture of private part

There is a real picture of a private part. This can be innocently seen by children. This should be replaced by a drawing or a written description. 24.92.143.187 (talk) 02:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Right, because children don't have private parts themselves./s

There's nothing wrong with images of the human body. Anatomy is a key subject taught in biology class. And, please, use the correct wording, "genitalia". Not that hard. And believe me, if you think that such an image is such a problem, there's a lot more serious stuff that you need to be worried about, especially if you have children. EvaXenon09 (talk) 05:48, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh it's hard for them alright. Very, very hard indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:484:8000:1B20:6582:4623:79EC:FFD2 (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2025 (UTC)