User talk:Seedfeeder

For older discussions, please see my message archive:

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia as of June 2012.

A kitten for you!

You cool cat, you!

Ozhu (talk) 05:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Kontakt: Hi Seedfeeder, do you still check this page? I'm an editor of the german music & tech magazine De:bug, looking for a contact. Could you send me an email so I can explain? :) felixknoke ::a,.,.d:: de ,minus, bug.de — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.149.70.167 (talk) 12:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I no longer check this page on a regular basis. I only responded now because you left your email address, in an albeit cryptic fashion, on my talk page. Leaving open the possibility that someone may contact you pretending to be me. I have never granted an interview request, and will not do so now. Any responses to the above email address are not from me and should be discarded. --SeedFeeder (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Seedfeeder, I'm a writer at Gawker. I find your work fascinating and am interested in interviewing you (I know you have declined interviews in the past, but figured I'd try my luck anyway. Send me an email at andy@gawker.com if you'd like. I hope all is well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.60.17.197 (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Remove ads

You're the subject of a Gawker article

Summarize

Perspective

Thought you should know. It can be found here. Cheers. Jrcla2 (talk) 04:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

And now Huffington Post as well as a French magazine/newspaper Tutelary (talk) 04:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I see that Andy Cush finally went through with my interview with him. Flyer22 (talk) 04:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I don't know how to get in contact with Seedfeeder; I used to have his email; that was for a different case, as seen here and here. But my email was different at the time, and my email exchanges with him are now lost (I think). I also didn't contact Andy Cush; he contacted me, and, although I was initially skeptical of whether or not the person contacting me happened to be Andy Cush (the same way that I am skeptical when any supposedly public figure contacts me via email on Wikipedia), my discussion with him was pleasant and he was interested in reporting my statements accurately.

For those interested in what Cush asked about, and for documentation on Wikipedia, my interview with him in full is featured below (with his comments in bold, a few minor link tweaks/changes, and my typos corrected; I also told him to feel free to correct any of my typos). Flyer22 (talk) 06:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a good opportunity to say "thank you" again. You made editing here a blast (pun not intended). Nice work.Cptnono (talk) 12:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

More information Interview with Andy Cush about Seedfeeder and Wikipedia's sexual images ...

Interview with Andy Cush about Seedfeeder and Wikipedia's sexual images
Note: This interview officially began on September 2, 2014. It continued on September 4, 2014; September 8, 2014; and later on September 30, 2014 due to Cush getting delayed; my final response was on October 1, 2014. How would you describe Seedfeeder's illustrations to someone who has never seen them before? I would describe the images as graphic but educational...when used in an educational way at least. What makes his work particularly compelling or appropriate for Wikipedia articles? Surely, these images will upset a lot of people, and they commonly do upset some of our readers, but like I state on my user page, "Our readers have consistently stated that they cannot enjoy [a Wikipedia article] as much, or take the article as seriously, with [real-life images of sex acts]. To them, it is simply porn. So we might as well make it less pornographic to them; this approach [of using paintings or drawings] has been working well, as editors such as Herostratus can attest to, and I see no valid reason to disrupt that. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Offensive images and WP:GRATUITOUS tell us what to do in the case of an image that is likely to be offensive, whether we should use that one or an 'equally suitable alternative.' WP:GRATUITOUS is the answer to 'prudishness is culture specific and WP should rise above such puritan nonsense,' and it is quite valid; it exists partly for that reason." The paintings or drawings are also simply porn to some of our readers, but less pornographic than a real-life image would be to them (or at least to a good number of them). Seedfeeder's images have been criticized, but they are an asset to our sexual articles. You mention on your user page that you're particularly interested in creating/expanding sex-related articles. What drives that interest? Is Wikipedia a useful tool for sex education, in your estimation? What drives me to expand, or possibly create, sex-related articles is the interest in informing people of these topics. Accurately informing them. It's like I state at the top of my talk page: "I believe that it's best that I help this site, seeing as many people come here for information (Wikipedia is almost always ranking highest in search engines, and that type of thing is always going to bring in a lot of readers) and a lot of those people trust what they read here. So it's my job to make sure that any topic I am heavily editing is as accurate as possible." For further information, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/WikiProject desk/Interviews2; that's a WP:Permalink of a WP:Sandbox, and it'll go live in several hours. And as for the question of "Is Wikipedia a useful tool for sex education, in your estimation?" Yes, when the information is reported accurately, and especially when reported comprehensively in addition to accurately. I'm also interested in Seedfeeder's images beyond their educational use. Would you agree that there's something aesthetically compelling about them (beyond simple pornography), and if so, what do you think that is? I don't necessarily see what is aesthetically pleasing about them, except that some people find pornography aesthetically pleasing, or, in the case that his images are of white people, some people have a prejudice there and would prefer to look at white people. Despite the criticism Seedfeeder has received regarding alleged racism, he has drawn black people as well. The fact that his images look real enough might also factor into their being aesthetically pleasing. You corresponded or worked with him at least a little bit in editing certain articles, right? What was he like to work with? I only worked with him on this matter (an image for the Tribadism article), and working with him was fine. He was easy to work with. Sorry for the late reply. And as for that signpost; it actually goes up tomorrow; see here. What would you say to someone arguing that images like Seedfeeders are simply porn? They all show fit, young people, and some of the angles seem designed to accentuate the female body? Does an article like bukkake really need an image at all? Well, like I stated at the Fellatio article talk page, "A real-life image of the sex act is not needed to illustrate any of the content in this article; people can quite clearly understand the act with drawings, and even without images." However, there are always going to be editors that insist on having an image to illustrate a sexual topic. For instance, this guy in the Slate article commenting on Wikipedia who stated, "I’m very excited of the possibility to show my penis everywhere in the world, everyone can see it. … My penis is the fourth when you search penis on google images." And, like I told you, going with a drawing or a painting, or computer-generated image, of a sex act is usually less offensive to our readers than going with an image of a real-life sex act. Our readers are less inclined to call such images "porn" when they think of them as simply drawings, artistic paintings or as cartoons. And it's not just images of sex acts that our readers complain about. It's real-life images of anatomy, especially of female sexual anatomy (which indicates sexism). Take these complaints at the Vulva talk page, for example. If there were drawings (including diagrams) or paintings, or computer-generated images, of the vulva instead of real-life images of the vulva, I'm sure that there would be far less complaints at that talk page. But should we not show images of real-life vulvas to better educate people on this part of female anatomy because some people, especially men, find the images offensive and/or "nasty"? Some ask similarly regarding real-life images of sex acts -- to them, real-life images of sex acts are better simply because they are the real thing. But the difference is that the topic of sexual acts is a lot more taboo and vulgar than the topic of sexual anatomy, often anyway, and so the WP:Offensive material guideline applies even more seriously to images of sex acts than to images of sexual anatomy by themselves. To some people, it is all porn. To others, there are differences, including the fact that porn is meant to sexually arouse people. The sexual images at Wikipedia, I don't think are meant to sexually arouse anyone, except for in the case of exhibitionists, like the aforementioned penis guy, who intend for their images to sexually arouse. These images are meant to educate. And as for Seedfeeder's alleged prejudice, I can't personally speak to that, since I don't personally know if his drawings are ever coming from a prejudiced point of view. I will state that society in general has a prejudice toward thinking of young people (teenagers and 20-somethings, and sometimes early 30-somethings) as sexually active and beautiful, and the older people and elderly as less sexual or as asexual, and less beautiful (especially in the case of women); this is perpetuated by society at large, and is addressed in our Sex therapy and Sexuality in older age articles. So if Seedfeeder does have a bias there, I don't think he's necessarily aware of it. Flyer22 (talk) 06:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Interview with Andy Cush about Seedfeeder and Wikipedia's sexual images

Note: This interview officially began on September 2, 2014. It continued on September 4, 2014; September 8, 2014; and later on September 30, 2014 due to Cush getting delayed; my final response was on October 1, 2014.

How would you describe Seedfeeder's illustrations to someone who has never seen them before?

I would describe the images as graphic but educational...when used in an educational way at least.

What makes his work particularly compelling or appropriate for Wikipedia articles?

Surely, these images will upset a lot of people, and they commonly do upset some of our readers, but like I state on my user page, "Our readers have consistently stated that they cannot enjoy [a Wikipedia article] as much, or take the article as seriously, with [real-life images of sex acts]. To them, it is simply porn. So we might as well make it less pornographic to them; this approach [of using paintings or drawings] has been working well, as editors such as Herostratus can attest to, and I see no valid reason to disrupt that. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Offensive images and WP:GRATUITOUS tell us what to do in the case of an image that is likely to be offensive, whether we should use that one or an 'equally suitable alternative.' WP:GRATUITOUS is the answer to 'prudishness is culture specific and WP should rise above such puritan nonsense,' and it is quite valid; it exists partly for that reason."

The paintings or drawings are also simply porn to some of our readers, but less pornographic than a real-life image would be to them (or at least to a good number of them). Seedfeeder's images have been criticized, but they are an asset to our sexual articles.

You mention on your user page that you're particularly interested in creating/expanding sex-related articles. What drives that interest? Is Wikipedia a useful tool for sex education, in your estimation?

What drives me to expand, or possibly create, sex-related articles is the interest in informing people of these topics. Accurately informing them. It's like I state at the top of my talk page: "I believe that it's best that I help this site, seeing as many people come here for information (Wikipedia is almost always ranking highest in search engines, and that type of thing is always going to bring in a lot of readers) and a lot of those people trust what they read here. So it's my job to make sure that any topic I am heavily editing is as accurate as possible." For further information, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/WikiProject desk/Interviews2; that's a WP:Permalink of a WP:Sandbox, and it'll go live in several hours.

And as for the question of "Is Wikipedia a useful tool for sex education, in your estimation?" Yes, when the information is reported accurately, and especially when reported comprehensively in addition to accurately.

I'm also interested in Seedfeeder's images beyond their educational use. Would you agree that there's something aesthetically compelling about them (beyond simple pornography), and if so, what do you think that is?

I don't necessarily see what is aesthetically pleasing about them, except that some people find pornography aesthetically pleasing, or, in the case that his images are of white people, some people have a prejudice there and would prefer to look at white people. Despite the criticism Seedfeeder has received regarding alleged racism, he has drawn black people as well. The fact that his images look real enough might also factor into their being aesthetically pleasing.

You corresponded or worked with him at least a little bit in editing certain articles, right? What was he like to work with?

I only worked with him on this matter (an image for the Tribadism article), and working with him was fine. He was easy to work with.

Sorry for the late reply. And as for that signpost; it actually goes up tomorrow; see here.

What would you say to someone arguing that images like Seedfeeders are simply porn? They all show fit, young people, and some of the angles seem designed to accentuate the female body? Does an article like bukkake really need an image at all?

Well, like I stated at the Fellatio article talk page, "A real-life image of the sex act is not needed to illustrate any of the content in this article; people can quite clearly understand the act with drawings, and even without images." However, there are always going to be editors that insist on having an image to illustrate a sexual topic. For instance, this guy in the Slate article commenting on Wikipedia who stated, "I’m very excited of the possibility to show my penis everywhere in the world, everyone can see it. … My penis is the fourth when you search penis on google images."

And, like I told you, going with a drawing or a painting, or computer-generated image, of a sex act is usually less offensive to our readers than going with an image of a real-life sex act. Our readers are less inclined to call such images "porn" when they think of them as simply drawings, artistic paintings or as cartoons. And it's not just images of sex acts that our readers complain about. It's real-life images of anatomy, especially of female sexual anatomy (which indicates sexism). Take these complaints at the Vulva talk page, for example. If there were drawings (including diagrams) or paintings, or computer-generated images, of the vulva instead of real-life images of the vulva, I'm sure that there would be far less complaints at that talk page. But should we not show images of real-life vulvas to better educate people on this part of female anatomy because some people, especially men, find the images offensive and/or "nasty"? Some ask similarly regarding real-life images of sex acts -- to them, real-life images of sex acts are better simply because they are the real thing. But the difference is that the topic of sexual acts is a lot more taboo and vulgar than the topic of sexual anatomy, often anyway, and so the WP:Offensive material guideline applies even more seriously to images of sex acts than to images of sexual anatomy by themselves. To some people, it is all porn. To others, there are differences, including the fact that porn is meant to sexually arouse people. The sexual images at Wikipedia, I don't think are meant to sexually arouse anyone, except for in the case of exhibitionists, like the aforementioned penis guy, who intend for their images to sexually arouse. These images are meant to educate.

And as for Seedfeeder's alleged prejudice, I can't personally speak to that, since I don't personally know if his drawings are ever coming from a prejudiced point of view. I will state that society in general has a prejudice toward thinking of young people (teenagers and 20-somethings, and sometimes early 30-somethings) as sexually active and beautiful, and the older people and elderly as less sexual or as asexual, and less beautiful (especially in the case of women); this is perpetuated by society at large, and is addressed in our Sex therapy and Sexuality in older age articles. So if Seedfeeder does have a bias there, I don't think he's necessarily aware of it. Flyer22 (talk) 06:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hrm, never saw that, but I wouldn't agree with the characterization "this approach [of using paintings or drawings] has been working well, as editors such as Herostratus can attest to". It worked well in some cases, not so well in others, depending on various things, and I can't imagine myself saying that it worked well always or even overall. Herostratus (talk) 15:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, Herostratus. So you only partly agree with my characterization on that matter. I thought that you were generally in agreement with it, since I'd cited you on my user page in that regard. Discussions such as this one, and our experience with similar matters, gave me the impression that you were generally in agreement. Like Ohnoitsjamie stated in that discussion, "Seedfeeder's images are the best compromise between WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:GRATUITOUS that we're likely to get." I can point to various cases where our readers simply are not willing to compromise on real-life sex images but are willing to allow a painting, drawing or computer-generated image of the sex act. The most recent case is this discussion (that's a WP:Permalink) that came about because of the above Gawker article. Flyer22 (talk) 15:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, regarding my commentary that using paintings or drawings has been working well, it's like I noted in the aforementioned discussion that included you, me and Ohnoitsjamie; I stated, "Seedfeeder's images have helped clean up matters concerning the many complaints and much WP:Edit warring that have gone on at Wikipedia over images of sex acts, and it's now standard practice to use a drawing of a sex act instead of an image of a real-life sex act." I definitely see far less issues thanks to Seedfeeder's images. Flyer22 (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

You can add Metro to the list of outlets that have covered Seedfeeder's work. Everymorning talk to me 01:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Remove ads

You have an article now

See Seedfeeder. Just thought you should know in the unlikely event you read this. Everymorning talk 22:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Cracked articles

I'm sure you're aware of this, but wanted to let you know (even though you probably won't read this for a long, long time).

Thanks for your contributions. MB298 (talk) 00:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Pictures to articles about fetishes

Hi dear Seedfeeder,
I'd like to ask you, how to draw as professional pictures to articles about fetishes as yours? I'm satisfied about their quality – like in some recent Disney Pixar's movies. I want to make a new picture due to the fact that someone from PL-Wiki reported my handmade draw from the article to deletion.
Best Regards Superjurek (talk) 09:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Thumbs Up!!

👍

(sheer) Tights (Pantyhose) or single stockings?

Hello, like your work so far, but can you tell me if those are supposed to be Tights, like in the Penélope Cruz movie Jamón Jamón (including a opened bodysuit) or single stockings (stay ups). In case you are still reading. I'd like to add it to the proper category and extend image description without guessing.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Remove ads

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Like the frot illustration Gerardo Noriega 23:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Hot sex barn star

File:Hot sex barnstar.png	The Sexuality Barnstar
	For all the useful images of sexual acts.

—⁠andrybak (talk) 21:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Thank you!

Donnellan0007 (talk) 11:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Helicopter dick

Hi Seedfeeder,

If you're looking for new graphic challenge for WP, could you have a look on this Helicopter dick's picture and create something more professionnal ? Enjoy your summer ! Laszlo (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Seedfeeder has been inactive since June 2012. 118.179.40.199 (talk) 09:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Worth a shot. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I miss you

Come back soon

HCMSurvivorJake (talk) 06:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@HCMSurvivorJake agreed Jacobacademy (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Loading related searches...

Wikiwand - on

Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.

Remove ads