View Single Post
 
Old Apr 18, 2013, 01:10 PM
hamster-bamster hamster-bamster is offline
Account Suspended
 
Member Since: Sep 2011
Location: Northern California
Posts: 14,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocJohn View Post
I'm not sure how we'd post "guidance" on what topics are appropriate to discuss in the realm of human sexuality, given its diverse and broad nature. I don't want to get into a situation where someone has to vet every link or thought or topic on a specific forum for its "appropriateness" (ala "I know it when I see it") ( I know it when I see it - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ).

We will certainly take your other suggestion into consideration, though, thank you.

DocJohn
I totally agree with you. The choice of minimally necessary censorship that the site has adopted so far - no suicidal posts on the depression forum, no numbers listed on the eating disorders forum, and a few more minor rules - does seem very reasonable and well thought out. In the sexuality forum, nobody should vet the posts, in my opinion - neither you nor other posters.

However, the experience shows that other posters DO attempt to vet links in posts, and since they DO, they should have some guidance. It would be better if they didn't attempt to vet the links, but they do.

My suggestion arose out of a situation when fellow posters criticized a post (you know which one). One person suggested the post was misplaced and offered an alternative forum for the post. That was OK - that seemed like a benign suggestion, accompanied by a practical alternative. That poster did not try to SILENCE the OP, but instead offered an alternative venue for expression.

The next poster actually tried to SILENCE the OP, saying that the content was inappropriate for minors, and since minors visit the site as a whole, the post just should not have appeared, at all. It is in response to that second criticism - the one that attempted to SILENCE the OP - that I suggested that you post some guidance, because there is none. And no, in the situation described, no supreme court justice would have exclaimed "I know it!", because the visuals that were criticized were very sanitary-looking and even medical-looking computer animations of average-sized human bodies, moving in the typical robotic computer-animation fashion. As clearcut NOT "hard-core pornography" (citing the supreme court justice from the wikipedia link) as possible. Nor was the goal of the visuals to excite and arouse - the goal of the visuals, which were accompanied by a lot of descriptive text, was to serve as a tutorial along the lines of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_pictu...thousand_words

Again, in the best case scenario, it would be nice if nobody tried to vet anybody's posts and links in the realm of human sexuality.