Forum:Too much discussion of porn and sex and other explicit conent is ruining Uncyclopedia

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > Too much discussion of porn and sex and other explicit conent is ruining Uncyclopedia
Note: This topic has been unedited for 4015 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Maybe I've been hanging out on the #uncyclopedia IRC channel too much, but I'm really sick of this crap. If this keeps going on I'm gonna delete my account or something because I'm fed up. Seems like every time I visit the site nowadays, I'm seeing more and more references to sex and R or X-rated stuff, and since that's not what I come here for, it annoys me. Ideologically driven one-sidedness is something I've complained about in the past (example: I created Reasons to become an Atheist to counter Reasons not to be a devout Christian) but that wasn't a "I can't contribute with this going on" issue. This is. I don't want my screen name to be associated with a porn site.

This is not an "Uncyclopedia is the worst" tirade. My goal here is to help make the site better, as it always has been. Go ahead and make fun of me, I don't care, but I'm sure this is driving away more people than just me. If I don't see some better control of this issue, I guess I'll just have to submit any humorous content I create to other sites and not to uncyclopedia anymore. That is not a "threat" since I'm sure nobody cares and quite a few people want me gone, but I just want to make my position clear.

I'm sure that a solution can be found for this that makes everybody happy. Some type of goofy content rating system for articles that parodies the way the Motion Picture Association of America rates movies could be devised, or "over 18 only" articles could get their own namespace or something. But some kind of seperation needs to occur so that people who are just here for some good laughs aren't having to wade through the sewer to find them. --Nerd42Talk 21:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you name the articles in question? :( I haven't seen too many that are THAT inappropriate.
And, I don't think "Over 18" should get it's own namespace, if adult material is the problem than we should fix it, not throw it in some concentrated space, it attatches a stigma. Mr. Briggs Inc. 21:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Eh?
Well, to be fair, there is Template:NSFW which adds them to a certain category. If you're talking about articles beside that, I'd say it's the work of anonnies. --Ж Cake-eating Cave Monkey or was it a giant monster or a robot? 21:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you name the articles in question? - that would take way too long. Let's just say that any that have pictures of naked people would definately be included.
  • And, I don't think "Over 18" should get it's own namespace, if adult material is the problem than we should fix it, not throw it in some concentrated space, it attatches a stigma. - I don't understand what you're saying here ... could you rephrase it maybe? --Nerd42Talk 21:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Take the nakers pictures out if they offend you, I'm sure we (you and admins) can negotiate it some way. If we just cram any offending articles into an "over 18" namespace then some perfectly good humor could be villified as smut. Mr. Briggs Inc. 22:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Eh?
Just because a picture contains nudity does not mean it is pornography... --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 22:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
But just the same, it is nudity, which is still inappropriate. Also even if it isn't, people might believe it truly is and be steered away. Mr. Briggs Inc. 22:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Eh?
No, 'nudity' is not inappropriate in the correct context. Now, is Uncyc it? I think so, I think this is a humor/satire site and that if nudity can aid that (which it sometimes can) then go with it. In this context, it's perfectly proper and valid. There's a difference between a funny picture that might show some skin and a picture of 3 chicks fucking, is what I'm saying. --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 01:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I have no idea what you're talking about. Sure we have share of lurid or otherwise ribald articles, but so what? Don't read those articles. Problem solved. And I would say that IRC is not really indicative of the site as a whole. --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 22:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Nerd42 in some cases. Look at this excerpt:
"The Dirty Sanchez is also the name of a cunning sexual maneouvre. This is where the guy has anal intercourse with the female and then he shoves it in her nose while she is on her knees the fecal matter from his penis gets on the girl's upper lip like a moustache. The poo is usually brown or a dirty color. It may also have differet textures, such as cabbage soup, or nut 'n' corn crunch."
That passage is neither satire nor parody, nor is it comedy. It's stupid, and it's filth. I recently put an article called "Tit Dirt" on VFD and it was huffed (thank you, good folks), but it was another example of simpleminded filth. How about this passage:
"Ever since his prolific homosexual relationship and marriage to Santa Claus, Tim Allen has officially declared himself a full-fledged faggot, saying that he 'came out of the closet with a BANG!'. He has said, however, that he has, in recent years, developed a sexual attraction to women's asses. Not their faces or vaginas or anything else, just their asses. Whenever he rapes somebody, he never touches their pussies, having said that he considers vaginal sex to be 'gross and improper', and was one of 15 people nominated for the Best Anal-Sex Artist of the 20th Century award."
OK, golly gee, that's real classy writing. Riiiiight. Now, I ain't opposed to sexy articles. There are only a couple of real topics in literature -- love and death, usually translated as sex and violence. But that doesn't mean that gratuitous, explicit filth is necessary. One can write wittily about love and sex...but not by using graphic descriptions of assholes and cocks.
My feeling: there should be a higher bar for sex writing. I don't really give a rat's left hind leg if there's a template at the top or not; most of the "Not Safe For Work" templates I've seen were misapplied to articles that only a virginal Maltese nun would find offensive, while most really filthy articles were unmarked. I think Nerd42 makes a valid point. ----OEJ 02:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Post more examples bellow, Jack. It seems that everything I've found fits in the "Maltese nun" rule. Let's find something we find innappropriate. -- herr doktor needsAbeam Rocket [scream!] 14:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, those are just examples of bad writing. Or being stupid. If that's what Nerd42 is talking about, then that falls under the normal policy of crap deletion, and we should be killing that off anyway, regardless of NSFWitude. --CaptainSpam MUN PUTPBAA 05:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you have a point, Cap Spam. Of course I don't know exactly what articles Nerd42 objects to. But to my tiny mind bad writing about sex, rape, and excrement is more repulsive than bad writing about, oh, My Favorite Superhero or That Band I Hate or My Boring Hometown. Bad writing is boring; bad dirty writing is offensive. That's just me, of course, and it's well known that I am an opinionated dunderhead with only five or six functioning brain cells. My main point would be that very dirty articles should be held to a higher standard than reasonably clean ones. ----OEJ 15:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
But I think we already do that. Repulsive kinky articles have a very higher chance of meeting their doom on VFD than mediocre regular entries. I think we're discussing a non-issue. But MR. NERD have to place something there bellow for us to evaluate. -- herr doktor needsAbeam Rocket [scream!] 15:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Agrees with One-Eyed Jack --Nerd42Talk 16:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm basically with the man on this one, I don't like 'smut', which I define as something that is dirty for the sake of being dirty, it's just puerile and not funny to anyone over the age of about five. On the other hand, you have to laugh about sex - I mean, it's pretty damn odd when you think about it, isn't it? "Let's just say that any that have pictures of naked people would definately be included..: So if I wrote an article on, say, Boticelli and featured an image of his painting of Venus, that needs to be censored because it has a naked woman in it? {{ 18:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)}}

How does he know when an article will have explicit porn or sex in it without scrolling down to the category bar THROUGH all the explicit porn and sex? Mr. Briggs Inc. 22:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Eh?
What about a voluntary rating for articles the authors of which would certify there's no "smut" involved. This would obviate the need for a special "over 18" catagory. Only people who wished to register their articles would bother. Unless, of course, some did it as a joke. But this could be policed, I would think. I, personally, am not much amused by degrading and overly-explicit content, although I must admit "I have sinned a little"(Merlin). Afterthought: this kind of policing could begin as a catagory on the Pee Review.--Schizo Master 22:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Now that sounds like the beginnings of a plan, 21st Century Schizoid Man. Mr. Briggs Inc. 22:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Eh?


  • Do we have a "Not for prudes" template around here? Something with a pic of American Gothic and a caption along the lines of "This page is not appropriate for our more sensitive viewers. It may contain naughty, filthy things like breasts, boobies, tits, knockers or funbags. Nasty words like <this text censored for your protection> may also appear in the text. Viewing by persons under the age of 18 is not recommended, no matter how much they want to see a page filled with cursing. That means you, <insert name here>. Yes, we know who you are.". I only bring this up because for the longest time I thought NSFW was an abbreviation for some sort of newfangled swearword...I shudder to think what filth I was exposed to until I learned out what NSFW stood for!--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 23:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Angry jesus

This page is not appropriate for our more sensitive viewers. It may contain naughty, filthy things like breasts, boobies, tits, knockers or funbags. Nasty words like cock, fuck, capitalism, & Barbra Streisand may also appear in the text. Viewing by persons under the age of 18 is not recommended, no matter how much they want to see a page filled with cursing. That means you, <insert name here>. Yes, we know who you are & Jesus is watching you!

SpacerSpacerPremierTomMayfairChe RedPhone Unsoc Hammer and sickle 23:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

A very big NAH

First, we have some ED reject asking via IP if this were not a "children's site". Now, this! Don't you have something to do other than annoying us with such elusive problems that appear to exist only in your mind? -- herr doktor needsAbeam Rocket [scream!] 01:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, let me add my own two cents. If an article is unfunny and does have nudity well, this is a not a "lonely men's at dawn" site - so it shall not be preserved regardless of the nudity in question being of very high quality. -- herr doktor needsAbeam Rocket [scream!] 01:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I like that article :) SpacerSpacerPremierTomMayfairChe RedPhone Unsoc Hammer and sickle 02:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
(dropping dribble) Me too! -- herr doktor needsAbeam Rocket [scream!] 03:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I like it too. It's excellent satire! The illustrations in question are essential to the parody. A lovely bit of work. ----OEJ 15:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree. --Andorin Kato 22:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Vote to huff these kinds of overly explicit articles?

Score: -3
  • I nominate this idea because I'm too lazy to vote. --14px-Stupcarp_for_sig.png» >UF|TLK|» 00:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • A☭AINST, How 'bout just not lookin' at 'em or pastin' my template on the appropriate articles? SpacerSpacerPremierTomMayfairChe RedPhone Unsoc Hammer and sickle 01:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Against. It's the quality of the writing that matters, not the subject matter. A poorly written page on pudding is just as offensive to me as one on something about naked people doing things with other people who are probably nude as well. This is what VFD is for, not the sex police. Incidentally, I once applied to join the sex police. The sergeant at the desk thought I was quite mad. It was the erection, probably.--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 05:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Maximum AGAINST. No censorship. Ever. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 10:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The Zombiebaron Method

Score: +2 giant images that make everything better

-- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 02:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

--General Insineratehymn 02:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC) FOR!
--Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 06:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Damnit! It's like I've just been to a rock concert. Now the real world is too quiet, and there's a droning hum in the background. Thanks a bunch Insineratehymn & Crazyswordsman, you've damaged my hearing. Harumph! --Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 17:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Practical examples, please!

Okay, gentlemen! (I guess ladies are a little out of this particular discussion... poker, anyone?). Let's be manly and find what the hell are our limits. And after put it clear somewhere here. We will discuss NSFWs and find if their nudity is APPROPRIATE or INAPPROPRIATE. We're not discussing the quality of the articles in question, just if the nudity fits their proposal.

WaitAMinnit! I am very seldom offended by pictures on Uncyc, but there is prose that I think is just nasty. I guess I'll flag them as "prose-porn" to make it clear I'm not addressing the illustrations? ----OEJ 16:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Good idea, proceed. Maybe we could have some kind of "prose NSFW" for them later. -- herr doktor needsAbeam Rocket [scream!] 16:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

An intellectually engaging argument appears: is dirty writing justified when the subject is someone like Ann Coulter or Tim Allen? In other words, do we approve of graphic writing when it is used to attack specific people? Is graphically pornographic prose inoffensive when it is used against someone we don't like? {/end loaded question} ----OEJ 20:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a ready answer: hell, no! Sheer calumny is a very poor resource to attack someone. It makes the writer appear dumber than the subject. Ann Coulter article, for instance, looks like a Rage Against The Machine fanboy manifesto - a fanboy with his kinky fantasies about republican women. -- herr doktor needsAbeam Rocket [scream!] 21:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yellow fever

Score: 4 appropriate 1 inappropriate
  • Appropriate. Macho as hell, but I'm macho as hell either... hehehe. Nothing shocking. -- herr doktor needsAbeam Rocket [scream!] 03:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • APPR☭PRIATE, SpacerSpacerPremierTomMayfairChe RedPhone Unsoc Hammer and sickle 03:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Appropriate! Goodness, this satirizes the male fascination with porn! And there are no visible nibbles or public places -- with vigilance you could see as much flesh at a public swimming pool on a hot summer day. You can see more female detail by looking at Greek sculpture. ----OEJ 15:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Wow, you really managed to read that article... You're a prodigy of self-control, man! :p -- herr doktor needsAbeam Rocket [scream!] 15:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • APPROPRIATE, and now Lord Fluffy wishes that he lived near a swimming pool. /me whistles appreciatively... --Lord Fluffy who rains fire from the heavens 00:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Inappropriate. But this is the only one, if people expect somthing about Yellow fever then this is basically shock humor. Mr. Briggs Inc. 20:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC) Eh?

Crotchless mindee

Score: 3 appropriate 0 inappropriate
  • Appropriate. An idea of a comedic female superhero wearing spandex that covers everything but her beaver could be featured at any Playboy issue. If well written, which appears not be the case, but we're not discussing this. -- herr doktor needsAbeam Rocket [scream!] 03:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • APPR☭PRIATE, SpacerSpacerPremierTomMayfairChe RedPhone Unsoc Hammer and sickle 03:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Appropriate. "ping-pong balls fired from her groin" and the "mystery of her fanny" are relatively innocuous phrases. This isn't really very dirty. ----OEJ 15:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


Score: 3 appropriate 0 inappropriate 1 undecided
  • Appropriate. Again, very macho, but no shock. -- herr doktor needsAbeam Rocket [scream!] 03:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Appropriate but keep the nsfw tag --14px-Stupcarp_for_sig.png» >UF|TLK|» 03:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • APPR☭PRIATE, mmmmmm Arse SpacerSpacerPremierTomMayfairChe RedPhone Unsoc Hammer and sickle 03:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Mixed "Well, a rimjob is when you put your legs behind your head and somebody licks your ass!" Yeah, I really needed those details. Not funny. ----OEJ 16:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    Comment: Ever see Huge Zucchini Squashes Rammed Up Virgin Rumps: Teh Movie? Like, in comparison with that the rimjobs comment is not so bad! Specious argument: we are not talking about what is appropriate on South Park or Dirty Debbie Does It With Drunken Ducks, we are talking about what is appropriate on Uncyc.----OEJ 21:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Chesty Morgan

Score: 3 appropriate 0 inappropriate
  • Appropriate. My own lovely NSFW. Putting appart the modesty, I think it's at least almost-VFH grade. -- herr doktor needsAbeam Rocket [scream!] 03:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
And it has a really crappy image I made on it! -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 03:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Alas, I've placed the NSFW by suggestion of herr Baron, but I'm not sure if it is really necessary on that page. At least for me, it fists in OEJ's "Maltese nun" rule. I was sooo classy... (My girlfriend always tells me I have King Kong as superego) -- herr doktor needsAbeam Rocket [scream!] 15:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • APPR☭PRIATE, SpacerSpacerPremierTomMayfairChe RedPhone Unsoc Hammer and sickle 03:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Appropriate. I get along with this just fine. ----OEJ 16:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Dirty Sanchez (prose porn)

Score: 0 appropriate 2 inappropriate
  • In/Appropriate: The first section is OK as sly satire; the second section is just nasty.----OEJ 15:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Inappropriate. Yes, very graphic. But, as an exception, I think this kind of text could fit perfectly the Marquis de Sade article. -- herr doktor needsAbeam Rocket [scream!] 15:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ann Coulter (prose porn)

Score: 3 appropriate 1 inappropriate
  • Inappropriate. Yeah, this survived VFD. And I think Ann is silly and should be satirized. But there is just too much gratuitous, vicious filth in this article.----OEJ 15:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Appropriate. It's just teenager brainless anger and bad taste. A normal VFD for that. -- herr doktor needsAbeam Rocket [scream!] 16:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Appropriate. It's the level that Ann herself works on, just with funny sexual references instead of the crude baseless ones she chooses. --Kenvalyi 17:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Appropriate, if icky. It's not the best writing, admittedly, but...have you heard her speak? "...gratuitous, vicious filth" is inadequate to describe the hateful, ignorant garbage that spills from her mouth when it is open. --Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 17:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Anal sex (prose porn)

Score: 2 appropriate 0 inappropriate
  • Appropriate. Look, if someone goes to an article titled "Anal sex" he is not expecting an article on daffodils. This article is dirty, yes, but it is appropriately so.----OEJ 16:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Appropriate. Yeah, it could be better, but is somewhat giggling. -- herr doktor needsAbeam Rocket [scream!] 16:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Tim Allen

Score: 1 appropriate 1 inappropriate
  • Inappropriate. The pic of Allen with the photochopped genitals hanging out of his pants is stupid; the article itself is scattered with crude crap like claiming Allen "won a gold medal at the 2005 Celebrity Child-Fucking Olympics for raping 400 children in 30 minutes." ----OEJ 16:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Appropriate. OEJ that picture doesn't show genitals it's a leather toolbelt. Besides, everyone who knows Tim knows he's all about raping the kinder. Infact that's my lone complaint with the article. Be funny, not factual. --Kenvalyi 17:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
You're right, by God; what looks suspicious in the thumbnail view is actually a leather thingie hanging down in the middle of the toolbelt. Is Tim Allen a paedo? Really? I couldn't find anything about it in a quick Google. I still don't like the article, though. It's just fugging nasty. ----OEJ 20:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
No, he's not actually I paedo. I was trying to add humor to my vote. Hey I guess this how rumors get started, eh? Sorry for the confusion. --Kenvalyi 22:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
??Then what is the point of all the paedo and anal filth in the article? Oh well. *shrugs* ----OEJ 02:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Booby prize

Score: 2 Appropriate 0 Inappropriate
  • Appropriate and pretty funny, but has plenty of the kind of images I imagine prompted Nerd42's opening salvo. Right now I get the feeling that most people are willing to excuse explicit filth as teenaged high spirits or a reasonable parody of unpleasant people or on other grounds, or they just plain don't care. Which is OK by me. *sends morse code for "transmission ended"* ----OEJ 02:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Appropriate, even if the Boob Eyeglasses pic is going to give me nightmares. Sweet, sweet nightmares...--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 02:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


cannot be fucked to vote on each of the fifty opinion polls on this page. If an article is funny and well-written then i don't care how obscene or perverse nerd42 thinks it is. If an article is shitty then it should be deleted. whether it's about russia's post-war agricultural techniques or about inter-species defloration decapitation bukkake porn is COMPLETELY IRRELIVENT. humour and good writing are key, not good taste. anyone who reads an article which they feel is inapropriate should put Template:NFSW at the top of the page and leave enough blank space below it for flesh and fornication to be off the bottom of the screen. - jack mort | cunt | talkKodamaIcon - 21:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

But remember that the pictures have to be relevant to the article. I think that we already do this but maybe it should be reiterated? User:KWild/sig 04:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I thought the idea, as stated somewhere, was to be funny and not just stupid. Mostly, gratuitous porn and "filth" is just stupid. But, like the flamewars, some people find them amusing. Good writing covers a multitude of sins. This is an adult sight, I gather, so one should be prepared for adult (non-stupid) content. Boobs can be funny. I'd be willing to put a warning on my articles if it was clear what, exactly the line was to be crossed. For instance, sheep-sex? It's a topic so close to my heart.--Schizo Master 16:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If Crazy can write a good article on sheepsex, I have no objection. --Lord Fluffy who rains fire from the heavens 18:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

So my article makes sheep-sex okay? Now we understand Lord Fluffy a little better.--Schizo Master 19:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


To be quite honest, every time I browse the NSFW images, I'm moderately depressed at how safe most of them are. While we do have some shit here, as noted, when it hits VFD/QVFD it usually goes away. I'm not aware of too many (any?) pages which have been saved from VFD solely because of boobies. If there are shitty articles, nominate them for VFD. If people vandalize an article, revert and report. I fail to see how this is any different from the rest of the crap we accumulate here. Unless one is has an easily offended, Puritanical mindset. Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 03/9 23:08

I don't think I need to post examples, particularly since One-Eyed Jack posted some "good" ones earlier.

My point is, this is not about censorhip or trying to stop people from saying what they want to say. This is about what belongs where. This is a humor site. If I want to find humourous porn, Google is perfectly servicable for that - it shouldn't be on Uncyclopedia I don't come here to see or read porn and frankly, it really kills the rest of the perfectly good humor on the site for me. --Nerd42Talk 16:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Since you started this all, I think you have the moral obligation to evaluate every one of the suggested entries. Please do that and maybe we will finally understand what exactly were you talking about. -- herr doktor needsAbeam Rocket [scream!] 16:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't do it Nerd42!! Don't click those links above! You'll get corrupted! Quick - avert your eyes! Aaargh!!! --Strange (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 17:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel as if I have to explain the birds and the bees to a bunch of little kids here. People honestly have no idea what I'm talking about? Didn't anyone have the difference between comedy and porn explained to them by someone at some point in their lives? "What is porn? What qualifies as porn?" Are you people truly so clueless? --Nerd42Talk 17:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Just give your oppinion on the practical examples above. The question is not about what is porn and what is not porn. The question is when it is appropriate or not appropriate for OUR site. Be bold and give your judgement. -- herr doktor needsAbeam Rocket [scream!] 17:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Bear in mind that this site has a lot of people from all over the world and persuasion which means that the standards of decency will in all probability different from your's and one persons porn is another's art/mild titerlation just because you consider it Porn many others may not and so don't see what the problem is in your eyes hence I suspect the (mildly sarcastic) request for you tell us what yopu consider to be Porn so at least we have an idea what you consider offensive!--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 18:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I view "porn" as any visual act of intercourse whether it be oral, vaginal, anal, or some other silly act that these porns produce nowadays. That's how I view it. Nudity is not porn. Some photo shots of genitalia would be considered porn, I guess, but there are forms of art that show genitalia. A woman posin' in a magazine can be art. It's beautiful and it's not makin' obscene gestures. As for readin' pornograhic material, that is up to the user to read it. Ever read the book, The Claiming of Sleepin' Beauty? It is porn but it is art as well. Beautifully written. There is filth, then there is funny, & then there is art. SpacerSpacerPremierTomMayfairChe RedPhone Unsoc Hammer and sickle 18:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
PS Nudity is not a sin to everyone. SpacerSpacerPremierTomMayfairChe RedPhone Unsoc Hammer and sickle 18:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
But if it is a sin to someone in particular, perhaps they'll make a forum post to complain about it. I mean, theoretically...Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 03/14 22:12
It might not a sin to all, but it's still not appropriate either way. Mr. Briggs Inc. 22:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Eh?
You say that like it is a truth; in fact, that is but the opinion of a small subset of users. Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 03/14 22:52
It's only sinful if you do it properly.--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 01:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
You mean the way with the blood-sacrifice and the upside-down crosses? --Strange (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 02:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I meant in front of the security camera at the gas station. --Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 02:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Some specifics

As the resident puritan, I think I know which guidelines would need a NSFP (not safe for puritans) template placed on them. Anything containing reference to the parts of the body traditionally considered sexual (and acts performed with such body parts) would be considered inappropriate. Any direct reference or direct showing of any of these things would be considered offensive. The body parts to which I refer are hooters, bullocks, dicks, pussies, and asses (including all holes which are related). Ideally, I would like to have some way to know if an article or discussion would have pictures or references to such things, or actions performed with them, and thus be more capable of avoiding them. That would be very accommodating to me, and I would appreciate it. Of course, now such a tag would have to be placed on this forum page, warning me off of it, so that any vote that would be taken (or intelligent discussion about censorship and the causes/consequences) I would miss. So it's kind of a six in one, half-dozen in the other. Ideally, self-regulation is the best, I think, but this is where the line is on the right that conservative Americans would rather is not crossed, and if it is, that we be warned about it.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 21:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

...and acts performed with such body parts...speaking on behalf of all males, and most all females, I do not believe that we should censor hands on this website. Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 03/16 21:39
Speak for yourself, Famine.  ;)--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 21:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I said "most"! Now excuse me while I go shave my palm... Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 03/16 22:10
Righto! For too long this website has been overrun by perverted images of bovines. —rc (t) 22:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, yeah, sure, Brad...but in images, how much of a hooter is too much of a hooter? Cleavage but no nibbles? Is a male nibble OK (it's lawful to expose them in all civilized countries except Kansas) but a female nibble filthy smut? Is it OK to show a neoclassical image of Zephyrus caressing Chloris (or Flora, I'm not sure which) but bad and filthy to show a picture of Justin Timberlake caressing Janet Jackson? (OK, bad example. JT and JJ is just plain tasteless. Sorry.) Anyway. The point is that smut is always at least somewhat subjective. ----OEJ 17:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I know, Jack. And, not only is it subjective, but the bounds of what are considered poor taste change over time (mainly because brilliant works are produced which are considered poor taste at the time of production, yet their age and quality leads to their being accepted, and thus the rules being changed to allow that to not be hypocritical). All your points bring up potential hypocracies and contradictions within the system I'm describing, I'm just spelling out exactly what the far right in America would probably consider porn. Yes, the boob thing is really iffy, and getting into percentages would just seem rediculous ("Well, I think if over 50% of the honker is covered, including the nipple, it should be good to go..."), and yes there's the men's/women's nipple thing. I'm not saying this standard should be adopted for the whole site, necessarily, I'm just clarifying, as many seemed confused as to what, exactly, Nerd was talking about. Given where I live, and the culture I've grown up in, I know exactly what he's talking about, so I tried to lay out the rules as I understood them.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 13:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we all pretty much understand what "offensive" is, although some would hide behind considering questionable content to be "art". Sexual stuff and profanity pretty much covers it. Why not make an "SFP" category and let people voluntarily place their articles in that category. Then leave it to the huffing people to decided whether or not the thing is funny in light of the category. After all, "unfunny and stupid" could be relative to the given category, anyway. Let them, nonarbitrarily, sort it out, and let the admins respond to complaints. Of course, if there is ANY debatable content, there will be complaints. Maybe imagine you were writing for your grandmother or something. Just a thought....--nice, old lady 13:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The Not safe for work (and the adult content) templates already add things to the Not safe for work category. Although I would quite like to make an SFP category, standing for "Safe for Prudes", where we can place articles containing nothing but "Last of the Summer Wine"-type humour...! --Strange (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 16:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Heh, that's actually a better idea than any of the others we've come up with. A template with a couple of Amish folks on it, and a blurb like, "Nerd tested, Brad approved" or something.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 18:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe something that says "We can't promise this is funny, but we're pretty sure it isn't porn" and a seal of some sort.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 18:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I just had a go at putting something together - it's my first boxy template though, so feel free to criticise and/or do better... --Strange (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 20:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is certified safe for prudes. It is so tame you could walk right up and poke it in the eye and it wouldn't fight back. The MPAA couldn't find anything offensive in it, and even China has no desire to censor it. So just sit back, and bask in the warmth of its gentle humour.
Not bad, but could use a little more contrast. Light aqua on lighter aqua is a little hard to read.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 21:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, modify the colours. Now we have somethin' to put on the majority of articles besides the Jesus & Satan templates and it would make sense. SpacerSpacerPremierTomMayfairChe RedPhone Unsoc Hammer and sickle 21:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Twas meant to be relaxing, but since eyestrain isn't relaxing, I'll change it. Can't be bothered to fiddle about with colours right now though, since it's bedtime. --Strange (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 02:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
<pretty graphics box><inoffensive_warning_image.jpg> This article certified tasteless and puerile and just possibly pornographic if not also gross and disgusting and perhaps written by a pathetic loser with the mentality of a demented five-year-old on narcotics who just misplaced his blankie and if you're not into that it's just one of those things because humor like everything else runs the gamut and once the gamut gets switched on you can't just switch it off because then you turn into Wikipedia and you've got all these rules and policy commissars and the creative universe just implodes on itself and then you're eating gruel in a wooden shack somewhere out in the gulag of blah-dom and nobody likes that so what can you do? </pretty graphics box> V3rt1g0 16:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to be hypocritical after helping to consign somebody else's template to oblivion, here's (finally) my recoloured "Safe" template:

This article is certified safe for prudes. It is so tame, you could walk right up and poke it in the eye and it wouldn't fight back. The MPAA couldn't give it more than a PG rating, and even China has no desire to censor it. So just sit your family down in front of the computer, and bask in the warmth of its gentle humour.

Sorry it took so long, but you know, you can never find a set of coloured pencils without all the leads being broken, and then you can never find a pencil sharpener...

If it looks okay (and keep telling me if it doesn't!), I'll stick it at Template:Safe, and if you find a page you think is unlikely to accumulate penis references (pretty few and far between, actually) then you can stick it on there. --Strange (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 20:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Now Nerd can stick it on articles he thinks wouldn't offend grandma. I love it when a plan comes together.</Murdock><<Bradmonogram.png>> 13:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The deed is done. --Strange (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 15:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we should get some articles in the right now the whole wiki looks a little unsafe, well except for Template:Safe that is. User:KWild/sig 12:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Personal tools