Robert said:
Tony Sidaway writes:
The sale of the very successful sexually explicit educational video, The Lovers' Guide, through mainstream high street bookstores in 1991 under an 18 certificate showed that the general public is receptive to well presented informational movies on sexual topics. Obviously Wikipedia isn't a "How to" guide of that type, but where a movie would be useful and one is available under GFDL it should be considered.
Sure - it might be a good idea to have a GFDL, open-source website on sex. I just don't think that the full, explicit content of such a site should be in a general encyclopedia like ours. Wikipedia should discuss human sexuality (even the "gross" aspects, which apprently vary from reader to reader) while at the same time not being a sex instruction site.
Yes. I think that we should consider illustrations where appropriate while not competing with sex instruction manuals. Where we draw the line on illustration is probably going to take a while to work out, and will likely change over time as people become less prudish with each successive generation. Improvements in technology will also tend to make streaming video more common on sites like Wikipedia. I certainly hope that the prospect of some of it being labeled "porn" will not stop this useful medium being used.