I'm intrigued by the efforts to label this an issue of editorial control. That presumes an extremely narrow definition of the word censorship and seems wholly disingenuous to me.
Still no one has attempted a rational response to my question to Jimbo... What is it about a picture of a man performing autofellatio in an article about autofellatio that makes it "pornographic"?
At the end of the day this is about censoring images for the sake of the prudish and the squeamish, whether it be that of an individual, organisation or on behalf of a sub-culture.
We can debate until the cows come home but we're never going to reach agreement on the points as they're being argued because this isn't so much a debate about whether an image is appropriate or not but a debate about which world view will prevail on Wikipedia: one that attempts to self-censor on the grounds of prudery and squeamishness, or one that doesn't.
The beauty is we don't have to come to an agreement; many of us have been able to agree to a technical solution that skirts around the whole issue and leaves censorship up to the enduser. So why we're still debating instead of implementing the idea I'm not entirely sure.
Christiaan