David Gerard wrote:
csherlock@ljh.com.au (csherlock@ljh.com.au) [050214 11:23]:
Out of interest Arno, why are you looking at the Autofellatio article if you risk getting offended?
I too would like to know the answer to this question.
(It's like people who complain the picture on [[clitoris]] is not worksafe and can't come up with why they were reading about clitorises in the course of their job.)
nb: the photo on [[autofellatio]] is indeed awful.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to want to read about a sexual or otherwise explicit subject without seeing explicit images of it. I am quite interested to know what exactly autofellatio is, if it really is possible and what proportion of the population are able - but I'm really not interested in seeing an image of it. And if I am, I'll turn of safe-search on google and search for images there.
The argument that I can turn off images on my browser seems a bad one to me - for a start, many people don't know how to do this (never underestimate the non-techyness of the general user). It's also inconvenient to have to switch images on and off for different pages (especially as I use tabs). And for the general reader, why would they /expect/ to have to turn images off when reading a general encyclopaedia?
--sannse