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
Thank you, sannse.
Really, I think we could do with some intervention from Jimbo on this issue. I'm a rabid leftie, and one reason I chose to study law was because I detest censorship. Yet, at the same time, I utterly refuse to have to put vile censorship software on my own computer to avoid seeing inline what shouldn't be there in the first place. I could really care less about some of the more minor ones, such as [[Clitoris]], but I'm on record as saying that the day [[Goatse]] and similar articles receive according pictures is the day that I leave Wikipedia and demand that every trace of my involvement on this site be removed. I love this site, but I would no longer want to be personally associated with such a place.
-- ambi