[Foundation-l] On curiosity, cats and scapegoats

[Milos Rancic]

On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 16:15, Sarah Stierch <sarah.stierch at gmail.com> wrote:
> No, but, I can send you some pictures on Commons that have been "speedy
> keeps" of strippers with their legs spread wide because they are
> "educational and high quality."

I really don't care about strippers. However, it would be quite
educationally to have short movies at least for the basic sexual
concepts. That includes hygiene of reproductive organs for example,
but some basic sexual positions, as well. And that would be much more
unacceptable to pro-censorship people than strippers.

> My boss, who is bound to have a baby any day now, can't open the pregnancy
> article at work because the intro is NSFW our workplace. I can't open the
> [[vagina]] article at work either, because of the really in your face photo
> of a vagina when you open it up, however, I can totally read the intro to
> [[penis]] since there isn't a big giant penis in one's face upon opening it.
> I work in an educational environment (a museum institution, which has
> exhibits on sexuality, gender, etc) and I can't even look at these articles
> at work, take that as you will.

[[penis]] is the wrong artcile. [[human penis]] is the right one ;)
Note that depictions of penises are the most numerous in the future
"sexual content" category. Our editor base is ~85% male and there are
plenty of them willing to show their sexual organ.

I understand that access to nudity is a problem in many occasions.
That's one of the problems of our civilization which sexual education
should fix. In the mean time, we have to find some solutions for that.
If you need it, contact me and I'll setup proxy for you and your boss
to freely watch Wikipedia articles without images. ... Here is,
actually, a number of options:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Options_to_not_see_an_image