Drawings for sex topics Options

[The Wales Hunter]

I've been browsing through some of the sex topic images on Wiki to decided whether I think drawings would be better than photographs. I'm leaning towards photographs (well done ones, not phone cam cock-shots).

This possibly swung the balance for me:



That is, apparently, a depiction of male masturbation.

Would users, of whatever age, be better off seeing that, a professionally-photographed image, or nothing?

Also, to be frank, do we really want the younger generation to experience their first images of sex through (what is undeniably) porn via DVDs and hardcore sites? At least the phallic shots on Wikipedia aren't large, by any stretch of the imagination, so there will be no insecurity issues - compared to if a 12-year-old saw John Holmes's dong.

[Brutus]

Would users, of whatever age, be better off seeing that, a professionally-photographed image, or nothing?

.......That looks like a job for David Shankbone.

I've heard in the US they have laws (18 U.S.C. § 2257?) regarding age record keeping of "models" doing sexually explicit acts.

There are plently of porn images already on Wikipedia. Would not Wikipedia have to keep records of the age of the person in such photos?

[A Horse With No Name]

I am curious about why the man in the picture is wearing a top hat. Is that what Englishmen wear while masturbating?

[Milton Roe]

I am curious about why the man in the picture is wearing a top hat. Is that what Englishmen wear while masturbating?

Only the upper class ones of a century ago (see the handlebar mustache?)


"I say, Worthington, I think I have an erection this morning."
"I dare say you do indeed, my lord. Shall I inform milady?
"No, bring round the car. I believe I shall attempt to smuggle his one into town...."

[The Wales Hunter]

.......That looks like a job for David Shankbone.

I've heard in the US they have laws (18 U.S.C. § 2257?) regarding age record keeping of "models" doing sexually explicit acts.

There are plently of porn images already on Wikipedia. Would not Wikipedia have to keep records of the age of the person in such photos?

I'd not, in any way, class Shankbone's point-and-clicks as professional photography, for one.

And no, they never have. I've tried to make the point directly to Jimbo in the past. We only have the uploader's word to go on that they are old enough. For all we know, at least some of the ejaculation videos and moving images (which, I suppose, is a video) are on 14-year-olds.

[A Horse With No Name]

Are you suggesting that members of the Wikipedia community disrobe and pose for the photographs?

[The Wales Hunter]

Not safe for work (or, quite frankly, most places) but most of these are taken by members of the community. Allegedly.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category..._%28animated%29

[A Horse With No Name]

Not safe for work (or, quite frankly, most places) but most of these are taken by members of the community. Allegedly.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category..._%28animated%29

Hmmm, can't say I recognize anyone. Considering everyone is white and puny, I assume these photos were taken at the last Wikipedia Meet-Up in New York.

[Gandoman]

Looks like he's shaving his legs with an electric razor...

BTW, where did you find this drawing? I couldn't find it in the Commons "male masturbation" category. Yes, Commons has several categories for masturbation pictures.

This post has been edited by Gandoman: Wed 12th August 2009, 10:54pm

[Tarc]

I am curious about why the man in the picture is wearing a top hat. Is that what Englishmen wear while masturbating?

Its like anorexic love-child of the Pringles guy and Mr. Money from Monopoly.

[carbuncle]

I am curious about why the man in the picture is wearing a top hat. Is that what Englishmen wear while masturbating?

Its like anorexic love-child of the Pringles guy and Mr. Money from Monopoly.

Or a caricature robber baron attempting to amputate his own leg using nothing but an overcooked sausage.

[CharlotteWebb]

Would users, of whatever age, be better off seeing that, a professionally-photographed image, or nothing?

Yeah, I'd say this sketch has warped my fragile little mind at least as much as any photograph could, possibly more so.

[Law]

It appears he's using his right hand. However, given the position, I suppose he's getting a little creative with the 'backside' routine.

[CharlotteWebb]

Just so you know, the image is on IFD now. However, one admin has already declined to speedy-delete it.

[Apathetic]

How could you try to delete such a lulzworthy artifact?

[Jay]

How could you try to delete such a lulzworthy artifact?

Ah, but is it encyclopaedic?

[Eva Destruction]

How could you try to delete such a lulzworthy artifact?

The creator of that work of art is also responsible for one of the weirdest pieces of trolling I ever saw. OK, which of you is it?

[thekohser]

How could you try to delete such a lulzworthy artifact?

The creator of that work of art is also responsible for one of the weirdest pieces of trolling I ever saw. OK, which of you is it?

I don't consider that weird.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Not safe for work (or, quite frankly, most places) but most of these are taken by members of the community. Allegedly.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category..._%28animated%29

Warning ... this link is to a page of animated ejaculations (male only, unfortunately guys).

My browser's knees went weak and completely choked on them.

So, just why exactly does an "Encyclopedia" ... accessible by children an targeted at poor starving African girls who are going to change the world according to Jimbo Wales ... require so many ejaculating erections. If any at all?

Are they all white dicks on the Pee-dia? I could not see and I am not going back to look.

Funnily enough, the page adds ...

English: Please note that low-quality images with no realistic educational use may be deleted.

So, a) what realistic educational value have these and
b) if these are the high-quality ones ... what on earth did they delete?

I am gushing to know the Pee-dia rational for keeping all of these.

[Rhindle]

How could you try to delete such a lulzworthy artifact?

The creator of that work of art is also responsible for one of the weirdest pieces of trolling I ever saw. OK, which of you is it?

I don't consider that weird.

I just put in wikipedia...

This letter is not intended to assuage your worst fears about wikipedia but will, in most cases, confirm them. So, without further ado, I present you with this all-important piece of information: It has been brought to my attention that wikipedia unquestionably gives me the heebie-jeebies. While this is true, if I didn't think wikipedia would empty garbage pails full of the vilest slanders and defamations on the clean garments of honorable people, I wouldn't say that this makes me fearful that I might someday find myself in the crosshairs of its neo-shallow reports. (To be honest, though, it wouldn't be the first time.)

If wikipedia is victorious in its quest to curry favor with the most self-deceiving ochlocrats you'll ever see using a barrage of flattery, especially recognition of their "value", their "importance", their "educational mission", and other dastardly nonsense, then its crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity. It's not that I have anything against devotees of conspiracy theories in general. It's just that wikipedia parrots whatever ideas are fashionable at the moment. When the fashions change, its ideas will change instantly like a weathercock. When one looks at the increasing influence of lexiphanicism in our culture one sees that wikipedia's signature is on everything. So how come its fingerprints are nowhere to be found? The answer should be self-evident so let me just point out that wikipedia's desire to cause this country to flounder on the shoals of self-interest, corruption, and chaos is the chief sign that it's a haughty astrologer. (The second sign is that wikipedia feels obliged to initiate a reign of imperious terror.)

Certain facts are clear. For instance, wikipedia is blinded by greed. Let me try to explain what I mean by that in a single sentence: Wikipedia's plan is to lure the socially inept into its little empire. Wikipedia's understrappers are moving at a frightening pace toward the total implementation of that agenda, which includes breaking down our communities. I would like to go on, but I do have to keep this letter short. So I'll wrap it up by saying that wikipedia favors manipulative psychological techniques over honest discussion.