David Gerard wrote:
csherlock(a)ljh.com.au (csherlock(a)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
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 10/02/05