I was going through the NFD Advanced list and stumbled across this article which appears to have been the subject of controversy for a few years now. http://www.wikihow.com/Get-a-Girl-to-Have-Oral-Sex-With-You
On one hand, it’s very easy to see how this article is sexually charged because it is
discussing sexually explicit acts that we typically don’t allow guides on at wikiHow. On the other, the article is not overtly sexual in nature – it talks about having a conversation with your girlfriend and respecting everyone’s decision on the matter. The discussion page has lots of good feedback on the article. Most seems to be in support of deletion, mentioning that children could find this article, and that it’s just inappropriate in general. A very good point mentioned on the page is that there are other questionably sexual articles on the site that, because they aren’t overtly sexual or explicit, have been kept on the site. The example mentioned is an article about losing your virginity without pain. The article doesn’t support
this behavior per se, it just gives tips on making the experience better (go slowly, discuss with your boyfriend before, etc.) I’m curious to see the community’s thoughts on this. There’s a mixed consensus on it at the moment, and I’d like to see a higher sense of agreement before we take any action on the article. Thoughts?
system
2
Firstly, wikiHow isn’t a kid’s website… that is what websites like Animal Jam is for. Secondly, I vote on changing the title to “How to Discuss Oral Sex with Your Girlfriend”. Thirdly, I vote on keeping the article – because there’s absolutely nothing in terms of “sexual nature” that I would personally delete. Communication is one thing, describing how to perform oral sex, step by step, is another.
Anniemp
4
The girl in the image looks too young, if you keep the article, change the pictures to be more age appropriate.
Oppose deletion based on this.
Age appropriateness is not a concern for wikiHow. I see nothing wrong with the current photos. (The woman looks to be in her 20s. Meanwhile, there are many teens experimenting with oral sex at young ages.)
Marina
6
We’re not here to dictate what age is appropriate for things like this. And as Illneedasaviour said, that woman looks to be in her 20s. I might agree with you if she looked SIGNIFICANTLY younger, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.
Anniemp
7
I never said a word about the article being age appropriate. wikiHow isn’t a kids site. But SIGNIFICANTLY younger? Doesn’t have to be significantly younger. Even one day too young is not legal. An admin started this thread and asked for thoughts. I said what I thought. Didn’t say much, but why twist what I did say into a straw-man argument? Since I’ve already been called out wrongly on the issue of age appropriateness, I’ll share my opinion on that. Why not? I’ve already been slapped for that so here goes. I believe there should be some measure of social responsibility. Nuff said.
Anniemp
9
To be clear:
But since you mention it… in this context, can you please explain why “Plan a Threesome” is unacceptable but “Get-a-Girl-to-Have-Oral-Sex-With-You” is acceptable? These are both sex topics that involve more than one person. A couple can Kiss Passionately without sex. Same with French Kissing. A threesome can not be done without sex. Oral Sex cannot be done without sex. Oral sex cannot be done without sex. Can you please explain the reasoning? Since @AndrewG1999
said this is a controversial topic and he’d like to discuss it, maybe we should respect that and discuss it, leaving out the tired old canned responses. Bonus points! this could serve as an opportunity to do some group coaching. Same effort, more widespread results. My mind is open, please educate me on the reasoning and nuances of this policy so I can learn how to recognize the difference. @Mash317
to clarify, TOS uses the term “sexually charged” not “sexually graphic” They are not the same so we need to focus on the right thing.
Savas_P
10
I really think that people should get over the sexual articles on wikiHow.
Anniemp
11
Please read the opening post. @AndrewG1999
is an admin. He said this is a controversial topic and he’d like to discuss it. Maybe we should show him a little respect and discuss it? Spend a year in my shoes, research, investigate, see child porn, follow the trails, and initiate criminal proceedings. It might be a good idea to allow admin @AndrewG1999
the courtesy to start a thread and ask for discussion?
Anniemp
13
@Mash317
you’ve confused me. “You would know why the NFD SEX is needed.” Where or when did I ever even imply the nfd|sex is not needed? To answer your question, I have patrolled 16,522 edits in 3 months. So yes, you have patrolled almost 3 times as many as I have (44,113) in 7 years. But I think I’ve done enough to get a pretty good idea. If you do the math, assuming I keep producing at the same rate, my number will be around 462,616 once I’ve been here 7 years. If an average of 5,500 edits patrolled per month isn’t enough, I’m certain I can never meet your expectations. And I feel no need to try. Now that I answered your question, I have a question for you. How are my patrol stats relevant to this topic? And seriously, why are they even being called into question? I do expect an answer. I asked a legitimate and on topic question. I asked for guidance in understanding the interpretation and nuance of policy. No one’s bothered to to address that. And the attempt by @AndrewG1999
to have a discussion has been successfully derailed at this point.
Ksisky
15
I agree with @Anniemp
. It says right there in the NFD rules, that talking about sex is not allowed. Also, it says that “Sexually charded material is not allowed” meaning, “Articles that couldn’t be there without sex are not allowed”. Think about it, if sex wasn’t a thing, do you think this article would be there? Thats all I have to say.
Anniemp
16
@Mash317
Defensive? No. Thorough? Yes. You asked a direct question and I gave you a direct answer. BUT you are STILL missing the fact that I never asked about the need for nfd|sex.
Then what was your reason for bringing my patrols stats into this? You’re contradicting yourself. On top of that you presume to know what I’ve learned and what I haven’t?
LOL, now you claim to know what I think and what I will say? Think about it, tasteful and pornographic are not mutually exclusive. It’s possible for something to be both tasteful and pornographic.
Are you serious? You haven’t had many law classes, have you. There are volumes and volumes of case law regarding this “problem”
This discussion has nothing to do with porn or graphic porn. The polices draw the line WAY before graphic porn, no? Even soft porn wouldn’t be allowed here.
Thanks, but I don’t need a refresher, I have it memorized. If you want a clue about what this thread is about or what anyone else has to say go here and start reading from the beginning: http://forums.wikihow.com/discussion/13663/nfd-review-needed-for-possibly-sexual-article/#Item\_13
Repeating because apparently I have to: *** Sexually changed does not equal graphic porn. *** Your bullying, flaming, and disruption of a thread that I believe was started in good faith by an active admin is not appreciated. Have fun.
@Anniemp
I can tell you have strong beliefs regarding this issue. However, there are ways of exchanging opinions and defending your views while staying civil. Accusing other community members of bullying, flaming, or trolling is uncivil. I’m sure @Mash317
was not trying to bully you, but was only trying to explain the reasoning behind the nfd|sex policy from a veteran’s perspective. The issue of sexual articles and nfd|sex is highly controversial with several differing opinions, but please remember to stay civil and humble when your thoughts are being refuted.
I have deleted my comments as it seems they were misunderstood by some. I posted in good faith and attempted to share my experience and I am sorry I was misunderstood. Thank you Illneedasaviour for your comments. I appreciate them.
