Further, I love the attempts to be all scientific. "A young girl, on a bed, spreading her vulva in direction of camera."

Ye gods.

"Thus spake thy Godking Jimbo: 'And the porn shall inherit the wiki.'"
--Revulsions Revisions ch. 1, line 69. The King Jimbo Bible

Wikipedia becoming a porn site?
More money and publicity out of porn?
Well, at least, Jimbo should know about that aspect, if little about anything else!
...

Personally, it's not the amount of sex articles Wikipedia has that unnerves me, it's the high proportion of BDSM-related articles (and I know I sound a bit prudish) - it's kinda worrying when the Category "BDSM equipment" (50 articles) has as many articles as its parent, "Sex toys" (55 articles)

FTFY

... & Larry Sanger

II. Fundamental policies concerning content.

1. The content of the Citizendium will always be open content.
2. It will be the project's aim to make the content of the Citizendium:

* accurate
* based on common experience, published, credible research, and expert opinion
* neutral in this sense
* legal and responsible
* family-friendly

I've blocked you for tendentious pro-pedophile editing and trolling. For instance among many your edit built around the phrase "It's also inaccurate to define this as a "pro-pedophile belief," because anyone who's familiar with any of the research on child sexual abuse should subscribe to it" is not acceptable because it (1) is inflammatory and the functional equivilent of trolling and (2) supports editing which brings the Wikipedia project into disrepute.

You have been blocked for 72 hours for the time being. I am recommending this be expanded to a permanent block. You may appeal this block directly to the Arbitration Committee by email and in no other venue.

NOTICE TO ADMINISTRATORS: per precedent this block should not be overturned except by or at the direction of the ArbCom nor should appeals other than by email to the ArbCom be considered, email me if you have questions about this. Herostratus (talk) 04:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If believing that child sexual abuse isn't invariably harmful is reason enough to ban me, then being banned is a necessary consequence of having any expertise in this area. Of course, the occasional absence of harm doesn't mean CSA's not wrong: it is, and should remain the subject of severe criminal penalties. But this is because a prepubescent child is biologically incapable of giving informed consent. To continue to maintain that the real problem is some inherent harmfulness, despite the total lack of support for that proposition, only serves activists for its legalization.
You should consider reading David Finkelhor's paper on the ethics of sex between adults and children,[1], or Part I, chapter 10 of Ethics and Sex by Igor Primoratz. I can email you the text of the former, if you like, but I recommend the latter -- it spends more time on the fallacy of "inherent harmfulness" and establishes the consent argument much more soundly. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I would unblock you, A.S., were I an administrator. It looks as though you're being blocked because you said something that someone personally does not like. This Is A Dangerous Precedent To Set! Right, Wrong, or Indifferent, making a statement of fact or opinion on a TALK page is virtually never a good reason for a block, let alone 72 hours! Hero, while he often uses sound judgement, is WAY off on this one. I'm not saying that you are right; I'm not saying that you're wrong. I am saying, though, that expressing a relevant opinion, especially based on scientific text (it appears), in the context of a discussion, is the entire point of Wikipedia. I am amazed and even scared that admins now block for comments they dislike. FWIW, I have appreciated your contributions and comments, even when I have not agreed with them or believed them to be too extreme in either direction. And your ood faith and civility far outshine at least a couple of your naysayers. I'm at a loss... The setting of this precedent... wow... • VigilancePrime • • • 02:39 (UTC) 28 Mar '08

I hate to say it, but I'm becoming more and more and more disappointed with Wikipedia, or at least with its admins. This is such a horrible misjudgment that it's not even funny! For the last time, defending Wikipedia ideals, such as NPOV, is not advocation of pedophilia or the pro-pedophile movement. Seriously, admins should provide substantiating evidence before setting blocks on people. The reasoning provided above definitely does not warrant a block, and it's clear that Herostratus - whether intentionally or not - misrepresented AnotherSolipsist's editing (even the very edit to which the admin provided a diff). ~ Homologeo (talk) 06:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AnotherSolipsist"

If believing that child sexual abuse isn't invariably harmful is reason enough to ban me, then being banned is a necessary consequence of having any expertise in this area.

In a triumph of integrity, all the SuicideGirl photos have been subtly Photoshopped, or unsubtly cropped to remove watermarks. I'm not exactly sure this falls within the definition of derivative work. Classy.

Wow, that's quite the audacious POV to push, there, AnotherSolipsist.

My turn!!!

http://ericsaysfuckyou.blogspot.com/2008/0...-wikipedia.html

Eric, did you make that blog, ugh!

This is quite a serious issue

If one admin has a drop of guts, he/she would delete that whole
list of photos immediately. Just checked--still there.

WR is pretty much the best place to use if you want something done on Wikipedia.

But only if you can point out something that embarrasses them....

forgive the crosspost, but it's relevant:

Don Murphy brought it up...

Still, some of the suspected under-age ones remain.

That it's still illegal for two high school students to have sex with each other in many states is pretty mind-boggling.

You mean there are states where it's legal for an adult to have sex with a minor just because they're still at school?

There are special tracts of legislation about this kind of thing, at least in the USA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/18_USC_2257

Does this legislation apply to Florida?

: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tommy2010yamiga.jpeg here's tommy2010 molesting native girl, promising her palace, but after rapin her, just dumps her as usual!