DMOZ and Extreme Pornography

Seeing that the Child Pornography thread did a lot to address problems with sites that suggested sex acts with minors (or possibly displayed such acts), I think it would be worth examining other areas. I want to commend DMOZ editors for being part of the last thread and helping to remove sites that may have been illegal (there were numerous instances), and I hope that better procedures will be followed to help prevent such sites from being listed in the future. Maybe there should be more than one editor required to approve any adult site. Wouldn't that be nice if 3-5 editors were needed to add adult listings?

I would like to now turn to what is know as Extreme Pornography. So often we want to turn our eyes away from behavior that is being promoted by websites, but we must bear in mind that many lonely people are drawn to pornography who often don't understand their sexuality very well. How do you suppose the following would benefit such people?:

Fisting with two hands
Exteme Pain - gagging, torture and domination
Horse Sex
Dog Sex
Bottle Insertions
Forced Sex
Rape Video
Secret Cameras
Kidnap Fantasy
Fantasy Abduction Stories
Painful Kidnap-style bondage
Extreme Tortures
Sucking Blood
Pictures of Necrophilia
Dead Child Photographs
Shit Eating
Toliet Slave Humiliation

If you are contemplating submitting your quality site to DMOZ, how do you feel about having your site listed with the above? As a follow up, what if your site was listed on the same page as the above versus the same site?

If you were an editor, what would you think about a troubled person viewing the above information? Would it help them understand their problems better? Or could it lead to more destructive behavior?

Which of the above would you personally find helpful? Which of the above would you recommend to your friends?

Do you feel the above help DMOZ to be a better resource?

Do you feel DMOZ would be a better resource if the above were not included in DMOZ? And as a follow up, do you think a majority of people would agree with your opinion?

 

Why would I submit a site to DMOZ? I don't currently own any Bottle Insertion or Forced Sex sites.

So many editors have stated int his forum before, that they don't care about the harm done to the viewers of these sites. This attitude alone is reason enough not to ever submit to DMOZ again.

Hmm. I don't know. "Shit Eating" possibly?

No, but these sites are making some of the corrupt editors (yea, I know they don't exist) alot of money.

DMOZ needs a major overhaul. The editors that post here seem to think that things are great as is.

 

Well if dmoz do list those sites, im not really interested in being part of the DMOZ community by submitting to it anymore. We all know that dmoz is full of corrupted editors that doesn't list quality websites but their own or friends websites for the sake of money and business. There was that long thread about DMOZ listing child porn site, was very interesting to read though i didnt debate much. Well let me say that sucks

Definitely Not! For people that have a stable sex life and look for naked women only ( like me ) on the web just to see what i miss, well that would be good to have some naked women library on DMOZ! But not some dog sites and eating shit ones. Damnit can't we have a whole damn directory on the web that lists only quality site? There is no such directories, the only directories like that are managed by particular with just a few editors.

 

Is this an attempt to bolster your apparent integrity by demonstrating your morality?

It is a list that is made interesting not by what is on it, but rather what you have excluded. For example you have decided to single out “two handed fisting”. Is there something about two hands that you find offensive? Why is one hand O.K but two hands really bad?

And what the deal witth "Bottle Insertions"? Why is this bad karma but veges are not?

And why have you not listed watersports? There is a whole category on that. Is that O.K according to the gospel of David?

What gives you the right to decide what is right and wrong between consenting adults? Has God visited you in a dream or something?

 

Congratulations. You get the Dumbest Post of the Year award. I can't believe I just wasted time reading that post. Well, that's a minute of my life I'll never get back.

 

Well the day your little sister will find a bottle insertion or shit eating website, you will not react the same way you are reacting right now.

By the way why do you talk about watersports? Look the title of the thread, DMOZ and Extrem Pornography! EXTREM PORNOGRAPHY, if not plugging a bottle right up your ass is extrem so you'll have to explain what is extrem.

 

Well thats my problem. Perhaps you could explain to me how urinating in someones mouth is not "EXTREM PORNOGRAPHY" but "a bottle right up your ass" is? Who draws the line, you, me, dvduval?

 

LOL. Yea, you notice Irka edited that post quickly. I messaged him about that line as soon as he posted. He thought you were really talking about water sports, not pissing in someone's mouth. You must excuse those of us who aren't so familiar with porn lingo. Clearly, Neb is an expert in this area.

 

Fair enough. But my point still stands, who draws the line? I will confess that there are a number of things on that list that I would prefer were not listed. But is that my decision?

 

That's the issue really. Who's decision? DMOZ has some many Indians but no chief. You need to get someone (or a small group of someones) who have real power to change things when necessary, instead of having to get approval of the editors. Obviously, there are many editors that are thrilled about these cats. You need a leader with the power to single-handedly say "This crap has got to go."

 

What is not widely known is that historically the decision to allow (or not allow) the inclusion of certain types of sites were not driven by volunteer editors but rather by ODP staff.

The difficulty is that once a directory decides to have an adult section it opens up a plethora of opinions and passions. I get somewhat cantankerous when someone tries to impose their moral beliefs on me, and in the arena of consenting adults I am reluctant to see it done to others.

 

How is someone imposing their moral beliefs on you because they decide not to list a web site?
People are still free to have a bottle up their ass if they decide to do so, only the link to their web site that displays pictures doing it, will not be listed. Didn't you said that one link in DMOZ doesn't matter and people should forget about it?
If these pictures are that interesting, they can list it in other places and people will eventually find it.

 

If someone says to me (as an editor) you should not add that site because they find it offensive then that is exactly what is happening.

Just to clarify someone were to say I should not add a site because it is potentially harmful to others (how to make a bomb, starve yourself to death, murder your wife) then that is a different issue.

 

How about not list a site because it doesn't have an address on the web site? How about not to list site because in your opinion doesn't have enough content? How about a site that doesn't have 2257 declaration and it is breaking American federal law? How about a site that encourages bestiality which is illegal in most states and in other states is punished under cruelty to animals?
Your argument could only be acceptable and not only an excuse if DMOZ declares that they are going to list all sites without any exception.

 

Clearly, you have a comprehensive knowledge of pornography, not matched by DvDuval. Are you slating him because he missed out a few or because he didn't include your own preferred 'speciality'?

It's a valid post by the OP and it does deserve some discussion on whether there are some areas of extreme pornography that are probably best omitted from the DMOZ listings.

 

I don't think that the other examples are relevant to this discussion, but for what ever little it is worth I do not think that bestiality sites should be listed for the reasons you give.

 

I am "slating" him to illustrate the inherent absurdity trying to make distinctions when it comes to these issues. DvDuval attempts to portray a holier than thou persona here and on other forums he posts at, and a good "slating" every so often is character building experience for him.

 

It is relevant in this way that every day decisions are made that are judgment calls about what should or should not be listed, independent if it is about if a site should have a real address or the content of the site. Is this imposing one view on what should or should not be listed? it definitely is.
The question is when DMOZ has no problems with imposing a view on a real estate site, why does it becomes a big deal when it comes to not listing a porn site.

 

Very few editors edit in the Adult branch, less than 1% of all editors. Few editors in the main DMOZ directory ever do cross-branch editing in Adult. On the other hand most editors with directory-wide rights, plus all the Regional editors, will edit in Regional where real estate sites are listed. There are substantially more real estate listings than niche sexual practices. Hundreds of editors will have an interest in what is listed in any of the main DMOZ branches. A tiny handful are interested in what is listed in Adult.

FWIW in most countries beastiality is illegal and is abuse of animals, sick. I would therefore personally support removal of such sites. Necrophilia is usually illegal too - I found 4 sites listed but they require AVS and may be simulated. BDSM and Fetishes - as long as the adults are consenting and the activity is legal then they are listable. If you don't like them don't look at them. There are three shit eating sites listed - all NetVerifier Elite - I can't say the concept of paying to see photos of people eating shit appeals to me personally but then no-one is forcing me to. If someone is not interested in that sort of thing then it being listed in DMOZ is not going to turn them into a shit eater, is it? So what exactly is the moral point of asking for DMOZ to remove them? As long as they don't stick it in a sandwich and sit next to me on a park bench at lunchtime, or breath in my direction...

 

Er, could someone give me a link to the adult section of dmoz? I can't find it. Heh.