Don't care about : Fisting with two hands :: it's a kind of fetish, i guess the girls like it Exteme Pain - gagging, torture and domination Hmm.. :: as long as it's directed, with consent before filming or making pictures (like insex used to be), actors (girls) get excited about it, whatever, it causes no permanent harm, I think it's ok but otherwise absolutely no. I'm talking about BSDM. Bottle Insertions :: fetish, if this is their thing.. Forced Sex :: it's often directed, scripted, some people get excited about things they are not able to do in real life, i don't mind. Secret cameras, kidnap fantasy : directed, scripted , as long as that is written i don't mind Fantasy Abduction Stories :: just stories, prevents rapes and other things I'm totally against these : Horse Sex Dog Sex Rape Video Painful Kidnap-style bondage Extreme Tortures Sucking Blood Pictures of Necrophilia Dead Child Photographs Shit Eating Toliet Slave Humiliation Some categories shouldn't be banned but somehow restricted, so that young people don't have access to them. These border-line categories such as torture, bondage I believe are actually good, because often people fantasize about doing something and these movies, photograps, stories could stir their imagination and prevent them from actually causing harm and applying their desires in real life. Prevents rapes, torture and so on. Some people are actually enjoying beeing tied up, gagged and some people enjoy watching these. Of course, they shouldn't be listed in a category where kids could see them. The ones I'm against, well, in most countries those things are illegal, unhealthy (i really don't think i have to explain why ) and could cause psychologic damage to kids or your persons. Especially people with very little or no sexual education. These should be cleaned as soon as possible : http://dmoz.org/Adult/Image_Galleries/Activities_and_Practices/Incest/ http://dmoz.org/Adult/Image_Galleries/Activities_and_Practices/Bestiality/ http://dmoz.org/Adult/Image_Galleries/Activities_and_Practices/Infantilism/ http://dmoz.org/Adult/Image_Galleries/Activities_and_Practices/Smothering/ http://dmoz.org/Adult/Society/Sexuality/Activities_and_Practices/Necrophilia/
Thanks for the link. Man! I thought I was going to barf just reading the descriptions on this page: http://dmoz.org/Adult/Death_and_Gore/ OMFG!!!! I just found this one: Tampon Eating - Photographs of ladies removing and sucking on sanitary products http://dmoz.org/Adult/Image_Galleries/Fetishes/AVS/ OMFG! OMFG OMFG OMFG ...
The rapidity with which DMOZ editors go to the "freedom of speech versus censorship" card is fascinating. It seems that's the rationalization for listing all sorts of "quality sites", "best of the web" sites when no other justification is available.
And the other rationalization is that this represents only a small part of DMOZ. If I commit an illegal act that represents only a small part of my life (like forced sex or sex with animals), does that mean it's okay? Shit Eating and Tampon Eating is just sick. As I mentioned in another thread, I think there should be 3-5 editors needed to approve a single adult listing.
Yes. There's no doubt about it. DMOZ is doing a wonderful job of weeding out the worthless web sites and drawing attention to, promoting, and endorsing only the very best sites on the net. I'm sure they are all very proud of the directory.
I think you know by now that I am not at all proud of or happy about the irresponsibility and social bankruptcy of DMOZ policies and some of their editors. I do feel sorry for those editors who have or had a vision of DMOZ that is obviously sullied by such policies.
Well spoken. I'm sure in your profession you encounter many stories or persons, who have an addiction or problem, that are not helped by websites that promote such reprehensible behavior. I too have family members and friends who have had their lives forever changed by people with sexual addictions of the extreme sort that are accepted on DMOZ, and I am not going to feel guilty about talking about it in hopes that someone will want to make a positive change. Someone asked: How do you draw the line between bottle insertion and shit eating? How does one decide which behavior should be on DMOZ and which should not? If you have to ask questions like this, I think that is evidence enough, that at the very least, you should not be editing the adult category. And maybe you need a little help. I say this sincerely.
Missionaries used to teach that it was wrong and a sin to have sex in any position other than the "missionary position" (hence the name). I know people who are swingers, people into BDSM, and people with other various fetishes (no shit eaters that I know of...lol). Many religious people today will tell you that homosexuality is wrong. Who's to decide what's wrong and right in something that involves two consenting adults? How can you say that double fisting shouldn't be listed, but not say the same thing about all the other porn? The answer, of course, is that you like big sensational posts that stir up trouble, but that's fine too... IMO, there is only one place to draw the line. If it involves harming someone against there will, or if it involves children in any way,then it shouldn't be listed in Adult. To sit here and try to pass judgement, "well, double fisting and shit eating shouldn't be listed but doggie style and missionary sex are ok" is just absurd.
The question is not about the morality or if any of these actions are right or wrong, the question is why should DMOZ list any of these sites. There has been guidelines that censor and eliminate many different type of listings, why shouldn't adult belong to one those groups that according to guidelines should not be listed? How are these site providing "unique" and "quality" content while many better ones can be found all over the net? Are you suggesting that one double fisting, shit eating or bestiality site is more authoritative than another such site? How do you judge authoritative, by the size of the fists? How do you determine that uniqueness, contact the girl and ask her if she has done it before?
I don't think it is absurd at all to pass judgement on these: 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 Smothering Once again, these questions should help you draw the line a little better: 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? And once again, I not going to feel guilty about talking about this, because I believe positive change is possible, just as we all saw happen in the other thread.
Sorry sir, can't resist to answer this question and with respect. Who's to decide between right and wrong are Human Beings who shares moral responsibility not only to our families, childrens or grandchildren but to other people as well. So what is right and wrong and how would we apply this to our own family. Let say my daughter likes to look at the that site in question and she's 11. Who's to decide between right and wrong. Shall I let her look at it or would you ? Being Human Beings and who cares for something good it is not ourselves that decide ? Are we the scums of of our society. No we are not. Matter of fact we are the ones who will decide if this site would be suitable for listing it. Listing it or not sick users will still try to find it but at least we do not have anything to do about it. That is moral responsibility and that is how we care and that is how we decide which is right or wrong. Congrats to the New Babe by the way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia http://dmoz.org/Adult/Image_Galleries/Activities_and_Practices/Bestiality/Free/ * Dog Orgies - Various women sucking and fucking assorted canine breeds. * Freak Horse Sex - Photographs of a variety of women being mounted or sucking cock. * Free Beastiality - A daily movie and pictures of animals with women. I have a very hard time understanding why are those links in the directory... Same thing about the Incest category [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest ] Specially if you read the Submission Rules :
Well, that's obviously an idiotic question, but I'll answer it anyways. Are you suggesting that in any category where an "authroitive" or "unique" site cannot be found, that we should just list nothing? That's just plain stupid and I'll leave it at that. No, I don't agree with that as worded. I agree that they they have the possibility of involving children - but incest does not necessarily mean it involves underage people. I personally went through all of the incest sites in the stories section a long time ago and removed every listing that even hinted at involving children. In fact, if I remember correctly, the only ones I left were the ones that explicitely stated that they did not involve children. If you find one that I missed or that has been added since, please let me know. Come to think of it, I'm not sure if I went through the image gallery incest sites though. I will check them out when I get home. I think it's absurd, on most of them. It wouldn't bother me. How would you feel to be listed on Google with even worse sites also available there? Well, if my site was listed in the same category as a double fisting site, then presumably my site would either be about double fisting or something similar...so I can't imagine that it would bother me too much... Eating shit and being double fisted is a choice each person has to make for themselves. What business is it of mine whether they do it or not or whether they look at pictures of it being done? That arguement is seriously flawed. What if a troubled person read a news story about the president and got pissed off and blew up a building? Should we quit listing news sites as well? How is this relevent to anything? I guess it would depend on the friend Personally, I don't find anything helpful in the religious section of the ODP and I would not recommend it to any of my friends. Can we remove that too? I could do without most of the sites in News, Reference, and Home as well. None of them are particularly helpful to me. What does that have to do with this discussion? And so on with the rest of your questions...no point in going through each of them... You, because you're her parent and it's obviously not healthy for an 11 year old to look at pornography and it's your responsibility to make sure that she doesn't. On the other hand, what about when she's 35. Who's business is it then if she wants to look at shit eating websites or get double fisted. Whether you or I or anyone likes it or not, it is her business and her decision.
I pointed out the same thing awhile back. Just wait until an editor shows up and after a speech about about free speech, mentions that laws are different in different countries and these sites are may be legal in Timbuktu and since DMOZ is international, these sites should be listed.
Trouble is you've gone for a whole long list and thrown them all into the pot. Bestiality is illegal in most places. So is necrophilia. Rape is certainly illegal everywhere but is DMOZ listing sites with acutal rape video on it? Eating shit and adults wearing diapers/nappies isn't and you have to be into that sort of thing first before you go looking for sites on those subjects so DMOZ is not exactly encouraging that sort of thing. Whether they were the "quality" sites DMOZ was founded to list is another question - you would have to ask the Founders; I wouldn't personally have wasted my time on them. I don't go with parental responsibility argument entirely. Parental responsibility is an important aspect given the scale of porn and other unsuitable sites on the Internet but search engines and directories do, IMO, have some responsibility to assist parents. The fact that Google shows zero responsibility doesn't mean others can't. DMOZ does a couple of things. First you need to know the Adult branch is there and you would be hard pushed to find it other than through threads like this and the continual publicity given to it by gworld. Secondly it has http://dmoz.org/Adult/faq.html#14 (PICS tags). Thirdly bear in mind that to view most (not all granted) of the sites being referred to you need to go through age verification. So don't give 11 year olds your credit card details. I personally don't think that is enough. I would like to see a warning on the DMOZ index page that states that it is not child friendly and may contain topics unsuitable for minors. I would also like to see the PICS tag information and an explicit warning put on the top page in Adult branch. 30 - 40 years ago that may have been on dvduval's list. As might oral sex and masturbation. I am not suggesting that shit eating is going to be all the rage in 2040 but times do change as to what is perverted and what isn't. It is still no excuse for illegal sites and sites promoting illegal activity. But are the sites being referred to actually illegal or promoting illegal activity or are we talking simulations. I am not going to register and buy AVS subscriptions to check.