-92

See flags for deletion reason

There is a proposal on Area 51 that definitely does NOT fit with the family-friendly nature of StackExchange, given the current level of integration (site footer, multicollider, „all sites” list, merged accounts). I have flagged it for moderator attention several times, but it was ignored.

EDIT: Also see this

Improve this question
14
  • 65
    You are too easily offended.
    – NullUserException อ_อ
    Dec 12, 2011 at 15:40
  • 16
    And considering Joel Spolsky himself is one of the users committed to this proposal, I don't think SE has a pr0blem with it.
    – NullUserException อ_อ
    Dec 12, 2011 at 15:43
  • 3
    I mean, there are lot of underage users here.
    – anon
    Dec 12, 2011 at 15:45
  • 11
    Do you think people who are not yet adults should not be allowed to read about this topic?
    – Rory Alsop
    Dec 12, 2011 at 15:46
  • 9
    Ooooooo, a single user threatening to boycott the network because of a proposal that no one else seems to have a porblem with.
    – Toomai
    Dec 12, 2011 at 15:46
  • 74
    How is that subject not family friendly? Without it there is no family!
    – Toon Krijthe
    Dec 12, 2011 at 15:46
  • 45
    I am thoroughly disappointed! After reading your question, I assumed that there would be something awesome on the other side of that link. Talk about a letdown.
    – MDMarra
    Dec 12, 2011 at 15:51
  • That's related, of course, but not a duplicate.
    – Michael Petrotta
    Dec 12, 2011 at 16:00
  • 8
    How does it not fit in with family friendly? I'm sorry, but our Stork is still under development. If the site is NSFW, don't go there while at work?
    – Tim Post
    Dec 12, 2011 at 16:13
  • 11
    Do you boycott WebMD and wikipedia as well? I'm sure the under 18 crowd visit those sites as well and both also cover this material.
    – Some Helpful Commenter
    Dec 12, 2011 at 16:34
  • 11
    Well, shucks... Looks like you're getting pilloried here, probably because any question that implies a ragequit tends to put people off a bit... But I gotta say, I share your concern. This isn't something I want showing up in ads next to my answers, on my profile, or really anywhere near my name. I may have to pick a different pseudonym if/when it goes live...
    – Shog9
    Dec 12, 2011 at 18:15
  • 8
    Not wanting it to show up on other SE sites is another (and most likely addressable) concern than not wanting it to become a SE in the first place though.
    – Bart
    Dec 12, 2011 at 18:35
  • 25
    Wow, I do not envy the eventual moderators of that site.
    – David
    Dec 12, 2011 at 19:06
  • 3
    took me a while to figure that NSFW stands for boring Not suitable/safe for work. When searching the web, I expected something like Nudity, Sex, Frivolous, Wish...
    – gnat
    Dec 21, 2011 at 19:31

6 Answers 6

Reset to default
67

As the proposed site is likely to be of more interest to adults, and there are even some adults who may not want to come across this site accidentally, the proposed site will have two unique features:

  • A "warning" page requiring you to confirm that you are over 18 before you enter the site (this would set a cookie. See Reddit's various "not safe for work" sites for an example).

  • Questions from this site would not flow into stackexchange.com's list of hot questions

The way the current proposal is written it's fairly safe to assume that the site in question will be "safe for work" and require the use of clinical language, which is already the policy when discussing questions of an adult nature on other sites in our network.

Improve this answer
1
  • 26
    Joel, you really need to think about article 2257. People are bound to upload images to this site because .. well .. some things just need visual hints. The image upload feature should have a warning, at the least. Once the site displays them, said site becomes responsible for proving the people in the picture are over 18. I now regret my name change due to the context of this question.
    – Tim Post
    Dec 12, 2011 at 16:23
36

It seems apparent from your comments on the other answers that you aren't actually concerned about the network being "family friendly" or "safe for work" in the common sense of the terms. Rather, you simply don't like the idea of sexuality being discussed openly.

Others have expressed their opinion of that attitude, so I will refrain. But SE is not going to end a proposal or site simply because someone doesn't like its topic. I have friends with no interest in programming who participate in other sites on the network, yet they do not clamor for Stack Overflow to be closed. There are even people who reject advancements in technology that eliminate jobs and therefore oppose the creation of software, and they too would be ignored if they said SO should be closed.

It's your right to hold the opinions that you do. It is also your right to leave if you find Stack Exchange objectionable. It's even your right to express your opinion about SE. But the idea that a site should be closed because a minority does not think the topic should be discussed is ridiculous.

If you feel you cannot participate in something that has a separate area for the clinical discussion of sexuality, then I must (seriously and in all good faith) urge you to stop using the internet. The internet at large has no such clear dividing lines and if you have not stumbled across objectionable content yet, you will. And it will be much worse than the proposal.

Improve this answer
25

There is a proposal on Area 51 that definitely does NOT fit with the family-friendly nature of StackExchange.

From the site description: Proposed Q&A site for a site for medical professionals, sex educators, counselors, and others to discuss both the physical and emotional aspects of sexual and/or romantic interactions

This site is for the kind people that are going to have to help your children adjust after 18 years of you keeping them under lock and key. You should be thankful.

Improve this answer
0
18

I just posted this on the Movies SE which has raised similar concerns — all of which applies equally well to a Sexuality Stack Exchange …

Should adult themes be handled with care?

The Terms of Service prohibits usage of this site for users below the age of 13.

The content of all Stack Exchange sites must be "work safe." That means no explicit imagery or language is allowed on the sites. Beyond that, the ideas or themes expressed are not expected to be watered down to be consumed by an 8-year old. That's true of almost any literature, television program, radio program, or news outlet anywhere. Finding age-appropriate content for children — whether that is in literature, television, or web sites — is the responsibility of the parent.

Improve this answer
1
  • 16
    Speaking solely to the definition of "work safe" content - Clinical discussion of sex and sexuality is "work safe" for a psychologist, sex therapist, urologist, gynecologist, professors of human sexuality, etc. -- The rest of us should just avoid this NSFW content at work. Now if this proposal degrades into BadExcuseToPostPorn.SE that will be an issue, but if we're talking about handling the topic with seriousness and respect (and if the mods enforce that more strictly than we do on any other site in the network) I don't think we'll have a problem.
    – voretaq7
    Dec 12, 2011 at 16:39
13

I have to say, if you aren't interested in a particular proposal or site you just ignore it. I do this with sites like CS Theory (not singling them out for any reason other than I don't understand it so I find it very easy to ignore) and you can do the same for this one.

If enough people support it it will graduate, if it is marginal it won't - just let the proposal system work as it should and see where it goes.

I don't see Stack Exchange as a whole being family friendly or family unfriendly.

Improve this answer
0
9

There is a proposal on Area 51 that definitely does NOT fit with the family-friendly nature of StackExchange.

You can't build a family without having sex. So long as the discussion is mature, why would it not be inherently "family-friendly"? ;)

Really though... there are channels on your TV that I assume you wouldn't want your hypothetical kids watch. I would think it more productive to discourage their viewing of those channels, than to throw the TV out completely.

I'm sure every user here could list several SE sites that they don't find interesting or even borderline offensive.

Improve this answer
0