0

I'm finding this question highly offensive. Previously this has been unresolved due to a fortunate lack of such questions but thanks to this latest question for bringing it to the fore.

Should questions about sexual activity or other adult only activity be off topic for this site?

Allowing adult only content would, in my opinion, open a floodgate for the users who game the system for reputation as there is an endless supply of dreadful adult questions. I was going to illustrate with a few examples but frankly I don't have the stomach for it.

| |
  • 4
    At first this seems like the exact inverse of What are our boundaries? The issue remains the same, though: "If something is technically on topic, should we ban it anyway because we don't think our audience should see it?" We've got several questions that boil down to this fundamental question, and a review of them might be useful. – BESW Jul 9 '13 at 9:08
  • 4
    I'd be really interested in hearing what it is about this question that makes it "offensive". We've had other questions about characters having sex in the past which, so long as they were on-topic, have not been closed. – phantom42 Jul 9 '13 at 12:40
  • 3
    "unresolved"? Kevin's answer is by far the most upvoted and fairly clear that - at wholesale - adult themed questions are perfectly within bounds. – DVK-on-Ahch-To Jul 9 '13 at 13:19
  • @phantom42 - because it could lead to dancing – DVK-on-Ahch-To Jul 9 '13 at 13:22
  • 3
    Regardless of past discussions on the topic, this particular question has been a sort of lightning rod for complaints. We need to discuss this question in particular. – user1027 Jul 9 '13 at 15:11
  • @TonyMeyer Occasionally questions are re-posted on Meta (and not closed) because stances could have shifted over time and the old answers clutter it up. Look at all the old General Reference meta questions, for example. I am not VTCing. – Izkata Jul 9 '13 at 17:57
  • 2
    Note to those VTCing as duplicate (myself included). Upon further review of the "What's our tolerance for adult content?" the question and answers don't really discuss adult content as a whole, but mostly refer to a single question. As such it is hard to take that as a wholesale approach to adult content on the site as this question attempts to do. – NominSim Jul 10 '13 at 3:32
  • 1
    Upvoting the question because it is a valid discussion, but not because I agree with the premise of the first sentence. – Beofett Jul 10 '13 at 12:29
  • Ditto, upvoting cuz it's a valid question that deserves discussion, not because I agree with OP. Whatever is decided though, this topic has a wide potential range and I think it'll be pretty hard to put a clear boundary around it. The 'offending' question is pretty tame, actually. – Canadian Girl Scout Jul 11 '13 at 3:59
  • Great. Now we are going to censor questions about Leia and Jabba which are clearly hinted at in the source material. If we introduce ridiculous censorship in SF.SE, it will stop being useful to me -- and I suspect, to many others. Prudes have no place in science fiction :( – Andres F. Jul 13 '13 at 22:35
  • 3
    Downvoting because "other adult activities" encompass everything I consider interesting. – Andres F. Jul 13 '13 at 22:37
  • 3
    @AndresF. The overwhelming consensus seems to be in agreement with you, so I don't think there's much danger of us introducing this level of censorship. That the OP decided to "accept" their own wildly unpopular answer does not in any way mean that it will have any impact on policy (aside from being a sign-post that the community doesn't want censorship of this nature). – Beofett Jul 14 '13 at 20:02
  • @Beofett Yeah, I noticed afterwards. Consider it just venting :P – Andres F. Jul 14 '13 at 20:03
35

What makes it "adult-only" material, rather than just "adult"? Lots of things are adult material. Murder is adult material depending on who you ask.

I think the Stack Exchange population is generally expected to have a decent enough level of maturity and professionalism to be able to handle adult material. We are not a community of immature people - hopefully. We're expected to be able to conduct ourselves in a civil and mature manner. We should be able to discuss and mentally handle mature topics.

If you're particularly offended by a question, is it actually a bad question? If so, downvote it, vote to close it, or flag it as offensive (if it is truly offensive, and does not simply offend your sensibilities).

If, however, it's not a bad question, and you just find it offensive, the ball may be in your court. Something being offensive is not 100% the writer's responsibility to deal with. Many things offend many people - many are offended by the existence of the Twilight saga, for instance, or by That Recent Horror Movie, but that's their thing to deal with, and doesn't place its author under an obligation to change her work. If you're not comfortable engaging in a topic, that means you should exit discussions about it rather than trying to close it down.

| |
  • 14
    +1 for Twilight being offensive – The Fallen Jul 9 '13 at 17:18
  • That depends on the offense does it not? Something blatantly misogynistic or racist would be on the writer to deal with. It's not a "boo-hoo" you're too sensitive moment, but something affects a wide subsection of people. This seems less about offense and more about personal taste in material consumed. – ardent Jul 9 '13 at 17:29
  • 5
    @ardentsonata: The relevant difference is that misogyny and racism discriminate against particular people. The subject at hand does not share that property, so there is no reason to ban it. Trying to do so or doing so is forcing the taste of a small group of people onto the community --- as you say. – bitmask Jul 9 '13 at 19:29
  • @ardentsonata It does depend on the offense, I agree. Your example would be genuinely offensive, and I will defer to bitmask's excellent response on that. :) – doppelgreener Jul 9 '13 at 21:12
25

So long as the question is written with a reasonable level of maturity and lack of vulgarity,

No. Absolutely not.

Generally speaking, the Internet is a PG-Rated environment - on a good day. The most innocuous search will bring you results that would leave an average person silently sobbing and rocking themselves in the corner. If you have children that you're that concerned with reading about the possibility of characters having sex, you need to be more actively monitoring/guiding their surfing.

From the Stack Exchange Terms of Service (note that "Subscriber" is defined earlier as a synonym of "Subscriber" or "You"):

Subscriber certifies to Stack Exchange that Subscriber is an individual (i.e., not a corporate entity) at least 13 years of age. No one under the age of 13 may provide any personal information to or on Stack Exchange (including, for example, a name, address, telephone number or email address). Subscriber also certifies that they are legally permitted to use the Services and access the Network, and takes full responsibility for the selection and use of the Services and access of the Network.

So, technically, those young'ins shouldn't be surfing StackExchange by themselves anyways (Yes, I know that's unrealistic - but they're the ones technically breaking the rules here - not us).

We've had other questions in the past about characters having sex. Human-Human, Human-Alien, Android-Human, Possessed-Human, Vampire-Human, the list goes on.

Some examples which would be blanketly closed by this change:

Also check out the tag.

Based on all existing rules, they appear to be on-topic. They are about sci-fi/fantasy; They are reasonably scoped; They are not open-ended/list questions; They are not subjective or encouraging discussion; They are written reasonably maturely and avoid vulgarities and obscenities.

I hate using the slippery-slope argument - but it really is an important subject. What other questions are we going to have to start banning to "protect the children"? Anything discussing violence? Anything discussing religion? Anything discussing evolution? Anything discussing witchcraft or demons?

Simply saying "adult content" is way too vague, and nobody is stepping up to offer any sort of definition of what that should include.

I'm not disagreeing that the question is kind of tasteless. But it's a valid question about a valid topic, and it's written with a acceptable level of maturity. Unless these questions cross the line of common decency, they should remain open.

Allowing adult only content would, in my opinion, open a floodgate for the users who game the system for reputation as there is an endless supply of dreadful adult questions.

This is demonstrably false. Searching questions for...

  • Sex: 36 results
  • Sexual: 32 results (the search engine does not seem to do partial searches correctly)
  • Intimate: 15 results

Many of these could not even be considered "adult" - others definitely could, but they mention one of those keywords. Even if we count these as all being unique (they're not, there's a bit of overlap), that's a total of 83 questions out of 9800 existing questions at this moment. That's .8% of the questions. Even if we widen our search parameters within reason, we're still not going to hit anything remotely concerning.

Despite the existence and non-closure of many of these questions, there has been no flood of users trying to game the system for reputation.

| |
  • 2
    Uhh, no, the ToS only comes into play if you make an account. It's legal to surf SO as a <13 year old, just like it's legal to use Wikipedia read-only as a <13 year old. COPPA forbids SE/Wikipedia/Google/Facebook from taking any PII from <13 year olds (without parental consent, but SE doesn't facilitate that), however, so they cannot have accounts here. (IIRC the children are not implicated at all, it is the company which is implicated if they knowingly collect <13yo data). IANAL, though – Manishearth Jul 10 '13 at 1:48
  • 3
    "By using or accessing the Services, you agree to become bound by all the terms and conditions of this Agreement." – phantom42 Jul 10 '13 at 4:35
  • 1
    And it's debatable whether or not "reading" the site counts as a service. This clause is there due to COPPA, and COPPA has nothing against reading the site if the data collected is anon. – Manishearth Jul 10 '13 at 6:46
  • @Manishearth: It doesn't matter what the reasons for the wording in a contract or agreement are, it's just relevant what it says. It very clearly states "using or accessing" but it explicitly does not state in what fashion you have to access them in order for the agreement to apply. Hence, it applies unconditionally, if you use/access the service. – bitmask Jul 10 '13 at 7:56
  • @bitmask An agreement that the reader never accepts? ToSes need to be accepted too, iirc. – Manishearth Jul 10 '13 at 7:57
  • Either way, asked the relevant question: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/188162/… – Manishearth Jul 10 '13 at 7:58
  • 1
    By using or accessing the Services, you agree Legally, the user has agreed to the ToS. Not every legal agreement requires an active signature. This is why you should always read the ToS for anything you use or site you participate on. – phantom42 Jul 10 '13 at 11:01
  • It can be noted that passive agreements like this have been contested in court to varying success, but this is not an uncommon type of agreement. Even brick & mortar businesses like theme parks have signs posted notifying guests that they automatically agree to likeness waivers just by entering. – phantom42 Jul 10 '13 at 14:36
  • +1 And even if it opened up a flood of SF-related sex questions, that would be a good thing. Sex is a HUGE part of science fiction. We're not talking pornography here. – Andres F. Jul 13 '13 at 22:39
13

I don't think any topic should be banned carte blanche. I have noticed that people get all up in arms about sexual-based topics in particular, and I find this to be extremely silly. If you feel the question is a bad question, downvote it. If it meets any of the closing criteria, then do a vote-to-close. It's really that simple. Just ignore questions you personally find offensive, but that are on topic and of interest to other SE members. Sexuality is a valid topic; that one or two people can't just downvote and move on is not reflective of a problem witin the SFF.SE community as a whole. It's indicative of a handful of people who have a low threshold for controversy, and who think banning topics will solve the (non)problem. Downvote, downvote, downvote! Calling for an outright ban on a topic is completely jumping the shark. My $0.02 anyway. I rarely even downvote such questions, tbh. I just scroll by questions that don't interest me. I'm confident the site will survive such questions with its reputation intact.

| |
  • 1
    With regards to sexual content, I have the feeling it's about keeping the site as safe-for-work as possible. I know I browse through the Hot Questions for short breaks at my desk. – Izkata Jul 9 '13 at 18:08
  • I get what you're saying and keep going back to what exactly is the question and what would make it NSFW? Just the fact that the topic is sexuality? Or would the content of the question more influence its NSFW/SFW status? – Slytherincess Jul 10 '13 at 2:19
  • "Sex", "sexual", and other words like that are easily recognized and misinterpreted by a co-worker who happens to glance over your shoulder. Not so much for "intimate relations", "slept with", or "affair" (using phantom42's list of questions). – Izkata Jul 10 '13 at 2:51
  • Content most definitely plays a part, too, like prior to the edit on the main question in the older linked meta question. Both are pretty simple to change, though, so that probably should have been done first IMO. – Izkata Jul 10 '13 at 2:51
  • 1
    It is a choice, though, to surf at work, and what sites to visit. It's not that I don't understand where you're coming from, but I know that I was very careful at work to not pull up sites like, say, jezebel.com. Waaaaaaaaaaay too easily offensive and/or misunderstood to someone taking a casual glance over my shoulder. – Slytherincess Jul 10 '13 at 3:09
  • 1
    To me the line between acceptable SFW vs. NSFW is where images start to enter into it (there was a question about a C-3PO trading card, for example, that was pretty borderline). Obscenities could also cross that line. However, in both cases, the solution is editing, not closing. – Beofett Jul 10 '13 at 19:36
6

The way I see it, there are three elements to this matter:

  • Is the original question offensive (which can be more usefully generalized to "where do we draw the line when defining 'offensive'"?)
  • Is it appropriate to close it, if so?
  • How does this fit into the broader remit of the SE network?

For the first element I vote "no". The blanket rule that subscribers must be at least 13 covers this, and the OP may be surprised at just exactly what the average 13-year old knows about sex. Take the US, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_education_in_the_United_States

Most adolescents in the United States receive some form of sex education at school at least once between grades 7 and 12

Which http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080903091418AAHC781 translates for me as between the ages of 12 and 17, the lower-bound of which is within the 13-year old limit and not exposing 13+ year-olds to anything they haven't already been made aware of (in some parts of Europe the age is even lower, e.g Sweden begins at age 7-10).

That negates element 2, so on to the third and here it's instructive to look at how other SE sites handle questions relating to sexual matters. Here's three examples:

OK, it should now be quite clear that making questions about sexual matters off-topic is not in accord with other SE sites. If it's on-topic it's on-topic, and this doesn't seem a valid reason to make it not so.

Regarding the question itself, the worst that could be said about it seems to be that it's mildly gross in the sense that it's something that might come up on Beavis and Butthead, but no more. If it's valid for asking in the context of the source material, it should stay open.

| |
  • 1
    Grades 7-12 are not ages 7-12. – phantom42 Jul 9 '13 at 20:09
  • You're right; I got the columns mixed up. I'll edit to reflect that. – user8719 Jul 9 '13 at 20:29
  • For movies.SE example, look at my meta.movies.SE question I asked related to adult films 1 or 2 years ago. – DVK-on-Ahch-To Jul 9 '13 at 23:58
4

Protecting children from questionable content is the responsibility of that child's parent.
It is highly offensive to me, a Doctoral English candidate, that anything on topic should be banned or restricted merely for fear of exposure to an immature audience. Should we also then say no one can post questions about Heinlein's "All You Zombies" because it is, at least, full of the implication of weird sex? I feel entirely justified in saying this is a ridiculous proposition.

edit
After looking at the 'robot sex' question. I think it is entirely fair to close a discussion for objective reasons. Sexual squeamishness is entirely subjective.

| |
  • +1 for Heinlein. His treatment of women in many, or possibly even most of his stories, even in what he clearly intended as "strong" roles, could easily be construed as offensive by many people, both then and now. – Beofett Jul 10 '13 at 19:33
  • 2
    Which is precisely why I'm so irritated by conversations about banning particular subjects for discussion. As long as there is no objective reason a topic should not be discussed. I.E. how big is Jabba the huts penis is a bad question primarily because any and all answers would be entirely based upon conjecture rather than evidentiary points. Likewise the question of Leia and Jabba could possibly be supported with textual evidence from interviews, quotes from the movie, etc. – Arammil Jul 11 '13 at 1:05
  • 1
    +1 "All You Zombies" is an excellent example of why sex shouldn't be banned from questions. It is (IMHO) one of the best Heinlein short stories, and it's all about the sex (and sex change too, for that matter). If questions about this story's use of sex issues were to be banned, SF.SE would stop being a useful resource to me. – Andres F. Jul 14 '13 at 20:08
-3

I agree with Slytherincess that a blanket ban might be a bad idea, I do think there should be some reasonable restrictions, at the least at a PG-13 level. In doing so, I would say that topics somewhat related to sexuality in general would be allowed, but there reaches a level where it becomes explicit to a degree where it should not be allowed on the site. Relationships, behaviors, morality, and post-intercourse actions (Involving sex, but not directly related to it) would be on topic, mechanics not. Given that, I've found a list of a few questions, and grouped them in to my interpretation of "Allowable" and "Not Allowable", per my criteria

Allowable:

Not Allowable

As to the question in reference, it is very much a borderline question, but I believe it should be closed, for the following reasons.

  • There is no original research done in to the question.
  • This question seems to be purely put out there to push the boundaries, and doesn't seem to be particularly useful. In fact, the line "I know this question is a bit out there... but for the record, I guess, I need to know." seems to indicate to me that this is the case.
  • It seems evident to me that the answers being given to it are of an explicit nature, and thus the question should either be re-worded such that it does not ask for such things (In which case, the answers might "Yes or "No", with a brief description), or closed.
  • It implies things which are quite unnatural.

Bottom line is, it either needs to be drastically edited, or else closed.

| |
  • 3
    Regarding your reasons: 1) Lack of original research is responded to with downvotes, not VTCs. 2) Your personal interpretation that the question is just asked to push the boundaries is not relevant for its topic-status in and on itself. If it's on-topic it doesn't matter if it does push the boundaries while being on-topic. 3) Just because there are no valid answers, yet, doesn't imply that it is a close-worthy question. Questions can be great and remain unanswered for a long while. 4) Further, unnatural things are the defining quality of a site dedicated to fantasy fiction, don't you think? – bitmask Jul 9 '13 at 19:41
  • 1
    I continue to be curious about the argument that a question is planted just to push the boundaries of the site. This is the internet -- we have no possible way of knowing a user's motives for asking a controversial question. I think we have to acknowledge that sometimes people ask questions on sexuality in good faith. I often wonder if others are simply made uncomfortable by the subject matter and would choose to believe the question was asked by a troll than consider others have a valid interest in the subject matter. Just something I've noticed. – Slytherincess Jul 10 '13 at 2:36
  • The comment was loosely based off of meta.scifi.stackexchange.com/a/1586/98 – PearsonArtPhoto Jul 10 '13 at 10:04
  • 2
    I'm with bitmask on this one, on all four points. While I'm not opposed to the idea of the question being improved by editing, closing it seems a response that bypasses our established guidelines as an appeasement towards the (apparent) minority. – Beofett Jul 10 '13 at 12:26
-3

I've really struggled with this issue. I finally thought it through like this: If my 13 year old wanted to buy a paper resource that contained discussions about sex and relationships, would I let him? Yes, if it was written in partnership with child experts in the field, who could approach the issues realistically, responsibly and sensitively for his age. As it happens, a friend's 13 year old son is very into SF, but at the moment I won't recommend Stack Exchange, because of some of the content. Given that most minors probably stumble upon the site by themselves, public responsibility persuades me to exclude adult content. I certainly wouldn't be happy about it, as most questions are perfectly interesting and valid for adults to consider. At the same time, for me, protecting children comes ahead of my freedom of discussion on this particular site.

| |
  • What do you define as "adult content"? Much of what I see on the news could just as easily be considered "adult content". – phantom42 Jul 9 '13 at 19:23
  • 5
    If you are that concerned that reading a very non-explicit question addressing sexuality might damage your child (why else would they require protection), why on Earth would you grant them access to the Internet? – bitmask Jul 9 '13 at 19:46
  • 3
    You seem to be somewhat confused. The decision is not about "my [Marian's] freedom of discussion on this particular site." - it's about everyone else's freedom of discussion. – DVK-on-Ahch-To Jul 10 '13 at 0:01
  • 2
    Also, if a question implying that Star Wars may have had sexual content between 2 characters is too damaging to a 13 year old, WTF are they doing watching Star Wars in the first place, even the child-friendly "Greedo shot first" version??? The movie includes incestual kissing, mutilations, murders and genocide (twice). – DVK-on-Ahch-To Jul 10 '13 at 0:03
  • 5
    I find it fascinating that you would not recommend SFF.SE to a friend's 13 y/o due to -- if I'm reading you correctly -- some of the adult (sexual) content, but you don't mention any concern over the sometimes very violent aspects of SciFi/Fantasy. Death, murder, genocide, war, sadism, malevolence and enmity, racism, sexism, rape (which is not a sexual act, but a violent act), slavery, abuse of religion ... Yet sexuality, which ostensibly represents life and love, is inappropriate? I find this so disparate! And, yes, I have kids. – Slytherincess Jul 10 '13 at 2:53
  • 2
    @Slytherincess: Well, to be fair, in this particular case, the interaction between Jabba and Leia would have fallen under the categories of rape and slavery. (But I do get your point, it is a fair one.) – bitmask Jul 10 '13 at 6:37
  • DVK, thank you for your first, clarifying comment. A different matter, indeed. Slytherincess, your comment is very interesting and has given me food for thought. All those aspects of SF are not to be banned or dismissed, they are part of any genre. Having read the comments, I'm going to keep an open mind here. – Marian Jul 10 '13 at 7:00
  • @Slytherincess Your comment deserves +1000 upvotes. I too find it puzzling that death and violence are sometimes considered less controversial than sex. – Andres F. Jul 14 '13 at 20:11
-8

There's a substantial difference between 13 (parental guidance) and 18 (X-rated). I wouldn't ask a 13 year old to read this question and I doubt many others would either.

The question is essentially about bestiality - did a human have intercourse with a creature - and as such should be strictly out of bounds.

| |
  • 2
    OK, you think this question should be out of bounds - but what about questions about human-human sex? Should we ban all "adult content" in an effort to ban questions about bestiality? – phantom42 Jul 9 '13 at 14:09
  • 4
    I would hesitate to call this discussion 'X-rated'. Maybe if it devolved into graphic representations of Hutt-Human 'sexual activity', but just asking about the possibility is decidedly PG-13. Incidentally, as others noted above, the SE network is designed for ages 13+ – The Fallen Jul 9 '13 at 17:22
  • 3
    Without trying to sound like/be an ass, does this question about Kirk and an alien also offend you? I'm just trying to get some sort of sense of what it is that is actually offending people. You seem to be concerned with a human and a "creature" being paired. Where does one draw the line for the word "creature"? – phantom42 Jul 9 '13 at 18:27
  • 1
    You still owe us a rational reasoning as to why bestiality should be "out of bounds" as a topic for discussion. (Note by the way that Jabber was originally humanoid.) – bitmask Jul 9 '13 at 19:43
  • 2
    I'm not going to debate the definition of the term bestiality, but I will propose that, in the context of sci-fi and fantasy fiction, its use is more appropriate for ratings of sentience, rather than race or species. For example, does my new question qualify as "bestiality", since it asks about intercourse between a genetically mutated human and a genetically engineered wolf-like soldier created from human stock? – Beofett Jul 10 '13 at 12:48
  • @phantom42 - I define all females as incomprehensible aliens. Even after being married for years. – DVK-on-Ahch-To Jul 10 '13 at 16:04
  • @DVK it's hard to believe that you're over 13 years old from the way you act, let alone 'married for years' – user11154 Jul 11 '13 at 8:56
  • 1
    @Mechatankzilla - sorry, I forgot to account that some people are too dumb to understand sarcasm. – DVK-on-Ahch-To Jul 11 '13 at 9:19
  • 2
    @Mechatankzilla As amusing as it is to watch you swap insults with DVK, perhaps you would like to address the comments here that directly address your answer and request clarification on where you are saying we should draw the line? – Beofett Jul 11 '13 at 13:32
-14

Yes.

I think that any reasonable parent who found their children reading that question or its answers would find it offensive.

This is not an adult-only site and as such it should not discuss adult-only activities.

Questions like this bring the site into disrepute and should be closed and deleted as soon as possible. That this question is still open and garnering upvotes shows a deep lack of responsibility by the community and moderators of this site.

| |
  • 7
    Your initial proposition is wrong. Not everyone shares your Victorian views. In fact, this is an awesome question, that I'd wager came to mind to many many people who saw Jedi, as it's strongly implied in the film. It deserves an answer. At least it deserves to be discussed. Your concern might be valid if the question required graphic pictures of actual intercourse. – bitmask Jul 9 '13 at 19:22
  • 4
    As I former child myself, I can say not only did I find Leia pleasing to the eye but also wondered more than once if the nasty took place with the worm. Children are not necessarily ignorant or as innocent as adults think they are. – Arammil Jul 10 '13 at 14:49
  • @bitmask I think that you're 'it deserves to be discussed' attitude is deeply misguided. Not all subjects should be discussed in public. This question is offensive and doesn't deserve discussion. End of discussion. – user14002 Jul 12 '13 at 7:42
  • 5
    @APaleShadow: No, I will neither agree nor agree to disagree. Especially subjects that are attributed with the label "should not be discussed in public", require public discussion. Nobody is forcing you to participate in either this particular question, nor this site at all. The massive downvoting of your answer (and upvotes of opposing ones) appears to indicate that the discussion is indeed not ended and your self-accept is about to be overridden by community consensus. – bitmask Jul 12 '13 at 8:43
  • 1
    @APaleShadow To me, the refusal of you and everyone who supports this idea to do so much as offer some sort of guideline of what they think "adult material" should include is the most damning part of your whole complaint. The most specific thing anyone has offered is "bestiality" - and even they have refused to clarify what that means to them. – phantom42 Jul 12 '13 at 13:00
  • 1
    You say this "should not be discussed in public" but refuse to tell us what should not. You can't just close your eyes and blindly wave your finger, pointing and saying, "all of this." – phantom42 Jul 12 '13 at 13:01
  • 4
    Finally, your self-accept of such a highly downvoted answer, combined with your refusal to actually discuss anything proves (to me, at least), that you didn't originally come here to help bring the community together to get some sort of consensus; you came here to complain. – phantom42 Jul 12 '13 at 13:05
  • Yes, the self-accept for a massively-downvoted answer that doesn't even define the key terms in the question, "adult only" and "sexual activity", (which not only makes it a poor answer, but entirely useless as a guideline for future questions where this issue comes up) is in really poor taste. The goal of meta is to define policy by consensus. What you're doing here is more akin to dictating specific actions by fiat. Well, trying to, at least. – Beofett Jul 12 '13 at 19:51

You must log in to answer this question.