Call me a prude, but….
I was looking for help with CSS and found a list of links in the Codex. Cool. So I clicked on Flumpcakes CSS Optimizer. I was surprised to find that the only graphic on the page was the silhouette of a woman in high heels, in a “compromising” position, with her wrists chained. The implication is pretty obvious, even to a prude. I am just glad my young sons weren’t sitting by the computer when I clicked this link. “Mom, what’s that lady doing…?”
I expect that sort of stuff when I’m clicking around the web to unknown places, but when a site comes “recommended” by something as professional as the WP Codex, then I expect to end up at a site that is equally professional. Maybe Flumpcakes should be asked to clean up the site if s/he wants to be connected so closely with WP.
Just a thought….
They most likely redesigned since it was originally linked to. I’ll add a warning as I agree that it’s semi-NSFW. 🙂
Fortunately, anyone can register and edit the codex. If the link is no longer useful, remove it.
There’s no “WP Endorsement” going on there — the original codex author for that article must’ve felt there was something useful at that site and linked it in. Just like anyone can do. 🙂
I had a look at the site. I didn’t find it so bad. It’s a silhouette after all. In my opinion, it goes over the head of those too immature to understand it. And if they do understand it, well, perhaps it time for a talk!
And btw, I’m a parent of two children, 6 and 8.
I personally would not have such an image on a site like that, but mainly because it’s out of context. There is far more graphic images on television, even during soap operas, and certainly in the evening.
If your child did see the image, and said something about it, I think it’s the perfect opportunity to give your opinion on it, and instill the values you wish your child to have. You can’t shelter your child from everything that’s out there. You can only educate and empower them.
In the end, I personally have little problem with sexual content, as sex is a normal and natural part of our life. Essential in fact! We best learn as much about it as we can. Violence is another matter. I would be very happy if we could eradicate violent images from our mainstream media. But that’s not going to happen, so my own alternative is to educate.
I’m reminded of a song by Suzanne Vega. “I would shelter you and keep you in light. But I can only teach you Night Vision.”
I found the best way to handle such things was to talk to my daughter about it. Expecting people to behave (post, write, etc.) differently is a way to avoid confronting the issue in a learning, preparatory way. Someday she will be on her own, and if she can reflect on ANY of the things we have talked about together, the better off she will be (I hope ;’).
This is a big, messy world. Expecting others to clean it up for you and yours will be a frustrating experience. I’d rather prepare my daughter for it ;’)
Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are my own. Stolen from others, but now they’re mine.
Manstraw, you need to write a book! Truly a great post on educating children, and not leaving it up to the media to give their (often warped) point of view on sex first. Knowledge is power!
This wasn’t meant to be a thread on our views of sex. How, when and what we teach our children is irrelevant. The image is out of context, I agree with manstraw. And IMHO it is also *borderline* violent. But more than any of that, it’s just plain unprofessional, and WP is generally a professional site. Thanks for the tip from HandySolo. Fortunately — or unfortunately — anyone can edit the codex. Maybe it will be editted right back in.
quite stylish picture, though I’d prefer it to be a guy…
…and speaking seriously, it’s a parent’s job to see to it, that what he/she does not want shown to his/her child does not get shown. WP is no “kids’ software”, WP users by no means are under any obligation to self-censure in case a parent happens onto their sites with a kid in tow and a prude habitus active. There are a couple of links in the Codex and more so among the Plugin Section which lead to yet more “demanding” destinations. Personally I see more of a problem with e.g. ultra-rightwing sites propagating quasi-fascist views, than with that of a guy liking stylish shackles on his bed companions. But that’s just me.
Any which way, it’s YOUR job, not that of WordPress or WP users, to guard your child.
It occurs to me that it’s difficult to have an issue with what wordpress links too that kids might see and not end up discussing our views on the content and how we should intervene on a personal level. I expect the wordpress codex to have no opinion on politics, religion, sex, violence, banana cream pies, and plungers.
I don’t personally have a problem with the link, because it’s to relevent information, and it’s useful. I don’t see the image on the site as borderline violent, but acknowledge that a viewer could see it with that in their mind. A lot of people (the overwelming majority of those who actually wear schackles) like to be ‘in that situation’. Consent is the concern with the violence, and I believe there is consent. I hear that lot of people like to go to church too, so I try not to be offended by pictures of church services despite my own personal reservations. (yes, that’s a joke, to illulstrate that what we think is appropriate is ultimately individually determined, and not voted on.)
To solve your immediate concerns kalico, it might work to merely put a warning beside the links that the site contains a mild silhouette image of bondage that some may not find appropriate. Or another solution might be for you to ask permission from the author to copy the information to a website you have control, and then change the codex to link there instead. It’s the information on css that is important here, so considering your reservations with the presentation, you could take steps to provide it in an alternate form.
actually your joke applies to me 😉 I am a very professed atheist, and do have trouble with highly religious sites. Which doesn’t keep me from perusing e.g. an excellent templates site for Drupal maintained by a cloister. I simply disregard the religious info. Same goes for Typo3, which has more than a little number of religious references right in the software proper.
I would NOT dream of suggesting either to that cloister or to the Typo3 team to remove their religious info, just because I feel offended and disgusted by it. I wanna use it, I take the whole deal – and deal with it the best way I can.
I do not consider it correct to suggest to Flumpcakes to either remove that bondage pic (which is tasteful and harmless enough to boot) or his link, not in the slightest. As George Orwell said, “freedom is above all the liberty to say what others don’t want to hear”.
If Kalico or her kids can’t deal with the sight of a bondage pic, what the heck, there are a gazillion sites on the net on CSS without such pics. She has the freedom to move her prude eyes there instead.
And again, as I already said, it’s HER responsibility. If one has such extremely straight ideas about life, then the wise move is to surf without kids sitting on one’s lap or peeking over one’s shoulders. Quite simple, this.
Of course, her specific issue is if the codex should link to it. I think if she added a warning with the link in the codex, it should satisfy everyone. Although, we might end up with a lot of warnings! Ever read a medicine label? More warnings than directions.
a warning might be acceptable.
But as you pointed out, what of should be warned? I could point you to at least two sites (highly popular plugins by the way) on blogs which have near-fascist content. As a mother I’d consider THIS way more problematic for the mental wellbeing of my kids than a bit of nudity or bondage. Other sites indulge in vulgarity. I might find it amusing, but what of a religious person? Etc etc etc…
So yes, what you say is very correct. We’d have warnings all over the place.
To me this whole thing is a storm in a waterglass.
I say it a third time: it is Kalico’s responsibility, not yours, not mine, not WP’s, not the author’s. It is HER responsibility to check links she visits for proper content for her kids to see first.
And to tell the truth, I find it highly offensive (and presumptious without end) that she wants to hold others responsible for her personal views and responsibilities. We aren’t talking of a link to a commercial porn site here, without any WP content. That I might even understand. We are talking of a blog site with a slightly kinky silhouette which contains a lot of good WP-relevant info. She has a computer, she can sit the kids so they don’t see the screen, she can check first. She should act upon her responsibility as a parent and DO THAT.
I’ll weigh in with kalico on this one. That graphic is way out of bounds. The link should be removed and some kind of authority should be involved in preventing this kind of thing. We are on a slippery slope, if there ever was one.
If this is the kind of stuff showing up in the WP “help pages” the software will be dismissed as a teenage hack. If the WP folks can’t understand this, they are the ones in need of adult supervision.
The link, in the codex, has a NSFW warning. No way in HELL is wp going to contact an outside site’s author and ask for a graphic to be removed. End of discussion.
To be clear for those who haven’t bothered to go look in the codex: That graphic is NOT in the codex. It as at an a site that is not part of WordPress.org.
There’s no ‘slippery slope’. This is the INTERNET. The Codex is a WIKI. The flumpcakes guy decided to have a raunchy graphic — so tag the link as NSFW in the codex, and move on. Never visit it again if you are offended. (I agree it is odd, borderline distasteful, but we live in a fairly free world…).
Even were I ‘policing’ the Codex, I would simply have added something around the link like “note that this site’s header graphic is NSFW, though the site itself has some useful resources…”.
Just my 2c. 😉
- The topic ‘Call me a prude, but….’ is closed to new replies.