I was SHOCKED to see the cartoon of a near naked woman, and read this prase about a “brick shithouse” on the home page. We have this listed as a link for children to use to ask scientific questions. I am not sure that we can refer to this site anymore, not knowing that the link is safe for kids. How often are the pages updated, and do I need to review daily for safe content?
Link to the thread:
How did the phrase “built like a brick shithouse” get to be a compliment?
Yes, it would be a very good idea to review for safe content. This is by no means the most explicit picture, or the most explicit article, they’ve had.
I wouldn’t use this site as a reference for kids. I guess it depends on your exact audience, though.
This site is not intended for children. Indeed, we don’t allow children under 13 to register. I’m not sure how old your students are, but if they’re under 13, please don’t list us as a reference. We generally update the front page every weekday, and of course the message board is active about 23.5 hours a day. We do have adult subject matter and language. This is mostly an educational site (our objective is stomping out ignorance), but we believe that education should continue for one’s entire life. This site is intended for adults, and we allow mature teens to participate. I think it’s one of the finest, if not THE finest, reference and message boards around. However, it’s not kid-friendly, never has been, and probably never will be.
Wow. Obviously they’ve missed the columns about the sperm tree and the origin of the F word when they reviewed this site for their children…
A web search turns up at least two or three sites which link to straightdope.com and claim or imply that it’s for kids. Would you like the URLs emailed to you, Lynn, or is that unnecessary?
I doubt that there are many reading-age kids out there who aren’t already familiar with the word “shit”, although “shithouse”, being somewhat archaic, might be new to them. So they expand their vocabulary a bit; what’s wrong with that?
:dubious:
It wasn’t the word; it was the cartoon of the gigantic woman wearing a bikini… Eew!
Well, dantheman, you’ve gotta admit, she was built like a brick shithouse. . .
Maybe I could build said house out of a plethora of those women, huh?
Or You bet your fucking ass in the staff reports, which has the infamous “P*ss on your cites. Sometimes at the Straight Dope we just know.”
What about the one with the “Donald Duck was reported to have said ‘fucking dirty nigger’ to Daffy (not exact quote)?”
Personally, I think though Mr. Adams uses vulgarity at some points, he never uses it simply for a shock or just to be obscene, he uses it when it’s in context. You can hardly expect Mr. Adams not to use “fuck” in an article discussing the origins of “fuckin’-a.” Personally, I believe your outrage over seeing the woman in her scant clothing is a little silly, kids see worse stuff on “Victoria’s Secret” ads anyway.
I believe that, though this site does include rather graphic and disgusting descripitions at times (“Texas Chainsaw = True Story?”), vulgarity (“Do Disney Films Contain Subliminal Erotica?”) and some of the questions regarding ejaculation and such (can’t remember any titles), it’s still a pretty good information site. Besides, you seriously think a thirteen year old kid wouldn’t have seen something like “Fight Club” or “Pulp Fiction?”
Whether or not a kid has access to NC-17 stuff elsewhere – the issue here is that there are sites out there equating the Straight Dope website with other “kid-safe” sites, when there are areas here that are definitely adult-orientated. Looks like that’s another thing, alongside copyright breaches, that may have to be recognised and watched in future.
I intend to reccomend this site to many of my teachers, current and former. However, what I intend to tell them and what may be a useful method when using this site for children’s education is to bring useful, interesting, or, in some lesson plans, pertinent information to them rather than allow them to freely roam the site.
Why do you say that? There’s nothing on the site indicating that this is a child-safe site, and plenty that a cursory overview will find showing it’s not intended for children. If someone’s recommending this site for children, it’s their responsibility to make sure it meets whatever standards they have for “child-safe”, not ours or the administration’s to censor the content for a group that is not in its intended audience.
I didn’t say there should have a censorship regime at the Straight Dope website, Kat. I referred to copyright breaches in the same sentence because it involves the same thing: websites referring to the Straight Dope using that reference correctly. In terms of copyright – don’t use SD articles unless permission granted. In terms of having SD on “kids safe” lists … well, for star’s sakes, people! Take it off those lists, because the site sure ain’t kid-safe in every nook and cranny.
Surely any teacher worth their salt would have a child-safe program running if they’re letting the kids loose on the Net? I’m currently using my daughter’s PC which has CyberSitter set up - I have to switch it off when I come here. I just switched it on again and tried to refresh the page … it wouldn’t let me.
Julie
One would certainly hope educators and parents would have such safeguards in place, Shrinking Violet.
Anyway, it comes down to this, IMHO – (a) there are sites out there which have not taken, apparently, great enough care with their lists of “safe” sites. Folk who come through to here from such areas can be offended, and rightly so, but (b) it isn’t the fault of the SD website, or the site’s owners, because it’s fairly clear from content etc. that this is not a G-rated site.
It would be good if the list-sites got their act together and vetted the “kids safe” recommendations a little more thoroughly, though. Not every parent is as net-savvy as those who are aware of how best to keep inappropriate stuff in the right places.
I disagree. This is not a cut-and-dried matter like copyright. Different sites will have different ideas on what constitutes “kid-safe”. Certainly, there are a lot of sites on the Internet far worse than us as far as age-appropriateness is concerned, and I can envision parents who know about this site and do consider it allowable for their children. Are we supposed to be the thought police here, and decide that nobody is allowed to consider us child-friendly?
NAMBLA, for one, right?