# Links and adult orientated imagery

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/links-and-adult-orientated-imagery/124325>\
**Category:** About This Message Board\
**Created:** [August 17, 2002, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/links-and-adult-orientated-imagery/124325 "2002-08-17T12:18:10Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\
**Post date:** [August 17, 2002, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/links-and-adult-orientated-imagery/124325/1 "2002-08-17T12:18:10Z")

</div>

The general rule is that you don’t link to such material but that a link to a link (containing adult material) is okay – the two-click rule, if you will.

I can see one obvious scenario when this general rule is, presumably, amended eg. when the link in question leads to, say, a porno site but there is no adult material on that particular page - that direct link not being acceptable. Okay.

But how about linking to a page on a _non_-adult site and accompanying your link with _directional assistance_: (something like) ‘Go here and then click on link ‘x’ – warning; second link is a tad saucy’ ?

I ask because, IMHO, [my thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=131006) in the Pit benefited by some measure from the contextual illustration (a link) supplied by another poster. The link was later deleted - as per general policy - and I’d rather like to have it back. Would this methodology be acceptable ?  
– ‘context’ and ‘adult’ always reminds me of actresses describing when they’ll get their kit off. Bless 'em…

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\
**Post date:** [August 18, 2002, 8:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/links-and-adult-orientated-imagery/124325/2 "2002-08-18T08:03:02Z")

</div>

How about  
a) Describing in your own words what is at that link?  
b) Asking posters to e-mail you if they are that interested in seeing what is at that link?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\
**Post date:** [August 18, 2002, 10:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/links-and-adult-orientated-imagery/124325/3 "2002-08-18T10:46:03Z")

</div>

a) I did do just that.(in the thread) on the assumption it would be okay given the descriptive nature of some board content elsewhere.

b) A reasonable suggestion!  
I guess deleting the link jarred a little because the visual aspect was integral to the question at hand but, equally, I can see it would be very difficult to establish a consistent ‘it is/it isn’t in context’ line.

I thang yew, Arnold.