Author Options:

Respect the Innocence of Young Viewers Answered

Don't Let Your Morals Down
Please don't fall victim to the desire to increase readership by forsaking morality and decency. There is no excuse for the revealing lingerie photos on a site frequented by children. There is enough of that elsewhere. Though I post little, I am a professional member who has three patents. Big deal.
I love this site and enjoy creativity, but not at the expense of innocent viewers looking at suggestive photos. I can tell from the many replies/suggestions to well-meaning contributors that sarcasm and ridicule reign above constructive criticism; so, I do not expect this post to be popular; none-the-less, just like you I have the God-given right to express my opinion and attempt to curtail the downward spiral becoming evermore evident.


Since this thread was highlighted elsewhere, I just had to make this point:

"...just like you I have the God-given right to express my opinion ..."

No, you don't.

Firstly, this is a private, commercial website, and you gave up the right to complete free speech when you signed up to the Terms of Service (which I bet you haven't even read!).

Secondly, even off the internet, you have no God-given rights to anything. You have rights that are granted by a consensus of other humans, some of whom believed they were acting in the name[s] of a variety of [conflicting] gods and god-like beings, none of which have been shown to exist.

What you do have is the site-management-granted ability to express a [relatively limited] range of opinions up to an loosely-defined point which may be re-defined at any time, in any way, by said site management.

Mentions god = Kiteman explodes into a glorious rage. I love it.

But I wholeheartedly agree.

What's the opposite of a vicar's dog collar? I should wear one of those.

I would go with covering yourself in the blood of innocents, but I assume that would be a bit too messy.

... and a bit too biblical for my tastes.

Simple: stick to logic, truth, and sense as it applies to the situation; which you have done.

Just because dog spelled backwards is god does not make them opposites, but rather mirror images (well, at last of the word itsef).  Can there be an opposite of an item like a collar?  Maybe the ankle cuff would suffice?  ;-)   Or maybe just the absence of the collar altogether.....

Maybe a colour-negative? A sparkling white shirt with a black collar beneath...

I am proud to say I have no idea what the word "sparkling" has to do with the Twilight films/books.

True, I hadn't thought of color opposites since I didn't consider white a "color".....I was trapped by my box :-)
Like a black collar with a white suite coat....or if you didn't want to go "absolutely opposite" but maybe opposite in "belief systems" you may want to make the collar fire engine red >:-)

Wow. The original post probably should have just said, "I for one, would appreciate it if this site remained free of provocative images."

I would agree with that.

If community defines the standards then let individuals speak their mind about it without jumping all over them and accusing them of censorship, bigotry, stupidity, and the like.

I personally don't like it because I think women get plenty of disrespect and and I would like to not add to that by looking at "sexy" pictures of them or their representation. I realize that in the American culture, skin and sexiness (almost exclusively of the female kind) is assumed acceptable. I just think American culture is wrong. Men need to be faithful and respectful to their wives. Women need to respect themselves and expect men to commit and stand by their commitments.

I hardly expect "instructables" to become a bastion of honor and respect in the face of a culture increasingly selfish and indulgent. But it doesn't hurt to try to protect something I love. I've loved the idea of this site since I first discovered it. I've come to love the unique mix of personalities it attracts.

Of course, that's all a moot point now thanks to Pinterest isn't it?

I totally agree with this post. It is nice to know that someone has some morals.


6 years ago

It is my belief that all knowledge, dirty and disgusting or not, is useful in some way. Accepted by society? No. Moral? No. Leads to the downfall of humanity? Hell if I know.

Knowledge is power, even if that knowledge contains boobs.

I understand parents and elders trying to protect the younger minds in the environment, but ultimately it is not up to the community at large to protect the younger minds from indecent images, it is up to the parent or adult in charge.

Developing a mature mind is much better than placing a blanket over everything "indecent and immoral". If a child is mature enough to understand what is around him, and mature enough to avoid potentially harsh images, they are much better off. Prevention is the best protection, and so forth.

Too often, parents blame their children's behaviors to the media and the internet, even though it is their responsibility to raise their child with beliefs and morals that will positively develop their personalities.

If your child is not mature enough to access the images on Instructables, then don't allow them to access them. There are plenty of content blocking softwares on the market, some free, which allows parents to keep an eye out on their children's behavior on the internet, and if they don't like them viewing instructables, just add it to the block list.

My parents once heard me swear (I was around 10).

They told me, "You're not allowed to use that word if you keep using it incorrectly."

I got a dictionary, and now rarely use profanity.

That's pretty much what I say when I hear pupils using foul language.

Do you know what that word actually means? "No."

Do you have the internet at home? "Yes."

Right when you get home tonight, google that word...

I was raised on the dysfunctional "Do as I tell you, not as I DO" and so came to mistrust that many adults simpley were not "adult"

I think I already posted in this topic, somewhere... However it's in no way forsaking morality any more than walking down any street with billboards or through any mall/shopping centre.

In general lingerie photos etc, are considered above board, apart from some instances like particularly pornographic ones...

Tis funny, when I was much younger, such things were not "allowed on tv" but women's magizines regularly sported such ads (one I remember well, was on breast enhancement and showed the "bust" of a completely unclothed woman (from the bust upwards). Strange times they were. . .

Strange times indeed.

I constantly hear my older relatives expressing how the culture today is much more profane and vile than when they were younger, but most of the profane material I see comes from their generations.

Examples: Playboy, Pink Flamingos (or any Waters films), Deep Throat, etc.

The "picture" I mentioned. to be perfectly honest (in the ad) was only one inch tall, but it was big enough for a 12 year old to find (classified section) :-)

What's up with the surge in this kind of posts recently? I think this is the third I've seen this week.

There was CANDY UNDERWEAR in the newsletter. Seems to have gotten some people's panties in a bunch.

It does seem like a silly choice for a newsletter. A lot of parents won't share your teenage views on the subject and wouldn't want that going into their kid's inboxes.

My "teenage views" are neither born out of a sense of wild, rebellious lack of any moral standards nor exclusive to myself or my age bracket, as has been clearly demonstrated; dismissing them as such is non-productive, inaccurate, and condescending.

(I hope for your sake that's tongue-in-cheek...)

I have always wondered about that phrase.....with "tongue in cheek" if you got slapped you could bite your tongue off....

So you think it SHOULD be delivered into childrens inboxes ?

Is there then no line which you shouldn't cross ? Does a parent not have any rights to protect their children, because you disagree with them ? When should someone be allowed to see what they like ?


>So you think it SHOULD be delivered into childrens inboxes ?
>Is there then no line which you shouldn't cross ?

When did you stop beating your wife?

I think it should be delivered into the inboxes of anyone who has subscribed, and that parents should follow the TOS and provide their own addresses, as Kelsey points out. People subscribe to the newsletter of their own free volition, and are free to filter or unsubscribe the newsletter at any time. The Instructables newsletter is not aimed at children, makes no guarantee of age-appropriateness, and indeed represents content that is not only in compliance with the TOS, but which staff thinks to be exceptionally good.

>Does a parent not have any rights to protect their children, because you disagree with them ?

Do I not have any rights to see content, because you disagree with it?

This strawman is particularly...odd...inasmuch as putting anything in the newsletter strips parents of precisely no rights; you are still free to protect your children however you wish - Instructables simply does not do it for you.

>When should someone be allowed to see what they like ?

Are you asking globally, or on this site? Globally, if it's not illegal, one has a right to be allowed to see anything they like; on here one has a right to see anything one likes if it is TOS-compliant. I'm honestly not sure I understand this question, though. It makes little sense to me, particularly in context.

When should someone be allowed to see what they like? As long as it's legal and they're not hurting anyone.

Your strawmen aside, I am in agreement with Kelsey and Nacho below me, and do not believe it is the world's responsibility to censor this type of content (illegal, patently offensive/obscene, violent etc content is another story, being against the TOS).

For one thing, such censorship is if nothing else a slippery slope and near impossible to judge without turning the site into China/Saudi Arabian filter-approved: who sets the standard? The answer is, the terms of service have set the standard, and this project is not in violation of those terms.

I do not believe content should be looked at with an eye to "will this offend parents", but that parents should take whatever measures they feel appropriate to censor, filter, block, or otherwise limit and restrict content they feel is inappropriate.

I am of the opinion that filtering and blocks are an inferior solution to actually discussing such issues with the children in question. FIlters may be circumvented and blacklists worked around, but an internal sense of right and wrong is self-regulated, and therefore superior.

In accordance with the TOS my sons do receive the newsletter via my inbox and I do delete it if I deem it necessary. Similarly I see all their incoming PMs via my inbox.

My feed back as a responsible parent is that I do not appreciate these types of projects being in the newsletter.  To be honest if someone else had not raised this as a topic I would just have deleted the relevant newsletters and left it at that, however as a discussion has been started I have decided to add my views, as indeed, other people have added theirs.


PS >When did you stop beating your wife?
None of your business.

Like Nacho said - while I disagree with you the appropriate course of action to take here, I respect your opinion and your efforts as a parent. I think I should clarify - I'm definitely *not* saying that you shouldn't be saying what you're saying - just disagreeing with what you're saying. ;)

>None of your business.

Your violent illegal activities are none of my business? I beg to differ; if I know of someone who has instigated domestic violence I'm certainly reporting it. Anyway, the only point of that question is to point out the nature of the questions to which I referred.

In view of your stance, how would you view these ?


which are clearly, by your reckoning, an invitation to "domestic violence"


> which are clearly, by your reckoning, an invitation to "domestic violence"
.  Not hardly. Many ppl willingly incorporate pain into their love/sex play. Both items appear to me to fall into that category. There's a BIG difference between abuse and S&M.

What this guy said. I find it generally ending up with both parties on the receiving end.

*I* didn't disagree, just made a tongue in cheek comment!

Domestic violence? You don't need to make those items to cause domestic violence. In an average room, there are 1,245 things Chuck norris can use to kill someone, including the room itself. Nearly anything can be made into a weapon. Think about it.

Let's ban......sharpened pencils !!! :-)

Oh heavens, don't make suggestions like that! I have just had to make sure my knitting needles were in my checked baggage to get them home safely and then to drink up the remains of my litre bottle of water bought at airport #1 before a security checkpoint at airport #2 (despite staying airside the whole time) so I didn't blow the plane up with it. It's a good job they didn't take offence at my writing implements too.


Oh I think if people would think about it, they'd realize how STUPID it is and incomprehensible it is to ban anything that could cause a problem......fingernails can kill if used correctly...

Or black ink pens. Maybe binders, those rings can seriously cut somebody.

Yeah, it takes a lot more force with a pen though, so even a 6 year old could do a heck of a lot of damage with a sharp pencil.

Hey, lets not forget the drawing compass of geometry class....that is a seriously sharp tool :-)