Words that cannot be used....

1. 60

   Traci Ruffnerposted 10 years ago

   I am trying to write a serious article about men choosing to self satisfy themselves sexually even when they have a willing partner and the reasons why.  Every time I have to work around using the "m" word for self satisfying I get a little more frustrated, but apparently the "m" word is not something that is allowed in our articles.  I don't get it....  *sigh*

   replyreport
   1. 94

      Solarasposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Are you looking for euphemisms?

      replyreport
   2. 72

      relacheposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Google's content guidelines section for their AdSense program policies begin thusly:
      
      Sites with Google ads may not include or link to:
      Pornography, adult or mature content
      
      Chances are even with euphemisms your content will be deemed mature, and likely unpublished.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Traci Ruffnerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         I just finished up the article and I have the warning that ads have been disabled.  It is about sex and relationships.  There is nothing kinky or unprofessional in it.  I don't know what I can change.  Maybe I will check out the links.

         replyreport
   3. 60

      Traci Ruffnerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I posted it on Bubblews.  I wish it could have passed Google's filters.  <link snipped>

      replyreport
   4. 32

      Writer Foxposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Jonathan Swift used "Master Bates" in 'Gulliver's Travels.'

      replyreport
   5. 93

      SpaceShantyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with relache, I would stay away from this area on Hubpages and anything connected to Adsense.

      replyreport
      1. 93

         SpaceShantyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         In fact I wouldn't even use any adult related words even in questions here as Adsense adverts are shown on your questions.

         replyreport
   6. 60

      Traci Ruffnerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I wrote this article today about this subject.  Of course, I put it on Bubblews since it was more of a blog than a scholarly article.   <link snipped>

      replyreport
   7. 88

      suzettenaplesposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Instead of going through all this stress why don't you just write elsewhere on this topic if it is so important to you?

      replyreport
      1. 94

         SmartAndFunposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         That's what she did. She posted the article elsewhere.
         
         HP is not telling her she can't publish the article, they are simply telling her that their advertisers do not want their ads placed on it. Advertisers have a right to pick and choose what type of articles they put their ads on. Just as a liquor company wouldn't choose to run their TV ads during Saturday morning cartoons (in fact I'm sure this is illegal), or a fundamentalist church probably wouldn't want to run their TV ads during a TV show about why gay marriage should be legalized. It is not censorship. It is advertisers determining how, where, and on what type of readers they want to spend their ad dollars. It is smart marketing, not censorship.

         replyreport
2. 84

   psycheskinnerposted 10 years ago

   Pretty much everything sexually explicit is not permitted. This is Adsense policy.

   replyreport
3. 60

   Cgenaeaposted 10 years ago

   Self satisfying sounds like a winner. You may -play with- that term for the sake of tense.

   replyreport
4. 79

   electronicianposted 10 years ago

   The adsense policy on stuff like this sucks. At one point I was running a news website and I kept getting problems with adsense. I remember one particular example - Taliban be-heading people for attending a mixed sex party. Google said I had to delete the article or get my account banned; not sure if it was just the word sex or something else - the only info they would give me was to point to a clause in their tos about 'objectionable' content which could have been applied to pretty much any news article you can imagine, and I thought it was an important story at the time so didn't want to delete it.

   replyreport
   1. 94

      SmartAndFunposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      "Sex party" surely did that article in with Google, even though that's not really what the article was about. Those two words certainly should not be placed next to one another, because bots flag the articles, not real people who could discern what the topic really was.

      replyreport
5. 88

   NateB11posted 10 years ago

   Oh, I know. I've totally avoided certain subjects because I know they will trip the filters. I think Adsense policy on content like that is ridiculous.

   replyreport
6. 88

   WryLiltposted 10 years ago

   I'd be interested to read your article (posted on another site that allows such articles).
   
   I often see women in the online social groups I'm in claim they feel like their partner has cheated on them by er- self satisfying. Which I really cannot understand at all. Especially the ones who say "Oh I had a baby six weeks ago and we haven't done anything for three months but I JUST FEEL SO HURT!"
   
   I do not get it at all!

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Traci Ruffnerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I may have to post it on another site because I am still getting the warning about ads being disabled.  It's ridiculous.  I am not about to change every time I used the word "sex" into "making whoopie" or something stupid like that.

      replyreport
      1. 94

         SmartAndFunposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Think Disney rated-G movies. That is what is safe with Google. Anything not family-friendly could get the boot. It doesn't have to be explicit "pronografee." If it is not something you'd let a small child see -- not just sex, but murder, rape, drinking, drugs, gambling, colorful language -- it is probably not going to fly with Google. This thread is probably going to get flagged because of the words I put in this post.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Traci Ruffnerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            That is unfortunate then.  I understand why some things need to be censored, but this is an informative article concerning an issue many people have in their relationships.  This is probably why I couldn't find many decent articles pertaining to the issue on Google.

            replyreport
      2. 94

         Solarasposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Maybe you could go with more clinical terms.  Web MD gets away with it...

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Traci Ruffnerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Intercourse instead of sex maybe?

            replyreport
            1. 94

               Solarasposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               Yes - see how that plugs in, Google may be on to that as well.

               replyreport
               1. 94

                  Solarasposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Then there's always the urban dictionary for cryptic terms lol

                  replyreport
            2. 0

               Beth37posted 10 years agoin reply to this

               relations... if you wanna go Jane Austin.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Traci Ruffnerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Lol

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Beth37posted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     'He did not chose to lie with her.' if you wanna go biblical.

                     replyreport
                     1. 88

                        WryLiltposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                        "He did not know her" works too!

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           Beth37posted 10 years agoin reply to this

                           Course then it actually becomes a modern hub again. lol

                           replyreport
         2. 94

            SmartAndFunposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            I just looked at a WebMD article on female sexual dysfunction, and there are no Google ads on that page, only ads that link to other WebMD articles.
            
            You can still publish the article as a public service for interested readers to find. It's just that Google will choose not to place ads on it.

            replyreport
            1. 94

               Solarasposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               this article Sexuality and Physical Changes With Aging - Other Aspects of Sexuality has Listerine ads lol

               replyreport
               1. 94

                  SmartAndFunposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  I guess there is no rhyme or reason to it! LOL.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     calculus-geometryposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     Mega-huge health sites like Web MD are probably Adsense Premium publishers so they can get away with it. That's my guess.

                     replyreport
               2. 0

                  jonnycomelatelyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Sounds like you are giving lip service to the issue!

                  replyreport
   2. 60

      Traci Ruffnerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Here you go.  It isn't as pretty of a layout as it was on hubpages, but it's at least readable.  Lol  <link snipped>

      replyreport
      1. 32

         Writer Foxposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         I think you should change the photo immediately.  You can't use a copyrighted Shutterstock image on that site.  They won't pay you for any of your posts if they see that.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Traci Ruffnerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            I got it off of a site that said it could be used for free.  Is it not?

            replyreport
         2. 60

            Traci Ruffnerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            I replaced the photo.

            replyreport
         3. 94

            Solarasposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            What about iStock photos that you purchase?

            replyreport
            1. 32

               Writer Foxposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               The one used in that Bubble had the watermark which means that it wasn't purchased.  I don't write on Bubblews but I do know that people have problems getting paid when they use images which they don't have permission to use and especially which violate copyright law. That watermark is a dead giveaway and the image should be removed pronto if the author wants to be paid for any of the posts on that site.

               replyreport
   3. 85

      Marisa Wrightposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      +1

      replyreport
7. 91

   jansharesposted 10 years ago

   I wonder if it's the number of times a bot picks up the banned words or will using it once do you in. How about using the banned word less and "intimate relations" or "physical intimacy" more often? Also try "self-pleasuring acts or activities."

   replyreport
   1. 94

      SmartAndFunposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      It could also be the category you place the article in. It could be that HP simply omits ads from any article placed in the sex-related topic sections. I don't know that this is the case, though, but it would be smart of them to do that, to prevent any fallout from the Google Gods.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      Traci Ruffnerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      The problem is that I am not sure the word sex is the banned word.  I could go through and change each time I used it and see if that works though.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Beth37posted 10 years agoin reply to this

         It's just a bot right? That catches all that stuff? So take away all obvious hints and see what happens.

         replyreport
         1. 94

            SmartAndFunposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            I'm not sure if it is a bot, or if it is the general topic of the article that is getting it noticed. It may just end up being one of those articles that has zero ads. It's not that the article is censored. HP will publish it, it just won't have any ads.

            replyreport
            1. 94

               Solarasposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               Where's the fun in that lol.

               replyreport
               1. 94

                  SmartAndFunposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Agreed. I like to write, but I also like to get paid for it. For sure.

                  replyreport
            2. 60

               Traci Ruffnerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               Same here.  I have decided to give this article to Bubblews.  They are pretty simple with their restrictions.  I cannot contain pornographic or semi pornographic images or content.  I hate putting it on Bubblews...ugh.  I usually just do my short free writing on that sight.  This is an over 1000 word article.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Beth37posted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  That seems like a smart choice.

                  replyreport
               2. 94

                  Solarasposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  You are likely to receive residual income from it at Bubblews - and as long as they pay you, that will work out about the same in earnings.  I had 11 linked articles on the same subject which was a serious topic and they have doubled in views since the first week of their posting. They earn about 30 cents a day.
                  
                  Break it down into 3 articles if you can, with introductions and lead-ins linking to the next article.

                  replyreport
8. 85

   DzyMsLizzyposted 10 years ago

   I do not understand this stupid censorship at all, and I am sick of it!
   
   First, we are writing (I would think, since there is an age limit for having a HP account as well as an AdSense account) for adults, so this ridiculous "appropriate for children" rule makes no sense.
   
   Furthermore, isn't censorship in any form a violation of the First Amendment?  It would seem so to me.  I realize there are some restrictions, such as slander and libel, and the oft-given example of falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, but other than that, the rest of this nonsense is nothing but Victorian-era hang-ups that do nothing but interfere with sensible dialogue about useful and important health-related topics.
   
   As far as "protecting poor innocent children" goes, I say, 'Balderdash!'  Any child of an age to be able to read and understand the words in such an article, (even if they stumble upon it by accident), I assure you, already knows all of the words, and plenty of euphemisms:  much more than their parents think they do, at that.  Kids are not stupid or as unaware as some would like to think. 
   
   To be sure, there are words that are seen as impolite, and gutter language. I get that.  But they are also very appropriate used in character dialogue, if that is the kind of character about which an author is writing.
   
   Said too often, in or out of polite society, they lose their shock value, and simply become boring, marking the speaker as having a limited vocabulary.  If you doubt the ability of such language to become more boring than offensive, then go watch the movie "White Men Can't Jump."  (The screenwriters apparently worked overtime to work as many "F-bombs" as they could into nearly every sentence spoken throughout the movie.  It got boring in a hurry.)
   
   Of course, there are those who are intent on finding something to be offended about in nearly anything.  These people would probably be offended by the public mention of toilet paper or 'feminine supplies.'
   They take pleasure in searching for offensive content, and if they don't find it, will invent something about which to be offended, even if they must twist the original meaning and take it out of context.  These are the same mental midgets that make statements such as, "Oh, if you play this record backwards, it has these bad words or references!"  Seriously?  Who even does that?!  Those folks just have way too much time on their hands.
   They fall into the category my father characterized this way:  "Some people are just not happy unless they can find something to complain about."
   
   We are far too hung-up in this country about our bodies and bodily functions, and it's time to loosen up and get over the juvenile tittering about such things.  Make something taboo, and you create a need and a desire to seek the forbidden.  It's no different than the failed experiment that was prohibition of alcohol, or the current "war on drugs."  Make it illegal, and create a black market in an instant.
   Sexual things work exactly the same.  Prostitution is illegal, so of course there is a vast underground of this 'oldest of professions.'  The majority of sex crimes follow the same format for the same reasons.
     Countries that are more relaxed about the body and allow things like topless bathing, co-ed dressing rooms, and legal prostitution also have a very low rate of sex crimes, because people don't need to go sneaking around to find the forbidden fruit--it's all about mutually consenting adults.
   
   I don't care if it's Hub Pages, Google, Yahoo, Face Book  or what--it's well past time to end this censorship nonsense and come into line with our Constitutional guarantee of Freedom of Speech!!

   replyreport
   1. 85

      gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      You know this and I know this but the rules of HubPages stands regarding writing on so-called sensitive materials.  If one writes articles about sex, abortion, and contraception, the ADS go OFF.  Really do not understand why, sexual matters should be freely written about.  This oversensitivity regarding sexual matters is quite atavistic, don't you think?

      replyreport
   2. 88

      NateB11posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Very, very well-said. And a very true statement about society in general, not just the subject of this thread.

      replyreport
   3. 60

      Traci Ruffnerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I agree and do believe that any minor who may stumble across my article would probably find it too boring to bother reading it.  Adults who get offended by it are just looking to be offended.  I would say they should stick to reading their Bibles but Song of Solomon is a lot sexier than my article.  Lol

      replyreport
      1. 94

         Solarasposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         + LOL

         replyreport
      2. 85

         Marisa Wrightposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Not relevant, I'm afraid.  Adsense makes the rules, not HubPages.  You and I may think Adsense is unbelievably prudish and living in the Victorian era, but that doesn't change the fact - them that pays the piper calls the tune.  If you want to write for Adsense income, you have to follow their rules.
         
         One of HubPages' competitiors, Wizzley, had Adsense suspended on the whole site for weeks - all because ONE member uploaded a "prohibited" image. Lucky they were able to get their account reinstated - because if they hadn't, Wizzley would've closed down forever. 
         
         So, perhaps you can see why HubPages is so anxious not to break any of Adsense's rules!  They do have their own advertising program, but Adsense is still a key part of it, and losing Adsense could destroy the viability of the site once and for all. 
         
         I wouldn't like that to happen - so please, if you want to risk your Adsense account, please do it on a site where it will affect only you (e.g. on your own blog).

         replyreport
         1. 85

            DzyMsLizzyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Not talking about breaking the rules; just expressing my displeasure with the stupidity of it all--society in general.  So, perhaps my rant needs to be directed, via snail-mail, to TPTB at Google/AdSense!!

            replyreport
         2. 60

            Traci Ruffnerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            I intend to follow the rules as ridiculous as they may seem.  Articles that do not pass the adult content filter will just be put on a different site.

            replyreport
   4. 0

      Beth37posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      This reminded me of your post.
      
      
      "Interested in how over coddled we’ve become, the Silver Dobermans created this piece, Horse Sense Fence. They have put a warning sign on every single barb of this fence."
      

      replyreport
      1. 85

         DzyMsLizzyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Shaking my head!!  This overly-litigious society we have become, in which people expect to sue others for injuries caused by their own stupidity or carelessness just infuriates me.  99% of such cases ought to be tossed out of court as frivolous lawsuits clogging up the court system!

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Beth37posted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Yeah... the ppl who created that pic agree. I thought it was pretty funny.

            replyreport
      2. 60

         Traci Ruffnerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Lol!  Awesome.

         replyreport
      3. 60

         Traci Ruffnerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         That would actually make an interesting article for me to write for my college's paralegal blog.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Beth37posted 10 years agoin reply to this

            I don't know anything more than what I printed, but google it and see if you could do anything with it.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Traci Ruffnerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               Definitely.

               replyreport
   5. 72

      relacheposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Actually it isn't.  There are both legal and illegal forms of censorship.  You might want to read up on the history of obscenity in the USA, as this is one of the areas in which the government of this country has ALWAYS allowed limitations, based on changing interpretations and non-specific rules,
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amen … #Obscenity
      
      What Google is saying is that you can't use their services to go along with certain topics, leaving you free to say whatever they prohibit anywhere else, without their services connected to it.  Which is legal.  In this instance, HubPages is just going, "Since we use them, we're doing what they said."
      
      No one is stopping you from finding other websites to publish on, or starting your own and engaging other advertisers for content that isn't appropriate here.

      replyreport
      1. 85

         DzyMsLizzyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Yes, I am aware of this--however, that definition is always subject to change, as it is an area that is totally subjective, rather than a hard and fast rule or definition, such as the motions of the planets. 
         I find the salaries politicians and mega-rich corporate CEOs make to be obscene, but that hardly fits the court decision.  And there are things in that decision that I don't find obscene--just legislated prudery.
         It's a no-win argument, so I give up.

         replyreport
9. 90

   Rochelle Frankposted 10 years ago

   People need to realize that, though certain subjects may be perfectly objective, scientific, helpful and good intentioned, they may not suit  the guidelines for this site.
   Save it for another venue, and stick to the things that do well here.

   replyreport
10. 94

    SmartAndFunposted 10 years ago

    
    
    No one is censoring anything -- HP just doesn't want to put ads on it. They're not unpublishing the article.

    replyreport
    1. 85

       DzyMsLizzyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       That's nonetheless a form of censorship, (denying ads on a site that makes revenue from ads),  but only on 'certain' topics/word inclusions, regardless of the article remaining published.  It is penalizing the author for writing on certain topics by removing the income potential. 
       That's essentially the same thing as an employer docking your pay if he hears you swearing at work.  It's censorship.

       replyreport
       1. 85

          Marisa Wrightposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          MsLizzy, surely an employer would be perfectly entitled to dock your pay if you were swearing in a client's presence, if that client was sensitive to such things. HubPages is in a similar situation.  It's denying ads because if it allows them, it risks offending one of its main clients - Adsense.   Losing Adsense would likely result in HubPages closing down.
          
          I refer you to Wizzley's experience earlier this year, when they lost Adsense for several weeks due to one member posting a "prohibited" image.   If they had not been able to get their account reinstated, it would've been the end of the site, to everyone's cost.

          replyreport
11. 91

    LongTimeMotherposted 10 years ago

    I'm happy to follow HPs rules when writing on HP. If I want to play their game, I accept I have to follow their rules.
    
    When I play soccer, I'm not allowed to touch the ball with my hands. If I want to do that, I play basketball. If I play cricket, I have to use a cricket bat not a baseball bat.
    
    There's lots of different ways and places to play the writing game. We all have the choice whether or not we want to be on HP's playing field.

    replyreport
    1. 85

       Marisa Wrightposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Good analogy

       replyreport
    2. 60

       Traci Ruffnerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       I do agree, though I can still feel the rules are too strict and confining. 

       replyreport
       1. 91

          LongTimeMotherposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          Sure. I get that.

          replyreport
    3. 70

       PicturePerfectPetposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       That really was an excellent analogy! Freedom of speech is a constitutional right in that our country says our government cannot hinder our speech and opinions. It does not mean that non-governmental agencies, companies, groups, organizations, websites, businesses, and individuals cannot dictate what type of material or verbiage can be used with respect to their rules and regulations. We don't have to like their rules and guidelines, that's okay. But they can dictate what they do and do not allow on their site, in their business, etc. We don't have to kowtow to that, no one is being forced to publish on this site. But if we want to use their site, then we do have to kowtow to their rules. Freedom of speech does not apply here.
       But really, LongTimeMother said it best, using the best analogy.

       replyreport
12. 85

    DzyMsLizzyposted 10 years ago

    Ok, I get it.  I know the rules.  I understand the rules. I follow the rules.  I write here and I follow the rules. 
    
    I don't need a lesson on the rules.  Everyone is missing my point, and giving me grief over my post, and not understanding that it was simply a generalized RANT about the entire PRINCIPLE of censorship of any kind.  Period.
    
    It's not only here, but also in broadcast media, where we must put up with such nonsense as bleeped out words, when everyone on the planet knows perfectly well what was said and can fill in the blank.  Or blacked-out "body parts," because heaven forbid anyone should see what they can see anyway by looking in a mirror!  This country simply needs to GROW UP and stop with the living in a bubble, and as I put it before, "juvenile tittering" about what surrounds us daily.
    
    In other words, I'm trying to open people's eyes to the fact that it goes on, everywhere, and hoping to get some grassroots action going in the form of formal protest to lawmakers, etc. to END censorship, instead of just rolling over, playing dead, and saying, "Oh, well, it is what it is."  Rules and laws can be changed, but not if everyone remains silent and complacent.
    
    **end rant**
    
    I'm done.  I shall not even re-visit this thread.

    replyreport
    1. 72

       relacheposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Grassroots groups who are actually making progress in these areas are organized and use a lot of educational techniques versus your chosen method of textually screaming louder and louder until you get miffed that no one understands because you are just ranting.  You might want to join your energy and enthusiasm up with the Electronic Frontier Foundation or contribute to anti-TPP legislation if you are so motivated.

       replyreport
    2. 85

       Marisa Wrightposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       MsLizzy, many of your respondents probably agree with you - but since that's not the topic of the thread, people are responding in that context.  If you'd posted this rant in its own thread, I'm sure you would get completely different replies.

       replyreport
    3. 91

       LongTimeMotherposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Just in case you do revisit this thread, DzyMsLizzy, I was responding to the OP when referring to the rules.
       
       As far as censorship on mainstream media goes, you should come visit Australia. Lots of unbleeped swear words and body parts on full display on our tv after 'kids time' ends. You'd love watching SBS.

       replyreport
       1. 84

          psycheskinnerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          I get to 'censor' what people do in my living room, or my bar or pub, or my online website or forum.  Hubpages gets to do the same, much to our mutual financial benefit.  My only complaint is that they cannot seem to distinguish between explicit content and sexual health or orientation content that is really not explicit at all.

          replyreport