10

The current FAQ includes the line:

Please respect that in the Jewish tradition certain questions, especially certain questions relating to sexuality, are discussed only in private. Such questions will be closed or deleted at the discretion of the moderators or community. (Source)

There currently isn't a great way for the community to exercise that discretion. Should we have a fourth off-topic close reason with that option? If so what should its text be?

||||||
  • We actually have four custom reasons (the Purim Torah one is seasonal). Will we be allowed a fifth? – Monica Cellio Nov 13 '17 at 23:11
  • @MonicaCellio We actually currently have 10 reasons. Only 3 are currently active. The PTIJ reason is reactivated and deactivated for about an hour every year. During that hour we could deactivate this one (or really any of them) to maintain the limit of four if necessary. But I don't see why that should matter much; it's just an hour. (Similarly we have a riddle close reason which isn't usually active, but can be briefly when needed.) – Double AA Nov 13 '17 at 23:13
  • I think there's a limit on how many can be active at a time (three by default; we got a fourth). But deactivating this one for a few hours each year would work; good idea. – Monica Cellio Nov 13 '17 at 23:14
9

This has now been implemented: 12/6/17


Yes, we should. Without a designated close reason users don't know how to express their opinion on the matter in an effective way. The text I propose is:

In the Jewish tradition certain questions, especially certain questions relating to sexuality, are discussed only in private. Such questions will be closed or deleted at the discretion of the community. See the FAQ.

||||||
  • Copy-pasted from DoubleAA's answer with a boldfacing tweak. – msh210 Nov 14 '17 at 5:48
  • 2
    I agree with this answer. But in addition there have been posts where the wording is immodest but where the subject in a modest wording might still be appropriate eg see the original text here. A close reason for immodest wording might help when I am too lazy to edit the post. – Avrohom Yitzchok Nov 18 '17 at 21:51
  • 1
    @AvrohomYitzchok That aspect might be included in the "discretion" part. – Double AA Nov 18 '17 at 23:26
6

Yes, we should. Without a designated close reason users don't know how to express their opinion on the matter in an effective way. The text I propose is:

In the Jewish tradition certain questions, especially certain questions relating to sexuality, are discussed only in private. Such questions will be closed or deleted at the discretion of the community. See the FAQ.

||||||
-1

You might have to define "sexuality" on some level. I've seen some questions on this site about how a man should hold his penis when urinating. I may be a bit uncomfortable with that question, but, as it was a halachic question, it seems absolutely valid to me, while some other readers may see this a "sexuality" by the mere fact that something regarding a sexual organ was mentioned.

OTOH, we have people who have asked or might ask about performance problems, E.D., etc. Here, too, I think we already handle this b/c many of these questions require asking advice from a marriage counselor, therapist, etc. But, seriously, if a person asked, like:

"I can't perform and my wife says I have to take some med. Is there a halachic problem with taking E.D. drugs?"

Would this be a sexuality question?

||||||
  • 1
    Are you saying you don't think we should have this close reason option or that you disagree with the modesty policy entirely? The policy is currently site policy whether or not there is an accessable close reason. This post is just about if there should be a close option to help enforce it. For discussion about the policy itself, see judaism.meta.stackexchange.com/q/123/759 – Double AA Nov 17 '17 at 18:53

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .