<DIV>I would agree here, and the publishers of "Signs of Sexual Behavior" put out by Rochester Institute of Technology agree. It is sometimes very difficult to get sexually related signs, particularly dealing with "private" human functions, though interestingly enough, the very fact is well known that, at least in the U.S., the Deaf are much less "squeamish" about being blunt about sexual behavior and body parts than the hearing "Victorian era" society . <BR><BR><B><I>"James Shepard-Kegl, Esq." <kegl@MAINE.RR.COM></I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Sexual signs are a vital part of language and apply to human activity. For<BR>example, imagine translating an AIDS awareness manual into a sign language<BR>without using appropriate signs. Profanity arguably has no redeeming social<BR>virtue, but signs relating to human sexuality are generally worth knowing<BR>and certainly belong in any respectable dictionary.<BR><BR>-- James Shepard-Kegl<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>on 10/18/04 5:27 PM, Valerie Sutton at sutton@signwriting.org wrote:<BR><BR>> SignWriting List<BR>> October 18, 2004<BR>> <BR>> Sandy Fleming wrote:<BR>>> I'm sure there are plenty of nice signs we could still keep on entering<BR>>> meanwhile if Stephen doesn't have time to do this at the moment! :)<BR>> <BR>> Ha! Yes. You are right. I do not want to ask Stephen to program any<BR>> kind of voting system. It doesn't seem friendly, a!
nd it
becomes hard to<BR>> manage...In fact, I vote against a voting system! smile...<BR>> <BR>> And ratings for dictionary entries gets confusing, because the kids<BR>> find a way to look anyway - ha!<BR>> <BR>> So no extra programming is needed, when it comes to Editor's Guidelines.<BR>> <BR>> I think it is best that in time, the Editors of one country talk<BR>> privately to decide on guidelines for deleting signs and renaming signs<BR>> within their own language...<BR>> <BR>> Meanwhile, everyone is welcome to add signs...<BR>> <BR>> For me, regarding the ASL online dictionary, I would suggest that we<BR>> avoid sexual signs and swear-words...<BR>> <BR>> Does anyone agree with me? There are at least 50,000 signs you can<BR>> still enter, that are not in those categories!<BR>> <BR>> Val ;-)<BR>> <BR>> <BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>