I’m rated WHAT??!?

Some people were annoyed that I included a link yesterday that led to a silly story that used strippers as an example of good marketing, that also included a photo of a woman in lingerie. It was very mild stuff, and I’m not going to apologize for that; the worst thing at the link was the sexism, and I will say that I do not endorse that at all. Sometimes I will talk about sex here, and although I’m not going to start sprinkling the articles with coarse and exploitive porn, I’m also not going to be shy about the frank talk.

Then Cocktail Party Physics had to ruin my self-image as an unabashed libertine by mentioning this site that you can run your blog through and get a rating. I’m afraid Pharyngula is …

What's My Blog Rated? From Mingle2 - Online Dating

Mingle2Online Dating

I feel so Disneyesque now.


  1. Bob O'H says

    OK, so you’ve now got a licence to corrupt the youth, then. Is there a problem with that? Aside from the garish technicolour you’ll have to use, naturally.

    [turns down brightness on monitor]


  2. George says

    You don’t even have to be especially naughty to get an R rating — just mention the word “gay” a few times and that should do the trick.

    I’m sure you’ve got some fascinating articles on homosexuality in cephalopods, right?

  3. talapus says

    My blog got a G rating too, though the tool did complain that I had three references to “dick” (Cheney).

  4. says

    Mine got PG-13 because I said “drugs” (entry noting that history is influenced by the Spanish needing a new opium supplier after F&I kicked out the Moors, and thus bought into Columbus’ hair-brained idea that you could sail to the far east before you died (he was extremely wrong)), and dead a few times.

    I think you can up your rating if you just title one post, dead dead dick drugs drugs sex drugs dead… Then you’d be all racy and hip.

  5. says

    More tentacle porn! More tentacle porn!

    Mine, unsurprisingly, got an NC-17. But what did surprise me was that the words “gay” and “death” contributed to the rating. WTF? Would an HIV/AIDS information site get an NC-17 rating as well?

  6. says

    I also got an NC-17 rating. Is there worse than that? Have I underachieved? It noted use of the word ‘suicide’ but failed to bother itself about the fact that I called Paris Hilton a talentless whore (maybe it figures that word is perfectly legitimate in that context).

    Also, a few stray uses of the word c*nt seemed to go unremarked upon. Ah well, we all have our priorities.

    In more shameful news, I scored less than 100% on their 8th grade science test. Sorry PZ, I feel I’ve let you down.

  7. Anton Mates says

    However, when you put in PZ’s Obscene Cusswords post, you get an R rating. So their search technique must just not probe very deeply.

    Let’s say probe again, see if that helps.

  8. says

    Woo hoo. Duae Quartunciae also tips out Pharyngula, with an NC-17! But I did notice one fascinating thing! My rating was achieved on this basis.
    * sex (22x)
    * rape (5x)
    * dead (3x)
    * dangerous (2x)
    * missionary (1x)

    Most of this relates to a story about Genarlow Wilson, a young man with an unjust sentence for consensual teenage sex. But the last one, “missionary”, was actually talking about Ken Ham. I can see that being a problem.

    And I managed to achieve this even without taking account of the picture of a young women in her underwear bouncing on The Wedge!

  9. says

    I got an R with 4x death, 3x danger/dangerous, 2x suicide, and 1 dick. All the death and suicide was in my Salman Rushdie post and comments; the danger was in my Hamiliton, Hume, and Twain quotes about government and science; and the dick? Philip K.

    This tool is ridiculous.

  10. Tatarize says

    >>Would an HIV/AIDS information site get an NC-17 rating as well?

    Abby of ERV

    … Rates to R.

    Eh. Might be too scientific.

  11. astromcnaught says

    Certain online journals occasionally annotate their articles with NSFW (Not Suitable For Work). This is a good idea as one does not want the wrath of over-sensitive thought police descending upon ones PC at work. Certainly, having pictures of scantily clad young ladies stuck up on the wall is NSFW and it may well be the case that blog articles containing such will be viewed in the same way.

    I think scantily clad young cephalopods are OK tho…

  12. Stephen says

    Some people were annoyed that I included a link yesterday that led to a silly story that used strippers as an example of good marketing, that also included a photo of a woman in lingerie.

    “Not safe for work”? One of my clients has paintings on the wall that are more revealing than that. And said client is a bank. (Yes, I am in Europe.)

  13. says

    I got an “R” rating, based almost entirely on my most recent posting about a “zombie mouse” corpse that was being animated by a pair of sexton beetles (there were pictures of the beetles, but not of the mouse). They must not probe down beyond one or two entries, there was no mention of the “stink bug sex” entry, which is the third most recent one.

  14. says

    Yes, “gay” does the trick. My blog got an R rating. It was probably my latest post, titled Today’s lesson on rough gay sex that tipped the balance (even it really turned out to be just a snarky comment on anatomical ignorance). Not even a mention of a tentacle.


  15. Carlie says

    That’s weird – I checked you out there a few days ago and you came out PG. Must just be based on the posts that are viewable on the main page. Put another one about birth control or circumcision out there, along with reposts of the evolution of the penis and vagina, and you’ll be NC-17 before you know it!

  16. Reginald Selkirk says

    Obviously you need to let some uncensored profanity flow here to establish your ‘free speech’ cred and up your rating into the adult category.. So: [CENSORED] [CENSORED] [CENSORED] mother!

  17. says

    I got PG and the only comment it had was: Pain (1x)

    I don’t recall writing anything about pain. shrug.

    I would rate my blog PG, based on MPAA ratings for other reasons, however.

  18. says

    I got a PG rating for one use of the word “zombie.”

    The internets are very unfair to our undead friends.

  19. Mike says

    I’m sure PZ can get himself an R if he posts pictures of himself posing in the lingerie that young lady was wearing.

  20. NonyNony says

    Right now you’re listed as a PG rating, based on the words “porn” and “dangerous”. I’m not sure what to make of that.

    One of my favorite comic-book blogs was rated “R”, BTW, apparently for the gratuitious use of the word “zombies”. So if you add some more front-page posts about dangerous zombie squid porn, you’ll get your rating up.

  21. says

    Mine’s rated “R”!
    * gay (9x)
    * sex (5x)
    * penis (4x)
    * pissed (2x)
    * dick (1x)

    I’ve been discussing circumcision and sexual orientation.

  22. says

    HA! I got5 a NC-17 with no problem at all. Something about being a bi-sexual trans-woman just brings that out. That or the blog rating works on the same lame criteria as the movie ratings.

  23. Brendan says

    You do realize what this means, don’t you? With this rating, you will never be rid of your soft-spoken professor image. Ever.

  24. says

    I got an “R” rating.

    This rating was determined based on the presence of the following words:

    * hell (3x)
    * abortion (2x)
    * whore (1x)

    I think the single use of “whore” was a reference to Michael Behe.

  25. Dawn O'Day says

    I’m late to the party but count me as another loyal reader who found the stripper link moronic and offensive. A rare lapse, PZ, but the kind of lapse that makes some readers feel unwelcome…

  26. says

    Hey, PZ, that’s G for “gastropod”. ;)

    I’m not surprised that I was rated NC-17, because after all I am a sex blogger. I did take issue with the words selected out-of-context. If those ratings were for real, they’d harm bloggers who write about sexuality and even women’s issues. I was cited for the words “rape” and “sex”, amongst others.

  27. Triphesas says

    On a whim I put this post into that site. Of course, it ended up with an NC-17 rating, what with everyone talking about what got them their high ratings. :P

  28. says

    It’s not the sex. I edited my blog to get rid of the Dicks (for a brief moment he was Philip K Duck), and the refs to abortion in my Paul Hill Days post, and I still came up NC-17 based on death, danger, pain, hurt, suicide, etc.

    Which is nice, really. I’m glad to see someone thinks kids should be kept further away from death, suicide, pain, and shooting

  29. says

    I wouldn’t feel too good about that “G” rating. I got a PG-13, and mine’s just a small family affair where I talk about boring stuff like books I’ve read and movies I’ve seen. Here’s what the rating was based on:

    * death (5x)
    * murder (4x)
    * suicide (1x)

  30. Frumious B says

    the worst thing at the link was the sexism

    Could it be that’s what annoyed people?

  31. says

    I got an R rating for using the words sex and rape. I was shocked. My blog is relatively tame — as my nickname implies, it’s all about the books I read. But a few weeks ago, I wound up reading a whole bunch of books about sex between teenagers and adults: Lolita, Salem Falls and Notes on a Scandal. I also recently read a book about a woman who’d been raped in high school, so I guess that’s what did it.

    I heard this story on Craigslist: the director of the movie Constantine was angry to receive an R rating, when they’d carefully edited for PG-13 to hit their target market. He asked for an explanation, and was told it had to do with all the demons and monsters. He asked why the LOTR trilogy didn’t get an R rating, as those films are riddled with similar creatures. The ratings board’s response was that the LOTR creatures were make-believe.

  32. says

    Dr. PZ got a G? Holy crap! You have some work to do, young man. You can’t be all evilutionist and stuff with a G!

    I was bummed because I got an R. Then I had a few rants and now I feel much better at NC-17.

    I plugged in Dr. BadAstronomy, just for fun, and he didn’t even have one “bad word” on his whole front page. I’m thinking this is the basis of the next PZ/Phil Plait war.

    Dr. Tara got a G, too, but she said “ass” once. (heh heh. she said ass.)


  33. ken slamin says

    Funny, my low-brow liberal rant blog is rated far more acceptable than my innocent little gardening blog, because the latter contained the words ‘kill’, ‘sex’ and ‘death’ too many times.

  34. JJR says

    Disappointed you didn’t at least rate a PG-13, but if the analysis would’ve included the comments section with your admirers and detractors together, you’d surely make that NC-17 or XXX.

    But as to the blog itself, no, come to think of it, rationality and the wonders of science should be “open to all audiences”, regardless of age.

    Pharyngula = rated G. As in G-string ;-0

  35. says

    I got a NC-17 at Liberal Values.

    The primary problem was all those references to DICK Cheney. There were also five references to ABORTION, three to HURT, two to SEX (as in referring to somebody’s sex in a post) and one to shoot (quoting someone else saying “Some of you will shoot me for this…”)

    Once Dick Cheney is out of the White House, and abortion rights are not under attack.

  36. Nomen Nescio says

    I got a NC-17 with no problem at all. Something about being a bi-sexual trans-woman just brings that out. That or the blog rating works on the same lame criteria as the movie ratings.

    you’re either repeating yourself, or you need to go see This Film Not Yet Rated. was a good thing i never much respected hollywood, for i certainly couldn’t after seeing that one.

  37. says

    One thing of which you can be relatively certain: if you aren’t being banned for something, then you aren’t saying much worth listening to.

    PZ: the blog is genuinely superb, but until it’s filthy enough to enrage the ‘family’ groups, you clearly aren’t being quite rude enough. Go on, give it your best shot! Cuss for America! You have a whole nation’s offensiveness on your shoulders!

  38. Phoenician in a time of Romans says

    It noted use of the word ‘suicide’ but failed to bother itself about the fact that I called Paris Hilton a talentless whore (maybe it figures that word is perfectly legitimate in that context).

    Oh, that’s too harsh. I’m sure she’d be talented in that profession if she ever turned her focus to it.

  39. Stegve says

    You may have a “G” rating, but you are still blocked by Kmart. The Kmart store near me has a free internet cafe, where I was hanging out while my wife was shopping, and when I tried to visit Pharyngula the site was blocked. So was Dispatches From the Culture Wars, for that matter.

  40. says

    Yes, probably an HIV/AIDS site would be rated, especially if it mentioned safe or unsafe sex, drugs, death rates… And so, probably, would a breast cancer site be. I’ve heard of that.

  41. says

    I got a “PG” rating based on the words “ass” and “limbs” in these contexts:

    “He does not have a hypothesis. He has a Wild-assed Guess.”
    “But, in the case of morphogenesis, we already know that limbs do not form by pinching off from a torus – they bud from the embryonic body. We also know quite a lot about how hox genes help to guide formation of limbs by providing chemical gradients that informs cells of where they are in the body.”

    Racy stuff.

    Oddly enough, the rating mechanism ignored “The dog sired puppies on a single-nosed bitch.”