It seems nobody has answered your initial question, so I'll give it a try.
First, you have to understand that the main ODP directory is not meant to be child safe, that is you may find links to sites where not everybody agrees that the content is suitable for childs. This may be i.e the case for artistic nude photography, but also for sites that, along with other content, include links to Adult sites. We have a special set of guidelines that help us to determine when a site can be listed in the main directory, and when it should be listed in our 'hidden' Adult branch only. We also have a special directory for Kids and Teens which has its own set of rules and is intended to be child safe.
Having this in mind, let's forget for a moment that the site is not listable for reasons not related to this discussion. At first sight most of the content seems to be related to the category's subject. I can't say whether it adds sufficient unique content or not because I'm not familiar with the other sites listed here. Also, I don't have the impression, without having made an in-depth research, that the
primary purpose of the site is to drive traffic to Adult (porn) sites, at least not as it is now. Considering our Adult guidelines I'd say this site is probably one that could be listed outside the Adult branch despite of the presence of links to Adult sites. This is a call of judgement, other editors may have a different approach. I will not go into the details of our Adult guidelines here, that would go too far.
The site in questions does however seem to have a quality problem because you find links to Adult content at places where you wouldn't expect it (i.e. the link you mentioned, or the 'Menage a trois' link under motoring directories which goes to an under construction Adult site). They also have categories where they list Adult sites, but unlike the other links these categories are easily identifiable by the user.
Now there are two possible concusions to this:
1. The site offers sufficient unique and valuable content of interest for this category (compared to the other sites already listed), and the quality problem is outweighted by that fact. Then the site should probably be listed, and the description could mention the presence of not easily identifiable Adult links. It is possible that at the time when the site was reviewed there were no links to Adult sites.
2. The site doesn't offer enough unique content of interest. Then it shouldn't be listed at all.
Please keep in mind that my remarks are not based on an in-depth review since the site is not listed any more for other reasons. Investigating for a hypothetical conclusion would take too much time, time which can be used to do more productive work. Anyway, thanks for pointing this site out to us.
As far as your application to become an editor is concerned you'd probably better ask in
http://resource-zone.com/forum/index.php?showforum=11
