Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Phoenix New Times Under Fire for Kiddie Pics
Contrary to
the normal dynamic of alternative weeklies antagonizing cops, the
Phoenix New Times is defending its decision—in the face of
another police investigation—to run nude pictures of
staff photographer Betsy Schneider's kids:
The Phoenix Police Department is looking into whether it should open a criminal child pornography investigation into photographs shot by a Tempe artist and published last week by a Valley newspaper.
Experts in the department's sex crimes unit have asked for the opinions of city, county and state prosecutors on whether artist Betsy Schneider or the Phoenix New Times newspaper violated any laws by showing artistic, nude photographs of Schneider's children in print and online, Phoenix police spokesman Sgt. Andy Hill said Monday.
The photographs accompanied a story written by New Times editor Amy Silverman about how Schneider's work pushes the envelope of cultural acceptance.
The artist's work includes numerous photographs of Schneider's children in various states of dress. In some, the children are wearing no clothes at all....
Barnett Lotstein, a spokesman for the Maricopa County Attorney's Office, acknowledged that the office has been contacted by Phoenix police and is looking at the issue closely.
"It concerned me," Lotstein said. "It concerned people in this office that maybe there was some exploitation of children going on."...
Lotstein, who called the photographs published last week "very disturbing," emphasized that there was no investigation on his office's end.
However, Lotstein added, "There's not a blank slate on free speech."
Overkill? Unquestionably. Broadening the definition of child pornography to include artistic nude photographs of one's children is itself an act of perversion. The PPD is wasting its own resources as well as the wellspring of public outrage—both of which serve a purpose in cases of genuine child pornography—in its quest to bully an artist, who is also a parent, into compartmentalizing her two identities for the sake of propriety. (Not to mention that Schneider's photography is hardly cause for worry—unless of course, you find contortionists distasteful.)
A successful case against the Phoenix New Times, or Schneider, would likely resonate with alternative weeklies everywhere, as no publication pushes the obscenity envelope quite like my favorite hometown, sex-worker-accomodatin' rag, the Orlando Weekly. If the New Times has anything going for it (besides, you know, the First Amendment, artistic integrity, and clear evidence that Phoenix cops are out for revenge) it's that the paper knows its way through the Arizona court system. My guess/hope is that the investigation will end with no more than a staunch finger wag.
Radley Balko blogged about the ongoing battle between the forces of light (Phoenix New Times) and darkness (Sheriff Joe Arpaio) here.
|8.20.08 @ 11:30AM|#
Is taking a picture of your ten year old running naked on a
beach any worse than letting your ten year old wear shorts that
have "juicy" written across the ass?
I am at work so I can't see the pictures. The girl in the picture
doens't look very happy to be there. I am not sure about this to be
honest. One thing I am sure about is that this society has some
really screwed up views about kids and sex.
Michael Jackson|8.20.08 @ 11:30AM|#
How can I get back issues of the Phoenix New
Times?
That, and some lotion.
Elemenope|8.20.08 @ 11:36AM|#
I'm kinda with John on this one.
On the one hand, nudity is a really silly line to draw given what
parents are socially expected to let their kids wear (prostitot
gear, etc.).
On the other hand, consent is a touchy thing with young minors.
Attempting to carve out an artistic exception is akin to Potter
Stewarting an area of the law already rife with subjective
judgement calls.
|8.20.08 @ 11:38AM|#
She shouldn't be prosecuted for sure.
That said, I find it disgusting. I didn't see the pictures and I'm
sure there is nothing even slightly sexual about them, but that's
not the whole point. Those kids are going to remember the time
their mother asked them to strip naked to be photographed. They are
old enough to learn from that, while not old enough to understand
the distinction between tasteful art and nudity for the sake of
nudity. She's fucking up her kids and that's the disgusting
part.
|8.20.08 @ 11:39AM|#
The "pornography" question aside, where does Mama Schneider get
off (NPI) releasing those prints to public eyes without her kids'
consent? Are people going to try to make the case that children
that young are capapble o such informed consent? I'm pretty damned
sure that if my parentals had tried to enter naked picture of
infant-me in a "cutest baby picture" contest I would have forbidden
it on the grounds that it would have embarrassed me to death.
After the Schnedierkins reach the age of majority, will they be
able to sue Mom for malpractice in parrenting?
Kevin
|8.20.08 @ 11:39AM|#
The girl in the picture doens't look very happy to be
there
John, you should have seen my face when I had to go clothes
shopping with my mom. It was a hell of lot more "unhappy" than that
picture.
This woman is clearly not "abusing" her children in any meaningful
sense of the word. The cops are just trying to fuck her.
|8.20.08 @ 11:43AM|#
The minute adults get "weird" about child nudity, child nudity
gets weird.
Kids could care less. My mother has stacks of photos of me running
around as a bare-ass baby, and she tears up when she looks at
them.
I love America, but seriously, this country is descending into
self-parody. There is going to come a point where foreigners will
just burst out laughing at us (except that this is no laughing
matter).
Child "porn" raids. Drug raids. Drinking age at 21. Light bulb and
bottled water bans.
This is driving me crazy.
|8.20.08 @ 11:45AM|#
If I found out that my mother had taken a bunch of nude pictures of me when I was 10 and 11 and those pictures are now on the internet where any number of gay pedophiles were jerking off to them, I am not sure I would be happy about that. Can you really consent to such a thing at that age? Once the pictures are there, they are out there forever. Is there really much artistic value to be gained from the pictures? I don't think this woman is a criminal, but I think she is pretty stupid and careless about her kids.
|8.20.08 @ 11:46AM|#
Tim, these aren't pictures of them playing and running around
naked. They were clearly set up shots. Maybe I am being weird
because it's naked kids. But that girl looks to be about ten and
mom asked her to strip naked and pose for some photographs. Ten
year olds don't run around bare- ass.
for the record, I still don't think this merits any
prosecution.
|8.20.08 @ 11:47AM|#
I have always derived great amusement from the fact that
"alternative" papers derive much of the funding for their
sanctimonious, crypto-socialist twaddle from ads for "personal
escort services".
"Arousing" is not a word I would use to describe the photos, but
I'm suppose somebody out there will look at those pictures and
become aroused, just as some people become aroused by scenes of
wartime death and mayhem. If one of those somebodies tries to
contact Ms Schneider or her children, she has my permission to
shoot his balls off.
|8.20.08 @ 11:49AM|#
There is a point at which you become self aware and don't want to be naked in front of strangers. That point is probably somewhere after entering school. Clearly these kids have hit that point. This is different than taking naked pictures babies who are clueless.
LarryA|8.20.08 @ 11:51AM|#
Those kids are going to remember the time their mother asked
them to strip naked to be photographed. They are old enough to
learn from that, while not old enough to understand the distinction
between tasteful art and nudity for the sake of nudity.
The kids are old enough to know the difference between this and
"Don't tell anyone what we're doing." Art appreciation can come
later.
She's fucking up her kids and that's the disgusting
part.
The "everybody has to be covered up all the time" folks are much
worse.
Well, up to the point when the kids grow up, and Mom shows these
cute baby pics to their prospective spouse. That's
abuse.
|8.20.08 @ 11:52AM|#
ps-
This comes nowhere near the revolting creepiness of Jon-Benet
Ramsey's (and the rest of the victims of the child
beauty porno pageant) exploitation.
Junter Klops|8.20.08 @ 11:53AM|#
Start this nonsense about consent. Kids don't get to decide their fate. It's true. I was forced to go church when I was a kid, even though I hated it. If it's legal to force kids to go to church against their will, then it can only fairly be legal for parents to take nude pictures of their children. Embarrassment about nudity is just a cultural artifact, and having everyone see you naked doesn't physically hurt, even if your way ugly. So enforcing a no nudity without consent law while not enforcing a no eating vegetables without consent law is just forcing your cultural norms on everyone. I mean, do you think some kids raised in a nudist camp are going to care if their photos leak out?
|8.20.08 @ 11:55AM|#
"Well, up to the point when the kids grow up, and Mom shows
these cute baby pics to their prospective spouse. That's
abuse."
But they are not "baby pictures". These kids, or at least the one
in the picture, are older. Maybe it is the way that they camera
caught her, but that girl looks miserable and I find it hard to
beleive she really consented to this or thought it was a good idea.
Instead of "cover up all the time", how about people just leave
their kids alone and not talk them into doing soft core porn for
"artistic" purposes. It is not like the kid doesn't have the rest
of her life to run around naked if she should chose to do so.
Abdul|8.20.08 @ 11:55AM|#
Check out the slideshow linked to in the post. There's a shot of a british tabloid that puts a side-by-side comparison of an actual child porn shot and one of the art shots by Schneider. Seeing it changed my mind about what's going on. Schneider has, at the very least, made a poor judgment call.
Elemenope|8.20.08 @ 11:56AM|#
Junter --
If it's legal to force kids to go to church against their will,
then it can only fairly be legal for parents to take nude pictures
of their children.
Doesn't follow at all, unless children are *merely* chattel, which
they are not.
Personally I don't think this case crosses the line until they were
publicly publishing photos of the kid without the kid's consent.
But it can easily go bad before that.
And, neither these kids nor their parents live in a nudist colony,
so there goes that argument.
bubba|8.20.08 @ 11:58AM|#
The pics seem more creepy than porn. But this one made an
interesting point.
http://media.phoenixnewtimes.com/2437994.47.jpg
ktc2|8.20.08 @ 11:59AM|#
I'd have to agree forced religioius indoctrination has a lot
more long term hamful effects than being photographed nude in a
non-sexual context.
Nudity is a "big deal" because we make it one. Kids don't
automatically at a certain age develope body shame. It's TAUGHT to
them.
These photos (the ones in question) remind me some of the photos
from that Australian exhibit. Clearly not sexual in nature.
|8.20.08 @ 11:59AM|#
I haven't seen the pictures, and I don't want to, even if they
are art.
I have some pictures of my daughter when she was 2 or 3ish. But I
would never consider taking pictures of her for the purpose of
showing them off as art or for any other reason.
I am with John on the point that I find it disturbing seeing the
prepubescent girls with shorts that say Juicy, Hottie, etc., on the
ass.
There outta be a law..... just kidding.... but I wish parents would
not sexualize their children at such an early age.
|8.20.08 @ 12:07PM|#
I don't give a rat's ass how many peds are jerking off to my
childhood photos. There must be tens of thousands of them. I'm sure
more than a few feature me in the buff. Most of them are stuffed
somewhere in my mother's closet I'm sure, but not all. I was a male
model and featured in the 1967 Montgomery Ward Christmas
Wishbook.
You know what childhood experience traumatized me? Being woken up
and dragged off to church every Sunday. Every time I think of all
the hours wasted that could have been spent sleeping or
masturbating, it still pisses me off.
|8.20.08 @ 12:08PM|#
Child porn is rightly illegal because it depicts an illegal
activity - child molestation.
Nudity is not illegal.
The prurience of viewer is irrelevant - someone should tell the
fundie-nuts who want that illegal.
Nigel Watt|8.20.08 @ 12:10PM|#
shrike, what if watching COPS gets me off?
(Stealing this argument from Doug Stanhope.)
|8.20.08 @ 12:16PM|#
"I am with John on the point that I find it disturbing seeing
the prepubescent girls with shorts that say Juicy, Hottie, etc., on
the ass."
Agreed.
Tym|8.20.08 @ 12:21PM|#
Are they coming to get my Houses of the Holy album
next?
Yes, and the Blind Faith album too.
shrike|8.20.08 @ 12:22PM|#
shrike, what if watching COPS gets me off?
Go for it. I like Stanhope but this point lost me. I think we are
agreeing.
I question why the POSSESSION of child porn is illegal, but since -
if it went entirely away I would be very happy it doesn't matter to
me at all. But the PRODUCTION of it should be a high felony with
penalties in accordance.
btw - Warren, good shit. You remind me of one of my heroes -
Mencken. He is why I am a humanist - but NOT a humanitarian.
|8.20.08 @ 12:27PM|#
"I am with John on the point that I find it disturbing seeing
the prepubescent girls with shorts that say Juicy, Hottie, etc., on
the ass."
And holy crap - has anyone walked by a Abercrombie and Fitch kids
store recently? Who wants to look at a half-naked 14 year old boy
while taking their younger children clothes shopping?
I share the sentiment that I have no interest in seeing the linked
pictures, and that there are a lot of horrible things that you can
do to screw up you children psychologically, but that does not mean
that the pictures in question should be considered pornography.
|8.20.08 @ 12:36PM|#
In the order that I despise our "institutions" based on the lies
and propaganda they feed us 24/7 -
Church 100%
Military 98%
Government 90%
Corporations 75%
In a Social Contract, some of the latter three is necessary. (This
is in the spirit of Mencken)....
This topic and all of the Saddleback/Warren crap Obama and McCain
had to wade through makes one despair for our lost Jeffersonian
Republic.
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|8.20.08 @ 12:38PM|#
Some typical gasbag said:
That said, I find it disgusting. I didn't see the
pictures
Yeah, I mean why look before opening your fucking mouth, you
jackass? You are right -- your uninformed opinion is worth writing,
even before you know what the fuck you're talking about.
miche|8.20.08 @ 12:51PM|#
I looked at the pictures and saw nothing pornographic about them. But hey, on my night table I've got a picture of Little Bit at 10 months old sitting, training panties around ankles, on a potty.
|8.20.08 @ 1:09PM|#
heck out the slideshow linked to in the post. There's a shot
of a british tabloid that puts a side-by-side comparison of an
actual child porn shot and one of the art shots by Schneider.
Seeing it changed my mind about what's going on.
That's not a "child porn shot", that's (allegedly) a photo on a
child porn website. Doesn't it seem likely that a child porn
website would contain at least a few photos of naked kids that
would not be considered lewd in a non-CHILDPORNWEBSITE context? I
bet they would even resort to pictures of clothed kids if they had
enough trouble finding racier stuff. Would that then be child
porn?
|8.20.08 @ 1:09PM|#
"But hey, on my night table I've got a picture of Little Bit at
10 months old sitting, training panties around ankles, on a
potty."
That is just bad taste.
|8.20.08 @ 1:15PM|#
Are they coming to get my Houses of the Holy album
next?
They wouldn't be able to release that album with that cover now.
Wal-mart wouldn't carry it.
Les|8.20.08 @ 1:18PM|#
There's a shot of a british tabloid that puts a side-by-side
comparison of an actual child porn shot and one of the art shots by
Schneider.
The "child porn" picture was, if anything, more innocent, less
crafted and posed than Schneider's picture. So what can you
do?
There are lots of pictures of half-clothed kids on child-porn
sites, pictures of kids in bathing suits, in the bathtub, etc. Any
one of those pictures could have been put next to a common picture
of a kid in a bathing suit or in the tub. It's a shock technique
designed to get you be disgusted by a picture of a naked kid
because, somewhere, a pervert could be jacking off to it. And you
can be sure that a pervert or two jacked off to that copy of The
Sun.
Perverts have been jacking off to pictures of the pre-teen Olsen
twins for over ten years. Again, what can you do?
miche|8.20.08 @ 1:24PM|#
That is just bad taste.
Actually, it's quite cute and it's displayed in a lovely Tiffany
frame. And get this, Little Bit, at 17, isn't the least bit ashamed
of it.
|8.20.08 @ 1:29PM|#
"Actually, it's quite cute and it's displayed in a lovely
Tiffany frame. And get this, Little Bit, at 17, isn't the least bit
ashamed of it."
I am sure your daughter is and was adorable, but I can't imagine
wanting to see her taking a dump.
miche|8.20.08 @ 1:32PM|#
Nobody said she was taking a dump. She was 10 months old and potty training. Jeez. I leave shit pics to New York artists.
Paul|8.20.08 @ 1:38PM|#
I'm totally with this whole overkill concept, but frankly, I'm keeping nude pictures of my kids out of the public-- artistic or no.
|8.20.08 @ 1:50PM|#
The Joke:
A patient is seeing his psychiatrist for the first time and is
undergoing the Rorschach test. After each ink blot the patient
exclaims it is a couple copulating. The psychiatrist stops the test
and excliams, "You appear to have a preoccupation with sex." And
the patient replies, "You're the one showing the dirty
pictures."
Here again, we have people wanting to ban things because other
people might find them sexually arrousing, but the about the only
who seem to find anything sexual about them, are the very people
who want to do the banning. So, who then has the real dirty minds
here?
Abdul|8.20.08 @ 2:16PM|#
There are lots of pictures of half-clothed kids on
child-porn sites, pictures of kids in bathing suits, in the
bathtub, etc.
I'm not sure I want to know how you know this to be a fact.
Abdul|8.20.08 @ 2:17PM|#
Miche,
There's a big difference between 10 month old nudity and 10 year
old nudity--which is why you probably don't have a picture of your
daughter on the toilet at 10 years old.
Les|8.20.08 @ 2:33PM|#
I'm not sure I want to know how you know this to be a
fact.
Don't worry, I don't know it to be a fact. But I think it's fair to
assume based on what most adult porn sites look like and the fact
most pictures of naked kids are not posed and more difficult to
come by than pictures of naked adults. The "child porn" picture in
The Sun is exactly the kind of picture families take of their
children all the time and all over the world.
And since adult porn sites have pictures of half-clothed women and
bathing women, it's fair to assume that child-porn sites have the
same kind of pictures. If non-pedophiles jack off to pictures of
half-clothed women, it's fair to assume that pedophiles jack off to
pictures of half-clothed children.
Elemenope|8.20.08 @ 2:38PM|#
anon: As made famous in What About Bob?
The joke aside, there are real issues of consent and whether kids
can even give it.
|8.20.08 @ 2:39PM|#
I never knew that the covers of Blind Fatih and HOTH were
sexual, but now that the new morality has shown the errors of my
ways I know that child nudity is dirty, dirty, dirty!
I find little girls, and I mean toddlers, wearing two piece swim
suits more disturbing than these photographs. I mean a four y/o
girl in a bikini top? It's almost prostitotish. Because it is
absolutely not needed in the first place. I hope that makes
sense.
I don't like the photos Schneider took, but for other reasons..none
of them prurient.
And that's the word..prurient.
I've come across burka/chador porn pics on the web...there's
nothing that isn't sexual anymore.
|8.20.08 @ 3:02PM|#
Reason should do a piece on the antics of Andrew Thomas the
prosecutor. The man is absolutely loonytunes. He is a far Right
fundamentalist Christian who has been pushing high profile morality
campaigns as part of the re-election campaign. His office just did
a big sweep prostitution bust. He is the prosecutor who tried to
put a teenage boy in prison for life for "child porn" even through
the evidence showed the handful of images were put on the computer
from an outside computer that had taken control of the family
computer through their internet connection. (Forensices showed the
family's computer was actually under the control of others using it
as storage and to send messages.)
Thomas had refused to allow the defense team to inspect the hard
drive and was taken to the Supreme Court twice before he finally
relented in releasing what proved to be exculpatory evidence. Then
when forced to drop the charges he tried to force the boy to
register as a sex offender for life because of his crime of showing
a Playboy to a schoolmate! After the judge overturned that outrage
his assistant (also a fundamentalist) then penned an article for
Fox News smearing the boy as a child pornographer, in spite of them
being unable to secure a conviction because the evidence didn't
hold up.
This is only the beginning of some of his antics to impose biblical
morality on the local residents. He is worthy of a expose.
Finally, one commentator above bitches about "half-naked" photos of
boys at a clothing store. Why do people use emotive, but
meaningless phrases as "half naked". I assume the major issue there
is: Which half? I think I know. Are pictures of boys without shirts
now consider pornographic or offensive. Apparently some Reason site
readers have the mentality of Mr. Thomas. The phrase "half-naked"
migh also mean a photo of someone in a swimming suit. Using it is
almost as dumb, but not quite, as saying "partially naked". Every
person I have seen is partially naked. If not they be dressed like
a Klanner wearing gloves and sunglass over the eye slots. What a
silly term.
T|8.20.08 @ 4:08PM|#
Americans in general are insane about naked bodies. Case in
point: In my wife's mind, Playboy is pornography and
therefore, not something she wants in the house. However, my books
of Eric Kroll's photographs are acceptable. Uh, WTF?
Naked people does not equal porn. It's not a hard concept, but we
as a country can't seem to grasp it.
miche|8.20.08 @ 4:16PM|#
There's a big difference between 10 month old nudity and 10 year old nudity--which is why you probably don't have a picture of your daughter on the toilet at 10 years old.
The photo was mentioned at all when I left the original comment
explaining that I also had no issue with the photos in
question.
Guess one needs to travel around the world a bit to get over
thinking the nude body is a thing to be covered in all situations.
Some of you would positively flip seeing a little 10 year old girl
on a beach in a brazilian bottom and no top.
|8.20.08 @ 4:53PM|#
The "pornography" question aside, where does Mama Schneider get off (NPI) releasing those prints to public eyes without her kids' consent? Are people going to try to make the case that children that young are capapble o such informed consent?
I gotta to agree to some extent. I seen some of the photos, and
they're extremely tame. However, I'm not sure how much genuine
consent these children gave for this. The photos ARE exploitive, in
that they're exploiting society's taboos.
It's one thing to take pictures of your kids running naked at the
beach. It's another to tell you kid "take off your clothes so I can
make a political statement with your naked pictures".
|8.20.08 @ 5:12PM|#
Brandybuck...should we just get it over with and ban ALL photos
of children being published?
Were ANY photos of children done with their consent? Child models,
actors, and poltical props (the proverbial kissed baby)?
Would it be any less poltical if the kids weren't naked but held up
a sign saying vote for________.? Did the child consent then?
If you expect consent from little kids, you have to throw the baby
out with the bathwater..so to speak.
Here's a NZ photography site with great photos (of course New
Zealand is not insane):
http://www.angelascott.co.nz/babies.htm
|8.20.08 @ 5:13PM|#
I forgot to add that many of the photos on that site would probably be considered child pornography in parts of this country.
Paul|8.20.08 @ 6:43PM|#
I'm really not trying to moralize about child porn or anything,
but this isn't the first time this issue has popped up. I believe
there was a nice, young couple who got nailed for flaunting
artistic nude pictures of their kids back in the eighties.
I'm not sure how I can say this without being typcast as something
I'm not here but... what is the fascination with some people
pushing 'artistic' nude pictures of their own kids? I have kids...
well, one kid. I have no desire whatsoever to have nude pictures of
her plastered on our nations newspapers. It doesn't matter how
black and white and artsy they are. If Annie fucking Leibowitz
knocked on my door and said "Hey, I'd like to take some nude
pictures of your kid for Rolling Stone", I'd pass. I just don't
want pervs looking at my 6-year-old and saying "oh, yeah,
baby".
I'm sure this prosecutor is a dickhead in the extreme, and I'm
convinced this woman has a reputation beyond reproach, but why do
people keep doing this, and then acting all surprised when other
people raise an eyebrow? The fact of the matter is, there are pervs
in this world who like to look at half-clothed kids-- even artistic
pictures of half-clothed kids. Why subject your children to that
scrutiny?
Yes, I know your kids bodies are all beautiful in a 'natural'
granola-ey kind of way and you just don't see what the big deal is.
Can we just stop?
|8.20.08 @ 7:41PM|#
Brandybuck...should we just get it over with and ban ALL photos of children being published?
Get real. Children are not able to give fully informed consent, but
neither are they are property we can do with as we wish. We have to
strike a balance, and exploitive nude photos of your kids sounds
like a good candidate to put over on that side of the line.
MJ|8.21.08 @ 7:11AM|#
"Kids don't automatically at a certain age develope body shame.
It's TAUGHT to them."
Kids also don't automatically develop a sense of politeness and
manners. Most things that have to do with functioning in a
civilized society are taught to children. In most social settings,
running around without your clothes on is tasteless. What is your
point?
|8.21.08 @ 9:23AM|#
"Kids don't automatically at a certain age develope body shame.
It's TAUGHT to them."
Not true. We were always casual about nudity at home and we had a
problem keeping clothes on our daughter, especially if there was
water to get in. I'm not sure what age it hit, probably between 10
and 12, when she developed a desire for personal privacy and
preferred us to cover up too. Not to the extent that walking in on
someone changing became a big deal. She started to wear "girl"
swimsuits then too where before trunks were hard to keep on.
|8.21.08 @ 1:26PM|#
Yes, I know your kids bodies are all beautiful in a
'natural' granola-ey kind of way and you just don't see what the
big deal is. Can we just stop?
QFT. There are just some bad parents, I guess. The parents' job is
to protect their children. If you're exposing your children to the
prying eyes of so many perverts in public, I think it's safe to say
you're failing as a parent in some respects. To claim that people
who find photographs like these objectionable are the ones with the
problems is facetious, and moreover it is ignoring the fact that
there are people who really do get off on this type of stuff and
who would do harm or imposition to minors. It's just...weird, for
lack of a better word.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245