Sentencing

Glee, The Simpsons, and Virtual Child Porn

|

The Parents Television Council is complaining about a GQ photo spread featuring two actresses from the Fox musical dramedy Glee, Dianna Agron (Quinn) and Lea Michele (Rachel), in provocative poses. Although both actresses are 24, the characters they play are teenagers. As far as PTC President Tim Winter is concerned, that fact makes the GQ photos quasi-felonious:

It is disturbing that GQ, which is explicitly written for adult men, is sexualizing the actresses who play high school-aged characters on "Glee" in this way. It borders on pedophilia. Sadly, this is just the latest example of the overt sexualization of young girls in entertainment.

I suppose that being sexually attracted to 24-year-olds dressed like 17-year-olds "borders on pedophilia" in the same sense that adulthood borders on childhood. But it's absurd to pretend there is something perverse or unusual about such attraction, or that any man who likes to see Dianna Agron jump around in a cheerleader's outfit is just one step away from raping children. Still, that seems to be the assumption underlying bans on child pornography. Such laws do not distinguish between prepubescent kids and sexually mature teenagers, and they can even be used to prosecute high school students for pictures they take of themselves or receive from the teenagers featured in  them.

But to reiterate: Agron and Michele are not actually teenagers; they just play them on TV. In the 2002 case Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, the Supreme Court overturned a ban on "virtual" child pornography, production of which does not involve any real children, as a violation of the First Amendment. Presumably that is why Winter does not argue that GQ actually committed a crime by showing fake high school students in their underwear.

Over at When Falls the Coliseum, Ricky Sprague cites a recent federal pornography case in Idaho, noted here last week by Radley Balko, as evidence that such a charge is conceivable. In that case, Steven Kutzner faces up to 10 years in prison for cartoon images, many featuring characters from The Simpsons, of children engaged in sex acts. But Kutzner was not charged with possessing child pornography; he was charged with possessing "obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children"—meaning the material has to meet the obscenity test that the Supreme Court established in the 1973 case Miller v. California:

1. The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.

2. The work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law.

3. The work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

No jury—not even one consisting entirely of PTC members—would say GQ's relatively tame photo spread qualifies as obscene. Indeed, it would be hard to obtain an obscenity conviction even for hardcore pornography featuring adult actors playing teenagers. Kutzner's cartoons are another matter. Until I searched for images to illustrate this post, I did not realize how much Simpsons porn (definitely NSFW) was available online. Most of it seems to feature adult characters, but according to Kutzner's plea agreement the cartoons on his computer included images of Lisa performing oral sex on Homer, Maggie doing likewise to Bart, Lisa pleasuring a pony, and Maggie mounting a man. It is not hard to imagine a jury deeming these pictures obscene, which helps explain why Kutzner not only pleaded guilty but waived his right to challenge the constitutionality of the possession charge, which was legally vulnerable because the Supreme Court has said bans on mere possession of obscenity violate the First Amendment. (Addendum: By contrast, it has upheld bans on mere possession of child pornography, "a related and overlapping category of proscribable speech" that is not necessarily obscene.) Jim Peters, an assistant U.S. attorney who worked on the case, says Kutzner agreed to the deal to avoid prosecution for receiving the cartoons, which is treated the same as distribution, triggering a five-year mandatory minimum sentence.

Peters adds that Kutzner's computer also contained traces of actual child pornography that Kutzner claimed he downloaded by accident and deleted. Prosecutors decided not to bring charges based on those images because they were downloaded before federal law was changed to make mere viewing of child pornography a crime. Peters says his office's main priority was to keep Kutzner, a former middle school teacher, away from children.

So does this case show that virtual child porn has been criminalized in practice, despite the Supreme Court decision prohibiting explicit bans? Sort of. Technically, such prosecutions hinge on a finding of obscenity (a dubious legal concept in its own right), but the fact that sexual images feature fictional children rather than fictional adults surely would influence a jury's judgment on that score.

Another point illustrated by this case is that the government views possession of child pornography (or, in this case, simulated child pornography) not only as a crime in itself but as an indicator of an individual's criminal propensities. It treats anyone caught with such material, even if he has never committed a predatory crime, as a potential child molester who needs to be deterred, isolated, and incapacitated—an attitude that helps explain why the sky's the limit on punishment for this nonviolent crime. The penalties for possessing child pornography, combined with registration as a sex offender and the restrictions that entails, are viewed as preventive tools. I'm not sure this policy is effective, but I am pretty sure it is unjust, essentially punishing people for crimes they might commit in the future.

Jesse Walker traced "the blurry boundaries of child porn" in the July 2009 issue of Reason. More on treating sexting teenagers as child pornographers here.

NEXT: ObamaCare's Medical Loss Ratios Likely to Result in Consumer Losses

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I’m still woozy from that micropenis pic.

    1. Was it that good?

  2. If only Glee were (much) more GQ and (100%) less…what it is.

    1. Do you (or for that matter, the PTC) watch it? Gratuitous girl on girl make out sessions are pretty GQ.

      1. Can’t do it, man. Can’t stand it. I literally cannot take that show. People breaking out in song makes me want to shoot the screen.

        1. It might be the worst idea that became popular since that idiocy called Twin Peaks was on TV.

          I’m sure that will offend some, but fuck you if it does. That show was fucking horrible.

          1. SHUN THE NONBELIEVER!!! >:0

          2. Shit, the only things I ever watch on TV anymore are Top Gear (BBC America) and uh…. that’s about it. Other than Netflix movies.

            I haven’t watched anything network TV in years. I hardly watch any TV at all. What a fucking wasteland.

            1. ‘Dirty Jobs’ and ‘Mythbusters’. And of course NFL football. All else pretty much sucks anymore.

            2. You must be from a land without cable. TV has actually gotten a lot better in the last 10 years or so. Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Dexter, the Wire, Six Feet Under, etc, etc.

          3. I don’t get the appeal of Desperate Housewives, unless it’s that people are watching it thinking the title is actually Desperate MILFs.

    2. musical dramedy? What THE FUCK is a dramedy? Please don’t tell me it’s some half-assed conjunction of comedy and drama.

  3. I guess I’m a criminal for looking at the cartoons a buddy had, lo those many years ago, of Archie screwing Veronica while Betty gave Reggie a bj.

    1. Uh…, who?

  4. These PTC clowns are probably still hunting through video stores and libraries looking for copies of The Tin Drum.

  5. I’m confused.

    the Supreme Court has said bans on mere possession of obscenity violate the First Amendment.

    However:

    federal law was changed to make mere viewing of child pornography a crime.

    Not to mention:

    The penalties for possessing child pornography, . . .

    1. All child pornography is obscene but not all obscenity is child pornography.

    2. There’s a Supreme Court case that takes child pornography out of being just obscenity and moves it into a class of its own. The distinction is supposed to turn on the necessary criminal exploitation of the child and not on the content itself. Which makes a kind of sense, though the creation or possession of “simulated” child porn cannot then, by definition, have the same legal outcome.

      Fucking sick people out there, whatever the law is.

      1. Thanks, Pro L.

        1. No problem. The leading case was New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982). I think there was a case on the virtual variety but can’t remember when that was.

          When I was in law school, we had a technology law conference that included a moot court argument on exactly this issue–whether virtual child porn should be treated the same as the real thing. The argument for doing so was, of course, that it encouraged the consumption of pornography featuring children (and, thus, the further exploitation of children). That seemed a slippery slope argument to me, though I do agree mostly with the decision in Ferber–all the more so now as a parent, I suppose. I think the SCOTUS ruled against applying the Ferber standard to virtual child porn recently, but I don’t know for sure.

          Child pornography aside, I wonder whether Stanley v. Georgia (the case where possession of regular old obscenity in the home was okay, just not the making or distribution of it) still is good law?

          1. Hmmm…so adults dressed as “kids” is Touching Uncle Pr0n?

            OK, so, by that measure, if I make a sick flick with sixth graders – but totally dressed up as stockbrokers, lawyers, you know…”adults” I guess that’s OK because its not depicting “kids?”

            WTF?

            1. I’m way outside of any area of expertise here, but here’s what I think the law says: If it’s child porn that involves real children, it’s beyond merely being obscene, and the content doesn’t matter because we don’t want kids getting exploited.

              If it’s virtual, that extra enhancement drops out, but it can still be found to be obscene.

              1. The whole subject – pederasses – is like terrorism:

                Its so revolting to common sensibility that opportunistic political fucks use it drive through police-statey shit that in any other context…offends the common sensibility.

                Perfect case-in-point is a poor little girl from Florida named Jessica Lunsford. I don’t have time to Goog all the details, but I remember the case:

                Poor little girl is abducted and you-know-the-rest by neighborhood perv-goon, who buries her alive in Glad bag behind his trailer. What a fucker.

                Cops finally pick this retard up like three weeks later. He was already on the kiddie-toucher list, hadn’t called in, was one of the first suspects. But when the fuzz came knocking (the day after she dissapeared) the other people at the trailer lied and said he was out of town. So, cops left. Didn’t come back to him for another week. On the day the cops DID show up, Lunsford girl was still alive (just had to include that).

                So they finally bust this guy. Turns out there’s all kinds of dirt in his past. Including stuff like videos of him in some bullshit state-therapy session where he’s PLEADING with the cops to lock him up before he goes kid-touching again. Turns out they paroled him on that early. He shoulda been in jail already when he was burying tots in Glad bags.

                What comes out of all this? Some new draconian things on convicted kid touchers. What’s it named? Wait for it, wait for it….Jessica’s Law! So now, the cops can get all that much more police-statey and the bureaucrats get to shit down everyone’s neck extra-judicially that much more. And pervs can continue playing that system, slipping through cracks, burying kids in Glad bags. The politician gets to go back to his polity and tell the dopes he’s “tough on kid-touchers” with his Jessica Law.

                The only one who loses is poor Jessica.

                Its all a bunch of bullshit. Pisses me off, makes me rant. Sorry.

              2. “…the cartoons on his computer included images of Lisa performing oral sex on Homer, Maggie doing likewise to Bart, Lisa pleasuring a pony, and Maggie mounting a man. It is not hard to imagine a jury deeming these pictures obscene…” if there f*cking idiots. ITS CARTOONS PEOPLE!
                Honestly, if you can find cartoons obscene, than could somebody explain why talking about Lisa f*cking a pony isn’t also obscene? We all know she is a depiction of a little girl (you know, in TV years she is 8, but in “real life” she is now…uh, ?23? So, the argument is that a 23 year old cartoon character depicting a child could get you convicted of child porn?????
                If that isn’t illogical, the word has no meaning.

            2. How is this any worse than Buck Henry playing the perverted uncle babysityer on SNL?

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLT885Vw_0o

  6. If one’s actual concern is harm coming to real children “virtual child porn” should not be illegal as it may actual help PREVENT harm coming to real children. If some guy can get the same kick from a bunch of pixels created without a single kid being harmed or even photographed that is one less potentially harmed child. Sort of like the concept of synthetic blood in the TrueBlood series. But if your concern is that it is “icky” that is another matter.

    1. “virtual child porn” should not be illegal as it may actual help PREVENT harm coming to real children.

      That sure reads like wild supposition on your part. Have any empirical evidence in support of your proposition?

      1. Basic economic principles. This is called substitution. Look at how many fewer [pre-burned] CDs are being sold in the age of music Internet downloads.

        Fewer newspapers are being sold in the age of Internet News sites.

        1. You’re assuming that it’s a substitute, and not a complement. I don’t stop wanting to screw chicks because I watch a lot of porn.

          1. I think you misunderstand my point. I am refering to it being a substitute for the CREATION of child porn that requires a real child. If someone can create very realistic looking child porn without a real child the market for child porn that reaquires a flesh-and-bone child to create drops.

            THIS libertarian opposes actual child prostitution because of age-of-consent reasons. A young child may not yet fully comprehend what sex is. It can also cause actual permanant physical damage to a child who has not yet fully developed.

            1. how can a cartoon character give consent? how do we determine it’s age? You know what? Don’t answer. You’re just a pedophile apologist.

              1. You have a point here. How do condoms give consent?

          2. But Eric, think of all the opportunities you passed up to pick up chicks because you were at home fapping to porn.

      2. I don’t know if there are any numbers to support this in the case of child porn, but I have read some fairly persuasive arguments for the idea that the wide availability of pornography of the adult type has played a role in the reduced incidence of rape in general. So I would not be surprised if a similar effect could happen with simulated child porn. But I can’t understand the mentality of someone who would rape anyone regardless of age, so what do I know.

        1. Most of the things I’ve seen relate rape to power and domination, not specifically sexual release. I suppose if your porn of choice is “rape fantasy porn”, then it would mitigate the urge to rape real women. But just watching one, two or more people engage in sex won’t help with the urge to dominate and humiliate.

          Men don’t rape for just the sex, there is a lot more to it.

          1. Men don’t rape for just the sex, there is a lot more to it.

            And you know this how?

            1. —“And you know this how?”—

              “Most of the things I’ve seen relate rape to power and domination, not specifically sexual release.”

              Reading comprehension much?? So much for the Titan God of Intellect .

              1. It was a socratic question you dip. It’s time for you to read some more. Susan Brownmiller made that power bullshit up out of whole cloth in 1975, and it’s been shamelessly cited ever since. I’m sure there are complex mental dynamics involved, but sex is the overriding factor in pretty much all rape. If it wasn’t, why would it happen in prison when it’s easier to get away with a simply beating someone up? Why would men rape unconscious victims? That I even have to state something so obvious is ridiculous. Basically, Zeb’s comment is right on the money.

                1. I stupidly left out my conclusion, here it is:

                  There most assuredly men who rape just for the sex.

                  1. —“but sex is the overriding factor in pretty much all rape. If it wasn’t, why would it happen in prison when it’s easier to get away with a simply beating someone up?”—

                    Are you suggesting that there is no need to dominate or demonstrate power in a prison environment? (That is a socratic question.) I have friends and , unfortunately, relatives on both sides of the bars. It actually is easier to get away with rape, as the victims are less likely to report it (for a variety of reasons) and the correctional officers think of it as a
                    either funny or part of the system. Fighting, on the other hand, has a tendency to escalate and potentially involve the guards, so they try to clamp down on it.

                    —“Why would men rape unconscious victims?”—

                    UMM, because the can, without the victim resisting. Horny, but also in control as the victim can’t refuse.

                    In this day, it is pitifully easy to get laid. If it is JUST for sex, why take the chance of spending the rest of your life in prison for a piece of ass. There are, I’m sure, a small number of men who rape for sex. But when you add the “complex mental dynamics involved”, it becomes about more than sex. Rape is assault. It is just the weapon that is different. As a father of two daughters, it is my job to educate them to tell the difference between sex and assault.

                    1. If rape was is about power, why is most rape date rape? “We were making out, and I said stop. Suddenly he decided he wanted power?” Seriously? I submit that the much smaller percentage of “stranger rapes” are actually the ones about power.

                      Are you suggesting that there is no need to dominate or demonstrate power in a prison environment?
                      Of course not. How would you even get that from what I said? It’s just that it’s easier to dominate someone if you don’t also have to drop your pants and force your penis into an unwilling ass.

                      UMM, because the can, without the victim resisting. Horny, but also in control as the victim can’t refuse.
                      But if rape is about power, wouldn’t you get a greater sense of power from a resisting victim? Bullies, for example, are often much more entertained when the victim puts up feeble resistance.

                      Rape is assault.
                      Of course it is. So is stabbing someone and taking their wallet. It that about power also? We don’t go about assigning non-obvious motives to violent robbery, do we? Why should rape be any different? If someone with poor impulse control gets angry and stabs someone, it’s because they have poor impulse control. If someone with poor impulse control (and a distorted sense of sexuality, since it’s probably easier to stay angry with someone who is also angry, then to stay erect with someone who is scared) on a date gets horny and rapes his date, then it’s still because he has poor impulse control.

                      As a father of two daughters, it is my job to educate them to tell the difference between sex and assault.
                      That shouldn’t be too difficult. But if you tell them that rape is mostly about power, then you’re not preparing them properly.

                    2. Coeus, can you actually support your argument that men rape for sex and not power with anything other than your personal opinion? If you say that the “Rape is about power” perspective is made up and false, I’d like to see some actual evidence in support of that argument, instead of you simply saying it is false because you just really feel like it is, and because it doesn’t make sense (in your opinion) that it would be any other way. That is not good enough.

  7. Um, I need a higher res version of that picture in order to form an accurate opinion on this matter.

    1. I second the motion.

      1. Wowzers, check out the slideshow! That brunette’s got a nice everything.

        1. I’m with whover wrote here testerday that she looks like a 12-year-old Puerto Rican boy in a Halloween wig.

          1. Uh, maybe from the neck up only…

            1. I have to agree…if you want hot go to where the hot is…

              http://www.fashionising.com/fo…..140-1.html

              More losers that go for Glee means more of this for me…in my dreams anyhow.

              1. Pretty face but a little too skinny, though give her a few years and she’ll fill out nicely.

  8. Without googling one shred on this thought runnin’ through my head, didn’t the original movie Halloween depict all of those 20 something actors as high school kids? And wasn’t there a sex scene AND nudity with one of those so-called high school students?

    1. But it wasn’t beamed to our TB’s!!!

      1. What about the girl Pinto fucked in Animal House? The character of Clorette De Pasto was only 13 and they showed her titties in an obviously sexual position.

        And who of us haven’t seen the old Brooke Shields nude spread in one way or another when she was 13 and in Pretty Baby?

        1. Jodie Foster in Taxi Driver brings up the whole “Artistic Merit” subjectivity into it. I think Foster was way under 18 when that flick got made.

          There’s a line for the PTC…”Pseudo-kiddie Pr0n in classic films makes adults shoot the President!”

    2. The girl (not Demi Moore, the other one) in Blame It On Rio was 17 at the time of the shooting. She needed a permission slip from her parents (which they gave her) to do full frontal in that movie.

      Amazon still sells the movie (as far as I know).

      1. That chick’s hot in that movie too. And Michael Kaine is so very old (even twenty years ago…).

        1. Michelle Johnson (that chick) proves the point JustJosh is making below. Being attracted to her isnt even remotely bordering on pedophilia.

          1. Stupid joke handles.

            1. I knew it couldn’t be Madden, since we know he’s saving himself for Favre.

          2. Hey! Someone noticed me.

  9. No jury?not even one consisting entirely of PTC members?would say GQ’s relatively tame photo spread qualifies as obscene.

    Yes they would. The PTC have a broken moral compass.

    1. If the Jury consisted of the same type of people that make up the PTC, then yes, there are plenty of juries out there that would convict, and convict often.

  10. I can think of a loophole to all of this. All you have to do is call your website a “medical reference site” give it a name that sounds plausibly scientific and include an occasional medical article [plenty of public domain medical articles are available out there. Do that and you are off Scott free. I can’t believe this hasn’t already been done.

    1. Scot who?

    2. I can’t believe it hasn’t been done before either — because I know it was standard procedure for porn thru the 1960s in the USA.

  11. Rather than pester and annoy anyone with an IQ above a dinner salad, perhaps the PTC can entertain themselves with their calipers and measuring just how tightly each of their collegues’ assholes has bunged up?

    “Think of the latest Miley Cyrus video!’
    “That’s done it. I can’t even get my pencil out now. It’s seriously clamped in there. Thanks Cheryl.”

    Barring that, they can quietly go fuck themselves.

  12. Let’s face it–America loves jailbait.

    Legal jailbait? That sells like hotcakes.

    “It is disturbing that GQ, which is explicitly written for adult men, is sexualizing the actresses who play high school-aged characters on “Glee” in this way.”

    You know what’s disturbing? They’re marketing hot chicks when I’d long thought of GQ as a magazine that marketed itself almost exclusively to gay men. …not that there’s anything wrong with that.

    But there’s definitely a segment of our society who will never be happy so long as heterosexual males are physically attracted to women.

    1. “But there’s definitely a segment of our society who will never be happy so long as heterosexual males are physically attracted to women.”

      That is us!

      1. Sorry, we’re not attracted to you.

        1. Well most of them are “women” only in a very technical sense.

    2. Let’s face it–America men have always and everywhere lovesd jailbait.

      Let’s not pretend its an American phenomenon.

      1. What are you saying?

      2. Until the 20th century, it was common for girls to be married off and popping out babies as soon as they entered puberty.

        By nature, men are attracted to teenaged girls (ephebophilia). It’s only considered a paraphilia now because super-young marriage doesn’t work in post-agricultural society.

        (Obviously true pedophilia, attraction to prepubescent children, is another matter)

    3. Um, what was that Stanley Kubrick movie?

      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi…..Poster.jpg

    4. By the way, didn’t we agree the other day that Glee was largely aimed at gay men?

    5. “But there’s definitely a segment of our society who will never be happy so long as heterosexual males are physically attracted to women.”

      Oh like my ex-wife then.

    6. We prefer being called ‘Statch’, Sir..

  13. Wasn’t this covered when Brittany Spears came on the scene?

    I don’t have a problem with the GQ spread, but I also don’t have a teenage daughter. At least it exposes the leftist feminist crowd for the hypocrites that they are.

    1. I remember the Spears website with a countdown clock to when she turned 18…

      1. I also remember one for the Olsen twins…

        1. Some of the 15-year old Page 3 Girl recruits over in London had countdowns to when they turned the legal age of 16 (they now have to be 18).

  14. As long as sexy tween costumes continue filling the racks of temporary storefront Halloween outlets, we are safe.

    However I’d like to point out that if you like your woman to dress up in a girl-cut version of your favorite quarterback’s jersey, you’re a fucking sick freak.

    1. Brett Farve!!!

    2. Several years ago, I came across ads on the web for children’s pimp and ho Halloween outfits.

      I mentioned it on one of the boards I frequent, and somebody visited the site and said there was an announcement that the outfits had been sold out!

  15. I can’t believe this wasn’t pointed out yet…

    “It is disturbing that GQ, which is explicitly written for adult men, is sexualizing the actresses who play high school-aged characters on “Glee” in this way. It borders on pedophilia.”

    No, IF it borders on anything it borders on ephebophilia not pedophilia.

    Ephebophilia is the sexual preference of adults for mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19. Pedophilia is the preferential attraction to children who have not reached puberty.

    There is a HUGE difference (one group is physically sexually mature and able to, realistically, have an active sex life).

    Even as recently as the mid-20th century women were being married to adult men, here in the US, as young as 15 and 16 years old. My grandfather married my grandmother when he was 19 and she was 15. Was he a pedophile? Oh HELL no.

    At least the writers of the original article, as well as the poster of this entry, should at least define the terms correctly.

    As for me, every time my little sisters 16 and 17 year old friends come round for family gatherings I long for the days I was back in Switzerland where the 16 year olds are right at the bar with the rest of us and when the men converse with them its not even looked at sideways.

    What on God’s green earth is more sexually desirable than perfect natural breasts and a soft supple body not yet ravaged by time.

    Love the people who fled the UK for these greener pastures to begin a the revolution we now call American but DAMN THEM for being puritans 😉

    1. This is an important point. There are lots of perfectly good reasons why an adult man should not have sex with sexually mature adolescent girls, but it being pedophilia is not one of them. Pedophilia is a pathological perversion. Being attracted to pretty young girls is a natural part of a healthy sexuality for a straight man.

      1. So what are you saying, exactly?

    2. What on God’s green earth is more sexually desirable than perfect natural breasts and a soft supple body not yet ravaged by time.

      The conflation of ephebophilia with pedophilia is a protectionist tactic to increase the perceived value of less than pristine goods.

      1. Damn cougars! It’s worked too, I can’t help but eye a hot 40 something as a piece looking to be conquered.

        Alas its always them conquering me :/

        1. The racket isn’t universal, as some goods accumulate value with time.

      2. I’m concerned about the other leg of conflation here — the conflation of love and affection with sexual attraction.

    3. “What on God’s green earth is more sexually desirable than perfect natural breasts and a soft supple body not yet ravaged by time.”

      I coached women’s gymnastics five summers at Camp Woodward in Central PA. Women’s gymnastics. Girls 9-22 from all over the golbe. young women 15-17 are hotter than anything and back in the 80’s, it was considered accetible to be very affectionate with them (but not sexual). If you are 21 and are getting hugged by a 17-year-old gymnast from Australia, you my friend are in heaven.

      1. And by hugged I mean warmly embracing. And for the 17-year-old girl, getting a hug from a college guy is a pretty big deal.

      2. Gymnasts don’t have tits.

        Tennis players, IMO, are the best looking female athletes. Gymnasts are pretty far down on the scale with the exception of imagining them unnatural positions.

        1. Beach volleyball players

    4. Great Balls of Fire

    5. What on God’s green earth is more sexually desirable than perfect natural breasts and a soft supple body not yet ravaged by time.

      The huge, erect penis, rippling six-pack, and strong thighs of a 17-year-old running back.

  16. Hey Fellow Libertarians, vote replubican and EXPECT crap like this.

    1. You forget that libertarians are generally conservative.

      The only thing that makes me follow libertarians is the progress they make on legalizing Marijuana.

      1. We are? That’s news to me. Libertarians are neither liberal, nor conservative, We are Libertarian.

        I think your mind is stuck in the false dichotomy known as the two-party system.

        1. Forget about two-party systems. In fact, I’d love to see a Libertarian Party. I think I’d probably vote for a moderate Libertarian.

          Nonetheless, the CATO institute has always been viewed (at least in my eyes…and I speak for myself) as a conservative organization…as much as they deny it.

          1. Dems look at us as conservatives that smoke pot smokers and republicans look at us as pro business liberals with guns…

            Both sides forget that we only support 1 platform and that is LEAVE US THE FUCK ALONE! WE ARE FREE AND CONSENTING ADULTS DAMN IT!

            1. I don’t know who wrote this, so I can’t give credit.

              The Typical Libertarian is hated by conservatives because he wants the freedom to snort coke off a teenaged hookers ass while smoking pot and watching a movie full of boobies and cuss words in preparation for sodomizing his illegal immigrant housekeeper, Carlos. The Typical Libertarian also wants criminals, terrorists and Mexicans to roam freely about causing all manner of social chaos, and has no interest in forcing people to love Jesus Christ. The Typical Libertarian is a traitor to the GOP and America because he failed to support the war in Iraq, the PATRIOT Act, the Stimulus, and both Bush and McCain, despite the fact that both men once said something at a cocktail party about maybe possibly lowering taxes on some people some day.

              The Typical Libertarian is hated by liberals because he is a crypto-archconservative who wants poor people to go without education, medical care, police protection, food, shelter, and oxygen. The Typical Libertarian spends his weekends running down endangered species in his monstrous, gas-guzzling SUV before stopping off to smoke a pack of cigarettes in a daycare. The Typical Libertarian wants the world to be run by unaccountable multinational conglomerates instead of unaccountable governments. The Typical Libertarian is a racist, sexist, profit-driven nihilist who failed to mark the ascendance of the Chosen One, and has never protested for Union rights nor worn a T-shirt with the word Darfur on it.

              Despite clinging to a hopelessly unworkable, idealistic and marginal political philosophy, the Typical Libertarian has recently been discovered as the cause for the downfall of Western Civilization.

              1. you say those things as if they were bad.

                1. I say those thing because they are true.

                  Good/Bad, I’m the one with the gun!

        2. And, if you don’t think William F. Buckley is conservative?

          https://reason.com/archives/200…..ley-jr-rip

          1. I was never a big fan of Buckley. He was never a member of the LP, nor did he ever support the LP. And he supported both the Vietnam War, and the Iraq War, IIRC.

            1. Buckley cared more about sticking it to communists than he did about defending freedom. And he took most of the mainstream conservative movement along with him.

    2. We’ve got it now.

    3. I think we can safely expect crap like this whether we vote Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Communist, or not at all. Elected officials don’t have much control over pissy-pants culture commentators.

      1. True. But pissy-pants culture commentators give money to elected officials, so then the control is other direction, and shit rolls down hill.

        Must always maintain vigilance, for on the slippery slope to burqas we are my friends. Har.

        Eight-year olds Dude, eight year olds…

  17. I never heard of Glee until I saw people complain about it here on H&R, but that picture is hot hot hot.

  18. Casting 24-year olds as teenagers does more to sexualize teens than anything else.

    1. Taylor Momsen is doing a fantastic job sexualizing teens all by her damn self.

    2. Never looked at it this way but so true.

      We see “teens” on TV looking beautiful, developed and mature. Why? Not because they are but because they are played by adults. How can we not become, over time, convinced that teens are in fact beautiful, developed and mature.

      1. Really? I guess you’ve never seen iCarley. Maranda Congrove and Jeanette McCurdy are both 16 and both are gorgeous.

        http://languageisavirus.com/ic…..arly-1.gif

        http://userserve-ak.last.fm/se…..oclose.jpg

        1. Yes, but they look like teenagers. The women in the GQ spread do not LOOK like teenagers on the show.

          1. I’d say the Glee stars are far more attractive than the iCarly stars too.

          2. what he said ^^

            While beautiful girls…they are very clearly GIRLS and while pretty not sexually desirable…to me anyway.

            And your original statement is true. I’ve not seen iCarly as its broadcast on a station geared 100% towards tweens (no not teens tweens) and as a mid-30’s man see nothing of value from their programming.

            1. I’m a she. The iCarly stars have a few more years ’til that hourglass shape really starts to come out though.

              1. apologies…ambiguous handles are ambiguous 🙂

    3. damn good point.
      What ever happened to acne?

    4. So, you’re saying you wanted to rip Ralph Macchia’s pants off and blow him after watching The Karate Kid (the original, of course)?

      1. I’ll say yes to that.

        1. In your mind, would he be in the Crane Kick stance the whole time?

  19. I don’t know about that. I’m just sayin’ they could have cast actual teens but they wanted something sexier.

    1. That, and they wanted Broadway stalwarts with actual talent, not some bullshit they could pull from your random high school talent show.

  20. If the PTC considers this quasi-felonious and bordering on pedophilia, why do they have one of the offending photos on their website?

  21. Still, that seems to be the assumption underlying bans on child pornography. Such laws do not distinguish between prepubescent kids and sexually mature teenagers

    The ban on child pornography is supposed to prevent teenagers from making decisions while they’re young and stupid that will screw them over in later life. Same reason they can’t sign contracts or join the military.

    They’re not intended to frustrate icky sexual desires.

    1. The ban on child pornography is supposed to prevent teenagers from making decisions while they’re young and stupid that will screw them over in later life.

      By giving them a criminal record and putting them on the sex offender’s database?

      They’re not intended to frustrate icky sexual desires.

      If you think that anyone finding a physically mature 16 or 17 year old attractive is “icky”, then you’ve absorbed way too much feminist bullshit from the cultural milieu. As to whether this was done by accident or done purposefully because it gives you another opportunity to scold, I am unsure.

      1. I think you misunderstood Tulpa. He’s saying that child pornography laws don’t exist to stop sex with teenagers because of “unsavory” (in the eyes of our society) sexual desires; these laws exist to protect minors from making decisions they might not have the conscientiousness to make. This is just my explanation of what he’s saying, not what I believe.

        In no way did I read him saying older teens’ sexual desires are wrong.

        1. After reading this:

          By nature, men are attracted to teenaged girls (ephebophilia).

          that he wrote above, I think you’re right.

          My apologies, Tulpa.

          I don’t think he’s right, but he scolds so damn much I read that last part as serious.

        2. I think you misunderstood Tulpa. He’s saying that child pornography laws don’t exist to stop sex with teenagers because of “unsavory” (in the eyes of our society) sexual desires; these laws exist to protect minors from making decisions they might not have the conscientiousness to make. This is just my explanation of what he’s saying, not what I believe.

          I agree.

          If a teenage girl takes a picture of herself exposing her tits and vagina and sexts it, it could end up on a kiddie porn server in Russia, where fat, slovenly losers will masturbate furiously while watching those pictures.

          This does give me an idea for an anti-sexting print ad. Just show a picture of some fat, slovenly loser with unkempt hair, wearing a T-shiry and one hand and the lower part of his body hidden from view, with him apparently illuminated by a computer screen, and use the caption, “Do You Want This Dude to See You Naked?”

          This would be an effective deterrent against teen sexting.

  22. Those glee chicks aren’t that hot.

    1. HA, I’d love to see the women you’ve slept with. They probably look like truck drivers.

  23. I can’t believe that an article about the distribution of the proceeds of civil forfeitures to schools would have attracted 111 comments. Way to go, guys, and way to show your interest in education!

    Hold on, this isn’t the thread about the school fund, is it? Well, it’s related to schools, though, and that’s what counts.

  24. apparently it’s not helping, i read somewhere i think, that lea michele & dianna agron are doing another lingerie shoot for http://notjustyet.com/…listen, i’m all in.

  25. Although it is not brand name,wholesale lingerie can be very sexy. Most companies offer a variety of lingerie including bridal lingerie, chemise, thongs, bras, garters, corsets, panties, and others. Wholesale lingerie companies generally provide products for resale businesses. Some companies will not sell to you unless you give them proof that you have a business.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.