[ week 40 | 52 ]
Rumors of its death have been greatly exaggerated.
Thursday, 06.52
Well, see, last night I was just about to write something on, oh, I dunno, how I used to steal pages from the pornographic magazines I’d find in the backs of closets and under the beds of the houses where I was babysitting when I was the age when babysitting money was good money, but the Spouse grabbed me when I was bumbling about the bedroom looking for a notebook or something and there was some kissing and groping and clothing was removed and, well, anyway, the night was kinda shot.
From a let’s-put-some-content-on-the-site perspective, anyway.
So instead, I’ll celebrate the fact that thinkofthechildren.co.uk is back up by pointing you to his V-for-fuck-you page.
Satire lives to snigger another day.
[ # ]
Run that sucker at six!
Tuesday, 07.19
If, in fact, this is a dangerous act: snapping a photo of someone (a girl, let’s say) under the age of 18 and then allowing people (men, let’s say) over the age of 18 a chance to look at this photo for a modest fee; if it is impossible as (some? all? a few?) child psychologists say to exploit a child’s sexuality and then claim to protect them; if it’s true that 75% of those arrested by the FBI for pedophilia in the last five years have visited teen and tween model sites (which, given that the FBI relies on records of internet surfing for the bulk of their evidence in such cases, is hardly surprising, you stop to think about it); and you should maybe take a moment to reflect on the fact that our snarky tone does not mean that we don’t find this practice to have its unsavory aspects and even its tragedies, as you to your credit document (in some sordid detail); if these sites really are an “amusement park for pedophiles,” as Dr. Dorothy Grange insists, so much so that Congress is considering a ridiculously broad law that would wipe out commercial photography of anyone under 18 (then, it is an election year)—and given your heartfelt disclaimer at the header of the article in which you tell us about how you debated whether to include photos illustrating this article (and so helpfully point out that none of your examples are from the more explicit members’ only sections of the websites; journalism in action, that)—well, what I want to know is this:
How long did it take before you decided to run not one, not a couple, but seven examples of this awful, horrible, dangerous, sexy, titillating practice? Hmm?
So instead, I’ll offer up a voice of sanity. In penance for the prurient delight I took in mocking your prurience. Sigh. And I’ll also point out the title is a riff on Morgan Calabrese, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand; it’s just that referencing a long-gone and sorely missed comic strip is in some weird back-asswards fashion another act of penance to me. So. There. We’re done.
(Psst. Let’s nobody tell these folks about cam girls, okay? Could get ugly.)
