Comments on: The La Perla Exception http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/02/the-la-perla-exception/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Sun, 12 Feb 2012 17:54:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Crooked Timber » » Welcome, Sickos http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/02/the-la-perla-exception/comment-page-1/#comment-84313 Crooked Timber » » Welcome, Sickos Tue, 26 Jul 2005 04:37:00 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1343#comment-84313 [...] Over the past few hours we’ve had a little trouble with the server—apologies to our readers: it should be fixed now. In the course of trying to diagnose and repair the problem, I was looking through our log files and I noticed some search queries that made me feel a bit queasy. About a year ago, Belle wrote a post called The La Perla Exception, which discussed the legal problems associated with drawing a line between pictures of naked children (e.g., canonical baby-in-the-bath-with-rubber-ducky photos) and child pornography. Just in the past 24 hours or so, we’ve had eleven hits on that page via google. According to GeoBytes, the originating IPs for these searches were in places as various as Bangalore, Chennai (also in India), Rio De Janeiro, Burnaby (in British Columbia), Oscoda Michigan, Cabot Arkansas, Bridgeport Connecticut and Tampa Florida. Of these searches, two appeared legitimate—“debate+child+pornography” and “what+constitutes+child+porn.” The rest were queries like “European+Child+nudity+pictures”, “child+models+nude” (several variants of that one), and “small+girls(12-15+years)+sex+pics.” Because the La Perla post is so old, I’ve no reason to think this trickle of sewage isn’t typical. The searches represent just under one percent of referrals to CT from distinct google queries in 24 hours. That’s pretty low, I suppose. But then again it’s not as if Crooked Timber has much in the way of content that would attract pedophiles. Imagine what many other sites—never mind Google itself—must be seeing. posted on Monday, July 25th, 2005 at 11:34 pm Post a comment [...] [...] Over the past few hours we’ve had a little trouble with the server—apologies to our readers: it should be fixed now. In the course of trying to diagnose and repair the problem, I was looking through our log files and I noticed some search queries that made me feel a bit queasy. About a year ago, Belle wrote a post called The La Perla Exception, which discussed the legal problems associated with drawing a line between pictures of naked children (e.g., canonical baby-in-the-bath-with-rubber-ducky photos) and child pornography. Just in the past 24 hours or so, we’ve had eleven hits on that page via google. According to GeoBytes, the originating IPs for these searches were in places as various as Bangalore, Chennai (also in India), Rio De Janeiro, Burnaby (in British Columbia), Oscoda Michigan, Cabot Arkansas, Bridgeport Connecticut and Tampa Florida. Of these searches, two appeared legitimate—“debate+child+pornography” and “what+constitutes+child+porn.” The rest were queries like “European+Child+nudity+pictures”, “child+models+nude” (several variants of that one), and “small+girls(12-15+years)+sex+pics.” Because the La Perla post is so old, I’ve no reason to think this trickle of sewage isn’t typical. The searches represent just under one percent of referrals to CT from distinct google queries in 24 hours. That’s pretty low, I suppose. But then again it’s not as if Crooked Timber has much in the way of content that would attract pedophiles. Imagine what many other sites—never mind Google itself—must be seeing. posted on Monday, July 25th, 2005 at 11:34 pm Post a comment [...]

]]> By: mc http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/02/the-la-perla-exception/comment-page-1/#comment-23623 mc Thu, 08 Apr 2004 10:32:33 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1343#comment-23623 russell - <blockquote>If half of the energy spent chasing down (usually bogus) pedophilia accusations in the U.S. were spent prosecuting the makers of offensive underwear ads, society would be much better for it.</blockquote> Really? You don't think that energy should be spent on prosecuting real child abusers? On encouraging denounciation of real child abuse cases? On preventing such cases from happening at all? That there are bogus accusations is not enough to devalue that effort. The hysteria creating bogus accusations is fuelled precisely by that removal, by projecting paedophiliac intent on anything but the real thing. So you get someone denounced for a simple ordinary picture of their children, while there are countless people who continue to abuse their or other people's children and no one knows or has the courage to report it. Because it is a taboo that it should happen with the family. Because being a victim of child abuse does carry a stigma. Because when it's your own family you might have all sorts of contrasting feelings and other family members who know what's going on may feel compelled to hide it. Just because this kind of real situation, which is the norm for child abuse, is complicated to address, it doesn't mean it shouldn't, and that something like ordinary advertising should take its place as main target. Just because the child porn industry is huge, and far more underground in comparison to advertising, and far less easy or convenient to tackle, doesn't mean we should confuse one with the other. What kind of threat do underwear ads pose anyway? Do they incite paedophilia? Do you think that's something that can be incited at all by simple allusions to sexuality in advertising? Isn't it maybe a perversion that has far deeper roots? Isn't it maybe more about abuse than sexuality in itself? Think about it. Making laws on advertising and tv is easy and grants a lot of political publicity. But does it really even begin to tackle the issue? Or could it be making it worse to tackle? I don't know, but I do think that when sexuality, even in its most natural and playful representations, even of a commercial nature, becomes something perceived as a source of corruption or a threat in itself, and even the most normal things are considered indecent, then we're actually giving paedophiles more credit. Letting their warped view take precedence over a healthy one. I think that's a seriously fucked up way of going at it. It's politically lucrative, and great for tabloids, but not great for real people involved in real cases of real abuse. What could a young girl possibly have to fear from a La Perla ad or the baby on the Nevermind cover when her stepfather is raping her? russell –
If half of the energy spent chasing down (usually bogus) pedophilia accusations in the U.S. were spent prosecuting the makers of offensive underwear ads, society would be much better for it.
Really? You don’t think that energy should be spent on prosecuting real child abusers? On encouraging denounciation of real child abuse cases? On preventing such cases from happening at all? That there are bogus accusations is not enough to devalue that effort. The hysteria creating bogus accusations is fuelled precisely by that removal, by projecting paedophiliac intent on anything but the real thing. So you get someone denounced for a simple ordinary picture of their children, while there are countless people who continue to abuse their or other people’s children and no one knows or has the courage to report it. Because it is a taboo that it should happen with the family. Because being a victim of child abuse does carry a stigma. Because when it’s your own family you might have all sorts of contrasting feelings and other family members who know what’s going on may feel compelled to hide it. Just because this kind of real situation, which is the norm for child abuse, is complicated to address, it doesn’t mean it shouldn’t, and that something like ordinary advertising should take its place as main target. Just because the child porn industry is huge, and far more underground in comparison to advertising, and far less easy or convenient to tackle, doesn’t mean we should confuse one with the other. What kind of threat do underwear ads pose anyway? Do they incite paedophilia? Do you think that’s something that can be incited at all by simple allusions to sexuality in advertising? Isn’t it maybe a perversion that has far deeper roots? Isn’t it maybe more about abuse than sexuality in itself? Think about it. Making laws on advertising and tv is easy and grants a lot of political publicity. But does it really even begin to tackle the issue? Or could it be making it worse to tackle? I don’t know, but I do think that when sexuality, even in its most natural and playful representations, even of a commercial nature, becomes something perceived as a source of corruption or a threat in itself, and even the most normal things are considered indecent, then we’re actually giving paedophiles more credit. Letting their warped view take precedence over a healthy one. I think that’s a seriously fucked up way of going at it. It’s politically lucrative, and great for tabloids, but not great for real people involved in real cases of real abuse. What could a young girl possibly have to fear from a La Perla ad or the baby on the Nevermind cover when her stepfather is raping her?

]]> By: mc http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/02/the-la-perla-exception/comment-page-1/#comment-23622 mc Thu, 08 Apr 2004 10:03:43 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1343#comment-23622 bob mcmanus - <blockquote>“the girls who start modelling in their teens are already sexualized” That the girls have been already corrupted removes the immorality from all subsequent exploitation? An interesting argument, indeed.</blockquote> Oh please. "Corrupted"? who talked about "corruption"? Since when does being sexual means being corrupted or immoral? Sheesh... It's so absurd and patronizing to make a parallel between child pornography and young fashion models. What I meant with "those girls are already sexualized" - I probably used the wrong term there, but just to reprise from the post - is that they're already grown up, they're not 6 year olds, they're young teens. Young teens already are fully sexual beings, and often sexually active too. Or has everyone forgot what it's like at that age? Most importantly, those models are not being exploited unwillingly or unknowingly, or coerced or abused. They're working, they chose to be there and be photographed, and get paid for it, and no, that's not enough to establish a parallel unless you're equating all modelling with pornography, which is just as ludicrous and moralistic. And it's not the money part defining the difference, it's just a wholly different context from child porn. That's so obvious to me it feels odd to even point it out. If they're doing a shoot for lingerie, well, of course their sexuality will come into play. Is that enough to claim they're catering to paedophiliacs? I don't think so, not anymore than ordinary pictures of models just a few years older - and looking exactly the same! - cater to sex maniacs. Plus, even in the most risque fashion shoot it's all so neutralised and abstracted in comparison to porn - or even reality -, there really is no comparison in the first place. And those photo shoots or ads with really young girls - and boys - in sexy poses are so inoffensive for the most part. Remember the CK lingerie campaign? I never understood what the problem was with that one either. It was just underwear, for gosh's sake. It was still a lot tastier than what happens _for real_ when 14-year-olds get drunk and mess about - not to mentions what happens on a porn set. So why the shock when the natural sexuality of teenagers gets alluded at in a photo? It's just hypocrisy to me. ---- Belle Waring: I understand it is the law in the US, but not elsewhere, there really is a different mentality in Europe on nudity or sexy photos, fashion or not, so I guess that's probably why no one even dreamt of prosecuting. I don't really see the exploitative part in modelling, because those girls - and boys, again - are doing a job, not being abused by some paedophile. The difference, again, is not money, but the whole context, the kind of representation, the intent, and the role they play. They're there of their own decision, even if they need consent from parents because they're minors, but I would find it very hard to imagine there is coercion involved when you a) do want to work in modelling, so, are already thinking of a career in that area and b) you get the chance to pose for Vogue before you're even allowed to drive... Like I said, not all those kind of fashion photos involving young girls and boys may be in good taste; some may be playing on the young teen sexuality in terms that are a bit too ambiguous, and that's often part of the intended effect. But that's still _entirely another matter_ from the kind of exploitation of child pornography. Just like the difference with babies in nappies or being breastfed or young children playing around naked in a pool. Anyone confusing that with porn must have really no clue what child porn actually involves. It's not about crossing a thin line, it's such a blindingly huge difference between what is only natural and what is a perversion that does involve violence and abuse. Just because there are perverts projecting their warped fantasies onto what is natural, doesn't mean we should give up seeing it as natural and seeing the difference with the perversion. You can't let paedophiles define what is paedophiliac, cos when they get turned on even by ordinary pictures of naked babies, that's their own problem, but it still doesn't make those pictures pornographic of themselves. Same with fashion shoots, even when the sexuality is overtly represented and played on. Playing with sexuality is still something quite different from exploitative pornography. And, besides, pornography in general is not necessarily exploitative, it is still another matter entirely from child pornography, where you do have abuse. Aside from that, I personally see more pornography in other things that have less to do with sex and photos and more to do with public exploitation of people and children and private matters for sensationalist purposes. And you know, it always amazes me that so much of the debate on child abuse is focused on the paedophile as some alien monster from outside, or on the child porn industry itself, or on interpretations of advertising as pornography, and the media and law talk of protecting the family as some threatened sanctuary where these things don't happen if not by external interferences... Well, then, who is the actual child porn industry catering to? where are all these customers of paedophiliac content? all single and child-less? where are all the child abusers? Statistics say for the most part it does happen within the family. Yet that's always removed from the debate, at political and legislative and media level. It's easier to point the finger at tv or magazines or the occasional celebrity scapegoat. It's kind of depressing, in a way. bob mcmanus –
“the girls who start modelling in their teens are already sexualized” That the girls have been already corrupted removes the immorality from all subsequent exploitation? An interesting argument, indeed.
Oh please. “Corrupted”? who talked about “corruption”? Since when does being sexual means being corrupted or immoral? Sheesh… It’s so absurd and patronizing to make a parallel between child pornography and young fashion models. What I meant with “those girls are already sexualized” – I probably used the wrong term there, but just to reprise from the post – is that they’re already grown up, they’re not 6 year olds, they’re young teens. Young teens already are fully sexual beings, and often sexually active too. Or has everyone forgot what it’s like at that age? Most importantly, those models are not being exploited unwillingly or unknowingly, or coerced or abused. They’re working, they chose to be there and be photographed, and get paid for it, and no, that’s not enough to establish a parallel unless you’re equating all modelling with pornography, which is just as ludicrous and moralistic. And it’s not the money part defining the difference, it’s just a wholly different context from child porn. That’s so obvious to me it feels odd to even point it out. If they’re doing a shoot for lingerie, well, of course their sexuality will come into play. Is that enough to claim they’re catering to paedophiliacs? I don’t think so, not anymore than ordinary pictures of models just a few years older – and looking exactly the same! – cater to sex maniacs. Plus, even in the most risque fashion shoot it’s all so neutralised and abstracted in comparison to porn – or even reality -, there really is no comparison in the first place. And those photo shoots or ads with really young girls – and boys – in sexy poses are so inoffensive for the most part. Remember the CK lingerie campaign? I never understood what the problem was with that one either. It was just underwear, for gosh’s sake. It was still a lot tastier than what happens for real when 14-year-olds get drunk and mess about – not to mentions what happens on a porn set. So why the shock when the natural sexuality of teenagers gets alluded at in a photo? It’s just hypocrisy to me. —— Belle Waring: I understand it is the law in the US, but not elsewhere, there really is a different mentality in Europe on nudity or sexy photos, fashion or not, so I guess that’s probably why no one even dreamt of prosecuting. I don’t really see the exploitative part in modelling, because those girls – and boys, again – are doing a job, not being abused by some paedophile. The difference, again, is not money, but the whole context, the kind of representation, the intent, and the role they play. They’re there of their own decision, even if they need consent from parents because they’re minors, but I would find it very hard to imagine there is coercion involved when you a) do want to work in modelling, so, are already thinking of a career in that area and b) you get the chance to pose for Vogue before you’re even allowed to drive… Like I said, not all those kind of fashion photos involving young girls and boys may be in good taste; some may be playing on the young teen sexuality in terms that are a bit too ambiguous, and that’s often part of the intended effect. But that’s still entirely another matter from the kind of exploitation of child pornography. Just like the difference with babies in nappies or being breastfed or young children playing around naked in a pool. Anyone confusing that with porn must have really no clue what child porn actually involves. It’s not about crossing a thin line, it’s such a blindingly huge difference between what is only natural and what is a perversion that does involve violence and abuse. Just because there are perverts projecting their warped fantasies onto what is natural, doesn’t mean we should give up seeing it as natural and seeing the difference with the perversion. You can’t let paedophiles define what is paedophiliac, cos when they get turned on even by ordinary pictures of naked babies, that’s their own problem, but it still doesn’t make those pictures pornographic of themselves. Same with fashion shoots, even when the sexuality is overtly represented and played on. Playing with sexuality is still something quite different from exploitative pornography. And, besides, pornography in general is not necessarily exploitative, it is still another matter entirely from child pornography, where you do have abuse. Aside from that, I personally see more pornography in other things that have less to do with sex and photos and more to do with public exploitation of people and children and private matters for sensationalist purposes. And you know, it always amazes me that so much of the debate on child abuse is focused on the paedophile as some alien monster from outside, or on the child porn industry itself, or on interpretations of advertising as pornography, and the media and law talk of protecting the family as some threatened sanctuary where these things don’t happen if not by external interferences… Well, then, who is the actual child porn industry catering to? where are all these customers of paedophiliac content? all single and child-less? where are all the child abusers? Statistics say for the most part it does happen within the family. Yet that’s always removed from the debate, at political and legislative and media level. It’s easier to point the finger at tv or magazines or the occasional celebrity scapegoat. It’s kind of depressing, in a way.

]]> By: SniffyMcNickles http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/02/the-la-perla-exception/comment-page-1/#comment-23621 SniffyMcNickles Sun, 04 Apr 2004 15:44:19 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1343#comment-23621 Matt Brown: What I find most twisted (although it is hard to settle on which part is the worst) is that a minor is being charged as an adult for sexually exploiting a child, who happens to be her. Many may disagree with the laws as they stand (I, for one, do), but even if one agrees with them, one should attempt to apply them in an internally consistent manner. Matt Brown: What I find most twisted (although it is hard to settle on which part is the worst) is that a minor is being charged as an adult for sexually exploiting a child, who happens to be her. Many may disagree with the laws as they stand (I, for one, do), but even if one agrees with them, one should attempt to apply them in an internally consistent manner.

]]> By: Matt Brown http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/02/the-la-perla-exception/comment-page-1/#comment-23620 Matt Brown Sat, 03 Apr 2004 17:19:23 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1343#comment-23620 Here's a tough one for you to consider: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife/2004-03-29-child-self-porn_x.htm "PITTSBURGH (AP) — A 15-year-old girl has been arrested for taking nude photographs of her self and posting them on the Internet, police said." Here’s a tough one for you to consider: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife/2004-03-29-child-self-porn_x.htm “PITTSBURGH (AP) — A 15-year-old girl has been arrested for taking nude photographs of her self and posting them on the Internet, police said.”

]]> By: Gerard http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/02/the-la-perla-exception/comment-page-1/#comment-23619 Gerard Sat, 03 Apr 2004 14:45:40 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1343#comment-23619 <i>...still mostly American things</i> ? I've been teaching in England for nearly two years and have encountered far fewer instances of public breastfeeding than in my hometown of Philadelphia. I spent 5 days in Budapest recently and didn't encounter a single one. Anecdotal, to be sure, but... …still mostly American things ? I’ve been teaching in England for nearly two years and have encountered far fewer instances of public breastfeeding than in my hometown of Philadelphia. I spent 5 days in Budapest recently and didn’t encounter a single one. Anecdotal, to be sure, but…

]]> By: Zizka http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/02/the-la-perla-exception/comment-page-1/#comment-23618 Zizka Sat, 03 Apr 2004 00:15:38 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1343#comment-23618 Somewhat peripheral, but I believe that immigrant women were taught not to breastfeed as part of Americanization. One third-generation Hungarian-American woman I knew was told by her family ca. 1970 that breastfeeding was unsanitary. This was an issue in Africa not long ago and may still be, when Nestle tried to convince African women to bottle feed. The Catholic church and part of the medical profession fought for breastfeeding for decades, never with great success I don't think. Women being warned by the police not to breastfeed in public is a common story. So puritanism is part of the story, but there are other odd, still mostly American things going on -- commercialization, modernization, naturalization. Somewhat peripheral, but I believe that immigrant women were taught not to breastfeed as part of Americanization. One third-generation Hungarian-American woman I knew was told by her family ca. 1970 that breastfeeding was unsanitary. This was an issue in Africa not long ago and may still be, when Nestle tried to convince African women to bottle feed. The Catholic church and part of the medical profession fought for breastfeeding for decades, never with great success I don’t think. Women being warned by the police not to breastfeed in public is a common story. So puritanism is part of the story, but there are other odd, still mostly American things going on—commercialization, modernization, naturalization.

]]> By: Robin Green http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/02/the-la-perla-exception/comment-page-1/#comment-23617 Robin Green Fri, 02 Apr 2004 21:29:00 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1343#comment-23617 Judson, that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with paedophilia. Some would find it indecent and/or gross to be confronted with genitalia in advertisements in public. Even if that genitalia happens to belong to a baby - or even a fictional cartoon animal (I note that Scooby-Doo has no discernable penis). Judson, that doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with paedophilia. Some would find it indecent and/or gross to be confronted with genitalia in advertisements in public. Even if that genitalia happens to belong to a baby – or even a fictional cartoon animal (I note that Scooby-Doo has no discernable penis).

]]> By: Troy http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/02/the-la-perla-exception/comment-page-1/#comment-23616 Troy Fri, 02 Apr 2004 21:00:37 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1343#comment-23616 The Texas case mentioned above is outrageous! Is there something in the water in Texas? What the hell? Child sexual abuse is unbelievably horrible. The problem is all too real. But the assumption that nudity is dangerous is very wierd, and the view of breastfeeding as a sexual act is absurd and twisted. This must be something to do with American culture, something about overprotectiveness, the fear of strangers, and left-over Puritanical views of the human body. Troy p.s. Thank G*D for the existence of Child Protective Services, but this case is a sin of commission, of over-zealous prosecution. The Texas case mentioned above is outrageous! Is there something in the water in Texas? What the hell? Child sexual abuse is unbelievably horrible. The problem is all too real. But the assumption that nudity is dangerous is very wierd, and the view of breastfeeding as a sexual act is absurd and twisted. This must be something to do with American culture, something about overprotectiveness, the fear of strangers, and left-over Puritanical views of the human body. Troy p.s. Thank G*D for the existence of Child Protective Services, but this case is a sin of commission, of over-zealous prosecution.

]]> By: kingsley http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/02/the-la-perla-exception/comment-page-1/#comment-23615 kingsley Fri, 02 Apr 2004 20:07:22 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1343#comment-23615 in seach of business partiners in seach of business partiners

]]> By: kingsley http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/02/the-la-perla-exception/comment-page-1/#comment-23614 kingsley Fri, 02 Apr 2004 20:03:22 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1343#comment-23614 i de here oooooooooooooooooo i de here oooooooooooooooooo

]]> By: kingsley http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/02/the-la-perla-exception/comment-page-1/#comment-23613 kingsley Fri, 02 Apr 2004 20:00:29 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1343#comment-23613 in seach of business partiners in seach of business partiners

]]> By: novalis http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/02/the-la-perla-exception/comment-page-1/#comment-23612 novalis Fri, 02 Apr 2004 19:31:16 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1343#comment-23612 <i>Formally, the rule even includes computer-generated photorealistic imagery, i.e. with no actual children involved in the production.</i> <a href="http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZS.html">No it doesn't.</a> Unless I'm misreading that case terribly. Hm, unless you mean by "formally" that the law is still on the books even though it's been declared unconstitutional. Formally, the rule even includes computer-generated photorealistic imagery, i.e. with no actual children involved in the production. No it doesn’t. Unless I’m misreading that case terribly. Hm, unless you mean by “formally” that the law is still on the books even though it’s been declared unconstitutional.

]]> By: judson http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/02/the-la-perla-exception/comment-page-1/#comment-23611 judson Fri, 02 Apr 2004 16:10:49 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1343#comment-23611 I'm reminded of the album cover for Nirvana's Nevermind..a naked baby underwater grasping at a dollar bill on a hook..anyway some enlarged posters of this image had airbrushed out the child's penis. I decided these kinds of absurd edits are the main cause of true pedophilia.. I’m reminded of the album cover for Nirvana’s Nevermind..a naked baby underwater grasping at a dollar bill on a hook..anyway some enlarged posters of this image had airbrushed out the child’s penis. I decided these kinds of absurd edits are the main cause of true pedophilia..

]]> By: Geoff http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/02/the-la-perla-exception/comment-page-1/#comment-23610 Geoff Fri, 02 Apr 2004 15:49:27 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1343#comment-23610 <i>Formally, the rule even includes computer-generated photorealistic imagery, i.e. with no actual children involved in the production.</i> Outrageous. You'll take my computer-generated photorealistic child pornography from me when you pry it from my... Oh, never mind. Formally, the rule even includes computer-generated photorealistic imagery, i.e. with no actual children involved in the production. Outrageous. You’ll take my computer-generated photorealistic child pornography from me when you pry it from my… Oh, never mind.

]]>