General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsImages of Minors
Last edited Mon Sep 10, 2012, 05:23 PM - Edit history (4)
I have noticed that it is increasingly commonplace to consider images of nude human beings under the age of 18 as categorically being "child pornography"an assumption that even non-sexual youthful nudity is illegal.
This is an unfortunate social trend. If take to its logical conclusion it would require the elimination of a wide swath of art history and it has the loathsome effect of defining children as intrinsically sexual objects.
The nude child is, traditionally, the quintessential symbol of innocence. Most people do not think of children in primarily sexual terms. And the fact that a small segment of the population has corrupt associations does not dictate that society must, or should, internalize the pedophilic gaze, and make it our own.
Consider these two images.
The joke in the Esquire cover is that what is clearly innocent in the classic Coppertone ad would be far from innocent of the girl were an adult.
Consider how we have inverted that sensibility. If the classic Coppertone ad came out today people it would be more controversial than the Esquire cover! Some would say that it is "child pornography" and sexualizes the little girl.
But it sexualizes the little girl only insofar as we consider the little girl sexualized in the first place!
The point is that everyone is being conditioned to think like a pedophile... to view the world as a place while a child's butt is primarily an object of desire, and thus must be concealed.
"That is a litle girl's butt. A little girl's butt is something involved in sick and criminal sex acts." That's a heck of a way to think.
And why should the little girl be raised to think of her butt as something involved in sick and criminal sex acts? (It's not like kids cannot read they own culture. They're not stupid.) That which must be covered is shameful. And ideally childhood should be a period of respite from sexual shame, and sexual anxiety, and sexual self-identification.
Of course you want to tell your little girl not to get in cars with strangers. But you don't want her to think of herself as a sex-object defined partially by how some pervert would view her. Awareness of pedophilia and taking child abuse seriously does not require that the whole society think of children in sexual terms.
Notice something else about the classic Coppertone ad... the girl is not wearing a top.
Little girls did not used to wear bikini tops. In the 1960s it was not abnormal for a little girl to go around topless because there was nothing to hide. There was no assumed sexual interest in a little girl's nipples versus a little boy's nipples.
The age when a girl could no longer be topless in public was a rite of passage... that the girl was developing into a sexual being, which she had, of course, not been before.
Why would anyone have cared about hiding non-breasts? The modern practice of tiny little girls wearing bikini tops, on the other hand, is the distinct sexualization of little girls. It imposes a presumption of sexual desirability on their chests from birth.
Cover up! Somebody wants to have sex with you.
Now, if our modern presumptive sexualization of children had eliminated pedophilia there would be an argument for it, despite its coarsening effect. But pedophilia does not seem to have been eradicated. Instead, we have plenty of child abuse and also have bikini clad toddlers shimmying to overtly sexual songs in beauty pageants, booty shorts for toddlers with "juicy" printed on them... and little girls know what clothes are "sexy".
Why do little girls think of themselves in terms of sexual presentation? Because the whole culture does. Little girls dress like adults because our notion of childhood as a period of life where sex is irelevant is decreasing.
Meanwhile, what is increasing dramatically is the sexual fetishization of youth. Twenty years ago it was rare for porn to draw strong disinctions between and 18 year old woman and a 23 year old woman. Today it is universal. "18" is now the sexiest age. "Barely Legal" must be the best because it is presumed that illegal must be better, but 18 is as close as you can get. It is a compromise with what you must really want.
There has always been an unwholesome youth fetish wihin the range of porn, but that fetish is almost universal today. Why? What is it in our culture that has made adolesence the presumptive peak of sexual attractiveness and made little girl's clothing provocative? Every overt social signal is in the opposite direction. Everyone is very aware today that this is wrong, yet the problem burgeons.
Perhaps because we have, culturally, incorporated pedophilia into who we are for the purpose of opposing it. Perhaps the continual broadening of what constitutes the sexualization of minors renders minors a category increasingly defined in sexual terms.
Nothing in what I am saying suggests that child abuse be taken less seriously. Like all rape, the laws and law enforcment have been lax in the past and correction of that is welcome. But saying that the FBI should take serial kilers seriously is not the same as saying that the Nancy Grace show makes society a better place, even though she does nothing but declaim serial killers... in her very excited, prurient way.
But we are where we are. Children are somehow about sex, culturally, in an unprecedented way, and any image of a nude minor should be read in sexual terms.
But there is nothing in the law that says that. Your picture of your baby running around naked is not pornography, and there is no reason for you to be conditioned to think of it as such.
Child pornography is two words. It is pornography involving a child. It is imagery that functions as pornography. Sexual contact, lascivious display of the genitals, or a lascivious focus on the genitals.
I is not whatever a pedophile might find arousing, but what is created for the purpose of arousing pedophiles... as overt sexual stimulus for pedophiles.
And though the standards for images of minors are much stricter than the standards for images of adults, they still allow for a normal range of artistic expression.
There was a little movement a while back to get books by the photographer Jock Sturges outlawed. Sturges is a remarkably gifted photographer who takes a lot of pictures of unclothed girls in nature, many of whom are not 18. But despite all efforts, no Sturges book was ever prosecuted and they are available at Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Sotheby's auction original photos. Prints are available through all the usual poster and print sellers.
Why? Because his work is not pornography. It is erotic in the sense that all images of attractive post-pubescent nude people are erotic, but it is not about sex.
There is no doubt that it is quite arousing to some pedophiles, but that is not the standard. The Sears catalog is quite arousing to some pedophiles.
Now, we are all entitled to our own views of propriety and morality, of course, but not sensibly entitled to our own definitions of laws, since laws are external to ourselves.
And as a matter of law, a lot of stuff that is clearly legal is routinely described as "child porn" for dramatic effect. And that's a bad thing.
It is fine to say that some things are pornographic precisely because we do not generally criminalize pornography. It is no longer a primarily legal term. I refer to all sorts of things as pornographic, including images of luxury cars and deserts.
But "child porn" is a super serious crime and, when the term is leveled against things that are clearly not illegal, contributes to a very unwholesome presumptive sexualization of children as a category.
We are conditioned to see not as we see, but as we assume some sick person would see.
And that cannot be healthy.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)There are a lot of smart and admirable people here.
DU speaks with one voice on some things, but not everything.
It's a very vanilla piece, really.
I do not like the sexualization of children and childhood through incorporation of a pedophilc perspective into our own sense of children and childhood.
Doesn't seem real controversial.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)You know, I grew up seeing that ad, and when I got to that part of your post, I had to scroll up and look.
You're right, I never thought of that as anything other than a girl at the beach having her burn line exposed by a dog.
I've never seen a statute which rendered nudity per se to be pornographic, as most will include language such as "lascivious display" etc.
But, yes, if qualifiers like "lascivious" are defined away, then other language is needed to maintain a reasonably objective standard - or at least one about which juries can reach a predictable verdict (and that's if it is defined as a fact question, as opposed to whether something is "lascivious" or what have you, as a matter of law).
The weird thing is how many parents are putting bathing suits on toddlers at the beach. The norm on that seems to have switched from "why bother?" to "omg that child is naked!"
Eventually, they'll be required to be born clothed.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)And as much as I dislike subjective elements of crimes, I must say that subjectivity is better than a strict liability content standard here because any content standard would be so very, very broad. And if a Constitutional amendment was required to achieve that breadth it would probably happen.
There was a case involving a commercial video of zooming in on little girl's crotches in public gymnastics competitions, and video shot from a very low angle.
One of the justices said, "Are we really saying that camera angle can make something criminal?" But yes, that is just what we were saying.
Since society would not tolerate the video product as it existed the realpolitik alternative would be to outlaw pictures of gymnastics altogether because every video of a gymnastics meet would include some frames that would violate any strict content standard attempted.
In our imperfect world it's about as good a compromise as can be expected.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Yes, I realize that people get charged for pictures of their kids in the tub and whatnot, but I didn't have the impression there were many convictions coming out of the other end of those types of stories. They always make a splash in the news at the time of the arrest or whatever, but since there is no followup on these things in the popular press, my question is, "Is there a problem?"
The guy shooting the close-ups of the cheerleaders in California should, IMHO, be locked up. That was an awful situation, and if he was locked up (I don't know what became of him), then that was probably the correct result.
Going after child porn is not an end in itself. The goal here is to curb child abuse etc. So, some relative or friend shooting a video of the cheerleading squad should be fine. But, sure, some guy shooting telephoto shots up skirts during kicks is engaging in an activity that relates to the thing we are trying to get at with laws relating to photographic images.
With that in mind, then we are all fine with the classic "pictures of my kids in the tub" thing. Heck, my family has a hilarious home movie of me at age 2 in the tub with my sisters ages 4 and 6, which back in the day, my parents would show to company.
But even there, if someone is publishing a compilation - "Kids in the Tub Monthly" - of those kinds of things, then I think we can, without broader harm, even then conclude "there is something not-so-innocent" going on here, even if the images are not altered from what would otherwise be non-objectionable as part of the family album.
redqueen
(115,096 posts)The OP sees too innocent images being unfairly labeled child porn... I see ads like that and wonder how they ever got approved... I guess if its not technically child porn they get the green light and wait to see if anyone complains.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)the cultural "awareness" that is in itself often prurient.
Culture is not a precision instrument. There is a counter-prurience used in a lot of sex related issues where the energy of prurience is diverted into the effect of outrage. But increasing the prurient energy is not a good thing.
The abuses of law are what they are. There are some outrageous ones, but most people actually convicted of child-porn charges are doing something very serious.
(That said, I am not at all comfortable with a system where we cannot, as citizens, provide any oversight of these cases because it is illegal to look at the evidence)
But taking the crime seriously does not, or should not, require a burgeoning perception of children as being of prurient interest. "Not to me, but to everyone else..."
When problems get worse in proportion to the vigor of the solution it sometimes suggests looking at the solution.
When it was okay for little girls to go around topless we were not thereby sweeping a problem under the rug. Assuming we are not arguing that topless little girls are "asking for it," then there is no nexus between toddler bikinis and fighting child abuse.
Kids were not, culturally, sexy. Today they are. And reading more and more sexiness into images of young people does not decrease that perception, it increases it.
Not that Nietzsche is a reliable font of wisdom on all topics, but "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster."
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Culture changes.
But I know exactly the kind of thing you are talking about. I enjoyed raising my own children, whom are all now adults, and having been, at various times, a Sunday School teacher, a camp counselor, and a substitute teacher in local public and private schools, I enjoy conversations with kids of various ages. Absolutely, before saying anything to a child in a public place these days, one has to make sure to talk to their parent or adult guardian first, because any middle aged man who speaks to a child is presumed to be up to no good, and this has a corrosive effect on society.
But thems the rules now. Fortunately, I still live on a rare street where the neighbors all have at least a nodding acquaintance and everyone keeps an eye on the kids, so it's not "bizarre" if I let them pet the dog when I take her out for a walk, since it is just as likely to end up with the adults getting together and knocking back a cold one or two. I mean, we are just awful people here, sitting out on the front porches drinking, smoking and carrying on while the kids are running in and out having a good time. The horror.
Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)
Post removed
TalkingDog
(9,001 posts)Some of them are.
But parents have had their kids removed from their custody for taking pictures of their kids running around naked in the yard.
My father took pictures of me and my sister au natural. We were 3 and 4 years old. My mother couldn't keep clothes on us and as we grew up regaled our boyfriends with stories of us trying to go get ice cream from the ice cream truck sans liederhosen.
Which of my parents would you call perverted or a purveyor of porn?
The Liberal Grouch
(35 posts)...to something I posted in the DU lounge on the subject.
TalkingDog
(9,001 posts)unless you can make it about the subject at hand and leave out the personal sniping.
Welcome to DU.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)finally asked if i would angle the camera a little higher. i never thought a thing about it.
the very few cases that have been an issue were settled, if they even amounted to anything. this arguemnt of yours is a strawman.
TalkingDog
(9,001 posts)Just askin....
The Liberal Grouch
(35 posts)You have a problem with a citizen reporting suspected kiddy porn?
TalkingDog
(9,001 posts)In using the image to score a personal or political point, you are just as guilty of using this child as the original photographer; albeit in a less directly harmful way.
If you saved a life or helped a child, fine. Just don't use her pain to brag about yourself. That's sick.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)As a proud member of my local BDSM community, I aint seeing it.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The rules in place in relation to images of minors are intended to serve a social purpose which goes well beyond "policing the content of an image".
Reducing "a compilation of images" to this one image, IMHO is the problem. If this was one image in an otherwise artistic portfolio then it seems to be straightforward figure photography. But if it is part of a compilation with a primarily sexual focus, then I'd be inclined to say that it's something else.
TalkingDog
(9,001 posts)This was in the 1980's. I worked a shoe store that sold cowboy boots. One of the promotional posters had an infant standing in a pair of adult boots; as a result his buttocks were hanging over the tops of the boots. In addition he had an adult sized cowboy hat on. I had always thought it as a cute poster. Not great art, not great advertizing, but cute in the way babies are.
So the lemon faced woman came up to the counter, pointed at the poster and sneered: "I can't believe you have that CHILD PORNOGRAPHY hanging up in your store.
I turned to look where she was pointing, saw the poster and turned back to her. I said: "That is a picture of a little naked baby standing in cowboy boots. If you see child pornography, that is coming from your dirty mind, not from the poster.
She looked flustered and went ahead and made her purchase.
Sally Mann is another fantastic photographer who gets slapped with the "child pornography" label all the time. And the photographs are of her own kids. She has a rule with them that she will respect their privacy and when they don't want to be photographed anymore, she stops.
I mean... this image is part of the freaking Guggenheim collection. And yet somebody can look at this and think....... ewww child porn. The person who would call this child porn is just as disturbed as the perverts who are sexually excited by it.
Confusious
(8,317 posts)I thought the first one might be a comment on child abuse, simce it looks like whip marks on her back, but after looking closer, I see she's in the grass. Says Something about me.
The second picture: what animal is THAT?
TalkingDog
(9,001 posts)? Maybe?
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)in which the infant was not wearing a diaper. Posters seemed to miss the point. Poor Appalachian families back then let their kids run around naked because they could not afford diapers. What kind of sicko would think the poor little boy in that photo was sexual?
Confusious
(8,317 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)Where a photo-developer at Walmart (or wherever) would call the police because they found kids-in-bathtub photos that turned out to be taken by their parents.
I've never heard of Jock Sturges so I can't comment on that part
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)but nobody would have thought much about it a few years ago.
His work has an erotic (in the broadest sense of the word) component in that he is concerned with the beauty of the subjects as opposed to being completely academically detached, like an Eakins painting, but it is not sexual or lascivious. Mostly just people standing and sitting in nature.
I'm not a great fan of his but I can recognize the quality of the work.
redqueen
(115,096 posts)to see the problem with many images is deeply flawed.
It is not necessary to internalize anything.
All that is necessary is to consider the rates of sexual molestation of children.
Perhaps the idea that we might consider whether possibly sending a message that such desires are at all acceptable by society is worth it, considering how widespread a crime this is, and the devastating and lifelong effects it has on the victims.
Also, regarding this:
Could you provide any examples? Urban legends don't count.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)And you are free to consider my mind to be unchangeable as well, if you wish.
I really don't care.
redqueen
(115,096 posts)TalkingDog
(9,001 posts)Perhaps I have misread your intent with your reply, because I've re-read it several times and in it's relationship to the OP, it seems to suggest that how a child looks or dresses or is presented might have some bearing on whether they are assaulted or not.
Perhaps the idea that we might consider whether possibly sending a message that such desires are at all acceptable by society is worth it, considering how widespread a crime this is
How do you square the idea that, for women their mode of dress, undress, level of consent or ability to give consent does not constitute "permission" for a man to sexually assault them (I'm in completely agreement with this idea btw) with your post above?
If I have misunderstood your intent, I apologize.
redqueen
(115,096 posts)photographs of naked people can't be assaulted. They can send messages about what is or is not acceptable in the society which deems the images acceptable.
The images Sturges captured have been mentioned. Some of them are characterized as erotic, and I have to agree with that characterization.
Who gave consent for those pictures? Did the children pictured understand the situation?
These are very complex issues and IMO dismissing them with a simple reference to freedom of speech does a disservice to society and the victims of people who back in the day thought things like 'family sex' were natural and no big deal.
TalkingDog
(9,001 posts)If you argue that:
"photographs of naked people can't be assaulted. They can send messages about what is or is not acceptable in the society which deems the images acceptable. "
then, you are saying that images of women and children can suggest attitudes toward same and not that the images themselves are a sort of "permission".
As for the other ideas you are referring to in your reply, I did not mention them. Perhaps you intended them for someone else.
I am fully aware of the complexities involved and the nuance with which they should be approached. I was merely confused by the wording of your post and wanted a clarification.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)I met my wife at a nudist club. She was 21 and had been a member of the club for quite a few years along with her parents and two sisters and a brother.
This was back in the 80's. Almost all of our close friends were members of that club along with their children.
We got a monthly paper called The Bulletin along with our club's news letter. There were photos back then of nude children in the publications. We never thought anything of it until the mid 80's when the religious right began to push their weight around. To make a long story short, you never see any nude children in American Nudist publications because of the fear of society's adoption of the religious right's point of view which threatens the clubs.
Mosby
(16,160 posts)Republicans accuse anti-coal House committee witness of child pornography
Ah, but the picture of a little kid sitting in a bathtub full of tea-colored water touched a bigger nerve than that whole "your mountaintop removal is really screwing with our kids' water" thing. Because staffers for Colorado Republican Doug Lamborn said it was probably child pornography, and reported her to the capitol police for such, which got her detained for about an hour by said capitol police to explain that no, the picture of a five year old in a tub was meant to be offensive because the water was brown and gross and possibly health-damaging, not because there was a five year old in a tub and that made Republican committee staffers instinctively think of sex.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/09/1097556/-Republicans-accuse-anti-coal-House-committee-witness-of-child-pornography
treestar
(82,383 posts)That is a prime example there.
patrice
(47,992 posts)because, in crying wolf, they DAMAGE any case against authentic child pornography by being hysterical about images that are not pornographic like this picture.
They're FREAKING out about the little breasts and probably the little somewhat darker triangle below them (which, being the effect of how her legs are drawn up and thus cup the darkish water there) isn't what they think/pretend it is. Some of us just need a metaphoric slap-on-the-cheek sometimes to stop the, likely, self-absorbed drama.
patrice
(47,992 posts)statistics MATTER because they give us some prediction of the probabilities of evolution relative to regression and, if evolution matters, then so must regression - AND - if more than one instance of either matters, so MUST only one instance of either, because more of one thing that has no valence in and of itself is not more valuable.
So, though there will be those who internalize/perpetuate pedophilia by oppressing and also by being oppressed, that must be weighed against those who are in process toward liberation from that and also relative to those who cannot, or likely won't, complete that evolution toward liberation and, thus, find more opportunities to harm themselves and completely vulnerable innocent others, in environments that unwittingly nurture their own vulnerabilities.
Though err we must in this effort, because it's unavoidable, we should still strive to err in favor of the side of the least empowered here, children.
America needs to think long and honestly about the fundamental confusion we are communicating about the sexualization of children. One of the things that will help both of the perspectives in this thread contribute to progress will be full-voiced, responsible, respectful, honest public commitment to talking with everyone about how/what we know whatever is happening.
aint_no_life_nowhere
(21,925 posts)to the point where no one notices them. The only people I ever saw who especially noticed them and were shocked were American tourist friends I was escorting around.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)Nor are vaginas. I say that as not only a gay man, but I presume many women would agree...?
Yet, Western cultural standards have dictated that everyone see breasts and vaginas as sexually attractive, and thus, must be covered. I don't set the rules, I can't explain why they exist, but every time someone points and laughs at Islamic standards of modesty, I have to roll my eyes because we live in a similarly unhealthy society when it comes to sexuality - perhaps in an opposite direction, perhaps an extreme lying in an entirely different dimension, but sick and twisted - in terms of what sexuality is, how it is expressed, why it's important, when it is and is not appropriate, etc.
It's kind of laughable IMO, breasts as "sex organs". Is beautiful, shiny hair a sex organ, too? What about ankles? Silliness.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)Humans are the only mammal to have naturally developed mammary glands that protrude when not needed for breast-feeding. (We breed cows for milk production, so they are not natural.)
The function of lactation was always there, but the peculiarity of breasts sticking out all the time is something we came up with in the last few million years, and it offers no survival benefit whatsoever. It is actually a handicap. So it is a sex-selection trait. A secondary sexual trait that exists to be attractive, like the peacock's tail. (The usual male attraction to it develops in evolutionary tandem, of course.)
The penis is the same way. A penis is needed for reproduction, but ours are way too big for simple function. A gorilla's penis is the size of a filterless cigarette. Since there is no advantage to running through bramble bushes with a penis flopping around we know there is a reason it got to be so large and out-there. To be seen.
Bu that doesn't mean that it is there to be visually appreciated by women. If it is part of male presentation in competition with other males that works just as well, evolutionarily. And that probably has something to do with it.
(When we moved into colder climates the heat loss of the ever-floppy penis became more trouble than it was worth, and the necessity of clothing took away the everyday visual effect of males knowing their ranking, so the northern human tended toward a more retractable penis... hence George Costanza's horror at being glimpsed naked coming out of cold water.)
closeupready
(29,503 posts)on this, mine being the minority, lol.
Setting aside our divergence of opinions, I do appreciate that there are still some wickedly smart and thoughtful people on this board, like yourself, raising interesting discussions.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)the putti in artworks around the world, I guess.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putto
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,786 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)I recently watched "Pretty Baby" for the first time; a movie that could never be made today. Putting aside whether Brook Shields was exploited by her mother (almost certainly), the character she played, a young prostitute, is not presented in an erotic way. I thought the movie itself was a flawed but important work in Malle's pantheon.
It's a difficult subject, made more difficult by the fact (yes fact) that children as are all humans are sexual beings. How to depict that without exploiting or eroticizing is a quandary.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)People fly into fancies about what the think the law is, and get to the point of saying that a topless picture of a girl under 18 is "child pornography," but that obviously is not true.
Pretty Baby was never rounded up an burned because a topless picture of a girl under 18 is not, in fact, child pornography.
I have a serious problem with people claiming crimes of enormity for emotional effect or to serve their political purpose.
Failing to vote for the Jobs act is bad governance but it is not "treason."
And Pretty Baby is not "child pornography," and we know that because if it was then it would not be in print.
Fortunately, 18 is so young that artists can express most adolescent themes effectively with young looking performers. But the idea of a culture without art about adolescent sexuality is chilling. It is some off everyone's most vivid and self-making memories. To pretend artistically that a whole range of human experience somehow doesn't exist...
Well, as no less a personage than Scalia said when SCOTUS debated the law against adults portraying underage characters in a sexual context, "What are you going to do with Romeo and Juliet"
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)I haven't given it much consideration but you're right that succumbing to this strange new twist in society, where kids are "somehow about sex, culturally, in an unprecedented way," does seem damaging to our overall mental health.
hunter
(38,264 posts)Partly a Scandinavian thing, partly a beat generation thing.
Little kids didn't wear clothes at the river or uncrowded beaches. Some of us in puberty would maybe get self-conscious and wear swimsuits to hide changes we ourselves were uncomfortable with, but then we'd grow up to be a high spirited mix of naked and swim-suited adults, just as it was the generation before.
I was always aware of the cultural difference between our family community and the larger culture. After school I'd make a lot of noise whenever I brought my own friends home in hopes everyone covered up. And some neighborhood kids weren't allowed to visit our house mostly because my mom and her friends would nurse their babies and toddlers anywhere, anytime. Or else somebody might walk out of the bathroom or laundry room naked. You never knew. And there were drawings, paintings, sculptures, and books with naked people in random places. (My dad's an artist...)
Our own family culture hasn't changed much, toddlers and adults still run around naked at beaches, nurse babies wherever and whenever, change clothes in mixed company before weddings and such, but it seems there are so many places now where this would only make trouble.
I don't like this regression in our society. It seems to have started with the election of Ronald Reagan, too many people like Reagan appointee Ken Starr who couldn't stop thinking about Clinton's Penis, or Edwin Meese, all hot and bothered by this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_of_Justice
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)first place.
and media, fashion, music, art world etc has a primary culpability in that trend.