Ok, I get it

 

If you really must see the picture, you can search it up at artnet.com.

Maybe it doesn’t qualify as “official porn” according to some judge, but it’s porn nonetheless. 

1. Not only porn, but child porn.  Who cares if the mother signed the rights, allowed the picture, etc.  It’s still exploiting a young girl.

   Posted by John C       10/01/2009  at  07:39 PM  



2. Given that this news is coming off the same time as Polansky finally getting his just desserts, this is bitterly ironic.

   Perhaps we should talk to Whoopi about whether this is “Porn-porn”, like whether Polansky committed “rape-rape” against a thirteen year old in his care.

   Perhaps the West is doomed.

   Posted by Turtler       10/02/2009  at  02:12 AM  



3. You know I struggle mightily with the two ‘mothers’ in these cases - I want my children to find a profession they love to do, I want them to find a spouse they can spend their entire life with and if they want children - I want those children to be healthy. If they advance to the top of their careers - more power to them. If they make a million with their careers - more power to them.

   But like the late Mary Jo Koepechne’s mother - I could not/would not be bought off. It is a tragedy that these women loved money more than their little girls.

   Posted by wardmama4       10/02/2009  at  06:30 AM  



4. > If you really must see the picture,

   As a father of two girls, one 13, one 9, ... Well let me just sum up this whole situation as:  Creepy.  Really creepy.

   It feels exploitative in its nature now.

   Posted by Argentium G. Tiger       10/02/2009  at  06:44 AM  



5. Urgh, I didn’t complete my thought, I blame the ‘wonderful’ fever I’m currently running.

   Anyway:  as per the “If you really must”: No.  Hell no.  So not interested in violating the privacy of a 10 year old little girl, even if she’s much older now, that picture is still of her when she’s TEN.  *shudder* Damn it, why do people do shit like this?

   Posted by Argentium G. Tiger       10/02/2009  at  06:48 AM  



6. And the top ten excuse for david lettermans recent revalation:
   It wasnt Adultery/adultery!

   Posted by Rich K       10/02/2009  at  01:31 PM  



7. How come no one put her mother in jail for allowing or forcing her to pose for that shit back then?

   Posted by grayjohn       10/02/2009  at  06:27 PM  



8. Sick. 

   As the father of two daughters, I’m torn between the urge to just barf and kill someone.

   Sick.

   DD

   Posted by Dedicated_dad       10/02/2009  at  08:29 PM  

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.