So, check this link out. Read it. Chew it over. Digest it.

Basically, I’m wondering, for each of you, where is that line? We’re talking about children here, and there are a whole host of other issues wrapped up in it.

Is it all about intent? That is, if they’re not consciously trying to titillate, does it excuse just about everything?

Or is it based on other things entirely?

As far as my own feelings, I think the American Apparel pics are pretty messed up. And that charging the parents is as ridiculous as the article suggests. But those are two extremes. I don’t know where the line is myself, but I’m inclined to think it may not be a thin line at all, but rather a very wide range.

I’m reminded of Potter Stewart’s explanation of hardcore pornography being difficult to define, but that, as he said, “I know it when I see it.” It doesn’t feel like a satisfying answer but it may well be correct in this case. I see those first ads, they hit me wrong, I see the children in the bath, they don’t.

But each person’s perspective on this is going to be different, and so, when I see it, I can only see it through my eyes. What do you see through yours?

I’m leaving this thread pretty open to see what we all come up with.

Penultimate post before two weeks away from the site. After Tuesday, get writing, Matt and Akil!

Peace and love,
Justin PBG