Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Gay Is Good


Yes, that's sleazy and perpetuates bad misconceptions about gay men.

Posted by raindrop | January 21, 2008 10:52 AM

There's probably money to be made somewhere.

Posted by NapoleonXIV | January 21, 2008 10:57 AM

Search Flickr for "schoolgirl" sometime if you want to see "skeezie".

Posted by Fnarf | January 21, 2008 11:17 AM

that is pretty sad.

Posted by bbilly | January 21, 2008 11:19 AM

(he says right before he searches Flickr)

Posted by bbilly | January 21, 2008 11:22 AM

Thank you. I really don't think porn sites should be allowed to post photos of anyone, fully clothed or otherwise, without their written consent. Even if it was just something casually snapped in a public setting. It's an "asshole move" I think, to involve anyone in a porn operation without their consent. And...yeah...there are plenty of people who would give it freely too, and think they were real hot stuff just for being it isn't about money. It's just that these guys are assholes.

Posted by Bruce Garrett | January 21, 2008 11:25 AM

From now on, I'll only get my pron from websites that certified owned and operated by saints.

Posted by NapoleonXIV | January 21, 2008 11:28 AM

Interesting from a legal point of view. I wonder why it would be legal to post pictures of minors on a porn website?

It's skeezy to the max. Children (which is defined mostly as anyone under 18) are off the menu, and little sickens and depresses me more than the thought of some creep robbing a kid of his/her innocence. And about those minors who are thought to be pretty worldly? No, they're still kids who have experienced some form of exploitation. Leave our children alone, assholes. Seek some help.

Posted by Bauhaus | January 21, 2008 11:39 AM

Definitely crass and tasteless. Although it's comforting (or maybe depressing) to know that lust for teenagers doesn't vary by sexual orientation.

Posted by Greg | January 21, 2008 11:40 AM

I'm with #8. How is it legal to publish photos of minors on a porn website, whether they agreed to it or not?

Posted by keshmeshi | January 21, 2008 11:41 AM

Presumably because they're (barely) clothed?

I don't agree with the invasion of their privacy. That said, I think faulting pornographers for low (or no) moral standards is kinda dumb.

Posted by NapoleonXIV | January 21, 2008 11:47 AM

It's not criminal, but it's definitely a cause of action for false light. The kids (or their parents) can sue.

Posted by SFgal | January 21, 2008 12:01 PM

One has to wonder where people develop a taste for such images- Luckily The Stranger only shows images of "men" not hairless barely-legal boys in speedos...


Posted by UNPAID BLOOGER | January 21, 2008 12:03 PM

And how did the boys water polo coach stumble across these images.... hmmmmm?

Posted by Rye | January 21, 2008 12:10 PM

@8, It's legal because the minors have clothes on (albeit not much). It is only illegal to show pictures of minors if the pics are sexually explicit. Minors in speedos are not illegal. The fact that they were shown out of context on a gay porn site does not make the speedos pics illegal. Stupid and assholeish to be sure, but not illegal.

If the parents really wanted to cause a fuss, they might be able to sue the porn sites for libel or slander. But that's a bit of a reach, and probably cost more in legal fees than it's worth.

While it may be very difficult to get the current photo pulled off the websites, it is easy enough to prevent it from happening in the future.

Since we can't rely on the ethics (*cough*) of the porn sites, the best the parents can do is control access to photographers more tightly. If you read the article, the asswipe that took the photos was specifically given credentials (a press pass) to shoot photos at the polo matches. Since the photos are taken on school property, inside a building, the school can dictate who is allowed to take photos, and under what conditions. It would be pretty simple to more strictly regulate who gets a press pass, and to restrict how the images can be used as a condition of issuing the pass.

Posted by Reverse Polarity | January 21, 2008 12:12 PM

@8, 11, 12. The minors don't actually need to be naked for it to be considered child pornography. A pedophile was convicted of producing and possessing child pornography for a videotape he made at a parade. He took closeups of children's groins while they watched the parade, and it was obviously meant for his personal masturbatory use.

In other words, there's a legal precedent for prosecuting this.

Posted by Gitai | January 21, 2008 12:21 PM

You can still jerk off to the Sears catalog (not that I've tried, or at least not since I was 14) and there's kids all over that publication.

Posted by Jason Josephes | January 21, 2008 1:25 PM

Yeah, Dan: Why troll high school swim meets when you can mentor them, right?

Posted by NapoleonXIV | January 21, 2008 4:54 PM

Our local paper prints high school wrestling photos that make me *cringe*. I swear the photographer must be a pedophile and the editor is clueless.

Posted by Joe in DE | January 22, 2008 7:02 AM

I had my kids at our local pool one time and a man was taking pictures of two girls. I heard a staff member approach the girls and ask them if they knew who the man was--they verified he was their grandfather. It looked innocent enough to me, but I was glad the staff are pro-active about making sure nothing illegal is going on.

Another time, my kids were playing in a popular local fountain when a young man asked if he could photograph my son for pictures for his photography class. I said he could, figuring that a perv probably wouldn't ask. Hmmm, I don't even want to think that anyone would put my little guy on any questionable websites.

Posted by snoozn | January 23, 2008 8:20 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).