So someone named Perez Hilton (related to Paris? no idea) has got hisself in a little spot o’ trouble for blogging a (now removed) photo of Miley Cyrus that may or may not show her in a panties-less state. There’s speculation this could generate a child pornography charge for Hilton.
There’s all sorts of “anger and recrimination” about this heinous “crime,” which is far beyond absurd. Folks, let’s please not pretend that a revealing photograph of slutted-up, 17.5616438-year-old Miley Cyrus is morally equivalent to the same shot of a prepubescent child.
The legal line has to be somewhere, and I suppose 18 years old is reasonable enough. But is it just too much to ask that we scale our bluster accordingly? Hey, guess what? Attractive 17-year-old girls in revealing clothing are sexually arousing. There’s no more shame in that than in any other hormonally-generated biological truth.
We feverishly manufacture nonsense like this. Of that I am satisfied. Do we do it just so we can bleat about how appalled we are?