The Dangers of Sexting -- Megan's Story...

Sexting is a problem, a big problem. The prevalence of technology and the ease in which images can be transmitted means that an inappropriate image that was destined for someone "special" can quickly end up going viral.

This advertisement from Think You Know Australia highlights the dangers of sexting. If nothing else, as the law currently stands children with child porn can be, conceivably, convicted of a serious child porn crime and be placed on a sexual offenders register.

I would encourage all to watch and learn.

Glee & Promoting Pedophilia...

Hmmm...

Glee is a TV show that airs on Fox in the US. It is classed as a musical comedy-drama, and it follows the trials and tribulations of high school teenagers as they wend there collective ways through some good old teenage angst issues. Interesting a lot of the cast are not teenagers at all but adult actors playing the role of teenagers. Apart from being a pretty popular TV series, Glee has come in for some closer scrutiny after a recent photo-shoot of some of the 20-something actors (Lea Michele, Dianna Agron, and Corey Monteith) from the show appeared in GQ magazine.

The controversy arose because the Parents Television Council in the US has labelled the photos as "bordering on paedophilia". This in turn raises some interesting legal issues as to how one should proceed when adult age actors who are play the roles of teenagers then pose for sexy photos. Can the sexy photo of a 20+ something actor ever be an image that promotes pedophilia. It would seem that the assumption is that because these actors play the roles of not yet of age teenagers then any image of them that sexualises them is promoting pedophilia.

The reality is that if these young people use their fame to promote themselves through sexy photo-shoots, even ones that overtly sexualise them, don't they have a right to do it? After all, the people involved are all of legal age, and by any definition of the law have a right to make the decisions that they have. The photos themselves are not pornographic and do not violate any decency standards or norms for television or for print media.

Nevertheless, this is an interesting legal issue that extends beyond this particular instance. For example, can purveyors of porn be arrested and jailed for the upload / download of images of adults wearing, or part wearing of, school uniforms? In a lot of jurisdictions the law has been amended or worded in such a way as what the image attempts to convey or the content as being the key determiner in whether an image is classified as child porn.

So, simply if the point is to provide sexual gratification through the belief that one is looking at a naked or near naked child, even where the "child" in question is in fact an adult, then a crime has been committed. At least this is how I understand the law to work (time for more research and update myself on the laws in this area).

Therefore, if that interpretation of the law is accurate, then is it possible to mount a child porn case with images like the ones in GQ? I would argue not. Any reasonable person would know that the young people depicted in these images are adults and not children.

I am not sure how these particular photos promote pedophilia. I must be missing something.

Oh Dear, Mr. Sembiring Are You Serious?

It is a real shame that this man's name is not Titaful instead of Tifatul. This is particularly so considering the Minister of Communication and Information's fascination with banning pornography in Indonesia. But, never mind Indonesians regularly shorten their names, so from now on Mr. Tifatul Sembiring has the moniker "Tits", which is fair enough as all the letters are in his name and appear in that order...

Now, Tits has declared that he is a man on a mission, presumably from God, to ensure that all porn sites originating in Indonesia are shut down and all porn sites hosted overseas are blocked by Indonesian filtering technology before reaching screens in Indonesia. The plan calls for all these sites to be history before the start of the holy month of Ramadan. Ramadan as many of us are all to aware is a month where Muslims refrain from eating, drinking, smoking and other earthly pleasures during daylight hours.

While most people are thinking that the porn ban that Tits has in mind will only effect images, and that this is not such a bad thing, they are sadly mistaken. If Tits gets his way, then even sentences will be classified and if deemed to be too rude then they will be labelled porn and prohibited. Yes folks, Indonesia is back on the path to burning books and treating its adult population like naughty children who do not know what's best for themselves. Tits is looking at getting this banning and burning thing done on a "massive" scale. It reminds me of a picture I once saw about social media 'experts'. I attach it for your viewing pleasure.

Personally, to each their own on the porn front. I have no problem with making porn more difficult to access, especially the idea of making it as difficult as possible for children to access. I have no problem with prohibiting kiddie porn. Our children need protection from this sort of material, whether that be protection in the form of ensuring they do not become the subjects of child porn or being prevented from seeing what is already out there. However, I cannot see why the government needs to regulate whether two consenting adults enjoy looking at pictures of each other in the nude.

In any event, if Tits is thinking that he is going to be successful in protecting people from themselves then he is going to be in for a rude awakening. The blanket ban, which "massive" suggests will not work. The idea that it will presupposes that purveyors of pornography are stupid and technologically incapable of adapting. This is clearly not the case.

The porn industry is not one that is about just tens of thousands of dollars, or even hundreds of thousands of dollars, nor millions of dollars. The porn industry is a multi-billion dollar gig. The reality is that where there is a will there is a way...it is the chicken and the egg theory, or perhaps it is even simple supply and demand theory. People want porn, so other people produce it. Indonesians want porn, so somebody somewhere is going to be producing it and Indonesians are going to work out a way to get access to it.

So, Tits it is time you focused your energies on other more important issues in your portfolio. Quite simply, the big red mark you have against your name with respect to your ministerial performance to date has nothing to do with your failures relating to porn. Time to stop trying to deflect attention from your shortcomings by playing the porn card. It is time to get on with doing your job.

Maybe, this poster is something the good minister might want to consider when working out how successful this plan of his might be.

Happy fasting to you Tits!

Facebook -- Nude Photos -- Defamation?

This is not an only in Indonesia story as it the 'art' of sexting and sending naughty pictures of oneself happens pretty regularly so it seems. It has been reported that Tiger Woods asked at least one of his mistresses to send him a naughty photo or two. I guess he has more than one mobile phone, otherwise the odds of getting caught out by the wife seem a little on the 'not worth it side'.

Anyways, it has been reported that a 26-year-old civil servant encouraged his 17-year-old girlfriend to send a naughty picture of herself to him. She obliged. The nude photo then found itself uploaded onto a Facebook page. Apparently, the report was that he defamed her. I am not sure that this is the right 'complaint' to be lodging with the police. It would seem that the new pornography law and the information and electronic transactions law would be a little more appropriate. Considering the age of the 'victim' in this case there could be a criminal code angle to explore as well, perhaps along with some child protection issues.

Nevertheless, the nude photo is only part of the problem. It seems that the pair had a sexual relationship and decided that they needed to take some mobile phone footage of their encounters. The boyfriend has been using this footage as a means of keeping the girl his girlfriend by telling her that if she leaves him then he will show the footage to her parents.

Maybe the moral of the story is: do not voluntarily or knowingly allow yourself to be filmed in compromising positions and don't be tempted to send naked photos of yourself to supposed trusted confidantes. Sometimes things just do not work out.

Child Pornography...

Are there any lines to be drawn in the sand as to what constitutes child pornography? It would seem that for some the definition is clear and for others the definition is less than clear. In fact, the definition can be interpreted in any old fashion that may be required for the purpose of an arrest and a subsequent prosecution.

For example, is the possession of photographs of a child in a swimming costume playing in a pool or riding in that same swimming costume in the back of a truck or sitting on a relative's lap a case of being in possession of child pornography? Would it make any difference if that child was a relative of the person in possession of that photograph. Perhaps even more personal, if I am in possession of a photograph of my son swimming naked in the pool, am I in possession of child pornography? Would it make any difference if I then placed that photograph on my blog or used it as a screen saver on my computer?

These are important questions for many reasons. Personally, I find child pornography abhorrent and do not condone its production or distribution. However, I cannot reconcile that me having a photograph of my own son swimming naked in my pool is child pornography. I also cannot reconcile that placing that photograph on my blog would be tantamount to disseminating or distributing child pornography online. I appreciate that there are evil people out there who might get some degree of cheap sexual pleasure from the photograph, but should that mean my posting of the photograph or even having it in the first place be considered as being in possession of child porn?

The idea that any image of a naked child is child pornography means that there is no artistic merit exception for artists that produce images of naked children. I am not an artist and therefore cannot give an adequate answer as to the artistic need for such images, but I believe that artists can make a case for the need for such an exception. The furore that erupted over images produced by Bill Henson last year is an example of do we need to draw lines in the sand, and if we do, then where do we draw them?

An interesting case has arisen in the US military where a National Guard soldier has been found in possession of images of a child, his four-year-old relative in a swimming costume. The images were sent to him by his mother as an attempt to relieve some of his homesickness associated with being posted on a tour of duty in Afghanistan. The US Army brass has decided to purse an investigation of the images with a view to a court martial. The penalty under US Army law is potentially a ten-year jail term. The rest of the soldier's unit has already returned back to the US after their tour of duty.

If this case is as simple as this soldier having a couple of images of a four-year-old relative in a swimming costume, then the US Army is wasting its time. Simply, it is making mountains out of molehills. By all accounts the images found by the US Army do not include any naked images. The closest you have to a porn image is a partially exposed buttocks (apparently still in a swimming costume).

The definition of what constitutes child pornography is going to have to be very tight. And, there will need to be consideration given to intent. There simply must be a mens rea component to the charge. If there is not a mens rea component then any image of a child may give rise to a possible child pornography charge. Seriously, is a shot of a young girl in a pose for a beauty pageant to be considered sexual or seductive?

The mind boggles as to where this can lead.

Although this post might lend itself to a photograph or two, I am not posting any...a silent protest (sort of).

Child Pornography and Artistic Merit...

It would seem that NSW is about to introduce legislation that removes artistic merit as a defense for images of children that are determined to be pornographic. The NSW Attorney-General, John Hatzistergos, has said that a working group tasked with making recommendations on this matter has recommended that a defense of artistic merit must lapse once an image has been deemed to be pornographic.

Simply, whether the 'artist' in question produced the image as art or not becomes irrelevant with respect to the charge of producing, possessing, or distributing child porn material.

The question then becomes what about images that are not produced for artistic purposes, but rather are nothing more than personal family photos. For example, what if the Attorney-General had a happy snappy of one of his children or his grand children taking a bath. Is this producing or possessing child porn? What if in his apparent pride he shows the photograph to a colleague or places it on his computer as a screen saver and it is seen by members of his staff? Is this distributing child porn?

I am totally against child pornography. I find it objectionable in the extreme, abhorrent. I am certain that my views on this topic and subject have hardened since the birth of Will. The thought of him being exploited for child pornography is repugnant in the extreme. However, I really do not see what harm there is in either his mother, his grandparents, or his aunts and uncles having a picture of the little fella swimming but naked in the pool. I cannot fathom how I could be investigated, arrested, and prosecuted for producing, possessing, or distributing child pornography.

On the artistic front. I am not an artist and cannot make the arguments for artistic expression that an artist might need in producing images of children that may or may not push the boundaries of art and child porn. However, I do accept that artists have a right to that freedom of expression. An artist who takes a semi-naked picture of a child with the full consent of the parents of that child for the purposes of creating art that may later be exhibited should not lose the right to claim artistic merit as a defense because someone, probably a bureaucrat, has deemed the image to be child porn. The current recommendation would see a panel created to determine whether or not the image was a valid image of a child.

I am wondering whether in the common law there is a requirement for the commission of a crime to include not only the actus reus or the act, but also a requirement for mens rea, the intent. Before a crime can be proven is there not a need to determine the intent of the alleged offender to commit the crime charged?

It would seem to me that the removal of artistic merit as a defense removes a right to create art. Clearly, Bill Henson's work is not everyone's cuppa tea, but all the same neither is what Picasso or Rembrandt produced either.

Interestingly, many are arguing that this working group was set up in response to the furore surrounding Bill Henson and the closing down of an exhibition of his work. If this were true, then it seems a little silly considering his work was assessed by the relevant classification authorities in this area and determined to not breach any standards with respect to images involving children (including the photograph above).

There is certainly a need to tighten child pornography laws and to eliminate this scourge from the community. However, it seems that artists who produce images of children are the softest target available for the government on this front. The idea of removing the artistic merit defense for artists is evidence of the government's inability to deal appropriately and comprehensively with the scourge of child pornography.

There will undoubtedly be more to follow once the legislation is introduced to the NSW parliament.

Pornography -- By The Numbers...

Source: Online Education


This is the first of a couple of porn related posts. The second one will be about the NSW government's plan to introduce legislation that would in essence remove artistic merit as being an acceptable defense to the production of a pornographic image. The amended legislation is designed to ensure that images of child pornography never see the light of day under the guise of art. The amended legislation is supposedly in response to the Bill Henson shenanigans of last year.

However, this post can be found at Online Education (which bills itself as the place where you can learn "the stuff they don't teach you in college..."). It makes for interesting reading. For example, the disparity in income potential between male and female porn stars. Even more interesting is that Asia (in the guise of China, South Korea, and Japan) account for 3/4 of all porn revenue. And, that this revenue totals some USD 97 billion annually.

Considering that only 43% of all internet users search for porn and view it, then the market potential remains huge in this industry sector.

Oh well, gotta go...

X-Ray Scanners, Naked Images, Child Porn, and Airports...

Manchester Airport is trialling an X-ray machine that is being used to scan passengers before they enter the departure lounge of the airport. The scan takes a few seconds and are expected to do away with the need for a physical frisk of the traveler as they go through security checkpoints. There would apparently be no need to empty your pockets as the scanner would identify all and sundry in your pockets or take off your shoes.

It seems that the scanners can do a little bit more than that, as they will also identify any implants a traveler has. So, anyone with breast implants or a little uplift in the buttocks area will find themselves subject to a few smiles no doubt from knowledgeable scanner operators.

However, in an interesting twist, some child advocacy groups have wondered out loud whether the "naked images" that these scanners are capable of, violate child pornography laws. Airport authorities are saying that they do not, and in any event the images are immediately destroyed if there is no reason for them to be saved. Although, faces and skin color might not be identifiable in the scans, the genitals are clearly outlined in the x-ray scans.

The outlines of a child's genitals would seemingly be a violation of most child protection laws throughout the world. These laws, generally, make it an offense to show or make and indecent image of a child. The outline of a child's genitals would conceivably, and arguably, be an indecent image. The UK child protection statute even includes the term "pseudo-photograph" which a scanner image arguably is.

This story will undoubtedly continue to develop as the legal issues are further explored.

Maria Ozawa, Miyabi, Indonesia, and the MUI

On the completely unimportant news front, Maria Ozawa, or as she is better known, Miyabi (all images freely available on the internet), has made a trip to Indonesia and is to appear in a film. Now, before you get all hot and bothered, and despite her claim to fame as a recognized porn film star from Japan, the film is not to be porn. That said, the title of the film is "Kidnap Miyabi." So, perhaps the Indonesian producers of the film are capitalizing on her fame as a porn star.

I wonder would this film contravene the provisions of the new film law?

Nevertheless, the Indonesian Ulema Council (Majelis Ulama Indonesia / MUI) an organization that considers itself as spokesperson for all things Islam and Muslim, has decided that Maria Ozawa appearing in an Indonesian film is going to damage Indonesia's standing in the rest of the world. Although, I would have thought that any damage in the eyes of God might have been something more to fear.

It is a little bizarre that the MUI is worried that a Japanese porn star is going to damage Indonesia's standing in the world community, but seem less worried, or actually not worried at all, that the passage of regional legislation in Aceh that permits stoning of adulterers is not going to damage Indonesia's standing.

It would seem that the MUI is worried what message this sends to the world community, namely: that Indonesia has to import porn stars to appear in Indonesian non-porn films. Besides, it is not like Indonesia does not have some home grown porn stars that it could have turned to for this role, is it?

Miley Cyrus -- Bare Naked Truth

Courting controversy is one way of making sure your name stays on the front pages of newspapers and magazines, on talk radio, and a topic of conversation in the homes and offices of the world. It seems that Miley Cyrus knows this and is unashamedly exploiting this fact.

Latest reports have Miley being really excited by the prospect of being cast in the lead role of Undiscovered Gyrl. The movie is to be based on the book of the same name by Allison Burnett. The story is one of a 15-year-old girl who spins out of control into a life of partying and promiscuity. The film would undoubtedly call for nude scenes and apparently the wholesome good ol' American girl is keen to be doing whatever it takes to make it real.

Full nudity is sure to be way more controversial that the topless albeit sheet covering debut on Vanity Fair magazine. This is going to challenge the parents of all her pre-pubescent and pubescent fans to the max.

Aside from the parents of her fans having a few problems about the message this might send, I wonder about how one classifies this film if Miley Cyrus does get the part and does the nude scenes. Wouldn't the film be like child pornography even if good ol' country boy and father Billy Ray Cyrus approves? My feeling would be that if the nude scenes are critical to the film or story that an adult who looks like a 15-year-old will be cast.

Interesting stuff this pursuit by Miley Cyrus to be more adult like than her 15 years requires.

Internet -- The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly

There is no doubting that the Internet is a powerful tool. There is also no doubting that once something gets posted online it is almost impossible to retrieve. So, if what is posted is embarrassing then it is likely to remain an embarrassment for the rest of your natural life.

It is not only the Internet that is a powerful tool in this age of technology, but the increasing sophistication of mobile phones to include cameras and streaming video means that just about anyone can be a conduit for news. This sort of takes citizen journalism to a whole new level.

When the Internet and increased sophistication of technology is combined with the increasing levels of sexualization of children, then we have a scenario for real trouble. This is highlighted in a Victorian case that has now involved the FBI.

A teenage girl, and only just a teenager at 13, has taken some sexually explicit photos of herself and sent them to her 17-year old boyfriend. Now, I am not quite sure what a 17-year old wants to be going out with a 13-year old for in the first place, but he was.

The whole story might have ended there but for the intervention of another 13-year old who happened to acquire the self-portrait images of the other girl and decided to create a fake MySpace account and post the pictures there.

Now the news are reporting the girl who took the photos as the victim. However, if the photos were taken voluntarily is she still a victim. In the eyes of the law, yes. The 17-year old should have known the law and steered well clear. This might be cut and dried in terms of interpreting the prevailing provisions but it might not be so cut and dried once the full story emerges (then again maybe it will).

The complaint was made by the "victim" and the police became involved. It is unclear as to whether the complaint was about the 17-year old boyfriend or the 13-year old that created the MySpace account and posted the happy snappy self-portraits.

The 13-year old that created the fake MySpace account was cautioned, which is nothing more than a lecture and a slap on the wrist.

The boyfriend on the other hand is in a whole different world of hurt having been charged with the sexual penetration of a child under 16 and procuring child pornography.

My views are clear on kiddie porn and a quick squiz through my postings here are elsewhere highlight that. Simply, kiddie porn is not on at any time. But, how are we as a community to deal with images of minors taken by the minors themselves and then posted by those minors on the Internet?

Art or Child Porn -- Some More Thoughts

The art vs. porn debate is likely to rage on for a while and then perhaps disappear until the next time someone wants to run an exhibition with provocative images. However, I have been following this debate because of the legal implications and because I enjoy looking at how the debate is characterized considering art is such a subjective area of study.

I was forwarded a link to a discussion thread at a place called "net-model" which has some interesting stuff about Bill Henson and others who have produced similar images in the name of art over the years.

Nevertheless, I do want to throw something else into the fray here, and that is; assuming that Henson did all the right things and asked for and was granted the consent of the parents for the photographs, then where should the blame be apportioned in this case?

If these images are in fact classified as pornography then why is no one talking about the parents who allowed these photos to be taken? Has the child been removed from the family home because she is at risk from sexual exploitation by her parents?

When is too young for nude modelling work? Not a question I can or want to answer at this point in time or one that I need to answer. However, before a child reaches legal age to make decisions for themselves (legal capacity) then these decisions are made by the parent(s) and as such the parents must also be responsible for the consequences of the decisions made on behalf of their child.

Will these images do any irreparable psychological harm to the teen models that are the subject of these pictures, who knows? Only time will tell, won't it?

I wonder would we be having this debate if the pictures in question were the happy snappies from the family album and included photographs of kids in the bath, frolicking on the lawn or at the beach, or doing any other myriad of things that kids do and that their parents photograph them doing? What would be the arbitrary line in the sand that we as a community would draw to determine when a naked picture has a sexual context and when it is nothing more than an innocent family happy snappy?

Art is such a subjective thing and I guess this is why this debate had to happen...one person's art is another person's porn!

More to follow...

Art or Child Porn -- An Update

The exhibition was to be of 41 photographs of naked teenagers, mostly. Some of the models were allegedly only 12 years old and by my reckoning makes them pre-teen. However, the police have seized 20 of the 41 photographs as evidence and it is expected that both NSW and Commonwealth charges are to be laid under Child Protection Act. My reckoning is that there are probably offences committed under the Crimes Act as well. The Commonwealth law is being used with respect to the publishing of an indecent article on the Internet.

The actual offence requires the depiction of a child under 16 years of age in a sexual pose. I must say that I have not seen the pictures and can only refer to what has been written by others, but it would seem that at least some of the photographs would fall into that category. This is probably also affirmed in the decision for the police to execute a search warrant and seize 20 of the items that were listed to be exhibited.

So, it seems as if the debate on what constitutes art and what constitutes porn is about to enter the legal realm and specifically the courts of NSW. This will pit the experts against each other from the art, porn, and child advocacy worlds and their respective supporters in opposing camps.

On the Federal level the PM has already weighed in with a statement that he finds the images revolting and a case of stripping away the rights of children to be children and in essence do things that normal children do. One assumes that his statement is based on a viewing of the offending images and not just hearsay. As PM he could demand a look couldn't he?

As an additional note. Bill Henson is one of the artists that Year 11 and 12 students in NSW can study as part of a course for their Higher School Certificate (HSC) for a Board of Studies approved subject titled "Photography, Video, and Digital Imaging". It should be pointed out that this comes with a disclaimer in the sense that it mandates that teachers must choose appropriate subject material for study.

Art or Child Porn

An exhibition of Bill Henson photographs depicting 12 an 13 year old children fully naked and in poses that have been described as being sexual (includes some of the offending images) is about to open in Paddington (NSW, Australia) at the Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery. The invitation depicts a picture of a young girl in her full nakedness and one hand covering her crotch.

So, have the prevalence of images of naked children in the mass media meant that those things that were shocking in the past for our parents are now no longer shocking? It would seem so!

Children must be afforded special protections from exploitation and specifically from sexual exploitation and in that sense the purpose of this protection is to allow children to be children. The reality however is that children are being sexualized at much younger ages and being exposed to adult themes at much earlier ages than ever before. If you do not believe me then simply go to any newsagent or place that sells magazines aimed at the teen girl market and read a story or two.

The issue has become just that an issue and has sparked a Senate enquiry in Australia. The Report is due some time next month and I might post some excerpts from it once it has been released.

Does the ever-increasingly earlier sexualization of children do them long-lasting mental and psychological harm. I guess the answer to this question is going to depend on who you ask and how you characterize the question presented.

It is being reported that Clive Hamilton, former executive director of the Australia Institute, whose 2006 report Corporate Pedophilia, authored by Dr Emma Rush, brought the sexualization of children issue into the mainstream, said yesterday:

"They have a very postmodern agenda, [with] an old fashioned feminist view that girls should be able to explore their sexuality and any attempt to stop them … is perverse."

This seems like that it is a debate that is going to continue for some time as there are distinct and competing agendas at play here.

For me, at least on a personal level, this is a sad indictment of the world in which we live that children can no longer have the right to be children. But, then again, perhaps this is the nature of the beast. The beast in this case being increasingly sophisticated technologies for providing information which in turn forces children to "grow-up" more quickly.

Nevertheless, the question that I want to leave any readers who have made it this far with is:

"when does art cease to be art and become pornography, or is pornography art?"

Sexual Violence and Films

A story out of France appears to provide some vindication to those people that advocate there is a connection between the violence and sex that children watch and their behaviour. The argument that we should enact laws that protect our children from sex and violence has been raging for some time. Those advocating restrictions and bans are not just looking at TV and film but also violent video games that seem to glorify gratuitous violence and mayhem.

Back to France. It seems that an 11 year old boy had watched a porno flick with his 12 year old mate and his sister! After having watched this skin flick it was decided that they would try and reproduce some of the scenes. The news reports do not indicate how old the sister was. Presumably, the re-enactments were perpetrated on the sister!

In an era of modern technology, it seems that every kid has a mobile phone. What's more these pieces of equipment are sophisticated and generally include camera and video features. The two boys decided that this was worth filming and decided to film the re-enactment.

It then turns out that having filmed the events as they unfolded it would be silly not to show it at school to all 100 or so of their closest friends. This is one of those "dumb and dumber" moments as the more people you tell the more likely your story is to be uncovered. I guess you do not think about these things when you are 11 or 12.

The boys are getting psychological counselling and apparently under French law they cannot be jailed for their "re-enactment" . However, they can be sentenced apparently to some kind of community service or control order.

Sex & Controversy

This post is not going to be all that entertaining for you! Rather it is an update on my ongoing and individual research on what attracts traffic to my site.

So here is a little update on what my statistics are telling me:

The post on the Exploitation and Sexualization of Children, which features a picture of a 13-year old in a swimsuit, has been a really big driver of traffic to my blog (and it continues to be). What can I deduce from this -- ants to honey!

The other post that has done pretty well is the one that includes the homoerotic depiction of the Last Supper. I have some other more offensive pictures on file by the same artist including the one where the Roman soldier is providing Jesus with a good little fondle. Unfortunately, Jesus does not have a lot of say in the matter as he is nailed to the cross!

What have I learned my fellow bloggers...sex sells and it pays to be controversial!

I lie, I did not really learn that but it sounded good!

I already knew that and my stats now confirm this to be the case...