<I don't know anything about Sturges or his art, but I would suggest if you find it offensive you don't spend so much time making a study of it and just look at something else.

Your objection raises the conjecture that you find a facination that might not be healthy. That you seek to engage in a discussion of pedophilia encourages me to advise that you not look at any more of those dirty ink block pictures.



This is just plain dumbass. How can one infer that because I rip on some person or subject, that I must somehow be sympathetic with them? Are all people who object to pedophilia secret pedophiles? Judging from your posts this must mean that you are secretly a Republican.

Then again, maybe those objectionable pictures could be burned along with Harry Potter books.

Disapproval is not the same thing as calling for government censorship, and I never suggested it. Sturges books are available on Amazon. You don't like it, don't buy it. Salon can do this all day for all I care.

I was merely pointing out that the liberals who run Salon.com consider this form of material as a potential source of profit, and therefore in their opinion likely to appeal to their target audience. They stuck it on their "sex" page, and charge money for it. And selling pictures of naked kids for their prurient interest is disgusting, no matter how you dress it up as "art." I'm curious as to how this is being received by the subjects of the photos and their parents, who I'm sure originally agreed to be photographed as part of a professional art collection, not to be posted above "Love Motel."