This is a travesty!!!!   I am a criminal defense attorney so I am used to the prosecution's recitation of facts, which usually bears very little resemblance to the actual evidence.  

From the feminists in the 60s and 70s trying to deal with their liberal boyfriends' use of porn to today's post feminist acceptance of misogyny and stereotyping of women in commercials, movies and online, what's missing is the larger perspective of the impact of porn and obscenity.  By that I mean many people still don't understand the negative consequences such as women learning to hate their bodies and men having dysfunctional s*x lives.  

We've left it to the "moral right" to define obsc*nity itself as the problem instead of looking at the more complex issues of the degradation of women and men.  For instance, a woman's chest can be shown when propped up by clothing putting her on display, but a nursing mother is considered obsc@ne.  More consideration has been paid to nak*dness than to subjection of women.  

Commercials with "perfect" women in bras are shown on TV reinforcing the way girls and young women "should" look, but as good liberals we can't question that without seeming prudish.  MTV and popular music is replete with degrading images of women.  But liberals don't speak out, so it's left to the more conservative part of our country to communicate what they think is wrong.  Hence, the major concerns are about nud!ty instead of a more enlightened discussion of the message that comes along with it.

either the Times is flat out lying, and the judge said no such thing, or his wife is deluding herself, in defense of her husband. if the former, i would expect a suit to be filed against the Times by the judge. if the latter, loyal spousal support, but it really changes nothing.

myself, as long as any and all activity involves only consenting adults, i don't really care, just don't be a hypocrite about it. that was the point of TC's initial post on the subject.