Your post highlights what I've been thinking. Why can 9 out of 10 kids (for example) see X, Y and Z, and not be compelled to commit a crime, but the remaining kid is compelled? It's definitely not a one to one relationship between cause and effect, so what are the missing variables that get lost in the blame game?

I believe that in the UK that is the law. If you have sex with someone who has been coerced into prostitution you are guilty of rape and having no knowledge of that coercion is not a defence.

While aspects of the media probably do have input into the thinking behind these crimes, why do some who live in the same environment and exposed to the same media commit crimes like this and others don't?

Wasn't there some hubbub when someone suggested that it should an Olympic sport? I seem to remember someone being displeased at attempts to 'legitimise' pole dancing as if it was a sexual and degrading thing regardless of the context.

Just to clarify - does the law forbid the posting of nude images without consent absolutely, or is the posting of identifying information also required for it to be a crime?

The same can be asked about their advice about many other things I suppose, marriage for example. Perhaps employment too.

Why do I get the feeling that if the Church could impose it somehow, it would demand cameras in every room?

Is this serious?

It seems to be the only way people ever discuss porn though, all bad or all good.

I've never bought the line that people watch porn due to a lack of education. People watch porn out of curiosity and to masturbate to it. The masturbation angle is a constant elephant in the room, particularly when comes to why youths watch porn. It's almost like people are actively denying that aspect out fear that…

I can see Jezebel being put behind a filter in the future in the UK due that Jerrod Scott picture.

Surely there must be someone out there who has done these 'crimes' with Ken Cuccinelli himself?

I think he's trying to sound intellectual, but failing to pull it off. Either that or his interactions with his mother where far more intimate than most.

True, there is a gap, but discussing attractiveness can be problematic in itself. Is asking the question about attractiveness in terms of sex the right way to go about it? What if the subject comes across the discussion and has their self esteem damaged by it?

Did the winner consent to that kiss?

How much do you know about Peter Dinklage's and Norman Reedus's personalities, and how do you know what you know?

Talking of measures, questions and the like that might go under the radar due to the Presidential election:

I have seen grid boys in DTM, for female drivers.

How is only listening to people who agree with your predetermined stance in anyway democratic?