Seriously?

A) Shockingly enough, the issue in this post is not that I can't tell the difference between a topless 16 year old and topless 2 year old. It's whether IG can employ a fair, objective, non-skeezy way to determine at what point on the spectrum this becomes "sexual" in a way that opens them up to legal and moral…

Wait, aren't you one of the smugsters who was ready to throw 'em to the wolves on the post about the guy who accidentally left his baby in the car? But you're able to empathize with the person who *intentionally* stopped her car in the middle of a highway? The internet, man. It really gets to me sometimes.…

Where should IG's line be?

Hey, never say never! I'm a relationship girl true and true, but I dedicated a year or two of my life (in between relationships) to whoring around, and it was truly a joy. It's really tempting to label ourselves, but never let that label make your decisions.

I'm struggling to think of something more patronizing or inappropriate than telling someone she needs to get laid. Gross.

Although mommy is seemingly making money off of her blog — she has sponsors and a store. But yeah, why IG should be expected to apply anything but the safest, most restrictive measures to ensure nothing untoward is posted is beyond me. We're not talking a coffee table book with prior editorial discretion here.

A) You posted them yourself

I feel like I'm in the twilight zone with some of these comments. I'm so used to agreeing with everything people say on Jezebel. Imagine a headline "Child Pornographer's Stash Rife With Photos From Instagram: Did Instagram Fail to Keep Kids Safe?" Plus, I'm all for Rihanna's nipples — but because I support her freedom…

If this were a sexually explicit photo, would you say there is no issue with a person "using" the photo and disseminating it to his buddies? Where is IG to draw the line?

They are sticky, at the very least.

Women are making decisions about their own bodies — this kid isn't being given that choice. It's possible that when this kid is an adult, she wouldn't have wanted this image so widely disseminated.

I'm getting from this debate that because the above-image isn't sexually explicit, people think child pornography is not a thing.

I actually personally agree with much of what you're saying. I don't think kids are hurt simply by having their naked imaged disseminated from one pedophile to the next (ignoring, for a second, the infamy of the internet) so that they can think dirty thoughts about it. But most people think child pornography does hurt…

Okay, I see you are struggling with the concept of hypotheticals and objective vs. subjective tests. I'm not a very good teacher, so I'll bow out of this one.

I doubt that there is any current etiquette guide (outside the British royals, I guess) that dictates that a woman is anything other than what she calls herself. So here, Couric is making that choice, but it's her decision, not an automatic name designated by tradition. Sources, or bullshit!

Did you use his first name too? I feel like maybe you half-read the original post, and then launched into your standard "I'm still a feminist! bio."

And why isn't her husband's name passed through his father and mother (assuming they share the same name)?

I'm getting a really weird "my kid is MINE and I do what I WANT I CONTROL their bodies" vibe from these comments.

"People like me"? Kindly, fuck right off. I didn't say there was a single thing dirty or wrong about this photo. Hopefully you don't pass on your nasty attitude to your own kids.