Letters to the Editor	Letters Archive

Gracias from la Isla

A hot greeting from Cuba! Thanks to the director and the workers there who give me the opportunity to see the magazine, the sensual attractive encounter, and the very interesting topics. I hope you will have another opportunity to publish my [MaleBox] ad.

J.Z.
Guira de Melena, Cuba

Satisfied Reader

I got my lover from your MaleBox personal ads. Thanks!

R.
Troy, New York

Homo Incest Rocks!

Reading Brotherly Love [February 2006] brought many fond memories floating back to me. My dick actually got semi-aroused as I progressed through the incidents. It only seems natural that brothers would explore one another the way the author did with his sib. It certainly happened that way with my brothers and me. No one was hurt for it was just a part of growing up. Thanks for the wonderful trip back into my past.

R

View our poll archive

.R.
via email

So Polite

Dear Sirs: I have the great honour to write to ask you to send me some of your magazines.

K.S.
Ghardaia, Algeria

Most esteemed reader: it is with pleasure we inform you that overseas subscriptions are $75 and are sent with dispatch and cordial best wishes via airmail....

Witch Hunt to Get Even Freakier?

Excellent News Slant article in the February edition Cop, Prosecutor, Hangman. I, too, was disappointed with the New York Times writer Kurt Eichenwald's exposé on Justin Berry. With more and more boys posting their own websites, it's time to take another look at the First Amendment porn exceptions. Photos of boys doing whatever they do are simple representations of what is so. In essence, the picture tells the truth. This is what boys look like when they behave in the ways they behave. To then use these representations as evidence of a propensity toward pedophilia or toward child sexual abuse is absurd. Everyone is curious, and everyone wants to look. Looking can not continue to be listed as criminal or we will end up in a very bizarre place.

The distinction that needs to be drawn (which may be beyond most people) involves the difference between exploitation and self-disclosure. It would appear that Justin Berry self-disclosed when he willingly posted his images on screen. This is clearly different from being exploited. Money enticed him, but he eagerly pursued the exposure.

Courtroom scenes involving internet pornography are particularly pertinent to this discussion. When prosecutors pursue their child porn cases, the officers of the court, the police, the attorneys, the members of the jury all get to look at the images. "Yep, this is a child behaving sexually," they say. And they look and they look and they look, and in the end, the person indicted for the crime is sent to jail. What for? For looking. This is absolutely absurd. In prosecuting the so-called crime, everyone in the courtroom replicates the exact same behavior with which the defendant has been charged. They all look.

By the way, have you seen similar sites? Check out www.Mike18.com. Imagine the courtroom drama that will emerge from that site when the feds expand their reach to him. Mike claims to be 18, and he probably is, but that is not how the system will evaluate his images and the people who view them. We are entering a very dangerous period in the history of this country.

Keep up the good work. We need better distinctions regarding this issue or the witch hunt will really get freaky.

Jim Quinlan

via email