- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
“Hello maam, your son clicked the prompt stating he wasn’t in Kansas. Our service is not offered in that state. Goodbye.”
Is this an actual law suit by an actual person or from a Jane doe? If this is an actual person, this mom needs to start parenting their kid instead of making everyone else responsible for her kid.
I replied elsewhere, but this is a manufactured case. The goal is to get it in front of the supreme court and get a blanket ban on all porn. This is one of the top objectives of project 2025
This is one of the top objectives of project 2025
And people actually voted for this. Talk about a huge self-own. One of many, like that farmer complaining about having to milk the cows now because the immigrant laborers are gone.
If there is a ban, the amount of complaining from men who voted for Trump and now can’t watch it is going to be off the charts.
In such a case, does the plaintiff have to actually have a kid though? Like if it’s an open secret that the case is manufactured, do you not get in to any kind of trouble if for example you made up the hypothetical damaged child? Because otherwise some poor kid is still going to have a rough time whether the case is “real” in the sense of a genuinely outraged parent who suddenly decided to sue, or “manufacturerd” in the sense that the story is basically hypothetical and can’t be disproven and the motivations for suing are part of a political movement with backing and strategy behind it.
The underage kid is using chaturbate to talk to live models, but of course people are hating the mom for being a lazy Karen.
It’s still her responsibility to make sure her kid uses the internet responsibly. I don’t have any desire to defend chaterbate (never used it, and don’t know much about it) but there are tons of harmful sites out there, forums, places like 4chan and 8chan which are likely even more damaging than some porn sites.
It isn’t the site’s responsibility to make sure you aren’t lying when you claim you’re over 18, unless you want every site to have all of your personal data.
Of course, it’s her responsibility. She may be going overboard but she’s still trying to protect her kid. Maybe she’s just trying to raise awareness or set an example.
Minors are their parents responsibility. If a kid is out at the park at 2am drinking with some kid who had an older sibling they stole or bought alcohol from, “there is more than 1 person at fault”. But the fact that YOUR kid was performing an illegal act and you are reporting it and claiming it is someone else’s fault is ridiculous. Who’s responsible for the boardwalk they accidentally catch on fire when trying to make s’mores by the lake? The parents. It is their job to make sure they aren’t watching porn DVDs if that is not the way they want their kids raised.
If the Internet used a metaphor like a mall, and your kid is caught crawling under stalls or into changing rooms hiding cameras at Victoria Secret, you shouldn’t allow your kid at the mall without supervision. That doesn’t mean the mall is a place minors can’t be, it means the guardians need to have educated the kids to not do such things, or be present to stop them. Kids will get on 18+ sites even if an ID is required. The kids would just make a pact at school to take a picture of every parents ID they could and share them with all their friends.
Poof now every kid has access again and everyone’s ID is being shared. So now is it the sites responsibility to figure out that mess or should the parents who’s identity has been stolen sue the other kids parents who used their ID to create an account. The only way you avoid that is by linking every email, phone number, and identification in one central government controlled and distributed to every company for free database. “For security reasons”.
Or maybe… We just tell guardians to guard their kids from the potential threats they can come across in their lives and prepare them for it. Web filters and programs are everywhere. Put a pamphlet at every school office and local library so parents know how to access them. It isn’t everyone else’s job to raise someone else’s kid, it’s their job.
Yeah, I can imagine having a mother like that would make it so that you can’t enjoy life, damn.
Can he no longer enjoy life cause he logged into chaturbate.
Or did he never enjoy life, because his moms a miserable kind of cunt that announces to the world her sweet baby boy looked at THE PORNOGRAPHY and is stirring up a massive, baseless lawsuit over it, thus traumatizing the fuck out of him… which I imagine isnt the first time shes done so.
edit Whats the running bet on if the kids even allowed to have a bedroom door?
Well the kid definitely can’t enjoy life now that his mom caught him and put him on blast in front of the entire nation.
World actually.
The kid is going to be either 1) hateful or 2) replicate of his mom. He will no longer be normal.
If only there was some kind of system where minors are given rules to follow, and looked after by an authority figure that could steer them away from things that aren’t appropriate for them. For simplicity, these authority figures could even be adults that they are closely related to and live with.
Alas.
Am I the only one that thinks there’s something positive to stricter control of pornography?
Even if you love porn and grew up exposed to it as a kid, you gotta admit that there are psychological effects on avid adult viewers and more on minors.
Think about what was available as a kid, too. Wait 10 min for a 3 minute to load or just search pics. Now it’s a completely different overstimulating world that transforming how people relate to sex and themselves.
deleted by creator
I understand and agree with what you’re saying. I think people should need licenses to have kids, but that’s a different story.
The conflict that this often boils down to is that the digital world does not emulate the real world. If you want to buy porn in the real world, you need ID, but online anything goes. I love my online anonymity just as much as everybody else, but we’ll eventually need to find some hybrid approach.
We already scan our faces on our phones all the time, or scan our finger on our computer. How about when you want to access a porn site you have to type in a password or do some biometric credential?
I think 50% or more of the resistance of restricting porn is really just that people really love porn and are ashamed of what they view. There’s a whole other social psychology that needs to change in regards to how we view sex and I agree with more education.
deleted by creator
Do it like this: you have to go to a notary and show your ID and they don’t scan it or anything, but they then authorize you to create an account with biometric credentials. Now only you can use that account to watch porn online. Hybrid approach.
deleted by creator
You show your ID and a notary enters their credentials to allow you to create an account with your fingerprint or FaceID.
Your ID doesn’t get saved. Your biometrics are only saved in the way that your iPhone saves them for a password.
Work with me. What’s a solution that would be acceptable for you? Get creative.
deleted by creator
Even if you love porn and grew up exposed to it as a kid, you gotta admit that there are psychological effects on avid adult viewers and more on minors.
No you don’t. That is right wing propaganda completely unfounded by science. That porn addiction nonsense so many Americans babble about is a product of that propaganda, and doesn’t actually exist.
Wow. You don’t think porn addiction exists? Said like a true porn addict.
If every person who disagrees with you counts as further evidence that you’re right, then you’re thinking in an unfalsifiable manner, which is the basis for many a flawed conclusion. It doesn’t necessarily make you wrong, but you should really make sure to find justifications for your beliefs that are based on falsifiable reasoning instead. That’s the best way to know if what you’re believing is right or wrong, because you can try to falsify your beliefs in the way that you know them to be falsifiable, and if they still couldn’t be falsified, then you can say “Well, I tried to disprove this, and it still passed that test!”
So, let me ask you this, what would, hypothetically, suffice to prove or at least suggest evidence that porn addiction does not exist? If your answer is “nothing”, then you’re in unfalsifiable territory.
It goes both ways. People are gonna find whatever study supports whatever they want to believe and just cling to that. Denying porn and, even sex addiction for that matter, doesn’t exist is denying the basis of addiction and the human brain. Dopamine.
So then can anything that produces dopamine be addictive? Can I get addicted to hugging my girlfriend, or addicted to reading books, or jogging? Or is there some threshold? Does the intensity per time matter, or just the intensity, or just the time? What about the frequency of exposure? Does any amount of dopamine release make me slightly more addicted to whatever it is, or is there some threshold that needs to be exceeded? Do dopamine-based addictions produce physical withdrawal symptoms, always, never, sometimes? Depending on what? And are physical withdrawal symptoms necessary to constitute addiction or are there different tiers of addiction?
You see what I’m getting at. There’s sooo many questions that need to be answered before just saying “this produces lots of dopamine therefore it’s addictive and bad and should be limited”. While I appreciate and empathize with your sentiment about people cherry-picking the studies they like (sounding like an LLM here lol), it’s not as if science doesn’t know how to deal with that problem, and it certainly isn’t a reason to stop caring about or citing studies at all, or say “well you’ve got your studies and I’ve got mine”. Just because both sides have studies that give evidence in their favor doesn’t mean both sides are equally valid or that it’s impossible to reach an informed conclusion one way or the other.
My next biggest question (and what I’m trying to drive at with the semi-rhetorical slew of questions I opened with) would be what makes something an addiction or not? Am I addicted to staying alive, because I’ll do anything to stay alive as long as possible? That seems silly to call an addiction, since it doesn’t do any harm. And how do we delineate between, say, someone who is addicted to playing with Rubik’s Cubes vs. someone who just really likes Rubik’s Cubes and has poor self-control? Or what about someone with some other mental quirk, like someone who plays with Rubik’s Cubes a lot due to OCD, or maybe an autistic person who plays a lot with Rubik’s Cubes out of a special interest? Does the existence of such people mean that “Rubik’s Cube Addiction” is a real concern that can happen to anyone who plays with Rubik’s Cubes too much? Or perhaps Rubik’s cubes are not addictive at all, and it is separate traits driving people to engage with them in a way that appears addictive to others.
I know I’ve written a long post and asked lots of questions. It’s not my intention to “gish gallop” you, just to convey my variety of questions. The Rubik’s example is the one thing I’m most curious to hear your thoughts on. (There I go sounding like an LLM again)
Come on man. You can look up what addiction means. This is proving why there need to be stronger restrictions. If you can’t look up a definition parents can’t work parental controls.
Here’s part of what makes something addiction:
Continued involvement despite physical, psychological, social, or legal problems.
Porn could easily fall into this not only rolled into sex addiction but think about somebody who is jerking it all the time and this has an affect on their relationship, or they’re watching violent porn and this affects how they treat women, or they see the infantilization or submission of women in porn and think women should be like children or that they’re entitled to women’s bodies.
I get it. Yall love porn, but we also need to be responsible and not be in denial.
The Rubik’s cube example is an easy question for neurotypical people when you take the above criteria into account. It can be addiction of solving this Rubik’s cube is affecting their life in a negative way. Have you ever seen My Strange Addiction? Lots of different addictions other than drugs and alcohol.
The inclusions of mental conditions is a whole different story. Autistic or OCD compulsions would generally not be addiction because it’s an anxious thing instead of tied to dopamine reward. It is an interesting intersection, but not what we base laws that control society on.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I remain baffled every time I see support for this from “progressive” online spaces and voices
It’s just people not using their brains, everything is just viewed at its surface level with no deeper analysis ever conducted. They are the sort of idiots that think that Starship Troopers is profascism.
People that like Fight Club, American Psycho, and Starship Troopers… k, but like, do you get it or are you a nut job?
I understand your point of view. These conservative law-makers are hiding their true intentions, but you’re only allowing yourself to think about porn restriction in the lens of current day right-wing politicians. The intent to put more restrictions on porn is not a one way street.
Your analogy to banning artistic freedom is like saying putting restrictions on alcohol is a slippery slope that’s going to eventually have you explaining to a soldier why you have kombucha.
There are so many variations of porn. Some porn is dangerous to be consumed by children and even adults, especially when consumed compulsively through addiction. Maybe not dangerous to straight cis men, but dangerous to almost the entire half of society. I believe that is why it’s so hard to put any restrictions on porn. Straight cis men are clutching onto their undiagnosed porn addictions as hard as they can and using right wing laws to make hasty generalizations about porn restriction leading to the Islamic Revolution.
Also, congrats. Happy safe and healthy jerking.
Not enough to warrant uploads of your fucking license.
Also I really think its kind of goofy so many people are upset about porn when kids are exposed to violence in the media all the time.
Not that I think violent video games are the devil, my first memory of a game was GTA III lol, but I think seeing violence is probably worse than seeing sex.
At least if you take the American Puritan mindset out of it.
Either we chill the fuck out, or the next logical step is every rated ‘M’ game purchase or rated ‘R’ movie will require a license in a digital copy of your drivers license. Who knows, maybe next it’ll be req’d for age-restricted social media content.
If you don’t want your kids watching porn don’t give them unfettered internet access.
If your a first worlder below the age of 45, and don’t know how to do that, that’s probably on you for not being able to intuitively use UX after decade of using computers in school and the workforce. Yes I expect modern humans who’ve been exposed to computing their entire life to use basic smartphone features, no hitting the pretty icons in the right order is not hard
If that you find that to be challenging god help you in raising an entire human child.
seeing violence is probably worse than seeing sex
Yes, I mean, one is (ideally) about two (or more) people enjoying time they have together in an intimate way, the other is about hurting one another maliciously. I certainly prefer one of these things to be more prominent than the other
There is a discussion to be had about stuff like objectification and porn that doesn’t depict people like, consenting, and such, but at least in an ideal I’d much rather have media that focuses on pleasure and love than hate and suffering
Um, there is plenty of violence in porn…
That’s mostly what I was referring to in my latter paragraph, yes
But the important takeaway is that it’s not the core of what pornography is
Violence isn’t the only problem though. The way women are treated is not realistic or healthy in much of porn. It creates unhealthy expectations. Kudos if you’re watching exclusively healthy sexual relationships in porn.
I’m just saying there’s something good in restriction, not the way in which it’s being implemented. I think games like GTA are bad too. There’s also plenty of violence in porn. Towards the women so maybe you don’t perceive that unless it was towards men.
Parental controls are only effective if all parents control. Should alcohol and guns have no restrictions and be up to parents to control? Exactly.
Not sure why you’re getting down voted. Porn can absolutely become a behavioral addiction.
I used to work at a place where we had a lobby guard that watched porn on his phone all day (sound off). Not sitting there trying to jerk it, it was a compulsion. He would just be watching it while talking to other people, standing by the door…it was weird. He eventually got fired because he genuinely couldn’t not watch porn.
That being said, I’m a huge privacy advocate, and while there are actually ways to anonymously be on a website and verify age, that’s not how anyone is doing it. Things like signing up for an account on a site and scanning your ID are just abysmally stupid. There’s a zero percent chance that this system as is doesnt lead to data theft and possibly even extortion.
I totally agree. Everybody is misinterpreting what I’m saying into being an advocate for the ways they’re implementing the restrictions. They need a punching bag. I get it. I’ll be it.
But some people here don’t want to admit porn addiction exists. That’s a sign that it is a problem.
The problem isn’t just addiction though. The access to and normalization of violent porn to adults and especially children is damaging to society. Maybe people don’t care because it mostly effects women negatively.
I’d advocate for us to update our ID systems to be able to verify age without the risk of data theft or extortion, but that’s not really relevant to this conversation, just kinda talking to the void
Sounds like a better state-backed initiative would be to make mental health services available to this dude and to anyone else dealing with addiction issues. Especially since I assume this door guard was older than 18 and age verification, no matter how private, would have done nothing to stop his access to porn.
Also true, no doubt there.
That being said, I’m a huge privacy advocate, and while there are actually ways to anonymously be on a website and verify age
How would that work? I’m not well-researched on this particular topic, so I’m curious how that should work.
Key signing maybe?
You get a cert which is cryptographically signed by your government. They can prove its signed with the governments root cert, showing that its someone over 18, but not who.
That being said the key identifiers will probably still be attached to you in some government db, just not on the porn site.
Though the government could force the pornsite to hand over any logged ids. Some people would say that’s private, as they trust the government not to do stuff without a judges warrant.
As a trans woman relying on HIPPA to not be put on a list of those on HRT, lmao yeah fucking right. The christian taliban will connect the dots the first chance they get.
deleted by creator
Who under the age of 18 will have money to buy these, and who would be willing to sell them for the pittance teenagers would be willing to spend?
Especially if these get rotated out regularly via a system wide program.
deleted by creator
Oh no I wholeheartedly agree age verification isn’t the wrong answer, I was just playing devils advocate on the technological side.
Parents should be parents, it governments shouldn’t be getting I. the way of you being just another ghost in the machine.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a single suggestion of a way to implement age verification that isn’t a privacy nightmare. Oftentimes they literally just want a credit card number, the assumption being that a child would never be able to get hold of such a thing.
In some of the worst cases they actually want a passport or other government ID sending to some organisation that would verify you. With all the fun potential data breaches that that would ensue.
Most of the time these rules never get off the ground because privacy advocacy groups basically sue over it and win every time.
That’s more or less what I was implying/thinking, there’s not really any good way to implement it. Canada almost ended up implementing it and possibly even going as far as to ban porn, but thankfully Poilievre ended up losing the election including losing his own seat.
Tokenization is the easy solution.
You go onto you state gov website and get a token that just says “this is an adult.” Nothing else. Token lasts 10 minutes.
Cut and paste into the site. They authenticate without saying who theu are, back to the gov site, “yo, this legit?” State says “looks like something we would do.” State keeps no records of WHO validated the token, just that it was a legit token.
Same way that routers connect to VPN services.
How does the state verify that you’re an adult and therefore should have a token?
This solution simply seems to be kicking the can down the road
Not at all, this is well established technology already in use all over the place.
When countries use digital IDs, they are able to carve out validating individual aspects of an identity. Just address, just over 18, just class of driver’s license, etc.
So the State has a website/wallet where the user pulls a token from the State, basically a fancy hashed OTP/Login code.
The website, which can’t derive your identity from the code, sends the code to the state API and can’t ask more than “is this hash legit” and the State API doesnt need to say more than “yup.”
Where can things go wrong? The State can ask to know who needs the token. Or even demand to know, and log what sites use it. The state can contract this out to a vendor that logs it all, making data theft far more risky.
It all depends on his the state builds requirements.
you gotta admit that there are psychological effects on avid adult viewers and more on minors
Citation needed when we’re talking about implementing laws and opening up lawsuits suing for $75k+. Multiple robust peer-reviewed citations needed. Preferably not funded by a Catholic church group.
Also it’s a leap to say top-down privacy invading laws are the way the state or federal government should handle it instead of the concerned parent monitoring computer usage. There’s so many free and subscription based parental control tools out there. Comprehensive sex education would be a potential alternate way for the state to support parents and teens to educate them on porn consumption and safe internet usage.
FYI, NCOSE, the group joining (likely funding) the lawsuit, is against comprehensive sex education.
You’re talking about a few separate things here.
- I never said this is how it should be implemented. I just said stricter guardrails on porn would do some good.
- evidence is needed when creating laws. Yes
- when a law is already in effect, breaking the law does not require evidence to prove the law should exist. It requires evidence that the law was broken.
Note that under the Kansas bill, it appears that depictions of homosexuality qualify as also needing to be locked behind an age gate. Like, not “homosexual sex”, but homosexuality.
Don’t look, kids! According to Kansas lawmakers, this is pornography.
Images and text depicting gay affection could be swept up by age-verification bill
A same-sex couple exchanges rings at a marriage ceremony. You might think it’s a sweet moment. But should we be protecting children from seeing it? (Getty Images)
Take a good look at the photo just above these words. You should see two men exchanging rings at a same-sex marriage ceremony.
You’re also seeing, according to the Kansas Legislature, the kind of pornographic content that should be walled off from those under age 18 with age-verification software. That was the consequence — intended or not — of passing Senate Bill 394. All 40 state senators voted for the legislation, including 11 Democrats. In the House, nine Democrats joined Republicans to pass the bill, 92-31.
Max Kautsch, a Lawrence media lawyer, outlined some of the problems.
“The online age-verification bill expressly incorporates the definition of ‘harmful to minors’ that already exists in Kansas statutes, a phrase defined to mean ‘any description, exhibition, presentation or representation, in whatever form, of … acts of … homosexuality,’ ” he told me. “The term ‘homosexuality’ is undefined in the law, but it could include a wide swath of conduct between two persons of the same sex, including kissing, hand-holding, and other activities that would be considered ‘public displays of affection.’ ”
A couple of gentlemen exchanging rings, as shown above, would certainly qualify.
I encourage everyone to study the actual bill. From my perspective, it not only invokes a double standard against the brave Kansas LGBGTQ+ community but actively seeks to chill free expression. The proposed law applies to “any commercial entity” that shares content online, which means it could sweep up individuals trying to make money from a travel blog or small businesses that take wedding photos of same-sex couples. (As a nonprofit, Kansas Reflector appears exempt, which comes as a relief given my columns.)
Get this smut off my Lemmy page.
I think that this is okay, because this lemmy instance isn’t a commercial operation.
I guess that places like PinkNews and similar commercial media outlets might be open to lawsuits, though.
Please put an NSFW tag on this. I was on the train and when I saw this I had to start furiously masturbating. Everyone else gave me strange looks and were saying things like “what the fuck” and “call the police”. I dropped my phone and everyone around me saw this image. Now there is a whole train of men masturbating together at this one image. This is all your fault, you could have prevented this if you had just tagged this post NSFW
For a brief shining moment, it seemed like adroit use of state-level legislation in Kansas might manage to blue-ball much of America by leveraging access to its market of 3 million to raise the bar of entry to pornography websites; most users were hesitant to provide legal identification to adult websites.
In 2011, Piccirillo began traveling from Chicago, Illinois to Orange County, California to act in a number of pornographic films. Pornography production is illegal in Illinois, as it is in 48 of the 50 United States.
The pornography industry “by and large lives here in Southern California,” said Ged Kenslea, the senior director of communication for the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. This is for a number of reasons, but legality and location are important factors.
“There are only two states in the union where adult film production is legal,” Kenslea said. “Everywhere else it would be considered participating in an illegal act of prostitution. California and the state of New Hampshire both have state supreme court rulings that codify adult film production as a legitimate business.”
That was until the degenerate California legislature, intertwined in obscene embrace with its filthy industry, and having a market of 40 million, passed its own legislation disallowing a pornography site conducting business in its jurisdiction from having an age gate. Now the outcome was written by economic imperatives: for each pornography website, there was to be a Kansas-conformant site and a California-conformant version. Anyone purchasing a commercial subscription was directed to the Kansas-conformant site if they wished to purchase service in Kansas. The age-gate-free California-conformant site did not advertise in or accept advertising specifically targeting Kansas residents. By virtue of this and of not making sales to Kansas residents, it kept itself from being subject to Kansas jurisdiction. Naturally, everyone in Kansas not purchasing a subscription accessed the California-conformant site.
deleted by creator
Yeah, the teen isn’t enjoying life having to deal with his judgmental helicopter mother. But that’s not the porn sites fault.
Teenage boys like to look at naked women a lot, and will go to great lengths to obtain said material, legal or not, due to the 1 2 punch of raging hormones and not fully developed frontal lobes. News at 11 for the mother of the year over in Kansas that hasn’t been paying attention to what teenage boys are usually like for all of recorded history and beyond.
I can’t imagine what she would do if he happened to be into trans porn or God forbid gay porn. The horror. She would be the laughing stock of the garden club among her equally uptight peers. Would someone please think of all of the adult embarrassments in these times of teenagers finding themselves! /s
She is probably an american christian. You think she even cares? She only wants her son to go to church and save himself for marriage.
Jeebus, I need backup plans for Friday nights.
Page 8 & 9 of the court filing (not the article):
Through this time, Q.R. was able to access chaturbate.com on thirty different instances: […] seven instances on August 30, 2024 […]
Bruh, make sure to hydrate.
Page 13, absolutely fascinating to me that “prays for judgement” is stated and whether that is at all common:
Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants in an amount in excess of $75,000.00 for: a. actual damages resulting from Q.R.’s access to material that is harmful to minors, including but not limited to past medical expenses, future medical expenses, past and future lost services and disability, past and future pain, suffering, and disability […]
Page 15, looking for more details on alleged “disfigurement”:
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue in the future to suffer the following damages: a. Pain, suffering, disability, disfigurement, and mental anguish […]
It goes on to talk about pornography causing a shift in perspective on sex and possibly leading to addiction. Not finding anything specific on the alleged “disfigurement”.
I’m left to assume poor Q.R. will have to deal the rest of his life with the friction burns caused by jerkin’ it 7+ times on August 30, 2024.
His mom also demanded a jury trial, so Q.R. can rest easy knowing 12 strangers will hear about his friction burns and give it the serious attention due.
Page 13, absolutely fascinating to me that “prays for judgement” is stated
It’s not a “prayer” in the religious sense.
“Prayer” in a court filing is what the plaintiff asks the court to do to resolve the case.
Ty! TIL. I’ve probably seen it many times before, but it only jumped out at me this time given the Olathe, KS setting and strong fundie Christian vibes.
Good write up, thanks!
Surely you cannot sue someone for future injuries where the future injuries are entirely unevidenced. There would have to be some kind of medical assessment that said that this kid is going to suffer ongoing injuries and I can’t imagine they have such an assessment.
Maybe the counter argument should be that this kid’s mom should attempt to get him on disability payments, and only if he’s able to get on that, will they accept liability. There is zero chance of that happening.
Agreed. As a lawyer friend once told me, “you can sue someone for damn near anything. It doesn’t mean you’ll win”.
I imagine the “disability and disfigurement” will get sussed out at some point and either backed up w some sort of evidence, or taked out from the rest of the complaint.
This was so hilariously stated - and your comment is quite thought-provoking.
I can’t imagine how this poor teenager will think of his mother over time.
Bet that kid is counting the days until he’s legally an adult and can get away from her.
I can’t imagine how this poor teenager will think of his mother over time.
Not well, this much is certain.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue in the future to suffer the following damages: a. Pain, suffering, disability, disfigurement, and mental anguish […]
More likely a direct result of his mom being a fucking psycho.
So parental responsibility now consists of suing for perceived damages of… ???
jacking off?
fuck’s sake. you don’t think they’ll pass a law against THAT do you?
give it time
A settlement of $100 for the extra laundry detergent over the next few years…
Just break both your arms. Is this teen fucking stupid?
I was led to believe that if your mom (although they always call it stepmom in the title) finds you doing that, they will come in, have a very short chat, music will start in the background and they will then, um… assist you. I am shocked to hear that in real life that is not the case. The internet has been lying to us.
Unless you have 2 broken arms
