A Milwaukee busybody has taken offense to an ad for a bar in her area. The bar, called "Cans" (with full double- entendre effect), inserted an ad in The Onion, using the following commonly-forwarded-email photo:

The complainer is an agent of the "Sensitive Crimes Victim Services," which does a good job of handling cases of abuse and neglected children, but I really don't see how this photo constitutes abuse or neglect. In poor taste? Maybe. Is this exposing a child to adult sex? ! Not really. Is the kid actually watching somebody fuck a blow-up doll? I really don't think so. I really doubt any harm is coming to the kid in any way, shape, or form by allowing him to hold a blow-up doll. But, I draw my lines differently than a parent or social-worker would. Much of the time that line is drawn by the viewer, not anything having to do with the experience of the so-called 'victim', much like how we have to ban children's swimsuits in catalogs because we think some perv will wank off to the photos. Because, somehow, the children are being hurt according to the perception of whomever is trying to do the protecting. I don't agree with it, but, well, people like this busybody would write my pornography connection off and probably add me to some 'watch' list because they somehow believe that people involved in adult entertainment are up to no good.