Let's just be honest and admit that there is little way around a lot of potentially sticky situations with this group.
For example, because this site was once considered "adult" in nature, then we had to impose an age limit. No member could be under the age of 18 or 21 depending on your jurisdiction. We later scrapped that rule because younger people have a right to know information about sexuality, pubesence, their bodies, etc. Provided that it's done in a tactful manner, there's nothing wrong with a high school kid comparing stats with other members, asking questions about his first excursions into sex, or wondering how he can gain access to contraceptions once he's firmly established, to himself, that he's ready for action. Hell, I just discussed that at a conference last week. Youths aren't getting adequate information in sex education, and while political and religious agendas push abstinence (not that there's a thing wrong it in itself), abstinence-only measures are keeping kids less informed and knowledgeable about what to expect and how to deal with sexual urges to explore.
We're not trafficking photos, videos, or other explicit materials. I think we're at greatest risk with the banner ads featured discreetly at the top of the page (Adultvideoclubs.com, for example), but it is self-understood that Mark's got to come up with the ad revenue to help defray costs for the site somehow. I don't know how the numbers look, but if officials could determine that a significant number of underage members are "snared" by these ads, I think that's as bad as the legalities can get. Until people start writing destructive fantasies and posting kiddie porn pics, again, it's not a problem.
We should protect interests, but at the same time, we have only a degree of control and influence via our participation on the site. Moderators and administration are the most "responsible" people on the site, just to make sure that thread activity isn't going on the far end of risqué, and I think we're doing a good job. Poor Pete beat himself up over a fictional story that could be taken the wrong way; that's a strong testament to his willingness to protect people.
But hey, at one point, you're a lawyer who seemed content enough with his exhibitionistic tendencies to display a penis picture in your profile. Anyone who clicked on the link provided in your profile could see it, minor or not. And if you kept it up in your profile, are we responsible for your decision to take and/or post the pic? Are we responsible for how your fellow attorneys may react if they find out that, yeah, that's your dick on the Web? In any case, these are personal responsibilities. It would be ludicrous to assume that free speech (limited to and realized upon the LPSG.org domain exclusively) in some way condones greater social problems like exploitation, devaluation of women in pornography, child pornography, and so forth.
Of course, I think we all understood that this site has the potential to generate some serious "adult-"natured discussions and that we had to be okay with that at some point in order to participate fully. No offense, but I knew coming in that dicks were the predominant topic of discussion (though the emphasis has shifted, thankfully), that some guys might IM me 'cause they know my measurement and I'd have to deal with that, and that some people are into stuff (like BDSM) that really doesn't vibe with me. I had to put all those discomforts aside to be a part of this group, and I don't think that's an unrealistic expectation.
All I know is, it's difficult to "get past" this schism issue of last week if we keep harping about it over and over again. I'm with Pecker, man. Shut up and stay; shut up and leave. Until we start pouring in money to finance the group, we really don't have a right to tell Mark how to run things. And if his methodology is enough for a court to step in and to start charging folks with criminal activity, well, I'll worry about that when it happens.
