This thing called a "mother" is 34. She's about to celebrate her 18th wedding anniversary.
Let's see 34-18=26!
Her son is 16 years old.
So 34-16=18!
She didn't marry till she was 26 and had her creepy son at 18 so that leaves a gap of a few years. Duh!
"Nothing in the article suggest any kind of immorality by any of the defendants. The only immorality here is on the part of the government officials, the grand jury, and possibly the drug store employees who lacked enough self control to mind their own business."
It's AGAINST THE LAW to have a stripper perform for a minor.
GEESH! You're as nutty as the "mother" is.
It's the same crap that got her in trouble and she is now misleading her son.
My comment directly referred to morality, not the law. People have a legal right, in many cases even a duty, to disobey immoral statutes. In this particular case, the parents are charged with "contributing to the delinquency of a minor and involving a minor in obscene acts." What delinquency? What obscene acts? It is the so called law in this case which is delinquent and obscene. If their is any justice here, the entire case as well as the statute, will get tossed out as being grossly unconstitutional.
Just because the mother may not have been gifted with the looks that other women have, is hardly grounds to discredit her for practicing a little envy avoidance by hiring the ugliest stripper she could find. The mother may have been born that way due to no fault of her own, and thereby should be commended for having the common sense to hire a stripper uglier than herself, if envy be a problem she's having trouble dealing with.