THIS is legal? Totally disgusting!

page: 3
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Afterthought
The mother who's child saw the man doing this thought she was protecting her child by calling the police on him. Even the cops thought it was illegal.


As did the first court he was sent to. Did you miss, once more, the part where he WAS PUNISHED? Maybe he should've been punished more; I'm not sure about that one. The whole chain UP TO THE APPELLATE COURT thought it was illegal. And there are higher courts.




posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThaLoccster

What I said was when you attempt to make this illegal you go down a slippery slope. Cucumbers are used as sexual devices everyday, as are fingers, bottles and a wide variety of objects.
...
When you criminalize a depiction of a sex object you start a slippery slope. It would then be illegal to have a picture of a dildo on a shirt, or be illegal to have a naked woman tattooed on you "cause a kid might see it".


There's a big difference between buying a cucumber or licking your fingers suggestively, than walking around the shopping centre with a dildo hanging out of your mouth, for example.

[edit on 7/7/10 by GobbledokTChipeater]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solasis

Originally posted by harrytuttle
While I find what the guy was doing repulsive, and in a morbid sad sort of way funny, we need to be careful not to make it illegal, otherwise the police could start arresting people for all manner of "normal behavior".


What the hell are you talking about? This should be illegal. This is not normal behavior. This has almost nothing in common with normal behavior, except in that he is human, he was engaging in behavior, and he existed. That's all. This isn't going to lead to anything normal being illegal; that's ridiculous and a stupid slippery slope argument.


Now we're on the same page!

You had me thinking there for a while that you thought it was OK. Sorry about that.
Carry on.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 06:53 PM
link   
If it's illegal to take a minor in a sex shop then what he did should be illegal.

I guess I need to look it up. It's probably legal - wouldn't surprise me.


ETA - Under 18 is illegal in Australia cyh.com

[edit on 7-7-2010 by FearNoEvil]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Afterthought

Originally posted by Solasis

Originally posted by harrytuttle
While I find what the guy was doing repulsive, and in a morbid sad sort of way funny, we need to be careful not to make it illegal, otherwise the police could start arresting people for all manner of "normal behavior".


What the hell are you talking about? This should be illegal. This is not normal behavior. This has almost nothing in common with normal behavior, except in that he is human, he was engaging in behavior, and he existed. That's all. This isn't going to lead to anything normal being illegal; that's ridiculous and a stupid slippery slope argument.


Now we're on the same page!

You had me thinking there for a while that you thought it was OK. Sorry about that.
Carry on.


Even though I said in every single post I made that I thought this was wrong behavior? Are you actually reading my posts? I'm glad you have realized what I've been saying all along, but seriously I was saying it all along.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Monger
 


No! I was laughing the whole time. Had this happened when I was out with my grand-daughter, I would have told here he was playing with a toy. It would have been an honest answer. And I would have been laughinng while I did that.
People need to see the humor in stuff, instead of always being on guard, looking for ways to be offended. The best thing to do about those creeps? Ignore them. They are thrilled by reactions, not the acts they are doing.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by stars15k

People need to see the humor in stuff, instead of always being on guard, looking for ways to be offended. The best thing to do about those creeps? Ignore them. They are thrilled by reactions, not the acts they are doing.


It wouldn't be real humorous the next time he gets a little bit drunker and tries to get a little girl into his car, would it?

Ignoring someone like this is really, really not the best option. This is sick behaviour and could get worse.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 07:01 PM
link   
If that is legal, then it should be legal to drag him out of his truck and whoop his #$!

Common law imo



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solasis

Originally posted by harrytuttle
While I find what the guy was doing repulsive, and in a morbid sad sort of way funny, we need to be careful not to make it illegal, otherwise the police could start arresting people for all manner of "normal behavior".


What the hell are you talking about? This should be illegal. This is not normal behavior. This has almost nothing in common with normal behavior, except in that he is human, he was engaging in behavior, and he existed. That's all. This isn't going to lead to anything normal being illegal; that's ridiculous and a stupid slippery slope argument.

So you are cool with getting thrown in jail for sucking on a popsicle or licking a lolipop? Those are objects going in your mouth. Some cop & judge could "interpret" that as a sexual display and toss you in jail.

Nice world you want to live in.

Assuming you think I'm on a slippery slope suggesting licking a popsicle could be interpreted as illegal, really? What if some guy walked up to your 18 year old daughter in a grocery store check out line and started going-to-town on the popsicle?

In your world, you would suggest the guy was being sexual and should be tossed in jail. Again, nice world you want to live in. Maybe the guy was just hot and the popsicle was really tasty and he wanted to cool off.

Either objects in mouths are sexual or they are not. I for one would not consider what that dude was doing as "sexual" - more "laughable" and "avoidable".


[edit on 7-7-2010 by harrytuttle]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by GobbledokTChipeater
 

Your argument assumes you know what was going on in that guys head. You are also comparing two completely different scenarios. One is where a guy just wants to shock some people, the other is a certified pedophile attempting to violate kids.

Your argument requires that those two types of people are indistinguishable and therefore should be treated the same. That's a completely unreasonable and dangerous postulation.

The fact is you don't know what's going on inside someone's head until they either directly express their intentions or take action.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   
No wonder I'm losing my faith in humanity.
This wasn't a lollipop, folks! IT WAS A SEX TOY!!!!
It wasn't a pickle or a cucumber & he wasn't just licking his fingers!
No matter how hard you try, you can't compare a dildo to anything else.

If you want to play the 'What If' game, let's play....

What if he wasn't drunk with a beer in his vehicle?
Hmmm??
What if he was completely sober?
What if he had a blow up doll in his passenger's side & using it on the doll & calling attention to that?
Seriously people.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   

That law says sexual activity is “the oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another or the anal or vaginal penetration of another by any other object.”


The problem with this law is that it does not involve self as the one doing it to self.

Nonetheless disgusting and tasteless.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by xstealth
 

That's not common law, that's vigilantism via assault. A response closer to in legality would be to take his picture, and license plate number, find out his name and relatives and employer and send the photo to everyone he knows and works for.

It would 100% legal. If he sues for harassment, then you counter sue for sexual harassment.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Afterthought
No wonder I'm losing my faith in humanity.
This wasn't a lollipop, folks! IT WAS A SEX TOY!!!!

Define "sex toy". There are lots of things in this world used as "sex toys". Are you saying I can't stir the lemonade with a 14" piece of latex rubber?


Who made you the spoon nazi?!



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by harrytuttle

So you are cool with getting thrown in jail for sucking on a popsicle or licking a lolipop? Those are objects going in your mouth. Some cop & judge could "interpret" that as a sexual display and toss you in jail.


Two things:

1) This was a dildo. a very direct replacement for a phallus. It is very, very different from a popsicle or a lolipop.

2) He waved it at women and sucked on it in a fashion simulating oral sex. If a man or a woman waved a popsicle lasciviously at me and proceeded to stick it down his or her throat, and it wasn't seductive but rather vile, I would consider that rather wrong too.


Assuming you think I'm on a slippery slope suggesting licking a popsicle could be interpreted as illegal, really? What if some guy walked up to your 18 year old daughter in a grocery store check out line and started going-to-town on the popsicle?


Does she like it? Is he being a creeper or a seducer? Does he know her or is he harassing her? It's all about that. Besides, I don't think you're on a slippery slope; I think you're claiming that this is a slippery slope, which is the fallacy.


In your world, you would suggest the guy was being sexual and should be tossed in jail.


I'm not necessarily saying he should be thrown in jail. I'm saying he should be punished.


Again, nice world you want to live in. Maybe the guy was just hot and the popsicle was really tasty and he wanted to cool off.


Not if he was jamming it in and out of his mouth, looking lewdly at women who he wanted to see him doing it!


Either objects in mouths are sexual or they are not.


So, in your world, oral sex has the same sexual quotient as eating a slice of pizza?


I for one would not consider what that dude was doing as "sexual" - more "laughable" and "avoidable".


It was a DILDO. in his MOUTH. in PUBLIC. Where he was TRYING to make OTHERS see him. Nothing avoidable about that. Nothing non-sexual about that. Maybe it's kind of funny; I don't think it is, but maybe we just have different senses of humor.

On a more friendly note, awesome username.

[edit on 7-7-2010 by Solasis]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by harrytuttle

Your argument assumes you know what was going on in that guys head. You are also comparing two completely different scenarios. One is where a guy just wants to shock some people, the other is a certified pedophile attempting to violate kids.

Your argument requires that those two types of people are indistinguishable and therefore should be treated the same. That's a completely unreasonable and dangerous postulation.


Considering that:


The officer noted Lowe smelled of alcohol and was wearing sweatpants that were wet and evincing an erection.


I've got a fair idea he was doing more than trying to shock people.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by harrytuttle

Originally posted by Afterthought
No wonder I'm losing my faith in humanity.
This wasn't a lollipop, folks! IT WAS A SEX TOY!!!!

Define "sex toy". There are lots of things in this world used as "sex toys". Are you saying I can't stir the lemonade with a 14" piece of latex rubber?


Who made you the spoon nazi?!


Define sex toy???
What else would you consider a dildo? The article was very specific & called the sex toy a dildo.
It doesn't matter what I consider a sex toy to be. I know what a dildo is. Go get a dictionary.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Solasis

"So, in your world, oral sex has the same sexual quotient as eating a slice of pizza?"
 

No it doesn't.
Oral sex requires a mouth and genitalia.
Simulated oral sex requires a mouth and an object in place of genitalia.
A piece of rubber latex in one's own hand is neither of those.

Pizza is tasty and nutritious, but if hungry enough, can be better than sex!



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by harrytuttle

Originally posted by Afterthought
No wonder I'm losing my faith in humanity.
This wasn't a lollipop, folks! IT WAS A SEX TOY!!!!

Define "sex toy". There are lots of things in this world used as "sex toys". Are you saying I can't stir the lemonade with a 14" piece of latex rubber?


Who made you the spoon nazi?!


Sex Toy: An Instrument shaped with the intention of providing sexual pleasure. see: Dildo.

You can use a rubber spoon as a sexual implement if you want, but that's not what it was designed for. There are morphic properties to consider.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by harrytuttle
reply to post by Solasis

"So, in your world, oral sex has the same sexual quotient as eating a slice of pizza?"
 

No it doesn't.
Oral sex requires a mouth and genitalia.
Simulated oral sex requires a mouth and an object in place of genitalia.
A piece of rubber latex in one's own hand is neither of those.

Pizza is tasty and nutritious, but if hungry enough, can be better than sex!


I'm going to go ahead and say that an artificial phallus counts as an object in place of genitalia. And if you can't see that, I'm also going to go ahead and say that you're either a troll or an idiot.

ETA: oh my gog I can't believe that I said Quotient when I meant Content. They're... Similar concepts.... Kind of... *shame*

[edit on 7-7-2010 by Solasis]





top topics
 
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join