Court: Dad can paste daughter's face on porn photo

reply to post by AusiAnarchist

In males one of these factors is age. In prehistory the average life expectancy was 30, so a young woman who had just come into fruition was the most desirable as they had the most chance of successfully raising a child to adult hood.

Where do you get this crock?

Most 'prehistoric' tribes were Matriarchal based. Males were expendable (fighters), females were not. The MOST attractive women were proven breeders who already had children and which would definitely exclude just past pubescent females who could (as many did) die in childbirth.

And anyway - we're not talking culture, we're not talking the dark ages, we're not talking 'cave men' we're talking about a FATHER who used his DAUGHTER for sexual release - as in my opinion he did. I mean what was he thinking about while looking at her picture? Barney the dinosaur? Wake up.

No gray line about that - and the cave man mentality? Leave it at the door. Or should I say at the mouth of the cave?

peace

Originally posted by SevenBeans
He made a film that depicted a 13 year old being tortured, raped and killed! OMG he is a criminal!

You're still pretending to not understand the difference? Really? SICK, SICK, SICK. So incredibly disingenuous.

Again, how are those fictional characters holding up in their lives now? Oh yeah, they don't have lives, because they're FICTIONAL. Not real. Again, this was child abuse, the abuse of a REAL child. You can draw pictures of nude children, make CGI kiddie porn, whatever you want to do that doesn't involve a REAL child. That's the f-ing difference between thought crimes, and real crimes.

reply to post by StealthyKat

I apologize if I go off the deep end on this.....but it really gets to me.

You don't go off the deep end on this. You're right on.

And by the by? I wonder how many people who think this is all 'ok-daddy-o' would want THEIR little girls to be 'best friends forever' and have slumber-parties at this guys house?

Kat, we know it's wrong. It is wrong. And like I said before. If this freak hadn't taken his perverse fantasies into the realm of reality we'd of never known. He went a 'step-beyond' and deserves to pay the price for it.

peace

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Arrest everyone with a copy of Lolita, NOW, especially if they masturbated while reading it!

edit on 10-6-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)

Oh dear resorting to the usual ats trick of paraphrasing, dissembling and misconstruism, in what way has anyone said anything similar to your "list" and in what way do any of them compare to wanking over your daughters face it having been photo shopped onto the body of a slim adult, he was obviously a paedo who thought he'd discovered the great paedo get out clause and as it happened he hadn't he was still a pervert.

Originally posted by silo13
Where do you get this crock?

Most 'prehistoric' tribes were Matriarchal based. Males were expendable (fighters), females were not. The MOST attractive women were proven breeders who already had children and which would definitely exclude just past pubescent females who could (as many did) die in childbirth.

He is right, like it or not.

There is nothing perverted, abnormal etc. etc. for a Man to find a reproductively mature 14 year old sexually attractive. It's natural and the taboo against it is entirely artificial.

reply to post by boondock-saint

but you can't prosecute and imprison
based on morals or thoughts alone.

I wonder about that. I wonder if one of us was to walk up to a CIA/FBI/NSA agent and say: 'Ya know, I THOUGHT about a really fool proof perfect way to assassinate the President last night...' And we'd see just how quickly we'd 'disapear', be prosecuted or made miserable by being added to a no fly list, etc etc.

And see that's my problem. I agree with YOU over this.

We should not be persecuted for thoughts. But, fact is we would be in teh scenario I posted above.

Alss the facts are - again - this guy took it one step too far and took it from 'thought' to 'reality' - that is why I believe he should be prosecuted.

Get where I'm coming from now?

peace

There is a lot of sensationalist children in here. It kind of turns my stomach since I haven't had my coffee yet, or been distracted by other matters. I need to stop coming on ATS as a morning duty.

First of all, the court didn't say he was allowed to do this. They said,

"Although we may find such altered images morally repugnant, we conclude that mere possession of them remains protected by the First Amendment," Justice Franklin Elia said in the 3-0 ruling.

Do you know why they said it was protected by the First Amendment? (I'd rather argue it's more so the 4th that's in jeopardy) Because child pornography applies to children engaged in sexual acts. It is not child pornography to cut & paste a kid's photo onto an adult body, sexual act or not. If this were the case, the entire internet (even safe sites) would need to be shut down, after all of the imposed pictures I've seen of young Hollywood starlets and Disney proteges. Even on cable television, the jokes are pretty tasteless.

While his acts are indeed very disgusting (his own daughter), I don't believe he should be prosecuted for it. Not only would making it illegal not do anything to stop it, it would only encourage more authoritarian leverage for abuse, and even more precedents set. This is the same shifty ground as the sex offender's law. Set in stone with good intentions, yet abused in the most abhorrent ways.

Rest assured sensationalists who probably didn't read the article, this man was not "set free". He was convicted on other charges, which were far more reasonable.

Originally posted by 27jd
You're still pretending to not understand the difference? Really? SICK, SICK, SICK. So incredibly disingenuous.

Again, how are those fictional characters holding up in their lives now? Oh yeah, they don't have lives, because they're FICTIONAL. Not real. Again, this was child abuse, the abuse of a REAL child. You can draw pictures of nude children, make CGI kiddie porn, whatever you want to do that doesn't involve a REAL child. That's the f-ing difference between thought crimes, and real crimes.

He used the image of a real person in the depiction of a fantasy. Are you suggesting that when a movie uses the image of a real 13 year old getting tortured, raped etc. etc. that there is some fundamental difference? If so please explain to me what that difference is, because yes, apparently I am still missing it.

reply to post by boondock-saint


Are you out of your mind? If he is only tasked with one task in life, it is to protect his children. Any man that takes and pastes his daughters picture like this, is a broken human. perversions like this don't just "go away"

This is how it starts, and normally ends in some child being damaged for life.

Your analogy with the 13 year old is moronic at best.... He is her FATHER, not a like aged peer. How you could compare those 2 situations is beyond me...

If a child turns you on, you are a broken human..... If sexual thoughts of your daughter turn you on, your broken and should be treated like broken garbage.

Take away any criminal charges, I could put this scum bag down, without one minute of lost sleep!

Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by boondock-saint

 

but you can't prosecute and imprison
based on morals or thoughts alone.

I wonder about that. I wonder if one of us was to walk up to a CIA/FBI/NSA agent and say: 'Ya know, I THOUGHT about a really fool proof perfect way to assassinate the President last night...' And we'd see just how quickly we'd 'disapear', be prosecuted or made miserable by being added to a no fly list, etc etc.

And see that's my problem. I agree with YOU over this.

We should not be persecuted for thoughts. But, fact is we would be in teh scenario I posted above.

Alss the facts are - again - this guy took it one step too far and took it from 'thought' to 'reality' - that is why I believe he should be prosecuted.

Get where I'm coming from now?

peace

Prosecuted on what charges?

Trying to make his daughter strip and do kiddie porn, yes.

Photoshopping a picture? No. Because that is not a charge as it is not illegal in any manner and should never be. It is victimless until the media/mother creates the victim by telling the girl that her father sexually fantasizes about her. Weirdos jerk off to movies of people being murdered, I think that is much sicker and off-tangent in regards to sexual norms. Where are your thought police there? Busy watching SAW III?

Originally posted by ShaunHatfield
If a child urns you on, you are a broken human.....

What nonsense.

There is nothing abnormal at all with a man being sexually attracted to a beautiful reproductively mature minor. Everyone has seen 14 year olds that could pass for 24 and guess what? There will be men who are sexually attracted to her! OMG! It's the end of the world... castrate them!

reply to post by silo13

Alss the facts are - again - this guy took it one step too far and took it from 'thought' to 'reality' - that is why I believe he should be prosecuted. Get where I'm coming from now?

I get it, but I disagree. As long as he does not hurt anybody, no crime happened. Masturbating in private to pasted pictures does not hurt anybody. There indeed is a well-defined line you spoke of, but with these pasted images, this man has not crossed it. The court agrees with this, too.

reply to post by SevenBeans


There is a difference between recognizing beauty and being sexually turned on by a child. A HUGE DIFFERENCE...

Do you not have any self control? Do you lack the right and wrong section of your brain?

Without a second thought, I could be the cause of this mans death, and feel great about it!!! If it saves ONE child the pain and suffering of being abused by an adult (that they trust with their safety) I would happily play Judge, Jury and executioner!

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by ShaunHatfield
If a child urns you on, you are a broken human.....

What nonsense.

There is nothing abnormal at all with a man being sexually attracted to a beautiful reproductively mature minor. Everyone has seen 14 year olds that could pass for 24 and guess what? There will be men who are sexually attracted to her! OMG! It's the end of the world... castrate them!

Keep telling yourself that she passes for 24... That's pretty telling right there... Any issues you want to discuss?

Maybe a 17 yr old looking 20... But a 13 yr old that you think is 24??? ABSURD!!

Originally posted by SevenBeans
He used the image of a real person in the depiction of a fantasy. Are you suggesting that when a movie uses the image of a real 13 year old getting tortured, raped etc. etc. that there is some fundamental difference? If so please explain to me what that difference is, because yes, apparently I am still missing it.

A movie is a controlled setting, in which an actor is paid to portray somebody other than themselves, in a fictional plot line in which nobody is committing any real acts upon the actor. It's all fake, and when the actor leaves the set...they don't have to deal emotionally with having been tortured, raped, etc. etc. because it was fake, and they signed up for it. They got paid, to do what they love...act. Much different than a child who's parent they depend on to care for and protect them, abusing and controlling them in such a perverse, non-fictional way. Again, this isn't something the child can likely just shrug off and move on easily from. I couldn't begin to imagine how creepy, and confusing that must have been for that poor girl.

Originally posted by SevenBeans


There is nothing perverted, abnormal etc. etc. for a Man to find a reproductively mature 14 year old sexually attractive. It's natural and the taboo against it is entirely artificial.

Urgh!! Someone starred this, pathetic, the most Troll like post in the past 5 pages.

reply to post by ShaunHatfield

There is a difference between recognizing beauty and being sexually turned on by a child. A HUGE DIFFERENCE...

Yes. But at 13 years old, she could be biologically developed enough to even be sexually attractive for a normal healthy man. Now that whole "daughter" thing is indeed quite abnormal, tough..

Originally posted by SevenBeans
There is nothing abnormal at all with a man being sexually attracted to a beautiful reproductively mature minor. Everyone has seen 14 year olds that could pass for 24 and guess what? There will be men who are sexually attracted to her! OMG! It's the end of the world... castrate them!

You are in real need of some serious psychiatric help to think that it's normal to be sexually attracted to a child especially if the child is the child of the person who is sexually attracted to them.

18 years old is the legal age and in my opinion they're still considered children even at that age but a 14 year-old?

You are indeed one sick-minded individual. I just hope for the sake of indefensible children in your area someone can pinpoint and investigate you for your twisted views.

Crime originates in the mind and then, more than likely, carried out by the individuals who entertain these thoughts.

You're sick.

reply to post by SevenBeans


I promise you one thing.... If this was my Niece in question... My sister would be a widow.. Period! Complain at his funeral!

Originally posted by ShaunHatfield
There is a difference between recognizing beauty and being sexually turned on by a child. A HUGE DIFFERENCE...

I know and "earth to ShaunHatfield" some 14 year olds are fully reproductively mature, they look 10 years older, and are drop dead gorgeous... DUH like it or not many Men WILL get turned on by them... they might even masturbate while thinking about them. And guess what? It's PERFECTLY normal.

Originally posted by ShaunHatfield
Without a second thought, I could be the cause of this mans death, and feel great about it!!! If it saves ONE child the pain and suffering of being abused by an adult (that they trust with their safety) I would happily play Judge, Jury and executioner!

Watch it, many people on this thread will have you locked up for such comments.