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

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by ShaunHatfield

 

He went from fantasy and reality when he pasted the picture.

Irrelevant. There was still no harm done, no victim, and thus no crime.

No very relevant.

No harm done, he drugged her and then wanted to take real photographs not to mention psychological pain.

When his daughter asks her father why he went to jail (if she doesn't already know) what is he going to say to her "i found you attractive and pasted your head on a porn stars body and had a wiz, got caught and went to jail, but not before i drugged you and wanted to take nude photos of you"

c'mon guys this is plain wrong.

A message to all those in defense of the what the father did or to all those who think that it is okay because she is a teen: lets analyze some facts.

• She has barely had 1 year of being a teenager.
• She is 13
• age of majority in america is 21 (in most states)
• She is his daughter
• she is a minor
• she probably doesn't even know what a bra is yet
• she probably doesn't know what a period is yet
• 13 year olds are the type of youngsters who are swinging on monkey bars or playing in the park
• It Is pedophilia
• in this case it is incest ( to an extent)
• this is the sort of # us brits hear about the hillbillies


Final question

Would any of you do this to your daughter? and for that matter Do any of you find your daughters attractive?

if so i highly, highly recommend you seek professional help.

reply to post by ShadowZion

No very relevant. No harm done, he drugged her and then wanted to take real photographs not to mention psychological pain.

I am talking about the pasted photos, that is the topic of the thread. His other crimes are indeed legitimate, and he got punished for them.

Originally posted by Observer99

Originally posted by Thepreye

Originally posted by SevenBeans
but it's silly to think that anyone who might be sexually attracted to her is some sort of disgusting deviant.

No it's not if they're over 21, if they are they're a pervert and a loser clear and simple, they'd know it, you'd know it, your daughter would know it, her school friends would know it, his mates would dwindle away because for sure as hell they'd know it, and his parents would feel a shame greater than any they'd ever known because they'd know it and think they were to blame for his f****d up head.

edit on 11-6-2011 by Thepreye because: (no reason given)

Actually, it's perfectly normal to find many teenage girls sexually attractive.

I'm reminded of a joke I was sent by text the other day,

What's the main cause of paedophilia?

Sexy kids.

Originally posted by Thepreye
I'm reminded of a joke I was sent by text the other day,

What's the main cause of paedophilia?

Sexy kids.

If you're a man and never found a reproductively mature (but minor) female sexually attractive than you're probably gay.

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by Thepreye
I'm reminded of a joke I was sent by text the other day,

What's the main cause of paedophilia?

Sexy kids.

If you're a man and never found a reproductively mature (but minor) female sexually attractive than you're probably gay.

edit on 14-6-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)

so your telling me if i didn't find a pretty much 12 year old girl attractive - im gay?

no i just have more confidence to talk to girls my own age than to hunt innocent little girls like you clearly do because in your mind i guess your not gay!

Originally posted by ShadowZion

so your telling me if i didn't find a pretty much 12 year old girl attractive - im gay?

no i just have more confidence to talk to girls my own age than to hunt innocent little girls like you clearly do because in your mind i guess your not gay!

You still seem to be struggling with the difference between attraction and "hunting" (acting on your attraction etc. etc.). Do you uncontrollably "hunt" every person that you find sexually attractive?

And yes, if you've never found a female under the legal age sexually attractive than I think you must be gay.

you guys seem to be missing the big picture

SHE IS 13 YEARS OLD - For F sake
SHE IS A CHILD!
SHE IS HIS DAUGHTER!

if your 18 and you find a 15 year old girl attractive - thats okayish
if your 21+ and you find a 15 year old girl attractive and you are aware of her age - not okay
if your 21+ and you find a 13 year old girl attractive and you are aware of her age - 100% not okay
if your 21+ and you find your 13 year old daughter attractive - that is incest and you should receive ultimate punishment.

Are you all bloody hillbillies or what???????

Originally posted by ShadowZion
if your 21+ and you find a 15 year old girl attractive and you are aware of her age - not okay

What?

When I first saw Anna Kournikova I thought she was hot and I still thought she was hot after I learned that she was only 16. If you didn't think she was sexually attractive until the moment she turned 18 than you're a weirdo and/or gay.

reply to post by ShadowZion


Are you aware of the huge distinction between thought, attraction, fantasy, fiction and actual ACTION?

It is not a crime to fantacise about or depict murder. Only real murder is a crime.
It is not a crime to fantacise about sex with a minor. Only actual attempt to have a sex with a minor is a crime.
It is not a crime to be a pedophile, it is a medical diagnosis. Only pedophilic ACTS which involve real children in sexual acts are a crime.

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by ShadowZion

so your telling me if i didn't find a pretty much 12 year old girl attractive - im gay?

no i just have more confidence to talk to girls my own age than to hunt innocent little girls like you clearly do because in your mind i guess your not gay!

You still seem to be struggling with the difference between attraction and "hunting" (acting on your attraction etc. etc.). Do you uncontrollably "hunt" every person that you find sexually attractive?

And yes, if you've never found a female under the legal age sexually attractive than I think you must be gay.

no because i look at those underage kids as though they would look up to me for guidance and as a role model.
i reckon you are under 18 or under, thats why you find this acceptable!

which is okay for your age as you are still a minor.
the father is not a minor, he is at least 41 years old.

and its those freaks who dont have the confidence to talk to girls their own age who tend to go for the more easily manipulated younger ones.

and it is those from when the young females muster the courage to turn them down they move on to little boys!

trust me i know alot about psychology!

but what i cant seem to muster is why you find its acceptable!

unless you are talking about girls who are 18 and above, who are still minor but you wont be looked down upon for.

this is a kid, a child. a primary school student.
Man come on!

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by ShadowZion

 

Are you aware of the huge distinction between thought, attraction, fantasy, fiction and actual ACTION?

It is not a crime to fantacise about or depict murder. Only real murder is a crime.
It is not a crime to fantacise about sex with a minor. Only actual attempt to have a sex with a minor is a crime.
It is not a crime to be a pedophile, it is a medical diagnosis. Only pedophilic ACTS which involve real children in sexual acts are a crime.

this was a pedophilic act and it involved his daughter.

what a corrupt way to allow people to not be punished for their crime.

if you are telling me that a medical condition is what leads to pedophilia, you must be having a laugh mate.

people have the intelligence to say no, if not then this is lack of brain control.

i wonder why you dont hear many stories like these come from anywhere else but out of america......?

reply to post by ShadowZion


Nature does not wait till 18, but till puberty. If you dont find minor postpubescent girls attractive, it is you who is abnormal.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by ShadowZion

 

Nature does not wait till 18, but till puberty. If you dont find minor postpubescent girls attractive, it is you who is abnormal.

edit on 14/6/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

mate i tell you, you are not a animal man, i chose my own nature, as can you.

yes i am abnormal because i can see what is correct and what is wrong.

if you take a childs innocence at such a young age you should be punished.

if you have thoughts about touching little girls you should also be punished.

you ought to be ashamed of yourselves for even arguing with anyone about this topic.

1 thing which i have noticed through out this entire discussion -

is that most of everyone who is arguing against me is either canadian or american.

i think it has been embedded into your guys DNA from the rednecks and the hillbillies of the past, to touch little children and to commit incest.

reply to post by Maslo


i think you've taken a minors innocence and are trying to justify yourself!

reply to post by ShadowZion

mate i tell you, you are not a animal man, i chose my own nature, as can you.

No, you cannot normally choose who you are attracted to.

yes i am abnormal because i can see what is correct and what is wrong.

You seem to think that because it is normal to find minor teens attractive, it automatically means it must be morally right to have sex with them. But these are two distinct things.

if you take a childs innocence at such a young age you should be punished.

I agree.

if you have thoughts about touching little girls you should also be punished.

No, you should definately not. That would be a thoughtcrime, that is unacceptable.

1 thing which i have noticed through out this entire discussion - is that most of everyone who is arguing against me is either canadian or american.

I am european, actually.

i think you've taken a minors innocence and are trying to justify yourself!

I can assure you I have not.

reply to post by Maslo


Your stuck on thought crime. This individual took his daughters face and pasted it on an adult body, for the purpose of masturbation.

There needs to be a moral line that is not to be crossed. If this line existed, this man did the long jump right over it.
I see his actions as "taking it past a thought crime"

If this man was buried to his neck them stoned to death, I would smile continuously for weeks!

The porn wasn't a crime but the other actions were

And it's silly to believe that the second someone is 18 they instantaneously transform from not attractive to attractive.

reply to post by ShaunHatfield


People like you are so psychologically interesting. You somehow think that photoshopping a picture is less moral than finding pleasure in the murder of someone you don't like. Absolutely amazing...

Maslo, you have totally obscured the actual facts of what this man did.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by ShadowZion

 

Are you aware of the huge distinction between thought, attraction, fantasy, fiction and actual ACTION?

This man acted on his thoughts the moment he manufactured Images of his child in order to create pornographic material depicting his child in a sexually explicit nature.
He ACTED.

It is not a crime to fantacise about or depict murder. Only real murder is a crime.

Incorrect, it is against the law to threaten muder, or plan or incite or conspire to murder. A plan is typically any diagram or list of steps with timing and resources, used to achieve an objective.
How does this man's images of his child in sexually explicit manner differ? How do you differentiate? Considering that he then went about acting out the "diagram" he had previously created!

It is not a crime to fantacise about sex with a minor. Only actual attempt to have a sex with a minor is a crime.

Again, totally incorrect. It is also a crime to obtain images of children, manufacture images or distribute images of children in sexually explicit sex acts with other minors, adults or animals. It is also illegal to sell distribute import or export images depicting such.

Offences also include using a carriage service, such as the internet, of postal services for sexual activity with a child or for child abuse material, regardless of a person engaging in sexual activity with a minor.

It is also illegal to groom or attempt to procure minors for sex, again this is not necessarily an attempt to have sex with the minors, and pedophiles have argued that such activity is merely fantasy and role play. Yet still, many countries have laws against such activity and dedicated agencies that police this activity.

Many countries also state that it is a crime for individuals or bodies corporate to engage in, facilitate or benefit from sexual activity with children. So whilst some individual may not engage in sexual activity with children, it is illegal to create trade, or tourism in child sex, sexual images or material.

So, you are missing quite a bit there mate!
And thats just the tip of the iceberg.

It is not a crime to be a pedophile, it is a medical diagnosis. Only pedophilic ACTS which involve real children in sexual acts are a crime.

Again, incorrect. There are a large range of offences relating to images of children, the production, distribution and sale, possession, importation all that have no need for a sexual act to be carried out by an individual in order for them to face criminal charges. Individuals who profit from tourism, the trade or sale of children and images of children, again with no sex acts involved. The lists is long.

I suggest you actually take the time to discover the range of crimes associated with child ponography, pedophilia, pedophile rings, child sex slavery.

Then you may be able to remove your head from your ass and see reality for a change.

You debase our community with your logic, your farcical over simplification and false dichotomy reeks of a shallow philosophy that serves only your own need to be right rather then serve a real debate on such a serious and heinous issue.