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

Aside from the other matters he was jailed for, and rightful so...how can anyone here not view this as child pornography, THE MAN IS GETTING OFF TO HIS DAUGHTERS FACE...not her body, but her face and clearly because of the other things he has been convicted off he wants to have sex with his 13 year old daughter. Where do any of you not see this as wrong? He is jerking off to her face. WTF is wrong with you? What is wrong with the court that allowed this to happen?!

reply to post by Maslo


What makes it sexual?

Perfectly benign images could be used for sexual gratification. Does that intent make the benign image sexual?

Take Jock Sturges for example. He claims it's "art." I have no doubt that somewhere some weirdo has a mangled book of his tucked away for purposes of sexual gratification. Is it art on one bookshelf and pornography on another?

Here's the thing, this may not be breaking the law, but its encouraging behaviour that will make him break the law.
If he's doing this it means he has sexual fantasies about his daughter. Up until this point he was only keeping them in his mind, but now he's putting them into the outside world, and actually acting upon them. This is just one part, he'll see that this is OK, and eventually, probably try and molest his daughter.

reply to post by Kali74


if you read the article it is quite clear. it isnt child pornography because the images are not of minors. e was charged with several other crimes, though.

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by felonius
Personally, a family member should take this sucker and feed him to the hogs.

when you were 14 yrs old and jerked off in your
bed at night to the thoughts of your 13 yr old
girlfriend or a hot girl at school, were you not
committing the same offense?
Your 13 yr old gf was underage.
Should somebody have fed you to the
hogs then ???

between birth and present day,
about 99% of us have committed
this very same act. Yet some
stand up high and mighty and have
a holier than thou attitude.

You REALLY think there is no difference bewtween a 16 year old boy and a 40 year old man?

really?

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Its amazing what you can discern about a person from what they argue, "theoretically."

It may not be illegal to fondle yourself while looking at naked pictures of your children in the bath or at the beach, but it IS sick.

The law is the bare minimum. Its not the highest standard of behavior, or even the norm. We make things illegal for the worst humans, those whose common sense and human nature fail somehow to lead them to the actions and behaviors reasonable humans come to naturally. It draws the line for the LOWEST acceptable standard of behavior, beyond which we will not tolerate anyone sinking. It doesnt mean that everything above that line is "okay."


So while we may not have a law forbidding people from masturbating to pictures of their children, for the majority of us, none is needed for us to abstain from that behavior.

reply to post by Kali74


All crime is deviance but not all deviance is a crime.

He's certainly a deviant but putting his daughter's picture on a naked adult's body is not a crime or shall I draw you a picture in crayon?

Originally posted by g146541
reply to post by ldyserenity

 

C'mon no need to bite at me, I was simply pointing out that rape kit is rape in itself, ask anyone who has ever been examined,
But to put this to a child with little or no hope of getting "evidence" would be fruitless at best and most probably damaging to the child.

Yes if the person doesn't consent.
If the person consents, then that is their choice.
I'd certainly get one done if I wanted to put the Bastard who raped me away, regardless of how it may feel.
hypothetically speaking of course

The guy is clearly messed up, but I tend to be pragmatic about these things.

If he has a fantasy but is using this as a way of getting out that desire and it results in him NOT touching his daughter, I don't think he should be punished.

Actually touching his daughter would be a different matter.

Problem being we don't know if he's taken it too far or not and to monitor him becomes an ethical concern in itself.

If his daughter now knows what he's been doing then she is gonna be all kinds of messed up too.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
reply to post by Kali74

 

if you read the article it is quite clear. it isnt child pornography because the images are not of minors. e was charged with several other crimes, though.

I read it and I'm saying it is wrong. He was pasting his daughter face on naked grown women with the intent of sexual gratification, that is what makes it child pornography. That judge was wrong...all of it wrong. Seriously I hope you all are just addicted to arguing and don't really feel this is ok.

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by felonius
Personally, a family member should take this sucker and feed him to the hogs.

when you were 14 yrs old and jerked off in your
bed at night to the thoughts of your 13 yr old
girlfriend or a hot girl at school, were you not
committing the same offense?
Your 13 yr old gf was underage.
Should somebody have fed you to the
hogs then ???

between birth and present day,
about 99% of us have committed
this very same act. Yet some
stand up high and mighty and have
a holier than thou attitude.

Big difference between two teens and a father and daughter?? c'mon use a little common sense.

It s a sad day, when drawings of children having sex, are accepted,and not looked upon as a crime.

Its a sad day,when a father, can abuse his the picture of his daughters face in such a way,and its not a crime.

*sighs* But some police find it mush more criminal to make some smart ass remark to a police officer, and that warrants an arrest.

Originally posted by wardk28
I would guess technically he didn't break any laws. So where does it go from here? Do they moniter his internet activity to wait on him to cross the line?

Offically no...however, I imagine children services may be getting involved and "suggesting" therapy for him in order not to make his life a hell.

There is alot of threads about how intrusive the government is getting. So on one hand we know this guy has problems but hasn't broken the law. If or when he does, it will be really bad for his daughter. On the other hand, the constitution still applies to him.

Psychologically speaking, fathers are very often attracted to their daughters...its a biological thing. Yes, consciously people will refuse to admit that, however, it is what it is...happens in the animal kingdom, and we are animals.
The difference between us and animals is we don't mount em when we start to notice their beauty..sounds a bit big brother, but this guy probably just needs social conditioning to keep his natural feelings bound up a bit better. The guy was just expressing some desires in a relatively harmless way, however, he crossed a bit of a social line by doing even that, and should gain control...I mean, if he can do that, then the slippery slope will dictate that he will then be looking at underage porn, then perhaps trying to sneak peeks in the shower, etc etc etc..will build until there is a chance of a victim. So ya, getting caught is a good thing for him..early enough to get help without having a scarlet letter for life.

I think its important overall in society to stop denying feelings but instead, accept them and control them. denial only leads to unhealthy outcomes.

reply to post by Kali74


It's not ok, but neither is it child pornpography.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by Maslo

 

What makes it sexual?

Perfectly benign images could be used for sexual gratification. Does that intent make the benign image sexual?

Take Jock Sturges for example. He claims it's "art." I have no doubt that somewhere some weirdo has a mangled book of his tucked away for purposes of sexual gratification. Is it art on one bookshelf and pornography on another?

Not the intent, but the content of the image itself. At least thats how anti-child pornography laws should work, IMHO. But in todays society where drawings of the Simpsons family engaging in sexual acts can be considered child porn and is illegal, I am not sure...

Legally - photoshopping is not a crime - furnishing drugs to a minor is.
Morally - the conversation should be here www.abovetopsecret.com...

Anyone else pick up on the fact that the girl wanted the drugs? Sounds like entrapment...
Since I have experience with lots of teenage girls, I really am left to wonder about her motivation in all of this...
especially considering the fact that this man who is her biological father in no way is her real father (since he hadn't seen her in 12 years).. may slightly (though I doubt it) change the moral aspect of some arguments.
I'm also wondering if all the moral arguments here are completely off - was he really masturbating to a picture of his daughter? or trying to sell it to make money? is it possible he was trying to cash in on other perverts?

I suspect legally, the man will be severely scrutinized and charged accordingly.

Originally posted by Cecilofs
The guy is clearly messed up, but I tend to be pragmatic about these things.

If he has a fantasy but is using this as a way of getting out that desire and it results in him NOT touching his daughter, I don't think he should be punished.

Actually touching his daughter would be a different matter.

Problem being we don't know if he's taken it too far or not and to monitor him becomes an ethical concern in itself.

If his daughter now knows what he's been doing then she is gonna be all kinds of messed up too.

Excuse me??? What right does he have to use someone elses face on another body to get sexual gratification ?? Anybody's face? And yes she will be all messed up, because I'm sure she knows.

WOW, anyone who can say its really not that bad ,cause he wasn't ACTUALLY touching his daughter..well..lets just say they are suspect to me.

Originally posted by Kali74

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
reply to post by Kali74

 

if you read the article it is quite clear. it isnt child pornography because the images are not of minors. e was charged with several other crimes, though.

I read it and I'm saying it is wrong. He was pasting his daughter face on naked grown women with the intent of sexual gratification, that is what makes it child pornography. That judge was wrong...all of it wrong. Seriously I hope you all are just addicted to arguing and don't really feel this is ok.

So that means almost any picture of a woman's face is pornography, because it has the potential to be used that way. What about hand or feet model pornography?

Bottom line as I see it.
The man in question has done nothing wrong from a legal standpoint as thankfully thought crime is not illegal until acted upon.
Otherwise I would have been charged with murder a million times.
The daughter must be told of this "pornography" if she does not already know.
From there the daughter will decide the mans punishement, if he will be her "father" anymore.
The daughter has ultimate authority here to see or not to see her parent.

And for those who argue murder vs rape, I could find many ways to justify a murder, I cannot think of one for rape.
Plus how do criminals in prison view the two acts?
One makes you a celebrity and the other gets you raped.
Just my 2 cents.

reply to post by gabby2011


By your rational it should also be a crime to imagine what somebody looks like naked for the purpose of sexual gratification.

Originally posted by Kali74

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
reply to post by Kali74

 

if you read the article it is quite clear. it isnt child pornography because the images are not of minors. e was charged with several other crimes, though.

I read it and I'm saying it is wrong. He was pasting his daughter face on naked grown women with the intent of sexual gratification, that is what makes it child pornography. That judge was wrong...all of it wrong. Seriously I hope you all are just addicted to arguing and don't really feel this is ok.

i dont feel it's 'okay'. I'm saying the there is nothing illegal about that specific action. 'child pornography' is clearly defined, and this did not fall under that category, since the ACTUAL EXPLICIT PHOTOS were of legally-aged women.

sick, yes. illegal, no.