Vicious Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 She probably was already on the road to getting the tramp stamp on the lower back and investing a few years from now in a dozen 6 inch clear heels. Just because someone takes naked photographs of themselves does not mean they are going to be a whore. Your wife/girlfriend has never taken a sexy picture for you? Really? That's just such an off base thing to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 Just because someone takes naked photographs of themselves does not mean they are going to be a whore. Your wife/girlfriend has never taken a sexy picture for you? Really? That's just such an off base thing to say. More importantly, the whole "whore" label is a completely antiquated notion we've held over from obsolete social dogma that has no place whatsoever in the modern world. News flash: Women get all sorts of horny. And if you'd stop degrading the ones who act on it, you'd probably get laid more. (This is coming from someone who bristles at the very word "feminism.") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 She probably was already on the road to getting the tramp stamp on the lower back and investing a few years from now in a dozen 6 inch clear heels.But yeah to label her anything but stupid doesn't seem to benefit her but they might think its the best way to shake up others thinking about doing it. The idea of slamming the door on the oppurtunity to be anything else should not even be on the table. This should be indecent exposure at most because chances are she did this for attention, not profit or anything else. Teenagers girls do stupid things for attention all the time (goer), but sacrificing this kid's future will prove to me that the government doesn't give a damn about her or most of us for that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted March 27, 2009 Author Share Posted March 27, 2009 Just because someone takes naked photographs of themselves does not mean they are going to be a whore. Your wife/girlfriend has never taken a sexy picture for you? Really? That's just such an off base thing to say.Actually, at 14, the "whore jury" is pretty much in on this one. Girl needs help fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 Who said being an exotic dancer equated to being a whore? At age 14 she is comfortable posting nude and provocative pictures of herself, its not farfetched to think she can take it to another level prior to getting busted. Tasteful lingerie and bikini polaroids yep explicit nudes no. Criticizing morally corrupt actions is not off base, son. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 News flash: Women get all sorts of horny. And if you'd stop degrading the ones who act on it, you'd probably get laid more. :idea:I HATE the double standard. Men are playas, women are sluts. Can't we all just get along and :hump: ? The world would be a better place Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tastes Like Chicken Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 So if you take a pic of your baby's birth, first bath, etc. is that the same deal? Sex offender? Geez, the kid is 14, she made a mistake for sure- but is this course of action really keeping her best interests in mind? :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 How can a picture of a baby's birth be seen as sexual? Those types of pervs should go straight to old sparky, rehab be darned. 14 year olds aren't that naive and while I don't agree with the course of action its time to look at the best interests of society. What excuse are they going to use for the 16 year old boy who knifed to death that celebrity the other day? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 Her pictures are on some porn forum that post explicit pics and videos from cellphones, youtube or some version, photobucket,myspace, facebook, etc. If not on a P2P sharing program.Her actions is going to be enjoy by pervs for decade And it's her fault that somebody else is a perv? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 We really have embraced stupidity it would seem. This shouldn't be debated and I for one won't argue over obvious stupidity. She's not a sex offender in the eyes of any reasonable human being. The people that have charged her as such shouldn't be employed any longer. If I possess the exact same photo on my computer, am I a sex offender? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 How can a picture of a baby's birth be seen as sexual? Old joke: Ever been up to your neck in *****? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 And it's her fault that somebody else is a perv? Its her fault she might have made herself a potential target of a perv/stalker who wouldn't have her in his sights if she did post those pics. But the perv that steps to her should be taken down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 If I possess the exact same photo on my computer, am I a sex offender? Tough call, if she is physically mature to the point that she looks legal and you dont know she is underage. A different story if you knowingly have an explicit picture of her as a minor. There is a difference between artistic nudes and explicit nudes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 If I possess the exact same photo on my computer, am I a sex offender? If I kick my own door down and put my TV in my car am I guilty of robbery? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 Its her fault she might have made herself a potential target of a perv/stalker who wouldn't have her in his sights if she did post those pics. But the perv that steps to her should be taken down. So, if she gets raped, it's her fault cause she asked for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 If I kick my own door down and put my TV in my car am I guilty of robbery? So it's legal for me to possess something, but it's illegal for you to possess the exact same thing? What's the standard society should use to determine who is and who isn't allowed to possess the exact same piece of child pornography? (BTW, you do realize I'm playing devil's advocate, don't you? I agree that if I'm the DA, this case doesn't get prosecuted. I'm trying to find out exactly where this zone of "we don't prosecute that" ends. For example, if the girl emails the photo to her best (female) friend, is that a crime? How about her boyfriend? How about the boyfriends clique?) (Maybe what's needed is something like the consent laws: Possession of nude photos of a 16 year old is legal if the possessor is between 14 and 18. Something like that.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 So, if she gets raped, it's her fault cause she asked for it? Hardly the same kettle of fish. She knowingly posted a nude photo of herself. Whether or not she understood the full ramifications of her actions is irrelevant. Ignorance is no excuse, and never has been. I agree with Navy Dave when he states that 14 yr olds are not as innocent as we might want to believe, especially one willing to take nude photos of herself and post them online. Regardless of her intent, or of her actual culpability in what the photo will undoubtedly be used for, she has given the freaks more feed for their monkey, and that can't be excused. A sex offender charge is a bit rough, and I'd be open to suggestions as to how to get the message across to these kids that there ARE these predators out there who just live for this sort of thing. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 So it's legal for me to possess something, but it's illegal for you to possess the exact same thing?What's the standard society should use to determine who is and who isn't allowed to possess the exact same piece of child pornography? (BTW, you do realize I'm playing devil's advocate, don't you? I agree that if I'm the DA, this case doesn't get prosecuted. I'm trying to find out exactly where this zone of "we don't prosecute that" ends. For example, if the girl emails the photo to her best (female) friend, is that a crime? How about her boyfriend? How about the boyfriends clique?) (Maybe what's needed is something like the consent laws: Possession of nude photos of a 16 year old is legal if the possessor is between 14 and 18. Something like that.) Simple. Let's examine the origins of the law: The origins of Megan's Law began with state level attempts to protect communities from sexual offenders. Prior to formal legislation, private citizens groups sometimes distributed information regarding specific offenders in their areas. In 1990, Washington adopted one of the first statewide laws, the Washington State Community Protection Act of 1990. The law is named for seven-year-old Megan Kanka, who was kidnapped, raped, and murdered by Jesse Timmendequas, a repeat violent sexual offender. Timmendequas was found guilty, and was on New Jersey's death row. In December 2007, New Jersey ended the death penalty. Timmendequas will now serve life without parole The purpose behind the extraordinary use of a legal scarlet letter was to respond to the known high probability of those abusing children of doing it again. By making lists and tracking them, as well as restricting their access to children, the hope was to stop what happened to Megan Kanka. What we have in this case is something that completely flies in the face of the spirit of this legal movement (which was short sighted for not seeing this outcome when they decided to tinker with the US legal system in the first place). The law is meant to warn communities of predators in their areas. Taking pictures of yourself is not predatory. Even posting them on the internet falls short of this. You may be making an easy victim of yourself, but predatory you are not. Now if some odd ball adult is searching the internet for images of underage women... now we have signs of a possible predator. Completely different dynamic is at play when that picture is in the hands of an adult. Not saying that said adult is automatically guilty, but an investigation is justifiable. now: /.soapbox This is mission creep. This is why greater police powers are not something this nation should ever support. Every law that grants additional powers to punish or prosecute will ALWAYS grow beyond it's original intent. Stop, for the love of God, supporting this kind of ****! /.soapbox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinFeathers Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 So, if she gets raped, it's her fault cause she asked for it? Well if she asked for it, it's not rape then. But if she posts the pictures online she really can't complain about people looking at them. Sad, but true. A 14 year old (what is that, freshman in high school?) should know better. Or maybe she doesn't care...which is even sadder. Either way, I think she needs help more than she needs punishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 Simple. Let's examine the origins of the law: Uh, I'm asking why she isn't guilty of possession of child pornography. (But I would be if I had the same picture.) If you want to talk about scarlet letter laws (and my opinions of them), that's another topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 Uh, I'm asking why she isn't guilty of possession of child pornography. (But I would be if I had the same picture.) If you want to talk about scarlet letter laws (and my opinions of them), that's another topic. I realize what you are asking. As I mentioned eariler however I'm not a fan of debating things that should be obvious.... but what the hell, it's not like I have something important to do at the moment. The picture, or any item for that matter, doesn't create a real understanding of a situation. It's illegal to have crack for example... but if I am picking a vial off the ground close to a playground so a child doesn't eat it a reasonable person wouldn't think I should go to jail for possession of a controled substance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicious Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 Who said being an exotic dancer equated to being a whore? At age 14 she is comfortable posting nude and provocative pictures of herself, its not farfetched to think she can take it to another level prior to getting busted.Tasteful lingerie and bikini polaroids yep explicit nudes no. Criticizing morally corrupt actions is not off base, son. If I was your son I'd probably be gay and an hero. So a 14 year old taking "tasteful" lingerie photos, she is in the clear. The second she shows nip though, she's a whore. You said she'd have a tramp stamp, that has nothing to do with strippers. If a 14 year old girl has the ability to corrupt you morally, that's pretty sad. No 14 year old girl needs to be held accountable for being exploited. You think she wasn't asked/told to do this? Nonsense. Then again I feel like responding to you is a complete waste of time since you're so off the wall, even for me.. which is saying something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 I realize what you are asking. As I mentioned eariler however I'm not a fan of debating things that should be obvious.... but what the hell, it's not like I have something important to do at the moment. The picture, or any item for that matter, doesn't create a real understanding of a situation. It's illegal to have crack for example... but if I am picking a vial off the ground close to a playground so a child doesn't eat it a reasonable person wouldn't think I should go to jail for possession of a controled substance. If, however, you made the vial, and made the crack, and put it on the playground? To pull some more things out of air: If I have the picture on my hard drive, then "Hey, I found it freely published on the Internet" will get me 20. But you mean to say that her intent is sufficient to get her a free pass? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.