Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

High School Phone Pics = Sex Offenders for Life? Options · View
Magical_felix
Posted: Friday, March 15, 2013 9:58:28 AM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 5,334
Location: California
TexasSon wrote:
...and Felix, I believe you said you are a father with a daughter. I respect that, and absolutely agreed with a lot of your SENTIMENTS about this in regards to the girls.

...so now imagine that boy was your SON. Do you really blame an idiot 15-17 year old boy for getting giddy and immediately taking advantage of the surprise, unsolicited pics some girls took and sent to you as a joke (which is how the incident has been described), and then making the bonehead move to post 'em on your Instagram account to show off whatta badass player you are since hotties are showing you tits?

I'd slap my son upside the head for being a fucknut, but I would label him as abusive, predatory, or even particularly deceitful.

He was just an idiot kid for a moment and -SHOCKER!- let his cock do the thinking.


My son wouldn't be that stupid, disloyal, untrustworthy, predatory or deceitful because what that boy did is all of those things. A girl liked him enough to share her body and he goes and does that... What a piece of shit.

And you know what... You do sound like you are saying she was asking for it. You sound like those guys that defend the rapists because the girl was wearing skimpy clothes in a bad part of town or she got drunk at the club and was rubbing on guys so she was asking for it. Disgusting.



Guest
Posted: Friday, March 15, 2013 10:00:21 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 674,139
Magical_felix wrote:


I dont think the girl should be punished at all. Just the guy. In my mind she is a victim in the same way a 15 year being groped against her will by a 17 year old would be. The girl shouldn't be punished but the guy most certainly should be. He crossed over when he mentally abused her, possibly affecting her for life when he exposed her body to her peers. I also think the guy should carry that label until he is 18 just like other crimes committed by teens. That is all I'm saying. Not for life.

But you forget that she willingly sent the pictures in the first place... a crime in itself. Sure, if you want to charge the others for what happened after that, I can see that logically. But to dismiss the fact that what started it was in itself a crime, is IMO just not right.

If it is a crime for a woman to take off all her clothes (willingly) in the middle of the street, and she was then sexually assaulted, does the fact she was assaulted negate her FIRST choosing to break the law herself? I would present that it does not. Charge each according to what law they broke. To include the female who first stripped naked in public. She is ONLY a victim of the crimes committed against herself, but NOT innocent of the crimes she herself committed.

(Added because you posted more: This is also not the same as justifying rape because a girl went to a bar and wore skimpy clothing. Doing those things are NOT crimes, nor justifies being raped. Also sending around naked pictures of an underage girl is not justified by the girl having first taken them. However, having them passed around also does not eliminate HER for being held responsible for the crime she committed by taking and sending them in the first place.)

The same is true in this case. The girl was guilty of committing an offense which actually gave the others the "things" to commit the offense(s) they committed. She is not simply a "victim", but in fact, committed a crime herself. She holds duel status.

And with that... I will do my best to step back and just let folks chat. I don't think I can add anything further that will be of benefit.
TexasSon
Posted: Friday, March 15, 2013 10:00:26 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/23/2010
Posts: 149
Location: In Beautiful
...and NO, I am not saying the boy's innocent by any means. The girls (it did say there were a couple of girls involved, not just one!) are just definitely NOT the sweet little angels that have been oh so wrong by the mean spirited baddie boy.

I also don't think it's that big of a deal. I take the Law Enforcement's threat of prosecution as just that: a necessary THREAT to any & all individuals (kids) who may still possess the pictures. It's only a threat of that magnitude that will possibly get the kids to understand the brevity of the situation, AND actually get their parents involved.



Magical_felix
Posted: Friday, March 15, 2013 10:06:22 AM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 5,334
Location: California
JohnC wrote:

But you forget that she willingly sent the pictures in the first place... a crime in itself. Sure, if you want to charge the others for what happened after that, I can see that logically. But to dismiss the fact that what started it was in itself a crime, is IMO just not right.

If it is a crime for a woman to take off all her clothes (willingly) in the middle of the street, and she was then sexually assaulted, does the fact she was assaulted negate her FIRST choosing to break the law herself? I would present that it does not. Charge each according to what law they broke. To include the female who first stripped naked in public. She is ONLY a victim of the crimes committed against herself, but NOT innocent of the crimes she herself committed.

The same is true in this case. The girl was guilty of committing an offense which actually gave the others the "things" to commit the offense(s) they committed. She is not simply a "victim", but in fact, committed a crime herself. She holds duel status.

And with that... I will do my best to step back and just let folks chat. I don't think I can add anything further that will be of benefit.


Her crime was to trust a boy she probably liked with her body and he punished her for it.

Yeah a woman is breaking the law by walking around naked but that in no way means she is asking to get raped. What the fuck... Teach young men that abusing women is wrong instead of teaching young women that if they are sexually abused they must have been doing something wrong and that's why it happened.



TexasSon
Posted: Friday, March 15, 2013 10:10:25 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/23/2010
Posts: 149
Location: In Beautiful
Magical_felix wrote:


My son wouldn't be that stupid, disloyal, untrustworthy, predatory or deceitful because what that boy did is all of those things. A girl liked him enough to share her body and he goes and does that... What a piece of shit.

And you know what... You do sound like you are saying she was asking for it. You sound like those guys that defend the rapists because the girl was wearing skimpy clothes in a bad part of town or she got drunk at the club and was rubbing on guys so she was asking for it. Disgusting.


You know, I've always enjoyed and respected your posts, but you just took a wrong turn with me.

Fuck you.

Nothing I said even remotely puts me in the same category as assholes like that.

...and as for your son not being that type of individual: great! I think many would argue with you against even having that harsh of an opinion about the boy in question to begin with.

How about this though, daddy dearest..?.. Would your precious, innocent and obviously pristine princes & princesses even DREAM that their dear sweet father, pillar of the family in all things moral, right, and good be on such an illicit site as this which contains such topics as cheating spouses, taboo relations... GASP! INCEST?!?!

...and would they even imagine that you'd be capable of such stories as the taboo tales you've written or even OH MY GOD!!! the RELUCTANCE (thinly veiled damn near RAPE FUCKING SEQUENCE) you've written?!?!?!

So, fuck you again - you judgemental, hypocritical motherfucker.



Guest
Posted: Friday, March 15, 2013 10:16:17 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 674,139
Magical_felix wrote:


Her crime was to trust a boy she probably liked with her body and he punished her for it.

Yeah a woman is breaking the law by walking around naked but that in no way means she is asking to get raped. What the fuck... Teach young men that abusing women is wrong instead of teaching young women that if they are sexually abused they must have been doing something wrong and that's why it happened.

No, her crime was to take and then distribute child pornography.

And the rest? Give me a break. You are claiming things that I simply didn't come close to saying. I never justified rape at all. I said hold every party accountable for the crimes they commit. As you so aptly put it... "What the fuck"? Stop trying to twist what people say, for whatever reason.

I am done.....
Magical_felix
Posted: Friday, March 15, 2013 10:19:05 AM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 5,334
Location: California
TexasSon wrote:


You know, I've always enjoyed and respected your posts, but you just took a wrong turn with me.

Fuck you.

Nothing I said even remotely puts me in the same category as assholes like that.

...and as for your son not being that type of individual: great! I think many would argue with you against even having that harsh of an opinion about the boy in question to begin with.

How about this though, daddy dearest..?.. Would your precious, innocent and obviously pristine princes & princesses even DREAM that their dear sweet father, pillar of the family in all things moral, right, and good be on such an illicit site as this which contains such topics as cheating spouses, taboo relations... GASP! INCEST?!?!

...and would they even imagine that you'd be capable of such stories as the taboo tales you've written or even OH MY GOD!!! the RELUCTANCE (thinly veiled damn near RAPE FUCKING SEQUENCE) you've written?!?!?!

So, fuck you again - you judgemental, hypocritical motherfucker.


I dont have a family... If I did I wouldn't be on lush, I am pretty certain of that. You misread what I wrote about that. The sequence in my reluctance story is with adults. I don't write about incest either, that disgusts me in many ways and to be honest, incest in the real world is usually rape. But anyway, I am a single man.

And I am just replying to what you are saying. This whole time you took to defending the boy and slut shaming the girl.



TexasSon
Posted: Friday, March 15, 2013 10:23:46 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/23/2010
Posts: 149
Location: In Beautiful
Magical_felix wrote:


I dont have a family... If I did I wouldn't be on lush, I am pretty certain of that. You misread what I wrote about that. The sequence in my reluctance story is with adults. I don't write about incest either, that disgusts me in many ways and to be honest, incest in the real world is usually rape. But anyway, I am a single man.

And I am just replying to what you are saying. This whole time you took to defending the boy and slut shaming the girl.


Wrong. I was only making the point that THEY (did you even read the fucking article?!?!) THEY- as in more than ONE GIRL... THEY were just as in the wrong, if not even MORE in the wrong then the boy.

...I also repeatedly made the argument that the whole thing is fucking ridiculous, and blown out of proportion.

...and you seriously earn another huge FUCK YOU for your sanctimonious fucking fathering assertions about how "your daughter would never..." and how "your son wouldn't be such a..."


You shithead, parenting is SO fucking easy from the sidelines, huh?



Magical_felix
Posted: Friday, March 15, 2013 10:26:54 AM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 5,334
Location: California
TexasSon wrote:


Wrong. I was only making the point that THEY (did you even read the fucking article?!?!) THEY- as in more than ONE GIRL... THEY were just as in the wrong, if not even MORE in the wrong then the boy.

...I also repeatedly made the argument that the whole thing is fucking ridiculous, and blown out of proportion.


There is no link to the article... I read Nikki's post.

Slut shaming

Sure sounds like a lot of slut shaming going on in this thread.

Quote:
..and you seriously earn another huge FUCK YOU for your sanctimonious fucking fathering assertions about how "your daughter would never..." and how "your son wouldn't be such a..."


You shithead, parenting is SO fucking easy from the sidelines, huh?


You're only 24... You don't have 14 year old children either. And yes, I am pretty confident in that a son of mine would never do that.



TexasSon
Posted: Friday, March 15, 2013 10:28:32 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/23/2010
Posts: 149
Location: In Beautiful
Is this your daughter..?.. The one you don't even have and of course would NEVER grow-up to be the self advertising DIRTY girl that you posted in another forum?

...a girl who is obviously being abused by you and many others for having this picture repeatedly posted on the internet when she was just sitting down and resting her poor tall sock clad legs.



Magical_felix wrote:




TexasSon
Posted: Friday, March 15, 2013 10:31:16 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/23/2010
Posts: 149
Location: In Beautiful
Magical_felix wrote:


There is no link to the article... I read Nikki's post.

Slut shaming

Sure sounds like a lot of slut shaming going on in this thread.


Nikki's post WAS the fucking article!

It's a magical, whimsical little technique called COPY & PASTE.

...and you just dropped down Wiki? Seriously? Your argument is Wiki based?

Felix... who ARE you?



Magical_felix
Posted: Friday, March 15, 2013 10:32:32 AM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 5,334
Location: California
TexasSon wrote:
Is this your daughter..?.. The one you don't even have and of course would NEVER grow-up to be the self advertising DIRTY girl that you posted in another forum?

...a girl who is obviously being abused by you and many others for having this picture repeatedly posted on the internet when she was just sitting down and resting her poor tall sock clad legs.





She's a model...







Magical_felix
Posted: Friday, March 15, 2013 10:34:50 AM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 5,334
Location: California
TexasSon wrote:


Nikki's post WAS the fucking article!

It's a magical, whimsical little technique called COPY & PASTE.

...and you just dropped down Wiki? Seriously? Your argument is Wiki based?

Felix... who ARE you?


Okay then I read the article because I read her post...

And Wiki did a good job of describing slut shaming... Do you disagree with what it said? Tell me what they got wrong.



TexasSon
Posted: Friday, March 15, 2013 10:35:07 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/23/2010
Posts: 149
Location: In Beautiful
Magical_felix wrote:


She's a model...





Oh, so you CAN actually see the obvious and reason for yourself fairly well then?

Good to know. You really oughta try applying that to ALL things in life.



Magical_felix
Posted: Friday, March 15, 2013 10:36:10 AM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 5,334
Location: California
TexasSon wrote:


Oh, so you CAN actually see the obvious and reason for yourself fairly well then?

Good to know. You really oughta try applying that to ALL things in life.


The teen girl in question wasn't a model...



TexasSon
Posted: Friday, March 15, 2013 10:43:00 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/23/2010
Posts: 149
Location: In Beautiful
Magical_felix wrote:


The teen girl in question wasn't a model...


From the ARTICLE you seem to have missed as Nikki's post:

"...photos that some freshman girls took of themselves..."

There was no teen "girl". Singular. There was more than one: plural. Girls.


...anyway, we've hijacked the thread long enough for our own little pissing match.

Sorry folks! dontknow



Magical_felix
Posted: Friday, March 15, 2013 10:51:13 AM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 5,334
Location: California
TexasSon wrote:


From the ARTICLE you seem to have missed as Nikki's post:

"...photos that some freshman girls took of themselves..."

There was no teen "girl". Singular. There was more than one: plural. Girls.


...anyway, we've hijacked the thread long enough for our own little pissing match.

Sorry folks! dontknow


So there was more than one victim... What difference does that make? Is your argument now that I didn't make girl plural? Okay.



TexasSon
Posted: Friday, March 15, 2013 11:03:03 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/23/2010
Posts: 149
Location: In Beautiful
Magical_felix wrote:


So there was more than one victim... What difference does that make? Is your argument now that I didn't make girl plural? Okay.


The point was more that you didn't even pay attention to the article and the overall situation. You obviously JUST focused on your own self-righteousness and slamming of all of us "slut shamers".

...of which NONE of us were being or are. We're just not chalking up or EXCUSING those girls as "victums". They are as much in the wrong, if not more so, than the idiot boy.



Magical_felix
Posted: Friday, March 15, 2013 11:08:18 AM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 5,334
Location: California
TexasSon wrote:


The point was more that you didn't even pay attention to the article and the overall situation. You obviously JUST focused on your own self-righteousness and slamming of all of us "slut shamers".

...of which NONE of us were being or are. We're just not chalking up or EXCUSING those girls as "victums". They are as much in the wrong, if not more so, than the idiot boy.


It's victims*

Quote:
We're just not chalking up or EXCUSING those girls as "victums". They are as much in the wrong, if not more so, than the idiot boy.


Slut shaming.





TexasSon
Posted: Friday, March 15, 2013 11:09:57 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/23/2010
Posts: 149
Location: In Beautiful
I can spell, I just can't type!

The I & U are right next to each other... it's so hard to be a Pecker!

...and no one's shaming them. It's a SHARED responsibility. They did, in fact, commit the crime of taking illicit & illegal pictures of themselves. They did, in fact, commit the illegal act of distributing those illegal pictures. They are, in fact, WRONG for doing so. Just as wrong as the boy.

No shaming there, just calling it as it is.



Magical_felix
Posted: Friday, March 15, 2013 11:13:37 AM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 5,334
Location: California
TexasSon wrote:
I can spell, I just can't type!

The I & U are right next to each other... it's so hard to be a Pecker!


Just giving you shit.

laughing8




Dani
Posted: Friday, March 15, 2013 11:28:12 AM

Rank: Big-Haired Bitch
Moderator

Joined: 12/25/2010
Posts: 5,759
Location: Under Your Bed, United States
JohnC wrote:

I agree. And the whole "sex offender" issue itself is stupid. Just like all "physical" crimes are not the same, not all "moving violations" are the same, not all acts involving "sexual" things are the same. But sadly, they are lumped together as if they ARE. A person on the sex offender registry could have had NO real dangerous crime committed, and maybe even only convicted on a technicality for political purposes (DA out to make a name). What that does is make them all, as you put it, watered down.

It is the same as terms like "racist" and "homophobe", and other things. They should ONLY be used for serious and genuine examples, not as a blanket label or term. Same with sex offender issues.

However, we get into some muddy waters here too..... if a teenager sends naked pictures of themselves, as ADULTS ALSO DO, and they are NOT charged for doing it. What truly logical reason is there to charge an adult for having or also sharing the picture of an "underage" person? Was the ACT any different? No.

But these types of lack of common sense things are seen in a wide range of laws on the books. And frankly I think they ALL need to be looked at and amended or removed if they simply don't make any logical sense.

Another thing that is a hot button for me is when someone calls a person a pedophile because they are attracted to teenage girls/boys. Um, that is NOT what a pedophile is! Would I call them a "child molester"? In many cases, I would. But Pedophile? NOPE! If they have the body of an adult (not pre-pubescent), it is not pedophilia. We can pretty much agree that the act should not happen (or others may not agree, whatever) but the TERM used should fit the act, not some ignorant PC notion and desire to label people.

I also think in most cases of underage sex, we need to keep the Government and Law Enforcement OUT OF IT... when it is not rape (forced unwilling sex). And let PARENTS deal with it in their own way. Like they USED to do. ;)


What...the...ENTIRE...fuck?? Like seriously, what the fuck?!?!


Dancing_Doll
Posted: Friday, March 15, 2013 11:39:30 AM

Rank: Alpha Blonde
Moderator

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,595
Location: Your dirty fantasy
If the article says this:

Students said it all started when two teenage girls sent naked photographs of themselves to their boyfriends using a Snapchat app, thinking the images would be deleted within 10 seconds, 1010 WINS’ Eileen Lehpamer reported. Instead, those pictures got passed around and posted on the social networking site Instagram.

People have assumed the girls just randomly decided to take naked pics and send them off but why is everyone assuming the boyfriends weren't trying to convince the girls to send them the naked pics in the first place. That's often the way it goes, to be honest. Guy says "baby, send me pics!" or sends off a dick pic and expects naked pics in return and that starts to get the sexting thing rolling. Maybe the girls were trying to dodge it for a bit but then reluctantly end up giving in and taking pics and sending them, assuming they would be deleted in 10 seconds. Then guys, anticipating naked pics, quickly screen-capture them and pass them around.

I'm not saying that's for sure what happened, but would it change anyone's assumption if the girls were cajoled, pressured or coerced into sending them in the first place?

LadyX
Posted: Friday, March 15, 2013 11:47:00 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,813
The girls sent pics to a guy, because that's sometimes what girls do. We can call it stupid if we like, and yes, it probably qualifies as such. But they didn't intend on distributing their photos, the recipients are the ones that did that. To say they aren't victims, or to think that they somehow got what they deserve, is to slut-shame, full stop. To talk about 'dirty girls' and objectify then in the context of no longer being 'victims' as a result of their actions or attire, is the very definition of slut-shaming, yet that's the path I saw this clearly go down. If you don't get that, I'm not really sure how to better explain it.

By the way, we absolutely need the government involved in underage sex. We can argue about what that means and what the punishments are, but nobody in their right mind would argue that the government needs to 'get out of the way' when it comes to sex with minors(!) Not every parent is present, and half the ones that are, are not worthy of being called such. Somebody has to protect our children, and that somebody is our government, whether parents are present or not.
Guest
Posted: Friday, March 15, 2013 11:47:11 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 674,139
slipperywhenwet2012 wrote:


What...the...ENTIRE...fuck?? Like seriously, what the fuck?!?!

What is your question? I would be more than happy to answer you if an actual question was presented. I think the post was pretty clear and nothing radical was stated. LOL
Dani
Posted: Friday, March 15, 2013 11:50:03 AM

Rank: Big-Haired Bitch
Moderator

Joined: 12/25/2010
Posts: 5,759
Location: Under Your Bed, United States
JohnC wrote:

What is your question? I would be more than happy to answer you if an actual question was presented. I think the post was pretty clear and nothing radical was stated. LOL


Oh I have questions indeed, but they're not suited for children such as yourself.


Guest
Posted: Friday, March 15, 2013 11:51:39 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 674,139
LadyX wrote:
The girls sent pics to a guy, because that's sometimes what girls do. We can call it stupid if we like, and yes, it probably qualifies as such. But they didn't intend on distributing their photos, the recipients are the ones that did that. To say they aren't victims, or to think that they somehow got what they deserve, is to slut-shame, full stop. To talk about 'dirty girls' and objectify then in the context of no longer being 'victims' as a result of their actions or attire, is the very definition of slut-shaming, yet that's the path I saw this clearly go down. If you don't get that, I'm not really sure how to better explain it.

By the way, we absolutely need the government involved in underage sex. We can argue about what that means and what the punishments are, but nobody in their right mind would argue that the government needs to 'get out of the way' when it comes to sex with minors(!) Not every parent is present, and half the ones that are, are not worthy of being called such. Somebody has to protect our children, and that somebody is our government, whether parents are present or not.

That is not exactly what I was getting at. But as it is, the Government is WAY too involved in everything.

As for the girls not being a victim, I certainly didn't make that claim. Nor do I think anyone said they got what they deserved. I know I didn't say they were NOT victims, nor did I say they got what they deserved... they are a victim of the passing around of the pictures, and they didn't deserve that. But they are ALSO guilty of taking them and sending them in the first place (that is distributing), which is also a CRIME.

This tread has WAY too much selective reading and twisting of what people actually said. And if it continues, I see friendships ruined because of it.
Guest
Posted: Friday, March 15, 2013 11:53:03 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 674,139
slipperywhenwet2012 wrote:


Oh I have questions indeed, but they're not suited for children such as yourself.

Excuse me? Did I insult you? Did I post anything that was insulting? No.

I am also not a child. I am a grown man and former Law Enforcement Officer. And I simply posted my views, in a civil and respectful manner. I expect the same in return please.
LadyX
Posted: Friday, March 15, 2013 11:54:16 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,813


JohnC wrote:

And if it continues, I see friendships ruined because of it.


Eh, its the Think Tank. Serious discussions will get heated (shrug).

We all clock out, take our gloves off, and go get a beer when the fighting shift is over. For anyone whom that's not the case, it's probably best that they refrain from posting. Teh internets are supposed 2b fun.
Guest
Posted: Friday, March 15, 2013 11:56:25 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 674,139
LadyX wrote:




Eh, its the Think Tank. Serious discussions will get heated (shrug).

We all clock out, take our gloves off, and go get a beer when the fighting shift is over. For anyone whom that's not the case, it's probably best that they refrain from posting. Teh internets are supposed 2b fun.

It is one thing taking off the gloves, it is another to be outright insulting (not saying you have been though), and another to misrepresent what others said.
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.