Missouri Man Pleads Guilty To Possession of "Cartoon" Child Porn

[The Lunatic]

It also means that your post was kind of...What's that word? Wrong.
You don't know he needs mental help. It's also unlikely he could cop a plea for psychiatric help to reduce a sentence.
This is MURRCA. More to the point, this is MISSOURAH.

I'm not sure you have any idea what you're talking about.

He's looking at child porn, what part of that doesn't make you think he needs help?


You seem very... Touchy on the matter.

 

[likalaruku]

Pft, this is beyond BS.

You can't go two step across the interwebs without running into Furry or cartoon porn, & none of the artists have been charged with bestiality or incest, which is what they're drawing. I doubt they're actually into that in the real world; it the appeal of taboo & the unknown, it's why women read yaoi.

The obscenity charge is also bogus, since they had to invade his house & go through his stuff to see what he was reading alone in his private time. His wife is like that dumbass who called the cops on her nephew when she caught him masturbating in the bathroom.

 

[Something Amyss]

I'm not sure you have any idea what you're talking about.

Funny, since you're the one claiming a psychiatric plea would get him less time in an America case.

He's looking at child porn, what part of that doesn't make you think he needs help?

He's looking at cartoons. When you play Dawn of War 2, does that mean you enjoy genocide and need help?

You seem very... Touchy on the matter.

You seem very willing to conflate arguing your reasoning with personal investment.

 

[Sylveria]

I've said before and I'll say again.. I've stumbled on to some creepy stuff on the internet but I have never once seen a single incident of real child porn. The only epidemic of it I'm seeing is stupid teenage girls circulating nude photos of themselves consciously and willingly.

 

[Sylveria]

Has anyone seen loli comics and if so would you say it is as bad as this? Im just curious but I dont want to go to jail for looking it up

when I say as bad as this I mean go to jail bad?

According to this law? Yeah, having loli material in your possession would probably net you a jail sentence.

 

[irishda]

...This is exactly why when it's a young boy and older woman it's all gravy (from a male perspective, the women folk are usually screaming "oh, mah baby!" all the same), but when it's a young girl and older man people can't pick up the pitchforks fast enough.

Yeah, no one cares at all when someone diddles a little boy. That dude from Penn State got to retire to an island, I'm pretty sure.

I give an example and you try to justify your angle with a man-on-boy diddle?
You're not trying hard enough.

@Crono
all that hubbub for a 4-year difference between the older girl and boy?
PSH! I lied about my age at 14 and hooked up with a 19 year old before. That poor girl (not mine, yours) was done dirty if you ask me... (well, maybe I did mine dirty too)

...and quit using the word "rape", you're throwing it around like wadded-up kleenex.

My angle is child molestation is wrong with few exceptions. Your (and a few others) angle seems to be the system is skewed towards one direction and therefore the whole thing should be let go.

No, my take is that teenagers with a pulsing libido can't be looked at through the same lens as an 8-year old child. He was a willing participant in this whole thing, even if the adult (in the eyes of the law and society at large) is the one that is overall "at fault" here.

My main issue is that "child molestation" immediately brings a mental image into frame. Now, what do you see when I say "inappropriate relations with a student"? Looks a lot less like some toddler is getting fingered, and much more like a horny teen and teacher making mistakes together - don'it?

Quit acting like a teen with a CLEAR idea of what is right/wrong is completely blameless in all this. I even said before that he knew exactly what he was doing, and was simply jumping on an opportunity to get laid. Shit, like this very situation hasn't been the very plot of many a coming-of-age high school movie... only in those cases it's "cheeky", and in this one it's "rabble, rabble rabble".

~But I will admit that I am a subscriber to the idea of a double-standard where a young girl and older man together is just wrong.
It's wrong!

I dunno what you're talking about with the teenagers (that was my "few exceptions" clause referring to though. I'm hardly going to consider a 17 year old and a 15 year old having sex as child molestation). I was just referring to the idea that people only care if a young girl is being sexually molested in my original comment.

 

[Lonewolfm16]

Really, obscenity laws are a absolute afront to freedom of speech. In addtion, can't anyone claim anyone they draw to be whatever age they want them to be? Also if it is illegal to possess pictures of somthing that would be illegal in real-life wouldn't that mean any movie or video game or painting, or anything else depicting violence be illegal. The same argument would apply "if they enjoy fictional violence which doesn't hurt anyone they will also enjoy real violence which can hurt people." Seriously can we just agree to let the man do as he pleases until he actually hurts someone?

 

[irishda]

My angle is child molestation is wrong with few exceptions. Your (and a few others) angle seems to be the system is skewed towards one direction and therefore the whole thing should be let go.

So, by the logic you've previously presented, rape fantasies and porn simulating rape would put you at danger for committing real rape then? Would you be willing to say that?

I'd like to remind you before you answer that rape fantasies are one of the most common and most studied of sexual fantasies, rape is equally illegal and damaging to real people, additionally it's one of the most common 'simulated' porn tropes in existence with the added element that it's often real people reenacting the event.

Judging by your previous comments I think you're smart enough to see the problem with your 'common sense' conclusions.

There's a key difference I think can be made between the two. The rape fantasies certainly are common, but are distinguished by being enacted by consenting adults. This is why sex and kids generally aren't to be mixed. Hell, I'm coming up with a hard time explaining why people find the prospect of sexual violence against them pleasing, imagine a kid trying to figure it out.

Without the context of what the fantasies represent, it seems rather unfair that one fantasy is given such legal trouble over another. But under the contexts of what these fantasies embody, society has made a clear distinction on which is more acceptable than the other. Imagine being with friends out and about. Say a girl you're with sees an attractive man and says, "I want him to rape me." Maybe the more prudish friends give her a concerned look, but the rest would probably make a joke or let it slide, most likely because the fact that she asked for it defeats the entire purpose of it. Or a guy friend sees a hot girl and says "I wanna rape her." Based on the assumption you guys aren't hanging out in jail, you can probably safely assume he's not actually gonna force himself on a fellow adult, and he's just being hyperbolic.

Now imagine same people seeing a child and going, "Wow, I'd like to boink them." Odds are people don't just let that go. Regardless of whether or not people would actually act on their feelings, doesn't excuse them when they're brought to light depending on the level of social taboo. Child molestation is pretty much the bottom of the barrel when it comes to social taboos, and anything close to it will probably be seen in the same light regardless of if it actually is.

 

[tyriless]

The only difference is that we are attributing the "I know right from wrong, so the fantasy is harmless" to gamers across the board (despite the Columbine shooters and others like them), but not to paedophiles (despite the vast majority of paedophiles, if statistics are to be believed, who do not abuse children) .

Yeah, but masterbating to child pornagraphy actively fetishizes a child. It reinforces children as desirable sexual objects., tying it to sexual arousal. That makes that person the very definition of a pedophile already: a person who is sexually attracted to children. Don't tell me that a pedophile is going to stop being sexually attracted to child once he/she puts their porn away. The brain doesn't work like that. The only thing a pedophile can do at that point is choose not to in indulge in temptation. However, that person will still be aroused around children and only their rational is keeping them from acting on their desire. I certainly do not want my family near someone with that struggle going on in their head.

.. as per people who play violent video games, as per people with rape fetishes, violent sex fetishes, etc. Virtually anyone is a threat to snap to a small percentage like this -- this is where we get "going postal" from, right?

Yeah, here is the thing with those sexaul fetishes: we can explore them in roleplay with a concenting adult. A big freaking difference there. Depending on how good the roleplay is, it can come pretty close to the real thing and NOT be the actual thing. The fantasy is indulged and the appetite is sated . However, try that with pedophilia and there is a lot of things to ignore: facial hair being the least. No matter how hard someone trys sex with an adult is not simulcram for sex with a child.

It goes this way for gender. No matter how hard someone wishes for it their sexual partner is not going to flip their gender. If they are with a man, but are attracted to women at some point they are going to want to sleep with another woman. It's back to that old conflict of sexual temptation and restraint. However, if that woman gives in, the worst that happens is that she slept with another consenting adult.

In a nutshell, this woman abandoned her three children for over a week, to the point where one died of severe malnutrition and two of them were on death's door. I am taking all even-money bets (even charity bets, or 'pride bets') that this woman will do less time in jail for her ACTUAL harm to three children than what this guy did for having a cartoon.

Sorry, but this *****'s good fortune of getting away with monstrous neglect has nothing to do with this pedophile. The world's unfair. If your bets are right, you need to call the judge out on being sexist prick, and elect one that is going punish both genders equally.

Given that he hid it completely from the world, it seems pretty obvious that he had zero difficulty leading a normal life. He had a normal sexual relationship with an adult (a HUGE positive indicator, the vast majority of child-abuse-level paedophiles can never have such).

Successfully hiding lust for children doesn't stop someone from being a pedophile nor does banging a consenting adult. It's just means that they have decided up to that point not to go out and score with a minor (yay?).

In short, here is where you and I disagree. You see child pornagraphy (that does not actually contain real pictures of children) as a safe outlet for someone to indulge in harmless sexual fantasy. As if it is some sort of phase, like some people go through phases when they like to watch midgets do it. However I see a purveyer of child porn as someone who is sexually attracted to children which is believe is condition and not a phase. I doubt I am going to convince you an you sure as hell can't convince me, but I thought this might be a great rehearsal if I catch someone masterbating to lolicon. I'll save this conversation and print it up when I explain to him/her why I won't let them be near any kids.

 

[LackofCertainty]

snipped

My comment about ranking of illicit activities was referring to being more contained within the sphere of criminals. In a prison, rapists will be somewhat shunned depending on if that's their sole crime, and child rapists will be killed without guard protection. Serial killers are actually pretty close to the top of the totem pole, with various factors considered.

But again, this is because of how our society treats violence and how it treats sex. I can argue the semantics and list all the reasons why we accept violence over sex, but suffice it to say that we accept violence in certain contexts over sex in most contexts. We shield children from the sexual world while being alright exposing them to violence for one simple reason.

Violence is simple. There are simple consequences for it. There are simple cases for when we find it acceptable and when we don't. Child have a very solid grasp of life and death, of pain, and they understand what violence can do (most of the time). But sex isn't so simple. Hell there's plenty of adults that don't understand the implications of it. The motivations behind it, the implications of it, even the consequences of it are almost impossible to be understood by a child.

To be more on point, there's a fine line between the world of violence and the world of child pornography, so I'm not taking the comparisons.

You seem to be misinformed about the "status" of serial killers in prison life. Nowadays serial killers are kept seperate from the general prison population the same way that rapists and pedophiles, because the general prison population will kill them all the same. They are as far from "The top of the totem pole" as they could possibly be, and the fact that you're saying that they're well respected in prison life suggests to me that you are misinformed about it.

Violence is a broad topic. I agree with you that there can be mitigating factors (self defense, soldiers, etc) but I'm not talking about the broad topic of violence. I'm specifically talking about serial killers. Not spree killers, not gang bangers, not soldiers; Serial killers. There is no wishy-washy, "violence is justifiable" discussion with serial killers. They are the worst of humanity.

What if the game I made was about a serial killer who only targets children? Would that be taboo?

Censorship is generally a bad thing.
If I want to draw a comic about a serial killer, I should be able to.
If I want to draw a comic about a rapist, I should be allowed to.
If I want to draw a comic about a pedophile, I should be allowed to.

If you don't want to see any of the above, then don't read them. Hell, I don't even want to see any of the above, but that doesn't mean I want to jail people for creating or viewing them.

Has anyone seen loli comics and if so would you say it is as bad as this? Im just curious but I dont want to go to jail for looking it up

Never seen Elfen Lied (yet), but from what I hear, it has naked little girls and rampant disembowelment.
So that's things that Americans hate and love in the same show.

From what I remember the characters in Elfen Lied are in their mid teens so so it would not be considered pedo since pedophilia involves pre-pubescent individuals.

Spoiler warning for Elfen Lied:
.
.
.
One of the characters is a twelve year old who ran away from her sexually abusive step-father some time before the series begins, so that is straight up pedophilia. And since the show has the character naked against a black background to represent the molestation, the show itself might be considered child porn too.

You could argue that the show has artistic merit, and you might get around the obscenity law there, but it's definitely a slippery slope.

 

[llubtoille]

While some may see it as a gateway to pedophilia (and it might be for some)
Personally (though I tend to keep away from loli for the very reason of this thread) I like hentai and CG style porn because it ISN'T real.

Most real (hardcore) porn is honestly quite disgusting,
whereas the acts portrayed in 'cartoon' generally come across as far more safe and clean.
(though I'm sure we've all seen stuff that makes us question the artists sanity, not to mention want to bleach our memories)

I've seen many things that made me wish I lived in the fantasy world portrayed,
but very rarely do I see something I'd want to act out in real life.

I really can't judge how obscene the images were without seeing them,
and it's quite possible they were hideously gruesome / murder-porn themed,
but it also wouldn't surprise me if it was something I'd consider casual.

It worries me that I could be imprisoned for having something fictional on my computer that someone judges to be 'obscene'.

 

[Schadrach]

What's that officer you want to see my computer?....give me a second.

Isn't not needing to do that what TrueCrypt is for?

 

[BrionJames]

wtf. seriously. WTF.

ok yes that shit can get pretty bad, but god damn it, it isn't real. Nobody has ever been hurt by a a drawing. god damn people, oh and dude ditch that no good fucking wife of yours cuz she just screwed you. probably so she can go marry the dude she must be doing on the side.

agreed. Senseless to put the man in prison, where he'll possibly become something worse because of the violence he'll be exposed to there. I could see probation maybe some counseling or something but 3 years in the pen', that seems a little extreme.

 

[The Material Sheep]

The reason child pornography is wrong is because it demonstrably damaging to 99.99% of the children involved to varying degrees. The pedophiles involved are usually predatory in nature much like rapists. I'm talking actual pedophilia here not teens and stuff because that's a whole different bag(one I don't think is wrong in the slightest but w/e that's societal taboo for you.) The thing is with actual child pornography and pedophilia it's a situation where someone is doing actual harm to a child, or profiting and/or contributing to the profit of those who do actual harm to a child. Vary much a bad thing, something that is very clear and easy to say is bad.

Thing is with lolicon hentai and stuff like that. It ISN'T doing anyone any harm. It really isn't. It hurts no one. You can only make vague assumptions and draw half assed assumptions from those who draw and/or look at the stuff. Even then that's typically not enough to convict someone in any other situation, such as violent crimes or stealing. People have brought up the violent video games angle a number of time, and it's spot on. Reality and fantasy are not the same and are not perceived to be the same by most people. We can be entertained by fantasy for a number of different reasons... the unknown, societal taboo, or trying to view something idealistic. It's got nothing to do with the predatory, and parasitic nature of those who actually deal with this stuff in reality.

They just aren't the same... and hell EVEN if they were(they totally aren't). You can't convict someone for a crime with no victim. You can't purpose the idea that someone should be jailed confined or forced by society to do ANYTHING, if they are not directly the cause of damage to others. At that point you just keep drawing various lines in the sand of what constitutes a point of acceptable and unacceptable with thought policing.

 

[AlphaLackey]

Yeah, but masterbating to child pornagraphy actively fetishizes a child. It reinforces children as desirable sexual objects., tying it to sexual arousal. That makes that person the very definition of a pedophile already: a person who is sexually attracted to children. Don't tell me that a pedophile is going to stop being sexually attracted to child once he/she puts their porn away. The brain doesn't work like that.

Nor can you tell me that a rape fetishist is going to stop being sexually attracted to the notion of raping a person once they put their porn away, because as you said, the brain doesn't work like that.

If they know right from wrong, the rape fetishist and the paedophile are equally harmless.
If they know not right from wrong, the rape fetishist and the paedophile are equally monstrous.

The only thing a pedophile can do at that point is choose not to in indulge in temptation. However, that person will still be aroused around children and only their rational is keeping them from acting on their desire. I certainly do not want my family near someone with that struggle going on in their head.

Do you also not want your family near anyone who has violent sexual urges in their head? You may need to move to the Ozarks to make that happen.

.. as per people who play violent video games, as per people with rape fetishes, violent sex fetishes, etc. Virtually anyone is a threat to snap to a small percentage like this -- this is where we get "going postal" from, right?

Yeah, here is the thing with those sexaul fetishes: we can explore them in roleplay with a concenting adult. A big freaking difference there.

But we aren't talking about roleplaying with consenting adults, we're talking about creating media from whole cloth, involving and harming no real persons. Please revisit your argument with that in mind.

And, incidentally, advocates against violent pornography (even when done by consenting adults) make the exact same "gateway" argument. Eventually, no amount of "consenting-ly pretending to strike/choke/rape your real-life partner" is going to suffice, they say, and they will snap and do the real thing because they cannot control their urges.

In a nutshell, this woman abandoned her three children for over a week, to the point where one died of severe malnutrition and two of them were on death's door. I am taking all even-money bets (even charity bets, or 'pride bets') that this woman will do less time in jail for her ACTUAL harm to three children than what this guy did for having a cartoon.

Sorry, but this *****'s good fortune of getting away with monstrous neglect has nothing to do with this pedophile. The world's unfair. If your bets are right, you need to call the judge out on being sexist prick, and elect one that is going punish both genders equally.

It is absolutely germane to the discussion. This is not one "lucky sentence", it is a strong recurring pattern. We, as a society, routinely come softer on a mother who actually harms her own children, than we have done on this man. I cited the Andrea Yates case above. This man is going to get more prison and less help for what he did. Is that not proof that we, as a society, are letting stigmas cloud our better judgment?

Given that he hid it completely from the world, it seems pretty obvious that he had zero difficulty leading a normal life. He had a normal sexual relationship with an adult (a HUGE positive indicator, the vast majority of child-abuse-level paedophiles can never have such).

Successfully hiding lust for children doesn't stop someone from being a pedophile nor does banging a consenting adult. It's just means that they have decided up to that point not to go out and score with a minor (yay?).

It just means that they thoroughly know right from wrong, and that they are no more a risk to "snap" than any of the millions of kinky adults in North America are to "snap" and start acting out their sexual urges in real life.

I will agree that it does not stop him from being a paedophile, the definition of which (to my understanding) is any attraction whatsoever to pre-pubescent children (compared to ephebophilia, which is an attraction PRIMARLY to the young but clearly post-pubescent, given how incredibly common an occasional occurrence is).

Where we disagree is whether this makes him a risk to be a child molestor. You seem to be subscribing to the equating of the two that is prevalent in our society. The vast majority of paedophiles are not child molestors.

In short, here is where you and I disagree. You see child pornagraphy (that does not actually contain real pictures of children) as a safe outlet for someone to indulge in harmless sexual fantasy.

To clarify:

My stated position is that cartoons and written depictions of sex with children are no more problematic than cartoons or written depictions of violent sex, rape fantasies, murder fantasies and the like. Whether or not it's a "safe outlet", I have only pointed to two things:

* Similar arguments about the escalation of 'indulgence unto reality' have been given ad nauseam about violent videogames, and we as a community find THEM wanting, and
* There is ANECTODAL evidence suggesting that it is a safe outlet, given Japan's substantially lower rape and violent crime per-capita rate (and all violent crime across the board, relative to the US) and the disparity between paedophilia rates (6-9%) and child abuse rates (0.2-0.4%)

As if it is some sort of phase, like some people go through phases when they like to watch midgets do it.

Not in the least; I only claim that it is like all other fetishes in the following key ways:

1) No one asked to be born 'liking' it, so judging someone based on their fetish IN AND OF ITSELF is unfair.
2) If a human being knows right from wrong, they will always be able to separate masturbating to their sexual fetish by themselves, from roleplaying it with an adult, and separate both from acting it out on a non-consenting party; if they do NOT know right from wrong, they are monsters that should be expunged from society IRRESPECTIVE of what their fetish is.

I cannot help but judge harsher a non-paedophile who harms a child than a paedophile who never does harm a child, and this set of morals enables me to do so.

I doubt I am going to convince you an you sure as hell can't convince me

Of course not, but entertaining opposing viewpoints is the hallmark of an enlightened mind.

but I thought this might be a great rehearsal if I catch someone masterbating to lolicon. I'll save this conversation and print it up when I explain to him/her why I won't let them be near any kids.

I only ask that you A) never remove any of my quotes from context and B) never imply that I indulge in written or cartoon depictions myself, simply because I defend their right to exist -- statements made explicitly by me earlier in the thread. Other than that, if I've helped you understand and explore your position, it's been my honor to do so.

 

[TomLikesGuitar]

People only fap to that shit when they are so numb to sex from over-watching porn that they can only get off from the most taboo shit. It's okay to let your mind wander into taboo territory, but when you make it a commonplace thing, you become so deviant that you can no longer form real relationships with people.

I don't think people like this should be arrested; they should just be evaluated. Deviance can lead people to do some fucked up things, and you want to make sure a deviant is psychologically sound.

 

[TakerFoxx]

People only fap to that shit when they are so numb to sex from over-watching porn that they can only get off from the most taboo shit. It's okay to let your mind wander into taboo territory, but when you make it a commonplace thing, you become so deviant that you can no longer form real relationships with people.

I don't think people like this should be arrested; they should just be evaluated. Deviance can lead people to do some fucked up things, and you want to make sure a deviant is psychologically sound.

That is not how a fetish or an orientation works. I've had a vore fetish since I was in elementary, and didn't even discover porn, normal or otherwise, until I was in college. And let me tell you, vore is as fucked up and deviant as they come. This argument is like saying people are only gay because they've had too much straight sex and want to try something completely different in order to get off.