Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
SHOW ME YOUR ERECTION
#21
(07-10-2014, 09:52 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:
(07-10-2014, 09:24 PM)ZEROSPHERES Wrote: Maggot knows clearly what I want to post but I had to use words instead.

Smiley_emoticons_smile I'm imagining what you wanted to post being more interesting than the evidence being sought in this case.

I have no interest in what Zero wanted to post; the only one I worry about is mine. But I'm interested as to why Zero felt she couldn't post it..

Are there really people in Mock that would be genuinely offended by seeing an erection? I thought nearly everyone here was mature enough to go whoopee, it's a dick, moving on..

Would people really feel the need to carry on with a bit of faux rage 'Why are you posting that, I don't want to see that shit' carry on?

Or is there some legal loop in which Mock can't have any images that are considered porno?

Meh..can't believe I cared enough to type those sentences. I thought the consensus on Mock was that women don't like dick pics anyway. Is Zero the exception to the rule? Or is Zero not a woman..

Smiley_emoticons_skeptisch
Reply
#22
1. Jury still out on Zero's sex.

2. Dick pics are to women the same as tit pics would be to me (I'm guessing).

3. I think LC gave her (??) grief in the past about dong pics.

4. Ramsey's hoping you finally repost your member.
Reply
#23
I don't know if you're asking me or Zero, crash.

I've never weighed in on dick pics, which, for me, can ignite a very positive or a very negative reaction (or a "meh") -- depending on the context.

My comment that you quoted was speaking towards Zero's creativity in chopping pics, as opposed to the subject matter itself.

I'm assuming Zero knows that nudes can be posted in the private "Nudity" forum, but not here in the public discussion forum and that's why she wouldn't post an exposed penis (or a chopped one, image I mean!) in this thread. But, she can answer that question.
Reply
#24
LC did put me on notice with intent to ban me when I posted a covered penis gif. in the Members Only/ Stuff with Nudity  / Saturday Schlongie Kong thread. l removed it after that and when that elicited so much attention and questions to her about how awful and offensive it must have been, she reposted it as post #16 in that same thread.



[Image: giphy.gif]

Reply
#25
(07-10-2014, 09:36 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Serious juvenile charges with long-term impacts though, you cradle-robber.
The teen is facing two felony charges, for possession of child pornography and manufacturing child pornography, which could lead not only to incarceration until he’s 21, but inclusion on the state sex offender data base for, possibly, the rest of his life.

If the boy refused to stop sending what legally equates to child porn to a minor after being told repeatedly to cease, he could be in serious trouble. IMO.
It'd make filling out job apps difficult, but I'm just saying at least there's maximum punishment that LE can dole out. My question is what exactly he was texting the girl. Because if they're calling it child pornography if it's just videos or pictures of he himself, then that's messed up, from a philosophical standpoint.

Either he's young and innocent and shouldn't be used in pornography, meaning he's too young and innocent to have committed a crime, or he's a felony committing young adult... meaning he's old enough to be in pornography. It's a technicality sure, but it's a real loophole in logical reasoning. Charging him with harassing a girl over the phone is one thing, charging him with making porn of himself is illogical.
Reply
#26
(07-10-2014, 11:38 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: I don't know if you're asking me or Zero, crash.

Sorry, wasn't really a response to anyone in particular, more a wondering thing..
Reply
#27
Yeah, I see your points, Cutz. I'm speaking from a legal standpoint.

Virginia is one of a handful of states where the legal age of consent is 18 (the highest age of consent), which pertains to erotic images as well as physical interaction - AFAIK.

However, Virginia, like Georgia, does have a close-in-age exemption, also known as a "Romeo and Juliet law", to the legal age of consent. This provision allows partners who are close in age, or both under the Virginia age of consent, to engage in consensual sex without fear of prosecution under Virginia age of consent regulations.

"Consensual" could be a key factor and doesn't only have to apply to physical contact.

The warrants in this case have not been made available to the public, probably because both the complainant and the defendant are juveniles under Virginia law. The police are not giving details on the evidence they have in their possession in this active investigation and ongoing case.

All we know is what the boy's defense attorney has told the media, including the claim that the police want a picture of the juvenile's erect penis to compare against other evidence they have obtained (which the police publicly denied in tonight's press release).

Are the police spinning to cover their asses because they overreached and got a lot of public backlash? Or, has the defense lawyer creatively spun what went down in her client's favor and used the media to garner the kind of support for this boy that I'm seeing here. Either one's possible -- neither one is rare.

If the police were really just trying to make an example out of the boy and he sent only pics of himself to his then-girlfriend during their relationship, I think it should be dropped for the same reasons you cited.

On the other hand, if it turns out that police have evidence of this 17-year-old distributing other pornographic images that we don't yet know about to other parties (possibly including images of the 15-year-old ex-girlfriend and/or other minors) and he refused to desist, that's another matter for me. People obviously don't wake up at age 18 or 21 and decide they're old enough to start exploiting others sexually -- sometimes predatory and exploiting tendencies begin much earlier and get progressively worse if left unchecked.

Long story long, I need more evidence before I'm gonna condemn or defend either the police or the male teen.
Reply
#28
(07-11-2014, 01:11 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: However, Virginia, like Georgia, does have a close-in-age exemption, also known as a "Romeo and Juliet law", to the legal age of consent. This provision allows partners who are close in age, or both under the Virginia age of consent, to engage in consensual sex without fear of prosecution under Virginia age of consent regulations.

"Consensual" could be a key factor and doesn't only have to apply to physical contact.

Long story long, I need more evidence before I'm gonna condemn or defend either the police or the male teen.
The LE statement says he was sending porn vids to the girl, and the parents contact them. I would totally understand a charge of 'providing pornographic material to a minor.' Consent or no, probably illegal, and not covered by the R&J intercourse law. Legality to have sex doesn't cover porn images and sexting. I doubt the R&J is blanket enough for that. I'd also understand charges of cyberstalking, harassment, or such charges dealing with the non-consent and her minor status.

What doesn't make sense to me, is that they jumped to the child porn angle. If it's vids of him cause he's 17 and a minor, it has nothing to do with the girl. They might as well charge him with statutorily raping himself. Wouldn't his guilt of making and dist. child porn (of himself) condemn her possession of child pornography? Just very grey if that's the case.

If it's vids of the two of them that he posted online or sent to friends, and LE just found out later in the investigation, it'd make more sense, but it has nothing to do with him harassing her. I wouldn't bury the lede that way if I were LE. Rather than say anything about the girl, I'd focus on the distribution, but they said nothing about that. The only distribution they mentioned was sending her vids.

You're right tho, in either case, more info is needed, and harder to procure in child cases I'm sure. To me tho, it just seems like they jumped straight to the worst charges they thought they could stick. I hope it's not the case, but just a gut reaction. I guess the "show me your penis!" defense ranks right up there with Cochran tho.
Reply
#29
(07-11-2014, 03:25 AM)Cutz Wrote: ...in either case, more info is needed, and harder to procure in child cases I'm sure. To me tho, it just seems like they jumped straight to the worst charges they thought they could stick. I hope it's not the case, but just a gut reaction.

I hope it's not the case either, but it well could be.

When phone cams and texting pics took off, there were cases where really conservative LE tried to prosecute teens (usually male) for sending sexy shots of themselves to each other. There was a lot of public outcry as to the overreach and I haven't seen one of those cases in the media in a long time -- but, maybe that's exactly what's happening here. If so, the public outcry and the media exposure could wind up helping the 17 year-old a lot.

We'll have to wait and see if there's more to the story than what the defense attorney and the boy's aunt have told the media. Teens, defendants' families, and defense attorneys sometimes minimize wrong-doing greatly, as I'm sure you know -- so I never discount that being a possibility, but I don't assume it's a given.

As for age of consent, it could be that the LE and/or prosecutors are using federal statute as a guideline or reference in justifying charges considering VA age of consent is 18 as well.

The PROTECT Act, § 503, makes it a federal crime to make (or possess or post online, etc.) sexy photos or videos that include a person under 18, even if under the relevant state law any activity depicted is legal and even if the photos or videos are made (or possessed or posted, etc.) by the juvenile(s) depicted in them. This essentially establishes a federal age of consent of 18 with respect to being photographed in a sexual context.

I don't disagree with anything you've posted being a possibility, Cutz. Unless we see warrants or court docs (which may be sealed) or the PD or DA decide to provide more info to the public, I'm on the fence.
Reply
#30
OKAY, OKAY...DON'T SHOW ME YOUR ERECTION...

Lt. Brian Larkin of the Manassas City police announced yesterday,
“We are not going to pursue it (the erect penis injection/photo).” He said the police planned to allow the search warrant, obtained last week, to expire. He would not say why the decision had been made to abandon the warrant or discuss the reasons for the search.

But, neither the Mansassas PD nor the prosecutors have announced any plan to drop the child pornography charges.

The teen is due back in court on Tuesday. If police didn't find evidence of him distributing photos of the girl (she allegedly sent racy shots of herself to him, according to his defense lawyer) to his football team or posting them on the internet or something like that -- and he didn't send the girl or anyone else porn involving minors other than himself -- I expect to see the case dismissed in the wake of all the negative media exposure.

On a separate but related note, it rubs me the wrong way that it's almost commonplace for minors to be sexting, emailing, and posting sexual electronic images of themselves. I don't object on moral grounds, but instead because at that age I don't think a lot of them have the forethought to consider that what was meant for one person's eyes can end up being seen by literally thousands of eyes and be non-retractable if the original recipient feels like being a dick.

Still, applying laws that were meant to protect minors from others to try to punish them for their own actions is gonna wind up backfiring. We don't know for sure if that's what happened here, but it's happened before and is largely unsupported by the public.
Reply
#31
Is that the voice of reason I hear?
Reply
#32
(07-11-2014, 10:13 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: (she allegedly sent racy shots of herself to him, according to his defense lawyer)

it rubs me the wrong way that it's almost commonplace for minors to be sexting, emailing, and posting sexual electronic images of themselves. I don't object on moral grounds, but instead because at that age I don't think a lot of them have the forethought to consider that what was meant for one person's eyes can end up being seen by literally thousands of eyes and be non-retractable if the original recipient feels like being a dick.
So, allegedly, she manufactured and dist. child porn. Exactly the can of worms I'm surprised prosecutors opened.

I worked at a HS and the kids sexting thing was very astonishing and unsettling to me. I accidentally found dick pics on a 15 yo. girl's phone while looking at meme's and funny pics. Dudes would try to show me pics of girls. Of course all I can think is 1) this girl is underage, 2) 5050 she goes to this school. Was really disturbing.

Not only is it meant to be "for your eyes only" when it's really not, I also worry that's what young girls think they have to do to make boys like them. 'If you wanna be popular, you have to send naked butt pix to the football team.' Children under the age of 16 shouldn't ever have gotten cell phones. Corruption of a generation.
Reply
#33
(07-11-2014, 11:03 PM)Cutz Wrote: So, allegedly, she manufactured and dist. child porn. Exactly the can of worms I'm surprised prosecutors opened.

Unless that alleged picture is one of the reasons that they opened the can of worms? Aside from his erect penis, what else was on the boy's videos and where else did he send them? And, who asked him to stop sending them and why didn't he?

I saw an interview with the boy's aunt, attorney, and court guardian yesterday -- the boy was in the room, but couldn't speak about the case.

STORY AND VIDEO:
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/...00001.html

If they're telling the whole story, won't be surprised if the judge tosses this case outta court on Tuesday (or asks the prosecutors to reduce down to some misdemeanor charge.) Hopefully, we'll learn more after Tuesday's court appearance.

(07-11-2014, 11:03 PM)Cutz Wrote: Not only is it meant to be "for your eyes only" when it's really not, I also worry that's what young girls think they have to do to make boys like them. 'If you wanna be popular, you have to send naked butt pix to the football team.' Children under the age of 16 shouldn't ever have gotten cell phones. Corruption of a generation.

Used to be that HS girls who had sex with anyone other than a committed long-term boyfriend (and, in some places before marriage, period) were largely considered sluts and the girls typically tried to keep it secret. If it was with a girlfriend, the boys were more discreet about having sex; "my girl" kinda thing --- all generally speaking, in my experience.

Back then, there were some girls who slept with boys because they wanted to be liked, rather than for their own pleasure. I'm sure that's still the case. And, now, there are also HS girls who send naked pics to boys in order to be liked, not because they're exhibitionists.

Just like "back then" there are those boys who demand or encourage that kind of thinking and behavior from girls and really won't be interested (for the moment) in the girls who don't put-out or pony-up. Those kind of boys making their way out into the adult world are at least as worrisome to me as the girls who feed them.

Anyway, cell phones, internet and other technology has put a lot of the things at kids' fingertips that weren't at all accessible just a generation ago and I think that plays heavily into the "in-your-face" and "casual" and "game" kind of thinking by some teens, when it comes to sexuality. If parents don't want their kids to view sex and sexuality that way, they need to be engaged and talking to them about sexuality in today's terms. Some parents are all over it, from what I've seen. Other parents are too busy sexting themselves to be bothered.

I don't think cell phones and technology have corrupted a generation, but I do agree that they are contributing factors to a change in societal standards. In 10 years, it might be so commonplace to have naked photos of yourself floating around somewhere (for anyone under 30 ys old) that no one even blinks an eye and there's no real shame attached to it anyway. Is that wrong? IDK.
Reply
#34
(07-12-2014, 10:21 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: In 10 years, it might be so commonplace to have naked photos of yourself floating around somewhere (for anyone under 30 ys old) that no one even blinks an eye and there's no real shame attached to it anyway. Is that wrong? IDK.
Girls, or boys for the matter, that enjoy sharing naked photos can accept the consequences. Not my place to judge. It could be commonplace and acceptable in 10 years, but today it can be scandalous. I'd imagine there'd be casualties during the transition. Just makes me feel bad for the girls that only do it for peer pressure. The same as I feel bad for girls that slept with guys hoping to be popular and ended up pregnant.
Reply
#35
Been a lot more than ten years, thats what most of AOL was about back in the day and thats been near ten years ago.
I don't think it will get any more acceptable for your nude photos to b e out there than it is now, probably going to be less so.
Reply
#36
I don't understand where you're coming from, Six.

When a behavior becomes more common or more publicly acknowledged, it typically becomes more acceptable by society from decade to decade (not acceptable to "all", but more acceptable to "most").

I remember when only "freaks" used a dating service. Now, internet dating services are the most common way singles meet potential dates.

I remember when it was embarrassing for a lot of parents to admit that their son or daughter was living with his/her significant other without being married. Now, it's not generally considered a big deal and more people of every age seem to consider it practical to test cohabitation compatibility before making a lifetime commitment.

I remember when there was a stigma attached to a girl/woman having a baby out of wedlock -- generally speaking, that's less the case now.

I remember when looking at or watching porn was something most people didn't much acknowledge publicly and was viewed as rather dirty/shameful. Now, porn is mainstream entertainment talked about openly and available at every turn.

Ten years ago, I would have thought it was very weird for a teen boy to take pictures of his erect penis and give them to a teen girl. Twenty years ago, even weirder. I think it's already become more acceptable from decade to decade for people to have nudes floating about; that's evident from the number of people supporting the male teen in the OP case on the grounds that he's just a kid doing what kids do these days.

Nearly 25% of female teens and 20% of male teens send, text, or post nudes or semi-nudes; of which nearly 45% are shared with others (according to FBI stats). Those percentages grow from year to year (and there are now services like Snapchat popping up and kinda catering to that market).

What do you think is going to happen to reverse the trend over the next 10 years, Six?
Reply
#37
(07-12-2014, 11:34 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Ten years ago, I would have thought it was very weird for a teen boy to take pictures of his erect penis and give them to a teen girl. Twenty years ago, even weirder.
Yeah, back then it was all about the flaccid penis. It was all, "show it before you grow it." Weird how trends change.
Reply
#38
(07-12-2014, 11:42 PM)Cutz Wrote:
(07-12-2014, 11:34 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Ten years ago, I would have thought it was very weird for a teen boy to take pictures of his erect penis and give them to a teen girl. Twenty years ago, even weirder.
Yeah, back then it was all about the flaccid penis. It was all, "show it before you grow it." Weird how trends change.

You're such a stickler.
Reply
#39
I remember thirty years ago if girls were in a group, it was all eww eww, why would we want to see your dick..

Amazing how many girls wanted a peek, or a squeeze, or... when they had you alone though.
Reply
#40
True, now most of them DO want a look.
I blame the internet, and Obama
Reply