If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Smoking Gun)   Geeky musician who lured underage fans to send him porn pictures predicted in an online chat with one of his victims his exact sentence, which was handed down today: "that's like 5 years in federal prison and sex offender registration"   (thesmokinggun.com) divider line 116
    More: Dumbass, sex offender registration, convicts, Berklee College of Music, online chats, underage  
•       •       •

11884 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Feb 2014 at 2:29 PM (21 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



116 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-02-28 01:59:37 PM
I didn't know who this was so I looked up some of his music and it is awful.
 
2014-02-28 02:02:58 PM
www.radioarchives.com

RIP GUY LOMBARDO
 
2014-02-28 02:05:21 PM
I didn't know who this was, either, so I looked up some of his music and it is so awful that I feel others should have to bear some of the weight of my suffering.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENZdTTXrdQ8
 
2014-02-28 02:32:15 PM
I didn't know who this was and I never will, 'cause I ain't following any links no how.
 
2014-02-28 02:32:43 PM
Damn. I was hoping it was that Bieber, er, that Bieber-- what exactly is Bieber again?
 
2014-02-28 02:34:30 PM

Pocket Ninja: I didn't know who this was, either, so I looked up some of his music and it is so awful that I feel others should have to bear some of the weight of my suffering.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENZdTTXrdQ8


That's some weight I"m sharing with you, pard'ner.

/can't figure why gals are drawn to him unless they are, perhaps, ugly
 
2014-02-28 02:34:47 PM
That's not geeky, that's just hipster. A geek would probably realize that the internet is already saturated with teenage girls uploaded nudes in a way of seeking social acceptance.
He was stupid.
 
2014-02-28 02:34:58 PM

brimed03: Damn. I was hoping it was that Bieber, er, that Bieber-- what exactly is Bieber again?


I don't know, but this is a Biber:

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-02-28 02:35:07 PM

Pocket Ninja: I didn't know who this was, either, so I looked up some of his music and it is so awful that I feel others should have to bear some of the weight of my suffering.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENZdTTXrdQ8


That's some weight I'm sharing with you, pard'ner.

/can't figure why gals are drawn to him unless they are, perhaps, ugly
 
2014-02-28 02:35:18 PM
LOL! OMG! PMA!
 
2014-02-28 02:35:55 PM
Looks like Ian Watkins got out super early and morphed into a Big Bang Theory reject.
 
2014-02-28 02:36:32 PM

Because People in power are Stupid: I didn't know who this was so I looked up some of his music and it is awful.


His "music" was popular with 16 yo girls.  There was no chance it WASN'T going to suck.
 
2014-02-28 02:36:48 PM
Video killed the internet star.
 
2014-02-28 02:36:59 PM
And you wonder why Bieber goes to Brazil.
 
2014-02-28 02:37:02 PM
Those girls really sound like victims.
 
2014-02-28 02:37:05 PM

Pocket Ninja: I didn't know who this was, either, so I looked up some of his music and it is so awful that I feel others should have to bear some of the weight of my suffering.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENZdTTXrdQ8


That music is so awful it deserves an award. I love how he looks at the camera.

Drew should get him to do the theme music for WTFark.
 
2014-02-28 02:40:01 PM
Sweet Jeebus...he sounds like a castrated Billy Joel.
 
2014-02-28 02:40:05 PM
If the youngest was 16, this sentence seems kind of harsh. Didn't rob Lowe go so far as to nail a 16 yo? How much time did he do?
 
2014-02-28 02:40:53 PM
It sounds just like the typical garbage you expect from an effeminate Gen Y/Zer.
 
2014-02-28 02:41:02 PM
So now we all have to pay for this guy to live in prison for 5 years because he had cyber sex with some 16 year old chicks? Seems exessive...
 
2014-02-28 02:42:08 PM
Didn't any musicians learn from Chuck Berry?  Videos and pictures will get you jail time.
 
2014-02-28 02:42:13 PM
The attorney added, "Approximately 80% of the females he engaged in cybersex with were older than 17."

/raises hand

Can I have a new lawyer please?

"There was no way you could have seen me not throw that rock. I couldn't see you not throw that rock."
 
2014-02-28 02:43:44 PM
He's going to be singing a new song soon:

They say our love is taboo
that what were doing is wrong
but I don't care what they say 'cause my love is so strong
they tell us we should be ashamed
were not husband and wife
but I cherish each moment with you
I'm so glad you're in my life

verse:
You're my prison biatch
my prison biatch you're not like other men
I'm glad we share a prison cell when lights go out at ten
I can't escape the way I feel now that will be a crime
as long as I am doing you I don't mind doing time
'cause you're my
prison biatch
my prison biatch
and I have no regrets, I got you for a candy bar and a pack of cigarettes
at first you were resistant but now you are my friend
I knew that I would get you in the end

chorus:
Prison biatch
prison biatch
I guess that you were sent from up-above
Yeah!
Prison biatch
prison biatch
and now you are my prisoner of love
 
2014-02-28 02:43:51 PM

Pumpernickel bread: If the youngest was 16, this sentence seems kind of harsh. Didn't rob Lowe go so far as to nail a 16 yo? How much time did he do?


Pictures, is why.  Even if 16 is the age of consent where he lives, pictures are still illegal.
 
2014-02-28 02:44:39 PM

Pumpernickel bread: If the youngest was 16, this sentence seems kind of harsh. Didn't rob Lowe go so far as to nail a 16 yo? How much time did he do?


He was convicted of cybersex which I guess is some kind of high-powered ultra-dangerous kind of sex.
 
2014-02-28 02:45:16 PM
www.dimensionsinfo.com
 
2014-02-28 02:45:47 PM

Headso: So now we all have to pay for this guy to live in prison for 5 years because he had cyber sex with some 16 year old chicks? Seems exessive...


They should just taken away his iphone and internet connection for 5 years.

This kid is gonna get worked.
 
2014-02-28 02:46:07 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Those girls really sound like victims.

 
2014-02-28 02:47:05 PM
I thought Berklee students were supposed to be talented?
 
bow [TotalFark]
2014-02-28 02:47:35 PM
One of my favorite professors in college was a Dr. Michael Lombardo. That's unfortunate.
 
2014-02-28 02:48:46 PM
Maybe next time he'll learn his lesson and just have real sex with these girls instead (in states where the AoC is 16).
 
2014-02-28 02:49:38 PM
This guys sucks so bad even Nickleback could kick his ass.
 
2014-02-28 02:50:19 PM
It's all part of his plan to get some street cred and make a successful crossover into rap.
 
2014-02-28 02:50:58 PM
ex-theater kids who work at high schools seemingly have a high percentage of predators in their ranks
 
2014-02-28 02:52:34 PM

Pocket Ninja: I didn't know who this was, either, so I looked up some of his music and it is so awful that I feel others should have to bear some of the weight of my suffering.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENZdTTXrdQ8


OMG, I would rather bury myself alive than hear that steaming abortion of a song again! I can't even start to understand your pain if you actually sat through the whole thing.

*Quickly flushes out my ears with some Hocico*
 
2014-02-28 02:53:01 PM
If it were my daughter I would say....death penalty!!

But since I don't have a daughter.....meh.  I don't really see a crime here.  Could we at least pretend we are locking him up for his music.
 
2014-02-28 02:53:14 PM
5 years in federal?  Looking like that?  Yeah, that guy is coming out broken.  Nice to know no matter what happens my tax dollars will be supporting him for the rest of his life.
 
2014-02-28 02:54:54 PM

Pocket Ninja: I didn't know who this was, either, so I looked up some of his music and it is so awful that I feel others should have to bear some of the weight of my suffering.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENZdTTXrdQ8


Jesus, I got to the part about "Molly's" farking hair, and I was done. What stupid farking music. And the kid seems to be able to play the piano, who the fark told him he could write lyrics and sing, too?
 
2014-02-28 02:55:03 PM
I can't help but feel making this kind of thing into some huge federal crime is pretty much institutionalized slut-shaming.
 
2014-02-28 02:55:18 PM
Good call Nostrad-anus.  Enjoy the pokey.

/ass rape
 
2014-02-28 02:56:11 PM

czei: He's going to be singing a new song soon:

They say our love is taboo
that what were doing is wrong
but I don't care what they say 'cause my love is so strong
they tell us we should be ashamed
were not husband and wife
but I cherish each moment with you
I'm so glad you're in my life

verse:
You're my prison biatch
my prison biatch you're not like other men
I'm glad we share a prison cell when lights go out at ten
I can't escape the way I feel now that will be a crime
as long as I am doing you I don't mind doing time
'cause you're my
prison biatch
my prison biatch
and I have no regrets, I got you for a candy bar and a pack of cigarettes
at first you were resistant but now you are my friend
I knew that I would get you in the end

chorus:
Prison biatch
prison biatch
I guess that you were sent from up-above
Yeah!
Prison biatch
prison biatch
and now you are my prisoner of love


Lol! Good to know I'm not the only Tommy And The Bull fan out there!
 
2014-02-28 02:56:54 PM

MelGoesOnTour: Pocket Ninja: I didn't know who this was, either, so I looked up some of his music and it is so awful that I feel others should have to bear some of the weight of my suffering.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENZdTTXrdQ8
That's some weight I"m sharing with you, pard'ner.
/can't figure why gals are drawn to him unless they are, perhaps, ugly



Certain types of females often seek the attention of skinny, weak-muscled effeminate males, since they are less threatening. Even by his own submission, out of the "literally hundreds of opportunities, while touring, to 'hook up,'" it was only  "with a college student on one occasion."

Note how he did not mention the sex of the student he hooked up with. He probably wanted to get nudies of underage girls to give them advice on how to best trim their pubic hair around their vagina to match how his vagina looks.
 
2014-02-28 02:59:06 PM
Sounds like he missed being popular in high school.
 
2014-02-28 02:59:31 PM

MelGoesOnTour: Pocket Ninja: I didn't know who this was, either, so I looked up some of his music and it is so awful that I feel others should have to bear some of the weight of my suffering.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENZdTTXrdQ8

That's some weight I"m sharing with you, pard'ner.

/can't figure why gals are drawn to him unless they are, perhaps, ugly


From the minute or so I had it on, it seems the lyrics are meant to be "this is what a perfect boyfriend would say all the time" with no sense of an actual person behind it. It seems designed to attract girls with low self esteem that think, "why can't a guy ever talk to me this way?"

This guy knows exactly what he was doing.
 
2014-02-28 03:00:31 PM
And can we not refer to people like him as "geeky"? Hipster, artsy-fartsy, dweeb, anything else but that.

I'm taking that word back.
 
2014-02-28 03:02:37 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Allgier

it's a long slide downward...

www.thepeoplesvoice.org
4.bp.blogspot.com
archive.sltrib.com
7.blog.xuite.net
blogs.kansascity.com
 
2014-02-28 03:03:19 PM
Never admit to anything online.

/this is message brought to you by me, a hacker who hacked this fark account
//I, the hacker was the one watching porn at work while using your IP adress
 
2014-02-28 03:05:16 PM
As a disclaimer, I think the musician (if that's what we are to call him) deserves what he got because a 25 year old man has no business flirting or associating with 16 year old girls!

I worked at a school district installing networks for a few years and one of the "higher up" officials at the main office had a very handsome son who was getting a degree in education (following mom's footsteps) and was doing his student teaching.  Both his mom and his assigned teacher told him to "tone down" his looks somehow because the young girls would probably throw themselves at him and the young girls had nothing to lose!  If he gave them attention back, they would have
drama in their lives that would make them the envy of their peers!   If he were to pay attention to them and HE were to get caught, he would be the one arrested and the young girls would still have drama.

Stupidly, he did not pay attention and began a relationship with a 17 year old and wound up being arrested.  If I remember correctly he managed to avoid jail time but was yanked out of the school. Happy ending to the story?  Yeah, for the girl as she wound up dating one of her fellow classmates!
 
2014-02-28 03:05:58 PM

keithgabryelski: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Allgier

it's a long slide downward...

[www.thepeoplesvoice.org image 187x259]
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 363x486]
[archive.sltrib.com image 500x478]
[7.blog.xuite.net image 266x344]
[blogs.kansascity.com image 360x287]


I that Tobias in the 2nd Pic?

img.fark.net
 
2014-02-28 03:07:38 PM

Far Cough: I didn't know who this was and I never will, 'cause I ain't following any links no how.


I clicked the link and still have no idea who this guy is.
 
2014-02-28 03:08:47 PM
The headline's sentencing makes me sad.
 
2014-02-28 03:10:43 PM

RoxtarRyan: MelGoesOnTour: Pocket Ninja: I didn't know who this was, either, so I looked up some of his music and it is so awful that I feel others should have to bear some of the weight of my suffering.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENZdTTXrdQ8
That's some weight I"m sharing with you, pard'ner.
/can't figure why gals are drawn to him unless they are, perhaps, ugly


Certain types of females often seek the attention of skinny, weak-muscled effeminate males, since they are less threatening. Even by his own submission, out of the "literally hundreds of opportunities, while touring, to 'hook up,'" it was only  "with a college student on one occasion."

Simpsons did it!

thenostalgiablog90s.files.wordpress.com

 
2014-02-28 03:17:11 PM

DeathByGeekSquad: ex-theater kids who work at high schools seemingly have a high percentage of predators in their ranks


May I ask what you're basing that statement on?
 
2014-02-28 03:22:23 PM

Pumpernickel bread: If the youngest was 16, this sentence seems kind of harsh. Didn't rob Lowe go so far as to nail a 16 yo? How much time did he do?


Not as much as Nugent got for the 13 year olds.
 
2014-02-28 03:22:23 PM
A very special episode of Glee?
 
2014-02-28 03:25:40 PM
5 years is stupid long for this.  It's not like he was some 60 year old with 5 gigs of 9 year old boy and girls getting abused
 
2014-02-28 03:29:20 PM

Pocket Ninja: I didn't know who this was, either, so I looked up some of his music and it is so awful that I feel others should have to bear some of the weight of my suffering.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENZdTTXrdQ8


At least we won't miss him while he's in prison.
 
2014-02-28 03:30:00 PM

Pumpernickel bread: If the youngest was 16, this sentence seems kind of harsh. Didn't rob Lowe go so far as to nail a 16 yo? How much time did he do?


IIRC Rob nailed a 16 yo that he met at a bar so she lied about her age.
 
2014-02-28 03:31:05 PM

Pumpernickel bread: If the youngest was 16, this sentence seems kind of harsh. Didn't rob Lowe go so far as to nail a 16 yo? How much time did he do?


zero.

But to be fair, the girl he nailed really did look older (think Charlotte Church completely cleaned up).
 
2014-02-28 03:31:54 PM

relaxitsjustme: 5 years is stupid long for this.  It's not like he was some 60 year old with 5 gigs of 9 year old boy and girls getting abused


Maybe the judge heard his music.
 
2014-02-28 03:32:12 PM

Tom_Slick: Pumpernickel bread: If the youngest was 16, this sentence seems kind of harsh. Didn't rob Lowe go so far as to nail a 16 yo? How much time did he do?

Pictures, is why.  Even if 16 is the age of consent where he lives, pictures are still illegal.


This shiat is farked in this day and age. Only sensible rule as I'm concerned is hard time for soliciting pre-pubescent pics/sex. Everything else is what it is. A 17y 364day old sends me an unsolicited nude selfy and that can be used to incarcerate me? Dafuq. Unless it's solicited pre-pubescent or involves exploiting a power dynamic (yeah, that can be hard to define), then anything goes. Everybody has a camera on a phone that can instantly send a pic to anyone anywhere. And once the hormones kick in, ain't no putting the toothpaste back in the tube. It just is. Maybe not good, but it just is.

Oh, and it's not like I'm benefitting from this in any way. No 16yo are sending my middle aged ass nudie pics. I'm just reflecting on the fact once horny happens, things follow. A guy/girl taking a nude selfie at 15/16 just should not be charged w child porn, nor should a recipient. It's just tough shiat now.
 
2014-02-28 03:33:14 PM

Buck Henderson: keithgabryelski: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Allgier

it's a long slide downward...

[www.thepeoplesvoice.org image 187x259]
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 363x486]
[archive.sltrib.com image 500x478]
[7.blog.xuite.net image 266x344]
[blogs.kansascity.com image 360x287]

I that Tobias in the 2nd Pic?


He sure looks like an AnalRapist.
 
2014-02-28 03:33:31 PM

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Tom_Slick: Pumpernickel bread: If the youngest was 16, this sentence seems kind of harsh. Didn't rob Lowe go so far as to nail a 16 yo? How much time did he do?

Pictures, is why.  Even if 16 is the age of consent where he lives, pictures are still illegal.

This shiat is farked in this day and age. Only sensible rule as I'm concerned is hard time for soliciting pre-pubescent pics/sex. Everything else is what it is. A 17y 364day old sends me an unsolicited nude selfy and that can be used to incarcerate me? Dafuq. Unless it's solicited pre-pubescent or involves exploiting a power dynamic (yeah, that can be hard to define), then anything goes. Everybody has a camera on a phone that can instantly send a pic to anyone anywhere. And once the hormones kick in, ain't no putting the toothpaste back in the tube. It just is. Maybe not good, but it just is.

Oh, and it's not like I'm benefitting from this in any way. No 16yo are sending my middle aged ass nudie pics. I'm just reflecting on the fact once horny happens, things follow. A guy/girl taking a nude selfie at 15/16 just should not be charged w child porn, nor should a recipient. It's just tough shiat now.


Oh, but yeah, the guy does deserve repeated cock punching a for offenses against art.

So there's that.
 
2014-02-28 03:35:21 PM

Bane of Broone: Pumpernickel bread: If the youngest was 16, this sentence seems kind of harsh. Didn't rob Lowe go so far as to nail a 16 yo? How much time did he do?

IIRC Rob nailed a 16 yo that he met at a bar so she lied about her age.


Almost.  He met her first at a DNC (1988 Atlanta) photoshoot where she was working as a hair stylist, then picked her up at a party later that night.  A friend of mine was working with her and she thought she was about 20.

The tape still exists out there somewhere.
 
2014-02-28 03:37:50 PM

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Only sensible rule as I'm concerned is hard time for soliciting pre-pubescent pics/sex.


Just out of curiosity, what age would you define as pre-pubescent?
 
2014-02-28 03:40:17 PM

mcreadyblue: Pumpernickel bread: If the youngest was 16, this sentence seems kind of harsh. Didn't rob Lowe go so far as to nail a 16 yo? How much time did he do?

Not as much as Nugent got for the 13 year olds.


But there were 13 of them!
 
2014-02-28 03:40:33 PM

bow: One of my favorite professors in college was a Dr. Michael Lombardo. That's unfortunate.


mimg.ugo.com
 
2014-02-28 03:40:48 PM

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Tom_Slick: Pumpernickel bread: If the youngest was 16, this sentence seems kind of harsh. Didn't rob Lowe go so far as to nail a 16 yo? How much time did he do?

Pictures, is why.  Even if 16 is the age of consent where he lives, pictures are still illegal.

This shiat is farked in this day and age. Only sensible rule as I'm concerned is hard time for soliciting pre-pubescent pics/sex. Everything else is what it is. A 17y 364day old sends me an unsolicited nude selfy and that can be used to incarcerate me? Dafuq. Unless it's solicited pre-pubescent or involves exploiting a power dynamic (yeah, that can be hard to define), then anything goes. Everybody has a camera on a phone that can instantly send a pic to anyone anywhere. And once the hormones kick in, ain't no putting the toothpaste back in the tube. It just is. Maybe not good, but it just is.

Oh, and it's not like I'm benefitting from this in any way. No 16yo are sending my middle aged ass nudie pics. I'm just reflecting on the fact once horny happens, things follow. A guy/girl taking a nude selfie at 15/16 just should not be charged w child porn, nor should a recipient. It's just tough shiat now.


Given that photos nowadays can be easily distributed, and the impact to the photos subject can be huge, don't you think there should be penalties for an indivdually who deliberately and knowingly solicits compromising phots from underage girls?

You mentioned that power dynamic is one reason for penalties, and acknowledge that this is difficult to define.  The law has done a pretty succinct job of it, accurately deciding that in most cases, a power dynamic between  someone <16 and >25 is going to be inherently skewed.

I have a little bit more problem when you are talking about two kids in the same school (think freshman to senior romances).  I don't think the power dynamic is as skewed there.
 
2014-02-28 03:42:25 PM

Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Only sensible rule as I'm concerned is hard time for soliciting pre-pubescent pics/sex.

Just out of curiosity, what age would you define as pre-pubescent?


There is no age. Is a biologically proveable objective definitive state of sexual development.
 
2014-02-28 03:42:52 PM
www.ratemymotivational.com
 
2014-02-28 03:45:47 PM

Tom_Slick: Pumpernickel bread: If the youngest was 16, this sentence seems kind of harsh. Didn't rob Lowe go so far as to nail a 16 yo? How much time did he do?

Pictures, is why.  Even if 16 is the age of consent where he lives, pictures are still illegal.


Yup.  The federal age of consent is 16.  He could have farked her brains out in various states or any federal lands and been A-OK, but taking pictures is verboten.
 
2014-02-28 03:46:23 PM

Por que tan serioso: Buck Henderson: keithgabryelski: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Allgier

it's a long slide downward...

[www.thepeoplesvoice.org image 187x259]
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 363x486]
[archive.sltrib.com image 500x478]
[7.blog.xuite.net image 266x344]
[blogs.kansascity.com image 360x287]

I that Tobias in the 2nd Pic?

He sure looks like an AnalRapist.


look up his story (his sister was interviewed a few years ago about his first troubles with the law).
Anal rape was certainly a part of it -- but the IST is the wrong suffix.
 
2014-02-28 03:49:15 PM

MycroftHolmes: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Tom_Slick: Pumpernickel bread: If the youngest was 16, this sentence seems kind of harsh. Didn't rob Lowe go so far as to nail a 16 yo? How much time did he do?

Pictures, is why.  Even if 16 is the age of consent where he lives, pictures are still illegal.

This shiat is farked in this day and age. Only sensible rule as I'm concerned is hard time for soliciting pre-pubescent pics/sex. Everything else is what it is. A 17y 364day old sends me an unsolicited nude selfy and that can be used to incarcerate me? Dafuq. Unless it's solicited pre-pubescent or involves exploiting a power dynamic (yeah, that can be hard to define), then anything goes. Everybody has a camera on a phone that can instantly send a pic to anyone anywhere. And once the hormones kick in, ain't no putting the toothpaste back in the tube. It just is. Maybe not good, but it just is.

Oh, and it's not like I'm benefitting from this in any way. No 16yo are sending my middle aged ass nudie pics. I'm just reflecting on the fact once horny happens, things follow. A guy/girl taking a nude selfie at 15/16 just should not be charged w child porn, nor should a recipient. It's just tough shiat now.

Given that photos nowadays can be easily distributed, and the impact to the photos subject can be huge, don't you think there should be penalties for an indivdually who deliberately and knowingly solicits compromising phots from underage girls?

You mentioned that power dynamic is one reason for penalties, and acknowledge that this is difficult to define.  The law has done a pretty succinct job of it, accurately deciding that in most cases, a power dynamic between  someone <16 and >25 is going to be inherently skewed.

I have a little bit more problem when you are talking about two kids in the same school (think freshman to senior romances).  I don't think the power dynamic is as skewed there.


Well, 1) I'm disputing 'underage' as anything past puberty. 2) that 16 yo, solicited or not, sending the pic is also guilty of distributing "child porn". 3) as you point out 'power dynamic' as an arbitrary age is...arbitrary. I'm thinking more counselor/teacher/scout leader/priest etc.
 
2014-02-28 03:54:08 PM

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Only sensible rule as I'm concerned is hard time for soliciting pre-pubescent pics/sex.

Just out of curiosity, what age would you define as pre-pubescent?

There is no age. Is a biologically proveable objective definitive state of sexual development.


That seems easy to legally enforce.
 
2014-02-28 03:54:29 PM
Just watched a few seconds of one of his videos. This guy was into girls?
 
2014-02-28 04:01:53 PM

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Well, 1) I'm disputing 'underage' as anything past puberty. 2) that 16 yo, solicited or not, sending the pic is also guilty of distributing "child porn". 3) as you point out 'power dynamic' as an arbitrary age is...arbitrary. I'm thinking more counselor/teacher/scout leader/priest etc.


There are two different threshholds.  Puberty is the threshhold of sexual maturity, so his actions shouldn't necessarily be lumped in with the actions of a pedophile.  But the second threshhold is the age at which we, as a society, determine that someone has the maturity to provide informed consent.  Yes, it is arbitrary.  There are 20 years olds with less emotional maturity than 13 year olds.  But it is a valid protection to guard against predators.  A 40 year old man trolling for post pubescent 14 year olds is certainly a predator.

I do not agree with the idea that once a person had hit puberty, they are no longer considered underage.  That might work in some cultures, but it would be certainly disasterous in the US.  I agree that this guy got lumped in under child porn laws, and that the punishment may not fit the crime.  But I do agree with the law that there was a crime here.
 
2014-02-28 04:06:22 PM
It wasn't Onision? Damn.
 
2014-02-28 04:06:25 PM

MycroftHolmes: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Tom_Slick: Pumpernickel bread: If the youngest was 16, this sentence seems kind of harsh. Didn't rob Lowe go so far as to nail a 16 yo? How much time did he do?

Pictures, is why.  Even if 16 is the age of consent where he lives, pictures are still illegal.

This shiat is farked in this day and age. Only sensible rule as I'm concerned is hard time for soliciting pre-pubescent pics/sex. Everything else is what it is. A 17y 364day old sends me an unsolicited nude selfy and that can be used to incarcerate me? Dafuq. Unless it's solicited pre-pubescent or involves exploiting a power dynamic (yeah, that can be hard to define), then anything goes. Everybody has a camera on a phone that can instantly send a pic to anyone anywhere. And once the hormones kick in, ain't no putting the toothpaste back in the tube. It just is. Maybe not good, but it just is.

Oh, and it's not like I'm benefitting from this in any way. No 16yo are sending my middle aged ass nudie pics. I'm just reflecting on the fact once horny happens, things follow. A guy/girl taking a nude selfie at 15/16 just should not be charged w child porn, nor should a recipient. It's just tough shiat now.

Given that photos nowadays can be easily distributed, and the impact to the photos subject can be huge, don't you think there should be penalties for an indivdually who deliberately and knowingly solicits compromising phots from underage girls?

You mentioned that power dynamic is one reason for penalties, and acknowledge that this is difficult to define.  The law has done a pretty succinct job of it, accurately deciding that in most cases, a power dynamic between  someone <16 and >25 is going to be inherently skewed.

I have a little bit more problem when you are talking about two kids in the same school (think freshman to senior romances).  I don't think the power dynamic is as skewed there.


"Given that photos nowadays can be easily distributed, and the impact to the photos subject can be huge, don't you think there should be penalties for an indivdually who deliberately and knowingly solicits compromising phots from underage girls?"

Also, sadly, the above quote is just reaffirmation of the 'tough shiat' factor. Things have changed and they ain't unchanging. Maybe laws about exploiting images (for malice or financial gain, ie posting willfully to public sites, that's reasonable IMHO), but just the act of consensual sending of a nude selfy by a horny teen, to whomever , is just not gonna stop. And I'm assuming attitudes, like in the past, are gonna just have to adapt. It's no longer a scandal for s woman to be at a bar, or wear a bikini at the beach, or interracial couples to kiss in public, or gays to hold hands. Etc. it's stuff that's gone on forever (Romeo & Juliet farking at 14?) they'd prob have exchanged selfies too. It's just getting over stigmas attached to pervasive behavior that has been stigmatized. If it's consensual , post pubescent, and not being commercially exploited. Well, welcome to reality b
 
2014-02-28 04:13:01 PM

Serious Post on Serious Thread: MycroftHolmes: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Tom_Slick: Pumpernickel bread: If the youngest was 16, this sentence seems kind of harsh. Didn't rob Lowe go so far as to nail a 16 yo? How much time did he do?

Pictures, is why.  Even if 16 is the age of consent where he lives, pictures are still illegal.

This shiat is farked in this day and age. Only sensible rule as I'm concerned is hard time for soliciting pre-pubescent pics/sex. Everything else is what it is. A 17y 364day old sends me an unsolicited nude selfy and that can be used to incarcerate me? Dafuq. Unless it's solicited pre-pubescent or involves exploiting a power dynamic (yeah, that can be hard to define), then anything goes. Everybody has a camera on a phone that can instantly send a pic to anyone anywhere. And once the hormones kick in, ain't no putting the toothpaste back in the tube. It just is. Maybe not good, but it just is.

Oh, and it's not like I'm benefitting from this in any way. No 16yo are sending my middle aged ass nudie pics. I'm just reflecting on the fact once horny happens, things follow. A guy/girl taking a nude selfie at 15/16 just should not be charged w child porn, nor should a recipient. It's just tough shiat now.

Given that photos nowadays can be easily distributed, and the impact to the photos subject can be huge, don't you think there should be penalties for an indivdually who deliberately and knowingly solicits compromising phots from underage girls?

You mentioned that power dynamic is one reason for penalties, and acknowledge that this is difficult to define.  The law has done a pretty succinct job of it, accurately deciding that in most cases, a power dynamic between  someone <16 and >25 is going to be inherently skewed.

I have a little bit more problem when you are talking about two kids in the same school (think freshman to senior romances).  I don't think the power dynamic is as skewed there.

Well, 1) I'm disputing 'underage' as anything past puberty. 2) that 16 yo, solicited or not, sending the pic is also guilty of distributing "child porn". 3) as you point out 'power dynamic' as an arbitrary age is...arbitrary. I'm thinking more counselor/teacher/scout leader/priest etc.


I'm not foolish enough to get into most of this thread, but let me say this:

I hit puberty/got my period shortly after turning 11.

/carry on
 
2014-02-28 04:15:46 PM

Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Only sensible rule as I'm concerned is hard time for soliciting pre-pubescent pics/sex.

Just out of curiosity, what age would you define as pre-pubescent?

There is no age. Is a biologically proveable objective definitive state of sexual development.

That seems easy to legally enforce.


You are aware that in the scheme of things, biological maturity is a hella easier standard to determine than a shiat ton of other legal concepts. Who is a reasonable person, under any variety of circumstances, what amounts to negligence, or gross negligence , reckless indifference , premeditation, malice a forethought , reasonable suspicion, but for standards, beyond a reasonable doubt , exigent circumstances. In the scheme of legal standards, determining puberty is pretty farking easy.
 
2014-02-28 04:19:34 PM

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Only sensible rule as I'm concerned is hard time for soliciting pre-pubescent pics/sex.

Just out of curiosity, what age would you define as pre-pubescent?

There is no age. Is a biologically proveable objective definitive state of sexual development.

That seems easy to legally enforce.

You are aware that in the scheme of things, biological maturity is a hella easier standard to determine than a shiat ton of other legal concepts... In the scheme of legal standards, determining puberty is pretty farking easy.


Not as easy as age. Not by a long shot. That's why it's used. That's what makes it a sensible rule.
 
2014-02-28 04:20:18 PM

Pocket Ninja: I didn't know who this was, either, so I looked up some of his music and it is so awful that I feel others should have to bear some of the weight of my suffering.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENZdTTXrdQ8


He's CIT good. I do pity him, Where he's going, the other campers are gonna be worse than brats, and the food's gonna be hideous. If he's lucky, he'll get to smoke and drink. If he's really unlucky, he'll get to fool around with some inmate who's nookie-bound.
 
2014-02-28 04:23:54 PM

lindalouwho: Serious Post on Serious Thread: MycroftHolmes: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Tom_Slick: Pumpernickel bread: If the youngest was 16, this sentence seems kind of harsh. Didn't rob Lowe go so far as to nail a 16 yo? How much time did he do?

Pictures, is why.  Even if 16 is the age of consent where he lives, pictures are still illegal.

This shiat is farked in this day and age. Only sensible rule as I'm concerned is hard time for soliciting pre-pubescent pics/sex. Everything else is what it is. A 17y 364day old sends me an unsolicited nude selfy and that can be used to incarcerate me? Dafuq. Unless it's solicited pre-pubescent or involves exploiting a power dynamic (yeah, that can be hard to define), then anything goes. Everybody has a camera on a phone that can instantly send a pic to anyone anywhere. And once the hormones kick in, ain't no putting the toothpaste back in the tube. It just is. Maybe not good, but it just is.

Oh, and it's not like I'm benefitting from this in any way. No 16yo are sending my middle aged ass nudie pics. I'm just reflecting on the fact once horny happens, things follow. A guy/girl taking a nude selfie at 15/16 just should not be charged w child porn, nor should a recipient. It's just tough shiat now.

Given that photos nowadays can be easily distributed, and the impact to the photos subject can be huge, don't you think there should be penalties for an indivdually who deliberately and knowingly solicits compromising phots from underage girls?

You mentioned that power dynamic is one reason for penalties, and acknowledge that this is difficult to define.  The law has done a pretty succinct job of it, accurately deciding that in most cases, a power dynamic between  someone <16 and >25 is going to be inherently skewed.

I have a little bit more problem when you are talking about two kids in the same school (think freshman to senior romances).  I don't think the power dynamic is as skewed there.

Well, 1) I'm disputing 'underage' as anything past puberty. 2) that 16 yo, solicited or not, sending the pic is also guilty of distributing "child porn". 3) as you point out 'power dynamic' as an arbitrary age is...arbitrary. I'm thinking more counselor/teacher/scout leader/priest etc.

I'm not foolish enough to get into most of this thread, but let me say this:

I hit puberty/got my period shortly after turning 11.

/carry on


Yup, biology and legal standards are a tough row to hoe. It's all lines in the sand. No line is going to be fair or right for every circumstance. But as the law stands now, it's a hard line absent jury nullification. I was barely 13 when I became sexually active. If I had a cell cam & sent a nudy pic, you think I should've gone to jail and be permanently labeled a sex offender?
 
2014-02-28 04:26:47 PM

Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Only sensible rule as I'm concerned is hard time for soliciting pre-pubescent pics/sex.

Just out of curiosity, what age would you define as pre-pubescent?

There is no age. Is a biologically proveable objective definitive state of sexual development.

That seems easy to legally enforce.

You are aware that in the scheme of things, biological maturity is a hella easier standard to determine than a shiat ton of other legal concepts... In the scheme of legal standards, determining puberty is pretty farking easy.

Not as easy as age. Not by a long shot. That's why it's used. That's what makes it a sensible rule.


I'm not comfy trading justice for convenience. But that's just me.
 
2014-02-28 04:28:28 PM

Serious Post on Serious Thread: But as the law stands now, it's a hard line absent jury nullification. I was barely 13 when I became sexually active. If I had a cell cam & sent a nudy pic, you think I should've gone to jail and be permanently labeled a sex offender?


Merits aside, lightening up child-porn laws is about as politically likely as legalizing meth, opening the borders, or single-payer healthcare.

AFAIK, teenage sexters don't get prosecuted anymore for creating and distributing child pornography of themselves (that was insane), but it's still illegal. Prosecutors are just declining to pursue the charges.
 
2014-02-28 04:32:49 PM

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Only sensible rule as I'm concerned is hard time for soliciting pre-pubescent pics/sex.

Just out of curiosity, what age would you define as pre-pubescent?

There is no age. Is a biologically proveable objective definitive state of sexual development.

That seems easy to legally enforce.

You are aware that in the scheme of things, biological maturity is a hella easier standard to determine than a shiat ton of other legal concepts... In the scheme of legal standards, determining puberty is pretty farking easy.

Not as easy as age. Not by a long shot. That's why it's used. That's what makes it a sensible rule.

I'm not comfy trading justice for convenience. But that's just me.


So your solution, in the name of justice, is to have the age in which it is legal to participate in certain activities change on a person to person basis. And that basis is out of the control of each person. And there is no way to prove when that threshold has been reached without performing a biological exam on each person?

That sounds way more comfortable to me..
 
2014-02-28 04:40:02 PM
Well, I object to 'lightening up' as opposed to 'rationally engaging reality'. That aside, women's suffrage, and title VII were pretty unlikely, until they weren't. And I sure as fark don't want to hang the fate of a horny teen on the whims of a local prosecutor.

At the very least, there shouldn't be strict liability. At least have a trial possible that doesn't revolve around static arbitrary ages & actions.
 
2014-02-28 04:40:22 PM
Everyone keeps saying 5 years in PMITA, but TFA clearly says 5 years probation and register as a sex offender. He will do no more time than he already has.
 
2014-02-28 04:45:34 PM

Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Only sensible rule as I'm concerned is hard time for soliciting pre-pubescent pics/sex.

Just out of curiosity, what age would you define as pre-pubescent?

There is no age. Is a biologically proveable objective definitive state of sexual development.

That seems easy to legally enforce.

You are aware that in the scheme of things, biological maturity is a hella easier standard to determine than a shiat ton of other legal concepts... In the scheme of legal standards, determining puberty is pretty farking easy.

Not as easy as age. Not by a long shot. That's why it's used. That's what makes it a sensible rule.

I'm not comfy trading justice for convenience. But that's just me.

So your solution, in the name of justice, is to have the age in which it is legal to participate in certain activities change on a person to person basis. And that basis is out of the control of each person. And there is no way to prove when that threshold has been reached without performing a biological exam on each person?

That sounds way more comfortable to me..


Everything from tort injury to rape cases turn on 'biological exams'.

And what ''basis" is out of whose control? Reasonableness is pretty standard for lots of legal concepts. You want arbitrary easy standards for difficult complicated issues. I don't.
 
2014-02-28 04:57:36 PM

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Only sensible rule as I'm concerned is hard time for soliciting pre-pubescent pics/sex.

Just out of curiosity, what age would you define as pre-pubescent?

There is no age. Is a biologically proveable objective definitive state of sexual development.

That seems easy to legally enforce.

You are aware that in the scheme of things, biological maturity is a hella easier standard to determine than a shiat ton of other legal concepts... In the scheme of legal standards, determining puberty is pretty farking easy.

Not as easy as age. Not by a long shot. That's why it's used. That's what makes it a sensible rule.

I'm not comfy trading justice for convenience. But that's just me.

So your solution, in the name of justice, is to have the age in which it is legal to participate in certain activities change on a person to person basis. And that basis is out of the control of each person. And there is no way to prove when that threshold has been reached without performing a biological exam on each person?

That sounds way more comfortable to me..

Everything from tort injury to rape cases turn on 'biological exams'.

And what ''basis" is out of whose control? Reasonableness is pretty standard for lots of legal concepts. You want arbitrary easy standards for difficult complicated issues. I don't.


Considering how many rape victims are adverse to such exams, I'd like to limit the number of those necessary.

Maybe I didn't try hard enough, but I had no control over when I hit puberty.

You're going to have to draw a line somewhere. How do you determine when puberty has properly progressed to the point where a person is allowed to have sex with an older person? Is it the same for everyone? How will the other party know this has occurred to the sufficient level to meet legal guidelines? There are a lot of problems with your sensible solution.
 
2014-02-28 05:07:52 PM

Car_Ramrod: How do you determine when puberty has properly progressed to the point where a person is allowed to have sex with an older person?


If there's grass on the field play ball.
 
2014-02-28 05:10:46 PM
I have to admit, I am pretty on the fence about this. It isn't like this guy was luring kids Chris Hanson style to hook up with. It sounds like he was lurking chat rooms and girls were all-too-eager to send naked pics and engage in "cyber sex" with him. So what? When you engage in "cyber-sex" no one really knows who the other person is, how old they are etc. and it doesn't really matter, it is fantasizing. With cameras involved, the same holds true, there is no way of knowing the true age of the person across the way. Admittedly knowing and continuing down that path is pretty skeevy and there is a definite line of "totally not cool" and "socially unacceptable." With regards to legality and punishment, that becomes pretty hazy. This doesn't sound like an offense that should result in jail but rather humiliation.
 
2014-02-28 05:15:02 PM

Pumpernickel bread: If the youngest was 16, this sentence seems kind of harsh. Didn't rob Lowe go so far as to nail a 16 yo? How much time did he do?


The thing I always thought was weird is that in many states, 16 is legal to have sex with, within certain limits on the other participant's age. Take a picture though and that's child pornography and a prison sentence. How does that even make sense? Why is it ok to fark a girl but a felony to take a consensual picture? IMO there is a very substantial difference between a teenager sending dirty pics of themselves and a creepy old man taking dirty pictures of a toddler but from a legal standpoint it's the same thing.
 
2014-02-28 05:18:25 PM

Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Only sensible rule as I'm concerned is hard time for soliciting pre-pubescent pics/sex.

Just out of curiosity, what age would you define as pre-pubescent?

There is no age. Is a biologically proveable objective definitive state of sexual development.

That seems easy to legally enforce.

You are aware that in the scheme of things, biological maturity is a hella easier standard to determine than a shiat ton of other legal concepts... In the scheme of legal standards, determining puberty is pretty farking easy.

Not as easy as age. Not by a long shot. That's why it's used. That's what makes it a sensible rule.

I'm not comfy trading justice for convenience. But that's just me.

So your solution, in the name of justice, is to have the age in which it is legal to participate in certain activities change on a person to person basis. And that basis is out of the control of each person. And there is no way to prove when that threshold has been reached without performing a biological exam on each person?

That sounds way more comfortable to me..

Everything from tort injury to rape cases turn on 'biological exams'.

And what ''basis" is out of whose control? Reasonableness is pretty standard for lots of legal concepts. You want arbitrary easy standards for difficult complicated issues. I don't.

Considering how many rape victims are adverse to such exams, I'd like to limit the number of those necessary.

Maybe I didn't try hard enough, but I had no control over when I hit puberty.

You're going to have to draw a line somewhere. How do you determine when puberty has properly progressed to the point where a person is allowed to have sex with an older person? Is it the same for everyone? How will the other party know this has occurred to the sufficient level to meet legal guidelines? There are a lot of problems with your sensible solution.


Yup, it's a right big farking mess. That's why I've actually back peddled some after reading some responses. I'd still loosen up some things (no strict liability starting 14-15), and reasonableness standard (bench or jury trial) in either very large disparate ages, inherent power/coercive situations, or particularly young actors. But charges against someone taking there own picture, and absent abusive or commercial posting, I think the current regime and prosecutorial arbitrary discretion is not serving justice.
 
2014-02-28 05:19:28 PM
This does seem a rather pointless prosecution.

If a 16 year old with whom it is is legal to have a sexual relationship engages with someone online they are less at risk than in the real world. As long as the pictures stay private it is safe behaviour. It allows for the person to develop their sexuality, with in this case an idealised partner. If there is no harm I seen no point in the pursuing him other than to say stop.

His behaviour does not look predatory. I would say he is probably a late developer so the actual age difference is not relevant in his case. The law needs to be less deterministic and more humane.
 
2014-02-28 05:19:41 PM
There's a reason, it's called "jailbait"

JAIL
BAIT

Meaning don't let your hormones direct you to have ANY sexual contact an underaged cutie...you WILL go to jail.

This INCLUDES through communications.
AND keeping media of them.

BTW, females...this includes you too.

/PSA
 
2014-02-28 05:20:47 PM

Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Only sensible rule as I'm concerned is hard time for soliciting pre-pubescent pics/sex.

Just out of curiosity, what age would you define as pre-pubescent?


Age? I define it as pre-pubescent, there are pretty clear medical guidelines on the matter. Thats te point, an age based hard cutoff doesnt really make sense since everyone develops mentally and physically a little different. Yes there is some gray area as puberty doesn't happen instantly. Those situations need to be handled on a case by case basis.
 
2014-02-28 05:23:38 PM

MycroftHolmes: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Tom_Slick: Pumpernickel bread: If the youngest was 16, this sentence seems kind of harsh. Didn't rob Lowe go so far as to nail a 16 yo? How much time did he do?

Pictures, is why.  Even if 16 is the age of consent where he lives, pictures are still illegal.

This shiat is farked in this day and age. Only sensible rule as I'm concerned is hard time for soliciting pre-pubescent pics/sex. Everything else is what it is. A 17y 364day old sends me an unsolicited nude selfy and that can be used to incarcerate me? Dafuq. Unless it's solicited pre-pubescent or involves exploiting a power dynamic (yeah, that can be hard to define), then anything goes. Everybody has a camera on a phone that can instantly send a pic to anyone anywhere. And once the hormones kick in, ain't no putting the toothpaste back in the tube. It just is. Maybe not good, but it just is.

Oh, and it's not like I'm benefitting from this in any way. No 16yo are sending my middle aged ass nudie pics. I'm just reflecting on the fact once horny happens, things follow. A guy/girl taking a nude selfie at 15/16 just should not be charged w child porn, nor should a recipient. It's just tough shiat now.

Given that photos nowadays can be easily distributed, and the impact to the photos subject can be huge, don't you think there should be penalties for an indivdually who deliberately and knowingly solicits compromising phots from underage girls?

You mentioned that power dynamic is one reason for penalties, and acknowledge that this is difficult to define.  The law has done a pretty succinct job of it, accurately deciding that in most cases, a power dynamic between  someone <16 and >25 is going to be inherently skewed.

I have a little bit more problem when you are talking about two kids in the same school (think freshman to senior romances).  I don't think the power dynamic is as skewed there.


Penalties yes, but years in prison and lifelong sex offender status? That depends on a lot of factors. The biggest problem with the whole sex offender thing is that it casts too wide a net and lumps together people who are real creeps with people who did something dumb.
 
2014-02-28 05:28:35 PM

Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Only sensible rule as I'm concerned is hard time for soliciting pre-pubescent pics/sex.

Just out of curiosity, what age would you define as pre-pubescent?

There is no age. Is a biologically proveable objective definitive state of sexual development.

That seems easy to legally enforce.

You are aware that in the scheme of things, biological maturity is a hella easier standard to determine than a shiat ton of other legal concepts... In the scheme of legal standards, determining puberty is pretty farking easy.

Not as easy as age. Not by a long shot. That's why it's used. That's what makes it a sensible rule.


Easy doe not always equal sensible.

Zero tolerance rules exist because they are easy. Zero tolerance is rarely sensible.
 
2014-02-28 05:33:23 PM

James10952001: Pictures, is why. Even if 16 is the age of consent where he lives, pictures are still illegal.


Before 2003 The Sun could and did publish pictures of 16 and 17 years olds topless. How did we get from banning the commercial publishing of these pictures to turning the private exchange of pictures into a 5 year sentence?
 
m00
2014-02-28 05:55:03 PM

Pumpernickel bread: If the youngest was 16, this sentence seems kind of harsh. Didn't rob Lowe go so far as to nail a 16 yo? How much time did he do?


Led Zeppelin had group sex with underage girls, whom they transported across state lines. Elvis had a group of 12, 13, 14 year old girls that hung around him. Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old cousin. I think there used to be a sense that if underage girls became groupies, or went to backstage parties... they were fair game. Like, at some point.. teenage girls have agency.

After seeing this dude's picture, I kinda get the sense he wasn't manipulating 16 year old girls into sending him selfies. I think they were perfectly willing participants. Their body, their right to choose... right?
 
2014-02-28 06:04:54 PM
I'm still at work and I can't see the article or the pictures. Can someone tell me who it was or post a picture of this fine, young cannibal?
 
2014-02-28 06:26:09 PM

jamspoon: James10952001: Pictures, is why. Even if 16 is the age of consent where he lives, pictures are still illegal.

Before 2003 The Sun could and did publish pictures of 16 and 17 years olds topless. How did we get from banning the commercial publishing of these pictures to turning the private exchange of pictures into a 5 year sentence?


The major difference is that he chatted with the girls and asked for the pictures. That's solicitation of a minor. That's bad. He used his Internet fame to get his rocks off with girls that were far too young to be asked such favors. He could have been going for 18-year-olds, but let us not kid ourselves: He wrote music that was designed to appeal to younger teens for a reason.

How else do you explain "Dear Molly"?

When you're 25 years old, you don't ask teenage girls to send you naked pics. You just DON'T. It's not cool. Everyone knows this.

The other difference between this and the nudie pics in the Sun is that these weren't just nude poses; These were sexually explicit shots of the girls in question. That makes it pornography, not just nude imagery. The sun might have shown us a 16-year-old Samantha Fox's boobs, but they never had her spread her legs or touch herself; Not in the photos, anyway.
 
2014-02-28 06:28:49 PM

m00: Pumpernickel bread: If the youngest was 16, this sentence seems kind of harsh. Didn't rob Lowe go so far as to nail a 16 yo? How much time did he do?

Led Zeppelin had group sex with underage girls, whom they transported across state lines. Elvis had a group of 12, 13, 14 year old girls that hung around him. Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old cousin. I think there used to be a sense that if underage girls became groupies, or went to backstage parties... they were fair game. Like, at some point.. teenage girls have agency.

After seeing this dude's picture, I kinda get the sense he wasn't manipulating 16 year old girls into sending him selfies. I think they were perfectly willing participants. Their body, their right to choose... right?


He's no Elvis or Led Zeppelin, though. He's just "internet famous" and he didn't have handlers to keep everything discrete. He also left a digital trail, and kept sexually explicit shots of the girls.

Of course he was manipulating them, and just because Elvis lacked the moral fiber or ethics to say no to a teenage girl doesn't mean it was right.

I have turned down girls. Yes, it was painful to have to do so, but if the choice is getting with a girl with a fabulous body and ending up in prison, or living the rest of my life knowing I missed out on the fabulous body but did the right thing, I'll take the latter.
 
2014-02-28 06:31:05 PM

jamspoon: This does seem a rather pointless prosecution.

If a 16 year old with whom it is is legal to have a sexual relationship engages with someone online they are less at risk than in the real world. As long as the pictures stay private it is safe behaviour. It allows for the person to develop their sexuality, with in this case an idealised partner. If there is no harm I seen no point in the pursuing him other than to say stop.

His behaviour does not look predatory. I would say he is probably a late developer so the actual age difference is not relevant in his case. The law needs to be less deterministic and more humane.


Going for chicks 9 years younger when you're in your 20s is a sign of either being a VERY late developer, or being an ephebophile. Either way, it's skeevy. Weren't there any 20-year-olds who liked his music?
 
m00
2014-02-28 06:35:02 PM

Nix Nightbird: I have turned down girls. Yes, it was painful to have to do so, but if the choice is getting with a girl with a fabulous body and ending up in prison, or living the rest of my life knowing I missed out on the fabulous body but did the right thing, I'll take the latter.


That's not a "moral fiber" argument, that's a "fear of incarceration" argument.
 
2014-02-28 06:39:20 PM

dittybopper: brimed03: Damn. I was hoping it was that Bieber, er, that Bieber-- what exactly is Bieber again?

I don't know, but this is a Biber:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 640x480]


I believe the Bieber and the Biber are the same. Biber is the Appalachian pronunciation.
 
2014-02-28 06:44:01 PM

Nix Nightbird: jamspoon: This does seem a rather pointless prosecution.

If a 16 year old with whom it is is legal to have a sexual relationship engages with someone online they are less at risk than in the real world. As long as the pictures stay private it is safe behaviour. It allows for the person to develop their sexuality, with in this case an idealised partner. If there is no harm I seen no point in the pursuing him other than to say stop.

His behaviour does not look predatory. I would say he is probably a late developer so the actual age difference is not relevant in his case. The law needs to be less deterministic and more humane.

Going for chicks 9 years younger when you're in your 20s is a sign of either being a VERY late developer, or being an ephebophile. Either way, it's skeevy. Weren't there any 20-year-olds who liked his music?


According to the article, well over a majority of the women he solicited were adults.  Maybe he just likes post-pubescent women.
 
2014-02-28 06:44:33 PM
I don't get his shirt. So some duck is walking with 3 ducklings, they cross the road and now there are 2.

What's the joke? I don't get it.
 
2014-02-28 06:53:55 PM

Pocket Ninja: I didn't know who this was, either, so I looked up some of his music and it is so awful that I feel others should have to bear some of the weight of my suffering.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENZdTTXrdQ8


Didn't anybody else notice the dude is wearing a Boys' and Girls' Club T-shirt?
 
2014-02-28 06:56:21 PM
bhcompy: ....Maybe he just likes post-pubescent women.

That's just f'ing sick.  I hope you get banned and thrown in prison for 5 years.
 
2014-02-28 07:19:05 PM
What is this guys name? My place of business has the smoking gun blocked.
 
2014-03-01 12:09:42 AM
I agree that it's harsh if the youngest was 16.

/the prosecutors wanted 20 years
 
2014-03-01 01:30:37 AM
Oh dear God why did I click those links to hear this douche?

Yoko Ono and Fran Drescher singing Wrecking Ball while gangraping a syphilitic cat would sound 100x better than that.
 
2014-03-01 07:09:32 AM

ForrestRump: Everyone keeps saying 5 years in PMITA, but TFA clearly says 5 years probation and register as a sex offender. He will do no more time than he already has.


Read it again. 5 years prison plus 5 years probation.
 
2014-03-01 12:45:43 PM

Pocket Ninja: I didn't know who this was, either, so I looked up some of his music and it is so awful that I feel others should have to bear some of the weight of my suffering.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENZdTTXrdQ8


I have you favorited because I've enjoyed many of your comments in the past, I now hate you.
 
Displayed 116 of 116 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report