Pseudo Child ****Follow

Yes, absolutely. Using that argument you could say that taking pictures of kids in the locker room isn't harming them. Throw the sicko to the sharks

To me, it sounds like he may have done this since he wasn't able to get nudes of the girls whose heads he used. I bet if he could have gotten the younger girls to pose nude for him, he would have. It's about the intent.

Taking photos of kids in the locker room violates their (legal) reasonable expectation of privacy, among other things. It's the same reason why photographing adults in locker rooms is a crime (now a felony in Illinois at least).

But a photo of a child in a dressing room is just that -- a photo of the child's undressed body in a locker room. Which could be argued to be different than a photo of a child's head glued onto an adult body.As far as I know, the photos were not distributed. He had printed copies of them in his briefcase.

I'm not really defending the guy so much as offering counter-point. I certainly wouldn't want anyone photoshopping my kid's head in this manner but my gut reaction isn't always the most logical one.

Well, as Nadenu said, it's all down to intent. Was this his fap stash? An art project? Something in between?

He's a grade school principal, so in practical terms, yes, intent plays into it. And would if they were your Powerpuff girls, as well.

Legally? I'm not sure he'll go to jail. He will certainly lose his job, though.

I do the same thing but in reverse.

I don't think it's illegal, nor should it be. While I find it creepy and distasteful to the extreme, maybe this was his way of getting off on a fetish without hurting anyone or taking advantage of those who have already been exploited.



You pretty much summed up my opinion on the matter here. I'm not a fan of the recent trend of "thought crimes". There's a huge market for literotica that involves everything from sex with children, incest, sex with animals etc. While not my thing, certainly, it's victimless and legal. Additionally, there are people who have fantasies about a wide variety of scenarios that they would not actually want to have happen: Women who have rape fantasies, for example, and are into bondage. This doesn't mean that they would actually want to be raped.

Ok, so I've sidestepped off topic here, but hopefully you get my point. I'm uncomfortable with people being charged for illegal acts that did not take place, no matter how icky they make me feel. I would think the only thing he might be legally charged with would be violating some disclaimer that parents have signed giving permission to use their children's pictures for specific purposes since I'm guessing "pasting on to nude model bodies" probably isn't on the list.

Nexa

Guess it depends on the image, and how it's used.

Do you think it's art? Exploitation? Fappage?

That slippery slope goes down both sides of the hill, though. You can't go around arresting people for thought crimes.

Pic is gone now, but if I had to place a label on it, it would be art. IMO, of course. But I'm sure someone out there would fap to it.

Why would this be immoral?

The reason that sex with children is immoral or illegal is a matter of the ability of the child to give consent, not the fact that it deviates from the norm as a sexual desire. This is why sex with children is illegal and not homosexual relations, as deviant as that may be (to some people). Replace that with any other fetish really, and none of them are illegal. THe one exception I can think of is bestiality really, and for the same (logical) reason; the animal really just can't give consent. I guess rape fetish would, by definition, be illegal, but that's just a strange one.

In any case, the point is that...

In a fantasy, consent is not an issue anymore; everyone gives consent in a fantasy. If these pictures were just going into some private **************** pile then I can't see much wrong with it either illegally or immorally. The lack of a picture will not stop the man from fantasizing about the children, and so long as they don't get onto the internet or anything, resulting in public embarrassment, how is this any different than just using mental pictures? As long as fantasy stays fantasy, then there really just isn't any good argument for why he should be tried legally (aside from the libel issue which might have some merit).



And we all know how correct and logical and relevant and absolutely not foolish slipperly slopes are. We cannot try a man for what he might do in the future.

Having never seen the images in question, we don't know that. I've seen a lot more real shitty celeb fakes than I've seen good ones. Much less trying to match a nine-year old's head on an 18-year old body.

But, having never seen them, the guy could be a Photoshop wizard for all I know. Point being that we can't really use the above as an argument one way or the other.