Pseudo Child ****Follow

He put a child's head on a grown body, either suggesting he couldn't find a naked kid's body or he's indeed not a "standard" @#%^. He might have been looking for a more adult version of the kids, it's rather odd he went to so much trouble (relatively speaking) to put those kids head's on the pictures.

Amateur psychology is so funny because it's so completely off target almost always. Maybe he really wanted to eat the paste he used and it's all about that. Yeah, dude, paste, *****, think about it!

You people are laughable.

The Obscenity Chapter in Florida Statutes:

http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0847/ch0847.htm

I'm not going to try to wade through the entire thing, but from skimming it it doesn't look like a kid's photo on a hot chick's naked body is considered child porno. Most of the statutes are concerned with dissemination which he didn't do, and the rest don't seem to apply; though part depends on how "simulated" can be construed, vs. "actual" in some definitions.

Aside from the law I see absolutely nothing wrong with it (from an objective social point of view). This guy didn't do anyone any harm no matter how demented he personally is. Doesn't matter how realistically he merges head with body, or what gender/species/fruit he used, it's for his personal use and no one else was harmed in any way.

hmmm I was dancing around that the entire time and didn't recognize it, but now it seems stupidly simple.


I can't speak for smash, but one thing that's laughable is that the intent should not matter in any case. If he is a pedophile, then he has the wish to copulate with children as is. You can't justifiably prosecute a person for that wish. Furthermore, whether or not he had an abnormal psychological motivation does not change the quantity of pain created for the children; in this case that pain value is zero.

Edited, Dec 28th 2007 1:20pm by Pensive

He should sue the makers of Photoshop, it's obviously their fault not his, this is America, people.

For the record, the articles say he was 'Shopping the heads onto nude bodies of "young looking" adults. So I'm guessing he wasn't putting any kiddie heads onto buxom Penthouse models or anything but rather trying to create a semi-realistic image of the girls in question in the nude.

What exactly is the "sinister" motive that you see here?



An opinion is as good as the logic behind it. While it's fine to posit a hypothetical motive on the part of the teacher, in order to see what follows from it, we can't actually say what the motive is. We can only think of many different motives and then draw hypothetical conclusions from each of them, as if they were true.

Edited, Dec 28th 2007 4:35pm by Pensive

So I'm guessing he wasn't putting any kiddie heads onto buxom Penthouse models or anything but rather trying to create a semi-realistic image of the girls in question in the nude.

I'm guessing that description was added completely arbitrarily by the reporter. Nearly all naked images of adults is of "young looking" bodies. It's a meaningless distinction.

Actually, I'm puzzled now though, insult or not? (most likely my ineptitude of English, or just the late hour)

Go take a trip to 7chan and check out the /cake/ image boards for me.

Being a pedophile isn't illegal, it isn't even immoral from my perspective. Do you know why that is my point of view? Because unless somebody acts on their urges they have done nothing wrong.

As others have said thought crime is a stupid concept, it will only bring us many steps backwards. When a pedophile acts upon his urges or tries to that is when you are doing something illegal. When I say acts upon his urges I don't meat something like ************* I mean causing harm to something or trying to do so.

You and anybody else who thinks this is illegal is in for an abrupt awakening. It is immoral to some people sure, but that doesn't make it illegal.

Edited, Dec 28th 2007 7:39pm by Deadgye

I read this thread title as "Pseudo Child Born".
that would have been cool

carry on

I think the prosecution has a case as it has the required elements of "mens rea" in that he intended to create the pictures for kid **** use and "actus reus" that he took the pictures of the kids and pasted them on the nakey pictures.

I'd think his "actus rea" whatever that means is a circular argument--the end result would have to be defined as kid **** in order for him to have succeeded in his intentions. But that definition is what appears to be in doubt. Even if he succeeded in jacking off to it, he was either jacking off to the bodies (regular ****), the kid's faces (not ****), or the combination in his mind (mental ****?). Once again btw: http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0847/ch0847.htm