Man guilty of helping girls create porn site

Okay... It took me a minute to identify where my moral compass was pointing on this one.

It is wrong to assist underage girls in making money with sex.

Money = Sex is a dangerous idea and not to be taken lightly and certainly not by young women.

I see no connection with them and there role models Paris Hilton, Hanna Montana, etc. Wait, that wasn't mentioned. Nevermind.

Most teenagers are able to manage their own facebook and myspace accounts without any help which can often just as bad as a porn site.



So its legal to have sex with the these girls but not legal to photograph them nude or seminude?

Seriously?

This entire debacle is ridiculous.

Absolutely. If fact in the States, girls have been charged with child porn for sending images of themselves to their boyfriends.

But still, what kind of numbnuts helps young girls in such an endeavor?

I sort of take a jaundice eye of all the moralizing that goes on in the media and with politicians. I don't half understand half of it and I know for a fact that the journalists and politicians don't either. However 40 year old numbnuts should not be having sex with 14 to 16 year olds. The age of consent thing being 14 is bizarre.

While his ignorance of the law is no excuse you do make a good point. How can we say they are mature enough to consent to sex but not showing nude pics of themselves? The laws need to be brought into sync with one another as it does create problems in this way.

He should be charged with something, but something less than his girlfriend / kids aunt was as the one responsible for them. His "they pressured me to do it defense puts him on the level of a teenager claiming peer pressure yet he's an adult so thats a very lame excuse unless he has some sort of developmental issues.

It is also strange that THEY wanted the internet fame but the AUNT took all the money. I can't see teens going for that deal.

From what I read, it's a different thing.
SHE ran an internet-thing and made $1600/mo with it, and my impression is the kids wanted "some of the same".

Although I think it's foolish of the man, I also think the sentence is harsh, especially since the X-rated business that is in the house, is not his, but the legal guardian (I think she is...) of the kids' (who are of legal age).
He should have said "no".

Maybe I misread that then.

As far as him saying no, he did say the aunt "Dominated" him so he had no choice. Hmm, I wonder if they made a video of that lol...yuck.

I think it's a weird case.
First, the name of the "victims" cannot be released, because they were 14 and 16 in 2002. Then, it says THEY pressured him to help them. (So much for victims)
Then, the aunt got a way lighter sentence than this man, although she took part in the same "crime".

I don't think he is very smart, maybe even a little slow, was obviously under the aunts spell, and now gets this. I don't know, but I am not convinced he is guilty", if you get what I am saying...
All I can think of him being guilty of, is stupidity...
He spent 8 months in jail (the aunt 0), he has a pedo-sheet now, cant go to parks for 3 years, be close to schools etc etc... And what did SHE get? Probation!! Is this a typical "male and kids = pedophile"-thing??

Just SOP for the justice system. Men are always treated more harshly, but especially so where sex crimes are involved.

Apparently they wanted income and so needed better then self-pics and grainy webcam video's that most girls that age are forced to settle with.



The age of consent being 14 is a bit of a misnomer, as there are crimes with fun and enticing names like "Sexual Exploitation of a Young Person." Of course those are light 1.5 year sentences compared to the 10 year sentences handed out to rapists and pedo's.

PS: The I think current age of consent laws are ridiculous. Having consensual sex with a 15 year old girl =/ molesting a 6 year old.