PDA

View Full Version : Okay, this is just disgusting


Guinastasia
07-18-2002, 06:37 PM
Moms, would you let your little boys out of the house in this (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=890210564)?

What the FUCK are these morons thinking? Da'hell!!!

KneadToKnow
07-18-2002, 06:39 PM
My eyes!!! My eyes!!!

scott evil
07-18-2002, 06:41 PM
Holy shit! That borders on gay kiddie porn!

Mangetout
07-18-2002, 06:42 PM
eesh

FairyChatMom
07-18-2002, 06:43 PM
Trick or treat??

Revtim
07-18-2002, 06:45 PM
Nambla: The Musical!

Tortuga
07-18-2002, 06:46 PM
INCLUDES the 50/50 stretch black Nylon Lycra spandex shorts, with sequins at waist band. The shorts are made to fit tight, (can be worn with or without underwear - some underpants have thicker seams which could show, but these *are* heavy enough to wear by themselves). They stay snug around the butt and through the crotch while still being very comfortable, and allow total freedom of movement. My son likes the way they feel, and says they are very easy to move in. (And he has to move alot in his performances)....It doesn't need to be washed much at all, since the nylon doesn't get stains easily or absorb too much sweat...

That picture...so creepy. Shades of a boy JonBenet.

black rabbit
07-18-2002, 06:49 PM
I am the
Midnight NAMBLA!


ew.

Guinastasia
07-18-2002, 06:49 PM
Oh, and BTW, if anyone wants to know where I found it, someone posted the link at SAAN.

airdisc
07-18-2002, 06:50 PM
That picture looks like it's been Photoshopped, and not very well either.

a35362
07-18-2002, 07:00 PM
Ten thousand, five hundred ninety page views.

wring
07-18-2002, 07:00 PM
it was purchased for $60 used


[i]ewwwwwwwwwwwwww[i/]

Happy Lendervedder
07-18-2002, 07:00 PM
I can't believe the winning bidder is going to pay $66 for that homo-pedo-erotica.




Happy

Jeep's Phoenix
07-18-2002, 07:14 PM
Holy shit.

Look at the buyer's other purchases.

baltotop
07-18-2002, 07:19 PM
I think it is cool ....but on a guy not on a kid.... If he was about 17 or 18 then i can see it, but not on that model .... Yuk Yuk ....

Just because it looks like a leather harness doesnt mean it has anything to do with us gays....IMCO

CnoteChris
07-18-2002, 07:39 PM
I’m not going to post what I originally had prepared.

Needless to say, check out this line – “Great hot looking costume similar to groups like Dream street, BSB, Dreamstreet, N'sync, the Chippendiddies (chippenditties are younger and g-rated version of the chippendales), No Authority, and all of the other popular boybands.".

Then do a search for “Chippendiddies”.

In my opinion, there’s a hell of a lot more going on here than meets the eye. And what it is makes me ill. Sick, sick, shit.

Elenfair
07-18-2002, 07:46 PM
Holy crap.

Yeah, have a look at what the auction winner has bought in the past.

*shudder*

Ew. Ew ew ew ew ew.

Max Torque
07-18-2002, 08:14 PM
Good lord. This guy is way, WAY too interested in pictures of Boy Scouts in shorts.

Let's hope he doesn't have a particular Boy Scout in mind for his latest purchase.

Smeghead
07-18-2002, 08:16 PM
Most disturbing word on that page? "Used." I need a shower.

KSO
07-18-2002, 08:24 PM
This is just plain gross as is all the other stuff the guy has bought. It reminds me of a story my sister told me: she's a prosecutor and a child molestation case came in. The cops seized hundreds of videotapes from the creep's house. There was a lot of hardcore porn but also tapes where the guy just channel surfed but stopped and taped whenever there were children on the screen. Sick and creepy.

P.S. Tangent: She had a different case where a bunch of tapes were also seized. In that set, there were two tapes entitled "Blow Your Own Horn" and "Blow Your Own Horn 2" which featured men fellating themselves.

Jackmannii
07-18-2002, 08:31 PM
Originally posted by Elenfair
Holy crap.

Yeah, have a look at what the auction winner has bought in the past.

*shudder*

Ew. Ew ew ew ew ew.
C'mon, he's "A MOST CONSCIENTOUS CUSTOMER" and known for his "smooth as silk" transactions.

wring
07-18-2002, 08:37 PM
What concerns me more are the 'private auctions' where this bidder bought a bunch of stuff from some one else. I checked out that sellers other auctions, and they sold pictures - of child stars. lots of them. recent and older. Now, it's entirely possible that the 'private auctions' by that seller are for items totally unrelated to pictures of children. but.....

Revtim
07-18-2002, 08:39 PM
Ok, I'll bite. How does one see what other things the perv bought?

Guinastasia
07-18-2002, 08:45 PM
Copy and paste his name into a search for "bidder", including closed auctions. It then does a list of things the guy bid on, etc.

wring
07-18-2002, 08:46 PM
You do a search on him as a bidder. You may have to be registered w/ebay in order to do this, tho.

alternatively (and this is how I discovered the "private auction" thing, you can click on his rating number (beside his user name) and it'll give you his feedback page, then click on the individual items.

dreamer
07-18-2002, 08:51 PM
:rolleyes: That is just wrong.

butter pie
07-18-2002, 08:51 PM
I'm sorry, that picture is not real. The seller may have an actual item like that they are going to ship, but the picture in the auction is very badly Photoshopped, and the face looks pasted on the body as well. The proportions don't look right to me... it seems to be a boy's head pasted onto a man's body. (Possibly the seller digitally made this so that he himself couldn't be accused of making kiddie pr0n? Just a theory.)

Rysdad
07-18-2002, 08:51 PM
No. Oh, no. I didn't see that. Nope.

butter pie
07-18-2002, 08:57 PM
Actually, now that I look at it more closely, the face actually looks like a younger woman. You can see the smudging on the chest on the left hand side of the picture and inside the O-ring; the skintone is flat and doesn't match the rest of the body. The blobs around the shoulders where the straps are might have been where the original photograph had hair or something that was edited out. It's easy to fudge backgrounds and stuff, but skin is really hard to fake.

And the clothes look entirely phony to me, esp. how they've been intentionally blurred in several places.

Revtim
07-18-2002, 08:58 PM
Thanks, sort of. It looks like Michael Jackson's bidding history.

JohnBckWLD
07-18-2002, 09:35 PM
A few people commented on other purchases made by the winning bidder.

Did anyone Copy & Paste the list and e-mail to the authorities (FBI or whatever)?

If no one answers yes I'm doing it.

Maybe, just maybe, it could prevent a crime against some unsuspecting pre-teen. I mean Christ, look what just happened to Samantha Runnion.

Revtim
07-18-2002, 09:42 PM
Since it's not against the law to bid on pics of clothed children, I don't know what the FBI could do.

Guinastasia
07-18-2002, 09:42 PM
Ugh.

I don't care even if it is photoshopped. It's nasty.

Jeep's Phoenix
07-18-2002, 09:50 PM
Here (http://baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-md.priest17jul17.story?coll=bal%2Dpe%2Dmaryland) is a very interesting article about a similar case--a Maryland priest who purchased anatomically correct dolls, photos of altar boys, etc. on ebay and was arrested after a seller became suspicious, tracked down his location, and notified the police.

Jack Batty
07-18-2002, 09:57 PM
And you know ... my little niece and nephew learned the YMCA dance in kindergarten.

What I'm wondering is whether or not they make the Indain Chief, Construction Worker, Cowboy, Sailor and Cop dance outfits too.

butter pie
07-18-2002, 10:19 PM
I forget, which YMCA was the bondage and S&M one?

CnoteChris
07-18-2002, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by jinwicked
I'm sorry, that picture is not real. The seller may have an actual item like that they are going to ship, but the picture in the auction is very badly Photoshopped....

I thought the same thing too (So did someone earlier).

It's probably one of two things: Either the seller is worried that the authorities could have something on him (Or her? Doubt it), or the guy doesn't have access to a real kid.

Again, sick, wrong, and most definetely, vile.

As much as I hate the big brother bullshit, I wouldn't half mind the authorities checking these jokers out (The way I see it, if you're desperate and careless enough to flaunt it, you're asking for it *From a personal rights point of view).

yosemite
07-19-2002, 03:06 AM
I'm also chiming in to say that the photo screams bad Photoshop retouching. It's the arm on the left (our left) at the shoulder that really tells it. And all of it, really. A bad job. (I used to work as a photo retoucher.)

And yeah, creepy. Blech. I'd hate to think what he's doing with all these perfectly innocuous pictures of little kids.

jmpride62
07-19-2002, 05:11 AM
OMG, that is so creepy. :eek:

VDarlin
07-19-2002, 05:23 AM
Please excuse me while I go sterilize my eyeballs now. The original auction is more than enough to make me want to beat the designer of such attire senseless, but then, after going through the buyer's previous wins....uh......I just....well, I think I'd be best off going in for hypnosis, in order to forget the fact that I am even aware of him, or his auction activities.

That's some seriously fucked up shit right there. Sick.

~V

Jack Batty
07-19-2002, 06:42 AM
Originally posted by jinwicked
I forget, which YMCA was the bondage and S&M one?
I don't think I get the question.

I was referring to a popular singing group from the 70's called The Village People who sang a song called YMCA, which came complete with a dance.

Ugh. I can't believe I'm so old I have to explain Village People references.

Revtim
07-19-2002, 08:20 AM
I suspect he meant which member of the group YMCA was the bondage and S&M one. My guess is the leather dude.

zweisamkeit
07-19-2002, 08:53 AM
Yes, but the group is The Village People, not YMCA. That's the point Jack Batty was trying to make.

cornflakes
07-19-2002, 09:03 AM
Mods, is there any way one of you could subtract one from this thread's view count? I'd like to erase this from my memory and say I never saw it.

...Assuming that the authorities have already been informed.

papergirl
07-19-2002, 09:04 AM
Here's what sets my Ick Flags a'waving.
~I've shopped for a LOT of kid's clothes on ebay, and I've never, ever run across a photo of a child (or a photoshopped version of one) modeling the clothes. Moms & Dads don't DO that sorta thing, for the most part...because we are all too aware of the pervs out there just searching for pictures of our babies to slobber over.
~The title of the auction: Not "Boy's Dance Costume - River Dance Style!" or "Custom-Made Boy's Dance Outfit." No, we have HOT BOY right there in the title. Ick Ick ICK.
~And the nasty photo itself, of course. Photoshopped or not (sure lookes like it to me, too), it's just seems geared toward a certain type of shopper, if you get my drift.
Overall, "Eeeeew" factor of 10+.
~karol

Revtim
07-19-2002, 09:07 AM
Originally posted by zweisamkeit
Yes, but the group is The Village People, not YMCA. That's the point Jack Batty was trying to make.

DO'H!!! Not only did I know that, but Jack Batty's post made it clear. I hang my head in shame.

RickJay
07-19-2002, 09:07 AM
I wish I could live in the world of science fiction movies, because then I could

1. Have my eyeballs removed and replaced with new eyeballs, as the old ones are permanently ruined by seeing that picture (a la Minority Report)

2. Get my brain neuralized so I never have to think about this again (a la Men In Black.)

tiny ham
07-19-2002, 09:19 AM
another gross gross quote from the description:

"great to show off your boy's muscles"

j

butter pie
07-19-2002, 09:46 AM
Yeah, I meant YMCA guy, but the word guy got left out. What can I say, I've been a walking zombie the last two weeks.

And Revtim, I'm not a he... ;)

CnoteChris
07-19-2002, 09:52 AM
Originally posted by Jeep's Phoenix
Holy shit.

Look at the buyer's other purchases.

You want to go for really disgusting, check out the other bidders to that auction, and what it is they won before (If you don't wanna travel down that sicko road, here it is- used boys underwear, lots of it). Makes the pictures of Boy Scouts kind of tame in comparison.

Someone should really be reporting these fucks.

bernse
07-19-2002, 10:03 AM
The photo is obviously faked, but probably just because the seller didn't want to model their own child in it (at least that is what I am telling myself).

It's a free country and all, but man, that winner just creeps me out. :shudder:

August West
07-19-2002, 10:24 AM
It's not often that anything causes me to actually, physically, shudder. But looking at those past buying histories did it. I need to wash out my brain.

Happy Lendervedder
07-19-2002, 11:12 AM
Let's just hope he's a Boy Scout leader compiling a history of the Scouts.

On second thought, considering what he just bought, I hope he is already in maximum security prison with no chance for parole.

The dude is definitely a little warped, and I don't think it would be a bad idea to at least alert ebay of this guy's purchase history. Let them look into it. If this guy ever gets charged with anything related to pedophelia, ebay may ultimately be brought into the fray, and I'm sure they wouldn't want that kind of press. It would be in their best interest to investigate.



Happy

Guinastasia
07-19-2002, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by bodypoet
Here's what sets my Ick Flags a'waving.
~I've shopped for a LOT of kid's clothes on ebay, and I've never, ever run across a photo of a child (or a photoshopped version of one) modeling the clothes. Moms & Dads don't DO that sorta thing, for the most part...because we are all too aware of the pervs out there just searching for pictures of our babies to slobber over.
~The title of the auction: Not "Boy's Dance Costume - River Dance Style!" or "Custom-Made Boy's Dance Outfit." No, we have HOT BOY right there in the title. Ick Ick ICK.
~And the nasty photo itself, of course. Photoshopped or not (sure lookes like it to me, too), it's just seems geared toward a certain type of shopper, if you get my drift.
Overall, "Eeeeew" factor of 10+.
~karol

Well, I've seen child models-a friend of mine makes Titanic and other period costumes-a lot for children, and she has pictures of her daughters in the outfits she made for them on her site. Of course, there's a difference between a girl wearing a pretty dress and a boy wearing leather and straps.

papergirl
07-19-2002, 08:54 PM
Originally posted by Guinastasia
Well, I've seen child models-a friend of mine makes Titanic and other period costumes-a lot for children, and she has pictures of her daughters in the outfits she made for them on her site. Of course, there's a difference between a girl wearing a pretty dress and a boy wearing leather and straps.

I agree...VERY big difference. I think it's very common on individual websites, but I just haven't run across it a lot on ebay. Of course, it's easy enough to search the web, but somehow ebay seems much more public to me. That's an artificial sense of security on my part, I'm sure. (Unfortunately.)
Still, I bet she doesn't use keywords like "HOT!" in her descriptions....
~k

Billy-Bob Fina
07-20-2002, 03:03 AM
Is it more disgusting then
this (http://weirdclipart.com/images/headupass.gif) ?

yosemite
07-20-2002, 04:13 AM
Did you notice that the seller not only listed this "costume" under the Costume category, but he also listed it under boy's underwear? Why would any NORMAL person who is selling a costume also list it under Boy's Underwear? No NORMAL buyer is going to be looking for costumes in the underwear category, are they? I think this seller knows that a "certain" kind of buyer is always hunting the boy's underwear category, and he didn't want his HOT BOY auction to go unnoticed by these "certain" kinds of buyers.

This is just beyond sick. And look: The seller sold another one of these HOT BOY costumes in May, using the exact description. (Check it out here: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=874222392 .) Why is he selling two of the same "used" costume? I would assume that the buyer in May didn't return the costume for a refund, since they gave good feedback. And, now that I look at the other auctions for the winning bidder of the May auction....hmmmmm.

This just gets sicker and sicker all the time.

Esprix
07-20-2002, 04:24 AM
Agreed, yosemite. The person putting it up was hardly some little boy's parent - he was a pedophila porn pusher, and knew exactly what he was doing and how to word the ad so they would flock to his auction.

Esprix

Esprix
07-20-2002, 04:31 AM
Agreed, yosemite. The person putting it up was hardly some little boy's parent - he was a pedophila porn pusher, and knew exactly what he was doing and how to word the ad so they would flock to his auction.

Esprix

nightshadea
07-20-2002, 05:45 AM
I'd like to know what kind of dance contest would let a kid wear this....

Was it meant to be worn under what ever clothes they were wearing ?


I dont see the benefit of wearing it o begin with

Tir Tinuviel
07-20-2002, 08:38 AM
Originally posted by CnoteChris
Then do a search for “Chippendiddies”.

In my opinion, there’s a hell of a lot more going on here than meets the eye. And what it is makes me ill. Sick, sick, shit.

From the site turned up by google using that spelling...


Title: Cujo

Boy Star(s): Danny Pintario (Tad)

Age: 6

Comments: Danny's first movie and his cutest. The heart begins to race faster as the movie goes along leading up to the end where the almost nude Danny is sweaty and hot. A must see for all of his fans from TV. VCR Freeze Frame Moment: At the end of the movie as little Danny's oh so adorable nearly nude body is lying in the car you don't want to miss that shot!


I honestly don't know what to say, it defies description.
I would love to read some of the hate mail that "Sensitive Stephen" gets.

Guinastasia
07-20-2002, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by nightshadea
I'd like to know what kind of dance contest would let a kid wear this....

Was it meant to be worn under what ever clothes they were wearing ?


I dont see the benefit of wearing it o begin with

Probably the same people who dress little girls up in skimpy costumes and Tammy Faye Baker style make up and push them onto stages in so-called "beauty pageants".

Jon Benet, anyone?

yosemite
07-20-2002, 01:50 PM
Tir: when I looked up Chippendiddies on Google, I found something disturbing—I don't know if it is the same page you found. I haven't delved into it other than the first page. It defies description. It discusses perfectly respectable movies and actors, and sullies and slimes them in a warped and perverted way.

Regarding 11 year old Elijah Wood in "Huck Finn":

Elijah and his glowing blue eyes are a joy to watch. His shirt is in various stages of openness, at times so tantalizingly close to revealing his entire chest.

OH MY GOSH.

And another description of another child star in a film:Danny's second movie and he's just as cute as in Cujo, you just dont get to see as much of his cute little bod is all. There are a lot of people I'm sure who would have liked to have been in charge of little Danny and this band of orphans who run away.


Need I say more? This is pure evil.

yosemite
07-20-2002, 01:54 PM
Yep—I was being redundant, Tir. You quoted from the same page. (I can be dense.) That page just gets ickier and ickier, doesn't it?

xyzzy
07-20-2002, 02:00 PM
This thread is disturbing.

I wish I had never opened it.

I also wish I hadn't done a Google lookup on "Chippendiddies".

Only one entry, but gaaaaag...

I need to go rest now.

Tir Tinuviel
07-20-2002, 02:31 PM
Yosemitebabe I don't think "icky" is quite how I would describe it, but yep, thats the same site.

Sorry Xyzzy, I probably should have let that one lie, and not drawn more attention to it.
Please, please, please lets hope that this oh so "sensitive" guy is only looking. God, anything else is too horrible to think about.

Tir Tinuviel
07-20-2002, 02:33 PM
By the way Xyzzy, your name ROCKS! :D

yosemite
07-20-2002, 02:39 PM
Tir: yes, I guess "icky" is far too mild. Icky is a word that could be used for snail slime, or a rotten potato you find in your fridge. This is something quite different altogether. Quite worse, and beyond description.

I wonder if the web host of this particular site is aware of what this site is about. I know that all the web hosting companies I use would not allow such a site to be hosted by them. But I guess some people have no scruples.

JohnBckWLD
07-22-2002, 09:15 AM
Originally posted by yosemitebabe
This just gets sicker and sicker all the time.
Like this crap, passed off as erotic stories on self pics.org (http://selfpics.org/nifty/gay/adult-youth/index.html).
Why this shit is legal, I have no idea.

MachV
07-22-2002, 09:44 AM
ooh, they promise it won't stain. Lucky bidder, indeed.

Zappo
07-22-2002, 09:57 AM
EWWW EWWW EWWWW EWWWW ICKICKICKICK!

::goes off in search of bleach, strong acid and a wire brush to clean his brain and eyes::

Francesca
07-22-2002, 10:51 AM
Jesus. Use the spelling "Chippendiddys" on Google and you get several pages of disturbing results. Eeesh. Nasty.

RickJay
07-22-2002, 10:55 AM
This thread was bad the first time I opened it.

And now it's a whole lot worse.

Excuse me but I need to go to the Home Depot to buy a saw and a power washer, because I'm going to saw off the top of my skull and power-spray my brain to get this sick, sick shit out of my memory forever.

Allen Parine
07-23-2002, 10:21 AM
The outfit is undeniably tasteless. I agree with the general sentiment that the buyer is a freak, and I agree with Esprix that the seller designed the auction to specifically attract the freaks. That out of the way...
As much as I hate the big brother bullshit, I wouldn't half mind the authorities checking these jokers out (The way I see it, if you're desperate and careless enough to flaunt it, you're asking for it *From a personal rights point of view).
Or in other words, you don't hate the "big brother bullshit," provided its used against people who disgust you. They're asking for it, yeah, just like women who "flaunt it" are asking to be raped. :rolleyes:
Someone should really be reporting these fucks.
For grossing you out?
On second thought, considering what he just bought, I hope he is already in maximum security prison with no chance for parole.
Riiight, since we have no evidence whatsoever that he's harmed anyone or taken steps to harm anyone.
Did anyone Copy & Paste the list and e-mail to the authorities (FBI or whatever)?
If no one answers yes I'm doing it.
Assuming it was followed up on, this post is the worst of the bunch. JohnBckWLD has crossed the line between fantasy and reality, something our eBay buyer has not done, to our knowledge. It's one thing to be sickened; it's quite another to actually hurt someone. The most bizarre sexual fantasies are not on the same page, morally speaking, as even the most innocuous of actions, and reporting someone to the feds is far from innocuous. :mad:

Am I defending perversion? Damn right! I don't care if you're titillated by thoughts of puppies, toddlers, and Osama bin Laden all doing things that would make the Marquis de Sade blush. Since the alternative to allowing such fantasies is crimethink, cound me in with the hentai. If I had to choose, I'd rather live in Sodom than Oceania.

CnoteChris
07-23-2002, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by Allen Parine
Or in other words, you don't hate the "big brother bullshit," provided its used against people who disgust you. They're asking for it, yeah, just like women who "flaunt it" are asking to be raped.
I don't know what the fuck your "asking to be raped" comment is all about, but it sickens me how you'd try to use that as an comparison- the two aren't even close.

As much as I dislike the idea of big brother looking over one's shoulder, I'm not against the notion of people like this, who in my opinion are flaunting their near illegal activities, being checked out by the authorities.

Just because I'm against big brother tactics by our government doesn't mean I'm against good law enforcement when it's needed. The two don't necessarily have to contradict each other.

So, yeah, I'm all for this guy being looked at, especially when he posts his fucking shit for all to see. Quite honestly, I don't see where this guy should expect that his actions don't get checked out- he's a fucking sicko who's advertising it to the world.

*On a personal note, how you can defend this guy, and people like him, is beyond me. As much as I support his freedom to do what ever it is that he wants, and be left alone in doing it, the second he crosses the line from law abiding citizen, to sicko fuck-up, I'd want to be the first in line to throw the fucking book at him.

wring
07-23-2002, 11:49 AM
there's a big fucking difference between 'big brother/thought police' and reporting suspicious open to the public behavior.

Ebay is a public auction site. The information that led some folks here to suspect that the seller is catering to child molesters and that the buyer is interested in such products, is public info.

Since, however, ebay is also a large site, it cannot check out each posting individually. However, when people notify ebay of potential problems, they take action.

matt_mcl
07-23-2002, 11:56 AM
how you can defend this guy, and people like him, is beyond me. As much as I support his freedom to do what ever it is that he wants, and be left alone in doing it, the second he crosses the line from law abiding citizen, to sicko fuck-up, I'd want to be the first in line to throw the fucking book at him.

Well, when that happens, I'm sure you'll let us know, since you seem to be so clearly aware of it.

CnoteChris
07-23-2002, 12:03 PM
Go fuck yourself matt.

Revtim
07-23-2002, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by jinwicked And Revtim, I'm not a he... ;) Sorry! I still have the archaic habit of assuming anyone on the internet is male unless it's somehow obvious otherwise. Clearly, I should have shed that habit years ago.

UrbanChic
07-23-2002, 01:28 PM
Cnote, I don't want to get into semantics here, but I fail to see how one can't be a law-abiding citizen and a 'sicko fuck-up' at the same time.

Are you saying if some has a predilection for young boys and gets his jollies, so to speak, by collecting non-pornographic pictures and costume of and for young boys, he should be locked up?

I'll step up and say I'll defend you as long as you don't cross the line (the line being owning child pornography, touching young boys, luring young boys into thinking sexual situations with adults is OK, etc.) Who am I to say someone's wrong for being sexually aroused by that which is taboo? I subscribe to the school of thought that one can't help to what one is attracted but one sure as hell can help not acting illegally on those attractions.

astro
07-23-2002, 02:46 PM
How odd. Boy lovers and and those who cater to their tastes have stealthily carved out a little home at Ebay with public and private auctions selling non-porn kiddy pics and used clothing.

Is it better for these people to indulge their tastes online or does interaction with like minded deviants encourage them to venture forth into real molestation? I don't know. What they are doing is (so far) entirely legal and I will guarantee you that if someone is willing to pay $ 10.00 for a pair of unwashed, used boys underwear, there will be a line of people around the block ready to sell it. The adolescent girls in provocative poses, web sites fall into the same category and those webmaster/parents are being prosecuted.

CnoteChris
07-23-2002, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by JuanitaTech
Cnote, I don't want to get into semantics here, but I fail to see how one can't be a law-abiding citizen and a 'sicko fuck-up' at the same time.
Did I say otherwise somewhere?

I said the guy should be checked out based on his behavior, not arrested. If it turns out this is on the up and up, and isn't up to anything illegal, than he's as free to walk around as the next guy (As abhorrent as I may personally find it to be standing next to him).

There's no call for dismissing his civil liberties on my end, especially when he's done nothing to protect them, it's simply saying I wouldn't mind if he were checked out, because I don't think it's a stretch to believe this guy is up to much worse.

Originally posted by JuanitaTech
Are you saying if some has a predilection for young boys and gets his jollies, so to speak, by collecting non-pornographic pictures and costume of and for young boys, he should be locked up?
Nope, and again, I didn't say that. What I said, and still believe, is that the authorities should be notified of this guy, or at the very least, e-bay.

I don't know about these people, understand them, or really even give a shit about them- I think their scum.

But do I think he, and others like him, should be locked up for having evil and sick thoughts about children? No. But again, I don't think it'd be a stretch to believe that this guy has crossed the line at some point in the past, if not been over that line completely.

If that’s the case, then nail the pervert.

And, if it’s found because the guy's foolish enough to broadcast his sicko fantasies to the world, than I'm not going to lose sleep over that fact- it's his own fucking fault.

Quite frankly, my emotions in this instance far outweigh what I personally believe is best and right for this country- that liberties need to be protected at all costs.

If reporting him to the authorities or e-bay is somehow violating his rights, one way or the other, than so be it, I won't lose any sleep over it. Let someone else, who isn't as emotionally driven by this issue as I apparently am, get involved and protect him and his rights. In a way, I'd agree with what was decided, either way. But personally, deep down, I feel people like him should rot- it's abhorrent.

I guess I've found my personal breaking point when it comes to rights, the point at which I really don't care if they're protected or not (In a way, I don't see where checking him out violates any of his rights anyway's). It doesn't mean my beliefs are tossed out the window, it simply means I can't find the inner strength and fortitude to defend his rights as much as I might a different case, or different situation,.

Orignally posted by JuanitaTech
Who am I to say someone's wrong for being sexually aroused by that which is taboo?

I don’t know about you, but I have no problem thinkin

CnoteChris
07-23-2002, 03:25 PM
What the hell? That wasn't supposed to post.

Oh well.

The final line, since I'm back, said this-
Orignally posted by JuanitaTech
Who am I to say someone's wrong for being sexually aroused by that which is taboo?

I don’t know about you, but I have no problem thinking, and saying, that not only do I think it’s wrong, I think it’s sicker than shit.

UrbanChic
07-23-2002, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by CnoteChris
I don’t know about you, but I have no problem thinkin
I have no problem thinking, either. It just seems, by the tone of your post and to me, at least, that you think people who have a predilection for something you find offensive should be treated differently.

If that's not your message and you don't feel that way, then don't mind my post.

Skywatcher
07-23-2002, 03:49 PM
Juanita, I'm curious as to where you stand on keeping tabs on people of Arabic origin, any one of whom might have some connection to Al-Qaeda.

Mojo
07-23-2002, 03:54 PM
I started off thinking the link in the OP was funny, kinda like Skirtman.org or that Peter Pan guy's site. After seeing some of the other related auctions and links, I think I'm going to turn off the computer for the day and go outside for some fresh air, exercise, and perspective.

And I agree with CnoteChris- this guy's behavior is disturbing and wrong, although not (yet) illegal.

UrbanChic
07-23-2002, 03:59 PM
Jeff, when we start keeping tabs on white Americans, any one of whom might have some connection to extremist anti-government movements a la Timothy McVeigh, I'll rethink my stance on keeping tabs on people of Arabic origin.

Cnote, I will not nor cannot say that someone's sexual turn-ons are wrong. I guess we'll just agree to disagree on that point.

Revtim
07-23-2002, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by CnoteChris
There's no call for dismissing his civil liberties on my end, especially when he's done nothing to protect them, it's simply saying I wouldn't mind if he were checked out, because I don't think it's a stretch to believe this guy is up to much worse. Here's a question for someone with more legal knowledge than I: Isn't investigating someone when no one has reported a crime a violation of civil liberties?

wring
07-23-2002, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by Revtim
Here's a question for someone with more legal knowledge than I: Isn't investigating someone when no one has reported a crime a violation of civil liberties?

Not that I can see.

Happens quite frequently as a matte of fact - tip lines about dope houses for example. Same for suspected child abuse cases.

Revtim
07-23-2002, 05:25 PM
Wouldn't someone calling a tip line be essentially reporting a crime?

JohnBckWLD
07-23-2002, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by Allen Parine

The outfit is undeniably tasteless. I agree with the general sentiment that the buyer is a freak...Assuming it was followed up on, this post is the worst of the bunch. JohnBckWLD has crossed the line between fantasy and reality, something our eBay buyer has not done, to our knowledge.Am I defending perversion? Damn right! I don't care if you're titillated by thoughts of puppies, toddlers, and Osama bin Laden all doing things that would make the Marquis de Sade blush. Since the alternative to allowing such fantasies is crimethink, cound me in with the hentai...
I'm not going to preach and I'll try not to use a patronizing tone.
I did, as promised, follow up and e-mail the information to Authorities (the FBI to be more specific).
Why? Not because I believe we have too much freedom in this country; quite the contrary. Not because I'm a right wing evangelical denouncing the slouching toward Gomorrah; I really don't have a problem with what individual adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms. Not because I've waited all these years for Orwell's 1984 prophecies to come true; I hate Big Brother tactics as much as most libertarians. (Shit, I pay $400 a year to those computerized, caught on film traffic infraction letters sent in the mail from NYC TVB).I did it for one reason and one reason only;
There are sick fucks like Mr Underoo Fetish in too many neighborhoods around this country. There are some, like the Runnion girl's killer, who act out those fantasies. If I have info that could possibly prevent a violent crime against a child from occuring and didn't kept quiet because of my pro-privacy / anti-gov't philosophy, I don't think I could live with myself.

Ok, now for the non-patronizing part:.
When I was 26 I was as idealistic as you were...maybe even more so. It's very laudable to have convictions and principles that you both stick to and fight for. However, in the 8+ years since then, I've become more weathered & more calloused; not less passionate, just more matter-of-fact.
I used to believe it was better to let 1,000 guilty men go free than to wrongfully imprison 1 man. But when I had my own kids and replaced the word guilty men with child molesters, I could no longer rationalize that principle.

Let's say the FBI follows up on my dime drop.

What's the worse that could happen?
If all Mr. Sicko does is jerk off on it while watching Barney who cares? There's no law against that. If 2 guys in suits and glasses come knocking on his door and he's not commiting a crime, they're going to ask him a few routine questions and leave.

On the other hand:
If this perv prays at the altar of John Gacy, watches kiddie porn & has 2 dozen rotting bodies buried in his basement, they're gonna nail him. I'll breathe a sigh of relief knowing there's one less freak out there preying on innocent children...one less family that's going to be destroyed.

Thanks to CnoteChris and wring for helping to point out the differences.

wring
07-23-2002, 05:35 PM
Not necessarily. If I'm calling to say that my house was broken into, that is a crime. If I'm calling to say that I suspect my neighbor is abusing their child, an investigation happens, and if that suspicion is substantiated, that crime is then reported, but until it's substantiated, there's not a 'crime report'. and, no, their civil liberties are not necessarily violated. (I'm not certain how much cooperation one must give to the police under those circumstances).

Calling to report suspicious activity at my neighbor's home, too, no crime's reported.

REmember recently a person wrote to "Dear Abby" saying he had 'thoughts' about his g/f's daughters and wanted help, she reported him, an investigation ensued and he was arrested for possession of child porn. Again, I'm not certain how much cooperation one is obligated to give to the police in those circumstances, but an investigation certainly resulted from some one calling in a suspicion. Not a crime, a suspicion of 'something not right'.

butter pie
07-24-2002, 07:16 AM
I'd hate to be the one that found out later in life my mom was selling my dirty underwear to perverts over the internet when I was a kid.

Skywatcher
07-24-2002, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by JuanitaTech
Jeff, when we start keeping tabs on white Americans, any one of whom might have some connection to extremist anti-government movements a la Timothy McVeigh, I'll rethink my stance on keeping tabs on people of Arabic origin.That looks like a non-answer. I would assume that, because you're against checking on people who may or may not be a danger to children, you're also against checking on people who may or may not be a danger to the American population as a whole.

UrbanChic
07-24-2002, 10:11 AM
Jeff, how do you feel about keeping tabs on white Americans, any one of whom might have some connection to extremist anti-government movements a la Timothy McVeigh and his ilk?

At first I thought you were kidding about keeping tabs on all Arabs because they may have connections to extremist Muslim groups. I'm appalled they you may be serious. It's already been proven that a white person can be a member of Al-Queda, so why not keep tabs on them, too?

Revtim
07-24-2002, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by jinwicked
I'd hate to be the one that found out later in life my mom was selling my dirty underwear to perverts over the internet when I was a kid.

Even if you got a cut of the profits? (kidding)

Reminds me of the Japanese used underwear vending machines (http://snopes.com/sex/kinky/panties.htm).

Skywatcher
07-24-2002, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by JuanitaTech
Jeff, how do you feel about keeping tabs on white Americans, any one of whom might have some connection to extremist anti-government movements a la Timothy McVeigh and his ilk?

At first I thought you were kidding about keeping tabs on all Arabs because they may have connections to extremist Muslim groups. I'm appalled they you may be serious. It's already been proven that a white person can be a member of Al-Queda, so why not keep tabs on them, too? I wasn't trying to start a debate, if I was I would have posted in GD instead of here. I was testing a theory that you could be defending the rights of anyone who could pose a threat against children but not for potential terrorists, a valid theory given the fact that you're still providing non-answers. I used Arabs in my test because, to my knowledge, very few non-Arabic people have shown involvement with extremist Muslim groups.

'Tis a fine line we've travelled these past 10 months. We're a nation based on freedom; there's a clear need for tighter security regarding potential threats but we still need to maintain our freedom. As long as there is evidence of an unquenstionable threat then law enforcement personnel should remove the threat.

Skywatcher
07-24-2002, 02:20 PM
BTW: Juanita, jump to conclusions much?

UrbanChic
07-24-2002, 02:37 PM
This will be my last post hijacking this thread. I do agree that if there is evidence of an unquestionable threat then it should be neutralized immediately.

Read this and understand: I do not support keeping tabs on people solely because they're of Arab descent. Now there'll be no more talk of this non-answer business.

I see you haven't answered my question, either. Frankly, I didn't think you would and I'm not surprised. If you think Muslim extremist groups are the only potential threat to this country, and I'm not saying you do, boy are you wrong. That's like locking your back door at night, leaving your front door ajar and thinking you're safe.

Any more posts along this line of questioning should definitely be taken to Great Debates. I'd be more than happy to meet you there if you decide to start a thread.

Ich Bin's
07-24-2002, 03:26 PM
Quote:

This would also work for a professional quality boy's circus performer costume, (any boylove sto pretend to be a big top star for Ringling Brothers Barnum and Bailey circus, or a trapeze artist! Makes a great Lion Tamer costume too - has the same type of bare chest harness like Gunther Gabel Williams), and of course great for a "macho" masculine looking boys pageant outfit to really show off their muscles!



Did anyone else notice the convenient ommision of a space between two words in one line of this?
I've been staring at this too long.

Skywatcher
07-24-2002, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by JuanitaTech
Read this and understand: I do not support keeping tabs on people solely because they're of Arab descent. Now there'll be no more talk of this non-answer business.Thank you. This mess could have been avoided if you had just given a straight answer in the first place.If you think Muslim extremist groups are the only potential threat to this country, and I'm not saying you do, boy are you wrong. No, I do not and it would be very thick headed of me if I did. I hesitated to post this earlier because this really isn't the place for it: the FBI is already keeping tabs on everyone via random checks of public libraries to see what books people have checked out. The Homeland Security bill reinstated this ability after some 25 years without it.

Bad News Baboon
07-24-2002, 04:10 PM
apparently he has a stock of these (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=945729517)
:mad:

jab1
07-25-2002, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by Jeff Olsen
the FBI is already keeping tabs on everyone via random checks of public libraries to see what books people have checked out. The Homeland Security bill reinstated this ability after some 25 years without it. I guess I better not check out The Anarchist Cookbook as I was planning to do....

;)

That was a joke; I have no intention of checking out that book. But it IS available at the Los Angeles Public Library. http://catalog2.lapl.org/cgi-bin/cw_cgi?resultsScreen+27225+1+10+1 :eek:

Skywatcher
07-25-2002, 03:12 PM
I'm still wondering how a simple question was construed that I was advocating racial profiling.

Bob Scene
07-25-2002, 09:16 PM
I would just like to repeat for emphasis something that has already been pointed out in this thread, but that made a particularly strong impression on me:

OH MY FUCKING GOD! IT'S "USED!"

Guinastasia
07-25-2002, 09:51 PM
You also have to wonder at what kind of companies make this sort of thing?

Wait-probably Aberzombie and Bitch-aren't they the ones who did the thongs for ten year old girls?

yosemite
07-26-2002, 03:03 AM
I am shocked. I looked up the domain information (WHOIS) on that web site that has the lecherous "reviews" of the cute little boys in film. The web host who hosts the site is quite large, and, dare I say, generally considered "reputable". I almost signed up with them once myself.

Pretty shocking that such a slimy and revolting site can find its way onto a mainstream web host. Maybe someone needs to drop that host an email.

Rilchiam
07-27-2002, 07:21 AM
Originally posted by Bob Scene
I would just like to repeat for emphasis something that has already been pointed out in this thread, but that made a particularly strong impression on me:

OH MY FUCKING GOD! IT'S "USED!"

Well, if it really exists for the purpose stated in the product description, then it was used for non-sexual purposes. The seller claims that it was worn in competitons.

People were saying, earlier on, that the photo had to be fake because no one would want their kid to wear this...thing...and pose for a photo wearing it. Except that if this mythical kid performed in it, then he was already seen in it, and perhaps even had photos taken at the competition.

I'm willing to believe that the picture is a Photoshop fake. I'll take others' word for it because I can't bring myself to scrutinize the photo myself. I did, however, look at it long enough to realize that the one of the selling points is ridiculous. "Show off his muscles?" A pre-pubescent boy does not have muscles! Whoever or whatever is in that photo looks like he/it is made out of Tinkertoys! There is nothing to show off there!

So, if the photo is fake, the seller is a perv, pandering to other pervs. If it's real, then one young man is going to need years of therapy.

:::flesh crawling:::

Synnove
07-27-2002, 07:54 AM
Even if it is a real photo, after looking at the buying history of the guy who purchased it, as well as having read the text of the auction (Ich Bin, on the previous page, did a great job at picking up on the 'boylove sto' "typo" - sorry, it's not concrete proof but there's no way that's a freakin' typographical coincidence), the person who posted it is probably still pandering to pervs and the person who purchased it probably purchased it for that very reason.

*twitch*

A psychologist friend of mine who works with troubled teens currently but has done extensive work in the drug addiction and sexual deviancy fields, once posted to a thread about a paedophilia book having been banned in Canada, saying that the reason it was acceptable to ban a book like that is because those who act on paedophilia do so because they are incapable of keeping their fantasies to themselves, and any sort of media that can fuel those fantasies is quite capable of pushing them to a point where the mere fantasies themselves are not "enough" any more, and they feel the need to act upon them, and they do. I can't personally verify this as I have no particular expertise in psychology and especially not in the workings of a paedophile's mind, but if this is true, and I have no reason to doubt this person's knowledge or words, then I think there is ample reason for this particular auction and this particular buyer's purchase history to indicate a true reasonable threat.

Again I just can't imagine that "boylove sto" is an innocent typographical error, not with all the history behind the buyer's purchases. And even if it is a typo on the seller's part, the buyer's history seems to indicate that perhaps the buyer was unaware it was a mere typo, and was searching for something less than innocent.

Throw in the obvious photoshopping of the photo, though (and at first I, too, thought it was hopefully because the seller realised it would be tacky to the extreme to actually have the outfit modelled on a child for all the world to see), and the seriously creepy description of the item, and I think it's far more likely that some sick people have found a fairly under-the-radar way of trading their fantasy material. And I'm personally glad that JohnBckWLD sent something to the authorities about it - if this information isn't enough "evidence" (circumstantial though it may be) to prompt an investigation by people whose job it is to enforce the law, then they'll do nothing with it - the same as they do nothing with any other sort of uninformative or unhelpful "tip" they may receive - and if it is enough to legally mandate an investigation, then that would seem to indicate that there is some legal precedence for this buyer's behaviour being indicative of a real threat, and that's something that needs to be looked into. If my psychologist friend is right, then I think the potential threat is clear.

catsix
07-27-2002, 02:19 PM
Said by Ich Bin's
Did anyone else notice the convenient ommision of a space between two words in one line of this?
I've been staring at this too long.


When I read it it, it said:

Pasted from e-bay site
This would also work for a professional quality boy's circus performer costume, (any boy would love to pretend to be a big top star for Ringling Brothers Barnum and Bailey circus, or a trapeze artist! Makes a great Lion Tamer costume too - has the same type of bare chest harness like Gunther Gabel Williams),

I don't see 'boylove' there.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: [email protected]

Send comments about this website to:

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

Best Topics: cracked guitar neck female sir well xtrol is korean tonal doo dah man tit men lumenlab projector battery drained ambidextrous safety pistols dr girlfriend boobpedia eva notty liquor id ma saudi arabia headwear dumpster dumping cheap cars that look like lamborghinis my house smells like gasoline sanding between coats of polyurethane prickly sow thistle rash meaning of suffragette city chrysler pt cruiser reliability superman flying around earth tactical victory vs strategic victory what are broncos fans chanting best army jobs for civilian life ground glass in food do black belts have to register