HIS life. HIS future. HIS innocence. What a pretentious, morbid fuck! He was just about to ruin a childhood and he's worried about only himself... Sickened.
Poor guy, first of all there was NO 13 year old girl to begin with therefore no real crime has taken place. Secondly, these guys aren't specifically looking to screw a child they try their luck in the chat rooms with ANYTHING that may have a vagina. 13 year olds or not, they just wanna have sex and would flaunt the law to do so not to specifically commit paedophilia.
@Kousaburo Oh my GAWD! The ignorance! It's against the LAW to solicit a MINOR for sex online! And it doesn't matter that the person is not actually a MINOR! The fact that the pervert THOUGHT they were talking to a minor is ENOUGH! Because their INTENTION was the problem and they ACTED on it! That's why the cops like it when the pervert follow through with promises like bringing a food item or something. Because it confirms what their INTENT was! SHEESH!
Even for the guys who got off..like the Murphy, Texas sting these videos are out there FOREVER. Where the law leaves off memory and the internet will come back and kick you in the ass over and over and over. Justice my friends.
This guy's full name is JIM, I don't know why I'm here, I am about to go through a divorce, Like I said, This week pushed me over the edge, I'd never do anything, I'm going to get help, I never would have crossed that line, If I can help you, If you hide my identity, Can I talk to you off camera?, That idiot came there the next damn day, I'm not that stupid, I just came to hang out (Won't get specfic on that) I'll say anything to get myself off the hook, RUTHERFORD.
FUck this guy. This guy was going to try and tap this girl I dont give a fuck what he says or how he apoligizes for his behavior. His wife left him cuz he was jackin off on the screen. He is nothing but a dirty pedo
Its not his fault. Society has a campaign to talk mens sperm into any makeup covered whore he finds. This campaign uses young women and old women painted to be young to entice men into thinking they ought to be fucking them. Is it any surprise that the first whore( his subhuman wife) didnt work out and now he wants to drain his balls into a child? I think not. Go arrest the advertisers, its their fault for programming James.
@KiloByte69 haw haw typical liberal. shut the fuck up bitch nigga I cant believe how many fags like you actually think youre cool and smart. and fucking try and talk about politics, something you obviously know nothing about bitch nigga on YOUTUBE. fuck your stupid ass comment, youre a typical faggot how bout that
Yeah listen to the expert. You really pulled out the big guns by with "nigga" this and "faggot" that. What a loser. Go crawl back in your hole dumbfuck.
@KiloByte69 now youre trying to be all dont say fag and nigga. If I say nigga its okay all right? Im not talking about cotton farmers or anything Im just saying motha fucka okay? Stop trying to be all wise and political and whatever fuck these pedofiles and eat my taint
If I had a nickel for every time James Loserford said "I don't know" or "I need help" during this interview, I'd be able to hire Carlos Slim to clean my house.
After he lost his teaching job, I wonder if he lost that cool car? I hope he was able to keep it. I know he did 45 days in prison, so maybe his parents kept up the payments and insurance on it.
Help. Help. Help. Help. That's all this guy is saying. Help. I need help. If I can get help, I'd really be a lot better. Help. Help. I need help. Yeah yeah yeah....
"I know I've just lost everything. My friends, my trust, my job." Yeah, and you admitting this still doesn't make it any better. How does that feel? lol
this guy is the dumbest fuck ever...he talked after he knew he was on camera already...at least some of the other guys had no idea they were on camera...this guy knew he was on already and kept talking and admitting things....true pedo here
A minor cant give consent, or enter into a contract because it's the law. Therefore rather the minors' brain is fully developed, or rather he/she consents 2 sexual acts or not - ITS ILLEGAL! Point Blank, its against the LAW!
I have to agree with eligilicious in the debate here. Doesnt matter if they agree or not it's WRONG.. and its a CRIME! Whys sheepinavacuum even tryin 2 argue about screwing KIDS? Hopefully whoever is behind that moniker is REGISTERED in their neighborhood! Creepy Creeper!
@jimntray11 Do you sheepishly follow all human laws?
Generally speaking, male human sexuality is predatory. Universally speaking, children can be sexually attractive (people find this idea uncomfortable because it is a truth, not because they have some kind of morally superior biochemistry). I wouldn’t attempt to argue that sex between adults and children is healthy, but this is hardly a black and white issue.
What evidence do you have that what I am saying is false. You could have just disagreed, but you took a distinctly oppositional position. There is a wealth of evidence to suggest that (again, generally speaking) male sexuality has aggressive and coercive components. Is this more genetic than societal based? Good question. Maybe you don’t like the word “predatory” in relationship to sexual behavior?
My initial argument has to do with hypocrisy in the human world as related to children and sexuality. Many people (in the U.S. at least) seem to think that physical contact has to be involved in order for a molestation to occur. This site itself allows children to be psychically exposed to legions of unhealthy expression. But because negative effects of such things are extremely difficult to physically measure…who cares?
And how is the manner in which these men are arrested not a form of thought policing? They show up for an encounter and are given a scarlet letter and a cage without having done anything to anyone. This may not be entrapment in a legal sense, but it is enforcement based on a moral presumption. The ‘target’ is a woman, so the imagined girl could be able to consent for all intents and purposes.
Here’s my thing, concerning To Catch a Predator: I find it both exploitative and problematic. Exploitative because it fuels righteous indignation for the sake of ratings. Problematic because it fosters an ideology that is false, i.e., there is something ‘wrong’ with an adult male's attraction to pubescent females. This attraction can and does exist without predatory aspects in the natural and human world. I am not in support of the men on this show, but the truth of our condition as animals.
YouTube’s ridiculous policy bans nudity but not sexual contact. It also allows violent films and simulated drug use to be available in its so-called “Safety mode”. And I am hardly a prude. I have exposed my mind to plenty of actual, as well as, simulated atrocity. I simply know how damaging such things can be to ‘normal’ minds, let alone developing and mentally unstable minds.
YouTube is part of the problem because the site has an anarchistic monitoring system which enables its viewers to decide what is, or is not, healthy material. And people are generally too brainwashed with the ideology of free expression to realize the potential damage media influence can have. There ARE clips from pornographic films on this site, regardless of what you want to believe.
It turns out that this guy WAS grooming a little girl in his school and the mother of that child was thankful that James Rutherford was arrested before anything happened to her daughter.
Just once--just once I would like to hear one of these guys admit what they did and not claim that this is their first time and they were'nt going to do anything anyway.
It is quite funny because you can tell that he really thinks (out of desperation) that the more he talks and the friendlier he acts that there could be a chance Chris will say: "You know what Jim, I see where you're coming from. You are not like the others. We're going to treat this case differently and sensor you from the public and follow up to see how your help is coming along. I wish you the best!" This guy is so full of shit.
@mojoxrisin He does the same shit with the police. He clearly thinks that the more he talks the more he will get himself out of this. It is CLEARLY the opposite when dealign with police. The hillarious breaking point is when the cops tell him that they don't need anymore and they are going to charge him. He panicks and asks for a lawyer (a little too late) twice within 10 seconds. He got caught for this crime AGAIN. He ended his short career and he will never get another besides maybe McDonalds.
1- The cops go in ADULT chat rooms to get these people. It seems like it would be too easy to get somebody that thinks they're just role playing.
2- I've seen some episodes where the decoys actually pressure the guys to come when the guy has already said he doesn't want to, idk to me that's just crossing the line.
Don't get me wrong, a 30 year old guy going for a 13 year old is wrong, but sometimes TCAP crosses the line just for views.
1) It's not role playing when the decoy never claims to be roleplaying. They're in adult chat rooms, not roleplaying ones.
2) The crime had already been committed before they show up to the house. Pressuring the guys to come to the house is just a way for the cops to arrest everyone in one place and Hansen to interview everyone in one place. Sometimes, they arrest these guys at their homes.
As for "crossing the line," the convictions speak for themselves.
@elgilicious When you're in an ADULT chat room and say your 12 years old. You don't have to say your role playing for people to think you are. And when guys clearly say I don't want to come leave me alone and then the decoy says oh what are you chicken? Then to me it seems more like the perv should have gotten a lawyer because the cops are using things other than underage sex to come, the guy also has motive to go just to prove he's not a wuss which is a natural reaction for guys.
@trevorhirby No, minors frequently enter adult chat rooms (they sneak into R rated movies and bars, too). The assumption when people say they're 13 is that they're minors, not adults pretending to be minors. Again, showing up to the house isn't part of the crime of solicitation; that crime happened already (Maurice Wolin, yes?). Finally, I make no statement re: "right/wrong," only "illegal/legal, and the convictions suggest there was no illegality.
@elgilicious"(they sneak into R rated movies and bars, too)" It's like when an adult enters say an adult only club, they are to assume that there are no minors in there because it's not their job to monitor that. So say they met a girl that looked good but little did they know she was minor that looked older. Naturally they'll go with instincts and assume she's legal, (if she wasn't at that point I'd make sure the club got into trouble to keep myself out.)
@trevorhirby Your club example is a case of asymmetric information; in Rutherford's case, however, each participant in the conversation know the other participant's age. The only valid assumption to make once Danica the Decoy revealed that she's 13 is that she is a minor. As for Rutherford being horny, well, we both can agree on that, but that's no excuse for committing a sex crime. Rutherford, despite his sob story, is a predator; he deserved his punishment.
@elgilicious I'm not defending this guy. He's in the wrong and he admitted it. All I'm saying is cops should put their decoys in areas where the perv has no way to say he didn't know the real age. I remember when I was 13 in random chat rooms for teens when I'd see older dudes saying crap like "I'm 20 looking for love" Back then I didn't think about it but now I seriously think cops should be monitoring kids chat rooms looking for pedos more than adult rooms.
@trevorhirby I doubt they would've caught as many predators if they put the decoys in the teen chat rooms. A minor in an adult chat room is like chum in shark infested waters, whereas a minor in a teen chat room is likely amongst people his/her own age. Your suggestion is a feasible one nonetheless.
@elgilicious Pervs patrol those chat rooms heavily too. Anywhere where a kid can get online, a shitload of predators will be there waiting for them. They basically cruise Myspace friending young chicks.
@elgilicious I say all this because there is a difference between a pedo and just another horny guy. Where as yes, most of these guys are just plain pedofiles and deserve what they get. But in every place and situation there is going to be somebody that is being accused of something they really don't deserve.
@elgilicious But to sum it up, convictions are just laws, if your saying if someone broke a law than they're in the wrong then you're not speaking very clearly considering their are many questionable laws. Don't get me wrong, i love seeing a pedo go to jail but if innocent people go to jail everyday whos to say a couple of these guys wouldn't have been better if the decoy left them alone when the "pedo" told them to?
YouTube is the most popular site for children in the United States. It welcomes pornographic advertising, has video footage of female rape/murder victims being humiliated and is a haven for individualistic subversive expression. Somehow a random man looking for random sex by a young girl in a random universe seems like hypocritical fodder to be morally posturing at here. These 'good-guys' are merely vultures for the exploitation of social humiliation based on repression. Cheers.
@sheepinavacuum YouTube does not have any of the things you mentioned; you're just making shit up. Condoning near-unfettered expression is not incompatible with condemning child sex predators. It's against the law to solicit a child for sex, but it's not against the law to put up insipid videos.
Ending comments with "cheers" is so douchebaggy, btw. That's like ending a toast with "sincerely."
@elgilicious All of the things I mentioned either are, or were on this site. “Operation Miranda” may have been taken off, but there are still pornographic clips(sans nudity) and porn star links(Ariana Jollee to name one). I have no need to make up allegations when the truth is obvious. It is against the law to give or sell pornography to children (except in Texas) in the United States, but the internet does just that in the guise of free speech. How many children sexualize themselves on YouTube?
@sheepinavacuum Videos with porn stars in them aren't pornography unless sex acts take place. There's no such thing as "pornographic clips (sans nudity)" unless they're having sex with their clothes on. No such videos are on YouTube. Even if you do find inappropriate content, it's only on YouTube b/c there's too much content for effective monitoring to take place. In any event, it's flagged and taken down extremely quickly.
@elgilicious Maybe I am being prudish, but I consider three women touching each other’s nether regions while kissing sexual contact. There are many videos with porn stars doing this on YouTube. Most are clips from pornographic films with the nudity cut out, or otherwise not present. Maybe YouTube could be stricter on how they approach violations of their policies. Maybe I am crazy. Either way, YouTube’s attempt at protecting children from potentially harmful information seems haphazard to me.
@elgilicious Actually there are many videos of extreme violence (usually simulated) and sexuality on this site that can be accessed in “Safety mode”. There is also an advertisement for a television show with teenagers pretending to smoke marijuana, pop pills and drink copious amounts of alcohol (how could this not be perceived as socially irresponsible?). One version is hidden in Safety mode while the other, identical in content, is not. Like it or not, YouTube is a part of the problem.
@sheepinavacuum Wrong. Sexual videos aren't necessarily porn (as I said), and simulated violence is harmless b/c no one gets hurt. You're being a prude. Also, just b/c YouTube sometimes has inappropriate videos doesn't mean it's part of the problem. That's like saying that a school helps disseminates racism b/c a student wrote the "n" word on the school sign, and it took a few hours for the school to remove it. By prohibiting such content and removing it, it's SOLVING the problem.
You apparently have little understanding of human psychology, brother. Simulated violence can cause aggressive and imitative behavior as well as desensitization. You can ramble on for days about how this is just a theory but that would simply demonstrate just how unaware you actually are about the variables of human biochemistry.
@sheepinavacuum That's complete bullshit. Even toddlers can separate simulated violence from real violence. Furthermore, simulated violence can actually teach people the repercussions of their actions and discourage violent behavior. The vast majority of people inherently understand what actions hurt other people and curtail such behavior on their own. You're drawing a causal link when there is only a correlation.
@elgilicious I am drawing a causal link because there is one. The brain operates through chemicals. Chemicals are physical. Therefore the influence of chemistry is a physical reality. When we observe information we are physically altered by it. And anything that influences us has negative as well as positive potential. You wouldn’t argue that a knife has no negative affect on flesh when it penetrates. Why should a thought or image be any different?
@sheepinavacuum Yes, violence affects us; among other things, it can entertain, and it can frighten. But it does not CAUSE us to BE violent. Most people don't let violent stimuli influence them significantly. Kids who play FPS games aren't more likely to shoot anybody in real life. There are no scientific studies that support your claim that seeing violence makes people more violent. Again, you're just drawing a causal link where there isn't one.
@elgilicious There is a wealth of evidence that violent media can have a negative affect on people, especially children. Check out “The Influence of Media Violence on Youth”. Take a look at the subject on the American Psychological Association website. See if you can find anyone without a clear bias who disagrees with what I am saying. And how could you possibly know that there is no casual element considering the variables involved? Why are you so committed to this belief?
@sheepinavacuum It's not a belief; it's a fact. Exposure to violence does not make people more violent. It's easier to blame the media than to take responsibility for one's actions, like when people blame rap music for adolescents trying to be "gangsters," even though poor parenting and impoverished conditions obviously cause such behavior. To disprove the causal link between violent media and acts of violence, I can point to the vast majority of people who consume such media but aren't violent.
@elgilicious You are drawing your own causal links: “poor parenting” and “impoverished conditions”. There is actual scientific information acquired from studies since the 1950’s that show a direct causal link between aggressive behavior and exposure to violent media. There is also such a thing as imitative behavior, which I have personally experienced. You are simply assuming fact based on your own opinion. Your ‘proof’ is just a sweeping generalization. Do some research, man.
@sheepinavacuum Your argument is bullshit. Poor parenting and impoverished conditions induce violent behavior more than watching Power Rangers or The Terminator ever did. Your claim is preposterous. By your "rationale" people who watch porn are more likely to have sex, when in reality many of them develop erectile dysfunction and CAN'T have sex. There is no causal link between the media you consume and your predisposition to engage in the behavior depicted.
@elgilicious My “claim” has its basis in fact. You are simply running around in logical circles. Yes “Poor parenting and impoverished conditions” probably have a lot to do with violent behavior. This in no way invalidates the reality that people are negatively influenced by exposure to media. And your calling my argument ‘bs’ is simply not a very impressive counterargument. Have you done any actual research on this subject, or are you just so sure of yourself that you deem it unnecessary?
@sheepinavacuum You're avoiding the fact that your causal link doesn't exist in reality. Explain why the majority of people who have watched violent media all their lives never commit violent acts? Nobody who plays Grand Theft Auto is more likely to slaughter cops, and nobody who watches ninja movies is more likely to assassinate people. I play FPSes, but I've never wanted to fire a real gun. Bro, your theory falls flat in the face of reality.
@elgilicious Ok, thanks. So is pornography harmless? Do you think that this is the only affect internet pornography may have? How about the rise in aggressive behavior in popular pornography (gagging, smacking, simulated rape and hitting with fists: e.g. ‘donkey punch’)? If you are willing to accept this as fact based on one study, why so hesitant to accept evidence from thousands of studies related to media violence and children?
@sheepinavacuum I actually think we can finally agree on something here. I think that porn and violent media are harmless in moderation, and that most people consume them in moderation. You mentioned "extreme" porn, and that's actually the porn industry's response to its customers being desensitized to "regular/straight" porn due to OVERconsumption. The amount of consumption is key, here, and we both neglected to mention that.
@elgilicious Alright, fair enough. My argument is definitely based on the idea of cumulative experience. I do not believe that the majority of people exposed to small amounts of violence will become violent as a result, but rather that violent media can, given time, have a multitude of negative effects on people. In a best case scenario I think that erring on the side of caution, when it comes to both pornographic and violent content, is of fundamental importance to social health.
@elgilicious But ack to the initial subject: I don’t know if you realize this, but there are fan videos for a former Russian child porn model on YouTube, CandydollTV (a “lolita” site from Japan) has its own homepage and video here and there are a multitude of videos with ‘underage’ girls dancing suggestively (usually posted by relatives) on here as well. We all play in the same sandbox. This is why I find the condemnation of “pedos” to be, in context, contradictory.
@sheepinavacuum Not at all. The people in these TCAP videos committed actual crimes. We're shitting on people who tried to shit on society. The girls in those YouTube videos you mentioned are dancing fully clothed, which is not a crime. Until CandydollTV posts videos on YouTube that rise to the level of a sex crime AND YouTube allows them, then it's not even close to being the same sandbox.
@elgilicious So something is ok as long as it has not been drafted into law? Laws are social constructs; they have no objective declaration on human behavior. If we say that the sexualiztion of children is acceptable then our condemnation of actual attempts at sexual intercourse with young girls is hypocritical at worst, naïve at best. Look but don’t touch? This is an absurd perspective.
@sheepinavacuum Wrong. I was saying that we're not hypocrites for condemning pedos on YT unless a) we're pedos or b) YT allows the posting of pedophilia (making us us enablers). Neither element is met. Also, calling TCAP exploitative is naive. EVERY news show embarrasses people; it's part of reporting the news. Finally, just b/c females can have sex doesn't mean they're ready to. Adults have a psychological advantage over minors, so there's no consent, only manipulation.
@sheepinavacuum Right, and that's every show ever made. Your argument reduces to absurdity because it would lead to the abolition of news reporting and possibly all TV.
@elgilicious I think our species sends conflicting messages concerning consent to those who are developing an understanding of how society works; I have a problem rectifying the use of young girls sexuality for, say, films and the idea that they are generally not capable of consenting. I understand that films deal with fantasy, but how is a mind unprepared to deal with adult sexuality somehow prepared to deal with adult themes when it comes to sexual oriented behavior in an artistic setting?
@sheepinavacuum It all boils down to this: teenage brains are wired in such a way that they're moody, impulsive, and terrible at making decisions. Adults, in general, do not suffer from such underdevelopment. Hence, when an adult solicits a child for sex, he is essentially leveraging his psychological advantage to manipulate a person who is often too naive to know what's up. When teens have sex with each other, however, it's exploration, not exploitation.
@elgilicious I agree that (generally speaking) adults have a psychological advantage over teenagers. I still see problems with the manner in which children are introduced to an understanding of sexuality. Maybe an early education in human physiology in place of SpongeBob Square Pants (or at least in addition to). Just so they can mature enough to be safe. This, and less social hypocrisy.
@sheepinavacuum Knowing how the reproductive system works isn't going to prepare a minor for actual sex given the aforementioned psychological development that the minor must still undergo (and which the adult has already undergone). Also, appreciating the pubescent female form is all well and good, but that's no excuse to take advantage of a minor by trying to have sex with her during her vulnerable, developmental phase.
@elgilicious I was not talking about knowledge of the reproductive system as much as a comfortable understanding of it. Even in college people snicker when the professor says “penis” or “vagina”. This may seem harmless, but I think it represents an awkwardness concerning sexuality, even in adults, which I believe is problematic. And I don’t advocate adult/youth sex. I just find the common view of attraction as a sign of dysfunction questionable.
@sheepinavacuum Most people have no issue w/ attraction, but w/ acting on that attraction in a way that is harmful. I knew guys who found the Olsen Twins attractive when they were underage, but they kept it at the level of attraction. I think awkwardness concerning sex is a problem, but lambasting Rutherford doesn't make us awkward. We're denouncing a criminal; not laughing at the word "cock."
@elgilicious I don’t think someone is sexually awkward for “lambasting” someone. And I am not opposed to police preventing potential predatory behavior. I just have a problem with a guy in a suit putting a microphone in someone’s face and asking them, “So what’s it like being a pervert?” for a passive middle class audience (poetic license admitted). Moralistic scorn of disturbed people posed as entertainment bothers me. But I admit this is my subjective position; to each their own.
@sheepinavacuum Hansen is never condescending or malicious. When the predators act ridiculous, he lightly mocks them, but he generally acts civilly. Of course he asks questions re: their perversion; their behavior is curious. Furthermore, every society, even in the wild, ostracizes and scorns those who try to cause disorder while rewarding those who do good.
@elgilicious Hansen is not a cop. Why is he even involved? This kind of thing is more of a social perversion then men having sex with young girls. And what makes sexual contact between an adult and a child ‘perverse’? I do believe that, generally speaking, older people have a psychological advantage over younger people, but how does this advantage create a social evil in a natural act? What if the deeper issue is that contemporary society is itself, morally and sexually dysfunctional?
@sheepinavacuum Why is the reporter there? Uh, to report this story. Grown men having sex with minors creates a "social evil" b/c the man manipulates the girl; there is no real consent. I said that a thousand times already. Also, if we let these "thought criminals" off the hook, they'll just try again. Finally, there is no presumption when the guys flat out say they're going to have sex when they get to the house. These are all obvious.
@elgilicious Why does a reporter need to be involved in these events but to exploit them for the benefit of people who want to see perceived witches burned? Where is any proof that these men are an actual threat to society? Absent an actual act there is only presumption of intent based on a lie. I say am going to do something; this does not mean that I will when actually confronted with the reality.
@elgilicious As devil’s advocate: Where is the evidence that consent cannot exist in the minds of ‘minors’? This is a belief issued to people in society with no social consistency. If an eleven year old girl can act out a realistic rape scene with and adult male for a film (e.g. Bastard out of Carolina) then what of her lack of consent? And the ideology of “social evil” has no bearing on anything but personal (or religious) opinion. You must realize this or you wouldn’t use quotation marks.
@sheepinavacuum I used quotation marks sarcastically. The evidence you seek has been firmly established by medical science. The prefrontal cortex is underdeveloped in teens; hence, they are moody and terrible at making decisions. Adults lack that incapacity, so there is no real consent, only manipulation by the adult. It's not a "social evil" (again, sarcasm quotes); it's all in the physiological differences.
@elgilicious You must realize that not all teenagers have an identical prefrontal cortex (the limbic system is also an important factor in decision making), and many adults themselves have issues that can distress understanding. Adolescents are ‘free meat’ socially speaking, but as a general rule they have much difficulty formulated things. The ideology of consent is social/philosophical, not social/scientific. And this is not a black and white issue.
@sheepinavacuum You're looking at the exception instead of the rule. Most teenagers have an underdeveloped prefrontal cortex, most adults have a developed one. The ideology of consent is based primarily in sociology and science: the brain differences between minors and adults are too great. Minors can't enter into contracts for the same reason: their underdeveloped brains make them poor at making decisions.
@elgilicious I am looking at the exception because I believe it draws the rule into question. Poor decision making could involve trying to have sex with a kid. I agree that the idea of consent is based on scientific observation, but I don't agree that consent itself is a scientifically sound idea. A person's ability to consent is always compromised in some manner emotionally, chemically. I don’t see how consent can be logically measured against the idea of deserved punishment.
@elgilicious How many people do you know who have been put in jail for smoking around children? This is seriously, and inarguably, unhealthy behavior, but society turns a blind eye. Certain things are difficult to address. I believe it is the insecurity people have with the sexuality of children (and young adults) that allows the social stigma surrounding adult/child sexual contact so little vocal protest, as opposed to logical argument.
@sheepinavacuum Easy. A minor can easily tell when there's smoke and leave the area; a minor can't easily tell whether he/she is being groomed for sex by an adult. Furthermore, there's a stigma around adult/child sexual contact b/c, for the millionth time, it's not acceptable for adults to manipulate minors into having sex (which happens in the vast majority of cases given the differences in brain structure).
@elgilicious A child doesn’t know that smoke inhalation can give them asthma unless an adult tells them. Many adults still don‘t know this. And a thirteen year old who has sex-oriented dialog with someone and agrees to meet this person but doesn’t know she is being “groomed" for sex has got some seriously deep psychological issues already. I really don’t think that most young girls (age twelve to fifteen say) are as sexually naïve as they are sexually confused by mixed social messages.
@sheepinavacuum Wrong. A child smells smoke, coughs, and tries to leave. They don't have to know about lung cilia to know it's bad. Also, naivete is irrelevant; it's about incomplete brain development, which the adult exploits. Finally, it's not acceptable to manipulate minors into having sex b/c rape is hurtful, unlike other forms of manipulation (e.g., tricking kids into doing chores). There's really no need to explain that.
@elgilicious I’m guessingthat you don’t know much about smoke inhalation. A child can be adversely affected by cigarette smoke without knowing that they re inhaling it. Up stairs in her room, say. Smoke rises and settles. And hurtful behavior is ANYTHING that exploits adults or children. You are too fixated on the sexual to acknowledge how it is probably the least common element of child abuses. It is the stigma that makes us ignorant to this fact.
@elgilicious I lived with two girls who had parents who smoked. Both had asthma. The need to be around those you love and look to for caring outweighs the harm you may, or may not realize you are experiencing. Sex is not rape unless someone is clearly not interested in the act. And I still don’t understand your use of the word ‘acceptable’. Sounds like a circular opinion word to me. Therefore, it is irrelevant to any logical reasoning against child adult sex.
@sheepinavacuum What a stupid analogy. The smoker doesn't convince the minor that the smoke is safe; the smoker says "fuck all" and lights up. The sex predator convinces the minor that the sex is safe, hence the manipulation. Furthermore, sex is rape if the other person doesn't give consent. Minors can't consent b/c their brain structures make them impulsive and bad at making decisions; adults manipulate them b/c of this incapacity. Notice how I didn't have to appeal to social stigma...again.
@elgilicious You’re the one that is taking this as an analogy. I am simply talking about social/moral inconsistencies. To abuse a “minor” by smoking around them is no less an abuse than if you manipulate a “minor” sexually. I notice you are ignoring my arguments concerning artists and young girls (something that is controversial but still legally permitted).
@elgilicious Sex is not rape if there is consent, which, in this particular case, the woman posing as the girl does give. In your mind this imaginary girl cannot consent because the “brain structures” of children “make them impulsive and bad at making decisions”. You are saying that consent is reliant on a specific-to-age brain chemistry. I don’t believe this at all. Impulsivity and bad decision making don’t necessarily inable one’s ability to agree to and/or understand something.
@sheepinavacuum When analyzing one's capacity to give consent, you look at the decoy as a girl, not as an adult; they have to use adults when conducting these stings. The policy, however, is centered around the minor who could've been in the decoy's spot. Medical science has firmly established that lack of brain development, as exhibited in the majority of teens, impairs the ability to make judgments and, thus, consent. It's not a matter of belief; it's a fact.
Measuring the level of consent via the ability to make healthy judgments (anyone can make judgments) is not a science. Therefore the ideology that children cannot consent can not be factual. You are making moral assumptions based on the science of the brain (a science which is rife with controversy due to the complexity of its varibles when juxtaposed with human mores).
@sheepinavacuum Most minors are physiologically prone to being impulsive and manipulated; most adults lack such incapacity. In light of this, it's clear that most minors can't truly consent to having sex w/ an adult; there's nothing confusing about this. There is also zero controversy about the lack of development in teenage brains and its impact on decision-making.
@sheepinavacuum Well let's just put it this way: would you be very happy if you realized all the phantasies or whatever you had, when you were 12? No. At least I wouldn't. Children often want and do stupid things, yeah, adults do them too, but then they are responsible for their own actions, law is to protect them until adulthood, where hopefully they'll know more about life. It's not ideal to have a strict cut-off date, but that couldn't be done in any other way - that's how law works.
My argument is more related to what I see as a moral hypocrisy concerning the interactions between adults and children. The American Association of Pediatrics suggest that exposure to television (and the internet) is unhealthy for children under two years of age, and yet we have television shows designed for this age bracket. Are people actually serious about their concern for the welfare of children? I think we care more about their bodies than we do their brains.
@elgilicious Supposing your are correct: Should a man be convicted for having sex with an eighteen year old female? Should children be allow to advertise or act in sexual and/or violence oriented films, or be photographed in sexual and/or violent situations? All of these things occur, legally. Should teenagers be legally allowed to operate dangerous machinery (e.g. automobiles)? Consent is obviously a confusing (and convenience compromised) issue for many people, socially speaking.
Sorry to dissapoint you, but I don’t fit the behavioral profile of the people on this program (not that such a thing would refute any argument I have made). Of course I don’t find their assumed appities to be perverse, either.
@elgilicious And why is it not acceptable for adults to manipulate minors? This happens all the time in society. How does the sexual aspect make it more “wrong” or any less exploitative?
@elgilicious And to wax controversial, I don’t see an inherent dysfunctionality, or perversity, with male attraction to pubescent females. Attraction, as opposed to obsession. I am not referring to Hebephilia, but a natural, and therefore amoral, appreciation of female form. As for intercourse: menstruation is not linked to psychological maturation in humans, but I wonder why is this so? Is human awareness a perversion itself, or is there an actual "dumbing down" occurring socially?
@elgilicious I also believe that (in the U. S. at least) children, especially females, are poorly educated and conditioned when it comes to sexuality. There is something off about raising girls with the illusion that they are sexually innocent (of course many are not as aware as adults of their sexual nature) and should be ‘pure’ but still exhibit sexually oriented rituals like facial painting, emphasis on hair styling and provocative dress. Just doesn’t seem healthy to me.
@elgilicious And if anyone is defecating on society it is the media itself. These men may hurt small groups, while the media sexualization of children effects thousands.
And where do get the idea that toddlers can separate fantasy from reality? They are still in the process of building a perspective of reality in the first place. It is one thing to question whether media influence can be negative and quite another to completely deny that such a thing is possible.
@elgilicious I was incorrect in stating that YouTube is the most popular site for children in the United States. But you if you don't see a societal contradiction in how young girls are sexualized and conditioned to objectify themselves in this country and media manipulation of the reactionary hatred expressed towards men who are attracted to pubescent females (hebephilia, not pedophilia) then good luck with that illusion. And "cheers" was meant sarcastically, by the way.
He also says he never ever thought of going after a student yet according to the Perverted Justice Website after this bonehead was caught the mother of an 11 y/o girl thanked the local police saying he had been grooming her daughter and she was afraid to go to school.
This guy is total trash. He keeps talking about consequences, not being worth it, not wanting to lose his job, all the trouble you can get in,.... Not once does this jerk mention the harm it would do to the victim. He deserves the full punishment allotted to perpetrators like him.
HIS life. HIS future. HIS innocence. What a pretentious, morbid fuck! He was just about to ruin a childhood and he's worried about only himself... Sickened.
TheQueenIsAWhore 1 week ago
The age of consent in Spain is 13 lol!!
ralphinio4 1 week ago
This Guy tries so hard to talk his way outta trouble. But alas to no avail by video 4 he's in cuffs.
07andrewthedude 1 week ago
if u cant do d time dont do d crime
bvvv231 2 weeks ago
a 2 hour drive you wanded some thing else your sick in the hed
qwertyuiop61234 3 weeks ago
Poor guy, first of all there was NO 13 year old girl to begin with therefore no real crime has taken place. Secondly, these guys aren't specifically looking to screw a child they try their luck in the chat rooms with ANYTHING that may have a vagina. 13 year olds or not, they just wanna have sex and would flaunt the law to do so not to specifically commit paedophilia.
Kousaburo 4 weeks ago
@Kousaburo Oh my GAWD! The ignorance! It's against the LAW to solicit a MINOR for sex online! And it doesn't matter that the person is not actually a MINOR! The fact that the pervert THOUGHT they were talking to a minor is ENOUGH! Because their INTENTION was the problem and they ACTED on it! That's why the cops like it when the pervert follow through with promises like bringing a food item or something. Because it confirms what their INTENT was! SHEESH!
farmerdwight 4 weeks ago
@Kousaburo Wow, are you fucking serious?
falcoperegrinus82 3 weeks ago
Omg this guy is full of shit, he came to have sex with a 13 year old. End of the story. FUCKING PERV DESIRVES A PUNCH IN THE FACE
PolaroidSupercolor 4 weeks ago
This guy is a worm, he will say and do w/e he can to wiggle out of trouble.
plixie1 1 month ago 2
@plixie1 agreed
PolaroidSupercolor 4 weeks ago
Wow. This pedo just goes on and on, doesn't he? Chatty chat chat. He should go on "The View."
Xenu 1 month ago 2
Even for the guys who got off..like the Murphy, Texas sting these videos are out there FOREVER. Where the law leaves off memory and the internet will come back and kick you in the ass over and over and over. Justice my friends.
plixie1 1 month ago
This guy's full name is JIM, I don't know why I'm here, I am about to go through a divorce, Like I said, This week pushed me over the edge, I'd never do anything, I'm going to get help, I never would have crossed that line, If I can help you, If you hide my identity, Can I talk to you off camera?, That idiot came there the next damn day, I'm not that stupid, I just came to hang out (Won't get specfic on that) I'll say anything to get myself off the hook, RUTHERFORD.
rkjeldgaard 1 month ago 6
The GOOD News: This interview will not be broadcasted on television.
The BAD News: This interview will be broadcasted on YouTube!!
CounterCultureLives 1 month ago 3
Wtf this iz bullshit no 13 years old girl do dat in real life lol
Themachinistzz 2 months ago
LOL @ how the Seinfeld clip of George's man-crush on Tony is in the suggestions! "Have a seat, George, right over here..........................."
lurch321 3 months ago
I love the begging. It makes me feel powerful to know that I am so much better than this guy. Now I will mock him. Degenerate
699backstab 3 months ago
Chris is focused. He didn't mentally tune out on this guy like most of us would.
Exilemainstreet 3 months ago
If hell existed, this is the room and stalling tactics humans would use.
lafucil 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
6:33
Camera operator: Oh damn, my battery is dying. Be right back.
7:10
Camera operator: O.K. I'm back, what'd I miss?
mobbdeepreppa 4 months ago
Comment removed
mobbdeepreppa 4 months ago
FUck this guy. This guy was going to try and tap this girl I dont give a fuck what he says or how he apoligizes for his behavior. His wife left him cuz he was jackin off on the screen. He is nothing but a dirty pedo
apostlewoody 4 months ago
Its not his fault. Society has a campaign to talk mens sperm into any makeup covered whore he finds. This campaign uses young women and old women painted to be young to entice men into thinking they ought to be fucking them. Is it any surprise that the first whore( his subhuman wife) didnt work out and now he wants to drain his balls into a child? I think not. Go arrest the advertisers, its their fault for programming James.
699backstab 5 months ago in playlist TCAP 4 - The Death of James Rutherford
@699backstab
In the last video you blamed religion, now you blame "advertisers." Typical liberal, its always someone else's fault.
KiloByte69 3 months ago
@KiloByte69 haw haw typical liberal. shut the fuck up bitch nigga I cant believe how many fags like you actually think youre cool and smart. and fucking try and talk about politics, something you obviously know nothing about bitch nigga on YOUTUBE. fuck your stupid ass comment, youre a typical faggot how bout that
MichRockHop81108 2 months ago
@MichRockHop81108
Yeah listen to the expert. You really pulled out the big guns by with "nigga" this and "faggot" that. What a loser. Go crawl back in your hole dumbfuck.
KiloByte69 2 months ago
@KiloByte69 now youre trying to be all dont say fag and nigga. If I say nigga its okay all right? Im not talking about cotton farmers or anything Im just saying motha fucka okay? Stop trying to be all wise and political and whatever fuck these pedofiles and eat my taint
MichRockHop81108 2 months ago
@KiloByte69 That they do, they blame everybody but themselves. It's never their fault.
rebelnomo 1 month ago
HAHA the sound guy had to sit down....
sirisannivatvongs 5 months ago
lol
FSK1138 5 months ago
If I had a nickel for every time James Loserford said "I don't know" or "I need help" during this interview, I'd be able to hire Carlos Slim to clean my house.
elgilicious 6 months ago in playlist TCAP 4 - James Rutherford (extended interview) 6
After he lost his teaching job, I wonder if he lost that cool car? I hope he was able to keep it. I know he did 45 days in prison, so maybe his parents kept up the payments and insurance on it.
lancetop 6 months ago in playlist Dateline
The crew was so tired as this guy rambled on about how he didn't know and how he needs help.
dannyc3747 7 months ago
Help. Help. Help. Help. That's all this guy is saying. Help. I need help. If I can get help, I'd really be a lot better. Help. Help. I need help. Yeah yeah yeah....
dannyc3747 7 months ago 3
haha boom oporators must be tired haha
babyboynoluv66 8 months ago 19
@babyboynoluv66
Funny point. I often wondered why they even bring those guys out? The sound & picture is the same as it was before they came out w/ cameras & mics.
farronx 5 days ago
Any1 kno if this actually aired?
TheySayImL33t 8 months ago
Dude, nobody's buyin' it.
PeeWeesGirlie 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sheepinavacuum is a pedophile who is defending this pervert and flagging all logical replies as spam!
hackman12179 9 months ago 3
Comment removed
sheepinavacuum 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hackman12179 So you have to use lies and slander in order to counter argue? What does this say about your argument?
sheepinavacuum 8 months ago
"I know I've just lost everything. My friends, my trust, my job." Yeah, and you admitting this still doesn't make it any better. How does that feel? lol
CertifiedGooner729 9 months ago
I still say hes CUTE:-)
peartfaldo 9 months ago
not only is this a guy a dumfuck, he is a very dangerous pedo. And he needs to be monitored the rest of his life
apostlewoody 9 months ago
this guy is the dumbest fuck ever...he talked after he knew he was on camera already...at least some of the other guys had no idea they were on camera...this guy knew he was on already and kept talking and admitting things....true pedo here
statusmvp01 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A minor cant give consent, or enter into a contract because it's the law. Therefore rather the minors' brain is fully developed, or rather he/she consents 2 sexual acts or not - ITS ILLEGAL! Point Blank, its against the LAW!
I have to agree with eligilicious in the debate here. Doesnt matter if they agree or not it's WRONG.. and its a CRIME! Whys sheepinavacuum even tryin 2 argue about screwing KIDS? Hopefully whoever is behind that moniker is REGISTERED in their neighborhood! Creepy Creeper!
jimntray11 10 months ago
@jimntray11 Do you sheepishly follow all human laws?
Generally speaking, male human sexuality is predatory. Universally speaking, children can be sexually attractive (people find this idea uncomfortable because it is a truth, not because they have some kind of morally superior biochemistry). I wouldn’t attempt to argue that sex between adults and children is healthy, but this is hardly a black and white issue.
sheepinavacuum 8 months ago
@sheepinavacuum
"Generally speaking, male human sexuality is predatory."
Sorry but that's false. What evidence from any reliable source do you have to back up that claim?
Oh, right. Not a shred.
pazomblez 8 months ago
@pazomblez
What evidence do you have that what I am saying is false. You could have just disagreed, but you took a distinctly oppositional position. There is a wealth of evidence to suggest that (again, generally speaking) male sexuality has aggressive and coercive components. Is this more genetic than societal based? Good question. Maybe you don’t like the word “predatory” in relationship to sexual behavior?
sheepinavacuum 8 months ago
@jimntray11 “Where’s the law, Drew?”
My initial argument has to do with hypocrisy in the human world as related to children and sexuality. Many people (in the U.S. at least) seem to think that physical contact has to be involved in order for a molestation to occur. This site itself allows children to be psychically exposed to legions of unhealthy expression. But because negative effects of such things are extremely difficult to physically measure…who cares?
sheepinavacuum 8 months ago
@Rand200 Trolly wanna cracker?
elgilicious 10 months ago
Did someone mention Youngmoon08's mom? I "know" her. Well.
yeahsomuch83 10 months ago
@yeahsomuch83 Please watch as I explain to sheepinavacuum that raping kids is wrong. He seems to have trouble grasping basic concepts.
elgilicious 10 months ago
And how is the manner in which these men are arrested not a form of thought policing? They show up for an encounter and are given a scarlet letter and a cage without having done anything to anyone. This may not be entrapment in a legal sense, but it is enforcement based on a moral presumption. The ‘target’ is a woman, so the imagined girl could be able to consent for all intents and purposes.
sheepinavacuum 10 months ago
Here’s my thing, concerning To Catch a Predator: I find it both exploitative and problematic. Exploitative because it fuels righteous indignation for the sake of ratings. Problematic because it fosters an ideology that is false, i.e., there is something ‘wrong’ with an adult male's attraction to pubescent females. This attraction can and does exist without predatory aspects in the natural and human world. I am not in support of the men on this show, but the truth of our condition as animals.
sheepinavacuum 11 months ago
Comment removed
sheepinavacuum 11 months ago
YouTube’s ridiculous policy bans nudity but not sexual contact. It also allows violent films and simulated drug use to be available in its so-called “Safety mode”. And I am hardly a prude. I have exposed my mind to plenty of actual, as well as, simulated atrocity. I simply know how damaging such things can be to ‘normal’ minds, let alone developing and mentally unstable minds.
sheepinavacuum 11 months ago
YouTube is part of the problem because the site has an anarchistic monitoring system which enables its viewers to decide what is, or is not, healthy material. And people are generally too brainwashed with the ideology of free expression to realize the potential damage media influence can have. There ARE clips from pornographic films on this site, regardless of what you want to believe.
sheepinavacuum 11 months ago
It turns out that this guy WAS grooming a little girl in his school and the mother of that child was thankful that James Rutherford was arrested before anything happened to her daughter.
RimmingHerAnus 11 months ago
LOL this dude really thinks he can finagle his way out of trouble
lightmajor1 11 months ago
@lightmajor1 i know right? what a fucking weasel.
ezraj80 11 months ago
wtf thats my house !
SuperAsianAmerican 1 year ago
6:53 guy with the mic- "fuck this."
rford40 1 year ago
If this guy was Pinocchio, his nose would be in New Jersey by now.
rkjeldgaard 1 year ago 2
@rkjeldgaard : ----------------- ) LOL
MrDerby2u 11 months ago
The guy with mike finally sat down :)
wiweq 1 year ago
oh.my.god. he just keeps going on and on..
threeagainstfour 1 year ago
Damm. I just realized it must be hard being a microphone man and hold your arms over your head all the time that jackass is talking.
djl5555 1 year ago
What's up with camera angle ? , We want close ups expose these Rockspiders ! .. We need Hansen in Australia !
SamoaOG 1 year ago
@SamoaOG its raw footage.
Nickolaslich 1 year ago
@Nickolaslich - Thanks bro raw footage !
SamoaOG 1 year ago
@SamoaOG Rockspiders? LOL i love people from Australia!
Liz489 1 year ago
@Liz489 - "Rockspiders " are what we call Pedo's here in Australia . Scum that prey on kids on the internet :) .. Americans are too cool :)
SamoaOG 1 year ago
Just once--just once I would like to hear one of these guys admit what they did and not claim that this is their first time and they were'nt going to do anything anyway.
sleedolfine15 1 year ago
It is quite funny because you can tell that he really thinks (out of desperation) that the more he talks and the friendlier he acts that there could be a chance Chris will say: "You know what Jim, I see where you're coming from. You are not like the others. We're going to treat this case differently and sensor you from the public and follow up to see how your help is coming along. I wish you the best!" This guy is so full of shit.
mojoxrisin 1 year ago
@mojoxrisin He does the same shit with the police. He clearly thinks that the more he talks the more he will get himself out of this. It is CLEARLY the opposite when dealign with police. The hillarious breaking point is when the cops tell him that they don't need anymore and they are going to charge him. He panicks and asks for a lawyer (a little too late) twice within 10 seconds. He got caught for this crime AGAIN. He ended his short career and he will never get another besides maybe McDonalds.
mojoxrisin 1 year ago
Personally I think it's sort of messed up that:
1- The cops go in ADULT chat rooms to get these people. It seems like it would be too easy to get somebody that thinks they're just role playing.
2- I've seen some episodes where the decoys actually pressure the guys to come when the guy has already said he doesn't want to, idk to me that's just crossing the line.
Don't get me wrong, a 30 year old guy going for a 13 year old is wrong, but sometimes TCAP crosses the line just for views.
trevorhirby 1 year ago
@trevorhirby
1) It's not role playing when the decoy never claims to be roleplaying. They're in adult chat rooms, not roleplaying ones.
2) The crime had already been committed before they show up to the house. Pressuring the guys to come to the house is just a way for the cops to arrest everyone in one place and Hansen to interview everyone in one place. Sometimes, they arrest these guys at their homes.
As for "crossing the line," the convictions speak for themselves.
elgilicious 1 year ago
@elgilicious When you're in an ADULT chat room and say your 12 years old. You don't have to say your role playing for people to think you are. And when guys clearly say I don't want to come leave me alone and then the decoy says oh what are you chicken? Then to me it seems more like the perv should have gotten a lawyer because the cops are using things other than underage sex to come, the guy also has motive to go just to prove he's not a wuss which is a natural reaction for guys.
trevorhirby 1 year ago
@trevorhirby No, minors frequently enter adult chat rooms (they sneak into R rated movies and bars, too). The assumption when people say they're 13 is that they're minors, not adults pretending to be minors. Again, showing up to the house isn't part of the crime of solicitation; that crime happened already (Maurice Wolin, yes?). Finally, I make no statement re: "right/wrong," only "illegal/legal, and the convictions suggest there was no illegality.
elgilicious 1 year ago
@elgilicious"(they sneak into R rated movies and bars, too)" It's like when an adult enters say an adult only club, they are to assume that there are no minors in there because it's not their job to monitor that. So say they met a girl that looked good but little did they know she was minor that looked older. Naturally they'll go with instincts and assume she's legal, (if she wasn't at that point I'd make sure the club got into trouble to keep myself out.)
trevorhirby 1 year ago
@trevorhirby Your club example is a case of asymmetric information; in Rutherford's case, however, each participant in the conversation know the other participant's age. The only valid assumption to make once Danica the Decoy revealed that she's 13 is that she is a minor. As for Rutherford being horny, well, we both can agree on that, but that's no excuse for committing a sex crime. Rutherford, despite his sob story, is a predator; he deserved his punishment.
elgilicious 1 year ago
@elgilicious I'm not defending this guy. He's in the wrong and he admitted it. All I'm saying is cops should put their decoys in areas where the perv has no way to say he didn't know the real age. I remember when I was 13 in random chat rooms for teens when I'd see older dudes saying crap like "I'm 20 looking for love" Back then I didn't think about it but now I seriously think cops should be monitoring kids chat rooms looking for pedos more than adult rooms.
trevorhirby 1 year ago
@trevorhirby I doubt they would've caught as many predators if they put the decoys in the teen chat rooms. A minor in an adult chat room is like chum in shark infested waters, whereas a minor in a teen chat room is likely amongst people his/her own age. Your suggestion is a feasible one nonetheless.
elgilicious 1 year ago
@elgilicious Pervs patrol those chat rooms heavily too. Anywhere where a kid can get online, a shitload of predators will be there waiting for them. They basically cruise Myspace friending young chicks.
yeahsomuch83 1 year ago
@elgilicious I say all this because there is a difference between a pedo and just another horny guy. Where as yes, most of these guys are just plain pedofiles and deserve what they get. But in every place and situation there is going to be somebody that is being accused of something they really don't deserve.
trevorhirby 1 year ago
@elgilicious But to sum it up, convictions are just laws, if your saying if someone broke a law than they're in the wrong then you're not speaking very clearly considering their are many questionable laws. Don't get me wrong, i love seeing a pedo go to jail but if innocent people go to jail everyday whos to say a couple of these guys wouldn't have been better if the decoy left them alone when the "pedo" told them to?
trevorhirby 1 year ago
YouTube is the most popular site for children in the United States. It welcomes pornographic advertising, has video footage of female rape/murder victims being humiliated and is a haven for individualistic subversive expression. Somehow a random man looking for random sex by a young girl in a random universe seems like hypocritical fodder to be morally posturing at here. These 'good-guys' are merely vultures for the exploitation of social humiliation based on repression. Cheers.
sheepinavacuum 1 year ago
@sheepinavacuum YouTube does not have any of the things you mentioned; you're just making shit up. Condoning near-unfettered expression is not incompatible with condemning child sex predators. It's against the law to solicit a child for sex, but it's not against the law to put up insipid videos.
Ending comments with "cheers" is so douchebaggy, btw. That's like ending a toast with "sincerely."
elgilicious 1 year ago
@elgilicious All of the things I mentioned either are, or were on this site. “Operation Miranda” may have been taken off, but there are still pornographic clips(sans nudity) and porn star links(Ariana Jollee to name one). I have no need to make up allegations when the truth is obvious. It is against the law to give or sell pornography to children (except in Texas) in the United States, but the internet does just that in the guise of free speech. How many children sexualize themselves on YouTube?
sheepinavacuum 11 months ago
@sheepinavacuum Videos with porn stars in them aren't pornography unless sex acts take place. There's no such thing as "pornographic clips (sans nudity)" unless they're having sex with their clothes on. No such videos are on YouTube. Even if you do find inappropriate content, it's only on YouTube b/c there's too much content for effective monitoring to take place. In any event, it's flagged and taken down extremely quickly.
elgilicious 11 months ago
@elgilicious Maybe I am being prudish, but I consider three women touching each other’s nether regions while kissing sexual contact. There are many videos with porn stars doing this on YouTube. Most are clips from pornographic films with the nudity cut out, or otherwise not present. Maybe YouTube could be stricter on how they approach violations of their policies. Maybe I am crazy. Either way, YouTube’s attempt at protecting children from potentially harmful information seems haphazard to me.
sheepinavacuum 11 months ago
@elgilicious Actually there are many videos of extreme violence (usually simulated) and sexuality on this site that can be accessed in “Safety mode”. There is also an advertisement for a television show with teenagers pretending to smoke marijuana, pop pills and drink copious amounts of alcohol (how could this not be perceived as socially irresponsible?). One version is hidden in Safety mode while the other, identical in content, is not. Like it or not, YouTube is a part of the problem.
sheepinavacuum 11 months ago
@sheepinavacuum Wrong. Sexual videos aren't necessarily porn (as I said), and simulated violence is harmless b/c no one gets hurt. You're being a prude. Also, just b/c YouTube sometimes has inappropriate videos doesn't mean it's part of the problem. That's like saying that a school helps disseminates racism b/c a student wrote the "n" word on the school sign, and it took a few hours for the school to remove it. By prohibiting such content and removing it, it's SOLVING the problem.
elgilicious 11 months ago
@elgilicious
You apparently have little understanding of human psychology, brother. Simulated violence can cause aggressive and imitative behavior as well as desensitization. You can ramble on for days about how this is just a theory but that would simply demonstrate just how unaware you actually are about the variables of human biochemistry.
sheepinavacuum 11 months ago
@sheepinavacuum That's complete bullshit. Even toddlers can separate simulated violence from real violence. Furthermore, simulated violence can actually teach people the repercussions of their actions and discourage violent behavior. The vast majority of people inherently understand what actions hurt other people and curtail such behavior on their own. You're drawing a causal link when there is only a correlation.
elgilicious 11 months ago
Comment removed
sheepinavacuum 11 months ago
@elgilicious I am drawing a causal link because there is one. The brain operates through chemicals. Chemicals are physical. Therefore the influence of chemistry is a physical reality. When we observe information we are physically altered by it. And anything that influences us has negative as well as positive potential. You wouldn’t argue that a knife has no negative affect on flesh when it penetrates. Why should a thought or image be any different?
sheepinavacuum 11 months ago
@sheepinavacuum Yes, violence affects us; among other things, it can entertain, and it can frighten. But it does not CAUSE us to BE violent. Most people don't let violent stimuli influence them significantly. Kids who play FPS games aren't more likely to shoot anybody in real life. There are no scientific studies that support your claim that seeing violence makes people more violent. Again, you're just drawing a causal link where there isn't one.
elgilicious 11 months ago
@elgilicious There is a wealth of evidence that violent media can have a negative affect on people, especially children. Check out “The Influence of Media Violence on Youth”. Take a look at the subject on the American Psychological Association website. See if you can find anyone without a clear bias who disagrees with what I am saying. And how could you possibly know that there is no casual element considering the variables involved? Why are you so committed to this belief?
sheepinavacuum 11 months ago
@sheepinavacuum It's not a belief; it's a fact. Exposure to violence does not make people more violent. It's easier to blame the media than to take responsibility for one's actions, like when people blame rap music for adolescents trying to be "gangsters," even though poor parenting and impoverished conditions obviously cause such behavior. To disprove the causal link between violent media and acts of violence, I can point to the vast majority of people who consume such media but aren't violent.
elgilicious 11 months ago
@elgilicious You are drawing your own causal links: “poor parenting” and “impoverished conditions”. There is actual scientific information acquired from studies since the 1950’s that show a direct causal link between aggressive behavior and exposure to violent media. There is also such a thing as imitative behavior, which I have personally experienced. You are simply assuming fact based on your own opinion. Your ‘proof’ is just a sweeping generalization. Do some research, man.
sheepinavacuum 11 months ago
@sheepinavacuum Your argument is bullshit. Poor parenting and impoverished conditions induce violent behavior more than watching Power Rangers or The Terminator ever did. Your claim is preposterous. By your "rationale" people who watch porn are more likely to have sex, when in reality many of them develop erectile dysfunction and CAN'T have sex. There is no causal link between the media you consume and your predisposition to engage in the behavior depicted.
elgilicious 11 months ago
@elgilicious My “claim” has its basis in fact. You are simply running around in logical circles. Yes “Poor parenting and impoverished conditions” probably have a lot to do with violent behavior. This in no way invalidates the reality that people are negatively influenced by exposure to media. And your calling my argument ‘bs’ is simply not a very impressive counterargument. Have you done any actual research on this subject, or are you just so sure of yourself that you deem it unnecessary?
sheepinavacuum 11 months ago
@sheepinavacuum You're avoiding the fact that your causal link doesn't exist in reality. Explain why the majority of people who have watched violent media all their lives never commit violent acts? Nobody who plays Grand Theft Auto is more likely to slaughter cops, and nobody who watches ninja movies is more likely to assassinate people. I play FPSes, but I've never wanted to fire a real gun. Bro, your theory falls flat in the face of reality.
elgilicious 11 months ago
@elgilicious Erectile dysfunction from watching porn? Ok. I would love to see some evidence for that claim.
sheepinavacuum 11 months ago
@sheepinavacuum I'll send it to you through YouTube. Also, type "erectile dysfunction porn" into Google or into the YouTube search.
elgilicious 11 months ago
@elgilicious Ok, thanks. So is pornography harmless? Do you think that this is the only affect internet pornography may have? How about the rise in aggressive behavior in popular pornography (gagging, smacking, simulated rape and hitting with fists: e.g. ‘donkey punch’)? If you are willing to accept this as fact based on one study, why so hesitant to accept evidence from thousands of studies related to media violence and children?
sheepinavacuum 11 months ago
@sheepinavacuum I actually think we can finally agree on something here. I think that porn and violent media are harmless in moderation, and that most people consume them in moderation. You mentioned "extreme" porn, and that's actually the porn industry's response to its customers being desensitized to "regular/straight" porn due to OVERconsumption. The amount of consumption is key, here, and we both neglected to mention that.
elgilicious 11 months ago
@elgilicious Alright, fair enough. My argument is definitely based on the idea of cumulative experience. I do not believe that the majority of people exposed to small amounts of violence will become violent as a result, but rather that violent media can, given time, have a multitude of negative effects on people. In a best case scenario I think that erring on the side of caution, when it comes to both pornographic and violent content, is of fundamental importance to social health.
sheepinavacuum 11 months ago
@sheepinavacuum Good that we finally have an understanding, then.
elgilicious 11 months ago
@elgilicious But ack to the initial subject: I don’t know if you realize this, but there are fan videos for a former Russian child porn model on YouTube, CandydollTV (a “lolita” site from Japan) has its own homepage and video here and there are a multitude of videos with ‘underage’ girls dancing suggestively (usually posted by relatives) on here as well. We all play in the same sandbox. This is why I find the condemnation of “pedos” to be, in context, contradictory.
sheepinavacuum 11 months ago
@sheepinavacuum Not at all. The people in these TCAP videos committed actual crimes. We're shitting on people who tried to shit on society. The girls in those YouTube videos you mentioned are dancing fully clothed, which is not a crime. Until CandydollTV posts videos on YouTube that rise to the level of a sex crime AND YouTube allows them, then it's not even close to being the same sandbox.
elgilicious 11 months ago
@elgilicious So something is ok as long as it has not been drafted into law? Laws are social constructs; they have no objective declaration on human behavior. If we say that the sexualiztion of children is acceptable then our condemnation of actual attempts at sexual intercourse with young girls is hypocritical at worst, naïve at best. Look but don’t touch? This is an absurd perspective.
sheepinavacuum 11 months ago
@sheepinavacuum Wrong. I was saying that we're not hypocrites for condemning pedos on YT unless a) we're pedos or b) YT allows the posting of pedophilia (making us us enablers). Neither element is met. Also, calling TCAP exploitative is naive. EVERY news show embarrasses people; it's part of reporting the news. Finally, just b/c females can have sex doesn't mean they're ready to. Adults have a psychological advantage over minors, so there's no consent, only manipulation.
elgilicious 11 months ago
@elgilicious "EVERY news show embarrasses people; it's part of reporting the news."
That’s because every news show is exploitative, i.e., unfairly or cynically using another person or group for profit or advantage (Merriam Webster).
sheepinavacuum 10 months ago
@sheepinavacuum Right, and that's every show ever made. Your argument reduces to absurdity because it would lead to the abolition of news reporting and possibly all TV.
elgilicious 10 months ago
@elgilicious I think our species sends conflicting messages concerning consent to those who are developing an understanding of how society works; I have a problem rectifying the use of young girls sexuality for, say, films and the idea that they are generally not capable of consenting. I understand that films deal with fantasy, but how is a mind unprepared to deal with adult sexuality somehow prepared to deal with adult themes when it comes to sexual oriented behavior in an artistic setting?
sheepinavacuum 10 months ago
@sheepinavacuum It all boils down to this: teenage brains are wired in such a way that they're moody, impulsive, and terrible at making decisions. Adults, in general, do not suffer from such underdevelopment. Hence, when an adult solicits a child for sex, he is essentially leveraging his psychological advantage to manipulate a person who is often too naive to know what's up. When teens have sex with each other, however, it's exploration, not exploitation.
elgilicious 10 months ago
@elgilicious I agree that (generally speaking) adults have a psychological advantage over teenagers. I still see problems with the manner in which children are introduced to an understanding of sexuality. Maybe an early education in human physiology in place of SpongeBob Square Pants (or at least in addition to). Just so they can mature enough to be safe. This, and less social hypocrisy.
sheepinavacuum 10 months ago
@sheepinavacuum Knowing how the reproductive system works isn't going to prepare a minor for actual sex given the aforementioned psychological development that the minor must still undergo (and which the adult has already undergone). Also, appreciating the pubescent female form is all well and good, but that's no excuse to take advantage of a minor by trying to have sex with her during her vulnerable, developmental phase.
elgilicious 10 months ago
@elgilicious I was not talking about knowledge of the reproductive system as much as a comfortable understanding of it. Even in college people snicker when the professor says “penis” or “vagina”. This may seem harmless, but I think it represents an awkwardness concerning sexuality, even in adults, which I believe is problematic. And I don’t advocate adult/youth sex. I just find the common view of attraction as a sign of dysfunction questionable.
sheepinavacuum 10 months ago
@sheepinavacuum Most people have no issue w/ attraction, but w/ acting on that attraction in a way that is harmful. I knew guys who found the Olsen Twins attractive when they were underage, but they kept it at the level of attraction. I think awkwardness concerning sex is a problem, but lambasting Rutherford doesn't make us awkward. We're denouncing a criminal; not laughing at the word "cock."
elgilicious 10 months ago
@elgilicious I don’t think someone is sexually awkward for “lambasting” someone. And I am not opposed to police preventing potential predatory behavior. I just have a problem with a guy in a suit putting a microphone in someone’s face and asking them, “So what’s it like being a pervert?” for a passive middle class audience (poetic license admitted). Moralistic scorn of disturbed people posed as entertainment bothers me. But I admit this is my subjective position; to each their own.
sheepinavacuum 10 months ago
@sheepinavacuum Hansen is never condescending or malicious. When the predators act ridiculous, he lightly mocks them, but he generally acts civilly. Of course he asks questions re: their perversion; their behavior is curious. Furthermore, every society, even in the wild, ostracizes and scorns those who try to cause disorder while rewarding those who do good.
elgilicious 10 months ago
@elgilicious Hansen is not a cop. Why is he even involved? This kind of thing is more of a social perversion then men having sex with young girls. And what makes sexual contact between an adult and a child ‘perverse’? I do believe that, generally speaking, older people have a psychological advantage over younger people, but how does this advantage create a social evil in a natural act? What if the deeper issue is that contemporary society is itself, morally and sexually dysfunctional?
sheepinavacuum 10 months ago
@sheepinavacuum Why is the reporter there? Uh, to report this story. Grown men having sex with minors creates a "social evil" b/c the man manipulates the girl; there is no real consent. I said that a thousand times already. Also, if we let these "thought criminals" off the hook, they'll just try again. Finally, there is no presumption when the guys flat out say they're going to have sex when they get to the house. These are all obvious.
elgilicious 10 months ago
@elgilicious Why does a reporter need to be involved in these events but to exploit them for the benefit of people who want to see perceived witches burned? Where is any proof that these men are an actual threat to society? Absent an actual act there is only presumption of intent based on a lie. I say am going to do something; this does not mean that I will when actually confronted with the reality.
sheepinavacuum 10 months ago
@elgilicious As devil’s advocate: Where is the evidence that consent cannot exist in the minds of ‘minors’? This is a belief issued to people in society with no social consistency. If an eleven year old girl can act out a realistic rape scene with and adult male for a film (e.g. Bastard out of Carolina) then what of her lack of consent? And the ideology of “social evil” has no bearing on anything but personal (or religious) opinion. You must realize this or you wouldn’t use quotation marks.
sheepinavacuum 10 months ago
@sheepinavacuum I used quotation marks sarcastically. The evidence you seek has been firmly established by medical science. The prefrontal cortex is underdeveloped in teens; hence, they are moody and terrible at making decisions. Adults lack that incapacity, so there is no real consent, only manipulation by the adult. It's not a "social evil" (again, sarcasm quotes); it's all in the physiological differences.
elgilicious 10 months ago
@elgilicious You must realize that not all teenagers have an identical prefrontal cortex (the limbic system is also an important factor in decision making), and many adults themselves have issues that can distress understanding. Adolescents are ‘free meat’ socially speaking, but as a general rule they have much difficulty formulated things. The ideology of consent is social/philosophical, not social/scientific. And this is not a black and white issue.
sheepinavacuum 10 months ago
@sheepinavacuum You're looking at the exception instead of the rule. Most teenagers have an underdeveloped prefrontal cortex, most adults have a developed one. The ideology of consent is based primarily in sociology and science: the brain differences between minors and adults are too great. Minors can't enter into contracts for the same reason: their underdeveloped brains make them poor at making decisions.
elgilicious 10 months ago
@elgilicious I am looking at the exception because I believe it draws the rule into question. Poor decision making could involve trying to have sex with a kid. I agree that the idea of consent is based on scientific observation, but I don't agree that consent itself is a scientifically sound idea. A person's ability to consent is always compromised in some manner emotionally, chemically. I don’t see how consent can be logically measured against the idea of deserved punishment.
sheepinavacuum 10 months ago
@elgilicious How many people do you know who have been put in jail for smoking around children? This is seriously, and inarguably, unhealthy behavior, but society turns a blind eye. Certain things are difficult to address. I believe it is the insecurity people have with the sexuality of children (and young adults) that allows the social stigma surrounding adult/child sexual contact so little vocal protest, as opposed to logical argument.
sheepinavacuum 10 months ago
@sheepinavacuum Easy. A minor can easily tell when there's smoke and leave the area; a minor can't easily tell whether he/she is being groomed for sex by an adult. Furthermore, there's a stigma around adult/child sexual contact b/c, for the millionth time, it's not acceptable for adults to manipulate minors into having sex (which happens in the vast majority of cases given the differences in brain structure).
elgilicious 10 months ago
@elgilicious A child doesn’t know that smoke inhalation can give them asthma unless an adult tells them. Many adults still don‘t know this. And a thirteen year old who has sex-oriented dialog with someone and agrees to meet this person but doesn’t know she is being “groomed" for sex has got some seriously deep psychological issues already. I really don’t think that most young girls (age twelve to fifteen say) are as sexually naïve as they are sexually confused by mixed social messages.
sheepinavacuum 10 months ago
@sheepinavacuum Wrong. A child smells smoke, coughs, and tries to leave. They don't have to know about lung cilia to know it's bad. Also, naivete is irrelevant; it's about incomplete brain development, which the adult exploits. Finally, it's not acceptable to manipulate minors into having sex b/c rape is hurtful, unlike other forms of manipulation (e.g., tricking kids into doing chores). There's really no need to explain that.
elgilicious 10 months ago
@elgilicious I’m guessingthat you don’t know much about smoke inhalation. A child can be adversely affected by cigarette smoke without knowing that they re inhaling it. Up stairs in her room, say. Smoke rises and settles. And hurtful behavior is ANYTHING that exploits adults or children. You are too fixated on the sexual to acknowledge how it is probably the least common element of child abuses. It is the stigma that makes us ignorant to this fact.
sheepinavacuum 10 months ago
@elgilicious I lived with two girls who had parents who smoked. Both had asthma. The need to be around those you love and look to for caring outweighs the harm you may, or may not realize you are experiencing. Sex is not rape unless someone is clearly not interested in the act. And I still don’t understand your use of the word ‘acceptable’. Sounds like a circular opinion word to me. Therefore, it is irrelevant to any logical reasoning against child adult sex.
sheepinavacuum 10 months ago
@sheepinavacuum What a stupid analogy. The smoker doesn't convince the minor that the smoke is safe; the smoker says "fuck all" and lights up. The sex predator convinces the minor that the sex is safe, hence the manipulation. Furthermore, sex is rape if the other person doesn't give consent. Minors can't consent b/c their brain structures make them impulsive and bad at making decisions; adults manipulate them b/c of this incapacity. Notice how I didn't have to appeal to social stigma...again.
elgilicious 10 months ago
@elgilicious You’re the one that is taking this as an analogy. I am simply talking about social/moral inconsistencies. To abuse a “minor” by smoking around them is no less an abuse than if you manipulate a “minor” sexually. I notice you are ignoring my arguments concerning artists and young girls (something that is controversial but still legally permitted).
sheepinavacuum 10 months ago
@elgilicious Sex is not rape if there is consent, which, in this particular case, the woman posing as the girl does give. In your mind this imaginary girl cannot consent because the “brain structures” of children “make them impulsive and bad at making decisions”. You are saying that consent is reliant on a specific-to-age brain chemistry. I don’t believe this at all. Impulsivity and bad decision making don’t necessarily inable one’s ability to agree to and/or understand something.
sheepinavacuum 10 months ago
@sheepinavacuum When analyzing one's capacity to give consent, you look at the decoy as a girl, not as an adult; they have to use adults when conducting these stings. The policy, however, is centered around the minor who could've been in the decoy's spot. Medical science has firmly established that lack of brain development, as exhibited in the majority of teens, impairs the ability to make judgments and, thus, consent. It's not a matter of belief; it's a fact.
elgilicious 10 months ago
@elgilicious
Measuring the level of consent via the ability to make healthy judgments (anyone can make judgments) is not a science. Therefore the ideology that children cannot consent can not be factual. You are making moral assumptions based on the science of the brain (a science which is rife with controversy due to the complexity of its varibles when juxtaposed with human mores).
sheepinavacuum 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sheepinavacuum Most minors are physiologically prone to being impulsive and manipulated; most adults lack such incapacity. In light of this, it's clear that most minors can't truly consent to having sex w/ an adult; there's nothing confusing about this. There is also zero controversy about the lack of development in teenage brains and its impact on decision-making.
elgilicious 10 months ago 3
@sheepinavacuum Well let's just put it this way: would you be very happy if you realized all the phantasies or whatever you had, when you were 12? No. At least I wouldn't. Children often want and do stupid things, yeah, adults do them too, but then they are responsible for their own actions, law is to protect them until adulthood, where hopefully they'll know more about life. It's not ideal to have a strict cut-off date, but that couldn't be done in any other way - that's how law works.
Seveleniumus 8 months ago
@Seveleniumus
My argument is more related to what I see as a moral hypocrisy concerning the interactions between adults and children. The American Association of Pediatrics suggest that exposure to television (and the internet) is unhealthy for children under two years of age, and yet we have television shows designed for this age bracket. Are people actually serious about their concern for the welfare of children? I think we care more about their bodies than we do their brains.
sheepinavacuum 8 months ago
@elgilicious Supposing your are correct: Should a man be convicted for having sex with an eighteen year old female? Should children be allow to advertise or act in sexual and/or violence oriented films, or be photographed in sexual and/or violent situations? All of these things occur, legally. Should teenagers be legally allowed to operate dangerous machinery (e.g. automobiles)? Consent is obviously a confusing (and convenience compromised) issue for many people, socially speaking.
sheepinavacuum 10 months ago
@sheepinavacuum ur the next dude on this show :)
thecrazybhanu 8 months ago
@thecrazybhanu
Is this show still on the air?
Sorry to dissapoint you, but I don’t fit the behavioral profile of the people on this program (not that such a thing would refute any argument I have made). Of course I don’t find their assumed appities to be perverse, either.
sheepinavacuum 8 months ago
@elgilicious And why is it not acceptable for adults to manipulate minors? This happens all the time in society. How does the sexual aspect make it more “wrong” or any less exploitative?
sheepinavacuum 10 months ago
@elgilicious And to wax controversial, I don’t see an inherent dysfunctionality, or perversity, with male attraction to pubescent females. Attraction, as opposed to obsession. I am not referring to Hebephilia, but a natural, and therefore amoral, appreciation of female form. As for intercourse: menstruation is not linked to psychological maturation in humans, but I wonder why is this so? Is human awareness a perversion itself, or is there an actual "dumbing down" occurring socially?
sheepinavacuum 10 months ago
@elgilicious I also believe that (in the U. S. at least) children, especially females, are poorly educated and conditioned when it comes to sexuality. There is something off about raising girls with the illusion that they are sexually innocent (of course many are not as aware as adults of their sexual nature) and should be ‘pure’ but still exhibit sexually oriented rituals like facial painting, emphasis on hair styling and provocative dress. Just doesn’t seem healthy to me.
sheepinavacuum 10 months ago
@elgilicious And if anyone is defecating on society it is the media itself. These men may hurt small groups, while the media sexualization of children effects thousands.
sheepinavacuum 11 months ago
@elgilicious
And where do get the idea that toddlers can separate fantasy from reality? They are still in the process of building a perspective of reality in the first place. It is one thing to question whether media influence can be negative and quite another to completely deny that such a thing is possible.
sheepinavacuum 11 months ago
@elgilicious I was incorrect in stating that YouTube is the most popular site for children in the United States. But you if you don't see a societal contradiction in how young girls are sexualized and conditioned to objectify themselves in this country and media manipulation of the reactionary hatred expressed towards men who are attracted to pubescent females (hebephilia, not pedophilia) then good luck with that illusion. And "cheers" was meant sarcastically, by the way.
sheepinavacuum 11 months ago
I was waiting for this guy to offer Chris a ride in his car before he was taken to jail.
peartfaldo 1 year ago
He also says he never ever thought of going after a student yet according to the Perverted Justice Website after this bonehead was caught the mother of an 11 y/o girl thanked the local police saying he had been grooming her daughter and she was afraid to go to school.
rkjeldgaard 1 year ago
those mic guys can really hold those mics up a long time
nady22 1 year ago
This guy is total trash. He keeps talking about consequences, not being worth it, not wanting to lose his job, all the trouble you can get in,.... Not once does this jerk mention the harm it would do to the victim. He deserves the full punishment allotted to perpetrators like him.
RimmingHerAnus 1 year ago
@RimmingHerAnus Yes he did. Listen around 7:06 he says "Even if nothing had happened, I could have messed her life up"
trevorhirby 1 year ago