girl-with-camera.jpg

6 mothers have been arrested for hawking lewd pictures of their daughters – one as young as 7 months – to creepy lolicon online, all of them claiming they just needed the money – although their unwillingness to work or even pursue similar avenues themselves seems to have ensured them very little sympathy indeed.

Police arrested 6 mothers in their twenties, thirties and forties across Japan for distributing child pornography after investigating the 44-year-old man who had been buying their services using an online auction site.

From 2009 to 2011, the women had been providing the man with pictures of their daughters, aged from 7 months to 8, for ¥1,000 for a snap and ¥1,000-5,000 for a movie. One mother made some ¥75,000 in sales from her child alone.

The transactions apparently began in 2005 when the man bought a pair of used pantsu from one of the mothers who had put them up for auction.

He then asked for pictures, only to be told she had no camera, so he generously sent her the money to buy one. He also helpfully sent them pictures of other girls so they would know the proper poses to make their children take.

All of the mothers involved admitted doing it for the money, with one saying she was thinking of divorce and so “needed the money” and another complaining that “my husband wasn’t paid enough.” Another was on welfare.

One even claims that “As I just secretly snapped her coming out of the bath without her noticing, I didn’t think it constituted a crime.”

None of the women knew each other, and it appears they all came to be acquainted with the man only through auctions they initiated.

They are all said to regret their actions and fear the pictures they took have spread online, although it is probably a little late for this.

Online there is bewilderment at both how they could treat their children in this way, and why it never occurred to them to get a job – any job:

“Their poor daughters…”

“Sell pictures of yourself instead!”

“So does that idiot who thought it wasn’t a crime think it was otherwise OK to this to her?”

“Get a job if you’re in your twenties…”

“A 7-month-old…”

“You can get buy on welfare without doing something like this, I’m sure.”

“God knows what they wanted to blow all the cash on.”

“Couldn’t they manage any part-time job? If they are that desperate, they really ought to sell their own bodies before doing that to their daughters.”

“Why couldn’t they appear in AVs themselves?”

“I guess these old hags couldn’t have sold pics of themselves either.”

“It’s disgusting that they’d do this to them when they weren’t ready to sell themselves.”

“I cannot believe their excuses will fly. In Europe or the US, they’d surely be declared unfit parents, have their kids taken away and be looking at a 20 year sentence.”

“They are trying to blame this guy for it, but they were the ones who started selling stuff online first…”


    Post Comment »
    120 Comments
    Sort by: Date | Score
    Avatar of KleinerKokiri
    Comment by KleinerKokiri
    20:38 27/07/2012 # ! Quality (+1.0)

    >“I cannot believe their excuses will fly. In Europe or >the US, they’d surely be declared unfit parents, have >their kids taken away and be looking at a 20 year >sentence.”

    Those pictured would be no problem over here. They are actually legal. This depends on what kind of 'poses' they had to make. German law distinguishes between nudism and porn. The line is thin though sometimes. The poses have to be 'non-sexually' so they count as nudism pictures.
    But the laws in Europe are very different depending on the region. It still shocks me to see such a statement from a Japanese though.

    >They are all said to regret their actions and fear the pictures they took have spread online,

    A few more nude pictures between million others no one cares about either.

    Comment by Anonymous
    02:47 28/07/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    http://oi47.tinypic.com/30wmhky.jpg

    This applies to you guys.

    Comment by Anonymous
    14:32 28/07/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    If we go into modern society its only in the recent recent history last 100 years that marriages at 14 were becoming non common and to the point that is still happening in many places around the world

    That said 7 months is a no

    Comment by Anonymous
    05:13 28/07/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    Not true! In my country max fine is 5 years and I'm inside of EU union.

    Also any grandpa can fuck any 15 years old without problem.

    Also I don't see a problem here. We are in capitalism after all. Where everything is for sale! Good bless democracy!

    Comment by Anonymous
    05:38 01/08/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    What is the name of your country? I am thinking of migration.

    Comment by Anonymous

    You forgot that in the EU, the foster parents are mostly even worse than their original parents(either they have too many fostered children or they are even worse and child molesters themselves... I mean, if we're honest, noone who isn't a saint or tad stupid would raise the children from unrelated people if he gets nothing out of the deal...and the most cases of child abuse result from their direct sorroundings, like parents and their relatives and friends).

    I for myself would never harm my children (if I had some) or my wife, but I'd never accept to raise some mentally disturbed child that someone already broke/destroyed. And how the hell would you separate a 7-month old baby from it's parents? The imprinting isn't even over in that life phase yet and still you'd separate the child? It'll become mentally ill/retarded or whatever for sure in the future if you do that...

    Well, in todays society there should be rules about who may have children and who may not, adoption/fostering is not an option if we want a stable society(because the sickos will keep bearing people just because they can while birthrates of normal people decline because they have to work more to feed the mouths of the sickos and their kids, it's like human cuckoos that leech from the righteous people and their work!).

    Humanity was doomed from the beginning of the globalization,but this is sheer madness. I really don't understand why society doesn't just banish those people out of the cities;into the woods,savannas,deserts and tundras where they can live their sick lives until their last breath.

    There they can sell their kids or do anything they want, but not as long as they are part of the society that protects them and provides for them 1000-fold more than they ever give back(because only a few jobs actually provide for the society[ like doctors, scientists, police officers, judges , all kinds of rescue personnel like firefighters, farmers, miners, metal- and electricity workers and foresters] and most just leech from the ressources[like lawyers,bankers,managers,sale-personnel, most 08/15 jobs like cashiers,advisors,etc...]).

    Humanity decided to drag that enlarging rattail of human scum along with it,but I wonder how long that will last. Soon enough it will become the nemesis again and civil war will break out in most parts of the world to establish law and order once again.Let's just hope that these people will get extinct once and for all and that our children will have a far better future to live their lives in :D

    Comment by Anonymous
    03:32 28/07/2012 # ! Neutral (+0.4)

    So...because my parents died I should be labeled as unwanted, outcast, and broken...and should of never been adopted/fostered.......please kill yourself.

    Comment by Anonymous
    03:53 28/07/2012 # ! Neutral (+0.2)

    "In the EU" yeah because the EU is a single country with a system that's alike everywhere. You sure really take the cake when it comes to ignorance.
    I love how you lump together countries who couldn't be more different in many social aspects simply because it's convenient for you to do so.

    Are you by any chance American?

    Avatar of mike d
    Comment by mike d
    05:08 28/07/2012 # ! Neutral (+0.2)

    I always love reading a statement that calls out ignorance, then closes said statement with something equally ignorant. While I completely agree that annon 21:10 is assuming all countries in europe must be have the same systems, culture and problems, and that is an ignorant assumption, I must say your follow-up question of "Are you by any chance American" is an equally ignorant assumption. I have seen stupid, racist, ignorant comments on here from multiple countries. Don't get me wrong, there is no lack of idiots here in america, and no matter how superior some of us like to pretend we are we are about as far from perfect as can be, and this damn place is falling apart around us. Ayways, despite what some people would like to believe, stupidity and ignorance are worldwide issues, and so to pull a page from your book, you both take the cake when it comes to ignorance.

    Avatar of Mauvais
    Comment by Mauvais
    13:48 28/07/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    North or south American? From Canada? Alaska?

    Oh, you mean the U.S.A., don't you? Where any given state is as big as a most countries of the world? Where the mindset and education of each of those territories is different, right? That place that has always had a reputation for all the immigration it gets.

    Yeah, man. Everyone there's the same. Ignorant fools without a clue about foreign culture. They always make assumptions and generalizations. Can't stand it.

    Comment by Anonymous
    02:42 28/07/2012 # ! Neutral (+0.2)

    Wait, the imprinting isn't done, so THAT is a good reason to not take the baby away? Before she finish's imprinting on the mother and therefor making it that much more difficult to raise a toddler? Are you insane?

    Comment by Anonymous
    11:05 28/07/2012 # ! Neutral (+0.4)

    killing isnt a integral part of marxism in the slightest. The Purge in russia was not to do with MArxist views and what Stalin did was not marxism , he was a complete and utter opportunist that took power.

    Comment by Anonymous
    03:45 28/07/2012 # ! Neutral (+0.2)

    No I think he is just stupid and long winded like most conservative leaning people..They just don't think their "ideas" through.

    Comment by Anonymous
    03:46 28/07/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    And they like to present their "ideas" as facts for some unknown reason

    Comment by Anonymous
    04:00 28/07/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    @03:54
    You have no idea what you are talking about, it shows, and its pretty damn funny.

    Comment by Anonymous

    You do know that progressives have still not given up on Marx? Now there was a well thought out idea, steal from those who work and give to those who will support you, murdering many in the process.

    Avatar of Chen-04
    Comment by Chen-04
    23:14 27/07/2012 # ! Neutral (+0.2)

    "but I'd never accept to raise some mentally disturbed child that someone already broke/destroyed."

    Actually, I'd love to do just that. Just for the challenge in it. Of course, only if I see a chance to accomplish said challenge.

    "Let's just hope that these people will get extinct once and for"
    You have the wrong concept. It's not "these people". It's "people". Anybody, really. It's impossible to root them out. It's like trying to set up light and then fighting the shadows that will inevitably show up. Collectivism is one of the best steps you can take, because than someboy will actually care and not just look the other way.

    Comment by Anonymous
    03:58 28/07/2012 # ! Neutral (+0.2)

    The empirical evidence is not against his argument. Because, almost every nation in the world practices some form of collectivism, and not just in modern times, but since recorded history. Or maybe you don't know what collectivism actually is? By your logic we should be extinct by now.

    Avatar of Chen-04
    Comment by Chen-04
    04:47 28/07/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    The people that are killed by collectivism are pretty much "other" people. Because it means setting up a group, a collective. If your part of it, it will benefit you. If you are against it, it could kill you. But people that are part of the collective will look out for each other. If something described in this article would transpire to them, they would teach the wrongdoers, what they did wrong. (Though, in this case I don't even see harm.)

    Also, it seems like you view killing as something inherently wrong. I don't share that sentiment. And I wasn't describing how collectivism would prevent people from commiting atrocities. I was pointing out, that with collectivism you get people to watch out for each other. If you're part of the group, anyway.

    Comment by Anonymous
    03:52 28/07/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    Collectivism killed approx. 200 million people and continues to do so in China, Cuba and North Korea. Empirical evidence is against you.

    Comment by Anonymous
    03:49 28/07/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    You really didn't think this through did you?

    Comment by Anonymous
    23:22 27/07/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    That genetic perspective of being related as a rearing incentive still looks back at living in the woods and savannas, really. Societies can't just accomodate crude humans nowadays, they need expertise, sophistication or other types of efficiency. And there is no default one, they are necessairly flavored, not very universal and
    not imparted at ease. Much, much more hassle than gestation with all of its horrors and inconveniences. Even for one's genetic legacy to live on, the niche does have to provide for the next generation, too. If it can't reach breeding standards of living, it drops the baton and the whole thing never happened in terms of inheritance. So certain attitudes receive genetic pressure from the social environment as well, and in a longer term it works. The problem is the suffering of these terminal generations.

    Not that much conscience or forethought is needed for breeding, but whenever it is present, it takes that into account.

    It's sharing experience, attitudes, techniques and whatever stands for civilization that's the deal in rearing. Giving someone a pair of shoulders to stand on so that they don't have to beat around the bush about the matters you've solved at the great cost of doing that for years. Advancing their starting point, enabling progress. Not only does it make coexistence pleasurable and efficient, it makes it possible. That's what humanity's been doing for these tens of thousands of years. That you do that all the time tells you it's way more important than having related offspring. After all, we don't trade genetic material on this forum, we trade culture.

    Then again, just like their mating strategies differ between specimen based on their characteristics (e.g. attractive units don't have to be very possessive), the rearing incentives will as well.

    Comment by Anonymous
    23:12 27/07/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    That genetic perspective of being related as a rearing incentive still looks back at living in the woods and savannas, really. Societies can't just accomodate crude humans nowadays, they need expertise, sophistication or other types of efficiency. And there is no default one, they are necessairly flavored, not very universal and
    not imparted at ease. Much, much more hassle than gestation with all of its horrors and inconveniences. Even for one's genetic legacy to live on, the niche does have to provide for the next generation, too. If it can't reach breeding standards of living, it drops the baton and the whole thing never happened in terms of inheritance. So certain attitudes receive genetic pressure from the social environment as well, and in a longer term it works. The problem is the suffering of that terminal generation.

    Not that much conscience or forethought is needed for breeding, but whenever it is present, it takes that into account.

    It's sharing experience, attitudes, techniques and whatever stands for civilization that's the deal in rearing. Giving someone a pair of shoulders to stand on so that they don't have to beat around the bush about the matters you've solved at the great cost of doing that for years. Advancing their starting point, enabling progress. Not only does it make coexistence pleasurable and efficient, it makes it possible. That's what humanity's been doing for these tens of thousands of years. That you do that all the time tells you it's way more important than having related offspring. After all, we don't trade genetic material on this forum, we trade culture.

    Then again, just like their mating strategies differ between specimen based on their characteristics (e.g. attractive units don't have to be very possessive), the rearing incentives will as well.

    Comment by Anonymous

    Its not about who cares and who doesn't care for the nude pictures..its about how pathetic it is to sell your own infant children's pictures,morality is lost from this world.And what would you call this? mental instability or pure evilness.

    Comment by Anonymous
    05:58 28/07/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    You perhaps forget plenty of parents got money for their kid becoming a movie or music star or fashion model (pretty much any children's clothing catalogue need them) or taking part in an advertisement.

    Is that pathetic and immoral, even if the children don't care and aren't prevented from going to school or anything else directly harmful? 'cause I was actually posing as a fashion catalogue model, as a kid. And I'm still okay with it easing the burden on my parent's wallets a little.

    Comment by Anonymous
    04:58 28/07/2012 # ! Neutral (+0.4)

    The kids are 7 month old. Does anyone think that taking pictures of them is going to tramatize them or something? Whats the big deal? The babies have no idea what is going on, as long at they werent being phisicaly abused, pictures are no harm.

    Comment by Anonymous
    21:49 27/07/2012 # ! Neutral (+0.4)

    I can understand having sexual desire 12 year old girl, but to a 7 month baby girl?

    Avatar of Chen-04
    Comment by Chen-04
    23:17 27/07/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    It's probably important to build this stuff up from scratch. Obviously the kid will grow up in time and if this has become a habit by then for the mother..

    Avatar of phayt00
    Comment by phayt00
    16:05 27/07/2012 # ! Good (+0.4)

    7-8 months old?? what's the point of that?

    if you are interested, why not raise a kid yourself?

    Avatar of Tasche
    Comment by Tasche
    16:16 27/07/2012 # ! Neutral (+0.2)

    i think what he ment was from 7months to 8yr olds.

    Comment by Anonymous
    18:56 27/07/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    Not that easy to adopt, and we're speaking about creepy lolicons.

    It shouldn't be that hard to convince a poor woman to give birth to your child or some child conceived for you to enjoy. But when you think of it, it's not much different, and a bears a lot more constraints.

    Comment by Anonymous
    21:23 27/07/2012 # ! Good (+0.6)

    I don't think 7-8 months is anywhere near the definition for "lolita". Hell, I don't know if that even qualifies as "child". "Baby", more like it. Great. "Baby Porn".

    At the rate things are going, we'll be seeing fathers arrested for glancing at their newborns in their birthday suits. They'll have to change their diapers blindfolded or from behind bars.

    Comment by Anonymous
    23:40 27/07/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    Ever heard of toddlercon?

    Comment by Anonymous
    23:21 27/07/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    Yes, but does every one of us posters need their own forum? Efficiency comes into play.

    Comment by Anonymous

    we should all go to the adoption agency now!!!

    Comment by Anonymous
    17:36 27/07/2012 # ! Neutral (+0.4)

    no one was harmed and if it weren't for that investigation no one ever would've been harmed

    WHAT A HIDEOUS CRIME!!!

    Comment by Anonymous
    21:49 27/07/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    The harming potential is still there. If these pics are going to be forever private porn - no harm in that. But have they ascertained that? Can they trust a man they've probably never met so much? Shady dealings can be blackmail bait. Double-edged sword, but some sides can wriggle out more easily than others. And the porn use might be just a pretense in the first place.

    Comment by Anonymous
    04:21 28/07/2012 # ! Neutral (+0.2)

    it doesn't matter if they go public or not

    if they go public and the mothers shut their mouths no one involved will see the pics again
    the children definitely won't remember them
    those pics are worth absolutely nothing... not even as blackmail material
    they don't have any power to influence the lives of the kids in any way

    the only difference this makes is that some pedophiles are looking at some children that for once weren't brutally abused for the pics

    Avatar of Ota-Kool
    Comment by Ota-Kool
    18:24 27/07/2012 # ! Neutral (-0.2)

    yeah hideous thats a good one i'll just search on google and youtube so no trace from those Fuckin Cop! hehehe

    Comment by Anonymous
    23:42 27/07/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    >2012
    >using Google and YouTube for CP
    >implying you'll find it there
    >still using Google at all

    This nigga is funny as hell.

    Avatar of Justin iZ Here
    Comment by Justin iZ Here
    20:31 27/07/2012 # ! Good (+0.4)

    I don't see the appeal of a 7 month old...I may be a lolicon but even I have my limits...jesus man..

    Comment by Anonymous
    07:07 28/07/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    Hollywood and those Roswell alien models had that type of neotenic look. Could be that.

    Avatar of Spring loli vampire
    Comment by Spring loli vampire
    01:41 28/07/2012 # ! Good (+0.4)

    She sold photos of her daughters ? And you guys find that sick? Real babies are sold in the real world not pics of them...
    And i admit i would love to see some of those pics :P

    Avatar of Riiku
    Comment by Riiku
    22:22 27/07/2012 # ! Neutral (+0.2)

    It's just pictures, what harm can come from them? It's not like you'll ever be recognized by anyone. Ever.

    Fuck logick

    Comment by Anonymous
    23:15 27/07/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    It's not like you'll be until you are. Or until you've been.

    Avatar of Chen-04
    Comment by Chen-04
    19:20 27/07/2012 # ! Neutral (+0.2)

    I dunno, but it seems like an incredible easy way to make lots of cash. And it's just pictures.

    Comment by Anonymous
    01:56 28/07/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    Pictures that can get you 20 years in jail.

    Avatar of Chen-04
    Comment by Chen-04
    04:48 28/07/2012 # ! Neutral (+0.2)

    Yeah.. law is fucked up. Downloading music can cost you a fortune, but no one cares.

    Comment by Anonymous
    05:42 28/07/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    If I knew selling my nude baby pictures to creepy old pervs was so lucrative, I would of made copies!

    Comment by Anonymous
    06:05 28/07/2012 # ! Neutral (+0.2)

    Or used underwear... Think about it. Buy cheap panties, use a couple of times and sell to stupid perverts! This way the kid will be always wearing new panties, you will never have to wash them AND you will be draining money from a pervert that is paying $100 on piss residues!

    Avatar of KleinerKokiri
    Comment by KleinerKokiri
    20:42 27/07/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    I do agree with you. You might want to take a look at old sancom articles. The very first year. The attitude has changed much since then. sancom has become mainstream.





    Post Comment »

Popular

Recent News

Recent Galleries

Recent Comments