Universal Sims...

[Quorneater]

Actually we are legal minors till 18 for things like contracts, but the sexual age of consent is 16 and after that age we can shag anything of any age with no legal problems for either partner.

So underage sex and porn that is illegal for age reasons would be where the subject of the material is or appears to be under 16.  The term "older teens" probably in this context therefore means 14-15 yr olds.  Technically they are illegal but they are physically post-pubertal, not childlike and it would not be paedophilia proper, orientationally speaking.

But obviously he was given the benefit of the doubt.  30 child photos were among many ones of young but developed teens.   The child photos could have got there by accident.   Or the child photos may have been the ones wanted, and the larger numbers of older ones there so as to provide the excuse for the others.

Really, to have been supporting sites that had true child porn in the first place is not very responsible.  The right thing for him to have done when any of these accidental child images arrived in his downloads would have been to notify the police.   He should have gone elsewhere for his young woman images.

[liegenschonheit]

Hentai Azumanga Daioh doujinshi makes Chiyo-chan cry.

Highschool girls and barely-legal teens are a big moneymaker in the porn industry, from what I understand. Being sexually attracted to teenage girls is hardly an abnormality, as sad as that seems. I don't condone people who seek sexual contact with underage people, but having a few pics of girls who appear to be teens on his computer isn't the end of the world.

[Quorneater]

having a few pics of girls who appear to be teens on his computer isn't the end of the world.

Correct, it wouldn't have been.  But that's not what happened.

[neriana]

having a few pics of girls who appear to be teens on his computer isn't the end of the world.

Correct, it wouldn't have been.  But that's not what happened.

First, under-18 porn is illegal, period. In the U.S., we have a huge range of "ages of consent" that change state to state, some of which are frankly scary, but pornography involving minors is always illegal. You might be able to consent to sex legally, but you can't consent to being in pornography unless you are 18.

Second, you're leaping to the conclusion that he was "supporting sites that had true child porn in the first place". First, we don't know that it was "true child porn" for reasons people have already given. Second, these things are always linked; I doubt there are any adult porn sites on the internet that don't connect to child porn through some channel or other.

Most importantly: People who knew the details, which none of us do, and who are trained to deal with this stuff, which I'm guessing none of us are, decided he wasn't a threat to children.

Deciding you know everything about a guy from one little article on the internet isn't exactly fair or just, either.

[Quorneater]

First, we don't know that it was "true child porn" for reasons people have already given. Second, these things are always linked; I doubt there are any adult porn sites on the internet that don't connect to child porn through some channel or other.

Sorry, I don't agree that either of these statements are true.

a) we do know it was true child porn, the newspaper would not have been allowed to get away with saying so if it was not true, and Delphy would not have been in such trouble.  It wouldn't have even made the news.
b) absolute codswallop to your second point.

I can understand your problem.  Nobody wants to think its someone they know well.  But attraction to socially unacceptable sex objects is a heck of a lot more common than most people realise.

A little later:  I have just checked the legal facts, and the age was raised from 16 to 18 a few years after this case, so the images would have definitely been depicting people under 16, in 2001, in order for there to be a prosecution.   The newspaper makes clear that *in addition* there were 30 pictures "of children".   The newspaper is obviously in its own way attempting to describe a distinction between the pictures of under-16 teens and the 30 pictures of younger children.   There would have been no point in making a distinction if 300 of them looked 15 and 30 looked 14.

And no matter what the experts thought at the time, a few years on we have someone hosting a website that appears to be celebrating the idea of teenage girls having sex with their fathers.  But of course, in your view there's no danger in that because 6 years ago some social workers decided there wasn't going to be.

[OneEyedWillie]

neriana  it's 16 in England where delphy is...the laws are different to America.  


Remember people, american laws aren't used everywhere in the world!  I'm sorry but it bugs me the hell outta me when people apply their laws to other countries where it's different.  

So if he had pics of underage girls then it would be under the age of 16....that said, the COURT OF LAW IN ENGLAND thought he wasn't a threat (as stated by someone else) and felt he had paid for his crime.  No i'm not defending him, but man this is getting old.  We aren't the judge or jury (well in this case there wasn't a jury), and so we didn't hear all the evidence and whatnot.....AND ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT YOU BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ IN THE PAPERS?  I'm not saying that it was wrong, as delphy himself confirmed it, but papers can distort things....  I'm not saying what happened was right, just trying to keep things in perspective.

[liegenschonheit]

I was not condoning or voicing approval of any behaviour involving pornography and minors, but given the facts of the case and the fact that the courts ruled that he was not a danger to children, I don't see what this has to do with the sims community. As far as I can tell, he has never harmed or intended to harm any children or teenagers, and even though his conviction IS a matter of public record I don't think it is any of our business. There is no evidence whatsoever that he has used MTS2 as a means to solicit or otherwise engage minors in sexual activity.

I'm not exactly heading up the Delphy fanclub, I think the guy seems pretty shady from time to time myself. I just don't think it's right that this business gets brought up every time a little doubt is cast on him for unrelated reasons.  Courts ruled that he is not a danger, he took his punishment, and he is by all appearances keeping his nose clean. Given the context of the images, it is fair to say that it may have even been a very costly mistake on his part.

I was just pointing out before that being attracted to developed teenagers does not make one a pedophile, and there is no evidence that Delphy is attracted to pre-pubescent children.

[Quorneater]

I think everyone was prepared to let him move on.  The MikeInside stuff has forced a revisit.   It's hardly unrelated!

[liegenschonheit]

Knowing that the community already is aware of his conviction, Delphy would have to be pretty fucking stupid to use a sims site to solicit teens for pics, especially one he hosts. Look how fast everyone here jumped to the conclusion that Delphy must have done it. I for one would like to see more evidence.

[Quorneater]

Knowing that the community already is aware of his conviction, Delphy would have to be pretty fucking stupid to use a sims site to solicit teens for pics, especially one he hosts. Look how fast everyone here jumped to the conclusion that Delphy must have done it. I for one would like to see more evidence.

He was "pretty fucking stupid" to be too lazy to delete the younger child photos too, seeing as he didn't have any use for them and was fully aware they would get him into worse trouble than the teen ones.  But he has admitted this, we're not speculating.

How come he wasn't so upset with MikeInside that he stopped hosting him?  It's not like Delphy never decides to stop hosting people.  The vast majority of people in the sims community would have pulled the plug on that site - dead.  Delphy has proven himself "pretty fucking stupid" not to have made a point of responding in that way especially with his past conviction - and "pretty fucking stupid" not to realise people would speculate if he didn't.

[Captain Feathersword]

What's with the name change Inge?

[Quorneater]

I call myself Canute when I get depressed about paysites.

[redisenchanted]

The community as a whole wasn't aware of his conviction and a lot of people still aren't I suspect. A lot of people viewed MTS2 as a family-friendly site, and were understnadably not pleased to learn that the person who ran it had such a record. People like me who donated money would never have done so if we had known.

A pervy forum on a site he hosts is quite related. None of us can say we know that he was behind it, but his response to the matter has helped fuel the speculation.

If people knowing all this still want to support him for running a good sims 2 site, nothing is stopping them.

[missangelica]

And on the UniversalSims front, the donation total still is $463.50 USD,  according to the website.  It has been stuck on that number for at least a week.  I hope it's grossly inaccurate and no one actually gave him money..

"Nathan" has not popped back up since he got the thread on N99 closed.  Apparently you can ask for $2,500 from the community and not have to fully explain yourself..

[Aquamarine]

Personally, I'm wondering about the thought process that goes into donating money to random internet strangers...

"Hello fellow text personalities. Give me you moneyz cuz I needs it 4 mah stuff."

"lol k."

...with NO QUESTIONS ASKED. The fact that he (Nathan/Delphy/Your mom) has almost $500 with that incredibly shady story is appalling.