Baby with Dildo
“Police are investigating a city woman after film she dropped off at a pharmacy was found to contain images of an infant holding a dildo in its mouth. A photo processor at the CVS in the 2600 block of Easton Avenue called police at 4:10 p.m. Saturday to say while developing a roll of film she discovered two photos of an infant holding and sucking a dildo… [The photographer] told police she was the infant’s aunt and had just bought the dildo when the baby grabbed it and began playing with it. Elliot told police she thought the situation was funny, police records say.” — Express Times (US)
Pending further investigation, you have to admit that the woman’s explanation of the pictures is credible. Probably that’s exactly what happened: the baby grabbed her dildo and, since babies put everything into their mouths anyway, started sucking on it. The lady thought it was funny and snapped a picture. Presuming the dildo was not a monster cock in lifelike plastic — presuming that it was a silver bullet or some other shape reminiscent of abstract sculpture — it may well have been inappropriate for the aunt to leave it within baby’s reach, and it may well evince a sick sense of humor to snap the picture, but it’s hardly child abuse.
And while certainly child abuse is a heinous crime, at the same time you have to wonder about all these snoopy photo processors who take it upon themselves to review the film they develop. If in the middle of an otherwise harmless roll of family snapshots, a photo processor happens to see two pictures of a child in the bathtub, it’s probably less evidence of a child molestor than of a proud parent. And besides, what genuine pedophile would be dumb enough to just drop off his kiddie-porn pics at the local pharmacy?
You seriously have to wonder if any photo clerk has ever really unearthed a pedophile or any other criminal — and if no clerk ever has, then what are they doing peeping at all your pictures? It’s the kind of thing that makes you glad you’re not a beautiful girl, underage or any other age, because you just don’t know how many perverted clerks are duping your pictures and doing God knows what with them.
They view every picture, many murderers and phsycopaths have been discovered through their film they process when they are turned over to the police. It is actually required by law
In the late 1970’s I worked as a photo paper processor at a huge photo lab and, believe it or not, a roll of extremely hardcore child pornography had been (probably mistakenly) dropped off for processing. The police were called, as was required by law, who then confiscated the film and prints.
It isn’t so much “snooping” as it is a byproduct of the process itself - my job was to inspect the 100-foot rolls of exposed photo paper (for scratches, etc.) as it emmerged from the processor, prior to being sliced into separate prints. I will say, however, within a few months, at 16,000 rolls of film per night, I had seen pretty much everything one could - from babies being born to gruesome murder scenes and everything inbetween, including lots of ameteur porn - softcore and hard.
And yes, we did keep an eye out for the fairly typical snapshots of unsuspecting women stepping out of the shower or in some other unclothed situation, of which there were always plenty it seemed. After all, eight long hours of staring at millions of photos each night can become quicky mundane.
What kind of sicko takes a picture of a baby sucking a dildo anyway? I am an aunt myself and this kind of nasty BS makes me want to take this woman and make her suck on something herself: my foot as I jam it in her mouth. Sick biatch anyway.
a dumb bitch with poor taste?
O.K., so the baby put the dildo in its mouth, but the woman should not have taken a picture. She should not have even left it by the baby. If she already did, she should not have taken a picture. If she left it by accident, she should have realized it and quickly taken it away from the baby and not take a picture of it. It is not funny, but pedophilic.
All comments become the property of PervScan. You must use an email address to post a comment. However, PervScan disallows email addresses in the text of comments.
Tits Tits Tits
