His first name starts with a Q?! That poor kid, imagine getting your porn preference blasted into the news by your mom and then you also have a Q in your name. Mom should be sued for child abuse
I don’t know why they bother censoring it we all know he’s called Quentin.
Could be Quasimodo.
Imagine gooning so hard that your mom makes you famous.
She just didn’t want him to jerk off to her on chaturbate. She performs there regularly as “Giantmagacnt”
I want to believe this is satire but fuck I will not be fact checking.
Dude gunna have to be homeschooled until graduation.
Better not break his arms.
Did homie ever make money off that? Of just terminated his reddit account?
Ew
Yeah, I can imagine having a mother like that would make it so that you can’t enjoy life, damn.
I have never heard of most of these and I’m a decent degenerate.
Never stop to discover new things.
“Mom” isn’t doing this unless she’s uber rich. Someone is bankrolling her to try to set precedent.
Anti-masturbation shaming and lawfare and the idea that you can blame all your problems on it is a mainstay of the religious right playbook.
They then hold the forever frustrated subject in a mental shame prison they can never escape but above which they can self righteously judge everyone else and feel they know the real reason why everything is messed up. A similar self sealing logic as the conspirationnists.
Ding Ding Ding! You Win!
Mom is joined in her lawsuit by the National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE).
https://endsexualexploitation.org/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Center_on_Sexual_Exploitation
The National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE), previously known as Morality in Media and Operation Yorkville, is an American conservative anti-pornography organization.[2][3] The group has also campaigned against sex trafficking, same-sex marriage, sex shops and sex toys, decriminalization of sex work, comprehensive sex education, and various works of literature or visual arts the organization has deemed obscene, profane or indecent. Its current president is Marcel Van der Watt. The organization describes its goal as “exposing the links between all forms of sexual exploitation”.[4]
The group has also campaigned against sex trafficking, same-sex marriage, sex shops and sex toys
So they just did a control + f for “sex” and then are against any of the results. Are they seriously suggesting that there are people out there who are all for sex trafficking, and would vote in favour of it? They sound like lovely people.
Its current president is Marcel Van der Watt.
That makes so much sense.
I’m pretty sure NCOSE is a cover for a pedo ring. They probably frequented Epstein’s parties.
They are a right-wing religious advocacy group. So it’s practically a guarantee.
Pretty sure those NCOSE assholes are the ones who said school shootings and other mass murders are because of moral decline due to gay people.
Operation Yorkville
I have found my new masturbation euphemism.
Beautifully stated!
You mean he wasn’t born on January 1st 1970?
Ah yeah, that’s what sex on the first date means
Jeebus, I need backup plans for Friday nights.
Page 8 & 9 of the court filing (not the article):
Through this time, Q.R. was able to access chaturbate.com on thirty different instances: […] seven instances on August 30, 2024 […]
Bruh, make sure to hydrate.
Page 13, absolutely fascinating to me that “prays for judgement” is stated and whether that is at all common:
Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants in an amount in excess of $75,000.00 for: a. actual damages resulting from Q.R.’s access to material that is harmful to minors, including but not limited to past medical expenses, future medical expenses, past and future lost services and disability, past and future pain, suffering, and disability […]
Page 15, looking for more details on alleged “disfigurement”:
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue in the future to suffer the following damages: a. Pain, suffering, disability, disfigurement, and mental anguish […]
It goes on to talk about pornography causing a shift in perspective on sex and possibly leading to addiction. Not finding anything specific on the alleged “disfigurement”.
I’m left to assume poor Q.R. will have to deal the rest of his life with the friction burns caused by jerkin’ it 7+ times on August 30, 2024.
His mom also demanded a jury trial, so Q.R. can rest easy knowing 12 strangers will hear about his friction burns and give it the serious attention due.
Page 13, absolutely fascinating to me that “prays for judgement” is stated
It’s not a “prayer” in the religious sense.
“Prayer” in a court filing is what the plaintiff asks the court to do to resolve the case.
Surely you cannot sue someone for future injuries where the future injuries are entirely unevidenced. There would have to be some kind of medical assessment that said that this kid is going to suffer ongoing injuries and I can’t imagine they have such an assessment.
Maybe the counter argument should be that this kid’s mom should attempt to get him on disability payments, and only if he’s able to get on that, will they accept liability. There is zero chance of that happening.
This was so hilariously stated - and your comment is quite thought-provoking.
I can’t imagine how this poor teenager will think of his mother over time.
Bet that kid is counting the days until he’s legally an adult and can get away from her.
I can’t imagine how this poor teenager will think of his mother over time.
Not well, this much is certain.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue in the future to suffer the following damages: a. Pain, suffering, disability, disfigurement, and mental anguish […]
More likely a direct result of his mom being a fucking psycho.
I feel bad for her kid. Everyone is going to hate him for this.
“Q.R., using his mother’s old laptop, had unfettered access to the internet and began searching for hardcore pornography,” says the court. His mom claims this led to “pain, suffering, disability, disfigurement, and mental anguish; psychological injury; past and future love of enjoyment and pleasure of living.”
It’s not the internet making your son feel those things, it’s you.
Why is the mom not responsible for giving her kid internet access.
Well she is, but also the law states she can get compensation if an adult site doesn’t age restrict minors.
Negligent is the word you’re looking for. And her child should be removed and put in a safe environment. At the least she should have to pay a fine and attend classes and child protection should make visits.
His mom claims this led to “…; past and future love of enjoyment and pleasure of living.”
So the mom is suing Chaturbate, et al., because she thinks they’re going to cause her son to enjoy life in the future? Is that the mental gymnastics going on here?
I think it’s just poorly written pseudo-legalese, and it’s intended to mean that he will be unable to enjoy life in the future because of the psychological damage that poor is doing to him (unrealistic expectations and mental harm, et cetera).
While porn addiction and unrealistic ideas of beauty and sex are genuinely real things that happen, the way to prevent that is with frank, open discussions about sex and pornography, not trying to prevent your 14 year old from masturbating. I was a 14 year old boy at one point, and lemme tell you, nothing could stop me from masturbating. Nothing. It’s just not going to happen. Kids will find ways to find porn, and if somehow we completely do away with it entirely (again, won’t happen), they’ll find new ways, and they’ll read and write erotica or get into hentai or whatever. This woman is insane, Kansas is insane, and so are all the other states imposing this bullshit
Disfigurement? Kid’s doing something wrong.
Mom never supported any kind of sexual education and definitely refuses any kind of healthy and mature conversation with the poor kid.
Don’t knock it till you try it
That’s truly some advanced-level porn.
Internet told him to break both his arms.
Mom is mad he doesn’t have energy left for her.
Ultra Porn is only for the old and infirm.
“Hello maam, your son clicked the prompt stating he wasn’t in Kansas. Our service is not offered in that state. Goodbye.”
Guess he’ll have to do it like we used to back in the day: lock himself in the bathroom with a Victoria’s Secret catalogue.
My favorite part:
His mom claims this led to “pain, suffering, disability, disfigurement, and mental anguish; psychological injury; past and future love of enjoyment and pleasure of living.”
Man fuck that bitch!
Am I the only one that thinks there’s something positive to stricter control of pornography?
Even if you love porn and grew up exposed to it as a kid, you gotta admit that there are psychological effects on avid adult viewers and more on minors.
Think about what was available as a kid, too. Wait 10 min for a 3 minute to load or just search pics. Now it’s a completely different overstimulating world that transforming how people relate to sex and themselves.
I was sex-negative until recent years due to Catholic conditioning mixing with unlabeled asexuality. Seeing the rising movements against porngraphy has driven me to veer strongly sex-positive, especially after the 2024 USAmerican election.
An “anti-pornography” movement is incredibly dangerous because it can leverage that label to steamroll through anything “for the children” and ward off all but the strongest and loudest criticism. It’s a lot like “Mothers Against Drunk Driving”. Every Politician fears being the lone dissenter on a “for the children” bill; No judge wants to seen as soft on “children accessing porn”.
Porn may be “transforming how people relate to sex and themselves”. The anti-porn movement is working to rip away digital privacy, trying to destroy LGBTQIA+ lives, and will squash free artistic expression. Think of any work of art that ever includes nudity, or ever depicts sex - through text, imagery or video. Now imagine defending its “artistic value” to an armed soldier who stormed in your house, or being badgered by a prosecutor in front of a judge and panel of 12.
“Anti-porn” or “Anti-kids accessing porn” legislation are the legislative equivalent of setting off a firecracker in your mouth to stop a toothache. I remain baffled every time I see support for this from “progressive” online spaces and voices, especially considering that we are living under the Republican regime, Right Now.
I remain baffled every time I see support for this from “progressive” online spaces and voices
It’s just people not using their brains, everything is just viewed at its surface level with no deeper analysis ever conducted. They are the sort of idiots that think that Starship Troopers is profascism.
Not sure why you’re getting down voted. Porn can absolutely become a behavioral addiction.
I used to work at a place where we had a lobby guard that watched porn on his phone all day (sound off). Not sitting there trying to jerk it, it was a compulsion. He would just be watching it while talking to other people, standing by the door…it was weird. He eventually got fired because he genuinely couldn’t not watch porn.
That being said, I’m a huge privacy advocate, and while there are actually ways to anonymously be on a website and verify age, that’s not how anyone is doing it. Things like signing up for an account on a site and scanning your ID are just abysmally stupid. There’s a zero percent chance that this system as is doesnt lead to data theft and possibly even extortion.
That being said, I’m a huge privacy advocate, and while there are actually ways to anonymously be on a website and verify age
How would that work? I’m not well-researched on this particular topic, so I’m curious how that should work.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a single suggestion of a way to implement age verification that isn’t a privacy nightmare. Oftentimes they literally just want a credit card number, the assumption being that a child would never be able to get hold of such a thing.
In some of the worst cases they actually want a passport or other government ID sending to some organisation that would verify you. With all the fun potential data breaches that that would ensue.
Most of the time these rules never get off the ground because privacy advocacy groups basically sue over it and win every time.
beverly goldberg from the Goldberg’s comes into my mind lol
