MP3 Player Father Bought at Wal-Mart for Daughter, 10, Was Preloaded With Porn

[Ian David]

Friday, December 28, 2007


COOKEVILLE, Tenn. — A father gave his 10-year-old daughter a Christmas present that would make Santa blush.

Now Daryl Hill wants to know why an MP3 video player he bought at a Wal-Mart in Sparta was preloaded with pornography and explicit songs.

Hill bought three of the players as Christmas presents for his children. He said one of the devices had apparently been returned to the store from a previous owner who loaded sex clips and songs with lyrics about using drugs.

"Within 10 minutes, my daughter was crying," Hill said Thursday. "I wish I could take the thoughts and images out of her head."

Hill questioned why Wal-Mart Stores Inc. would sell used merchandise as new, which he said violates its own policies.

More:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318711,00.html


This is NOT the first time this has happened, btw.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Isn't it fraud to sell used merchandise as new?

Surely when this player was returned it was obvious that it had been opened. You'd think that would mean a close check of the contents before even a refund was made. And I'm wondering if they simply repackaged it to put it on the shelf to sell again or if there were obvious signs it had been opened (taped up, etc.)--I don't buy opened items at a store unless they are on the salvage sale rack.

[Xithras]

84. Returned items are not legally considered used.

This is why clerks always ask whether a returned item was defective. If it is, it's returned to the manufacturer. If the returned item was simply unwanted and the packaging is undamaged, it's returned to the sales floor. Pretty much every store on the planet does this to some extent, and it's not illegal in most states (nor should it be...that would generate a huge amount of waste).

The fine line here is in the condition of the product. While stores are legally free to put ANY non-defective returned product back on the sales floor, they typically only do so if the product appears to have been unopened. My guess is that someone did this on purpose as a joke, and carefully concealed the fact that it had been opened.

If this was a joke, they will probably be able to figure out who did it. Most stores today require some sort of ID when returning a product. Their computers will have a record of when the product was returned, and they'll have a name to go along with it.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

94. Thanks for the information

I was wondering about that "fine line". I would NEVER buy a product that appears to have had its packaging tampered with. I hope you are right about them finding the joker.

[Xithras]

96. At some point, you've probably bought returned clothing.

Clothes are the most commonly returned item to stores, and they're the item least likely to be returned to the manufacturer. Unless a clothing item has been ripped or stained, it is almost always put back on the sales floor.

Keep that in mind the next time you're tempted to wear a new piece of clothing without washing it first.

As for everything else, most stores have people who are very adept at re-closing altered packaging. Most boxes can be re-taped, new shrinkwrap can be applied, and even some plastic packaging can be re-sealed. Unless someone did a real hackjob opening it up (in which case stores usually won't take it back...unless it's defective), it can usually be resold.

FYI, my wife worked her way through college as a department manager at Sears, and most of this is being fed to me by her. It's actually quite funny listening to her recite the ways that a returned item can be repackaged and reconditioned to appear unsold. Funny and slightly disturbing.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

98. Thanks for the heads up

the only thing new I buy in the line of clothing is socks and underwear-and those things will now be washed before worn! I know that the used clothing I buy HAS been washed-I know the volunteers at the Hospital Auxiliary Thrift Store.

[CRF450]

135. Very good point!

Returned items are usually still pretty much brand spankin new. So if its not defective, it can go back on the shelf. Seing as how crazy high tech electronics like mp3 players are now, they really should start making it a rule that the retailer employee have to look through any file folders and such to make sure theirs no music or pictures except what came factory pre-loaded. I reciently returned a $180 Samsung P2 mp3 player at walmart cause I didn't like its sound performance, pictures and videos on it looked awsome, and the touch screen was damn cool! The sound quality was fine but me being an audiophile nut, it just didn't suit me and the more I listened to it, the more I couldn't stand it lol!

Anyways when I returned it, they just opened up the package, turned it one, made sure it was working etc etc... I had already taken out all the songs, pictures and videos I added so their was not much of anything to see. Dunno if it went back to the shelf thoug...

[acmavm]

2. And he's interviews lawyers as we speak. The poor little thing will be

scarred for life and someone surely has to pay. Big bucks. (I do not patronize Walmart but for the life of me, I can see where this is going.)

And the person who returned the damn thing was an asshole. He got the result he wanted. Hell, maybe even more than he wanted. ing
I am so damn glad that sexual images and talk didn't drive me, my brothers, my friends into the looney bin. I guess there was something wrong with us. Even at an early age we could digest the information without permanent damage to our little psyches.

edit: Just to add how I am always and forever amazed how money can make anything better.

[WinkyDink]

13. Maybe it's not that money makes things "better" for the victims; maybe it's that it hurts the PERPS

where they don't like.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

19. My daughter at age 8 or 9 accidentally landed on soft core porn one Friday night when we were

staying up late to watch Space Ghost on Cartoon Network. Or maybe Power Puff girls, not sure which.

Anyway, I'd stepped out of the room and she channeled up to a premium channel that was playing "after dark" soft core stuff and was watching, mesmerized, when I walked back in, LOL.

Now that provided some interesting discussion, yet, somehow she survived.

Little did I know I could have sued Cinemax. Of course, we hadn't put in parental locks, since it was the single shared television in the house, so I'd have probably just gotten a "nuisance" settlement.

:shrug: MKJ

[uncle ray]

37. wal mart is the asshole, not the previous purchaser of the mp3 player.

you assume that the previous owner has some malicious intent. more likely it was someone who likes porn and drugs who had a problem with it. mp3 players are quirky, they lock up and crash fairly frequently(yes even the apple ipods!). it probably locked up or something, so he took it back. was the previous owner supposed to tell the clerk, "oh, by the way, there's tons of hardcore porn on my ipod!".

[Lone_Star_Dem]

3. Didn't this happen before?

I could swear I've heard of this exact thing happening before. :shrug:

[Ian David]

4. Yes, it did. At Wal-Mart. n/t

[Lone_Star_Dem]

66. Thanks!

I thought it was at Wal-Mart before also, but I wasn't sure enough to mention it in my post.

I know a woman who works at Wal-Mart. I'll ask her if it's common for them to restock returned items.

[Ian David]

5. Wal-Mart has sold pre-loaded porn before

Walmart's Zunes, now with more porn?

Posted Dec 20th 2006 8:15AM by Thomas Ricker
Filed under: Portable Audio, Portable Video

It's not the first time, nor the last, that people will find porn on (supposedly) new or recycled consumer electronics. This time it happened to a family in Southside Chicago who purchased Microsoft's Zune from the local Walmart for their 12 year-old daughter. The daughter, who says the box looked like it had been opened (the charger was missing) discovered that her player contained porn. When confronted, the Walmart store manager initially blamed Microsoft for the pre-load. Later, a Walmart spokesman said they would investigate the matter and provide the couple with a full refund plus a $25 gift card -- presumably to pick up a copy of "My Two Daddies" to help the mother explain to her daughter why the "5 men were having sex with each other." Uh, "join the social" Microsoft?



More:
http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/20/walmarts-zunes-now-with-more-porn/

See also:

Target sells memory card with nudie pix...buyer traumatized for life
Posted Jan 5th 2006 3:50AM by Thomas Ricker
http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/05/target-sells-memory-card-with-nudie-pix-buyer-traumatized-for/

[Kingshakabobo]

26. Isn't that Jeff Gannon on the right?

Who was the previous owner? Rove? Bush?

[helderheid]

57. YEP!

[Catherine Vincent]

115. LOL!

I recognize the second one!

[Swamp Rat]

140. Brazillions of us recognize that Jeff Gannon photo

:D

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. She was crying????

Yeah right, Dad.

Don't get me wrong. This is terrible. But I don't believe for a minute that this 10 year old girl was CRYING after viewing porn. I teach 10 year olds. Porn doesn't make them CRY. LOL

[soothsayer]

7. OMG, you show them porn???

[Trajan]

12. It is a HUGE leap ...

To go from 'knowing 10 year olds dont cry at porn' .... to "You SHOW them porn ?" ...

It is obvious the poster is NOT claiming to have shown children porn, but to have knowledge of how they think .....

[onenote]

38. You know what is a HUGE leap?

Assuming that you know how a particular ten year would react to finding porn on their christmas present mp3 player based on having taught other ten year olds.

[proud2BlibKansan]

41. Yes I do understand 10 year olds

And never once have I seen a 10 year old CRY over porn.

The dad in this story is obviously being over dramatic. Gee I wonder why?? LOL

[onenote]

45. You're amazing. You understand every ten year in the country.

You must have a heck of teaching load. And I guess it covers every part of the country, with kids from every background.

Let me ask you something: if all of the ten year girls you teach were on a bus and saw some guy exposing himself and masturbating, are you certain that none of them would be upset in the slightest? Because turning on your mp3 player and unexpectedly seeing hard core porn isn't that different.

[proud2BlibKansan]

49. Yes I know I am amazing

:)

Seriously, first of all the article doesn't say what kind of porn the kid saw. Was every 10 year old in the country damaged by seeing Janet Jackson's boob on TV? You know there are people out there who would have considered THAT porn.

Secondly, I clicked on the link and read the WHOLE article. This part stuck out:
"Hill said he declined Wal-Mart's offer to replace the MP3 player. He said he has already bought his daughter a new one and is hanging onto the controversial one until he talks to a lawyer."

Can you say lawsuit? And if this little girl was traumatized enough to CRY, then we are talking BIG settlement.

Look I hate WalMart as much as anyone. This stinks. The guy should get some kind of settlement. But honestly in all my years I have NEVER seen a 10 year old CRY after viewing porn. About once a year someone gets a magazine or a video from home and brings it to school. They have usually shown it off to most of their classmates before one of them tells the teacher and the porn gets taken away. And no, NEVER have there been any tears. Giggles, lots of giggles, but NO TEARS. LOL

This dad is being melodramatic and is already counting his winnings.

[onenote]

77. and in the situation you are describing

the kids are willingly looking at something that they expect to be sexual in content. There's a big difference between seeking something out and having it thrust upon you, uninvited and unexpected.

Now, for all I know she was crying because she had really looked forward to getting that mp3 player and her initially reaction was that it because of what was on it, it was "ruined". Who knows. But it doesn't surprise me, based on my experience with ten year olds, that when a desired christmas present unexpectedly turns up not to be used, but to have what she might find to be shocking images -- again depending on what her previous exposure to porn is and the level of porn -- that she'd be upset.

I guess we're both amazing, just in different ways.

[LisaL]

136. I have to ask you this question.

How many 10 year old have you seen after they viewed porn?
:crazy:

[NashVegas]

127. How Do 10 Year Girls React to Porn Movies Around You?

That is the question.

[Trajan]

121. I didnt say they don't cry ...

I said there is no causal link between A)kids crying at porn, and B)the intentional display of porn to children ....

A) is absolutely likely ..... B) is vile and criminal ....

I am not 'testifying' that A isnt true, OR B isnt vile : I am stating that it is wrong to presume B is has actually occurred simply because A is true ....

[proud2BlibKansan]

40. Thank you

Believe it or not, spending time with 10 year olds gives me insight into lots of things. :)

AND I realize some may find this hard to believe, but yes, they actually have parents who leave porn lying around the house and yes, they even bring it to school!! IMAGINE THAT!! LOL

[proud2BlibKansan]

39. I am hoping you forgot the sarcasm icon

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Didereaux]

9. that remark serves your Kucinich well n/t

[Ian David]

11. Oh, come on. It's Tennessee. Apart from Dollywood, what ELSE is there to do there? n/t

[proud2BlibKansan]

42. LOL!!

[WinkyDink]

14. Maybe she first thought HER FATHER had something to do with it??

Maybe YOUR breed of 10-year-olds wouldn't care, but I, as a 10-year-old, would have.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

29. Same here. Yikes! nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

43. You would have CRIED??

Oh come on.

10 year olds are fascinated with porn. They giggle, they squirm, they show their friends. They don't friggin CRY!!

[Leopolds Ghost]

149. If you thought your father was giving you porn for Christmas, you would think it funny/titilating?

No, you'd be situationally traumatized, just as your wife would be
if you gave her a "weight loss kit" for Valentines Day.

[karlrschneider]

60. Seeing a winky dink would make you cry?

:eyes:

[KittyWampus]

15. I got a Compaq computer loaded with a male gay sex site. I'm pretty open minded and lived

for 8+ years with a gay couple and STILL ended up pretty freaked out at what I saw.

And I was maybe late 30's at the time.

[Silent3]

23. We can always create a retroactive traumatic experience for her.

If everyone fusses over this event long enough and hard enough, and sends the little girl to counselors and therapists, and keeps asking over and over "Are you alright, honey?", then regardless of how much she was actually effected by the actual event, she'll learn to think of herself as a victim of a tragedy.

[proud2BlibKansan]

46. And she will make an excellent witness in a lawsuit

:)

[karlrschneider]

63. And who knows, she might eventually "remember" her teacher putting his

thing in her bottom...
:eyes:

[Clark2008]

24. It would if it was violent

We don't know what kind of porn was on there - it could have been gang-banging rape porn for all you know....

And that makes me cry and I'm 37.

[proud2BlibKansan]

51. Don't you think the article would have mentioned it if it was GRAPHIC porn?

Dad also said there were songs about drugs on it. DRUGS!! :scared:

[mrreowwr_kittty]

68. Most of the porn consumed today is graphic. That's according to the industry's own stats.

There's no need to describe it as graphic or hardcore anymore.

[blogslut]

142. The Industry's own stats?

Do tell. Where are these stats?

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

58. Shit, I've known 10 year olds who watch porn

It's not quite as huge a deal as some people seem to think. In a lot of cases I think the parents are more offended than the kids.

But, Walmart did fuck up in this, and I wouldn't mind if the guy got a k of green thrown to him.

[NashVegas]

129. That Was *Given* to 10 Year Old Girls, By Their Father?

Come on! What a freak out.

[Fleshdancer]

73. I imagine it would depend on the porn

Porn depicting rape or violence would probably make me cry so I'm sure there's somethng out there that could freak out a 10 yr old.

[NickB79]

79. Yeah, all porn isn't created equal nowadays

Who knows what kind of freaky stuff could have been on their? Hell, I'm 28 and there's stuff out there that would give me the creeps watching it.

[proud2BlibKansan]

105. She watched it for 10 minutes

Took her awhile to freak out.

[Fleshdancer]

117. what's the suitable freak out time frame exactly? eom

[proud2BlibKansan]

118. Probably depends on how much money Daddy is suing for

[aroach]

108. I doubt that too

My eight year old would have been snickering and trying to sneak it away to show her friends before I found out.

[Fierce]

119. I've known it to happen.

Not that it matters.

[Hekate]

145. The images & behaviors might have frightened the child, okay?

You don't know what kind of pornography it was. The kid is expecting My Little Pony and she gets Wanda Whips Wall Street or someone crushing kittens with stiletto heels.

Hekate

[malaise]

10. I'm so happy he turned down a replacement

and hired a lawyer. I'd sue the hell out of them.

[taterguy]

16. What were the damages?

Contrary to perception, lawsuits require genuine financial damages.

I realize that having to back to Walmart might be a traumatic experience but it's not severe enough to waste the time of our already overburdened court system.

[Occulus]

18. EXCEPT that this has happened before.

The jury could well give him $30 in actual damages- say, the actual cost of the player- and then whip out the punitives.

Given the locale in which this took place, it's not so far a stretch to imagine a jury throwing the book at Mal-Wart over this.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

21. "and then whip out the punitives."

Good one.

[proud2BlibKansan]

53. At THIS WalMart??

Other mp3 players have been sold at that WalMart with porn on them?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

31. Please don't spread that right wing meme

If the courts are overburdened, it's not because of regular people suing WalMart. Over 80% of civil litigation is businesses suing other businesses to enforce contracts. Basically, it's rich people in suits who are doing most of the suing. Yet the RW would have you believe that people suing over coffee burns are clogging up the court system. Not true. Corporations want you to think that because they don't want you and me to be able to sue them when they harm us.

[karlrschneider]

62. 90% of non-contract related litigation is frivilous bullshit brought by greedy plaintiffs

and greedy lawyers.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

74. This is more RW spin

"90% of non-contract litigation"! Meaning what? Even if it what you're saying is true, it's still a small percentage of all litigation. But it's not true anyway. It's extremely difficult to even get a tort lawsuit to court much less win. And don't assume that just because a plaintiff loses that the lawsuit was frivolous. There's a pretty big burden of proof on the plaintiff to prove harm and juries will find against them if the preponderence of evidence isn't there.

Furthermore, what makes you assume that all those contract lawsuits are legit? Because it's rich people in suits? Please. I used to work for a Fortune 500 co. that was in court all the time, mostly trying to screw inventors out of royalties or defend itself from its monopolistic practices. Donald Trump is famous for taking building contractors to court so he doesn't have to pay them.

The courts are the last refuge we have as citizens, consumers, and workers. It's a good system, and very hard for 'the little guy' to abuse, despite what the corporatists would have you believe.

[karlrschneider]

80. You're probably right. Walmart deliberately loads porn onto the players they sell just to

make little girls cry. Sue their asses.
For a GREAT BIG FUCKING PILE of MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mrreowwr_kittty]

82. I can see I'm wasting my time on you.

Obviously, Sean Hannity has done a better job of persuading you of how things are. :eyes:

[karlrschneider]

85. In your wildest wet dreams, sweetie.

...

[tabasco]

137. Not necessarily.

What you have posted is actually the common misconception.

There does not have to be financial loss for emotional distress and slander, for example.

[Rabrrrrrr]

17. The father should be sued for negligent parenting, if he raised his daughter to be afraid of sex.

Negligent asshole.

But then, he shops at WalMart, so he's probably a fundy piece of shit.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

28. Yes, because porn and sex are the same thing.

And because it's completely outlandish to think that a 10 year old girl would be freaked out by porn showing up on a device that her dad bought for her. What's the matter with him? He should be making sure that his daughter gets a regular dose of porn. She needs to understand what her purpose in life is at an early age, you know. :eyes:

[Rabrrrrrr]

32. Yes, you completely missed my point.

Where in my post did I say that she should be getting regular doses of porn? Or that she needs to learn "her purpose in life"? Oh, that's right, I didn't. You are eisegeting, and in a wildly irresponsible way.

I said that the child should not have been raised to fear sex or sexuality. And yes, porn is a form of sexuality. Considering she's 10 years old and has likely entered puberty, she's at an age when her parents should have already taught her about her body and about sexuality. If not, then they are irresponsible parents.

But, it's Tennessee and it's WalMart - not a good probability that she's growing up in a sexually healthy household.

Of course, I could be wrong - but nowhere did I proffer a dictum that children should be exposed to porn, nor that a girl needs to "understand what her purpose in life is", especially since I don't even know what that means.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

36. There is no amount of sex ed. in the world that would prepare a kid

For unexpectedly encountering hardcore porn. Yes, I say hardcore because that's more than likely what was on the MP3 player.

And can it with the "I don't even know what that means" crap. If you're slick and sophisticated enough to snark about Tennessee and WalMart, you know exactly what I'm talking about.

[Rabrrrrrr]

47. The only one freaked out by hardcore porn is one who has been taught to be freaked out.

That is, one that has had an unhealthy sexual education based more on taboo and fear than on biological mechanics and naturally healthy attitudes towards our bodies, probably done by religious fundamentalists or close-to-fundamentalist.

And considering that the father is now making a huge-ass fucking issue out of this leads me to believe that my assumption that he's a sexually immature jackass is correct - all he's doing is feeding the fuel for the fire of "SEX IS BAD WRONG NASTY ROTTEN TABOO ICKY YUCK!!!!!!"

And I can only assume that you think that I think girls' only place in life is as sexual toys/apparatus solely in the service of men? If so, you are disgustingly wrong and pathetic. How sad that you would feel the need to come to that conclusion that from my post.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

56. If you think what is depicted in hardcore porn is healthy and appropriate for a 10 year old

I just don't know what to say to you.

[Rabrrrrrr]

65. I never said it was healthy and/or appropriate for a 10 year old.

I'm not sure what you're reading - is DU posting extra words that I didn't write?

Your reading of my posts hasn't been close yet; I can only assume that somehow the data being fed to your computer are not the data that I fed to DU.

How bizarre.

I'll send a note to Elad and let him know that something is wrong.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

72. Then what's your point?

You started off claiming that the father should be sued for negligence because his daughter got upset by what was on the MP3 player. This, to you, was an indication that he had taught her to be "afraid of sex". He was also "probably a fundy piece of shit".


Seems pretty clear to me what you were saying.

[Rabrrrrrr]

86. My point was precisely what I said.

Not what you decided to read into it.

[onenote]

78. if a ten year old sees a guy exposing himself and playing with himself in public

do you think if she's freaked out by that its a sign that she's had an unhealthy sexual education based on taboo and fear?

Its not merely the fact that it was sexual imagery that freaked her out, i'm guessing. Its the fact that it was thrust upon her, uninvited and unexpectedly.

Or put another way. Why don't you try sending emails to all your friends pre-teen kids with embedded pictures of hard core sex and when they get back to you, you can explain to them how they failed to give their kids a healthy sexual education. It should be very enlightening.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

83. Good post! Thank you.

I find it so frustrating to try and get it through people's heads that it's not the sex that's the problem with this stuff, it's the context and the stuff that goes along with it. They are either cluelessly naive, or worse, they are aware of what's going on and think it's fine.

[Rabrrrrrr]

87. If he were doing it at a distance and making no motions of physical advance toward the child,

then if the child freaks out to the point of crying and hysteria, it's a good indication that that child's sexual education has been non-existent, or it's been abusive and unhealthy - like a religious fundy's style of sexual "education", or even the average American's puritan-heritage misguided sexual "education" that tells children they should be upset and traumatized if they see a sexual image, or even a naked parent.

As to your silly last paragraph, it's a total non sequitor so there is no point in addressing it.

[onenote]

88. as to my last paragraph, you aren't brave enough to address it

[Rabrrrrrr]

90. Not brave enough? WOW! The courage you show in anonymous Internet posting.

:eyes:

Okay, then, I'll address it, even though it was an utterly asinine and completely bullshit psuedo-"expansion" of my position that makes you think you scored some major rhetorical point, when in fact you only lost points, because your asinine and bullshit pseudo-"expansion" of my point has absolutely nothing to do with my point.

But, just to humor you, since this is clearly Very Very Very important to you, here you are:

I don't send hardcore images to my friends' children because, in order of importance,

1) It's a violation of our covenant
2) I have no reason to do something like that - why would I?
3) It would prove no point
4) It's illegal
5) It's asinine
6) None of my friend's young children have email so far as I know, anyway, and even if they did, I imagine my friends are responsible enough to sift through their email first.


:shrug:








"Not brave enough to address it." What a fucking joke.

[onenote]

93. if receiving uninvited and unexpected porn isn't upsetting to a properly educated ten year old

Why did you enter into "covenant" not to send such matter to your friend's kids? And was this an express 'covenant' or are you just assuming that your friends don't want you sending porn to your kids and if so, does that mean you also assume that they haven't properly educated their kids not to be upset by such material suddenly showing up?

Also, I'm curious as to whether you think sending uninvited porn to children should be illegal.

Finally, do you think the mods here at DU should take down posts that embed hard core porn? What if they provide a warning?

Thanks.

[Rabrrrrrr]

103. So by your sense of logic, if I believe that something shouldn't be bothersome,

then that something should then be ramrodded down people's throats?

That's a weird kind of logic, and one of the reasons I didn't want to answer your question in the first place - it's a nonsensical question that you posed, that had no real basis in what I was saying or believe. It was merely a poorly executed attempt at clever rhetoric which falls flat on its face, suffocated in a pool of its own blood.

Just because I think a child should be educated so that they don't freak out if they accidentally come across porn (because they will come across it), doesn't mean I think they should be force fed it. Just as I don't think someone should freak out because Joe Blow throws up on them in the airplane, that doesn't mean I think people should be constantly thrown up upon, or that airline attendants should come by with giant hoses spraying vomit on everyone.

That's where your "logic" falls down the stairs and dies an awful, twisted, painful death.

[onenote]

113. No the point is that while you may believe it shouldn't be bothersome

the fact is that such material, when "ramrodded" down someone's throad uninvited, is bothersome.

And am I now to assume that a properly educated child (or adult for that matter) shouldn't find it "bothersome" or upsetting if they get vomited upon?

My logic seems fine. Its yours that is troubling.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

92. Of course not, he knows you got him there. nt

[Rabrrrrrr]

102. To bad you wrote that after I addressed the question.

Loses some of its weight, doesn't it?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

91. OMFG, you really are that clueless.

Something clearly went wrong with YOUR sex education if you think an adult exposing himself to a child is no big deal.

Who are you to make pronouncements about how someone should react to being sexually assaulted? (Yes, exposing yourself is considered criminal sexual assualt. In all 50 states.) Why do you think flashers do it? To bring sexual pleasure to their victims? To help them with their 'sex education'? Uh, no, they do it to humiliate and have momentary power over their victims. They do it because they WANT to upset them. Or else they wouldn't do it.

I know it's difficult, but try to wrap your head around something: Just because something has sex in it, and sex is a positive and enjoyable thing, doesn't mean that there isn't other bad stuff going on. Stuff that might not be good for kids.

[Rabrrrrrr]

101. The issue isn't one of a person exposing himself to a child -

the situation is one in which a child happens to see someone exposing himself.

There is a huge difference there.

Had the poster asked about sexual assault, I would have addressed that issue. I am saddened that you continue to make assumptions about how I think or feel. I post one thing, and then you make a wildishly inaccurate assumptions about something else entirely.

Go read the post first that set up this hypothetical situation of the child seeing someone exposing themselves, and you will see there is nothing there about assault or intended assault - the hypothetical is one of a child merely being witness to someone who was exposing themselves.

Something I saw many a time in the subways of NYC.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

112. I'm saddened that you continue to miss the point

You said that a 10 year old should not be upset about encountering graphic depictions of sex. You blamed her father for, as you put it, not giving her a healthy sex education, making all kinds of assumptions about the family simply because they shop at WalMart. As if explaining the physical aspects of sexuality and discussing feelings she may be having as a 10 year old would ever prepare her for having adult porn pop up on her Christmas present. You are right that what happened wasn't an intentional assault on the child, but it was negligence on both the part of WalMart and the shitheel who left that stuff on there when he returned the MP3 player.

And what subways are you riding on in NYC where you're seeing people exposing themselves frequently? I thought ol' Rudy cleaned them up!

[LisaL]

139. Oh give me a break. If the guy was exposing himself,

at a distance from the child or not, he'd be hauled off to jail.

[Common Sense Party]

144. And exactly how have you educated your children about sex?

Pray tell, what steps have you taken?

You seem to be the resident expert here.

[proud2BlibKansan]

54. Where do you get the idea it was hardcore porn?

He also complained there were songs about DRUGS!!

This guy sounds like a twit wanting to file a lawsuit.

And we have no idea if this porn was graphic or if it was Janet Jackson's boob.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

59. You're right, I don't know. But I bet it was.

I doubt a 10 year old would get upset about photos of boobs.

And if you're going to take me to task for making an assumption, realize that you are doing the same thing by characterizing the father as a "twit wanting to file a lawsuit".

[proud2BlibKansan]

64. "Songs about drugs"

Huge clue right there.

But you are right, we don't know what kind of porn it was.

[dropkickpa]

126. What songs?

They call me mellow yellow....

[JVS]

131. Puff the magic dragon

[JVS]

130. Define hardcore

[RadiationTherapy]

44. I suppose it MAY have been the 'Emmanuelle' series or similar

but the porn I look at, although hardly tear-jerking, would likely exceed most pre-teens' sexual educations.

I don't think this is an education issue, but I can imagine a scenario where it may be.

[Buzz Clik]

48. LOL!

[The Straight Story]

99. Damn, I have shopped at Wal-Mart and don't want my 6yr old exposed to porn

what does that make me :)

[Rabrrrrrr]

104. It makes you a hat wearer!

Third degree, if I remember my David Carradine book of Shaolin hat-wearing correctly.

:7

I don't think any of us *want* our children exposed to porn - it's something personal, that one should be allowed to choose for oneself.

But one also, at the same time, should not train our children to be freaked out by it if they see it accidentally (because they will see it accidentally - there's always at least one kid with a porn mag in the school, and now with the Internet and porn on TV...).

[NashVegas]

128. Yes, Because Every Little Girl Should Learn All About Porn From Dear Old Dad!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Elidor]

20. Pre-loaded with porn

Does that cost extra?

[Vogon_Glory]

22. Next time, Daddy...

Next time, Daddy, try to make sure that that MP3 player you bought at a bargain doesn't have any pre-loaded music or video files on it.

:evilgrin:

[havocmom]

33. Or, don't give the kid a present you bought for yourself

Sometimes, Christmas sneaks up on some parents and they panic. It happens.

Hell, when my daughter worked at a day care, parents of 4 kids forgot they even HAD kids in daycare on Christmas Eve.

[BlueJazz]

25. This whole discussion Pisses me off....

...I mean, how come I never buy a mp3 player or ipod that has some juicy stuff on it??
Noooo...my purchases are always blank.. sigh... :(

[unapatriciated]

138. because you don't shop at

Wallmart? :shrug: and that's a good thing :-)

[BlueJazz]

147. Actually I did go to wal-mart a few months ago ...to buy a Hard-drive.

...and got punished for it.

On the way back to my house, a Woman ran into the back of my Car....She was OK ...so was I but...
I thought to myself "Damn...I can't get away with anything!" :)

[unapatriciated]

148. glad to see you realize the error of your way's

We liberal fanatics are always watching :spank:

sorry about your car hope there was not too much damage.

[THUNDER HANDS]

27. you can return anything, ANYTHING to wal-mart

I've seen people return used bras. - USED, with no tags on them, no box. Just a bra that could have come right off a woman's chest.

They took that back.

Hell, they once took back a PS3 box - just the box, not the system, because they said that there was no console inside the box.

you can return anything at walmart.

[killbotfactory]

30. Did they sell a returned item as new?

That seems like the only way it could happen, unless an employee did it.

[Maine-ah]

34. we bought a microwave there just before christmas

got it home, opened it up, no owners manual, crumbs on the inside and a pamphlet that said "jesus loves you" was in the box.

yeah, I know I shouldn't shop there but my choices are very limited around here.

[JVS]

35. zOMG! Teh Pr0no hurtz teh Children!!!11!!11!!1!!! This is HUGH!!!1111!11!11!!

[AlCzervik]

50. 10 minutes of porn on a small screen, i doubt she's scarred for life.

and now he's suing.

[Sugar Smack]

89. Scarred for life would be exposure to the Dixie Chicks.

:sarcasm:

[Buzz Clik]

52. The porn part is just a symptom. It's curious that Walmart sells returned items as new.

My understanding is that all returned items to be resold must first be checked to ensure that they actually work. Then, they can be restocked but only with the clear label of "Factory Refurbished". I have purchased a boatload of refurbished items with essentially no use, and they work just fine. However, it's nice to be forewarned that the previous owner had issues with the product.

If I had purchased an MP3 player as refurbished, I definitely would check out the directory to see what was there. I would do no such thing for a new item.

[AlCzervik]

55. i bought a few "refurbished" items at Fry's, the boxes were clearly marked "Refurbished"

maybe the package the mps was in had a sticker on it, or maybe not but i don't understand why the Dad didn't check the item out when the daughter opened it, i always check everything first.

[proud2BlibKansan]

61. It's Christmas and things get hectic

I worked for KMart for many years and our policy was to do as you say, and restock only after checking. But at Christmas when it's crazy and there are many new employees, I can see where an item can be restocked that hasn't been checked.

Not excusing WalMart at all. I just understand how this could have happened.

[Buzz Clik]

110. As you say, Walmart is not the only guilty party.

I'm a huge Radio Shack fan, and I can't tell you how many times I've seen cables and headphones and all things electronic stuffed pack in the original package and mummified in clear packing tape. I pick up the package and think, "You've got to be kidding me." Radio Shack isn't trying to fool anyone, but damn!

[Xithras]

97. That's only the case it it was obviously opened.

Most retailers simply return the item to the sales floor if it appears to have never been opened. Factory refurbished items are typically those items returned as "defective". If a person returns an unopened (or barely opened) item that they simply didn't want, no refurbishment is necessary.

[Buzz Clik]

111. You are correct. My description was incomplete.

Thanks.

[ThePowerofWill]

67. I bought a camera a few years back.

Looked brand new in the box. I got it home and the internal memory was full of photos of a nude woman in various poses.

[proud2BlibKansan]

75. Did you cry?

[ThePowerofWill]

120. Yes.

Tears of joy. T'was a nice lookin' lady.

[karlrschneider]

81. Some people have all the luck.

...

[LeftyMom]

69. She was so traumatized she watched for ten minutes?

Damn that porn fairy. :grr:

[proud2BlibKansan]

76. LOL good point.

:rofl:

[Ian David]

70. WTF? Porn and Wal-Mart.... but no Recs? COME ON! What does it take to please you people? n/t

[alfredo]

71. I thought all Zunes came preloaded with porn. Other stores like

Best Buy have had problems with merchandise replaced with rocks in seemingly unopened boxes.

When buying from retailers, open the box and inspect the contents before paying.

[Blue-Jay]

95. Where can I get one of those?

:D

[earth mom]

100. Does anyone else here think this is a stunt manufactured by the fundie nutcases?

You know how they like to prove their points in the most extreme ways like burning down abortion clinics, picketing dead soldiers funerals, etc.

This story is from faux news after all.

[Blue-Jay]

106. I think they should check the dad's hard drive vs. the iPod porn content.

Anyone who is so hellbent on a lawsuit over something so trivial trips my "bullshit meter".

[Vogon_Glory]

107. Good Point

That's a good point. It does look like the sort of stunt that some cornfield ayatollahs would try to pull. It could also be the result of a bargain-hunter getting more than he bargained for.

[onenote]

114. No. And its not a Faux news story, its an Associated Press story.

[earth mom]

116. The link in the OP is from Faux. So what exactly is your point in replying to my post?

I think it's just to stir up sh*t from some long standing grievance you have with me that I can't even remember. :eyes:

Do me a favor and put me on ignore would you?

[onenote]

122. I have no grievance with you. I just was correcting the record

You give yourself too much credit. I don't pay close attention to who the poster I am responding to is. It doesn't matter to me and if I have some grievance with you its news to me.

And if you take a look at the story linked in the OP, it clearly indicates that its an AP story. Just because the link is from Fox News doesn't change that fact. I can point you to a dozen links from other sources that repeat the same story, because they run AP stories.

Not sure why you are so defensive about my correcting your assumption that its Faux News story.

But at least anyone else reading the thread will have the correct information.

[earth mom]

123. Okay. The faux news aspect made me think it was a crazy stunt.

They are so extreme about everything, that it's easy to have an knee jerk reaction.

Maybe this is a legit story. :shrug:

Sorry to jump all over you. :hi:

[Chovexani]

109. There is an entire movement of folks doing things like this

I'm surprised no one on DU's heard of it. It's called "shopdropping" or reverse shoplifting: putting merchandise ON store shelves as opposed to taking it, usually modding it somehow, as a form of protest art against materialism and capitalism run amok. My favorite example was one artist who slipped bits of paper into Paris Hilton CDs that said "every one of these you buy puts me further out of your league".

This incident doesn't sound like a shopdropper's MO at all, but there are pranksters who've latched onto it and don't have a message, they just do it to fuck with people. Meatspace trolling, as it were.

I think it points out the underlying issue of presenting returned goods as "new", though. Gamestop is notorious for this kind of thing. They let employees "borrow" new games and take them home, and they get brought back, re-shrinkwrapped, and put on display as new.

[Evoman]

124. At ten years old, I would have acted like nothing was going on if there was porn on my video player.

"Why are you smiling so much, Evoman"

"I just love you that much, Dad".


Then I would have probably have gone back to my room and memorized what I've seen just in case my dad found out about the porn.

I was already a pervert at ten.

[Blue_Tires]

125. personally, i've always preferred the term 'erotica'

[varkam]

132. There is a difference, though, between pornography and erotica eom

[keroro gunsou]

133. yeah...

better marketing and nicer packaging... :evilgrin:

[varkam]

134. Lol!

:rofl:

Seriously though, there is a difference between pornography and erotica. Pornography is usually defined as depicting nudity/sexual acts and appealing primarily to prurient interests - whereas erotica is not necessarily so. Erotica is defined, at least in part, by the intent of the consumer. For example, a picture of a woman's foot would not usually be considered as erotica unless the person viewing the picture happened to have a fetish for that sort of thing. Pornography, on the other hand, can usually be universally agreed upon (in that something is or is not pornography).

[Blue_Tires]

141. very true

and it is good to see someone else that can differentiate between the two...

in the meantime i'm going to see if wal-mart has any of those ipods left

[keroro gunsou]

146. true true...

i was injecting a bit o' snark into an otherwise dull thread... i mean come on, a thread of this nature cries out, nay, screams for pictures....

[Duer 157099]

143. If the girl had a fundie family, she might easily have cried

thinking that she probably would be condemned to hell for seeing nekid people doing sinful things.

Seriously.