Quote# 141026

I think revenge porn is 100% fine. You can't really fault someone if you send them naked pictures/video or let them video tape you having sex, and then they put it on the internet after you break up.

We live in the world of social media sharing, where people talk about how big their shits were or how jealous they are of their friends stuff. Facebook statuses are updated constantly with the most inane garbage that no one should ever know about you, yet it's accessible worldwide by anyone. Tweets are sent out about the most random and mundane shit, as if we're all supposed to be impressed by your run of the mill life and your average Joe opportunities.

We get to see how risque you are with your almost nude instagram pictures! If only you showed a little more skin!

Sorry, but I have zero sympathy for anyone who knowingly allowed nude pictures or video be taken by anyone else, with or without consent.

Eroginous, MMO Champion 19 Comments [11/4/2018 11:39:33 AM]
Fundie Index: 4

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 | bottom


Sorry, but I have zero sympathy for anyone who knowingly allowed nude pictures or video be taken by anyone else, with or without consent

Someone posts revenge porn pictures of Eroginous.

Eroginous: "I'm gonna nail their head to a coffee table!!!!"

11/4/2018 12:04:14 PM


I'm probably going to get crucified for this but apart from the first sentence (revenge posting of anything embarrassing to someone else is just childish & mean-spirited), I agree with the rest.

11/4/2018 12:06:18 PM


"...knowingly allowed nude pictures or video be taken by anyone else, with or without consent"?

How do you get "knowingly allowed" in the same sentence as "without consent"?

You fail to consider that a good many of the victims of this were young-n-stupid, as opposed to just stupid. The same is true of those who repost them as revenge. Neither has a full and mature knowledge of the consequences.

11/4/2018 1:52:50 PM


HM Government has zero sympathy for your fee-fees, OP.

Facebook, Twitter etc have been given an ultimatum: either clean up your act(s) and - by not allowing such... 'material' to exist on their services - become ultra--Politically Correct voluntarily or be forced to.

So much for your 'Consent' in the matter. You have '#MeToo' and the Presidents Club scandal to 'blame'. Especially the not so little 'matter' of 'Upskirts', which are now very much illegal.

You no longer having the right to 'Revenge': porn or otherwise? Aw diddums. No 'Fun' Allowed.

11/4/2018 2:00:09 PM


Even when I was “young and stupid,” I knew better than to send risqué content to any individual. I knew that a social media presence could develop from such content.
If people are too stupid to realize this today, then revenge porn acts as a test of one’s intelligence and maturity. Those who are shamed today simply should not function in today’s world as intelligent and mature people like I can.

11/5/2018 11:34:24 AM


While I agree that it's a bad idea to send nudes, it's still not ok to post them online in order to shame exes after a breakup. That's just an asshole thing to do.

11/5/2018 1:52:48 PM


What about people who don't post their toilet on Facebook, but still get revenge porned?

11/5/2018 4:13:53 PM


Can't blame your doctor/lawyer/personal banker if after you drop them they put all your personal information on the internet, right? Or if you have a key cut the maker keeps duplicates and sells them along with your address. It was your choice to enter into a relationship with them and to give them these things.

11/5/2018 4:17:16 PM


Passerby hit the nail on the head with this one.

Having nude pictures or videos taken of you is not consent to share them with others, just like saying "yes" to sex with one person is not consent to sex with all their friends (or even letting them watch). And if you weren't aware you were being filmed/photographed, then the slut-shamey "you should have known better" defence doesn't even apply.

Anyone who posts "revenge porn" is an awful person & is just as guilty as someone who films someone in the toilet without their consent.

11/6/2018 7:37:18 PM


There is a stark difference between sending confidential material to one in a professional capacity and naked photos to a friend and/or significant other. In re. the latter, the individual should be aware of the high potential for such material being misused in our digital age. In the former, the individual relies of the professional capacity of the other to keep confidence in the material.

11/8/2018 12:18:14 PM


After you drop them they're no longer serving you in a professional capacity. They're just people you know. And anyone you know can hurt you. Besides, if you can't expect trust or confidentiality in an intimate relationship why expect trust from some random person you give money to? The law? Because laws can change.

There is nothing you can say that excuses it. If you think information you give in confidence should be protected because something like your money and reputation are on the line that will include privately shared photographs. If you don't think there's an expectation of confidentiality without money changing hands then the moment you drop a professional or if they're being paid by someone else they're no longer under any obligation to keep your secrets and something a lot more valuable than money is shared between girl/boyfriends. If you think it's possible to go through life without having to trust people with sensitive information that only shows how ignorant you are of how the world works and have been taking that security for granted. What you're really saying is you think everyone else is an idiot and you like the idea of being able to lash out at them with something you don't see yourself being compromised by, possibly because you're neither in a relationship with another human being that has such an implicit level of trust (and might not be capable of it with such a predatory outlook) nor would a photo of you would be considered a private treasure.

Human suffering and betrayal is hilarious until it directly concerns you, is that it? But of course heaven help anyone that ever screws you over anyway because you are entitled to your rights.

11/8/2018 1:57:57 PM

Porn is fine. Revenge porn is not as it doesn't take into account the consent of victim.

11/8/2018 5:44:42 PM


Sorry, but I have zero sympathy for anyone who knowingly allowed nude pictures or video be taken by anyone else, with or without consent.

Does anyone on that site have any sympathy for anyone ever??

11/8/2018 7:15:29 PM


@ KingOfRhye

When the charges stick, probably.

11/8/2018 7:57:03 PM


I think 'consent' would be the key in this.
I consent to my lover seeing me naked or taking a picture, that's not consent for the pic to be spread around the internet. Doing that without consent is douchey.

Same with professionals. I have asked the doctor to look at my body, and take diagnostic pictures, which implies consent.

But last time I was hospitalized, doc had to ask if I consented to med students being present during the exam.

My friend suffered some unusual damage to his testicles which required a very rarely performed procedure, so they asked if it was okay if people who were not participating in the treatment could be present to see it. he consented, but when twenty people crowded into the operating room, he became uncomfortable. He withdrew permission and they left. Staying would have been douchey.

If my colonoscopy was really interesting, they might ask if they can put the pics in a textbook. But I think they would have to ask. Not asking would be douchey.

Revenge porn, or any pornography that's published without the participant's consent is a douche move. Being 100% fine with it means you value the douche's outrage more than the other person's right to consent.

11/9/2018 5:20:04 AM


Lots of assumptions and personal attacks to my well-thought out analysis. Such individuals deserve to be mocked because of their stupidity in sharing photos of themselves in a digital age.

11/9/2018 1:12:36 PM


That wasn't well thought out it was special pleading. If you want well thought out look to the explanation given by K. A professional can screw you over with the information you give them but you acted like you shouldn't expect them to yet the only difference is that the law protects that ongoing presumption of confidentiality. And that law exists precisely because the information you give to them is by nature both private and potentially damaging. If the only thing that makes trusting one person idiotic and another safe is the threat of punishment by law then the law can expand to accommodate. However, the law is actually more broad than you're portraying. If a professional is no longer in such a position of implicit or contractual legally enforced trust or you simply never made an explicit agreement that whatever you give them is not to be shared they are still obligated to keep that information confidential even though the physical records are their legal property and not yours. There is a reason forms have to be signed for third party involvement and those third parties are also obligated to keep that information to themselves; it's because the material itself is inherently privileged and protected to be gathered, used, and shared only as expressly consented to.

That protection is extended to those who are not bound by the same strict ethical standards of their specific profession (which mostly concern conduct with clients rather than affirm their confidentiality) and you take it all for granted. If you give an employer banking information for direct deposit or your social insurance/security number or permission to do a background check for employment they cannot spread those things around or otherwise do as they please with them despite you giving it to them willingly and not having to sign any agreements beforehand that the information will not be shared. It's automatically illegal to give out. If anyone walking into the office happens to see the same information while pawing through a folder or hides a recording device it's still illegal for them to spread it around because the information is confidential. Acquiring privileged information whether it's given by someone who is authorized to know it or by false pretenses or purely by chance is all still illegal to use for your own purposes. If you use your credit card to pay for something or recite a membership or social security number to access services and somebody just happens see or overhear and memorize it they will be breaking the law if they try to use that information themselves despite there not being a professional relationship or explicit restraints for information they just happened upon in a public setting. Piecing together shredded documents found in the garbage and using the information contained within, despite garbage being public domain, is still illegal. If you screamed your credit card numbers in the street it's still illegal for people to use that information for their own gain. In fact, the information doesn't even have to be privileged. As you might know it's illegal to record a conversation without the consent of at least one party, or both depending on where you are.

Such information and materials are inherently protected by law which is not contingent on a professional relationship or means of acquisition, something you're trying very hard to ignore. When you deal with a professional you are simply granting them permissions as they pertain to the performance of the job, which you can limit and withdraw. There is no declaring "mine now, sucker" and acting with carte blanche against the wishes of the one who granted that permission. If after a divorce an ex publicizes their spouse's previously shared private information and finances or even just tries to access it despite previously having at-will legal access due to their relationship they're in a world of legal shit.

Amending the law to explicitly cover personal photos is easy but frankly should not be necessary as it's quite illegal to do the same with any other damaging personal information and there's no logical reason they're not already classified and protected as such. You shouldn't need to go out and copyright your own body on top of the rights you're already supposed to have that are being violated by such actions.

Bizarrely and horrifyingly while medical professionals do require consent from patients for many procedures if they intend for others to view them as study material gynecologists are for some reason seemingly exempt as I have read that it has been common practice not to inform women before putting them under for what should have been routine procedures that students would be poking around at their vaginas. Between how this odd little exception only affects women and how revenge porn similarly targets women almost exclusively (despite the disturbing trend of men bombarding women with unsolicited dick pics as their way of saying hello) it's not hard to think the world just has something against them. There's also the little issue that trying to spread material to ruin someone's reputation is slander and criminal harassment while doing the same with explicit imagery, myriad suggestions about their sex life, and the creation of false profiles on sites with similarly false invitations to sex up to and including trying to portray a home invasion rape fantasy and direct an actual rapist to their door with the illusion of consent is somehow not. Laws that should apply suddenly don't when sex enters the equation and I've yet to hear an explanation that even approaches adequacy for it.

Lastly when you explicitly confirm that you think everyone is stupid and should be mocked for ending up in compromised situations it's not exactly an "attack" on your character for anyone else to say it. The only "assumption" I made is that you additionally get your jollies from seeing it happen. I made suggestions that nobody would want a photo of you even if you were of a mind to give it (which could be construed as an insult to your romantic prowess, sure) since I concluded from the information available that if you were in a relationship there could not possibly be mutual trust as exists in normal relationships because everything you've said is an indicator that you think trust is for suckers and would hurt your significant other in a heartbeat.

11/9/2018 2:17:32 PM


These various proclamations I keep seeing from assholes about what was "stupid" of people who were victimized is self-defeating and special pleading by nature. You could call someone stupid for using credit cards when anyone who merely sees the number can make purchases in your name. You could call someone stupid for carrying cash at any time because they could be mugged at any time and place and if you have a large amount on you police can actually, quite crazily, seize it on grounds you might use it for a crime at some point. You could call someone stupid for not having cash on them because in addition to not having cash on hand in an emergency if a mugger finds them broke they could murder them in anger. You could call someone stupid for keeping their money in the bank because in addition to standard fees accounts can be compromised by insiders, hacked from the outside, or since banks use their customer's cash to invest and give out loans meaning there is a real possibility they could lose it all in the market. You can be called stupid for hiding your money in a mattress, or a safe, or under the floorboards because if thieves come they'll start ripping everything up looking for it or else if there's a fire you lose it all.

Taken all together it means there's no way to have money that can't be taken from you but when someone calls you stupid for every possible place you could store it on your person or off and every possible way you could lose it that pretty much means you were stupid just for having it.

Same with intellectual property. You can be stupid for keeping digital or paper records of your research and development because they can be stolen before you file a patent. You can be stupid for fishing for investors because they can take your idea without investing in you. You can be stupid for being employed while working on personal projects because a company can find ways to lay claim to employee's ideas while they're under contract or if they used company resources to work on it which can include time spent on break in the building even if you brought your own pen and paper or simply because something at work can be claimed to have inspired you to your invention. You can be stupid for heading down to the patent office because the damned office could take take the patent. You can be stupid for successfully patenting an idea because now the inner workings can be found by the public and reverse engineered to create enough of a difference that patent law won't cover the specific design and build on your work for profit or else somebody could say screw it and directly copy the design to sell in a market that just doesn't give a damn about intellectual property.

So you were stupid to think you could have a profitable idea. Especially if it was an intellectual medium like a novel that can just be scanned to digital and uploaded or a video game or a screenplay or even a movie because people can just download and share it once a single copy is ever sold or traded hackers will eventually crack any copyright protection and you'll never see a dime. But it was your fault it was all so easy to steal.

It makes just a tad more sense to make stealing illegal rather than the sole responsibility of victims to avoid being stolen from and proactively think of every possible angle they could ever be attacked from including counters to their defenses and counters to the counters and counter-counters now doesn't it? Solves the problem a little more neatly than telling people that they should essentially never interact with another human being and to have nothing worth stealing, even the thoughts in their heads for fear of it being taken and/or misused.

Try to imagine having any sort of sexual relationship if people actually tried to follow No's logic. They can't get naked, ever, because someone could be recording it and even if they swept the room for hidden cameras and cased surrounding building for telescopes then pinned their curtains to the window frame to make sure there's no way to view their house's interior from the outside there's no telling if somebody simply planted another device when their back was turned or when they turned off the lights. They can't have photos of themselves nude or not because they can be photo-shopped onto a naked body and posted to revenge porn sites with fake profiles. Hell, they can't even have relationships in the first place because they might eventually be betrayed in any number of ways and it will be their own fault for trusting the person that took nude photos of them/stole from their dresser/turned out to be abusive/cheated on them/were cheating with them on someone else/filed for divorce and subsequently dedicates their lives to making their ex miserable. But don't blame them, the one getting fucked should have known better than to give them the chance or else just got the jump on them to be the one doing the fucking instead.

It's tantamount to siding with criminals to minimize this shit and reflect all scorn back onto the one who "didn't take enough action" by asshole estimates. The ones who take predatory action and in the process remove their targets agency are the ones these assholes refuse to hold to account and that is stupid. More than likely self-serving as well because there's always just this unspoken "wouldn't you?" oozing out of every insult, minimization, and condescending double-standard. In fact it's hard to explain attempts to manage the narrative by drowning out any discussion of the perpetrator's actions and dampening any kind of emotion or judgment until they're forgotten by focusing on the victim and trying to inject as much condemnation and negative emotion as possible independent of any mention of the perpetrator once they're the sole focus of the conversation trying to make anything bad happening to them sound like comeuppance as anything else but a desire to be the one that delivers it.

11/9/2018 10:32:01 PM


The very fact that you call it "revenge porn" shows that you KNOW you (or they) are doing something bad, Engorgio.

If you take intimate pictures and send it to ONE person, it's with a unspoken rule that it's private, for his or her eyes only.
If you take intimate pictures and sell them to a paper, THEN you have consented to strangers seeing them.

The inane garbage you post of Facebook, the random and mundane shit you tweet, ought to be about YOU, not about others.

How do you knowingly allow something without consent?

11/10/2018 8:37:57 AM

1 | top: comments page