Revenge porn

[otherone]

charges typically refer to crime; whereas claims refer to civil action

I'm aware of that. The question was pointed. Humiliated by gossip/humiliated by picture. If there are actual damages, it's a civil matter. Even if a dickwad is involved.

 

[presence]

I'm aware of that. The question was pointed. Humiliated by gossip/humiliated by picture. If there are actual damages, it's a civil matter. Even if a dickwad is involved.

you have to be humiliated by FALSE gossip to have a civil claim

 

[otherone]

you have to be humiliated by FALSE gossip to have a civil claim

yeah. that's my point. EVEN if dickwads are involved.

 

[Occam's Banana]

IF she had expressed ownership claim. In the case in the op, she did not. She broke up with him and left him to himself with the puctures she knew he had. If she had expressed in writing "I want my noodies back". If she had filed a "stolen property" claim. Then she had an legally justified claim to ownership of the images with a paper trail.

no paper trail no ownership

The absence of an explicitly expressed or documented ownership claim is not dispositive. If your girlfriend agrees to let you have or take nude pics of her with the reasonably implicit understanding that they will remain private, and you subsequently make them public without her consent, then you are tortiously in the wrong. (And it is clear from the OP article that the boyfriend in this particular case did in fact have just such an implicit understanding of the matter.)

Suppose that a friend borrows your car in order to drive his grandmother to a doctor's appointment.
Suppose that a friends borrows your car for undisclosed reasons.

In neither of these cases is there an explicitly stated condition that a road trip to Vegas is off the table.

But in the first case, there is an implicitly understood condition that a road trip to Vegas is off the table.
(Either there is no such implied condition in the second case, or if there is, then my point is only reinforced that much more.)

Suppose your friend gives you naked photos upon expressed condition you will never share them and store them diligently to the end of time.
Suppose your friend gives you naked photos.

In the first case, there is an explicitly stated condition that such photos will remain private.

But in the second case, the mere absence of such an explicitly stated condition is not sufficient to establish authority for publication.

Once again, conditions of possession and use need not be explicit in order reasonably to be considered understood by and binding upon all parties.

I repeat what you elided from my earlier reply:

It is not at all unreasonable to regard the boyfriend's "possession" of "naked pictures" of his girlfriend as being implicitly conditioned upon him keeping those pictures "private" - and it is entirely reasonable to regard his willful failure to do so as a tortious violation of that implied condition.

 

[presence]

But in the second case, the mere absence of such an explicitly stated condition is not sufficient to establish authority for publication.

I'm pretty meh on what exactly someone was or was not authorizing while horny and posing for impromptu nude photos.

If she wanted to claim them after they were published, she should have done so before they were published.

It is not at all unreasonable to regard the boyfriend's "possession" of "naked pictures" of his girlfriend as being implicitly conditioned upon him keeping those pictures "private"

its not at all unreasonable to regard the boyfriend's "possession" of "naked pictures" of his girlfriend as being a basis of an ongoing sub/dom humiliation fetish

 

[106459]

Ok, so I'm pretty much done with this thread.

Here’s where I stand on this thread:

sharing intimate pictures in an intimate relationship has a reasonable expectation of privacy

Spreading nude photos of an ex-girlfriend on every public forum as far as the eye can see is obviously malicious. If you weren’t doing it before the breakup, and you’re suddenly doing it now, you’re obviously trying to harm the other person.

The whole purpose of laws is to make ethical wrong-doings that harm other people a legally prosecutable crime.

And to add Occam’s post:

it is perfectly reasonable to expect that if your "significant other" gives you (or allows you to take) "naked pictures" of him or her, he or she does so under the implicit understanding that such pictures are solely for your personal use/viewing/enjoyment/etc. and that (absent any explicit permission to the contrary) such pictures are not to be made available for the use/viewing/enjoyment/etc. of any other person or persons (let alone the general public).

In fact, this expectation is so reasonable that it seems rather absurd to assert that a signed contract (or any other kind of explicit agreement) is needed or required in order to spell it out.

-Not everything in life requires a written contract. And not all contracts are written.

As far as I’m concerned, it’s really not a question. The posts arguing, essentially, that there should be zero protections seem to have let their bias’ show, below.

I don't even want government involved in murder investigations.
…..
The guy needs his ass kicked.

But you'll never hear me cry to government or her goons to do the kicking......

Ok, that’s great, but really not the world we live in. That’s throwing a temper-tantrum at government saying it can’t do anything, when a government (maybe not this one) has a just cause to have a proceeding against. You admit that wrong-doing has been done, but offer no legal remedy and advocate for extra-judicial vigilantism.
-Not everyone wants to have a revolution over nude photos being posted.

My biggest problem with creating all these extra laws and protections for women when there is no violence or whatever is that it makes them think they can get away with dating or living with bad men and some how they will be protected by the government when he acts poorly.

This leads to procreation with worse men and kids who are genetically predispositioned to be worse people.

I don’t think making revenge porn illegal is really a “protection for women”, it would just happen to benefit women in the majority of cases.
-Just because you don’t like the things that someone else does in a relationship doesn’t mean they should have no legal protections when an obvious wrong-doing occurs.
-Also, I think that not allowing these dickbags of men to not be prosecuted and live full lives leads to the procreation of more dickbag guys, which I don’t want.

from a theological point of view...

taking naked selfies and sending them to your out of wedlock partner is a perversion; an indecency.
allowing someone to take naked pictures of you is a masochistic act
it turns an image of your nakedness into the object of another's will; a willful vice
….
its not at all unreasonable to regard the boyfriend's "possession" of "naked pictures" of his girlfriend as being a basis of an ongoing sub/dom humiliation fetish

Ok…This is why we have the separation of church and state. Not everyone subscribes to your religion, or even agrees upon the same things within your religion.
I don’t even think I can really respond to this one; nude photos are never going to equate to masochism for me. Liking hot wax poured on your body? Probably. Nude photos, no.

 

[fisharmor]

So I have two questions for the people who don't think the woman has much standing here.

1) Would you feel the same way if they had been married?

2) How many of you think what she did to the guy (e.g. what are the circumstances of the break-up) is germane here?

 

[presence]

I don’t even think I can really respond to this one; nude photos are never going to equate to masochism for me. Liking hot wax poured on your body? Probably. Nude photos, no.

lets say you have a girl with 10 ex sexual partners... some one night stands, some year flings... and every one of the sexual encounters, she allowed the other to film the encounter and keep the tape. She never made any statements about what they could or could not do with the images. Then parter after partner... she breaks up with them and move on to the next man leaving him with a tape and heartbreak.

can you see it as a fetish; a petty instigating drama, now? If doing it 10 times is a drama, then so is doing it once.

I don't think the BRUTAL State has any roll in regulating the actions of melodramatic people.

To me sharing a tape of an ex lover that's fucking someone else is petty drama.
Likewise leaving a tape with an ex and moving on to fuck someone else is likewise a petty drama.

Petty drama is not crime.

 

[presence]

So I have two questions for the people who don't think the woman has much standing here.

1) Would you feel the same way if they had been married?

truly "spiritually married" people don't move on to other relationships; they are one and not in a state of war... so this is kind of moot from my perspective on marriage

individuals that are not "spiritually married" but choose to get "legally married", for whatever convenience, and who intend to share naked photos, for whatever perversion, should probably also have legal stipulations as to what they can and can't do with the photos when and if the legal marriage contract is later terminated

individuals that are not in anyway obliged to one aother... "partners" "fuck buddies" "girlfriend / boyfriend"... and are sharing naked pictures on their iphones are fucking idiots. No law can save them.

2) How many of you think what she did to the guy (e.g. what are the circumstances of the break-up) is germane here?

its not. what is germaine is that there is drama; unclaimed naked photos left in the hand of someone you used to be fucking.

then... magically that person gets his feelings hurt... and viola persecution drama and pity me drama.


A rational actor that truly intended for some images not to be shared would have taken action to claim them before they were shared.


That's my bottom line:

Claiming them after publication is bullshit victim drama.

Can you believe Kim left her ex with a whole bunch of noodie pics and he posted them on instagram?

Yeah lol... dumb bitch, serves her right

 

[ChristianAnarchist]

Someone tried to "revenge porn" me once but no one wanted to view it and they started attacking the one who released it...

 

[dannno]

Someone tried to "revenge porn" me once but no one wanted to view it and they started attacking the one who released it...

Ya it really only works on hot girls or celebrities... When a woman has sex, it decreases her sexual market value. When a man has sex, it increases his sexual market value.

That's why you see the statistic at the beginning of the thread that 90% of the victims are female and 60% of the perpetrators are male - 40% of the perpetrators are female, and many of those are perpetrated against other females.

 

[cajuncocoa]

truly "spiritually married" people don't move on to other relationships; they are one and not in a state of war... so this is kind of moot from my perspective on marriage

individuals that are not "spiritually married" but choose to get "legally married", for whatever convenience, and who intend to share naked photos, for whatever perversion, should probably also have legal stipulations as to what they can and can't do with the photos when and if the legal marriage contract is later terminated

You keep overlooking the fact that people change, situations change, circumstances change. People misunderstand things, someone flies off the handle and gets vindictive. The couple may have been "spiritually married" at one time, but I'm going to draw a possible scenario here. Something happened (not necessarily her fault, but I know the men in this thread will blame her) They grow apart. They begin to argue. The husband gets vindictive. He decides to take revenge on her by placing a hidden camera in the bathroom where she takes a shower and gets some naked photos of her....posts them online. She didn't INTEND to share naked photos of herself, but he has them just the same. There is no way she could have spelled out what he should do with said photos as she never expected he would HAVE such photos in the first place. Her husband who was once a nice, decent person has turned into a vindictive asshole (it happens, people.) She didn't see it coming. She wasn't the FUCKING IDIOT that the girl in the OP was, but she had her naked pictures posted on the Internet just the same.

Under this scenario, will you answer fisharmor's question: do you feel the same way knowing they're married?

 

[cajuncocoa]

Ya it really only works on hot girls or celebrities... When a woman has sex, it decreases her sexual market value. When a man has sex, it increases his sexual market value.

I wouldn't go that far.

 

[dannno]

I'm going to agree with presence, most of this stuff is in the category of petty drama and not a crime..

As for cajun arguing about husbands putting a camera in the bathroom, the thing is, there are really only a few guys out on the internet who get off on that kind of stuff, unless you are a model or a famous actress, I don't see why a vindictive husband would go through the trouble of doing that and releasing it because like ChristianAnarchist said it will only make him look bad and most likely nobody is going to want to watch it. Should it be a crime? Maybe.. in fact, it may already be illegal.. but it's not worth starting a revenge porn movement and advocating for a whole new set of laws because I just don't see that as happening very often and it's going to entangle a whole different group of people.. certainly only a small fraction of the amount of times this type of stuff happens vs. women willingly exchanging naked photos and make sex tapes, which happens much more often.

 

[dannno]

I wouldn't go that far.

Not for you, necessarily, but for the market it absolutely does.

 

[tod evans]

I can see laws of this ilk being used far more vindictively than neekid pictures...

Escalation of this sort serves no good purpose.


And we're back to;

Everything government gets involved in it fucks up.

And

Justice will not be found in their courts.

 

[presence]

The husband gets vindictive. He decides to take revenge on her by placing a hidden camera in the bathroom where she takes a shower and gets some naked photos of her....posts them online. She didn't INTEND to share naked photos of herself, but he has them just the same.

That situation is inherently deceitful. I'd consider that theft. Different from knowingly leaving unclaimed naked photos of yourself with an ex.

 

[presence]

The couple may have been "spiritually married" at one time

I'm of the opinion that if a marriage no longer is, it never was.

I suppose you can say I am with the Catholics in that I don't believe in divorce... only annulment. Albiet I don't concur with the notion that the Church does the annulling. I don't need a body of opinion outside of myself to declare the spiritual circumstance I see before me.

http://www.foryourmarriage.org/catholic-marriage/church-teachings/divorce/

God, the author of marriage, established it as a permanent union

 

[cajuncocoa]

I'm of the opinion that if a marriage no longer is, it never was.

I suppose you can say I am with the Catholics in that I don't believe in divorce... only annulment. Albiet I don't concur with the notion that the Church does the annulling. I don't need a body of opinion outside of myself to declare the spiritual circumstance I see before me.

http://www.foryourmarriage.org/catholic-marriage/church-teachings/divorce/

You don't have to explain that to me, I am Catholic. But people change, and people can be assholes. Maybe the Church doesn't recognize that, but I do. I don't care whether you want to call for annulment or divorce or whatever. It's still a breach of the marriage contact to do what is described in my scenario.

 

[cajuncocoa]

That situation is inherently deceitful. I'd consider that theft. Different from knowingly leaving unclaimed naked photos of yourself with an ex.

Yes! I agree. I would never have willingly allowed naked pictures of myself to be taken (speaking of my younger days, of course. I don't think anyone is interested now....LOL)