Revenge porn

[cajuncocoa]

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.

The answer, I think, dannno, is not about how many people want to see it....it's about revenge on her....it's about embarrassing her. Even if people make fun of her for the picture, it's a win-win for him.

I mentioned yesterday that a similar thing happened to me (PHOTOSHOPPED) about 13 years ago, the intent of which WAS to embarrass me. Mission accomplished. The body of the woman my face was Photoshopped on had to weigh at least 500 lbs. It didn't matter that no one would want to see that...that wasn't the point. The point was to have as many people as possible make derogatory comments about me, even though the body didn't belong to me.

 

[presence]

It's still a breach of the marriage contact to do what is described in my scenario.

I have issue with your notional wording.

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

I would say that your question is inherently invalid; you can't speak of a "husband" that never was. When you have two individuals in a vindictive state of war with one another, then they are no longer "one"; and if they aren't "one" now then they never were "one" to begin with.

From my worldview, marriages must continue to be or I simply don't recognize that they ever were;

to me, the duplicitous and convoluted terms ex-wife, ex-husband are inherently paradoxical.

 

[ChristianAnarchist]

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)

You do know there's a market in Japan for "elder porn", right?

 

[cajuncocoa]

I have issue with your notional wording.



I would say that your question is inherently invalid; you can't speak of a "husband" that never was. When you have two individuals in a vindictive state of war with one another, then they are no longer "one"; and if they aren't "one" now then they never were "one" to begin with.

From my worldview, marriages must continue to be or I simply don't recognize that they ever were;

to me, the duplicitous and convoluted terms ex-wife, ex-husband are inherently paradoxical.

*sigh* It doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter whether you consider them to be married. That isn't even the point there.

The point is that they were living together....she didn't give the man naked pictures; he took them without her consent. THAT'S the point.

 

[cajuncocoa]

You do know there's a market in Japan for "elder porn", right?

No, I did not. That's OK though. I'm not exactly "elderly" yet either.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

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.

Only 10? That's mighty generous of you, friend.

 

[presence]

The point is that they were living together....she didn't give the man naked pictures; he took them without her consent. THAT'S the point.

I will give you...

if the naked photos were typically stored "on her side of the bed" or "in her cell phone" or "on her computer" and just before the breakup he "took them" through some conversion and came to possess them where he didnt previously posses them... and I don't know the exact specifics of this case...



but as I understand the situation there was a boyfriend and a girlfriend and the boy was in possession of noodie pics of the girl.



then relationship abruptly ends



private property is private property


"there is no contract if parties attach different meanings"

just because the noodie party thinks

"I'll give you noodie pics if you promise to never show anyone after we split up"

doesn't mean the pics weren't accepted by the douchebag party as:

"I'll you give me noodie pics because I'm sorry, etc.; if I ever do it again you can show them to everyone"


for there to be encumbrance on property there must be mutual assent; a promise

There is no manifestation of mutual assent to an exchange if the parties attach materially different meanings

https://quizlet.com/16624759/manifestation-of-mutual-assent-flash-cards/

 

[cajuncocoa]

I will give you...

if the naked photos were typically stored "on her side of the bed" or "in her cell phone" or "on her computer" and just before the breakup he "took them" through some conversion and came to possess them where he didnt previously posses them... and I don't know the exact specifics of this case...



but as I understand the situation there was a boyfriend and a girlfriend and the boy was in possession of noodie pics of the girl.



then relationship abruptly ends



private property is private property


"there is no contract if parties attach different meanings"

just because the noodie party thinks

"I'll give you noodie pics if you promise to never show anyone after we split up"

doesn't mean the pics weren't accepted by the douchebag party as:

"I'll you give me noodie pics because I'm sorry, etc.; if I ever do it again you can show them to everyone"


for there to be encumbrance on property there must be mutual assent; a promise




https://quizlet.com/16624759/manifestation-of-mutual-assent-flash-cards/

Clearly you didn't read what I said.

 

[JK/SEA]

i see this thread is still going. Just popping in to see what the issue is......................

ok...


moving on....