Revenge porn

[tod evans]

Ok - that's cool; just out of curiousity, do you see anything ethically or morally wrong with the behavior from your first post? Or is it ok for people to act like that?

Absolutely not!

The guy needs his ass kicked.

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

 

[dannno]

You received an intimate picture because you were in the relationship with that person; if you were never in a relationship with that person you would have never received that picture. Once that relationship ends, you don’t get to see that person naked anymore; the pictures should probably be deleted.

Hahahahahahahhaahhahahahh....

 

[dannno]

I agree.

What if this woman is getting undressed in the (expected) privacy of their shared bedroom, maybe getting ready to take a shower, and the boyfriend takes a picture of her while completely naked (unbeknownst to her) and then posts it online? Is that OK with this crowd too??

It's not morally "ok" but the real question is why date and get naked in front of a guy who would do that in the first place?

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.

 

[Schifference]

I think we are in agreement. Those who love liberty tend to oppose others governing them in most cases, if we are not willing to govern ourselves others will continue to see a large state as necessary. If we want to be free, we must show that freedom works. and that it all doesn't revert to a law of the jungle, Lord of the Flies situation. As the hardcore statists claim everything would without a huge Big Brother.

I agree also. The problem is that we are the super minority and your pesky neighbor knows what is best for you and they know that you are not acting responsibly and something needs to be done. It takes a village. For your safety.......

 

[Occam's Banana]

Digital images are not your stuff.

Digitization doesn't really have anything to do with it.

Exactly the same issues would be involved if the guy had pinned a Polaroid on a public corkboard, rather than posting a digital pic on a website.

Once somebody has an image of you it's theirs to do with as they please.

This is one of those very rare instances where I disagree with you.

There can be (explicit or implied) limitations as to what you may do with what you have been given (see below).

You're missing that these women GAVE AWAY their privacy.

Insofar as these women "gave away their privacy," they gave it away ONLY to specific persons, NOT to the general public.

If you don't want someone else to POSSESS a naked picture of you... then don't give it to them.

The issue here is not the mere possession by someone else of a "naked picture of you" which you have given to that person.

The issue is whether there exists any limitations upon what one may subsequently do with what one has come to possess.

Pro tip: if you intend to give up POSSESSION of something while still retaining OWNERSHIP....

SIGN A CONTRACT

As you have stated it, this is inherently contradictory - contract or no contract, one cannot simultaneously "give up possession" of something and "retain ownership" of that something. One may, however, conditionally give up possession (and therefore, also give up ownership) of something - and the condition(s) involved may be explicit or implicit.

As an example of an explicit condition, I might give you my car under the explicitly agreed-upon understanding that you may not sell it unless you offer to give it back to me first. If you agreed to this condition, the car would be yours, and you would have all the responsiblities and privileges of such ownership and possession - with the exception that you could not rightfully sell it to someone else unless I first declined to resume possession of it.

As an example of an implicit condition (or implied contract), when you enter a restaurant and order a meal, you do so with the unstated understanding that you will pay for the meal after you have eaten it. There is no need to sign any contract or make any other kind of openly-stated or explicit agreement - and anyone who tries to score free meals by dining at restaurants and then refusing to pay (because no contract was signed or no explicit agreement was made) is a mealy-mouthed scoundrel.

Just as with the implicit condition (or implied contract) involved in restaurant dining, 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.

IOW: Unless it can be shown that the reasonable presumption of "exclusive use" as an implicit condition of ownership/possession of these "naked pictures" was not in effect, the ex-boyfriend in the OP is in the wrong and he can rightfully be held liable ...

 

[cajuncocoa]

It's not morally "ok" but the real question is why date and get naked in front of a guy who would do that in the first place?

Men and women alike can do a wonderful job of hiding what assholes they can be until it's too late...you've already gotten naked in front of (and in some cases, procreated with) them already.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Absolutely not!

The guy needs his ass kicked.

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

I don't want to cry for government goons to do the kicking either. But too many men think it's perfectly fine for him to do what he did (take a look at the posts in this thread.) This is why we can't have nice things, and why we'll never get rid of government.

 

[106459]

Hahahahahahahhaahhahahahh....

Yeah, it is actually pretty comical, right? But I did this when I stopped talking to one of my ex's. Wanted to be a decent person and such.

TBH, if you ask me, it's unhealthy to keep nudes of an ex. Find a new girlfriend, lol.

 

[Schifference]

There is always two sides to any situation. I wonder what provoked that guy to do what he did.

 

[cajuncocoa]

There is always two sides to any situation. I wonder what provoked that guy to do what he did.

Right. It's always her fault. Same rationale domestic violence perps use when they blacken a woman's eye.

 

[dannno]

Right. It's always her fault. Same rationale domestic violence perps use when they blacken a woman's eye.

Just because there are two sides doesn't make each side justified.. but it is a little more fair. If both people do bad things and the only person coming out looking bad is the one who did the slightly worse thing then it isn't always incredibly helpful.

 

[euphemia]

A person who can't have an adult relationship and still behave like an adult when that relationship ends should probably not be trusted with a camera or the internet.

 

[Schifference]

Right. It's always her fault. Same rationale domestic violence perps use when they blacken a woman's eye.

I did not say it was her fault. I just was curios why he chose to do it.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Absolutely not!

The guy needs his ass kicked.

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

You know, I'm trying to think of an alternative to the whole "government goon" thing. A jury of my peers (and his) doesn't have to include government goons in the middle.

Both the man and the woman could choose a representative, similar to attorneys we have right now. Those representatives could choose this jury...a panel of unbiased people who will hear the case and decide whether a wrong has been committed against this woman or not. They will decide what damages are owed to her if they rule in her favor. Since this ruling would be made public, it would serve as a deterrent:

a) to women, if the jury rules in the man's favor. Stop sending naked pictures of yourself to your boyfriends!! You will not be afforded protection from anyone if it gets published on the Internet.

or

b) to men, if the jury rules in the woman's favor. You will be made to pay if you publish your ex-girlfriend's nude photo online after you break up.

No government goons necessary.

 

[cajuncocoa]

I did not say it was her fault. I just was curios why he chose to do it.

Because he's an asshole.

 

[Schifference]

Would it be wrong to post a photo of a person sunbathing in public on a naked beach?

 

[dannno]

Would it be wrong to post a photo of a person sunbathing in public on a naked beach?

Wrong? Yes. Illegal? Shouldn't be.

 

[dannno]

Because he's an asshole.

Well clearly he was provoked, the question is whether the provocation was due to some legitimately poor treatment by her of him in some way or whether he largely brought it on himself.

Maybe she broke up with him because she cared more about him than he did her and he got upset and jealous. Or maybe he cared more about her than she did him and she cheated on him cause she is a bad person. Many possibilities.

 

[fisharmor]

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.

The older daughter of some friends of my family was dating a shitbag about 10 years ago. Something pissed him off and suddenly her entire family (including her father) got emailed a picture of her giving shitbag some head.

At no point did anyone blame anyone for anything that happened except the girl. Everybody knew he was a shitbag before it happened and told her so. She continued to date him, continued (presumably) to blow him, continued to allow photos to be taken. She has since had a child with a different shitbag, and is currently (AFAIK, I stopped paying attention) pregnant with another child from a third shitbag. And her little sister has followed suit, too, having given birth to a shitbag's child, because that's apparently what she knows.

If you all want to stop this revenge porn thing, you need to get behind a legal system that allows for somebody other than the law to take care of these people. Because in this scenario, the girl's older brother had to almost literally be tied to the furniture to keep from ending the life of shitbag #1. Everyone knew that in a court of law it wouldn't have mattered a whit what he did to deserve it.

Plenty of these women have men who would protect them. And just like almost everything else in this fucked up legal system, as soon as they tried, it would be them getting dragged off to prison. There's one thing, and only one thing, you can count on in this system: it will always spend more effort snuffing competitors than it does on solving actual crimes.

 

[Schifference]

Maybe he saw her dancing at the local strip club.