RE: viewing stolen nude photos
July 31, 2017 at 6:22 pm
(This post was last modified: July 31, 2017 at 6:28 pm by paulpablo.)
(July 31, 2017 at 2:09 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote:(July 31, 2017 at 11:16 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: But not sure how me not Googling her pic will reduce the damage at this point. She'll never know I didn't look. The harm was done when the pics were released on the internet. I empathize with how she must feel about strangers ogling her nude pics when she never intended that. It would be cold to contemplate that and then rush off to do some ogling myself.
But someone who likes to view nude celebrity pics of Anniston is going to find them, even if they're faked. Short of some sort of software to find and erase them, there's not much to be done about it. I'm not sure if it completes the journey from just creepy to plain wrong though.
Thought experiment: change Jennifer Aniston's pics to child porn. I know it's extreme, but the same argument gets made all the time by pedophiles. Is there a reason why the standard applies only in one situation? I think the comparison is fair.
I think the comparison is flawed slightly in that child porn is by definition a child being raped or at least molested. No one's complaining that the person viewing the child porn wasn't given consent by the child, it's that the action itself is seen as morally wrong.
Plus it expresses a much more serious character flaw of being interested in raping/molesting children, rather than expressing curiosity about what a famous adult person looks like fully naked rather than just wearing a see through top with tight yoga pants.
I mean the lack of consent involved in viewing child porn is an issue too, but it's like comparing a terrorist who runs over people in a truck while going 10mph over the speed limit to someone who is going over the speed limit on the motorway by 10mph.
The issue of speeding is the least of anyone's concern in the case of the terrorist. In the case of the person speeding on the motorway it is wrong to a degree.
(July 31, 2017 at 4:31 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote:(July 31, 2017 at 4:22 pm)pocaracas Wrote: My question was more on the lines of, those men who do not give in to that "men are gonna do what they do" mentality should expect most women around them to assume that they are those who "do what men are gonna do".
What can we do? How can it be shown to these people that such assumption is grossly misplaced?
We can do it with our actions. I believe anyone who knows me for any amount of time would be pretty sure I'm not one of those guys. I don't announce it to them. To me, with the little insidious shit that women have to consider with most of their actions every day --- (if I raise my voice at my employees, will they just see me as a bitch?, how do I tell my boss that I should make as much as this dude who demonstrably does less?, do these people see me as a spinster because I'm not married in my 30s?, etc etc etc) --- if I have to deal with some of the slack from typical asshole douches every day, I can handle that.
If you're female and you raise your voice then you might get known as the bitch, if you're a man it's usually dickhead or twat.
Are you ready for the fire? We are firemen. WE ARE FIREMEN! The heat doesn’t bother us. We live in the heat. We train in the heat. It tells us that we’re ready, we’re at home, we’re where we’re supposed to be. Flames don’t intimidate us. What do we do? We control the flame. We control them. We move the flames where we want to. And then we extinguish them.
Impersonation is treason.