viewing stolen nude photos

[TaraJo]

Generally, stealing someones nudes is a dick move. And looking at them is kinda a dick move, too.

But I have a hard time feeling sorry for celebrities when I've seen so many of them get a career boost from the fame from nude pictures leaked or a leaked sex tape. It kinda makes me wonder, were these really leaked against their will, or did they quietly have it done themselves in an attempt to boost their career?

[paulpablo]

Someone in my work told me that the most X rated of these pics wasn't even of her nude, it was of her with ejaculation on her face.

I don't know if that makes any difference, looking at someone with cum on their face without their permission vs looking at them slightly more nude than usual without their permission.

[Thumpalumpacus]

What if it was simply her gardening in her backyard behind a fence?

[johan]

Demand for nude photos existed long before money did. Me and/or you clicking or not clicking on a photo found via a google search is not going to move the needle of demand for that sort of thing one bit. I understand why you would feel that way, but don't kid yourself into thinking those actions have any sort of potential to translate into impact.

You don't think clicks add up? 

Of course clicks add up. But clicks don't drive demand, profit does. With adult sites, profit is in paid access memberships. So yes if you're going to sites, paying for access and then viewing stolen nudes while you're there, you are indeed very much so driving the demand for that sort of thing. I don't pay anyone for porn. Ever. If you want to paint me as part of the problem, you're gong have to do better than clicks add up.

I do. I don't think that I alone can change anything with my clicking habits, but I do think that if fewer people viewed illicit photos, fewer illicit photos would be bought by these sites. 

And you would be wrong. Its porn. Fewer people viewing it aren't going to do squat. Ever. To achieve the results you're speculating about, you need be talking not fewer people but metric shit ton fewer. Orders of magnitude fewer. And no good intentions effort is ever going to achieve that.

By the way, I'm not talking about just nude photos. Those can be had anywhere, with the consent of the subject, and I don't have a problem with that at all. The problem here is that folks are defending and/or justifying the enjoyment of nude photos taken from people who had no intention of those photos ever being made public. There's a difference and you should not gloss that over.

I don't believe I glossed over that. However, I also don't believe I defended nor justified any kind of enjoyment on the subject. I said that if I heard of photos of a given celebrity existing, and if I was curious to see what the hubbub was about, I'd probably google the photos and I wouldn't feel as though I was part of the problem for doing so. Is that defending the enjoyment of them? I guess it depends on your perspective but it sure doesn't seem like it to me.

[Thumpalumpacus]

You don't think clicks add up? 

Of course clicks add up. But clicks don't drive demand, profit does. With adult sites, profit is in paid access memberships. So yes if you're going to sites, paying for access and then viewing stolen nudes while you're there, you are indeed very much so driving the demand for that sort of thing. I don't pay anyone for porn. Ever. If you want to paint me as part of the problem, you're gong have to do better than clicks add up.

I'm not sure why you're taking this personally, but I wasn't accusing you of doing anything.

Having said that, and not being a busy viewer of porn, I'm still fairly confident that free porn sites rely on clicks in order to generate advertising revenue.

I do. I don't think that I alone can change anything with my clicking habits, but I do think that if fewer people viewed illicit photos, fewer illicit photos would be bought by these sites. 

And you would be wrong. Its porn. Fewer people viewing it aren't going to do squat. Ever. To achieve the results you're speculating about, you need be talking not fewer people but metric shit ton fewer. Orders of magnitude fewer. And no good intentions effort is ever going to achieve that.

So, what you're saying is that I'd have to convince a bunch of people, but in principle what I'm saying pertains. You're arguing that there will never be that many people deciding to not look at some starlet's pussy. I'm arguing that even if I cannot change the world, I can still avoid being in that gutter, and that if more people thought this way, this sort of invasion of privacy might be ameliorated.

I don't believe I glossed over that. However, I also don't believe I defended nor justified any kind of enjoyment on the subject.

Well, it's a good thing i didn't accuse you of that, now isn't it? Perhaps you should swat strawmen on your own time.

I said that if I heard of photos of a given celebrity existing, and if I was curious to see what the hubbub was about, I'd probably google the photos and I wouldn't feel as though I was part of the problem for doing so. Is that defending the enjoyment of them? I guess it depends on your perspective but it sure doesn't seem like it to me.

Forgive my disagreeing. Would you want people doing that to your wife or daughter? What if it was the accident scene where they got killed? What if it was them gardening on a lazy Sunday? What if it was an intimate video your wife made for you while you were overseas on assignment? What if the viewer was only curious, but not jacking off? How would you even know? What if it was you having a wank in the shower thinking about Mariah Carey that was going viral?

Sorry, I get your free-market attitude, but I'm skeptical. Maybe if you'd had your privacy taken you might get it ... but I don't know.

[johan]

I'm not sure why you're taking this personally, but I wasn't accusing you of doing anything.

Having said that, and not being a busy viewer of porn, I'm still fairly confident that free porn sites rely on clicks in order to generate advertising revenue.

I didn't take it personally, I was just responding, that's all. Sorry if I made it seem otherwise.

Having said that, and also not being a busy viewer of porn, I'm not fairly confident that free porn sites rely on clicks in order to generate advertising rev or more to the point in order to profit. I don't really know how they profit. But I know that in my experience, clicks alone don't generate any kind of revenue to write home about. Even when they 'add up'. 



 

You're arguing that there will never be that many people deciding to not look at some starlet's pussy. 

Yup. 

I'm arguing that even if I cannot change the world, I can still avoid being in that gutter, 

With you so fair. Nothing wrong here. 

and that if more people thought this way, this sort of invasion of privacy might be ameliorated.

And here's where you swerved off into fantasy land. Actually I think you blew right through fantasy land and ended up in no effin wayville.

Forgive my disagreeing. 

You're allowed to disagree. 

Would you want people doing that to your wife or daughter?

No, I probably wouldn't. Which might have something to do with why I've never asked my wife for nude photos nor have I ever had the desire to take them. In fact you can remove the word might from that sentence and replace it with definitely. 

But I should also clarify that my wife is not a celebrity and therefore has an expectation of a certain amount of privacy which celebrities do not share. I believe I'm mentioned earlier in the thread that my comments were regarding celebrity photos and that my feelings were different when it came to known stolen photos of anonymous citizens.

And I should add, I'm not saying celebrities should not expect any level of privacy, only that they should expect a reduced level as compared to those who are not celebrities. Just goes with the title of being celebrity. Don't like it? Don't do stuff that will make you famous.

What if it was the accident scene where they got killed? 

If someone I cared about was killed in an accident, I would expect photos of the scene to be available online for all to see. If you're talking about photos of the body itself, I wouldn't necessarily expect those to be online, but in this day and age I wouldn't be all that surprised either. And while I don't believe I'd want to view them, I think I'd far more upset about losing someone I loved at that point than any concern over strangers viewing photos of the body. 

What if it was them gardening  on a lazy Sunday? 

Well that'd be a bit creepy but I don't think I'd be writing my congressman or anything over it.

What if it was an intimate video your wife made for you while you were overseas on assignment? 

Well again, there is a reason those do not exist when it comes to my wife and I.

What if the viewer was only curious, but not jacking off? How would you even know? 

Photos nude or otherwise are not required in order for someone to jack off over my wife. And if I don't know about it, and it never goes further than that persons own personal collection of wank fodder (i.e. they don't turn into a stalker or something like that), I honestly couldn't care less.

What if it was you having a wank in the shower thinking about Mariah Carey that was going viral?

I'd be embarrassed and ashamed beyond belief. I mean Mariah Carey? Who among us could ever live that down?

But how would they know I was thinking about Mariah Carey? Would there be dolphin sounds dubbed in or something?

Sorry, I get your free-market attitude, but I'm skeptical. Maybe if you'd had your privacy taken you might get it ... but I don't know.

Again, I am not a celebrity. But regardless, should my privacy be compromised and intimate images I've made of myself or a loved one be made public, I would definitely have an issue with the criminal who committed that crime. I'm not sure I'd have any particular issue with those who then viewed the images because they were public. But that's just me. Others are entitled to feel differently.