The Fappening

Off Topic
61

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]coolnatedawg wrote:
I didn’t see any airbrushed superstar bodies so it may help reset the desire to reach unattainable standards of perfection.

[/quote]

This might actually be a good that comes from this. I wonder if the people who were violated here could come to terms with it and be on board with this narrative concerning the situation…

[/quote]

Doubtful. I don’t think any of these women who became famous for sex appeal would be ok pointing out how casual they really are. Only someone who hasn’t let it really get to her head and doesn’t take herself too seriously would do that I imagine. I could almost see Jennifer Lawrence doing it b/c she comes across that way but I still very much doubt it.

62

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
You bring up an interesting point. I would say that the harm to the actresses is already done; no amount of people looking at the pics increases the harm caused by the initial invasion of privacy.

I think it’s up to the viewer now to determine how looking at the pics dovetails with their own morality.[/quote]

Okay to dovetail this with a post you made in another thread:

At what point in the conversation about this, in your opinion do we start “blaming the victim”? (If at all.)

Does telling people that nudie photos and sexting isn’t the best idea if you’d be upset if they ended up on the internet “blame the victim”.

Take the perv’s in public taking “upskirts”. Does mentioning that wearing a skirt that goes below the knee, or being very cautious where and how you sit in public blame the victim?

[/quote]

Blame is such a loaded term…

If we’re going to apportion responsibility, I think we should use the “reasonable man” dcotrine. Would a reasonable person believe that their pics were relatively safe stored on Apple’s servers? Yeah, I think so. I think a famous actress would have to know that they could be a target for hacking, and therefore would have to tread more carefully.

What if JLaw had Poloroids of herself hidden under her bed and her house was broken into? I think this is similar. You could say she never should have taken the pics of herself, but I think they took reasonable precautions and had nearly every reason to believe their pics would be safe.

[/quote]

Fair enough. I can co-sign this.

Although, I’m still going to use this as an example when I tell my kids not to take pictures of themselves naked and send/keep/share it with anyone. [/quote]

I always refer to e-mails as “electronic evidence.” It helps remind me to assume anything I send into cyberspace is available for public viewing. Those photos all could have been lawfully obtained by enemies and re-produced in a public court proceeding under the right circumstances.

63

[quote]debraD wrote:

I think if everyone just ignored stuff like this it would not even exist. Dr. Pangloss, you are not only looking at it but you are actually linking to it. Sorry lol you are very much part of the problem.[/quote]

Eh, that’s a platitude.

In order to say that, you’d have to know the motive of the hacker.

Perhaps he wanted to blackmail the actresses.
Perhaps he wanted the pics for his personal spank bank.
Perhaps he wanted to show off his chops to his hacker buddies.
Perhaps he wanted to sell the pics to the highest bidder.

The fact that I linked to the pics makes no difference in any of the above cases. Nor did I share a link that couldn’t be found by anyone else using Google in less than a minute… which is exactly what I did.

I’d be happy to unpack this with you further because I think it’s a really fascinating philosophical question, but I think the road you’re going down - that I’ve somehow harmed the actresses by being a consumer of the pics - is a dead end.

The question is, did I harm some small part of myself?

I gave this a lot of thought last night and came up with an excellent analogy. I didn’t watch the Foley beheading vids but not because doing so would cause him any harm. But because doing so would hurt some part of me.

64

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Fair enough. I can co-sign this.

Although, I’m still going to use this as an example when I tell my kids not to take pictures of themselves naked and send/keep/share it with anyone. [/quote]

Without a doubt.

For %99.99999 of the population, they don’t have to worry about their iCould account getting hacked. They’ve got to worry about a pissed off exboyfriend or exgirlfriend.

65

This was pretty interesting:

66

[quote]coolnatedawg wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]coolnatedawg wrote:
I didn’t see any airbrushed superstar bodies so it may help reset the desire to reach unattainable standards of perfection.

[/quote]

This might actually be a good that comes from this. I wonder if the people who were violated here could come to terms with it and be on board with this narrative concerning the situation…

[/quote]

Doubtful. I don’t think any of these women who became famous for sex appeal would be ok pointing out how casual they really are. Only someone who hasn’t let it really get to her head and doesn’t take herself too seriously would do that I imagine. I could almost see Jennifer Lawrence doing it b/c she comes across that way but I still very much doubt it.[/quote]

Plus they make a lot of money off those photo shoots.

67

I wouldn’t go so far as to blame these people for having these pictures revealed. However, I still think it’s legitimate to lose respect for these people over this. I don’t think that taking nude pictures of yourself in sexual positions is healthy or indicate of a good role model. Not that I had incredible respect for these people to begin with. But it moves them down another notch.

68

[quote]Silyak wrote:
I still think it’s legitimate to lose respect for these people over this. [/quote]
Why?

[quote]
I don’t think that taking nude pictures of yourself in sexual positions is healthy or indicate of a good role model.[/quote]
Why?

[quote]
Not that I had incredible respect for these people to begin with. [/quote]
Why?

69

I’ve always thought that Dr Pangloss was trouble.

70

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
This was pretty interesting:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/originalguy-full-story-icloud-hacker-081044692.html[/quote]
“AnonIB: The Offshoot Hacker Community”
LOOOOL

71

In this day and age, ANYONE who does ANYTHING on a computer that will EVER have access to an open network should do so with the understanding that it is not secure. The more valuable, the less secure.

If you are a female celebrity and if you knowingly take pictures of yourself (or allow pictures of yourself to be taken) that you don’t want public, then you are a fool.

If you wouldn’t publish it on the front page of the newspaper, don’t email it…

Common sense.

73

True. But having pictures taken of yourself having sex is essentially exhibitionism which some might regard as a deviancy - not that I’m condemning people who do that; but I’m not condemning people who take issue with it either.

74

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

True. But having pictures taken of yourself having sex is essentially exhibitionism which some might regard as a deviancy - not that I’m condemning people who do that; but I’m not condemning people who take issue with it either.[/quote]

How is it exhibitionism if the only person you show them to or they are intended for is your SO?

76

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Common sense.[/quote]

Lol, like people have this anymore…

77

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

True. But having pictures taken of yourself having sex is essentially exhibitionism which some might regard as a deviancy - not that I’m condemning people who do that; but I’m not condemning people who take issue with it either.[/quote]

Someone would have a difficult time convincing a reasonable person that taking and giving a photo of yourself in your birthday suit to your wife or husband – a suit they’ve probably seen you in many times – is deviant.
[/quote]

But we’re not really talking about that. We’re talking about people having pictures taken of themselves having sex - ie, three people involved: the two having sex and the cameraman - and then “sharing” these pictures with others. But as I said, I’m not condemning people who do that sort of stuff. Whatever rocks your boat as they say.

78

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

True. But having pictures taken of yourself having sex is essentially exhibitionism which some might regard as a deviancy - not that I’m condemning people who do that; but I’m not condemning people who take issue with it either.[/quote]

Someone would have a difficult time convincing a reasonable person that taking and giving a photo of yourself in your birthday suit to your wife or husband – a suit they’ve probably seen you in many times – is deviant.
[/quote]

But we’re not really talking about that. We’re talking about people having pictures taken of themselves having sex - ie, three people involved: the two having sex and the cameraman - and then “sharing” these pictures with others. But as I said, I’m not condemning people who do that sort of stuff. Whatever rocks your boat as they say.
[/quote]

Where did, “We’re talking about people having pictures taken of themselves having sex - ie, three people involved,” come from? That’s not what the celebrities were doing as far as I know and it isn’t what Silyak was talking about.

79

I think that’s a couple of different assumptions:

One, that there was a photographer present and the couple didn’t simply use a timer or remote shutter, and second that the pictures were shared with others.

Do you know that’s the case with these pics?

80

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

True. But having pictures taken of yourself having sex is essentially exhibitionism which some might regard as a deviancy - not that I’m condemning people who do that; but I’m not condemning people who take issue with it either.[/quote]

Someone would have a difficult time convincing a reasonable person that taking and giving a photo of yourself in your birthday suit to your wife or husband – a suit they’ve probably seen you in many times – is deviant.
[/quote]

But we’re not really talking about that. We’re talking about people having pictures taken of themselves having sex - ie, three people involved: the two having sex and the cameraman - and then “sharing” these pictures with others. But as I said, I’m not condemning people who do that sort of stuff. Whatever rocks your boat as they say.
[/quote]

Where did, “We’re talking about people having pictures taken of themselves having sex - ie, three people involved,” come from? That’s not what the celebrities were doing as far as I know and it isn’t what Silyak was talking about. [/quote]

I was going on the photos I saw.