Is this how we should handle Dick Pics?

[Syzygy23]

I just don't understand the point of dick pics.
Why?
Not a single woman is turned on by seeing a disembodied penis.

What turns on a woman is confidence, personality and possibly good looks. Not a photo of a reproductive organ.

Most men are turned on by disembodied tits and vaginas, many seem to think women feel the same.

Testosterone is a hell of a drug.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

The " victim" here is the person having the dick pics imposed upon them, the same way the victim of a flasher is the one they flashed.

Uhm, no. This story is about a case of criminal harassment where men were stalked and harassed by some crazy women, because of supposed weird behaviour on their part.

Getting naked pictures doesn't justify harassment, or trying to destroy people. Your personal norms or opinions don't justify crime. "He sent me a naked picture, this justifies criminal harassment" fails just like with "But she wore a short skirt. This justifies rape."

The victim is the victim of harassment by this crazy woman, who clearly needs to find a job and shut down her internet acces. I've always used a policy that if I don't like it somewhere, I leave. I don't first go in there, get annoyed, then complain to others why it's so annoying.

If you do this, you go to jail, your family, friends, neighbors, employer all find out. If someone flashes you, you have every right to find out who they were and tell their family what they did. Sending unsolicited Dick pics IS the same as flashing.

So great to see people argueing that valuable police time and jail space should be used for sensible purposes, like destroying the lives of innocent people who offended hypersensitive persons, instead of wasting that effort on useless things like locking up murderers, or arresting drug dealers.

It is just a matter of time before the laws catch up and is updated to include "cyber flashing" in more areas

I most strongly doubt that, as private communication is important, and going onto sexy dating sites and such is concious choice to enter an area where sexual content might be present.

That makes it utterly incomparable to flashing someone in a public street, which is unavoidable. Censoring and enforcing morals laws in private communication to fit people's personal preferences is seriously thin ice legally speaking.

I don't doubt that you could get some evangelical states in the US to enforce such morals laws though. After all, they already police consensual relationships between kids, and dating someone aged 17,9 instantly turns you into a 'rapist', lol. But let's not discuss weirdo conservative lawmaking. It exists only to be abolished.

You do realize if you send dick pics via snail mail, it is already illegal and considered the same as flashing someone on the street don't you? Though many areas have already updated their laws to include electronic communications, some have not yet done so, and that is all they have to do is add " electronic communications" to already existing laws. It was already decided long ago that it was considered criminal behavior to harass people in such ways. Finding the perpetrators and alerting those around them to this behavior it NOT the criminal behavior here, nor is that considered illegal. You have it backwards and the law does not support you. When the police arrive, they tell your family why they are there as well. Whether you are some creep breaking into someones home and stealing panties or sending people dick pics they didn't ask for, there is nothing " private" about criminal behavior (which sending unsolicited dick pics is.) Nor should anyone who sends dick pics to random people expect to have that behavior kept private. IF someone does this to you, you have every right to find out who they are.
The idea that people should just be able to harass people in such ways and have no one call them out on it is terribly wrong. If you do this to people they have every right to call you out. You asked for them to call you out and bring attention to such behavior by harassing them in the first place. No one made the guys send them dick pics, they chose to do so. No one is " destroying" people except the person who decided to send pics of their genitals to unsuspecting victims. If you can't show it to your mother, don't go sending it out to people who didn't ask for it. Before you send something consider that persons mom and kids are sitting next to them watching when they open their mail as well.

Not only is this illegal in the US and the UK, also Australia, Canada, Germany, and New Zealand among others.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

The idea of shaming people for their own stupidity is one I can't really argue against in principle. If they flashing their junk at people who most likely want nothing to do with them or it, they are asking for a bit of mockery at the very least. That said, I do have to wonder about the practicality and the justness of how it is being done. On the one side, this seems to be baiting more dick pics from people either with no care of their family's opinions of them, or simply because they get off on that sort of thing. Or they may feel it a challenge and specifically rain dick pics or worse on them just because of the predictable reaction. On the other, I am not sure I like the self righteous vigilantism of it, especially given the ease of harm the would-be backlash can do to people who aren't actually involved. Steal a pic online, hack a phone or email, spoof an IP, lot of ways to mislead where things come from, or even intentional frame others for it. Considering this is presented through Jezebel, from, well, people I don't trust in any degree of personal responsibility, restraint, or even fair examination when it comes to their personal politics or ideology, I have a lot of doubts about the idea. Reminds me a little too much of the open carry nutters for comfort; both groups of people looking for an excuse to show off how much of a "good guy" they are by way of punishing others.

Not saying I think it is too common an occurrence at the moment, but change the dynamic of how people respond and watch people take advantage of that change. This would-be solution seems it will cause more issues and more serious issues to others. When you risk harming the lives of people just to counter a troll, I think the troll has well and truly won.

I think that will subside though when the laws catch up to include electronic communications. As it is, in most places it is illegal to send dick pics via snail mail, they just have not updated them to include modern communications in many places. It is happening slowly, and will get there in time, in the meantime this is one of the only options people have to combat it. If they do not want people to have to handle it themselves, they need to update the laws accordingly so people have someone they can call to have something done about it. We are just in this " in between stage" where it is running rampant because people have no recourse.

It is crazy though that this has gone on as long as it has without having laws updated more often... I am sure they do not want to look back on this time in internet history as "Era of Rampant Dicks", instead of people having shootouts over poker matches like the wild west they are fighting dick pics with dick pics..

Though if someone flashes someone in person, the person who was flashed has every right to tell their family what they did. They talk to news reporters, and the whole world finds out what they did , so I am not really seeing that as a problem here for them doing it online as well.

I agree, the law should be adjusted, sensibly, to have some means to deal with people sending unwanted stuff like that. Would probably be hard to word the language to not be weaponized though between ex's who have shared nudes or similar things. We've seen the lack of care about similar things on sites like facebook or youtube where the claim of nudity is enough to cause trouble for accounts, adding a legal repercussion to that instead of a commercial one would have to be done with care.

As for people having a right to inform others, that isn't the point of contention here. I think the problem is tied with the anonymity of it all and the ease to cause issues for people in a rush to play the hero vigilante. Like I said, it reminds me a lot of the open carry people. Both do have the right to do it, but both aren't prone to being very sensible with that applying right. And much like the open carry people, there is a lot of swaggering and showboating, and a far greater risk of issue because of it.

So I suppose my stance is, I see and agree with the concept, but I am weary as hell of the application of it and the harm it can cause.

It isn't hard to word, they just have to add " electronic communications" to existing laws that address snail mail. They already have laws that address this, they just need to be updated to include modern communications. I do not see the internet as "anonymous" though, rather I see it as very public, and permanent. I think it is peoples ignorance that makes them have a false sense of anonymity, because they should not be putting anything online they would not say to a judge since everything they do online is considered public and able to be used against them in a court of law. Their own ignorance of this really isn't an excuse for them to "think" it is private. No one ever told them it was.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

snip.

I am not sure what you are going on about with Christianity and harassment, but opposition to harassment is not something valued by Christians alone. Hopi are far from being christian and would not permit such harassment of others as well as in many cultures we are taught the value and importance of respecting others boundaries. It is a crime to impose yourself upon others in many cultures, and sending such things via snail mail or otherwise is considered a form of harassment. People are not entitled to harass others simply because " they feel like it." If I was sending out pictures of my Vag to unsuspecting victims, harassing them for no other reason than existing online, sure I would expect for it to be made known to everyone I know as well. I am not under the illusion that the internet is anonymous in any way. Anyone online should understand anything they do on the internet can be used against them in a court of law, they should always be mindful that everything they do online is permanent and should be something they are willing to say to a judge. That is the reality of the internet. Their ignorance of everything they do on the internet being public and permanent is not an excuse to harass people, and claiming that their ignorance is some how a " free to harass whoever they like with penises card" is BS.

You are comparing calling out a guy for mailing people their genitals to people who did not ask for it to raping people? Seriously? That is not even worthy of a response it is so asinine. If anything, both the rapist and the dick sender are the one who is imposing themselves upon others without their consent. IF they do not ask for dick don't give it to them. It isn't that hard to figure out.

Yes, it actually IS illegal to send via snail mail in all those nations as well as others...

Checking your mail is not "seeking erotic pictures". We are discussing unsolicited dick pics, not pictures people asked for. Consensual exchange is another matter all together, and not the topic of this discussion.

 

[JimB]

Sometimes, when you say on a public discussion forum that women who are being harassed online need to shut up and take the abuse silently, the public will want to discuss that.

Oh, absolutely. It is a public forum and one should be prepared for people to indeed voice potential displeasure with one's posts; but that isn't what I'm talking about, so I don't really see the relevance.

I am saying that what you and Redrhyno perceive as some kind of sycophantic symbiosis on the parts of people who disagree with you is just a group of people who all, for various reasons, find the things you and he say to be factually incorrect or offensive or misguided or whatever (I can't speak to your experiences because I don't even know what they are, and I can't speak to Redrhyno's because I lack the telepathy necessary to speak for the motivations of the people who disagreed with him and are not me). I frankly get the feeling his complaints of concerted malice on the part of the community are an attempt to hide that his feelings are hurt because he thinks he is owed a minimum number of people agreeing with him, and he's not.

The fact that people do the "quote-mining" (I hope I'm using that term properly) and ganging up on other users is just cheap and creates an environment not conducive to debate.

Uh...hm. You know, I've never actually heard "quote-mining" defined. I always took it as synonymous with "cherry-picking;" digging through a person's post to find one sentiment to disagree with.

But as for the environment not being conducive to debate, I must say, I take it exactly the opposite way just because of the rules about a post being required to have some minimum level of content. I think that rule discourages expressing agreement, since agreement can't have much wordcount to it, and that really just leaves us to disagree with one another. Like, there are a lot of people I'd like to quote and say "Well said" to, but my understanding of the rules is that such a thing would be a violation of the terms of use. I suppose I could use a big, wordy, argumentative post like this as a mitigating shield to bury such replies within, but people have a hard enough time parsing my tone without me actively confusing the issue by switching from agreement to disagreement.

Come on, I watched a documentary on hand models, I shit you not.

So you're arguing that hand modeling is the same as every other kind of modeling?

 

[JimB]

Inappropriate is not criminal.

Out of curiosity, what criminal act is not inappropriate?

This wasn't about random e-mails. Don't move the goalposts. The context was dating and flirting, romantic and erotic texts and depictions are to be expected in that context.

When was that the context? I have gone through every post you have written in this thread, and you never once specified that. Perhaps you meant that in your original post, but since you did not specify, since the original discussion is about a woman receiving unsolicited dick pics, and since the post you wrote in response to [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.933800-Is-this-how-we-should-handle-Dick-Pics#23498175] explicitly discussed unsolicited dick pics prior to the bit you chose to snip out for your outraged reply, I don't think you have much of a leg to stand on here.

 

[happyninja42]

Inappropriate is not criminal.

Out of curiosity, what criminal act is not inappropriate?

Well, since criminal acts can widely vary, and what is deemed inappropriate is determined by the person/society, I could list a few that I know are illegal somewhere, that many people don't find inappropriate.

Sodomy
same sex realtionships
gambling
public intoxication
recreational drug use
prostitution
and various other things that are mostly without a victim to them, but various societies have dubbed inappropriate due to their moral structure.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

snip

I Think you should re read this thread. This has always been about random unsolicited emails. No one moved the goal posts but you. Every single post in this thread is about unsolicited dick pics. It may help you to read the thread before responding to it. The woman in the OP was not responding to dating and flirting, she was responding to unsolicited harassment. She has a business presence online for her job and was being harassed for doing so. You somehow twisted it all up in your head. Do not blame others for any confusion you had, as it was made pretty clear. If you harass people with dick pics, yes you should be charged for it.

People who want to share sexual photos with their intimate partners is their prerogative to do so, and often a healthy part of a relationship, though I would not suggest doing it online, since it is impossible to secure the internet. That has been made clear though this entire thread. You seem to be the only one not aware of that.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Inappropriate is not criminal.

Out of curiosity, what criminal act is not inappropriate?

Well, since criminal acts can widely vary, and what is deemed inappropriate is determined by the person/society, I could list a few that I know are illegal somewhere, that many people don't find inappropriate.

Sodomy
same sex realtionships
gambling
public intoxication
recreational drug use
prostitution
and various other things that are mostly without a victim to them, but various societies have dubbed inappropriate due to their moral structure.

There is a huge difference between victimless crimes and crimes where there is an actual injured party. Every single item you listed involves consenting parties, whcih is different than what is being discussed here. Just as in some nations the taking and selling of child brides and treating women as property is accepted as well, but that does not make it " right". The issue here is there is actually a victim of harassment, not people consenting to have this done to them. Victimless crime is another matter all together. In cases of harassment, there is a person who did not consent to being involved. The person harassing people with their penis is consenting to their involvement by harassing the other person in the first place.

The issue of harassment is not a victimless crime. One persons rights end where another's begins. Ones desire to share their penis with others should not override another's right to not have their penis in their mail.

 

[Something Amyss]

It seems like with situations like this a lot of people seem to have two settings; either it's a law enforcement issue or it's non-issue. There is big area of shitty behaviour and harassment that isn't feasible to be dealt with by police or other officials, isn't on its own bad enough to involve them or just simply isn't taken seriously at this time. That doesn't mean it's not a big issue for the person on the receiving end and that they should accept it as fact of life and take it quietly. If you have the means and will to start dealing with it (within reason of course) on your own then great, deal with it. You can't wait for there to be a reliable official channel to deal with everything.

Not only that, but EternallyBored raises some good points on the subject:

Even if they did care, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the Government having the kind of power and scope necessary to do so, and I say that as a bureaucrat that works for the Government. You would need a lot of people to track down someone every time a dick pic is being reported, especially if the person is in another state, the FBI has far more important things to do than arresting people across state lines for misdemeanors, if you didn't involve the FBI then you would be talking about local police communicating across state lines, which they have enough trouble doing so with felonies much less something like this. If it's someone from another country, then there are no proper authorities.

Even if you could get them to care, in some cases the "proper authorities" will just make the situation worse, getting fucked by the American Court system is leagues worse than being outed as a sleazeball to your parents. Especially if you run afoul of any sex offenses, which could very well be levied in some states for sending lewd pictures unsolicited, and while shaming can be argued as to how ethical or effective it is, I think getting someone put on a sex offender list for a dick pic would be far worse than anything the woman is doing. The authorities are great for some things, but for a situation like this, they don't have the resources or personnel to do anything, and giving them the tools to be any help would probably do more harm to the situation than it would fix, the authorities have a tendency to be much more heavy handed than anything being done here. A face book call out can be embarrassing, but its much easier to explain that to an employer than a criminal record.

One thing that I'll add, even though even thinking about it makes me ill is that there are things that have happened to me that I've been afraid to report to the police for fear of police retaliation. I know members of the local police force are homophobic and transphobic and simply don't trust them to handle things with discretion. And based on second-hand information, they probably wouldn't. There are good reasons women and minorities may not want to go to the police. Even if there's potential danger. And if I get more specific, I may throw up. So...

I'm not even sure I want law enforcement to have the scope necessary to take on dick pics.

One of the ironies is a lot of the people in here complaining about this are the same ones who take a libertarian stance, but if we're not ready to say that everything should be handled by the cops, it's...bad?

I'll just leave it at the fact that I'm disinclined towards people going off the shame people to get their way on the internet. It may be warranted in this case, but as a collective action, I'm sick of seeing it and thus I'm going to kinda react to it negatively in a general sense.

You're still doing the same thing, though. You're still going after a subject you didn't do research on (which you admit, pre-edit) based on some vague feeling you et that doesn't reflect the people discussing it.

I specifically said its not something all men do.

I honestly don't remember the part where I said otherwise. Looking back at my post, I get the impression that, rather than that, I was agreeing with you.

I am saying that what you and Redrhyno perceive as some kind of sycophantic symbiosis on the parts of people who disagree with you is just a group of people who all, for various reasons, find the things you and he say to be factually incorrect or offensive or misguided or whatever (I can't speak to your experiences because I don't even know what they are, and I can't speak to Redrhyno's because I lack the telepathy necessary to speak for the motivations of the people who disagreed with him and are not me). I frankly get the feeling his complaints of concerted malice on the part of the community are an attempt to hide that his feelings are hurt because he thinks he is owed a minimum number of people agreeing with him, and he's not.

It's also worth noting that we're a pretty shitty hive mind. Many of us disagree on other issues, which would at best imply we are some sort of loose coalition who has banded together on this specific issue.

 

[happyninja42]

Inappropriate is not criminal.

Out of curiosity, what criminal act is not inappropriate?

Well, since criminal acts can widely vary, and what is deemed inappropriate is determined by the person/society, I could list a few that I know are illegal somewhere, that many people don't find inappropriate.

Sodomy
same sex realtionships
gambling
public intoxication
recreational drug use
prostitution
and various other things that are mostly without a victim to them, but various societies have dubbed inappropriate due to their moral structure.

There is a huge difference between victimless crimes and crimes where there is an actual injured party. Every single item you listed involves consenting parties, whcih is different than what is being discussed here. Just as in some nations the taking and selling of child brides and treating women as property is accepted as well, but that does not make it " right". The issue here is there is actually a victim of harassment, not people consenting to have this done to them. Victimless crime is another matter all together. In cases of harassment, there is a person who did not consent to being involved. The person harassing people with their penis is consenting to their involvement by harassing the other person in the first place.

The issue of harassment is not a victimless crime. One persons rights end where another's begins. Ones desire to share their penis with others should not override another's right to not have their penis in their mail.

Please note what JimB's question was that I was responding to. They asked for examples of things that were criminal that weren't also inappropriate, implying that there was no distinction between the two. I was providing some examples of things that are in fact "criminal" in some legal system somewhere, but that many people don't actually consider to be inappropriate, or at the very least, appropriate depending on circumstances.

I am well aware of the points you mentioned, but that wasn't what I was commenting on. JimB asked for examples, I gave them.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Out of curiosity, what criminal act is not inappropriate?

Beating up Justin Bieber fans of course. These are a genuine threat to all civilisation and must be purged.

My point however was the reverse of that: Just because an action is deemed inapropriate, that does not make it criminal. Plenty of stuff in this world is questionable, weird or inapropriate, and it's totally legal. We don't use laws to impose our personal opinions of what is normal, onto other people. That would be incredibly hostile to the concept of freedom.

When was that the context? I have gone through every post you have written in this thread, and you never once specified that.

I strongly doubt that people do nothing, contacted nobody, and spontaneously began receiving intimate photos from random strangers in their e-mail. Ussually when such things happen, it's clear from the context that such are to be expected as a misstep. Like on dating sites and flirting messages. It's happened to me you're on whatsapp flirting, suddenly you get an intimate photo sent to you. Okay, didn't exactly ask for that, but we were flirting. How insane would I be if I were to think apping me that would be a crime, in that context?

Or in this case, a model making money off publishing and advertising hot photos of herself (that nobody asked for or consented to), but finding it normal to use hot photos of other people for criminal harassment.
And that's the story according to a notoriously unreliable feminist site who would never give us the whole picture. Morally, at best, that's the pot calling the kettle black. Legally, she's guilty of criminal harassment and defamation, no matter what excuses she has to offer.

You strongly doubt that women get unsolicited dick pics??! You have no idea. Maybe you should be a woman for a while so you see how this works... Yes, it sadly happens all the time. Primarily to To both women and young girls. Even on sites such as LinkedIn, where it is supposed to be kept professional this happens all too often. Even my 8 year old niece on club penguin had men trying to contact her it is so bad. I think you are unaware of how bad this really is online, and could yous some expansion in your understanding of the subject to help you better relate to the issue. Maybe you could pretend to be a girl and see how well it goes for you and get back with us?

People not only " consent" to her photos, they pay her to do so. That is what being a " model" is. She is paid to model clothing, jewelry, and other products by those wishing to sell them. She did not send her photos to random people unsolicited in their mail btw, she only sends her photos to potential employers to get jobs. She is not sending anything to these guys sending her pics, they are targeting her for her business presence online.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

The woman in the OP was not responding to dating and flirting, she was responding to unsolicited harassment.

No, she was sending unsolicited hot photos of herself across the globe hoping to make money, and then doxxed and harassed people who sent her unsolicited hot photos.

Just because I'm not moralistic and oppressive doesn't mean I'm not paying attention. On the contrary, I'm pretty sure you're the one who's not aware of the wider implications of what you're saying. As someone pointed out above, plenty of things are considered inapropriate. Want to make them all into a crime too?

She has a business presence online for her job

That's a funny and very clinical way of wording "Makes hot pictures, hopes to make cash off drooling and wanking"

But if you insist, sure. Alright. The men she doxxed and harassed also sent a part of their online presence, for personal presence.

She was not sending unsolicited photos across the globe. LMAO. she only sends photos to prospective employers, which is what models are expected to do as part of their actual job. Sending Penis's is not part of their job.

What you are and are not is up to you.. However, your rights en d where another's begins. If you want to send dick pics, make sure the person who you send them to asked for them.

I was a swimsuit model in high school, under age. I was selling swimsuits, not hoping guys wank to them. We have children swim suit models too, are they supposedly doing so in hopes people wank to them as well? Her modeling has nothing to do with what guys imagine she is modeling for. Unlike what some men seem to think , women like to be attractive for their own benefit, not for the benefit of wanking men. So you think all of the child swimsuit models are doing it for wanking men as well? YIKES.

Sounds to me like you have difficulty understanding women...

 

[JimB]

The woman in the OP was not responding to dating and flirting, she was responding to unsolicited harassment.

No, she was sending unsolicited hot photos of herself across the globe hoping to make money, and then doxxed and harassed people who sent her unsolicited hot photos.

Just because I'm not moralistic and oppressive doesn't mean I'm not paying attention. On the contrary, I'm pretty sure you're the one who's not aware of the wider implications of what you're saying. As someone pointed out above, plenty of things are considered inapropriate. Want to make them all into a crime too?

She has a business presence online for her job

That's a funny and very clinical way of wording "Makes hot pictures, hopes to make cash off drooling and wanking"

But if you insist, sure. Alright. The men she doxxed and harassed also sent a part of their online presence, for personal presence.

sheppie, in keeping with my stated goal of not being a dick, I am not trying to be funny, to mock you, or to make a personal attack, but being as literal as possible when I say the following:

I sincerely hope that you are just trolling, because if you legitimately believe that a model trying to make this or that clothing accessory seem attractive has a goal of arousing you, and your proof of her intent not just to make you horny but to solicit images of your genitals thereby is that you have a boner, then I advise you to discuss these beliefs with a licensed psychiatrist, because they display a level of self-absorption that may qualify as a symptom of clinically diagnosable sociopathy.

I realize it is nearly impossible to say such a thing without it sounding like an attempt at dismissal, but whether you believe this or not, I am genuinely concerned, and think the diagnosis of a professional would be in your best interests.