Is this how we should handle Dick Pics?

[happyninja42]

I just don't understand the point of dick pics.

Nobody, not even the people who take them, understands the point of dick pics. They are the Nazca Lines of cell phone photos.

It's pretty simple. People find the glimpse of another person's body in a sexual way enticing. Someone you find sexually attractive, giving you a tease of "what to expect later", is attractive to a lot of people. I'm not really sure why this is a surprise. Also the idea of it being an almost real time bit of foreplay, a snapshot of eroticism wherever the person might be. The fact that they are taking that moment to give you something kinky, maybe while they're at work, or in a clothes changing room, or whatever. It excites some people.

 

[Something Amyss]

That would have been easy for you to do, you could have verified your real identity with a link,

Are you even responding to me? You said you doubted my identity. I simply asked on what grounds. I'm actually not sure what link I could provide that would verify it. I could show you social media links, but they don't verify that my name is really Amy, either. They simply show that I signed up with that name.

but you didn't so your still a hypocrite and I don't want you to,

I'm a hypocrite for...what, exactly? Because it looks like you're saying I'm a hypocrite for not doing something I never said anyone should do and you don't want me to do? That doesn't sound like a hypocrite.

In fact, my stance is pretty in-line with what I'm preaching. She shouldn't have to live in fear. I shouldn't have to live in fear. You're the one who seems to think she should have to do what I do.

I may not like how you do things but I stand by my point that you should be careful with your details and I'm assuming you talk in politically charged topics where emotions run high.

So we've stopped talking about the woman in question entirely, then, gone off topic, and now are solely about me?

Fine.

Without giving out my real name (my prior username is not and was never my real name in any sense), I had people dig up personal information on me and use it to threaten to kill, harm, or out me. I rather enjoy being not dead. Or, rather, I prefer it to the alternative. So now I don't. But that doesn't remove the danger. It simply pushes it back a couple of steps.

I will never give my full name on here, or anywhere else online that I can avoid, because the combination is unique enough that the next person with the name is about 250 miles away. You want to call me out on not giving my full name? You're making my point for me. I shouldn't have to be Mata Fucking Hari to talk about vidya games on the damned internet.

And that's what I said, what you seem to have been offended and/or outraged by, was that nobody should have to live that way. Which is absolutely true. It's no way to live, and if people want to, they're going to dig up information on you, too. Trying to handwave it with "politically charged discussions" I might be involved in doesn't make it any less of a shitty, inhuman thing that should be eradicated. At this point, we've gone well beyond models and dick pics, though.

As such, I'm glad that she's in a position to fight. I was disheartened that people actually took the position that she had it coming for being on social media. And I'm baffled by your responses, because they only seem to half-pay attention to what I am saying and half go off in bizarre tangents.

So let's get back on that topic. Emily Sears is a celebrity who was simply attempting to promote herself and got sent shit she shouldn't have to endure.

That's like telling someone "you could get hurt doing a dangerous job" or "be careful carrying such large amounts of money or you could get robbed" is a bad thing. Telling people the potential consequences of there actions is something sensible, not something you tag with a rubbish internet logic.

What you just said was the equivalent of "you don't carry large sums of money unless you want to get mugged." There's a huge difference.

Something Amyss is only a hypocrite if she said that she and all women should be posting their personal information on all sites under any and all circumstances. She did not say that. She said that women should be allowed to fight back rather than tuck tail and run in silence, as you insist they must.

One of the things that's always sort of baffled me about this sort of thing is that it seems like women are expected to shoulder 100% of the liability and responsibility for their treatment, up to and including the behaviour of others, but that people are easily angered by the consequences. Women are told to "Take precautions" to prevent being raped, but if you take those precautions, people get outraged. If you start being wary of men, they get offended or angry.

It's my impression that men don't like to be treated like rapists and scumbags. It would seem, then, that it'd be a good idea to send a message other than "you're on your own," but that's the message that tends to be sent.

But heaven forbid a woman actually act in a way concordant to that message, no, that's wrong.

 

[Something Amyss]

And that explains why so many guys send so many women they barely/don't even know unsolicited dick pics how exactly? Because that's what we're talking about here, unsolicited dick pics. You just explained the point of people who are in relationships with each other sending nude pictures to each other, but not the point of what is actually being talked about.

Indeed. I am absolutely game if my SO wants to tease me.

Not so much if a stranger decides t.

 

[JimB]

It's pretty simple. People find the glimpse of another person's body in a sexual way enticing. Someone you find sexually attractive, giving you a tease of "what to expect later", is attractive to a lot of people. I'm not really sure why this is a surprise. Also the idea of it being an almost real time bit of foreplay, a snapshot of eroticism wherever the person might be. The fact that they are taking that moment to give you something kinky, maybe while they're at work, or in a clothes changing room, or whatever. It excites some people.

And that explains why so many guys send so many women they barely/don't even know unsolicited dick pics how exactly? Because that's what we're talking about here, unsolicited dick pics. You just explained the point of people who are in relationships with each other sending nude pictures to each other, but not the point of what is actually being talked about.

I believe the answer is partially cogent. The harassers behave as if they are in a relationship because in the harasser's mind, they are. There are several possible reasons why, but the one I default to is that the harasser thinks he has some legitimate ownership of the victim, because he thinks being sexually attracted to her confers upon him the right to claim her. Think "If she didn't want it, then why would she dress like that?"

Another reason is a fear/anger response. A certain kind of person is terrified of women, so when a woman has power over him by being attractive to him, he needs to assert dominance over the situation. His boner isn't a sign of weakness, but of virility he can use to control her emotions the same way she "controlled" his!

A third reason is the dude is just plain scum, and wants to be scummy to someone.

 

[Hypertion]

one of the biggest lies to the internet is the anonymity of it... 90% of the people who do this stuff can be easily tracked and such, so quite frankly its good that some people actually act on that fact.

 

[DementedSheep]

Obviously I can't prove it and it won't be true for all but I very much doubt the majority of guys sending dick picks think it's wanted or attractive. It's the same shit as the guy who pretends to (or actually dose, I'm not going ask) masturbate into the microphone when he hears a girl in a game. What they get off on is making the other person feel uncomfortable or intimated.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Spoiler

It's pretty simple. People find the glimpse of another person's body in a sexual way enticing. Someone you find sexually attractive, giving you a tease of "what to expect later", is attractive to a lot of people. I'm not really sure why this is a surprise. Also the idea of it being an almost real time bit of foreplay, a snapshot of eroticism wherever the person might be. The fact that they are taking that moment to give you something kinky, maybe while they're at work, or in a clothes changing room, or whatever. It excites some people.

And that explains why so many guys send so many women they barely/don't even know unsolicited dick pics how exactly? Because that's what we're talking about here, unsolicited dick pics. You just explained the point of people who are in relationships with each other sending nude pictures to each other, but not the point of what is actually being talked about.

I believe the answer is partially cogent. The harassers behave as if they are in a relationship because in the harasser's mind, they are. There are several possible reasons why, but the one I default to is that the harasser thinks he has some legitimate ownership of the victim, because he thinks being sexually attracted to her confers upon him the right to claim her. Think "If she didn't want it, then why would she dress like that?"

Another reason is a fear/anger response. A certain kind of person is terrified of women, so when a woman has power over him by being attractive to him, he needs to assert dominance over the situation. His boner isn't a sign of weakness, but of virility he can use to control her emotions the same way she "controlled" his!

A third reason is the dude is just plain scum, and wants to be scummy to someone.

I'd add two additional reasons to your three.

4. It's kind of a sexual thrill to think that somewhere, someone thinks your attractive in a sexual way. Sending dick pics, en mass, seems to be a act of masturbation.

5. Some people seriously think that sending nudes to someone entitles them to nudes in return, regardless if the other person signaled it or not.

 

[happyninja42]

It's pretty simple. People find the glimpse of another person's body in a sexual way enticing. Someone you find sexually attractive, giving you a tease of "what to expect later", is attractive to a lot of people. I'm not really sure why this is a surprise. Also the idea of it being an almost real time bit of foreplay, a snapshot of eroticism wherever the person might be. The fact that they are taking that moment to give you something kinky, maybe while they're at work, or in a clothes changing room, or whatever. It excites some people.

And that explains why so many guys send so many women they barely/don't even know unsolicited dick pics how exactly? Because that's what we're talking about here, unsolicited dick pics. You just explained the point of people who are in relationships with each other sending nude pictures to each other, but not the point of what is actually being talked about.

The comment I responded to didn't specify. They made the very general statement of "I don't understand dick pics at all". I gave a reason. I'm well aware the general discussion is about unsolicited dick pics, but that's not what the person said.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

If you do not understand that sending unsolicited dick pics is a form of harassment, maybe you do need to talk about it with someone.

Uhm, I never said that. You're just trying to put words in my mouth.

You should not be entitled to impose that upon others, and just as with any other crime

How many times have you been told that inapropriate is not the same as criminal?

The argument that you're entitled to harass, doxx and defame other people because they offended you, failed. Please don't rewind arguments you lost.

You're not entitled to commit crimes against other people if you feel like it.

The perpetrator is not entitled to " hide" from the public after doing these things to people.

Actually they are. Note how defamation, harassment, slander etc are a crime. Contrary to what you think, being offended doesn't justify crime.

It's one thing to make fun of someone, it's another to conciously try to destroy them over something inapropriate which is really minor.

If people do not want others to find out what they do, don't do these things to others.

Yeah, that reminds me of something you ducked earlier: Am I entitled to harass, doxx, threaten and defame you?

According to your own arguments, I should be (cuz, no reason), and doing that to you should be legal. Worse yet, you should then be blamed for bringing it onto yourself. I'm starting to suspect hypocrisy on your part. You want other people to be attacked in a criminal manner, but you don't want it done to yourself for some reason.

There is no agreement in "privacy" when you send people things they did not ask for. Once they send the pictures to someone without that person agreeing to keep them private, the person receiving them is under no obligation to do so. They can give them to the police, their boss, their neighbors, or news reporters if they so wish at that point.

You know damn well there are laws against slander, defamation, harassment
You're not entitled to commit crimes against other people if you feel like it.

No. I am a very literal person, sheppie, and what I said is what I meant. There is no insult in being sick, nor shame in getting help.

So what do you imagine I should tell the doctor? Ask him if being opposed to criminal harassment and defamation is a disease?

Maybe you should read back a bit? I'm getting the idea you're reading what you wanted to read. I never said sending people intimate pictures is normal or apropriate.

I said that crazy woman is hugely overreating, that criminal harassment is a crime, and that crazy woman isn't entitled to commit crimes. I'm also dumbfounded by the victims of those crimes being blamed, instead of the criminal. Pretty sure that being opposed to victim-blaming isn't anywhere in the DSM 5.

slander. n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another, which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed. Slander is a civil wrong (tort) and can be the basis for a lawsuit.

If the dick fits.. The issue is if they sent the dick pic, it is not an untruth, therefor it is not slander. If you steal someones purse and they tell your friend's what you did, it is not slander, if you kick someone's dog and they tell your mom you did. it is not slander. If you send unsolicited dick pics to people on the internet, and they tell your family you did, it is not slander.

No, it IS harassment to send unsolicited dick pics, and no you should not be entitled to anonymity if you do so. You are not entitled to send unsolicited dick pics to businesses, models, store clerks, politicians, or anyone else for that matter. If they dont ask for dick, dont give it to them. Not like that is hard to understand.

Finding out who sent the dick and making it known is not illegal, just like it isn't illegal to find out who sent you threats and make it known.. or sent you flowers and make it known.. but yes sending unwanted dick pics is not something one should be entitled to.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

Is she actually redistributing the picture? Because to me thats bad because spreading peoples homemade porn/nude pics without consent is illegal. On the other hand, just telling people what the guy is up to doesnt bother me.

 

[JimB]

See previous post: not legally relevant issue.

It is relevant, because you continue to use words like "slander" and "defamation," which have as a part of their defamation that the accusations be untrue.

The law disagrees with you.

Which law?

 

[DefunctTheory]

Which law?

1 - The lack of morality laws that criminalise inapropriate behaviour. That means that "She dressed inapropriate, so raping her was legal" and "They communicated with me inapropriately, so I harassed and slandered them" both fail as an argument.

2 - The relevant criminal laws against criminal harassment and defamation.

Criminal Harassment is fancy talk for stalking behavior. It is dealt with, in the US, by the state, and typically requires that there be a clear threat or the reasonable appearance of a threat to the individual or individuals family/friends.

Telling someone that you're going to send their boss pictures of their dick could constitute criminal harassment, as could threatening to use the picture as leverage to ruin their life. Newer laws being fashioned also make it illegal to share the picture in question with the public. Informing family members or girls friends about the sharing event is not illegal.

In the United States, criminal defamation is rare. Extremely rare. Between 1965 and 2002, only 16 people were convicted of criminal defamation. Every single one of them for saying or implying something that wasn't true.

However, Emily Sears, the subject of this thread, lives in Australia. So what are the rules there?

Regarding criminal harassment, Australian law seems functionally the same as US law. So that's a big nope there.

And a quick Google search reveals that in Australian, truth is, in fact, a defense - As long as what you're saying is true, it's not criminal defamation, as of 2005.

So... yah. Nothing she's done is illegal in the country she's from.

 

[JimB]

It is relevant, because you continue to use words like "slander" and "defamation," which have as a part of their definition that the accusations be untrue.

See previous post. Inapropriate behaviour is legally irrelevant, using it against someone still illegal harm to their reputation.

If you intend to bring the weight of the law onto your side, sheppie, then you have chosen a burden of proving that the acts you accuse Ms. Sears of rise to legal definitions of those acts. Therefore, whether her description of events is accurate is extremely relevant to the terminology you repeatedly use, unless by "slander" and "defamation" is "bad things I disapprove of so they should definitely be illegal."

 

[Hagi]

I'd say the dick pic in question should be kept private.

Even if it's horrendously inappropriate it's still a private communication and shouldn't be shared without consent of the sender.

But just mentioning that it happened I see no problem with, I hope for her it helps receiving less harassment.

As far as an actual service goes though, I don't think one should exist for that purpose. I'd rather see these messaging services deal better with harassment that's reported in the short term and see more focus in society on woman's rights, respect for them as well as more attention to education for boys in the long term.

 

[JimB]

I'd say the dick pic in question should be kept private.

Even if it's horrendously inappropriate it's still a private communication and shouldn't be shared without consent of the sender.

Ignoring that such a communication is almost certainly a crime in whatever part of the world we're talking about and that criminal communication should never be protected by privacy, why are we holding the recipient to a higher standard than the sender? After all, she didn't consent to receiving it; why then must she ask for the sender's consent to send it to a third party?

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

I'd say the dick pic in question should be kept private.

Even if it's horrendously inappropriate it's still a private communication and shouldn't be shared without consent of the sender.

But just mentioning that it happened I see no problem with, I hope for her it helps receiving less harassment.

As far as an actual service goes though, I don't think one should exist for that purpose. I'd rather see these messaging services deal better with harassment that's reported in the short term and see more focus in society on woman's rights, respect for them as well as more attention to education for boys in the long term.

It's polite not to share a text, I don't believe it's illegal. Doing so just breaks a social convention. When someone else drops social convention and is blatantly rude I don't think people should be expected to uphold it in return.