League of Legends player posts revenge porn of girlfriend because she used an overpowered character

[Abomination]

Hit a nerve there did I? Don't worry, I would never do this myself (I'm a straight man btw) but you always here fucked up revenge stories like that (whether they're true or not) about girlfriends going crazy on their ex. I do hope that, or something as bad (probably deserves worse tbh) happens to him though. Assholes should not be able to get away with shit like this. If that were me getting naked pictures posted of me on the internet that would fuck my career over. I would literally have to start a large portion of my life over. So yes, having an embarrassing trip to the hospital is well deserved if that person has tried (and to some extent succeeded) in ruining your life.

Honestly, if a girl did this to me, I would go much worse than attacking them with glue. I would probably just sue them for all the money it would take for me to go back to university, all the money I would be missing out on during those years, and maybe 50 grand extra for the emotional damages. I don't know if I'd actually be able to do all that but if not, I'd have to think of something else. If someone ruins my life, I will try my very hardest to ruin theirs.

Not so much a nerve as an hypocricy I've noticed. Sexual assault on guys being "okay".

I would personally hope naked pictures of him got leaked (not because I want to see him naked), revealing him to have spindly little arms, a massive fat belly and a penis that resembles an outie belly-button. You know, comparable stuff.

I tend to live by the idea that the only thing you should do to someone else's genitalia is something they enjoy - and only when they've given you consent to do it.

And "loss of hair"? What if a dude is clean shaven?

In an ideal world, yeah that wouldn't happen to anyone without some form of consent. While messing with people in that fashion is a little over the top, I've never heard of anyone getting sued or arrested over it, I think it's something that just exists in the party culture around here the rough equivalent for women would probably one of the stories I heard where a group of sorority sisters superglued one of their housmates breasts together while she was passed out on her side.

As for hair? depends on the strength of the superglue, the stronger stuff could probably yank some follicles out even if they were shaved down. Luckily no one I knew was stupid enough to use something like industrial glue, that stuff would have torn skin off as well as being incredibly toxic if it got in an open wound. I've heard horror stories of people accidentally getting stuff like that on them and needing skin grafts afterwords.

Super glue on skin to skin will still result in skin coming off in order to remove it. I also wouldn't say breasts being touched/interfered with is comparable to a penis. Breasts aren't a sexual organ, despite it being illegal to bare them to the general public.

 

[EternallyBored]

Hit a nerve there did I? Don't worry, I would never do this myself (I'm a straight man btw) but you always here fucked up revenge stories like that (whether they're true or not) about girlfriends going crazy on their ex. I do hope that, or something as bad (probably deserves worse tbh) happens to him though. Assholes should not be able to get away with shit like this. If that were me getting naked pictures posted of me on the internet that would fuck my career over. I would literally have to start a large portion of my life over. So yes, having an embarrassing trip to the hospital is well deserved if that person has tried (and to some extent succeeded) in ruining your life.

Honestly, if a girl did this to me, I would go much worse than attacking them with glue. I would probably just sue them for all the money it would take for me to go back to university, all the money I would be missing out on during those years, and maybe 50 grand extra for the emotional damages. I don't know if I'd actually be able to do all that but if not, I'd have to think of something else. If someone ruins my life, I will try my very hardest to ruin theirs.

Not so much a nerve as an hypocricy I've noticed. Sexual assault on guys being "okay".

I would personally hope naked pictures of him got leaked (not because I want to see him naked), revealing him to have spindly little arms, a massive fat belly and a penis that resembles an outie belly-button. You know, comparable stuff.

I tend to live by the idea that the only thing you should do to someone else's genitalia is something they enjoy - and only when they've given you consent to do it.

And "loss of hair"? What if a dude is clean shaven?

In an ideal world, yeah that wouldn't happen to anyone without some form of consent. While messing with people in that fashion is a little over the top, I've never heard of anyone getting sued or arrested over it, I think it's something that just exists in the party culture around here the rough equivalent for women would probably one of the stories I heard where a group of sorority sisters superglued one of their housmates breasts together while she was passed out on her side.

As for hair? depends on the strength of the superglue, the stronger stuff could probably yank some follicles out even if they were shaved down. Luckily no one I knew was stupid enough to use something like industrial glue, that stuff would have torn skin off as well as being incredibly toxic if it got in an open wound. I've heard horror stories of people accidentally getting stuff like that on them and needing skin grafts afterwords.

Super glue on skin to skin will still result in skin coming off in order to remove it. I also wouldn't say breasts being touched/interfered with is comparable to a penis. Breasts aren't a sexual organ, despite it being illegal to bare them to the general public.

I've used a lot of superglue in my life and have gotten a lot on me, I think we may be operating on different definitions of what qualifies as super glue, while quite tough to get off, under no circumstances is superglue going to take your skin off, there's stronger stuff but its harder to get and usually requires gloves to use, also it's generally not called superglue. superglue can yank hair follicles out and it irritates some peoples skin, but the closest you'll get to skin removal is that once it dries it kind of looks like peeling skin if you rub it off.

As for the breast comment that's as close as your going to get with females, breasts are still in the range of sexual harassment, but with the inside of a woman's privates your much more likely to cause damage than the outside on a man's genitalia so supergluing a man's penis to himself is not the equivalent to using to completely shut a woman's vagina. One will cause embarrassment and hair removal, possibly painful, the other can cause soft tissue damage and severe infection if left to dry. Neither is a nice thing to do, but equivocating the two as equal responses is incorrect.

 

[Abomination]

I've used a lot of superglue in my life and have gotten a lot on me, I think we may be operating on different definitions of what qualifies as super glue, while quite tough to get off, under no circumstances is superglue going to take your skin off, there's stronger stuff but its harder to get and usually requires gloves to use, also it's generally not called superglue. superglue can yank hair follicles out and it irritates some peoples skin, but the closest you'll get to skin removal is that once it dries it kind of looks like peeling skin if you rub it off.

As for the breast comment that's as close as your going to get with females, breasts are still in the range of sexual harassment, but with the inside of a woman's privates your much more likely to cause damage than the outside on a man's genitalia so supergluing a man's penis to himself is not the equivalent to using to completely shut a woman's vagina. One will cause embarrassment and hair removal, possibly painful, the other can cause soft tissue damage and severe infection if left to dry. Neither is a nice thing to do, but equivocating the two as equal responses is incorrect.

Hence why I used the terms "touched/interfered". I do not hold in any way that a breast is comparable to a penis. Just because males have one less "sexual" organ than females doesn't mean interference with the penis is put on the same grounds as interference with breasts - decidedly the "lesser" of the sexual organs in terms of offense of interference.

At the end of the day there's no excuse for applying glue of any form to someone's genitals.

 

[EternallyBored]

I've used a lot of superglue in my life and have gotten a lot on me, I think we may be operating on different definitions of what qualifies as super glue, while quite tough to get off, under no circumstances is superglue going to take your skin off, there's stronger stuff but its harder to get and usually requires gloves to use, also it's generally not called superglue. superglue can yank hair follicles out and it irritates some peoples skin, but the closest you'll get to skin removal is that once it dries it kind of looks like peeling skin if you rub it off.

As for the breast comment that's as close as your going to get with females, breasts are still in the range of sexual harassment, but with the inside of a woman's privates your much more likely to cause damage than the outside on a man's genitalia so supergluing a man's penis to himself is not the equivalent to using to completely shut a woman's vagina. One will cause embarrassment and hair removal, possibly painful, the other can cause soft tissue damage and severe infection if left to dry. Neither is a nice thing to do, but equivocating the two as equal responses is incorrect.

Hence why I used the terms "touched/interfered". I do not hold in any way that a breast is comparable to a penis. Just because males have one less "sexual" organ than females doesn't mean interference with the penis is put on the same grounds as interference with breasts - decidedly the "lesser" of the sexual organs in terms of offense of interference.

At the end of the day there's no excuse for applying glue of any form to someone's genitals.

You can hold to whatever opinion you want, the law sees base genital manipulation and breasts as equivalent for sexual harassment purposes. Also completely irrelevant considering that once again, one action causes temporary physical discomfort, and the other can cause much more significant damage. The law also tends to hold any act of penetration in females as rape, while for males it's usually being forced to penetrate something or being stimulated to orgasm, so in terms of offense, putting something in a woman's vagina is going to generally get you in a lot more trouble than putting something on a man's genitalia. For males the equivalent would roughly be anal penetration, although the line on that between assault and rape isn't nearly as clear.

In the end, this whole line of debate is terminally stupid, since we both agree that putting anything on or in another person's genitalia without consent is inappropriate no matter the exact extent or quibbling details. The entire original thrust of my first post is that none of these things qualifies as genital mutilation. To that extent though, I think we've both fallen into the trap of giving this far more thought than it deserves.

 

[Abomination]

You can hold to whatever opinion you want, the law sees base genital manipulation and breasts as equivalent for sexual harassment purposes. Also completely irrelevant considering that once again, one action causes temporary physical discomfort, and the other can cause much more significant damage. The law also tends to hold any act of penetration in females as rape, while for males it's usually being forced to penetrate something or being stimulated to orgasm, so in terms of offense, putting something in a woman's vagina is going to generally get you in a lot more trouble than putting something on a man's genitalia. For males the equivalent would roughly be anal penetration, although the line on that between assault and rape isn't nearly as clear.

In the end, this whole line of debate is terminally stupid, since we both agree that putting anything on or in another person's genitalia without consent is inappropriate no matter the exact extent or quibbling details. The entire original thrust of my first post is that none of these things qualifies as genital mutilation. To that extent though, I think we've both fallen into the trap of giving this far more thought than it deserves.

The law is different in every nation.

But yes, all that I care is that messing with a guy's junk should be the same as messing with a woman's junk - in that both is unacceptable. No matter how much of a prick this guy is being it's no excuse for sexual assault.

His ex should be seeking criminal charges being laid against him.

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

His ex should be seeking criminal charges being laid against him.

If criminal charges are brought forth, they will be against her.

And the likely outcome would be jail-time(or possibly a suspended sentence w/probation) and being added to sex offender databases; with everything that entails. Shes 19. He is underage. Abuse of a minor, distribution of porn to a minor, likely statutory rape, the list goes on.

 

[Abomination]

His ex should be seeking criminal charges being laid against him.

If criminal charges are brought forth, they will be against her.

And the likely outcome would be jail-time(or possibly a suspended sentence w/probation) and being added to sex offender databases; with everything that entails. Shes 19. He is underage. Abuse of a minor, distribution of porn to a minor, likely statutory rape, the list goes on.

...oh

Suddenly things are both more complicated yet his behavior is more explained.

The only thing worse than an anonymous kid on the internet is a relatively famous one.

 

[Brian Tams]

...how did this thread turn into an argument about superglue being applied to genitals. Come on guys =_='

OT: This is messed up on several levels. I really hope his parents (I know this guy is a minor) become aware of his obvious deep psychological issues and take steps to have it treated. He is clearly a very sick individual.

Feel bad for the girl. Hope she's okay (and I hope people will learn that sending nudes to others is never a smart idea).

 

[Tsun Tzu]

I...think he's genuinely mentally disturbed.

I'm not saying that as an insult, I'm saying it as someone who believes the man really should see a doctor/psychologist.

 

[Griffolion]

So he sought a dis-proportionate level of retribution for a perceived sleight, never seeks to take responsibility for his actions, has shallow emotions, and an inflated sense of grandeur? And he hasn't been diagnosed with psychopathy? Seriously, we can call this kid all sorts of names, but he is mentally ill. Seriously mentally ill. He needs help. And his status as a semi-famous streamer will not help this.

 

[Smeatza]

And that's yet another reason why you shouldn't have sex with mentally disturbed underage kids.

 

[Caiphus]

So this guy posted pictures of his girlfriend so that everyone would know what her vagina looked like.

Now the pictures have been taken down, nobody knows what her vagina looks like, but everyone instead knows that he is actually a complete **** himself. And too right.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

That really seems like it should be illegal... like really fucking illegal. But, of course, the world sucks, so it's not.

I believe it is in most states of the US.
Posting naked photos of someone without their consent is I believe a breach of privacy. The person in the photos can sue the one(s) who shared the images landing the person in jail up to 6 months and up to a $1000 fine. California just made a bill for this very thing.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2441489/Revenge-porn-Posting-explicit-pictures-exes-online-lead-jail-sentence.html

According to the OP's article, revenge porn is legal in most states with, apparently, only California and New Jersey doing anything about it. I'm sure that his girlfriend could sue him for what he did, but, unless he's in one of those two states or the article is misinformed, it's not illegal.

Lots of people seem to oppose such legislation because it harms their bullshit notions of free speech.

In most cases, it doesn't really pass muster as something that ought to be considered a criminal act. I'd make an exception for the obvious cases but those tend to be criminal already (e.g. involving a minor) and one where the pornography wasn't made with the consent of both parties (e.g. "spy cams").

I would, however, think it entirely reasonable that it be something that can be tried as a civil case. In the event both parties agreed to make pornography, then there is an agreement between two people which, if breached, seems like a fair basis for seeking restitution.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I hope she says that she forgives him, pretends to have make-up sex, then when he falls asleep, super glues his dick to his chest. Normally I would call that an overreaction but I really do think it's fair in this situation. Maybe she should do even more.

And in revenge he can superglue her vagina shut!

Genital mutilation and sexual assault is so funny when it happens to guys!

Supergluing a penis to the abdomen wouldn't count as mutilation given there is no permanent harm inherent in the act. The glue bond would break naturally over a brief period and there exist several skin safe solvents that would quickly solve the problem. It would probably be classified as assault though rarely does a juvenile prank of this sort get such classification.

By contrast, supergluing the vagina shut is more of a problem. Starting with the fact that I'm not entirely certain you'd be able to create a bond, if you succeeded, the process of solving the problem is remarkably more difficult given any solvent I'm aware of almost certainly isn't pleasant when applied to the area (acetone for example) and the usual way of solving a super glue problem of slow application of force over time becomes far more problematic.

Even though the two acts are broadly equivalent, I'd say the latter is far more heinous if for no other reason than you're injecting relatively toxic substances into a person's body (in the best case) and gluing shut an orifice (in the worst). The former is perhaps humiliating and readily solved while the latter is easily far more dangerous.

 

[Floppertje]

how can a severely messed up guy like that have a girlfriend while I'm still single. no fair.
seriously though, how DID he convince her to go out with him in the first place? if someone told me the worst thing I could do to them was play a character they hated, I'd be out the door. If they then uploaded nudes of me and claimed we were both equally wrong, I'd probably emigrate. To mars if possible.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

Very serious dick move on his part. This guy honestly sounds like the type whose name will one day be in the news twinned with the phrase "mass murder spree".

Semi on topic, I'm sick as hell of the phrase "revenge porn" as it seems to imply no responsibility in any way to the idiot who allowed such personal and potentially embarrassing moments to be recorded in the first place.

All responsibility lies with the person who releases the photos. I don't understand how you could think of it any differently.

 

[Gromril]

The comments section of the linked article actually gives me some faith in humanity again, dozen or so posts and nobody is asking for the photos in question, or calling her a slut due for a raping or some such.

 

[Abomination]

The comments section of the linked article actually gives me some faith in humanity again, dozen or so posts and nobody is asking for the photos in question, or calling her a slut due for a raping or some such.

To be fair, the rape thing would be a valid point. I mean, if the genders were reversed it would be a bunch of "just deserts for rape" if the male had naked pictures of himself released.

 

[siomasm]

Plot twist: Context of "using lee sin" was GF cheating with a cosplayer.
Discuss.