Naked celebrities: a new social statement?

[DANEgerous]

Honestly the thing that I find most shocking is that is is news worthy or attention seeking, don't get me wrong it is and it is the latter more than the former but if you told me "I saw (X) celebrity naked!" my thoughts are big deal I saw a squeal. In fact there it is look! While I have never been a nudest in any way I also simply do not understand the shock value of it particularly in the age of the internet where is is just so damn easy to find porn. Back when all those celebrity nudes got leaked off the Apple servers I did not go look for them and still haven't, I have searched for porn since then may have found a few but in the end I just have to wonder why we care?

So yeah, I do not see this as attention whoring nor slutty nor shameful I do not even see it as abnormal and I certainly do not see it is sexist. This is at worst a celebrity making porn. And that never ever happens amiright?

 

[Something Amyss]

Er...you realize these are both legitimate issues, right? The embargo on female toplessness has been a social issue for decades now. And photoshopping is something that happens to celebrities, but due to the nature of photo shoots is completely out of their hands (basically, once they do the shoot the photos belong to whomever is given permission to use them, and they can do nearly whatever they want from there).

Indeed, and it's sort of annoying to see this boiled down to "look at me!"

 

[Teoes]

Though if you really want to prove that you aren't afraid of the consequences of posting private information online, you're going to have to post more than a dick pic, because that's not nearly as much as what gets exposed when a celebrity nude picture is stolen. You need to post a full frontal nude shot, with your real world full name so that we can track you down, and you need to work in the public eye so that everyone around you will know who you are and have the chance of your nude pics getting back to them.

..and then it's still not the same, as he'd be posting it willingly. The whole point that people are failing to grasp here, is that these people did not want the pictures distributed in the public eye. It's not about your, my, his, or anyone's views on nudity and sexuality, it's about people not wanting this shit taken and passed around; and their rights and wishes being respected.

I almost took someone off my ignore list to argue with them there, then I remembered why they were on ignore in the first place. Your patience so far is commendable.

 

[Itdoesthatsometimes]

Though if you really want to prove that you aren't afraid of the consequences of posting private information online, you're going to have to post more than a dick pic, because that's not nearly as much as what gets exposed when a celebrity nude picture is stolen. You need to post a full frontal nude shot, with your real world full name so that we can track you down, and you need to work in the public eye so that everyone around you will know who you are and have the chance of your nude pics getting back to them.

..and then it's still not the same, as he'd be posting it willingly. The whole point that people are failing to grasp here, is that these people did not want the pictures distributed in the public eye. It's not about your, my, his, or anyone's views on nudity and sexuality, it's about people not wanting this shit taken and passed around; and their rights and wishes being respected.

I almost took someone off my ignore list to argue with them there, then I remembered why they were on ignore in the first place. Your patience so far is commendable.

Except the celebrities in the OP actually DO want their pictures distributed in the public eye, or, y'know, they wouldn't go distribute pictures in the public eye ala OP. You get an F in reading comprehension.

I can respect people's wishes for privacy, but when people voluntarily put out nudes intending people to see them (ala OP), a plea for their privacy really doesn't make much sense anymore.

I am pretty sure he was referring to ignoring you. And I am pretty sure he was referring to the women that had their accounts hacked.

 

[Lilani]

The fact that you see someone seeing someone else in their natural form as evil and shameful,

No, now you're making shit up like Kalezian did. I never said anything remotely related to a judgement on seeing someone else in their natural form.

I'm very pro-nudity. I'm merely anti-stealing-other-people's-stuff-and-justifying-it-with-bullshit-misogyny-or-victim-blaming.

It's about taking that power away.

Yeah, no. That's rubbish. You take power away from hackers by throwing them in jail. You don't take power away from them by inviting them to whack it while you give them everything they wanted in the first place.

Kinda like how I invited people to take a stance against hackers by posting their credit card information here. No one seems to have "taken the power away from the hackers" by sharing their credit card information. Gee, I wonder why that would be.

Your analogy is ridiculous. Nudity has power because we give it power. Nobody can loose or gain nudity. Credit card info will leave you without cash, because someone can take it. Nudity isn't something you can take away from someone, you don't have less nudity if you post nude pics. This isn't a "thing" one can "steal". You could post millions of naked pictures of yourself and you would have exactly 0 less nudity. You wouldn't loose anything actually.

Money has power because we give it power. Someone can run up your credit, losing you 0 money. You actually did not lose anything.

lolwat.
Someone can run up your credit card and you won't loose money? Where did you learn economics?

It has nothing to do with economics, that's how identity theft protection works. If you can prove the charges weren't yours, the bank is obligated th clear the charges. Correcting problems like this is easier with credit cards than debit cards because credit cards pay out in credit, not cash. If someone runs up charges on your credit card, you haven't technically lost money yet because no money has been taken from your bank account. If someone runs up charges on your debit card, money has been taken out. That is what they meant by it doesn't lose you money. You're in debt, but you haven't lost money. There is a slight difference between the two.

 

[Teoes]

I am pretty sure he was referring to ignoring you. And I am pretty sure he was referring to the women that had their accounts hacked.

Right on both counts! You get an A in Reading Comprehension.

[sub][sub]The above post is intended as a joke and in no way meant to be patronising. Please do not hate me, flame me, kill my dog or post nudey pics of me online.[/sub][/sub]

 

[bumbledog]

And to say "they should just post nudes themselves instead of waiting for hackers to get them" is like saying a person with an expensive house should just open it up to hoodlums as opposed to waiting for them to break in. If somebody wants to do that, good for them, but if they don't then the expectation shouldn't be there and the blame shouldn't be placed at their feet if something happens. Or to put it more dramatically, it's like saying a woman at a party should make sure she hooks up with a man consensually as soon as possible so she doesn't get raped later.

Well that escalated quickly. You can't equate Kaley Christine Cuoco willingly posting pictures she chose herself to rape and burglary for gods sake.

Jesus so much bickering. However, this was a good point:

No, but having private photographs stolen can profoundly affect a person's public image, especially when we're talking about celebrities who make their living off of their public image and, to a greater or lesser extent depending on the celebrity, their image as a sexual person.

A hacker doesn't get the right to override whether or not someone wants to be seen naked based on the fact that they really, really want to see that person naked.
[/i].

It sounds to me like a lot of the raging here comes from people not considering the place of non-sexual nudity and its presentation, eg: Keira making a point about body image, which can be empowering. For a lot of young women her statement could be a pillar of confidence. Anyone who has actually seen the photo's can see for themselves that the presentation of her nudity (which was perhaps only one of the photo's from that shoot) is not sexual or objectifying.

(Well, aside from the temporary objectification of being a model in a photoshoot. Now before anyone run's off with that: The problem with using the magical SJW buzzword "Objectified" in this context is that she, as any model, CHOSE to be the subject/object in a photoshoot only.)

Same for Chelsea Handler to some extent I guess, as her nudity was in protest against how Instagram perceives boobies to be a problem in comparison to male toplessness. Which it shouldn't be. Boobs happen. They're not a public secret, or some dark arcane thing children shouldn't be allowed to know about. NO WAIT STOP DONT EAT ME SJW'S! It's about context. Chelsea's instagram photo was a parody of a similar photo of Vladimir Putin, and its actually quite funny and, more importantly, non sexual. I encourage you to see it.

Unfortunately the more fuss people make about nudity the more sensational and scandalous it becomes. The more scandalous it becomes, the more clandestine it gets. I get that its plain simple evolutionary psychology for bums, boobies and curvy hips etc to, literally, look nice because they are all related to fertility etc. Men use their eyes. No helping that. But men don't literally seriously consider having sex with every single woman they see. That's why nudity doesnt always have to be automatically assumed to be sexual. I wish the world could get over it.