Naked celebrities: a new social statement?

[Batou667]

I for one am wholly in favour of this form of female expression, and am eagerly awaiting Emma Watson's contribution to the discussion; I'm sure it will make for most stimulating debate.

*rubs hands, cackles lasciviously, drools*

 

[Loonyyy]

We might want to step back and realize how curious this debate is - a good percentage of Hollywood and related glamour industries are built on carefully crafted human bodies, often naked or "better than naked" and nobody protests that, but when naked images are publicized, with or without the consent of the women, OUTSIDE of these industries, outrage results.

When Hollywood does it it's "artistic license", when women themselves do it it's "immodest", and when hackers do it it's "intrusive".

I'm concerned about consent in the cases of normal human beings. Most humans don't want naked images of themselves publicized, due primarily to modesty and "fitting in", which would be harmed when all of their neighbors avoid images of themselves naked being publicized and they are the exception.

The images in "the fappening" are of women who DO want naked, or "better than naked" images of themselves publicized - many of them have shown themselves naked or "better than naked" within a context which maximizes the market value of those images - they are paid by Hollywood, fashion magazines, and/or mass media at least partly FOR their bodies.

So the only real criticism that can be made is that these women didn't want THESE images publicized - they don't want images which DON'T provide themselves with direct monetary gain and which are not properly photoshopped and otherwise maximally glamoured to reach the gaze of the public.

Can the critics of "the fappening" at least realize a certain degree of hypocrisy and ridiculousness in their position here? Women whose careers are based partly, some mostly, on revealing their bodies have their bodies shown, just not in a glamoured manner, and for no direct financial gain to them.

Who does "the fappening" help? Who does it hurt? Like I said before when "the fappening" first broke, it hurts the glamour industry. Not in some dramatic over-night devastating way, but the more images are presented by hackers and by the women themselves, the less power the glamour industry has since previously they had a monopoly over images of these women's bodies. The more people look at images provided by hackers and the women themselves, the less they look at images provided by the glamour industry.

If a movement can be developed to support the release of naked images of in-demand human bodies, then the most rewarded people will be the early adopters. Jennifer Lawrence is the face (um, and naked body) of the movement, so she gets the most fame from it, but others who step forward will likewise receive fame and acclaim.

This is a very good thing that's happening, and I hope other women step forward to take control of their own images.

Men can do so as well - there's nothing wrong with flaunting pecs and packages. Just like Jennifer Lawrence, male "early adopters" can receive fame and acclaim for being a frontrunner.

This is a real victory for feminism - regardless of how things go with men, women did it first. Well, hackers did it first.

That's fucking disgusting, did you even read through what you wrote?

And this entire argument has been thoroughly dismantled throughout the thread, but referring to the groteque invasion of privacy (And proliferation of CHILD PORNOGRAPHY [Some of the photos are of underage women]) as a "movement" is incredibly dishonest and disgusting. The so-called "face" and "naked body" of that "movement" (A bunch of horny losers) outright condemned it. Key quotes "You should cower in shame." "You're perpetuating a sexual offense" "Just because I'm a public figure, just because I'm an actress, does not mean I asked for this. It's my body, and it should be my choice, and the fact that it is not my choice is absolutely disgusting."

Also, people already did take control of their own images, and you claimed that that makes some hypocrisy, and that these women want naked or "better than naked" images publicised, and apparently that relates to images they very much didn't want publicised, didn't publicise, and didn't sell, being stolen and released.

The only victory here is a bunch of craven jerk-offs get what they want.

 

[briankoontz]

Also, people already did take control of their own images, and you claimed that that makes some hypocrisy, and that these women want naked or "better than naked" images publicised, and apparently that relates to images they very much didn't want publicised, didn't publicise, and didn't sell, being stolen and released.

The only victory here is a bunch of craven jerk-offs get what they want.

That's not true, and your contempt for your fellow humans is pathetic and diaplays a lack of understanding.

This was the way things were going anyway. It became popularized with the Paris Hilton sextape. What Paris Hilton did was controversial, but a certain segment of feminists lauded it for "controlling one's own sexual image" and for not being ashamed of one's sexuality.

Prior to the fappening, lots and lots of "leaks" occurred, supposedly not authorized by the exposed celebrities in a "wink wink, nudge nudge" kind of way. The fappening just takes "leaks" to a new level.

Paris Hilton built her entire celebrity career on her sextape, and the released images will help these women, not hurt them.

The event itself is fairly irrelevant, as the Paris Hilton event was. What matters is what the event CAUSES within culture. After the Paris Hilton sextape, more and more celebrities "leaked" exposing images of themselves.

After the fappening, hopefully, more and more exposures will occur, of both men and women. This might have happened otherwise, but most likely would have been a slower process, maybe a much slower process, without the fappening to give it a jump start. So the fappening is the spark plug to the engine of full-body acceptance, just as Paris Hilton was the spark plug to the engine of sexual exposure.

There's such a thing as an event which changes people's minds. Sometimes we do something which a person doesn't authorize in order to teach them that they should have authorized it in the first place. Humans are not omniscient. Our consent is important, but teaching us is also important. The content of what a human being consents to changes over time as we develop our understanding.

 

[Relish in Chaos]

briankoontz, you've hit the nail on the fucking head.

 

[Teoes]

Spoiler: spoiled for space

Also, people already did take control of their own images, and you claimed that that makes some hypocrisy, and that these women want naked or "better than naked" images publicised, and apparently that relates to images they very much didn't want publicised, didn't publicise, and didn't sell, being stolen and released.

The only victory here is a bunch of craven jerk-offs get what they want.

That's not true, and your contempt for your fellow humans is pathetic and diaplays a lack of understanding.

This was the way things were going anyway. It became popularized with the Paris Hilton sextape. What Paris Hilton did was controversial, but a certain segment of feminists lauded it for "controlling one's own sexual image" and for not being ashamed of one's sexuality.

Prior to the fappening, lots and lots of "leaks" occurred, supposedly not authorized by the exposed celebrities in a "wink wink, nudge nudge" kind of way. The fappening just takes "leaks" to a new level.

Paris Hilton built her entire celebrity career on her sextape, and the released images will help these women, not hurt them.

The event itself is fairly irrelevant, as the Paris Hilton event was. What matters is what the event CAUSES within culture. After the Paris Hilton sextape, more and more celebrities "leaked" exposing images of themselves.

After the fappening, hopefully, more and more exposures will occur, of both men and women. This might have happened otherwise, but most likely would have been a slower process, maybe a much slower process, without the fappening to give it a jump start. So the fappening is the spark plug to the engine of full-body acceptance, just as Paris Hilton was the spark plug to the engine of sexual exposure.

There's such a thing as an event which changes people's minds. Sometimes we do something which a person doesn't authorize in order to teach them that they should have authorized it in the first place. Humans are not omniscient. Our consent is important, but teaching us is also important. The content of what a human being consents to changes over time as we develop our understanding.

Now, this thread has been dominated by misrepresentation so bear with me, this isn't my intention.

Your point is that all we (as a society) have to do to get over our fears and hang-ups of sex and nudity, is to violate the privacy and rights of several more people? Because that sounds fucking horrific to me. How about we get over our fears and hang-ups of sex and nudity in ways that don't involve breaking laws and upsetting people, dragging them in if/when they don't want to be part of this spearhead[footnote]geddit, it's like a cock[/footnote]?

I get it, you're talking about images that are "leaked", hinthint, it was intentional and the person involved makes something of themselves as a result. However the fappening didn't involve (mostly, if not entirely) intentional leaks. It involved people who didn't want to be involved. Funnily enough, that's not fair on them and muddies the waters of this desired change somewhat. I don't think we should be stealing from people until they decide to stop caring about their possessions.

Oh and disclaimer for those in here who like to twist words and make shit up: I've no problem with anyone getting their kit off, if that is what they want to do. Thank you.

briankoontz, you've hit the nail on the fucking head.

I'm of the opinion that he nearly hit something that might be a substitute for a nail, with something that's not a hammer, but I guess the resemblance of intention was there.

 

[Itdoesthatsometimes]

snip

Where is your nude picture, then?

 

[Loonyyy]

Spoiler: spoiled for space

Also, people already did take control of their own images, and you claimed that that makes some hypocrisy, and that these women want naked or "better than naked" images publicised, and apparently that relates to images they very much didn't want publicised, didn't publicise, and didn't sell, being stolen and released.

The only victory here is a bunch of craven jerk-offs get what they want.

That's not true, and your contempt for your fellow humans is pathetic and diaplays a lack of understanding.

Spoiler: spoiled for space

By the same extension, your contempt for women is below pathetic and displays a lack of understanding.

All your post does is digs deeper and doubles down on the same rhetoric I condemned. You have not clarified anything, you have not explained anything.

Explain how Jennifer Lawrence is somehow the face of a "movement" that she has told to cower in fear, said that they're perpetuating a sexual offense against her, and characterised as disgusting.

This was the way things were going anyway. It became popularized with the Paris Hilton sextape. What Paris Hilton did was controversial, but a certain segment of feminists lauded it for "controlling one's own sexual image" and for not being ashamed of one's sexuality.

Cool story bro. When that becomes relevant to people stealing these images from people, hacking systems to gain access to them, and posting them without permission, let me know. If Paris Hilton wants to release a sextape, or any starlet does, whatever. I don't give a fuck. That's not anything to do with the despicable theft of these images, or the pathetic attempts to justify them. And it's also unrelated to the argument expressed in the OP, and dragging down, that somehow the fact that women may give up and post them is a positive. That's not a positive, that's coercion, and we really should have more respect for the situation than appreciation of nudity, because that's just shallow as fuck.

Additionally, to control ones sexual image, you have to have control over it. The specific complaint that people who've been exploited in this manner has is that people took their control away, to victimise them, and represent them in a way they didn't want.

Prior to the fappening, lots and lots of "leaks" occurred, supposedly not authorized by the exposed celebrities in a "wink wink, nudge nudge" kind of way. The fappening just takes "leaks" to a new level.

Vomit. Yeah, I have contempt for humanity. No, I have contempt for the scum who steal it, and I have contempt for any position which defends it. Are you honestly comparing celebrities leaking sex tapes to this? This isn't a wink wink nudge nudge. "COWER IN SHAME" indeed.

Paris Hilton built her entire celebrity career on her sextape, and the released images will help these women, not hurt them.

Hogwash. Paris Hilton can build her career around her sex tape if she wants. People can release their sex tapes if they want. People should not steal people's nudes or sex tapes, that's pretty fucking basic.

It doesn't matter if it helps them or not either. It's a grotesque invasion of privacy, and probably a criminal matter, regardless. They said no. That makes it wrong. End of story.

The event itself is fairly irrelevant, as the Paris Hilton event was. What matters is what the event CAUSES within culture.

You're right. Victim blaming and men who care more about their dicks and jerking off is far more significant than the individual violation. It's because of these that this will continue.

After the Paris Hilton sextape, more and more celebrities "leaked" exposing images of themselves.

Jennifer Lawrence, et al, did not leak these images. Dishonest.

After the fappening, hopefully, more and more exposures will occur, of both men and women.

And you have the nerve to say anything I said is pathetic or contemptuous of human beings.

This might have happened otherwise, but most likely would have been a slower process, maybe a much slower process, without the fappening to give it a jump start. So the fappening is the spark plug to the engine of full-body acceptance, just as Paris Hilton was the spark plug to the engine of sexual exposure.

The fappening is the spark plug to full body acceptance as rape is to a sexual awakening. You cannot force a person to be sexual the way you want to, and you cannot steal their data, and you cannot share naked images of them, without consent, that is simply wrong.

There's damn good reason that those involved have likened it to sexual assault, not least is the way in which the defense is textbook victim blaming.

There's such a thing as an event which changes people's minds.

Rodney King.
The Holocaust.
The invention of the Internet.
The Large Hadron Collider.
the fappening.

Yeah, I see it. Going to trigger the next human rights movement for the next century. In the same way, people stealing credit card information is all going towards the eventual overthrow of the capitalist system.

Sometimes we do something which a person doesn't authorize in order to teach them that they should have authorized it in the first place.

NO THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE. THEY HAVE THE FUCKING RIGHT TO CHOOSE. That's disgusting. Again, do you read what you post? That's the same fucking reasoning that justifies corrective rape, and I'm not being dramatic, that's fucking sick. People: This is rape culture.

Humans are not omniscient.

Irrelevant.

Our consent is important, but teaching us is also important.

So if I want to teach a sex ed class, can I grab someone at random and strip them down, fondle their junk, expose their genitals and anus to a class, and penetrate them, in the name of teaching? It's got nothing to do with it, and the release of these photos has a masturbatory aim, not a revolutionary one.

The content of what a human being consents to changes over time as we develop our understanding.

Hogwash. Taking away people's ability to meaningfully consent, or refuse, does not develop understanding. It's a violation. It is wrong.

It's odd that you seriously thought I didn't comprehend it. This post is far, far worse, and more explicitly condones non-sonsensual acts, and victim blaming bullshit. Why don't you read the interview Lawrence did, then you can find out exactly how she feels about your position.

I'm in complete agreement with @Zeconte. This is just an escalation of the same bullshit victim blaming rhetoric, and hogwash justifying an entitled, male invasion of privacy. It's startling how it doesn't even note the previous 4 pages, and every word of it is more disgusting than the last. Clothing it in some revolutionary rhetoric doesn't make it better, it makes it worse. Again, the people who won in "the fappening" were people who wanted to masturbate to naked women against their expressed wishes. The people who win when people resign themselves and post them anyway, are the same jerkoffs. If women want to release nude photos of themselves, I have no problem with that, what I have a problem with is the coercion, the justification of the violation of their privacy, and the celebrating of their coercion through the violation of privacy. It's a view that's been expressed throughout the thread, numerous times, and has been contentious due to the apparent lack of reading comprehension. But this one takes the cake.

 

[mysecondlife]

Its not anything new. I know PETA did the whole "I'd rather be naked than to wear fur" promotion which features celebrities.

You guys do realize that that campaign is not actually explicit in nature, right? That though they are photographed in the nude, they are photographed in a way that you cannot actually see anything that is actually considered indecent?

Believe it or not, the PETA pictures I came across were fully uncensored. That's why I made the reference to it.

 

[mysecondlife]

Its not anything new. I know PETA did the whole "I'd rather be naked than to wear fur" promotion which features celebrities.

You guys do realize that that campaign is not actually explicit in nature, right? That though they are photographed in the nude, they are photographed in a way that you cannot actually see anything that is actually considered indecent?

Believe it or not, the PETA pictures I came across were fully uncensored. That's why I made the reference to it.

Every single one I've seen has been fully uncensored simply because it didn't show anything needing to be censored in the first place.

...as in full frontal nudity similar to that of Kiera Knightley.

Except I search for it now and find the spectrum blurred version more common.

 

[Loonyyy]

Question.

You seem very very upset not really at the fact that the pictures were stolen, but at who stole them.

I'm not particularly upset. And the people who stole the pictures are the people who caused the fact that they were stolen.

You base a lot of your vitrol on the fact that GRR, MEN MIGHT HAVE SEXUAL THOUGHTS ABOUT IT! THE MUST BE STOPPED!

That's a misrepresentation you've been peddling throughout this thread. Repeat it and I will block you. Read what I post.

So let me ask you this.

What if the images were leaked, and nobody fapped to it?

It would still be a disgusting invasion of privacy. This question is inane. It exists only as a response to a version of my post that only exists in your head.

I didn't complain that people (specifically men) masturbate. And I don't have a problem with people masturbating, or having sex, or whatever stupid bogeyman you have to come up with. I complained about what they masturbated to, and their use of their feeling of attraction as a justification for exploitation. It isn't.

Conflating non-consensual acts to sex acts is misguided, harmful, and not nearly as sex positive as you think.

What if it was leaked by and to, say, a group of art students, all of which were either straight women or gay men. Would the crime be any better?

No. It wouldn't. I've specifically condemned the leaking, and the invasion of privacy, and the justifications. The link to masturbation comes from that being why the people involved leaked them. The clue is in the name. "The fappening". It's pathetic masturbatory fantasies of men who can't be bothered looking for women who want to pose naked for them (And there's lots of them, and they're attractive and varied, and it's the internet. If you want them you can find them.).

Sexual gratification shouldn't even have a place in the discussion. It's not an argument, or a useful contribution. If you find Kaley Cuoco sexually appealing, that still has fuck all to do with the discussion. She should be able to choose what photos of her she has published, and she also should be able to make that choice free of coercion, and the threat of nude photo leaks, and the coercion should never be celebrated.

That's like saying it's worse to steal money to spend on fast food rather than a fancy restaurant.

It would be, if I'd said any of that. You have a serious problem with reading comprehension, and when "asking a question", by which you mean leading into a bunch of speculation, on shit I've never said, you should perhaps wait for a response to avoid embarrassing yourself. Which you've done in every post in this thread you've made.

Shouldn't the priority of concern be with the fact that the images were stolen, not with the fact that the people who leaked them were men doing so to serve their sexuality?

I think it was the Kasp who called it the quote game. Here's some of mine:

"Taking away people's ability to meaningfully consent, or refuse, does not develop understanding. It's a violation. It is wrong."
"NO THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE. THEY HAVE THE FUCKING RIGHT TO CHOOSE."
"It's a grotesque invasion of privacy, and probably a criminal matter, regardless. They said no. That makes it wrong. End of story."
"When that becomes relevant to people stealing these images from people, hacking systems to gain access to them, and posting them without permission, let me know. "
"groteque invasion of privacy (And proliferation of CHILD PORNOGRAPHY [Some of the photos are of underage women])"
"Here's a line: A person's private photos: Private.
A person's credit card number: Private.
Whatever shit a person decides they want to scribble at home: Private.
Pretty much anything that you do on your own, that you want to be private? Private."-That was in a response to you, where you brought up "Freedom of Information", before abandoning the thread, when people kept calling you on the misrepresentations and lies, with a last attempt at reframing the question.

If you can't read that and comprehend that, don't bother replying. I condemn the theft, and the complaint to people masturbating over it is relevant, as people wanting to masturbate over these images is why they were leaked(And they're the ones who brought it the fuck up. Read those posts that Danger originally quoted. Look at the title of the leak "The fappening"). Wanting to masturbate over someone's nudes is NOT a justification for invading their privacy. If the nudes say, involved them sexually abusing children, then that would dramatically reframe things.

I think it's awful that these women had their pictures leaked, and those who did it should face the justice of the law, but that's because i respect their right to privacy, not because i have some grudge against male sexuality.

That's a filthy damn lie, and not the first, and I'm waiting for an explanation. I've posted before in response to this mischaracterization.

Male sexuality is not masturbating to an image of a woman without her consent. That sir, is a CREEP, and a MISOGYNIST's sexuality. Read what people wrote. It'll do you better.

There is nothing essentially male about this unhealthy expression of sexuality.

You know what male sexuality is? Ideally, consensual, and pleasureable, and satisfying to those they would share it with. When the expression of that sexuality involves the response of "You're perpetuating a sexual offense", due to the invasion of privacy, that's out of order. Your statement here is straight up misandry. This is not male sexuality. Conflating the violation of a person's privacy with male sexuality only serves to insult male sexuality. If you want to masturbate, look up some porn made by people who wanted to make porn. It's fucking simple. That isn't "shaming male sexuality" in the slightest. It's not "a grudge agaisnt male sexuality". I'm a male, and I'm sexual as hell. This isn't what being a sexual male is about. That's a bullshit deflection where you try to reframe the issue, again, as some sort of one antagonistic towards men. It isn't. It's antagonistic towards a subset of men, who need to fucking change their ways.

You also brought up some hogwash about Freedom of Information, and excuses about child molesters. I have trouble believing that you care all that much about their right to privacy. And the fact that you've mostly responded to people supporting their right to privacy with mischaracterizations and excuses doesn't make me believe that.