Naked celebrities: a new social statement?

[Thaluikhain]

Wow, so we've seriously went from "I don't condone the hacking of these women's private photos, but if people are going to do it to them anyways, they might as well just let us see them naked on their own terms already" from the OP and The_Kodu to "these women's photos deserve to be stolen from them and released publicly against their will to teach them a lesson that there's nothing wrong with letting us see them naked" from briankoontz in this thread .

Wonderful.

Yeah. Didn't quite see that coming.

Of course, given that these photos were stolen and spread, there must be lots of people in favour of the fappening, but I'd not expected people to argue that it was morally justified. Impressive amount of slut shaming and victim blaming going on.

 

[mysecondlife]

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.

No, as in this [http://photos.toofab.com/galleries/peta_supporters_id_rather_go_naked_than_wear_fur#tab=most_recent&id=268632], where the women are naked, but you can see nothing that needs to be censored.

(Strange, I don't seem to get the yellow inbox notification from you)

These are the picture I came across long time ago(but without the strategic color blur, hence full frontal nudity)

(SFW-ish)
http://thenewsjunkie.com/wp-content/themes/gumball-special/post-images/2009/12/krupapeta5.jpg
http://data2.whicdn.com/images/95082963/thumb.jpg

and then I assumed a lot of PETA campaign ads are somewhat similar.

But yes, I do see your point.

 

[Loonyyy]

Wow, so we've seriously went from "I don't condone the hacking of these women's private photos, but if people are going to do it to them anyways, they might as well just let us see them naked on their own terms already" from the OP and The_Kodu to "these women's photos deserve to be stolen from them and released publicly against their will to teach them a lesson that there's nothing wrong with letting us see them naked" from briankoontz in this thread .

Wonderful.

Yeah. Didn't quite see that coming.

Of course, given that these photos were stolen and spread, there must be lots of people in favour of the fappening, but I'd not expected people to argue that it was morally justified. Impressive amount of slut shaming and victim blaming going on.

Indeed. I mean, as a straight male, I can fully understand seeing a woman and thinking "she sure is beautiful, it'd be nice to have sex with her, or at least see her naked" but I just don't understand how that leads to "therefore, she is obligated to let me see her naked". The argument of "there's nothing wrong with nudity, therefore, no one should have a problem with other people seeing them naked" just doesn't work. I agree with there being nothing wrong with nudity, that there's a lot of wrong/harmful/contradictory views about sex and sexuality in our society and it could benefit from people being more open and casual about sex so that there wasn't such a stigma associated with it. I do not agree that celebrities should be dragged kicking and screaming against their will into achieving this.

Even if society gets over our sexual hang ups, even if society no longer believes there's anything wrong with people being seen naked, people should still have the right to choose who does and who does not get to see them naked. We in no way need to sacrifice people's choice in the matter, in no way need to encourage those who do not want to share their nude body with the public to do so, to achieve these goals. Those who want nudity and sex to no longer be stigmatized, who want to show their naked bodies to the world without negative judgement or consequences, should be able to without dragging the unwilling into their cause, or otherwise pressuring the unwilling into joining. And women who stand up and say "no, I will not give in to this pressure, I will not let you see me naked no matter what you do or say to convince me otherwise" are just as impressive as the women who do open themselves up to negative judgement and consequences and publicly display their naked bodies as a statement of "there's nothing wrong with me doing this, and fuck you if you think otherwise".

Thanks, that's basically what I've been trying to say, but much more eloquently put. Of course, the timer's now ticking down before the illiteracy brigade comes out to play.

 

[drummond13]

I'm not familiar of the Chelsea Handler one, but my impression of the Knightly picture was that she was asked to be photographed topless and she agreed under the condition that Photoshop wasn't to be used. I don't think she said "I'm going to make a stand against Photoshop: take a topless picture of me."

I could be wrong, but that's what the articles I read seemed to suggest. They all had very misleading headlines, though.

 

[Itdoesthatsometimes]

I'm not familiar of the Chelsea Handler one, but my impression of the Knightly picture was that she was asked to be photographed topless and she agreed under the condition that Photoshop wasn't to be used. I don't think she said "I'm going to make a stand against Photoshop: take a topless picture of me."

I could be wrong, but that's what the articles I read seemed to suggest. They all had very misleading headlines, though.

She does a photo shoot and interview with the photographer(I don't think I can link to it, but google Kiera kightly Interview Magazine) The photo shoot consisted of more than just topless photos. When asked in a diffenert interview why she chose to do so, she said:

I?ve had my body manipulated so many different times for so many different reasons, whether it?s paparazzi photographers or for film posters,? Knightley said. ?That [shoot] was one of the ones where I said: ?OK, I?m fine doing the topless shot so long as you don?t make them any bigger or retouch.? Because it does feel important to say it really doesn?t matter what shape you are.?
http://time.com/3559286/keira-knightley-topless-photoshop/

 

[BathorysGraveland2]

Yeah. Didn't quite see that coming.

Of course, given that these photos were stolen and spread, there must be lots of people in favour of the fappening, but I'd not expected people to argue that it was morally justified. Impressive amount of slut shaming and victim blaming going on.

Yeah it's a bit of an eye-opener. I'll freely admit I'm flawed in this scenario. If a celebrity I have my eye on had her pics leaked... ehhh, I'd check 'em out, but under no circumstance is it ever really justified. Certainly not ethical.

I think this is yet another situation where people will partake in something with no self control (myself included), yet are not willing to admit what they're doing is pretty damn murky and so try to justify it anyway they can. Not unlike piracy really.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Yeah. Didn't quite see that coming.

Of course, given that these photos were stolen and spread, there must be lots of people in favour of the fappening, but I'd not expected people to argue that it was morally justified. Impressive amount of slut shaming and victim blaming going on.

Yeah it's a bit of an eye-opener. I'll freely admit I'm flawed in this scenario. If a celebrity I have my eye on had her pics leaked... ehhh, I'd check 'em out, but under no circumstance is it ever really justified. Certainly not ethical.

I think this is yet another situation where people will partake in something with no self control (myself included), yet are not willing to admit what they're doing is pretty damn murky and so try to justify it anyway they can. Not unlike piracy really.

I imagine, though, that there's a lot of people who'd look at leaked pics the celeb wanted to keep private, who wouldn't be so interested if the celeb had deliberately spread them. The appeal seems largely to be doing something wrong.

 

[PainInTheAssInternet]

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

When hackers do it it's a lot more than "intrusive". It's a fucking crime.

I hope to leave you with a slightly better disposition.

I actually laughed at this part due to the sheer ineptitude of its presentation. It's the exact same structure that you find in sarcastic comments on reddit with the intent of finding the commentator comically perverse. You know, comments like "Oh sure, it's fine to look at a woman in public but when I'm outside her window at 1 in the morning she gets all mad at me."

 

[TallanKhan]

Whatever, forget it.

I honestly don't have a problem with any of you. I don't even have a problem with your positions, i think, i'm not sure because nobody will clarify. I'm just trying to get a little more clarity, but if it makes you too upset, i understand.

Obviously i've failed miserably with trying to find out the answer to where everyone draws the distinction between what information should or should not be protected, and i'm sorry for that failure.

Goodnight.

Okay, I'm going to take a stab at this one just because I'm masochistic that way. The distinction between what information should or should not be protected is drawn where a judge rules that the public's need to know trumps the individual's right to privacy. There are many situations in the real world where the rights of one person clashes with the rights of another person or group of people, and there are legal frameworks specifically set up to arbitrate these situations. It's just like how your right to free speech does not extend to falsely shouting "I have a bomb!" in a crowded airport. (Don't try it, you won't like the results)

In the case of the sexual predator, the current agreement amongst judges in most of the western world is that, while the criminal DOES have a right to privacy, the safety of the community is simply more important. The critical distinction here is that our system places both the right and responsibility to make that decision squarely upon the shoulders of judges, it is NOT a decision that the general public is legally allowed to make for themselves.

In short, a person has a right to privacy unless a judge says otherwise, or the person in question consents to waive that right.

I think I might just award this my (exceptionally prestigious) Post of the Day award as possibly the most rational thing I have seen anyone post in a thread that seems to be spiraling into the irrational and in some cases barely coherant at a truly alarming pace.

For my part this topic is something that leaves me with decidedly mixed feeligns. On one hand I fully support the idea that someone's body is theirs to do with as they wish, just as their right to privacy is theirs to waive. That said, I can't really get on board with their reasoning. Particularly Kiera Knightly, her whole "Im sick of people making fake nude pics of me" feels alot like saying "I'm tired of being objectified and having my person reduced to nothing more than a pair of breasts, so I will do it to myself first".

It's kind of a like the bullied kid at school who humiliates himself for the amusement of his bully in the hope of not being beaten up. Apart from the fact it rarely works (just as I doubt her topless display will do anything to stem the tide of Kiera Knightly fake nudes), even when it does that person is still a victim. I'm all in favour of empowerment, but an empowered person chooses to do things because they want to do them, not because doing something is less unpleasant than alternative.

Just my two cents.

 

[Something Amyss]

And The_Kodu's reply was basically "Yeah! I mean, Kaley Christine Cuoco did exactly that, pretty impressive if you ask me!"

I'/d also add that there was the implication that women who complained about their pictures being leaked, about their rights being violated, were "playing the victim."

This, to me, was the most troubling take away.

 

[Cryselle]

For my part this topic is something that leaves me with decidedly mixed feeligns. On one hand I fully support the idea that someone's body is theirs to do with as they wish, just as their right to privacy is theirs to waive. That said, I can't really get on board with their reasoning. Particularly Kiera Knightly, her whole "Im sick of people making fake nude pics of me" feels alot like saying "I'm tired of being objectified and having my person reduced to nothing more than a pair of breasts, so I will do it to myself first".

It's kind of a like the bullied kid at school who humiliates himself for the amusement of his bully in the hope of not being beaten up. Apart from the fact it rarely works (just as I doubt her topless display will do anything to stem the tide of Kiera Knightly fake nudes), even when it does that person is still a victim. I'm all in favour of empowerment, but an empowered person chooses to do things because they want to do them, not because doing something is less unpleasant than alternative.

Just my two cents.

The problem with what you are saying is that it is a misrepresentation of what Kiera Knightly said and did. Her photograph session had nothing at all to do with fake pictures, that's not what she wanted to protest. What she wanted to protest was the fact that almost all pictures are touched up after they're taken, because no real human being can ever be pretty enough for a magazine. Specifically, in her case, her breasts are regularly enlarged via photoshop. Not by some idiot who is just cut/pasting a celebrity head onto a porn actress, but by professionals. What she was trying to say is "This is what I actually look like. If you want to call me beautiful, do so because you think I am beautiful, not because you think the photoshopping is amazing. Those pictures are not what I look like."

 

[TallanKhan]

For my part this topic is something that leaves me with decidedly mixed feeligns. On one hand I fully support the idea that someone's body is theirs to do with as they wish, just as their right to privacy is theirs to waive. That said, I can't really get on board with their reasoning. Particularly Kiera Knightly, her whole "Im sick of people making fake nude pics of me" feels alot like saying "I'm tired of being objectified and having my person reduced to nothing more than a pair of breasts, so I will do it to myself first".

It's kind of a like the bullied kid at school who humiliates himself for the amusement of his bully in the hope of not being beaten up. Apart from the fact it rarely works (just as I doubt her topless display will do anything to stem the tide of Kiera Knightly fake nudes), even when it does that person is still a victim. I'm all in favour of empowerment, but an empowered person chooses to do things because they want to do them, not because doing something is less unpleasant than alternative.

Just my two cents.

The problem with what you are saying is that it is a misrepresentation of what Kiera Knightly said and did. Her photograph session had nothing at all to do with fake pictures, that's not what she wanted to protest. What she wanted to protest was the fact that almost all pictures are touched up after they're taken, because no real human being can ever be pretty enough for a magazine. Specifically, in her case, her breasts are regularly enlarged via photoshop. Not by some idiot who is just cut/pasting a celebrity head onto a porn actress, but by professionals. What she was trying to say is "This is what I actually look like. If you want to call me beautiful, do so because you think I am beautiful, not because you think the photoshopping is amazing. Those pictures are not what I look like."

Well I have to admit my entire knowledge of this was gleaned from the opening post and it would appear I rather misinterpreted what was meant by "photoshopped". I had taken this to be a reference to amateur fakes produced in photoshop rather than professional airbrushing which does rather cast it all in a different light.

In that case I find myself rather indifferent. I don't know that it was the most effective way to combat the practice against which she was protesting but if nothing else it was, I guess bold would be the word, and I suppose you have to admire that on some level.