Posting Unsolicited inappropriate photos should be against the law everywhere.

13

Comments

  • @littermate
    👍

    It may be conditional or qualified, such as :
    "When Hell freezes over"
    "In a mincing machine"

  • @Bles

    "So how do you differentiate between the groups of people who send pics of their privates to be seen and for their own kicks and those who are just unaware and impulsive? How do you prove intent to affect or offend for one's own pleasure as against intent to pleasure oneself purely out of a lack of awareness and self control?

    And if it's challenging enough to define and decide intent on either level how then do you appropriate the legal charges?"

    Response:

    I'd say more or less the same way we deal with any other crimes including those done by people who are psychopaths, vs people who have a mental illness(es) that causes try them to have psychosis, those who have no mental illness, so on. Though the how is more up to people with experience and dealings in the field to figure out more and adjust things according to the needs of the system as a whole. Perhaps it could start small for example a week in jail if fine can't be paid. If the person is caught again, repeat, double the fine, the jail time, plus register them, and shut them off from sharing images except for maybe controlled instances. Then after about 5 years, look over the success of these methods and adjust things accordingly. If on average it's been successful, pretty much keep it the same.

    If not, consider increasing things more. If this issue reaches the legal system, could be new to many, there could be trials and errors, so we'll need to improve. I'd actually even add for two time or more offenders to be banned from areas that convicted pedophiles, and the like get banned from, because by sending such content on where it doesn't belong and to people who don't consent, they are putting the underaged at risk to see what they shouldn't. For me it's about figuring out on average the most successful method(s) and finding the best way to put them to action. Then finding ways to deal with any exceptions that arise.

  • edited May 2020

    @FunCartel

    "The point not being directly addressed has nothing to do with the pics. It has everything to do with the US incarcerating more people than any other country in the world and showing it to be ineffective at best. Wasted resources and wasted time with a high rate of recidivism. Look at the war on drugs—that was a raging success (sarcasm). Point being, you don’t lock people up because their eyes were offended.

    Perhaps the issue isn't so much the incarnation, though that some people will never change for the better no matter what we try to do to help. So instead of having them on the street continuing to do what got them there, they* go back to the places that* keep them from endangering the public. And there could be some cases that could use counselling and that would actually help in addition to time out.

    "Besides, if you incarcerate people because you were offended by a body part then it is a slippery slope to locking up writers of books that offendeth thee or sentencing someone for an opposing view on an issue. You would open a Pandora’s box that would offer certain political powers an opportunity to abuse."

    I'm not sure how holding people sending their private parts to people nonconsensually and over platforms that don't allow locks up writers. Books like any other content, should have appropriate ratings, and I've yet to see a book that actually displays the private parts of someone on platforms that don't allow the display of such. Nor writers randomly e/mailing such things to people without their consent. And if there are, they too would have to adhere to respecting the platform, the people, and rating their content appropriately, and held accountable if need be. So the goal being only those who it suits choose to interact with. If a system like this is put into place and parts of it refined, then only people who break it would have an issue to worry about.

  • @Ironman294

    "Banning people from the internet for posting inappropriate photos? Wow fascists everywhere would welcome you to their ranks!"

    Actually I think fascism is going on platforms that don't allow such things, and forcing non-consenting people and possibly their young too, to see such junk. However, wanting to implement rules and laws that better protect people and platforms from such awful intruders isn't fascism.

  • Your entire thesis is overkill, @Lovelight. Platforms already have rules in place for terms of service. What you're asking for is a police state of the internet that looks out for the hint of nudity - which is not your purview. The Internet is not Utah and the Zion curtain, where obedience is an even greater commandment than love.... but I digress.

    How about you we all take some personal responsibility instead of inflicting your clarion call for tougher laws for hypotheticals on us all? Use common sense when you're online. Use safe browsing mode for your browser. Use parental controls within your Operating System. Use discretion when opening messages - treat every message from a stranger as suspect, and assume they're guilty until they prove themselves innocent. Report and block offenders - it takes a few clicks. If you want to go to the ultimate extreme, turn off the option to download images in your browser so you're at text only and never have to be offended again.

    The internet doesn't need a Junk Police, but it sure sounds like you can take some steps to take care of your own business.

  • The "Right to Free Speech" should come with the Right to not have to listen to what some people are saying.

    Perhaps every Social Media account should have a "I want dick pics Yes / No" option. However, I haven't seen a lot of people complaining that they don't get enough dick pics, because some other people have circulated the "fake news" that they are generally unwelcome.

  • @BooksnTeas is speaking from a place of experience, and in her words, being reactive. It’s beyond ignorant to frame her as hateful. You would be cautious and quick to judge if a majority of inquiries in your inbox were sent with bad intentions. Sometimes we even get unsolicited critiques about our images and pricing in messages. Being a woman on the internet, not to mention one that sells her time, opens you up to all kinds of bad vibes. She’s simply doing her best to repel them, and I don’t think she needs someone to argue their theoretical opinion versus her lived experience.

  • Whether some of you think it’s overkill or not, sending unsolicited dick pics is sexual assault. If you think it’s just a boo hoo situation and that were being whiners, you don’t know what it’s like. I wish I knew how it felt to be that ignorant. It’s not just a gross nasty picture you go “ew” at and delete. It literally is the same feeling as walking down a street and a random dude opens his trench coat with the deliberation to show you his junk. You can go ahead and write us off as insane and laugh at this sexual assault but it only shows how little you care when it comes to what we go through and how often it happens to us. It makes us feel dirty knowing that strictly because we are female, these perverted men think so little of us and how we feel, that they can show us their dick, some even laughing while telling us to get on our knees and suck it. Anyone who belittles the hardship we go through with unsolicited dick pics need to open their eyes. It’s sexual assault. Stop assuming we’re babies and see it for what it really is.

  • I just hope that any female who is considering cuddling with a male on this site ; reads through some of their forum postings, to help judge their attitude and hence likely behaviour.

  • [Deleted User]LucidDreams84 (deleted user)

    I think saying dick pics are sexual assault severely trivializes real physical female/male sexual assault victims. Ultimately, making it harder for them to come forward and be heard. It further puts more strain limited resources to treat such crimes.

  • A friend of mine has aspired to compile a coffee table book of unsolicited pics . She says if she saved them it would likely be in the thousands . I can't imagine how that feels . I would say there are likely plenty of men who can only dream about having unsolicited pics from women . It is easy to minimize the effect it has on women because of this difference . However for women it is very much different , and unwanted . And I can see where power / control structure is at play and how sexist that is .

  • @pmvines it’s always a breath of fresh air to hear a male understand. Thank you 😊

  • edited May 2020

    @pmvines thats exactly it, they think that we are inviting them to send their pictures because of how we look or simply because we don’t treat them like the vile monsters that they are, unbeknownst to us.

    It’s been Scientifically proven that men think women are attracted to them simply because the men find them attractive.

  • @LucidDreams84
    That's the same argument that "date rape" isn't really rape, and trivialises brutal stranger rape.

    There is a wide spectrum of offences in every category.

    Dick pics show that a woman is not safe from assault, even in the virtual world.

  • edited May 2020

    @LucidDreams84 why can’t all levels of sexual assault be dealt with? There are enough resources, they just choose not to pursue these criminals.

    Women have historically been told that police “can’t track and fine these people online” but when people were threatening cops online, they did exactly that, they’re simply choosing to not do their jobs.

  • edited May 2020

    @LucidDreams84 no one is belittling women going through physical rape, but showing us your dick when we don’t ask for it is sexual assault as well. Go ahead and think it’s different but assault is assault. I’m not trivializing the physical act of sexual assault but whether you’re understanding of what we go through or not, this is assault as well.

  • @kat99 it is def an ego thing based on power imbalance . I wouldn't say men necessarily feel women should be attracted to them just because they are to the woman . That implies all men have confidence and high self esteem. However there is a societal belief ingrained that the dominant species is right and should be getting their way , and I see that with a lot of men and do see it in the entitled attitudes of a good bit users on this site

  • @Sheena123 of course 😊 it is really easy for someone to only see through their own lens . In this case it's not just a matter of a difference of opinion. It is a matter of a difference of experience . Men don't typically consider advances from a woman to be potentially threatening or sexist / power play , or have a history dealing with sexual assault and sexism. I say don't typically because there is always the exception however it is few and far between .

  • edited May 2020

    @lovelight I think you do not understand what a slippery slope is. A nude picture to some is offensive and to some it is not or is just annoying. It is in the eye of the beholder. Unsolicited is wrong and rises to the level of a misdemeanor at best unless there are extenuating circumstances—sent to a minor, sent to someone who has a restraining order, etc. Other than that, it is in the eye of the beholder. But if you make a law making it punishable by imprisonment against one thing that is subjectively offensive, then said law can be used in similar circumstances—books that are offensive, art that is offensive, cuddling deemed by some to be a front for prostitution. Whenever you make a law, it can be politicized and weaponized for the agenda of others. Look at the Robert Mapplethorpe case. He was a world class photographer whose work was deemed obscene after art shows in Cincinnati and Washington D.C. The museum that showed his work in Cincinnati was charged with several counts of obscenity. Looking back now, it is obvious that it was a law used by religious groups to attack his work and anyone who showed it because of its strong homosexual content. There are always unintended consequences.

  • Forgive me if I'm mistaken but I don't think the OP's remarks were solely about unwanted dick pics I think they were referring to anyone of any gender sending illicit photos without consent. To those that are trumpeting police involvement would you contact the authorities if you received unprovoked pictures from a female or us just male anatomy that motivates you to do so ?
    Do you ever take into account that the sender was hacked ? Or the prank victim of some immature buddies that got ahold of his phone ? Or is it just penis picture .... Block report ... Contact your local police station in that order ?

  • @hugonehugall you probably shouldn’t play devil’s advocate unless you’ve passed the bar exam and are in a court of law.

  • @hugonehugall !st One of the threads in question was a female.
    2nd as has been said before, it would not be jail for all. The extent of the punishment would be determined by the extent of the offence and if the offender is repeating. Also, as in other police actions there would be investigations. Innocent until proven guilty.

  • edited May 2020

    @FunCartel

    "I think you do not understand what a slippery slope is. .."

    I think you're missing my point in that I'm not saying nobody should send such content online. Rather I'm saying that they should not do so on platforms that don't allow it and to people who don't consent. And in the case that they do that, there should be tougher consequences that overall help to protect platforms, and people who don't want to see such content. And by your argument about how this can be used by others for other agendas can be said just about* anything. For example "knives shouldn't exist because some will and do use it to harm others".

    If somebody tries to misuse something that's designed to help protect others, then they can be dealt separately without having to take away the system that can help protect others. Though again this isn't about banning someone from the act of sharing such, though the act of doing it in a nonconsensually manner.

    @hugonehugall

    "To those that are trumpeting police involvement would you contact the authorities if you received unprovoked pictures from a female or us just male anatomy that motivates you to do so ?"

    Treat the same no matter the sex.

    Do you ever take into account that the sender was hacked ? Or the prank victim of some immature buddies that got ahold of his phone ? Or is it just penis picture .... Block report ... Contact your local police station in that order ?"

    I think those would be exceptions and there can be ways to help deal with by the people such as the police, that is, if they want to deal with. Even in cases where the computers of pedophiles are found to have incriminating content I'm sure many can claim that they didn't knew and that the content was put on there by hacking and such. If someone is found to have had unauthorized use of the electronic of another and have sent such content then said person would be held accountable instead.

    In cases that somebody needs to lend their device for another to use, then I think there should be ways to help the owner avoid such issues. Such as having the option to limiting the things the guest user can do. I'm sure even pedophiles who it's found have incriminating content on their device or have shared it, can use the argument of "it wasn't me", and perhaps in very few exceptions it was. So however cases like that are dealt with, could be used to deal with this issue.

  • edited May 2020

    @Sideon

    "..How about you we all take some personal responsibility instead of inflicting your clarion call for tougher laws for hypotheticals on us all? Use discretion when opening messages - treat every message from a stranger as suspect, and assume they're guilty until they prove themselves innocent. .. "

    People sending unsolicited inappropriate content to many who don't want it and on platforms that don't allow it isn't hypothetical, it's the reality. The solution to someone flashing in public places that they shouldn't isn't "people, if you don't want to see that in places that don't allow it, just don't leave the house". Instead it's to hold offenders accountable: the same should apply to when done online. We shouldn't allow threats to not be held accountable either just because they happen online.

    Instead of blaming victims, and working to limit them from their freedom to browse the sites with ease that don't allow such things, the intruders should be the ones held accountable and limited if need be.

  • @Lovelight I do not think @Sideon is condoning the act or victim blaming at all. I think he is pointing out that it seems you are blowing the crime out of proportion to the damage done, and that there are steps you can take to protect yourself if you feel violated. When law enforcement puts out steps you can take to prevent a crime, is that victim blaming as well? No, it is prudence and often common sense.

  • Just like how Rights aren't given to us by the Government (we are born with them), laws don't protect people. Education does.

    Raise a better generation of children, call platforms out that don't respect body anatomy and consent, and publicly shame consent violators. That's how actual change happens. Not from chicken scratches in books somewhere, loosely enforced by people with badges.

  • @kat99 At what point was I playing devil's advocate ? And even if I was you don't need a law degree to do so.

  • It is possible to decide to not become offended.
    One need not subject oneself to thinking or feeling or reacting a certain way just because one learned that it should be so.

  • It is one thing to ban art in a gallery which is deemed to be offensive, a different thing to criticise offensive graffiti on a public wall. It is one thing to ban a book for being offensive, another thing to criticise offensive leaflets posted through people's doors. It is one thing to ban acts behind closed doors between consenting adults, and to criticise those acts occuring in public.

    A few years ago, a UK police force sent Christmas cards to some of their "people of interest" ; to remind them that their addresses were known. The point of a dick pic, is that it demonstrates to the recipient that interaction with the sender cannot be avoided even by distance and physical security. "You can run, but you can't hide. "

    Imagine getting a photo of oneself, taken from some distance, with telescopic sight hairs superimposed on one's head.

    The crime of assault, does not require actual physical contact.

Sign In or Register to comment.