where do these sexual assault people come from?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wyeaster

you keep talking about slut shaming as it pertains to the person in the picture. i'm saying, even if the person in the picture wants her picture taken and disseminated on tgr, that has nothing to do with how the women in the illustrious "community" here feel about seeing a bunch of guys posting porn and then basically drooling over it in commentary. it has absolutely nothing to do with slut shaming the person in the picture and it's odd that you are taking this line.

---

Thanks for the clarification. I agree with the weirdness of sharing porn and discussing its results; seems a little homoerotic to me, and that's probably my leading reason not to click if I expect that's what's inside a thread. OTOH, the technique of not clicking works pretty well for me and I see no reason why it wouldn't work for anyone else, male, female or otherwise. That's why I brought up slut shaming: there are a couple of ways to be offended, and that's one of them. As far as I can tell, voyeur shaming would be the only other. Neither one has me motivated to click in, but my masochistic streak may not be fully developed. Maybe others have more insight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PB-wmOYelnM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mazderati

That depends on who you ask. This group says all porn is harmful.

---

If This group is foolish enough to not recognize the difference between a woman sharing an erotic selfie versus illegal exploitation porn then This group is comprised of fucking morons.

Somehow I suspect they'd recognize a difference in hostility, which is what was being discussed, while maintaining they're both harmful. Perhaps one could be argued to be harmful in an abstract sense, but the argument for the other being harmful is self-evident and not abstract whatsoever.

Have you no ability to process nuance, or are you just having a good time trolling?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mtngirl79

It's the responsibility of those who want to post and view the pictures to solve that problem.

It's fucked up to post nude pics without permission and can have irreversible negative consequences for the subject of the photos.

I think we all agree on that.

Figure out away to make sure that won't happen and I will shut up.

---

Can you clarify whether you are anti-nudes-without-clear-consent or more generally anti-porn on TGR?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mazderati

No, I didn't. I think it was a fair point and you got the reaction you wanted. But it's disingenuous to both post porn and suggest it creates a hostile environment.

---

there is nothing disingenuous about providing a mild example, which wasn't even a good example because although men may be obsessed about their dicks and freak out when they see other dicks or gosh -- just not want to see dicks when they come to hang out and relax -- they are not pervasively victimized for power, profit and pleasure compared to women. so even though the dick pics created an uproar, the overwhelmingly white male audience doesn't have the background of a lifetime of being and watching others being objectified, rated, raped, killed for sex so the "oppression" to the senses does not approximate.

i'm not the one being disingenuous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ill-advised strategy

If This group is foolish enough to not recognize the difference between a woman sharing an erotic selfie versus illegal exploitation porn then This group is comprised of fucking morons.

Somehow I suspect they'd recognize a difference in hostility, which is what was being discussed, while maintaining they're both harmful. Perhaps one could be argued to be harmful in an abstract sense, but the argument for the other being harmful is self-evident and not abstract whatsoever.

Have you no ability to process nuance, or are you just having a good time trolling?

---

Zero trolling. I have a good idea of what constitutes hostile porn but part of the argument here is that may not matter. If another poster considers a picture hostile and I do not where does that leave us? Bow to the lowest common denominator of perceived hostility?

I think this whole discussion is really about porn in general. Lots of opinions and still very taboo which I think is interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wyeaster

there is nothing disingenuous about providing a mild example, which wasn't even a good example because although men may be obsessed about their dicks and freak out when they see other dicks or gosh -- just not want to see dicks when they come to hang out and relax -- they are not pervasively victimized for power, profit and pleasure compared to women. so even though the dick pics created an uproar, the overwhelmingly white male audience doesn't have the background of a lifetime of being and watching others being objectified, rated, raped, killed for sex so the "oppression" to the senses does not approximate.

i'm not the one being disingenuous.

---

You're dug in but I think you understand my point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mazderati

And, what, write something on the ass of the subject?

---

That, or the c0ck

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JellyBear

Technical question: if you can’t see the face of the person in the nude photo or any marks that would give away the persons identity, do you still need consent to post the photo?

---

Imo, no doubt. A person's grundle isn't public property.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mazderati

Burdensome is a better term. Who makes the determination on what is questionable? Is there a list of criteria that have to be met to prove consent? Who makes the list? Who is to say one poster's criteria are reasonable and another poster's criteria are not? What's to keep the a poster from saying consent was obtained when it really wasn't? There are a thousand hypotheticals.



And, what, write something on the ass of the subject? That might pass your criteria for consent but will it pass everyone else's?

---

If you had written these in the opposite order I think you would have posted something different. It becomes burdensome only if you let it get Really obtuse. Can you assume no coercion is being perpetrated off camera and that marker on skin is not photoshopped? Then it would seem that a signature would be less evidence than something written on skin the subject can see. If that's burdensome then maybe she just wasn't that into it to begin with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bromontana

That, or the c0ck

Sent from my LGLS755 using TGR Forums mobile app

---

Thank god for fine points. Amirite?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mazderati

Zero trolling. I have a good idea of what constitutes hostile porn but part of the argument here is that may not matter. If another poster considers a picture hostile and I do not where does that leave us? Bow to the lowest common denominator of perceived hostility?

---

Probably, as with all issues hinging on a spectrum of varying subjective perception, the best approach for the overall health of the community would be to plot the bell curve of responses and place your community standard somewhere on the cautious side of the fat part of the curve.

In this case, you have outliers who would say no porn whatsoever, and outliers who would say all porn of any kind....moving inward to a fat mean sentiment (customary reply: "you're mom's a fat mean sentiment"...lol) of, basically, "porn's fine, but not obviously creepy or possibly illegal porn". IMHO the cautious side of that fat part of the bell curve of subjective perceptions on the matter would be to say: when there's doubt expressed, the thing in doubt gets zapped.

That's reasonable isn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wyeaster

i'm not the one being disingenuous.

---

It's not him, it's you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dexter Rutecki

It's not him, it's you!

---

considering how absolutely dense you are on the subject at hand, dex, i'm not surprised you'd think so.

I would have thought differently long ago when we actually had an unmoderated board, and then when we had a nearly unmoderated board, but these days I don't see why TGR doesn't just ban the threads in question. Would anyone who regularly posts here stop showing up because porn wasn't available? When people who post here and their girlfriends or wives or whatever decide that they want a nude shot posted I think that might be different, but just random commercial porn isn't doing us any good, IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wyeaster

considering how absolutely dense you are on the subject at hand, dex, i'm not surprised you'd think so.

---

And again, it's not you it's me!

I am the one who is dense--can someone find a definition of irony for this guy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ill-advised strategy

Probably, as with all issues hinging on a spectrum of varying subjective perception, the best approach for the overall health of the community would be to plot the bell curve of responses and place your community standard somewhere on the cautious side of the fat part of the curve.

In this case, you have outliers who would say no porn whatsoever, and outliers who would say all porn of any kind....moving inward to a fat mean sentiment (customary reply: "you're mom's a fat mean sentiment"...lol) of, basically, "porn's fine, but not obviously creepy or possibly illegal porn". IMHO the cautious side of that fat part of the bell curve of subjective perceptions on the matter would be to say: when there's doubt expressed, the thing in doubt gets zapped.

That's reasonable isn't it?

---

Probably. But the posters driving this conversation may very well find themselves on the aggrieved extremes with an outcome they don't think is just.

The Bell Curve is a Myth. There's my troll.

it's just weird that sharing porn with our online buddies is so important.

https://deadspin.com/the-sports-high...s-r-1820401431

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dexter Rutecki

I would have thought differently long ago when we actually had an unmoderated board, and then when we had a nearly unmoderated board, but these days I don't see why TGR doesn't just ban the threads in question. Would anyone who regularly posts here stop showing up because porn wasn't available? When people who post here and their girlfriends or wives or whatever decide that they want a nude shot posted I think that might be different, but just random commercial porn isn't doing us any good, IMO.

---

I still think the less moderation the better. Part of that is on the community to police itself which needs to make a comeback. #Mr. PoundKey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dexter Rutecki

I would have thought differently long ago when we actually had an unmoderated board, and then when we had a nearly unmoderated board, but these days I don't see why TGR doesn't just ban the threads in question. Would anyone who regularly posts here stop showing up because porn wasn't available? When people who post here and their girlfriends or wives or whatever decide that they want a nude shot posted I think that might be different, but just random commercial porn isn't doing us any good, IMO.

---

^ This..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mazderati

Probably. But the posters driving this conversation may very well find themselves on the aggrieved extremes with an outcome they don't think is just.

The Bell Curve is a Myth. There's my troll.

---

Yeah, that seems to be a major problem with our society at large....catering policy to small numbers of vocal people with outlying values and agendas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ill-advised strategy

Yeah, that seems to be a major problem with our society at large....catering policy to small numbers of vocal people with outlying values and agendas.

---

we definitely need to cater more to the heteroinsecure white male in our society. the stresses! the worries! doesn't anybody care?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ill-advised strategy

Yeah, that seems to be a major problem with our society at large....catering policy to small numbers of vocal people with outlying values and agendas.

---

Abolish estate tax!

Ban Gluten!

No peanuts!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wyeaster

we definitely need to cater more to the heteroinsecure white male in our society. the stresses! the worries! doesn't anybody care?

---

false dichotomy

By the time there is proof that non consensual photos were posted, the damage is done. It cannot be reversed.

Someone was violated.

If you really think your right to oogle other people's intimate photos is more important than someone else's right to not have their privacy violated just say that out loud.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mazderati

Can you clarify whether you are anti-nudes-without-clear-consent or more generally anti-porn on TGR?

---

Anti nudes without clear consent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ill-advised strategy

false dichotomy

---

You're not going to leave him with many posting options if you keep up with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mazderati

I still think the less moderation the better. Part of that is on the community to police itself which needs to make a comeback. #Mr. PoundKey

---

I basically agree, but IMO we are so far from 'unmoderated' at this point that TGR. needs to concede what has become the facts--they (or their appointed agents, so still TGR in essence) are now responsible for what is permitted here. We have moderators actively policing this place, so TGR is de facto approving of any longstanding thread that everyone knows about. I would be in favor of a return to no moderation, but that is unlikely/impossible. Not sure how it makes sense to keep the porn threads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mtngirl79

Anti nudes without clear consent.

---

Then in response to your prior post I would say you don't get to shuffle off the burden of consent to someone else when the criteria for consent are not established. You shouldn't want to hand that off to someone else. You may not be posting the pictures but you're part of the equation and should want to be part of the solution.

Consent means that a person says they are ok with whatever you are doing.

Yes, you can take these pictures of me, and yes, you can post these pictures on the internet.

That is consent.

Since unless the pictures person posts here, it's likely they won't see the pictures, at least not right away, how can they police it themselves?

The internet is a big place. Posters need to be responsible for their content.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dexter Rutecki

I basically agree, but IMO we are so far from 'unmoderated' at this point that TGR. needs to concede what has become the facts--they (or their appointed agents, so still TGR in essence) are now responsible for what is permitted here. We have moderators actively policing this place, so TGR is de facto approving of any longstanding thread that everyone knows about. I would be in favor of a return to no moderation, but that is unlikely/impossible. Not sure how it makes sense to keep the porn threads.

---

The notion that TGR is actively moderated is a bit humorous.

Humor me: first define what is "actively" versus rarely in your eyes, then provide me enough examples within whatever time period your definition includes to prove your point. And nuking spam bots doesn't count as active moderation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mtngirl79

Consent means that a person says they are ok with whatever you are doing.

Yes, you can take these pictures of me, and yes, you can post these pictures on the internet.

That is consent.

Since unless the pictures person posts here, it's likely they won't see the pictures, at least not right away, how can they police it themselves?

The internet is a big place. Posters need to be responsible for their content.

---

That's what consent means, the stickier issue is how to demonstrate consent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mazderati

Then in response to your prior post I would say you don't get to shuffle off the burden of consent to someone else when the criteria for consent are not established. You shouldn't want to hand that off to someone else. You may not be posting the pictures but you're part of the equation and should want to be part of the solution.

---

so very lame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mtngirl79

Consent means that a person says they are ok with whatever you are doing.

Yes, you can take these pictures of me, and yes, you can post these pictures on the internet.

That is consent.

Since unless the pictures person posts here, it's likely they won't see the pictures, at least not right away, how can they police it themselves?

The internet is a big place. Posters need to be responsible for their content.

---

We're right back to where we started. A poster can lie and say the subject consented when they didn't. A poster can lie and say the subject didn't consent when they did. There is no easy solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mazderati

A poster can lie and say the subject consented

---

Can?

I would say it's a damn near certainty they lied.

Or the "consent" was likely contrived.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mazderati

We're right back to where we started. A poster can lie and say the subject consented when they didn't. A poster can lie and say the subject didn't consent when they did. There is no easy solution.

---

there's no easy solution only if you can't live without porn on this website. so with the infinite porn available online, you have to have it here, too.

i get it. just admit it. quit trying to pretend there is anything involved other than your adamant desire to have porn on tgr.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danno

The notion that TGR is actively moderated is a bit humorous.

Humor me: first define what is "actively" versus rarely in your eyes, then provide me enough examples within whatever time period your definition includes to prove your point. And nuking spam bots doesn't count as active moderation.

---

I just want the shaming and old-fashioned, poster-driven dressing-down of yesteryear. Part of that is on the user base though and Dex is probably right in that the forum has moved on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mazderati

We're right back to where we started. A poster can lie and say the subject consented when they didn't. A poster can lie and say the subject didn't consent when they did. There is no easy solution.

---

If you can't prove consent, you can't post the pictures.

Solve you consent problem and post your pictures.

Unless you think your right to viewing and posting nude pictures supersedes people's rights to not have nude pictures of them posted without their consent...

If that's the case, just say that out loud.

So all the poster of these pics needs to do is just say, " consent to post", and you'll go along with that?
Riiiiiiiight...