where do these sexual assault people come from?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2FUNKY

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

---

No. Proof of consent. Are you really this dumb?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mtngirl79

Someone was violated.

---

With or without consent? I know this club and it’s all about the waiver, just sayin.

Stop beating around the bush and say what "proof" would satisfy for your proposal.

Quote:

---

mtngirl79

gone
This message is hidden because mtngirl79 is on your ignore list.
View Post

Remove user from ignore list

---

Ahhhh, peace and quiet.

It's just too easy.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PNWbrit

Can?

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

Or the "consent" was likely contrived.

---

Maybe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wyeaster

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.

---

I feel like you put your typing gloves on for this response. There's no need for those or the rock throwing. I am disarmed.

I don't come here for the porn and I guarantee the number of pornographic images you've posted is greater than the number I've posted. Go ahead and look back through the NSFW threads. And then take a minute to unwad those underwear because my lack of porn posting will surely secure your tizzy, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mtngirl79

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danno

Stop beating around the bush and say what "proof" would satisfy for your proposal.

---

She won't answer that questions because it's understandably hard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mazderati

She won't answer that questions because it's understandably hard.

---

I get that. But she won't even acknowledge that, and continues to dishonestly argue for that "solution" when she knows it doesn't work (or should know).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mazderati

I feel like you put your typing gloves on for this response. There's no need for those or the rock throwing. I am disarmed.

I don't come here for the porn and I guarantee the number of pornographic images you've posted is greater than the number I've posted. Go ahead and look back through the NSFW threads. And then take a minute to unwad those underwear because my lack of porn posting will surely secure your tizzy, too.

---

i don't have typing gloves. i have moisturizing gloves at night and fingertip pads for my extensive online research and commentary work during the day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danno

I get that. But she won't even acknowledge that, and continues to dishonestly argue for that "solution" when she knows it doesn't work (or should know).

---

I think it’s a bit unfair to demand a solution from those people who think consent needs to be proven when everything from consent forms to magic markers have been suggested here, but dismissed out of hand as either burdensome or too easy to be faked.

I know it’s not what you are actively arguing for, but it seems like the only solution that you would be ok with is to have a photo posted, then taken down with a complaint. MtG makes the correct point here that you can’t undo a photo once it’s been posted, so IMO some form of positive consent needs to be provided or else there is too much risk for that type of photo to be used in a damaging way. Even if the poster doesn’t realize they are violating the subject’s privacy.

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.

---

First, actively isn't necessarily related to 'rarely,' that is, frequency isn't part of being actively moderated.

I think threads are moved on at least a weekly basis, users are banned for different reasons, and moderators (there is more than one) respond all the time to questions about moderation. Users are banned in response to requests from other users--the mods actively remove their posting privileges. I'm not going to provide links or whatever you're asking for, but you're here enough to have seen what I described. I'm not making this up. All of that reflects the fact that this place is actively moderated.

Tell you what, I'll post a few polyass threads in the PR if you don't believe me. I bet they are all moved (in response to people whining about them, possibly) within the week. That's active moderation--not sure where the humor in describing that is, but glad to know you're enjoying it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phildo_Baggins

I think it’s a bit unfair to demand a solution from those people who think consent needs to be proven when everything from consent forms to magic markers have been suggested here, but dismissed out of hand as either burdensome or too easy to be faked.

I know it’s not what you are actively arguing for, but it seems like the only solution that you would be ok with is to have a photo posted, then taken down with a complaint. MtG makes the correct point here that you can’t undo a photo once it’s been posted, so IMO some form of positive consent needs to be provided or else there is too much risk for that type of photo to be used in a damaging way. Even if the poster doesn’t realize they are violating the subject’s privacy.

---

No, I'm not arguing for a solution. Not at all. And I don't think the "take it down after a complaint" works, not even a little. Because of the proof problem. The only solutions I see are a) do nothing, b) have a clear rule that you must have consent to post but it's an honor system (because nothing else is workable), or c) eliminate all nudity/porn. She's really arguing for "c" but isn't honest about it. She occasionally says stuff about whether this site needs porn at all, but her primary argument isn't "get rid of it all", even though that's what she really wants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danno

No, I'm not arguing for a solution. Not at all. And I don't think the "take it down after a complaint" works, not even a little. Because of the proof problem. The only solutions I see are a) do nothing, b) have a clear rule that you must have consent to post but it's an honor system (because nothing else is workable), or c) eliminate all nudity/porn. She's really arguing for "c" but isn't honest about it. She occasionally says stuff about whether this site needs porn at all, but her primary argument isn't "get rid of it all", even though that's what she really wants.

---

Wrong. I couldn't care less about porn. I actually don't care about professional porn.. where ever it came from bares the burden of proof...

I'm also less worried about really pro looking photos, although cameras are easier these days..

I am 100% open to suggestions on how consent could be proven. I have no idea how it could be proven, but I don't give a fuck about the pictures going or staying if they are proven consental.

You all really want your pictures here, for some reason so solve the problem or at least admit your stance.. your entertainment is more important than respect for women...

I think having consent, and not posting without consent is more important than the photos themselves, but then I couldn't care less if they went..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phildo_Baggins

I think it’s a bit unfair to demand a solution from those people who think consent needs to be proven when everything from consent forms to magic markers have been suggested here, but dismissed out of hand as either burdensome or too easy to be faked.

I know it’s not what you are actively arguing for, but it seems like the only solution that you would be ok with is to have a photo posted, then taken down with a complaint. MtG makes the correct point here that you can’t undo a photo once it’s been posted, so IMO some form of positive consent needs to be provided or else there is too much risk for that type of photo to be used in a damaging way. Even if the poster doesn’t realize they are violating the subject’s privacy.

---

I hate to be the one to break this to you but privacy's over. Done. If you are aware of a camera and do not object to having your picture taken you have no grounds for complaint later. That's just the way it is. There's a reasonable expectation that any picture taken in one context will reappear somewhere else in another context. Welcome to the world.

Arguing about consent is ludicrous. Spy or stealth photos are still another story, for now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mtngirl79

Wrong. I couldn't care less about porn. I actually don't care about professional porn.. where ever it came from bares the burden of proof...

I'm also less worried about really pro looking photos, although cameras are easier these days..

I am 100% open to suggestions on how consent could be proven. I have no idea how it could be proven, but I don't give a fuck about the pictures going or staying if they are proven consental.

You all really want your pictures here, for some reason so solve the problem or at least admit your stance.. your entertainment is more important than respect for women...

I think having consent, and not posting without consent is more important than the photos themselves, but then I couldn't care less if they went..

---

you are just a bundle of critical thinking failure. I'm done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iceman

I hate to be the one to break this to you but privacy's over. Done. If you are aware of a camera and do not object to having your picture taken you have no grounds for complaint later. That's just the way it is. There's a reasonable expectation that any picture taken in one context will reappear somewhere else in another context. Welcome to the world.

Arguing about consent is ludicrous. Spy or stealth photos are still another story, for now.

---

I think that’s true in a broader context, and people need to be more vigilant and careful who they send photos to or who they allow to take photos of them. But to just say “privacy is over. Fuck it!” isn’t the correct answer. That again puts the onus on the victim here.

I'm not saying it's the way it should be, I'm saying that's how it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iceman

I'm not saying it's the way it should be, I'm saying that's how it is.

---

I don’t disagree with you. I just don’t think that impacts what we are discussing here in regards to consent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phildo_Baggins

I think that’s true in a broader context, and people need to be more vigilant and careful who they send photos to or who they allow to take photos of them. But to just say “privacy is over. Fuck it!” isn’t the correct answer. That again puts the onus on the victim here.

---

I get what you're saying. But you made a leap of logic that mtgirl keeps making. You are starting from the assumption that there IS a victim here. Which we don't know if there is, and heck, we also never know if the person posting the pictures also took them. Many pictures have been posted in the ULLR thread where others have complained that they didn't belong there.

You can make a rule that consent must be acquired for such pics (and it's a basic rule of decency that everyone should be able to agree to). That doesn't seem to be the question, the question is how to implement it. Mtgirl starts from the assumption that rule of decency or no, she's going to assume that they're not properly acquired/posted, and then wants the poster to prove otherwise. Since that is entirely unworkable (something she disingenuously, or worse, refuses to admit), then no pics or ULLR thread because she's assumed there is a victim.

I'm saying that there's implied consent when you acknowledge the presence of the camera and don't object. Since there's literally no control on where the image will end up, just posing for the image is consent to its distribution in and of itself. People are fighting a rearguard battle on this but it's already over. The genie's out of the bottle. And there certainly is no victim.

Do you really think every picture ever posted there was done so with consent?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danno

I get what you're saying. But you made a leap of logic that mtgirl keeps making. You are starting from the assumption that there IS a victim here. Which we don't know if there is, and heck, we also never know if the person posting the pictures also took them. Many pictures have been posted in the ULLR thread where others have complained that they didn't belong there.

You can make a rule that consent must be acquired for such pics (and it's a basic rule of decency that everyone should be able to agree to). That doesn't seem to be the question, the question is how to implement it. Mtgirl starts from the assumption that rule of decency or no, she's going to assume that they're not properly acquired/posted, and then wants the poster to prove otherwise. Since that is entirely unworkable (something she disingenuously, or worse, refuses to admit), then no pics or ULLR thread because she's assumed there is a victim.

---

You’re right about that leap, and I will try to clarify. MtG can speak for herself (or not). I don’t have a problem with two people doing whatever they want with or to each other and posting or not posting those things on appropriately NSFW tagged threads as long as all parties are consenting adults.

I don’t go into them generally, so no skin off my back either way.

I know that the vast majority of the posts probably are consenting, but it’s clear that there are photos where that is either in question, was unclear or omitted at the time of the photo being taken, or even full creeper mode.

Given the risk and consequences to the subject of the photos, IMO the only way to ensure that there isn’t any victimization or exploitation going on is to require positive consent on every photo. In doing so, you do end up assuming every photo is non-consensual unless proven otherwise.

I keep thinking about this like traveling in backcountry terrain. Once you trigger a slide, it’s too late to go back and dig a pit. The damage has been done and is irreversible.

Going to a standard like this may indeed kill the Pt 2 and the Ullr thread. Which isn’t ideal, but given the risks of the alternative, I think it’s a fair trade off. People would be free to repost any content they can show consent for in a new thread.

Yup. That x2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mtngirl79

Do you really think every picture ever posted there was done so with consent?

---

the stupid keeps on coming

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phildo_Baggins

You’re right about that leap, and I will try to clarify. MtG can speak for herself (or not). I don’t have a problem with two people doing whatever they want with or to each other and posting or not posting those things on appropriately NSFW tagged threads as long as all parties are consenting adults.

I don’t go into them generally, so no skin off my back either way.

I know that the vast majority of the posts probably are consenting, but it’s clear that there are photos where that is either in question, was unclear or omitted at the time of the photo being taken, or even full creeper mode.

Given the risk and consequences to the subject of the photos, IMO the only way to ensure that there isn’t any victimization or exploitation going on is to require positive consent on every photo. In doing so, you do end up assuming every photo is non-consensual unless proven otherwise.

I keep thinking about this like traveling in backcountry terrain. Once you trigger a slide, it’s too late to go back and dig a pit. The damage has been done and is irreversible.

Going to a standard like this may indeed kill the Pt 2 and the Ullr thread. Which isn’t ideal, but given the risks of the alternative, I think it’s a fair trade off. People would be free to repost any content they can show consent for in a new thread.

---

A lot of words but you havent come up with a viable implementable test of consent so you’re realistically down to banning all nude photos.

And don’t don’t tell me like Censorgirl that “professional porn” will be OK because in many cases it will be difficult to discern.





Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...f05662d007.pnghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...8ac32bc37d.png

When did she share her story? Wasn't Bill already elected? I just read about this a month or so ago and have already forgot. Getting old sucks.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...419ca54904.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steepconcrete

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...f05662d007.pnghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...8ac32bc37d.png

When did she share her story? Wasn't Bill already elected? I just read about this a month or so ago and have already forgot. Getting old sucks.

---

tired act

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.

---

It's a real thing, the intolerant minority. Think of the relatively small size of the Jewish community vs. the % of foods that pass kosher standards. Not bad inherently by any means, but certainly worth noting.

https://www.getabstract.com/en/summa...ant-wins/25806

https://greedygoblinblog.wordpress.c...rant-majority/

Edit to add: I'm not a fan of the shady stuff, and support some higher degree of scrutiny on the ullr stuff. An honor system with a basic sanity check to zap questionable stuff like booner's creep mode should work. Err on the side of caution but only act when posters aren't clear about the source (ok examples being BD & duderino's cosplay wife).

The idea of concrete proof is a cover for moving to ban organic pr0n. Is professional pr0n really the higher ground over kinky wifey material? I believe it's the opposite, given the known issues with adverse selection in porn women - many were personally abused or are currently abused within the industry. Feeding that beast is way worse than letting cosplay wifey fly her freak flag.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kinnikinnick

A lot of words but you havent come up with a viable implementable test of consent so you’re realistically down to banning all nude photos.

And don’t don’t tell me like Censorgirl that “professional porn” will be OK because in many cases it will be difficult to discern.





Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

---

I don’t know what that test would be. Like I said earlier, I’m happy to brainstorm with people. If there is no way to do it, and that meant no nude photos, then that’s unfortunate but better than the alternative.

Why a ski forum needs “professional porn” I don’t know, but embedding photos from sites that do their due diligence would pass my idea of consent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danno

No, I'm not arguing for a solution. Not at all. And I don't think the "take it down after a complaint" works, not even a little. Because of the proof problem. The only solutions I see are a) do nothing, b) have a clear rule that you must have consent to post but it's an honor system (because nothing else is workable), or c) eliminate all nudity/porn. She's really arguing for "c" but isn't honest about it. She occasionally says stuff about whether this site needs porn at all, but her primary argument isn't "get rid of it all", even though that's what she really wants.

---

Yes, you're exactly right on all of this. And her inconsistency in making these arguments is why it is fruitless to engage with her--she either doesn't know what her real agenda is, won't admit to it, or is so scattered that it actually changes from post to post.

But I will come back to the point I already made that at this point a sensible solution could be for TGR to decide that this board doesn't really benefit from porn (again, that won't really solve the issue with people who want to post their own photos, but it would mostly 'solve' the porn problem, I think--or it could, anyway).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dexter Rutecki

Yes, you're exactly right on all of this. And her inconsistency in making these arguments is why it is fruitless to engage with her--she either doesn't know what her real agenda is, won't admit to it, or is so scattered that it actually changes from post to post.

But I will come back to the point I already made that at this point a sensible solution could be for TGR to decide that this board doesn't really benefit from porn (again, that won't really solve the issue with people who want to post their own photos, but it would mostly 'solve' the porn problem, I think--or it could, anyway).

---

yet mtgirl says the "porn" is ok, even though "amateur porn" is a thing and there's really very little ability to know what truly has consent and what doesn't. She just wants the ullr thread taken down because she assumes that the people here are less trustworthy than youporn.

Ha, that hadn't occurred to me (the ubiquity of possibly non-consensually taken photos elsewhere, and comparing what probably happens elsewhere on the intrawebz to here). But the fact is that for whatever reason (I suspect because she doesn't want to admit, for some reason, that suppressing all those photos is the goal) she keeps throwing out moving targets and being dishonest in her responses.

But for the possibly the fifth time, and maybe unnecessarily at this point, I'll repeat my position that at this point I think TGR would do well to banish the porn (maybe not people's own photos, but actual porn).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzY2pWrXB_0

Pretty much explains it all For me anyway

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.

---

As an aside, people should use due diligence when allowing others to photograph, or have access to photos of them in compromised positions, IMO. You might want to think twice before letting a casual aquaintance snap shots of your genitals. Honestly, just weird shit. Here, take pictures of my dick/pussy. WTF

Sent from my XP7700 using TGR Forums mobile app

Edit-Spooks a kook so I won't trigger his borderline ass

Fuck ups in the past does not excuse present or future behavior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m451ba

Hello! I've always thought the phrase *objectification of women* was not that useful. We all function as sex objects. This isn't inherently bad.

---

Thank you for your input! Goodbye!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danno

Thank you for your input! Goodbye!

---

Lol nice work