where do these sexual assault people come from?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wyeaster

like i said, you're saying you don't give a shit about how other women who spend time here feel or who would spend time here except for this bullshit feel.

---

This is false. I definitely care how they feel and I'm interested in hearing. I'm just not sure if their opinions should be decisive any more than yours or mine, which to be fair, should definitely come last of all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phildo_Baggins

1 - sure. But the point is that the onus is on the photographer to positively prove consent. Not the other way around, which is how many on here are approaching it. I.e. saying anyone can post whatever photo they want and if the subject of the photo has a problem they can ask for it to be removed.

2 - in this case I’m referring to non-consensual nude photos being posted, but that would be inclusive of much more in general

---

A. Proving consent is near impossible. If the poster says consent was established but the reader says consent looks suspect what should be done?

2. Right, agreement on legality is probably reasonably easy but sexually exploitative is a bag of worms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phildo_Baggins

Just because it might be difficult doesn’t mean we as the users, or TGR as the forum host, just get to punt on the issue.

---

Then you get the same question as mtngirl. Who makes the determination on whether consent was established?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mazderati

Do you understand how some might see your attack on porn as hypocritical given your own contributions?

---

i can see how a bunch of dudes defending their right to share e-boners would see it that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jono

That's some funny shit right there. I guess I never considered the relative attractiveness of your cock-pics before now. But I guess I'd have to be finding them in some thread I purposely clicked on, so maybe it's not up to me to be concerned. And to be clear, I'm not trying to couch it at all, I'm just trying to see how you reconcile opposing rights. The rest of the discussion is predictable to the point of boredom. Are you ok with slut shaming? I feel like there's not a lot of daylight between that and most efforts to change society toward less objectification of women, but if you (or, more importantly, the handful of women here) have found the middle ground there I'm very curious to hear about it.

---

why do you keep talking about slut shaming?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mazderati

A. Proving consent is near impossible. If the poster says consent was established but the reader says consent looks suspect what should be done?

---

I disagree. It’s harder than just posting up a photo, but nowhere near impossible. If a reader has a question about it, the poster should be able to prove it. If not, then ban hammer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flowing alpy

...I post on this site, you may be familiar with it, TAY. Heavy moderation, barely any pics and NO nude womens, yet the place is a giant cauldron or entitled white male skiers and a boarder.
very very few female posters %wise compared to this joint imo.
maybe it is not a tgr thing a majority of outdoor sport enthusiasts of the female variety don’t post on these types of boards.

---

TAY's porn policy isn't it's big issue Bob don't be silly.

"Because there aren't many of them (still) here to upset"... is a lame argument.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

today is the first time i heard someone compare having basic respect for women to fighting isis!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mazderati

Then you get the same question as mtngirl. Who makes the determination on whether consent was established?

---

Really it seems the disagreement is over who gets the benefit of the doubt....the poster or the subject of the photo.

That's going to be a hard one to sort out....pretty fair case to be made for either really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wyeaster

why do you keep talking about slut shaming?

---

I'm sorry, I was just trying to understand the reason why one person feels they have a right to object to someone else's choice to engage in an exhibitionist type act. We don't have to name it that if you find those words offensive. But it doesn't change the question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wyeaster

why do you keep talking about slut shaming?

---

Yeah! Fuck that. I love sluts!

Sent from my XT1650 using TGR Forums mobile app

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mazderati

A. Proving consent is near impossible.

---

Wow, really? I would never have guessed they stopped making magic markers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wyeaster

today is the first time i heard someone compare having basic respect for women to fighting isis!

---

And those of us who know how to read have yet to read that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wyeaster

today is the first time i heard someone compare having basic respect for women to fighting isis!

---

come on man, that's not the comparison.

You're not actively fighting _________ so you're OK with ________. Insert whatever bad thing you want.

It's not a comparison of moral equivalencies between bad things, it's a means of demonstrating that "not fighting it" isn't the same as "wanting it"....which isn't a half-bad double entendre for this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ill-advised strategy

come on man, that's not the comparison.

You're not actively fighting _________ so you're OK with ________. Insert whatever bad thing you want.

It's not a comparison of moral equivalencies between bad things, it's a means of demonstrating that "not fighting it" isn't the same as "wanting it"....which isn't a half-bad double entendre for this thread.

---

If you put it that way how is he supposed to assert his moral superiority?

It's like Portlandia in real life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jono

I'm sorry, I was just trying to understand the reason why one person feels they have a right to object to someone else's choice to engage in an exhibitionist type act. We don't have to name it that if you find those words offensive. But it doesn't change the question.

---

i'm not talking about what the person in the picture wants to do while the picture is being taken. your argument is getting sillier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ill-advised strategy

come on man, that's not the comparison.

You're not actively fighting _________ so you're OK with ________. Insert whatever bad thing you want.

It's not a comparison of moral equivalencies between bad things, it's a means of demonstrating that "not fighting it" isn't the same as "wanting it"....which isn't a half-bad double entendre for this thread.

---

so we're good germans?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mazderati

I thought we agreed determination of consent is difficult in the other thread. The question I asked was who determines if consent was provided? To that you seemed to suggest pornography should not be allowed on TGR.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flowing alpy

I was saying there are not many women on
these sites whether nudes are allowed or not.

---

Even more reason to create a somewhat less intimidating atmosphere..

Good point Bob. Nice to have some leadership around the place at last.



Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dexter Rutecki

If you put it that way how is he supposed to assert his moral superiority?

It's like Portlandia in real life.

---

don't you have some hairs to split?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wyeaster

don't you have some hairs to split?

---

4/10. Relatively low level of usual condescension.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wyeaster

i'm not talking about what the person in the picture wants to do while the picture is being taken. your argument is getting sillier.

---

Make sense please.

Great, we figured it out...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wyeaster

i can see how a bunch of dudes defending their right to share e-boners would see it that way.

---

You would have been better off with a mea culpa if your stance is anti-porn.

hilarious. mea culpa for posting dick pics if my stance is anti-porn. this place is so rich.

but my stance wasn't and isn't anti-porn, per se.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegoSkier

"sex positive" community

---

All that's old is new again!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WT8imYMud-8

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wyeaster

hilarious. mea culpa for posting dick pics if my stance is anti-porn. this place is so rich.

but my stance wasn't and isn't anti-porn, per se.

---

It's not a gotcha. Are you not calling porn hostile? If any of it is hostile, all of it is hostile.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jono

Make sense please.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mazderati

It's not a gotcha. If any of porn is hostile all of it's hostile.

---

if you're still on about the dick pics you obviously missed the point of the dick pics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mazderati

If any of it is hostile, all of it is hostile.

---

That's complete nonsense. Surely you can appreciate the difference between, say, a woman who enjoys producing and sharing explicit selfies versus spy photos of women who don't know they're being photographed?

Both are "porn", one is clearly hostile, the other is clearly not.

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.

---

Where is your proof that NCP has occurred?

You want people to do something that you yourself have no idea how it could be done?

You’ve basically said, ‘find a way to make sure that no crime or inappropriate posting happens”

So let’s imagine that TGR somehow creates a system for formally capturing lawyer created consent forms and verifying directly with the photographee their consent. That wouldn’t guarantee that women aren’t coerced into signing or that forgery or Impersonation isn’t happening. So in essence there is NO way to guarantee permission of every photo posted.

Defacto you’re just arguing for banning nudes.






Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phildo_Baggins

Just because it might be difficult doesn’t mean we as the users, or TGR as the forum host, just get to punt on the issue.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phildo_Baggins

I disagree. It’s harder than just posting up a photo, but nowhere near impossible. If a reader has a question about it, the poster should be able to prove it. If not, then ban hammer.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jono

Wow, really? I would never have guessed they stopped making magic markers.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ill-advised strategy

couple things....

The key psychological issue at play here is men who are aroused by, or in spite of, women who aren't aroused by them. So rape. So groping women who've shown no interest. So jerking off in front of women who aren't into it. So weird spy-type non-consensual porn. So most prostitution.

So the litmus test of awful or not, should be the level and type of participation of the woman. If it's not clear the woman's into it, it's awful. If you're aroused by situations where the woman involved isn't into it, you should take a good hard look at yourself and your sexual interests and your developmental psychology and start to work on that problem before you fuck up and harm someone.

Also...mtng: I take issue with part of your POV here: you're saying if I'm not actively fighting something I feel it's OK. That's absurd, and here's why: you're not actively fighting ISIS: I guess you think ISIS beheading people is OK right?
It's not so black and white. There is room between actively crusading against something and liking it. The wedging of us into "fighting it" and "loving it" is BS, and I think you're smart enough and complex enough to understand that right?

---

When I say you aren't saying anything so you are accepting it I am talking about the general you... the community.

If nobody says it's not ok, if it is allowed to exist and some community members provide positive reinforcements then the community tolerates it.

Lots of people are fighting Isis.

This (in part) is starting to sound a lot like N. Totenberg/NPR Supreme Court Coverage

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ill-advised strategy

That's complete nonsense. Surely you can appreciate the difference between, say, a woman who enjoys producing and sharing explicit selfies versus spy photos of women who don't know they're being photographed?

Both are "porn", one is clearly hostile, the other is clearly not.

---

That depends on who you ask. This group says all porn is harmful and there are others like it.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wyeaster

it's hilarious you call it censorship. it's called having some fucking respect.

---

I wouldn’t post pictures personally since I see it as too fraught with possible unintended consequences but I don’t feel that I or you or Mtgirl get to be the grand arbiters of what is “respect” for everyone else.

Perhaps you should join the state or national legislature and work to pass your laws on “respect”. But of course that’s actual hard work and instead you’ll just continue to sit on your high horse and preach to us.




Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

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?

---

I’m happy to participate in a discussion about those all of those things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wyeaster

if you're still on about the dick pics you obviously missed the point of the dick pics.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phildo_Baggins

I’m happy to participate in a discussion about those all of those things.

---

Have you considered a career in politics?