where do these sexual assault people come from?

[Kinnikinnick]

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

[Mazderati]

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.

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.

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?

[mtngirl79]

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.

[ACH]

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

[Mazderati]

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.

[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?

[Kinnikinnick]

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

[Supermoon]

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.

[Mazderati]

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.

[Mazderati]

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

Have you considered a career in politics?

[jono]

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.

[Bobby Stainless]

[ill-advised strategy]

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?

[Mazderati]

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?

[wyeaster]

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.

[Mazderati]

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?

[Mazderati]

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

[Mazderati]

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.

[Bromontana]

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

That, or the c0ck

[Bromontana]

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.

[jono]

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.

[Mazderati]

That, or the c0ck

Sent from my LGLS755 using TGR Forums mobile app

Thank god for fine points. Amirite?

[ill-advised strategy]

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?

[Dexter Rutecki]

i'm not the one being disingenuous.

It's not him, it's you!

[wyeaster]

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.