Leaky nudes

invisible said:
well thats just your personal opinion. these ideas about conditioning should not apply to others preferences for what happens to images of their bodies, who views those images, and how those images are used. ideas about the history or enculturation of sexuality are not ideas that everyone should be expected to conform to. people own their own bodies, and if they dont want others viewing their bodies, then they shouldnt have to explain why they dont want that. they shouldnt have to justify themselves against standards of what other people believe is "natural", or any other standard of what other people believe about human bodies either. it is trivialising the complexity of individual beliefs about owned bodies to suggest that feelings of privacy about bodies are merely due to their owners indoctrination into culture. it is their body and it is their decision. if you dont agree with this, then please go ahead and send me a picture of your penis, which i will enjoy aesthetically only, in complete removal from my own sexuality. of course, even if you do, this still will not prove that people are not entitled to their own feelings about the privacy of their bodies.
Click to expand...

I'm not judging anyone, I'm just saying that it is as irrational as a person who never takes off their hat or always carries a blanket around everywhere.

It is not that it happens I have a problem with, it is that there are laws saying that to cover up is normal.

It is very complex but the law is very black and white about the issue. Wear clothes except [here].

I guess my point isn't so much about nudity but rather that we have perverted our basic nature and called that progress.

I'm not saying that perversion is morally wrong, just that it is widespread and largely unconscious.

I haven't seen the photos but if they are taken to be erotic, for a lover, then my original point is somewhat moot. Whilst there may be some truth to it, it is easy to get carried away and eventually end up at 'well, if there wasn't a universe none of this would've happened' every time.
 
Cornerstone said:
I'm not judging anyone, I'm just saying that it is as irrational as a person who never takes off their hat or always carries a blanket around everywhere.

It is not that it happens I have a problem with, it is that there are laws saying that to cover up is normal.

It is very complex but the law is very black and white about the issue. Wear clothes except [here].

I guess my point isn't so much about nudity but rather that we have perverted our basic nature and called that progress.

I'm not saying that perversion is morally wrong, just that it is widespread and largely unconscious.

I haven't seen the photos but if they are taken to be erotic, for a lover, then my original point is somewhat moot. Whilst there may be some truth to it, it is easy to get carried away and eventually end up at 'well, if there wasn't a universe none of this would've happened' every time.
Click to expand...

there is no proof that we have perverted our basic nature. the only thing that there is proof of here is that you believe that we have perverted our basic nature.
 
invisible said:
there is no proof that we have perverted our basic nature..
Click to expand...

This is truer than most moralists are willing to believe. In more "staid" eras of recent history the surface appears buttoned down but real perversions (rape, pedophilia and such) ran rampant in secret.

I would argue that with a more open and less repressive sexual atmosphere, as we are experiencing in many parts of the world, there is way less pressure to repress and thereby pervert our sexuality.
 
Korg said:
I don't give a shit and I don't understand why anyone else does. I've got better things to do than stare at some famous chick's honeypot.
Click to expand...

And yet u don't have better things to do than to post about your scorn for famous vagina... okay, Eeyore (get it, honeypot, lol)

i tried to to find the pictures for 5 minutes or so from my phone but couldn't

idk, did any of the celebrities give some sort of plea to the public to not look at the pictures? I don't feel bad for them or feel like this is assault. I feel like: dats part of the risk u accepted trying to do this job in this era of internet haxors. Plus, they are rich and have everything. Life is hard and people are horny and fucked up. One does not simply rely on social justice and political correctness and assume life will be fine and dandy.
 
no, you dont blame the people who got taken advantage of, you blame the people who took advantage.
 
Stu said:
This is truer than most moralists are willing to believe. In more "staid" eras of recent history the surface appears buttoned down but real perversions (rape, pedophilia and such) ran rampant in secret.

I would argue that with a more open and less repressive sexual atmosphere, as we are experiencing in many parts of the world, there is way less pressure to repress and thereby pervert our sexuality.
Click to expand...

i thought that was interesting and havent thought about it properly, and will be interested to think about it more.
 
I don't think it has anything to do with nudity and repression of our bodies. For me, it has to do with people having their intimate moments taken without their say.

Yeah. It's not smart to take nudies of yourself, especially if your famous - it's bound to get out...but just because it's going to get out and people are going to see, doesn't mean it's still right.

What if a man took these photos standing outside their window? Would it be just as okay then?
 
I mean, to me this isn't a big deal. A lot of these celebrities show up near naked in films and wear next to nothing out on the red carpet sometimes anyway. Their bodies are ALWAYS in our faces.

let's not even forget all of the websites that are out there that ex boyfriends and gf's and stuff use to post videos of them having sex with their ex, or photos that were sent in confidence, etc. How many celebrity sex tapes have been released? How many nude celebrity photos get released in comparison to the amount of men and women who have their own personal tapes and photos posted all over the internet for millions of people to see?

People are crying for Jennifer Lawrence who is still going to be famous as fuck and has millions and a fabulous career and everything but no one thinks twice about other people who don't have that power and influence who get their business posted all over the internet.

I mean, COME ON.

I am not justifying the hacking and everything but Jesus Christ. People need to get a bit of perspective.
 
Sorry. The idea these people 1) dont know themselves that digital media is up for grabs is beyond me 2) they dont have a whole host of people warning them that it is up for grabs. It wasnt that long ago Scarlet Johanson and Oliva Munn had their photos "stolen".

I suggest its a stars way of posting porn these days (to boost their value) without suffering the repercussions of "what type of a moral less" person they must be for doing it.
 
Stu said:
This is truer than most moralists are willing to believe. In more "staid" eras of recent history the surface appears buttoned down but real perversions (rape, pedophilia and such) ran rampant in secret.

I would argue that with a more open and less repressive sexual atmosphere, as we are experiencing in many parts of the world, there is way less pressure to repress and thereby pervert our sexuality.
Click to expand...

The problem I have with statements like that is that with each generation being less repressed than the last the critiques of repression from earlier times, ie more repressive times, ought to change too but in fact do not and are treated as though they are perrenial.

When Freud criticised sexual repression for instance he was operating in an age when women exposing their ankles was scandalous, yet I see Freudian, or perhaps more accurately vulgar Freudianism, deployed in the modern era, often in societies which are very permissive rather than repressive, without irony or consideration of context. Often by people who are sexually perverse but who rationalise their perversity as being a free spirit.

It sits very well with a lot sexual offenders who, like other sorts of criminals, are apt to deny there was a victim or even a crime for which they can be made responsible, by others or by their own conscience.

I'm not saying that you're doing this, I'm only saying that moralism can have its place and it ought not to be so easily dismissed as it often is.
 
Seriously, if anything these exposed photos are going to boost their careers.

It's like Kim Kardashian all over again!

D:
 
Eventhorizon said:
Sorry. The idea these people 1) dont know themselves that digital media is up for grabs is beyond me 2) they dont have a whole host of people warning them that it is up for grabs. It wasnt that long ago Scarlet Johanson and Oliva Munn had their photos "stolen".

I suggest its a stars way of posting porn these days (to boost their value) without suffering the repercussions of "what type of a moral less" person they must be for doing it.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure its as simple as that, I thought initially it could be that simple but having read a lot of the responses from the celebrities themselves I'm not so sure. They have been the victims of crime here, personal information was stolen, it could've been financial records but instead it was photographs, I think that's just as serious.

This actually makes me think about the whole "bling ring" case in which people were robbing celebrities and rich folk like Paris Hilton, a book was written about it and a film made, often because of the celebrity status, and even wealth, people imagine some how that the transgression of boundaries and criminal action is less so or less serious somehow, as though the rule of law doesnt extend to that class of people. That's unfair.
 
Lark said:
I'm not sure its as simple as that, I thought initially it could be that simple but having read a lot of the responses from the celebrities themselves I'm not so sure. They have been the victims of crime here, personal information was stolen, it could've been financial records but instead it was photographs, I think that's just as serious.

This actually makes me think about the whole "bling ring" case in which people were robbing celebrities and rich folk like Paris Hilton, a book was written about it and a film made, often because of the celebrity status, and even wealth, people imagine some how that the transgression of boundaries and criminal action is less so or less serious somehow, as though the rule of law doesnt extend to that class of people. That's unfair.
Click to expand...
You might be right. I might be as well. In the end though we are talking about people that neither of us know. So why... are we talking about them? :)
 
SpecialEdition said:
I mean, to me this isn't a big deal. A lot of these celebrities show up near naked in films and wear next to nothing out on the red carpet sometimes anyway. Their bodies are ALWAYS in our faces.

let's not even forget all of the websites that are out there that ex boyfriends and gf's and stuff use to post videos of them having sex with their ex, or photos that were sent in confidence, etc. How many celebrity sex tapes have been released? How many nude celebrity photos get released in comparison to the amount of men and women who have their own personal tapes and photos posted all over the internet for millions of people to see?

People are crying for Jennifer Lawrence who is still going to be famous as fuck and has millions and a fabulous career and everything but no one thinks twice about other people who don't have that power and influence who get their business posted all over the internet.

I mean, COME ON.

I am not justifying the hacking and everything but Jesus Christ. People need to get a bit of perspective.
Click to expand...

yes, it is OK for them to have control over their own bodies, and to choose when they want to display their bodies, and make their own decisions about why they want to do it.

no, it is not OK for people to distribute videos of them having sex with other people, without the consent of those other people.

yes, Jennifer Lawrence has a flourishing career and money.

i got really lost in your connections between these things.
 
invisible said:
yes, it is OK for them to have control over their own bodies, and to choose when they want to display their bodies, and make their own decisions about why they want to do it.

no, it is not OK for people to distribute videos of them having sex with other people, without the consent of those other people.

yes, Jennifer Lawrence has a flourishing career and money.

i got really lost in your connections between these things.
Click to expand...

I get annoyed that people get so bent out of shape, involving the FBI and all kinds of shit because it's a celebrity and yet a lot of other men and women who are subject to having their personal photos/videos leaked just get lost in the whole mix of things.
 
why is there a relationship between the fame a person has, and it being ok to screw them over? does it become more alright to screw them over the more famous they are, or the more they benefit in other ways by being screwed over? this is abusive thinking, when a person sets up their own idea of an exchange rate for screwing over another person. you decide that they got a good enough exchange, so you screwing them over for something makes it fair. that is an abusive way of relating to others.
 
Eventhorizon said:
You might be right. I might be as well. In the end though we are talking about people that neither of us know. So why... are we talking about them? :)
Click to expand...

Simply stated. I absolutely agree Eventhorizon.
 
invisible said:
why is there a relationship between the fame a person has, and it being ok to screw them over? does it become more alright to screw them over the more famous they are, or the more they benefit in other ways by being screwed over? this is abusive thinking, when a person sets up their own idea of an exchange rate for screwing over another person. you decide that they got a good enough exchange, so you screwing them over for something makes it fair. that is an abusive way of relating to others.
Click to expand...

I never said it was OK to screw anyone over. However, I think people who don't have the resources, fame, etc that these celebrities have will have a much tougher time eliminating those images from the internet or recovering from the situation. For example, if a teacher ends up having a personal photo plastered out there that was never meant to be seen, their career is pretty much over. But where is the justice for that person?

I am specifically and exclusively saying that I find it annoying how much attention and assistance people of a celebrity persuasion will get in a situation vs. someone who does not have these resources. This is not me making a judgement about right or wrong or that someone is deserving or less deserving of such a breach of privacy.

There is no abuse in what I am saying. What's abusive is the way these things are handled against the entire scale of people that it happens to.
 
Eventhorizon said:
You might be right. I might be as well. In the end though we are talking about people that neither of us know. So why... are we talking about them? :)
Click to expand...

I can see what you are hitting at but I do not believe that the limits of my conscience and interest are myself and those with which I am tied to by blood or intimate relationships.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top