General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThere is no moral difference between blaming a woman for having her pics stolen, or for being raped.
There is only a question of degree.
Recently, a scumbucket pervert misogynistic motherf***ing hacker stole a lot of nude photos of famous women and posted them online. And a lot of people who really should know better have said really stupid s*** like “it’s her own fault, because she posted them online”. BULL-F***ing-S***”.
This is victim-blaming crap, and it is usually done to women. It takes many forms. A few examples:
“She should have known better than to have nude pictures of herself”;
“She shouldn’t have been drinking”;
“She shouldn’t have gone to a party”;
Or, of course, this writer’s pet peeve; “She was asking for it, dressing that way”.
All of these statements are pretty much morally and socially equivalent: they are designed to control and degrade women, and have been used towards that end with (sadly) great success. And uttering any of them makes the speaker the moral equivalent of a peeping tom, Fundagelical wingnut preacher, rapist, or all of the above.
We don’t often (if ever) say these things about men. We don’t apply these antediluvian judgements to men. No, it’s pretty much always women who get the shame & blame treatment.
Until men are treated the same way as women, let’s all just stop treating women as if we were living in the dark f***ing ages. That isn’t really all that much to ask.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
randome
(34,845 posts)And you want to change that? Good luck.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you don't give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else, you're cheating someone.[/center][/font][hr]
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)or a mother? Men should care.
randome
(34,845 posts)I have two 17-year-old daughters and they are very self-confident about themselves and their bodies. I am confident that stolen selfies would not be the same as 'rape' to them.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you don't give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else, you're cheating someone.[/center][/font][hr]
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)Or that we all should 'aspire' to the same because somewhere in the world, there might be a troubled teen with thoughts of suicide?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)and/or distribute them without their consent, since if they were comfortable with having *their* nude pics released, *they*, personally, would have released them. It's not about body image.
randome
(34,845 posts)I just object to the idea that every woman -and apparently every man- should feel revolted, violated, whatever at having some pics made public.
Different people are different.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)but as I said, if they felt comfortable with the public viewing the photos they would have released them themselves. Obviously they weren't and didn't, and they all do seem to feel violated.
riqster
(13,986 posts)
chervilant
(8,267 posts)Maybe you should reread this OP...
From what I've read, the individuals whose pics were hacked did not intend them for public consumption. AND, a buttload of keyboard jockeys have -- as this OP notes obliquely -- made vile sexist and misogynistic statements about the young women whose pics were stolen.
(Color me NOT surprised at your comments...)
eridani
(51,907 posts)Should the majority be forced to accommodate the smal minority that can die from anaphylactic shock because of exposure to peanuts? Fuck yes they should!
cui bono
(19,926 posts)It has to do with someone committing a CRIME and STEALING those pics and then blasting them out to the public on the internet. Even women who love their bodies would probably mind if someone did that to them, don't you think?
Why can't some people get it into their heads that this was a crime of theft to begin with?
randome
(34,845 posts)I don't see it as 'morally equivalent' to rape, though. I think that's an overdone analogy. Otherwise, Anthony Weiner would feel 'morally raped' and I don't think he did.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Sometimes it seems like the only purpose in life is to keep your car from touching another's.[/center][/font][hr]
First of all, that is a statement with no proof. If you have proof,kindly present it.
Secondly, it is beside the point. All it does is reinforce my OP by being a sexist post.
randome
(34,845 posts)'What rot', indeed. All I'm saying is that you expect men to feel the same as women and to feel violated when some pics are stolen. I think that's ridiculous. Sure, some men may feel the same but I doubt most would.
Just my opinion.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you don't give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else, you're cheating someone.[/center][/font][hr]
riqster
(13,986 posts)Saying "men feel x or y" is neither a refutation of, nor a direct response to the topic. It is a classic patriarchal distraction attempt to create a false equivalence.
I'm having none of it.
randome
(34,845 posts)I took that to mean that men should react as if their world is collapsing because a nude selfie got out to the public.
There are aspects of both genders to admire. Men do not need to 'act' like women, whatever that means.
If I misconstrued that part, my apologies.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]
riqster
(13,986 posts)Pretty much what, you know, the words SAID.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)Last edited Fri Sep 5, 2014, 03:45 PM - Edit history (1)
It was taken back in the 80's when I was in a nudist pageant. There were 12 guys and 12 women. Were all are posted by someone who either took the pics or got them from someone else.
I know it is different from a selfie but even if it weren't no one connects me to the picture so it really doesn't matter much.
riqster
(13,986 posts)When people aren't OK with it, we need to respect that, too.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)posting nude selfies and videos.
Nudity is a popular thing as long as it is a beautiful nude and it isn't you.
riqster
(13,986 posts)I know people that post nude selfies to kink sites. Their choice. No worries.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)I was at Black's beach in San Diego in the early 80's. People were celebrating ten years since Blacks was declared a legal nude beach.
I was body painted and the local TV station was there and filmed me and the woman who painted me. Since I was out in public the station did not ask my permission just what my name was. I ended up nude on local news, two magazines a video and a girl's term paper.
But we would never take a person's picture without getting permission at the beach and harassed guys who did. Nude beach etiquette is no cameras. These days guys use cell phones and it is harder to police it.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Goes back to my commune days and the "do no harm is the whole of the law" ideology.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)I miss those times. I did not live in a commune but did live in a clothing optional apartment complex in Los Angeles.
Our gang had parties went dancing and to the beach all the time. Some of the best years of my life.
I also lived at Elysium in Topanga Canyon one summer which was almost a commune .
riqster
(13,986 posts)
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)But I work for a pretty conservative organization - there would probably be problems for me if that happened.
Bryant
riqster
(13,986 posts)
pnwmom
(108,975 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)But if rape is rape and stolen pics are stolen pics, well... 
[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you don't give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else, you're cheating someone.[/center][/font][hr]
And irrelevant.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)for carrying money. If they did not want to be robbed they shouldn't put money in their wallets. If they did not want their stereo to be stolen, they should not have bought one.
It is about a violation of their personal things. The fact that it is one of the most personal things is even more of a violation.
riqster
(13,986 posts)
Drale
(7,932 posts)that would ruin your life such as your social security card or a card with all your "secret information" written on it. Money can be replaced, credit cards can be canceled. You shouldn't keep something you don't want stolen on your phone, which we all know have major security flaws.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Would to God that were the case. Alas, tech companies promise security. And people believe it.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)Please. Stop blaming the victims.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Dr. Strange
(25,919 posts)Is there also no difference between Bush's email being hacked and his paintings "stolen" or being raped?
riqster
(13,986 posts)Please elaborate.
Dr. Strange
(25,919 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)It's beyond apples and oranges: more like apples and moon rocks.
Dr. Strange
(25,919 posts)Bush didn't consent to having his email account hacked. Why doesn't he have the same right to expect his account to not be hacked?
What's the difference between someone hacking Jennifer Lawrence's cloud account and Bush's email account?
riqster
(13,986 posts)The reason I say it's an inapplicable example is that it does not deal with sexual violence, morality, and the differences between genders. It does not address the core of the OP.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)I've got to rant.... I've been reading way too many articles about the whole "nude celebrity hacking scandal" and the more I read the more pissed off I get.
1) Just because a celebrity gets paid money to act doesn't mean the world has carte blanche to her or his naked image when taken in the privacy of their homes (or hotels or wherever).
2) Saying that "If they don't want their images on the Internet, they shouldn't take nude pictures of themselves and keep them on their phone, in the cloud, etc." is blaming the victim of a crime.
That's like saying you shouldn't have parked your car in the parking lot it was parked in when someone decides to bust the windows to steal your change.
We all too often blames victims of crimes, particularly if those victims happen to be women. Is anyone talking about the man who is in those nude photos? Is anyone blaming him? No, it's all about the women who were "stupid" for thinking that their password protected phones were safe.
3) About the guys who collected money for the hacker to post those images, why is no one blaming them? They basically had a fundraiser so they could pay the hacker to make the images public. Why are we not condemning their behavior?
4) Why such contempt for women? We are your mothers, your sisters, your spouses, your grandmothers and your aunts. Without women, men would not be on this planet. Without women, boys wouldn't have been fed and nurtured and bathed. Basically, do you talk to your mother with that mouth? Just because you're anonymous behind a keyboard you think it's okay to call women sluts or whores or any of the crasser comments I've seen in regards to this issue? What makes you think you're entitled to this kind of behavior? And didn't your mother raise you better?
Rant almost over. I know not all men are like this... I live with two very fine, upstanding men and know several more that I've seen respect women more than most of these anonymous men (and some women) have been treating this issue.
One final point that seems contradictory to my entire rant: nothing on the Internet is private but that doesn't mean we shouldn't expect privacy when we pay for a service that offers secure storage or women should expect to be treated like bimbos because their privacy was breached.
riqster
(13,986 posts)It points up the irrationality of the paradigm: these women did take reasonable precautions, so to shame and blame in this case is even worse. It's willfully behaving in a malignant and patriarchal manner.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)
JustAnotherGen
(31,810 posts)“He should have known better than to drive a nice car in a bad neighborhood”
“She shouldn’t have stopped at the ATM”
“He shouldn’t have gone to the movies or he wouldn't have gotten shot"
"He was asking for it, using a credit card at Home Depot"
I seriously can't believe people don't get this riqster. It's simple. It's basic. Some things are simply right and wrong. There is no room for nuance.
riqster
(13,986 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,810 posts)
What if - what if it were me? That's the question I ask myself. But I connect/empathize with other human beings a tad bit too much.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Surviving sexual assault and its aftermath has made me pretty much a warrior for this cause.
Kudos for the empathy. More people should be thus.
JustAnotherGen
(31,810 posts)
Too many men won't speak up about the horror of that. Thank you for your voice. riqster
(13,986 posts)As an adult, male privilege keeps a recurrence from happening. Women are at risk from childhood through their entire lives.
It's hard for me to feel hard done by overall, when I see the struggles of women, POC, LGBTQ individuals, etc.
Not trying to minimize, of course. Thanks again.
Response to riqster (Reply #17)
Laelth This message was self-deleted by its author.
pnwmom
(108,975 posts) ann---
(1,933 posts)"what if it were me," wouldn't apply in all cases because most people wouldn't pose for nude photos taken and stored on an iphone/computer.
JustAnotherGen
(31,810 posts)When I Was going through all of my medical tests.
What if those are in some cloud somewhere?
Most people don't take pics?
I haven't - but still - what if it were me.
It's possible. Put yourself in my shoes . . . With an extreme distrust of communications technology - because I work in it - and see how brute force and social engineering comes into play every day.
riqster
(13,986 posts)The fact is, mostly women are thus victimized. But men of good will should not be called out in a negative manner for trying to empathize, by visualizing themselves in such straits.
Good on you for showing that empathy. And fie on the Church Lady for discounting it.
ann---
(1,933 posts)taken for egotistical reasons to admire yourself or have others admire you. The reasons were different. I have no idea why such medical test pictures (showing your face, too?) would even be taken, let alone put on a "cloud" somewhere in cyberspace.
riqster
(13,986 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,810 posts)For collaboration across countries for rare diseases.
Now what if I become famous and someone gets into that and posts pics of my naked backside? I mean - I'm heading towards hunchback of Notre Dame territory but still . . .
Full disclosure - I work in wireless in a kind of weird job that has me in a place that says - nothing is private. I will never use a wireless wallet.
We have a credit card we use specifically for restaurants - a limit of $1K. It's a constant battle to get Chase to keep it there. Why? I have to let it out of my site.
We also have a card that we use solely for online transactions.
I do not use my companies cloud.
And I resent that we (the consumer) can no longer take our batteries out of our advanced devices.
riqster
(13,986 posts)I agreed to all of that when I signed up. Full disclosure and consent. I live in a house of glass, as Edmond Dantes said.
But even with all of that, my employer doesn't have the right to post images of me to the web. My secrets are safe with them, because the law does not allow their sharing outside of our agreed framework.
Celebs agree to far less disclosure when they sign up for secure cloud storage. And according to some DUers, anything "nekkid" should be fair game if a crook decides to leak it.
JustAnotherGen
(31,810 posts)HLA-B27 triggered - my back is a mess - and I shouldn't have the disease in the way it is presenting. If someone at John Hopkins can look at the external pictures in full flare - that's a good thing. Hell - use it in a medical text to show the external swelling on the spine and hips!
All pictures are egotistical aren't they?
riqster
(13,986 posts)My issues seem simple by comparison. Hang in there.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)
ann---
(1,933 posts)I never said they did.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)It is a stolen life . . .
Many actresses who have private nude photos taken have or will go nude in a movie to sell tickets, but nobody raped will would take up that offer.....
I hate rapists, who are in a different category than greedy thieves or photographers....
riqster
(13,986 posts)Orrex
(63,200 posts)It's only a difference of degree.
I guess you have no problem with people giving you paper cuts and you have no right to complain when they do.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)(Obviously I mean rape vs. nude photo hacking, not your analogy.)
Orrex
(63,200 posts)Pilfering someone's french fry while they're not looking is a violation of consent.
Holding someone hostage and raping her in a basement in Ohio for over a decade is a violation of consent.
I see no value in positing the equivalence, especially when (as in the OP) the equivalence is simply asserted outright.
Further, it comes across as a blithe trivialization of rape, as evidenced by a number of replies in the thread. The next time a friend is raped, for instance, should I comfort her by reminding her that at least none of her pictures were stolen?
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)I don't know where you're getting this from. I just said rape was far worse than mere invasion of privacy.
Orrex
(63,200 posts)Perhaps I can comfort her by reminding her that although her rape is much worse, at least none of her pictures were stolen.
What is the value of positing the equivalence, beyond a vague attempt at a Gotcha! moment?
riqster
(13,986 posts)Orrex
(63,200 posts)There will always be a "she was asking to be raped" mentality, and that is indeed the mentality of an asshole.
However, in the current discussion, the claimed moral equivalence has not been demonstrated, merely asserted.
I am not convinced that most people who fault these women for uploading the pictures would as readily fault them being raped. Since you're the one making the claim of moral equivalence, it's up to you to support this claim, and you need to articulate specifically why it is a difference of degree and not of kind.
the more immediate equivalence, for example, could be identified by pointing out the hypocrisy of a person who happily downloads pirated music but condemns the downloading of these stolen images.
riqster
(13,986 posts)We can draw inferences from behavior, and that is about it. Even large academic studies on the topic are reliant on such means. They can apply controls, gather and sort data, but at the end of day, morality is an internalized construct, not easily quantifiable in itself.
I have drawn a conclusion based on behavior. I accept that you have drawn a different one.
pnwmom
(108,975 posts)The stolen and posted pictures and rape are both violations -- different in degree, but they're both violations.
There is a HUGE difference between being raped and having nude photos made public. Most people would not equate the two or even compare them because one involves violent physical contact and one doesn't.
riqster
(13,986 posts)
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Consenting to have a naked photo of you in a movie is not the same as having a naked photo of you taken without your consent. Even if someone decided later to appear naked in a movie, that still doesn't make it OK. Your justification sounds a lot like people saying a rape isn't so bad or might not really be rape because of someone's sexual history.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)But I can't get on board with the "any criticism of a victims activity is victim blaming" crowd. Mostly because it encourages people to never take basic steps for their own privacy and security.
Yes, people should never hack anyone's computer and steal private materials. Men should never rape. Burgalers should never steal.
But this isn't the fantasy world of black and white where we can wave a magic wand and just make all that behavior go away.
So we have to acknowledge that evil and bad people exist. And we have to take some basic measures in out lives to deal with them.
That isn't victim blaming. It is reality.
And when someone points out that if you put something online there is an increased chance others will have access, that isn't victim blaming. It's pointing out a fact that simply is a fact, with hopes that maybe others will realize that.
It doesn't mean they are to blame. It does mean their actions did make them more vulnerable to this happening. And you can't argue that fact- their actions made them vulnerable to having the pictures stolen.
I've responded to lots of calls for stolen goods where they were stolen from unlocked cars, sheds and homes. By leaving it unlocked they made it easier for the thief. Does that mean that they are to blame for somebody taking their stuff? NO! And pointing that lapse in security out is not victim blaming- it's pointing out a fact that hopefully they will learn from.
I've been accused of victim blaming and being an advocate of rape culture because I teach women's self defense courses, and include parts about how to be aware of your surroundings to maybe prevent a crime and how to fight back if attacked. I've been told I should focus all my energy on "teaching men not to rape" instead of teaching women how to defend themselves because that's victim blaming. And it's horseshit. The reality is that you will never "teach away" rape, some people are simply evil, and if you are going to be realistic you have to deal with that.
Does that mean I would ever blame or lay blame on a rape victim? Of course not. And I am one of probably very few here who Have responded to and dealt with a rape victim after an attack.
It does mean that any time a woman is attacked I want for her to have the tools to resist is she can and chooses to. How she does and if she does is entirely her call and not to be criticized. But if she has been taught how to gouge his eyes out or strike his Adam's apple she has a better chance of preventing or ending the rape.
I've never once blamed a victim for a rape. I have told lots of young women about to head off to their first year away at college about the reality of how much drinking to excess and other activities can increase their risk for a sexual assault. That's not blaming anyone who does that and gets assaulted, the assault is every bit as bad as any other. It is empowering them with knowledge about what activities increase their risk of being a victim of a predator so they can at least make informed decisions.
We can't go about our lives taking zero responsibility for out own security and safety and expect everyone else to be angels and never cause us harm. Life doesn't work like that. Yes, in a perfect world we should never even need a key for our cars because nobody would steal one- but if somebody parks a car unlocked with keys in it in a high crime area they did something pretty stupid. And if their car gets stolen they are every bit as much the victim as any other car theft victim, but their actions still were stupid and made it easier for them to be victimized.
Pointing out that poor decisions can lead to bad things isn't victim blaming.
"If you post your photos to the cloud they are more vulnerable to hacking and theft." Is a statement of fact, no more.
Now if you say "Anyone who puts pictures online deserves to have them stolen and spread around." That is victim blaming.
There is a difference.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Very few people apply that degree of specificity, unfortunately.
As someone who has decades of experience in IT and some years in public safety as well, I can say that details are important there, too. People do stupid things sometimes, and those cases are not addressed by my OP.
When someone puts content into a secure environment, they are paying for a stated degree of security, have the right to expect that degree of security, and are blameless when that security is either not provided or is breached.
Rather like being unlocked vs. locked vs. put into a safe. Regardless of the valuables, when the owners exercise responsibility, they should not be blamed.
And sad to say, your post doesn't really touch on the gender inequality matter. But it's pretty damned huge in this case, and it shouldn't be excluded.
pnwmom
(108,975 posts)So why can't everyone else acknowledge that these women took proper precautions -- Apple did not.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Yes, Apple failed.
Does that mean that expecting Apple to have 100% perfect security was a wise move?
Is expecting 100% perfect security for anything connected to the internet wise?
If my credit card gets hacked when I shop online, it's the fault of the merchant I shopped with and not me. But I acknowledge that there are people out there who are trying every day day to steal that info, so I have have a credit card with lots of protections set up to notify me of every transaction via text and a debit card on a separate account that only gets funded when I need it and I use only those cards online.
Same concept. You can be not to blame and still have made smarter decisions that would have avoided the situation.
riqster
(13,986 posts)You are blaming the victim in this case, even though Apple has assumed liability.
Apple took the step because they failed to live up to their promises and violated contract terms.
The women in this case were not at fault. Those are the facts of the matter.
And your continued assignment of blame in spite of being shown facts to the contrary makes you an exemplar of the behavior under discussion.
Here's hoping that if my daughters or granddaughter are ever assaulted, someone unlike you responds to the call.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)The fact that even when you depend on others for security, you still make a judgement about the risk of trusting them.
Yes, Apple failed. That isn't in dispute.
The question is- is it reasonable to expect that Apple, or anyone else, would have 100% perfect security? Does Apple promise 100% perfect security?
Anyone who understands internet security or anything else knows that nothing is perfect. If it is online, it is vulnerable.
The blame is Apples and the Hackers.
But had those hacked been more cautious, this wouldn't have happened.
Both of those statements are accurate and true, and don't negate each other. Pointing out the latter should at least serve to get others to think before trusting a third party to secure sensitive data.
riqster
(13,986 posts)It's as old as the hills, but a lot less solid.
Nothing in the real universe is 100% certain with the possible exceptions of entropy and our own demise.
So you'd say that I am partly to blame for walking down a sidewalk, protected by a stone wall between it and the street, obeying all laws, and being struck by a drunk driver who came up on my blind side at a high rate of speed and impacted the wall faster than I could dodge? Because nothing is 100% safe, it's on me?
Nonsense. We have 100% certainty of nothing, not even of our next breath. Even staying at home, cowering under the bed is not 100% safe, because the house could catch fire.
No, liability does not work that way. Most of us know this. I imagine you do as well.
But it's telling that the one place you DO insist on 100% percent certainty has to do with women and sexual assault. Pretty much exposes you as a sexist and a misogynist so far as I can tell, because of your selective application of the fallacy.
Racists do the same thing, you know. Even if a POC is doing everything right, there is a chance they'll be blamed when victimized, because they should have known better than, say, to make eye contact with that white man (see 1SBM's recent post).
Selective application of the fallacy reveals much about the person applying it.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)If you are on a sidewalk protected by a stone wall, that would be considered low risk to a car hitting you.
Much lower risk than putting anything in the cloud and having it stolen.
It's not just about women and sexual assault- did you not see my above posts about car theft and other crimes. There are steps, all of us, can take to reduce our risk of being a crime victim. Pointing that out is not victim blaming, it's pointing out facts.
A great example is I responded to a burglary where guns were stolen. They were in a locked gun cabinet- the kind with a glass front. So needless to say while the victim did have them locked up the security was crappy.
Was he to blame for the thieves stealing his guns? No- the thieves were, they commuted the crime and were 100% to blame.
But despite that, had he had the guns locked in a real safe they would not have been stolen, because the thieves were teenagers who didn't have the ability to open a safe.
That a safe would have provided better security and stopped the theft is a simple fact. I don't think anyone would disagree that keeping guns in a real safe is far smarter than in a glass front case.
That a safe is more secure is fact. Pointing that fact out does not assign blame.
Same in this case- that there are for more secure ways to store sensitive data than a mass-market commercial cloud service is a fact. Pointing that out isn't assigning blame, despite the desperate attempts at some to label any discussion of what a person can do to avoid crime as "victims blaming".
riqster
(13,986 posts)The only people still trying desperately to blame the women are people like you.
Think about it. Think about what it reveals about you. Think long, hard, and with brutal honesty.
It's sexist. It's misogynistic. It's selective. It's demeaning. It's morally wrong. It's an attitude far more suited to Teabaggers than a progressive board.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)You keep saying that, yet I have many times said they are not to blame.
It's like you are desperate to see me say that.
It's quite possible to say that there are steps a person could have taken to prevent being a crime victim while not assigning blame to them.
To equate discussion of reasonable security and safety measures with victim blaming does nothing but discourage anyone from ever taking affirmative steps for their own safety.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)If you dont accept that reality then you are potentially opening yourself up to be a victim.
The internet is not secure no matter what company tells you it is. You should be aware of that, pretending it is anything else is foolish.
Or perhaps you are now going to go out and preach how secure apples servers are? Despite it having been proved otherwise?
riqster
(13,986 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)I am tempted to believe you are trolling.
mythology
(9,527 posts)Taking basic safety precautions isn't blaming the victim. It's taking steps to avoid being a victim. I don't leave my car or house unlocked. Why? Because while I can't stop every thief, I can take steps to deter the ones looking for the easiest targets.
Putting something online that isn't already encrypted is running a risk. Obviously not everybody knows that. But we have reached a time where everybody should. All of the cloud services that are designed for ease of use like iCloud, like Dropbox aren't as safe as other options. The easier it is to retrieve something the less secure it is.
Likewise Apple should have known to implement a password attempt limit because that's even more basic internet security and Apple is a software company.
And of course the hacker(s) is(are) wrong for stealing the data.
Personally I would assign most of the blame to the hacker(s) as they committed an actively unethical act. Then to Apple for implementing bad security.
And yes I would say that the people who were hacked didn't use the best online security protocols. Did they deserve it? Obviously not. But they probably could have taken some steps to not be as vulnerable as well.
There is a world of difference between saying they deserved it and they could have prevented it. I could have prevented my debit card from being caught in the Target breach by only paying in cash. But that risk is weighed, consciously or not, against the ease of paying via the debit card and risk of carrying more cash.
riqster
(13,986 posts)No, the bulk of comments trash the tech companies for their crap security.
But let some images of female flesh be stolen and uploaded, and it all changes.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)My bet is you cant link a single post doing what you claim.
riqster
(13,986 posts)
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)pnwmom
(108,975 posts)who tell women that they shouldn't walk in strange neighborhoods, or at night, or by themselves, or in the wrong clothing.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Cause nothing bad will happen to them?
What a stupid statement.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)Bloody pathetic. Try to form a cogent thesis at least.
The point of the OP is: women are blamed for any crime committed against them if sexuality is any way involved with the crime. And that is morally reprehensible.
And the moral failing is rooted in sexism, misogyny, and gender inequality.
Care to offer a reasoned rebuttal? Or will you just hurl more inane insults?
Come on. Show some feckin' intellect.
sub.theory
(652 posts)"How could you be so stupid?" That's what you're really asking, isn't it? How could someone be so stupid as to upload nude pictures into the cloud?
Far too many rape victims have had this same question demanded of them. Of course, the insinuation is that they are, at least partly, responsible for their own rape. It's their fault that they weren't more careful.
It's interesting that when your house is broken into, no one blames you for such lax vigilance. When you are hit by a drunk driver, no one blames you for not being more observant of your surroundings. When you are carjacked, no one blames you for being in the wrong place. Why is it always so different with women and sex crime?
Why do some many think just like you do: "how could she be so stupid?"
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Good question. Let's see if you get an answer.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Virtually everyone knows they shouldn't go "walking in dangerous neighborhoods" late at night, alone. That's just common sense. But when you put the main (or sole) focus on what the victim did or didn't do, it leads easily to diminishing the perpetrator's responsibility for the crime, or even to implying that some people are less worthy of not being victimized than others are.
I'm talking about commenters in general here, not necessarily you specifically.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Anyone who does anything online should be aware that what they do has the potential to viewed by others despite any supposed security and should act accordingly.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Based on the standard here.
riqster
(13,986 posts)And the defrauded consumer is at fault?
Bollocks.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)No one in this subthread has said the consumer was at fault. What has been said over and over is that putting sensitive material online is not good idea, something you admit several times in this thread you specifically go out of your way not to do.
You are looking to point your finger at people it seems by pretending they are saying something they are not.
Stating a fact that storing sensitive material online is not wise is not victim blaming no no matter how many times you you pretend it is.
riqster
(13,986 posts)But people say "don't post your nude pictures", as if that were relevant. It is not.
Medical records get hacked, and almost no one criticizes the patient or the doctor.
Credit card data gets hacked, and almost no one bashes the cardholder.
But if it is female flesh in pictorial form, ohhhhhh nooes, pundits and posters claim it's the woman's fault.
Bollocks. Big, steaming heaps of donkey bollocks.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)one is avoidable where the others are not really.
Cant really stop using your credit cards or stop having medical records. You can however easily chose not to store your nude pics in the cloud. Something you yourself have said repeatedly you do.
You finger waving is bullshit.
riqster
(13,986 posts)You insist that something of which you disapprove is subject to different rules, technology and contractual law than things of which you do approve.
Regardless of content, consumers should get what they pay for when purchasing secure storage. Doesn't matter if it's genealogy, cat pictures, bank statements or nude selfies. And nowhere is there an out clause allowing a vendor to publicly share content it doesn't care for.
Your approval has not one thing to do with the consumer's right to receive services contracted for.
sir pball
(4,741 posts)Apple shall use reasonable skill and due care in providing the Service, but, TO THE GREATEST EXTENT PERMISSIBLE BY APPLICABLE LAW, APPLE DOES NOT GUARANTEE OR WARRANT THAT ANY CONTENT YOU MAY STORE OR ACCESS THROUGH THE SERVICE WILL NOT BE SUBJECT TO INADVERTENT DAMAGE, CORRUPTION, LOSS, OR REMOVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, AND APPLE SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE SHOULD SUCH DAMAGE, CORRUPTION, LOSS, OR REMOVAL OCCUR.
…
You are solely responsible for maintaining the confidentiality and security of your Account and for all activities that occur on or through your Account, and you agree to immediately notify Apple of any security breach of your Account.
https://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/icloud/en/terms.html
TBH, I don't think it's necessarily "victim blaming" to point out it's not the best idea to store compromising personal information, be it nekkid pics or your tax returns, on somebody else's servers with no guarantee of security. It's not "it's YOUR fault for doing it" (it isn't, the responsibility lies with the leakers and to a lesser extent Apple), but I do think it's fair to say that at the least, we all need to be clear, and not via a few lines buried in a licensing agreement that nobody actually reads, that data in "the cloud" is not secure unless explicitly warranted to be so, and there is a risk of your data being exposed if it stored there.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)That's one way to rationalize it...
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)I am not justifying blaming the victim for having one's pictures stolen, I am questioning categorizing the difference between this situation and blaming rape victims as simply "a matter of degree".
riqster
(13,986 posts)I am saying that the moral failings of those who blame the victims of these crimes are equivalent.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Yes it is the same category of 'moral failing': "victim blaming" but minimizing the gigantic difference between exactly what the victim was a victim of in these two cases seems wrong to me.
riqster
(13,986 posts)posing for those nude photos was consensual. Rape is not. Rape is trivialized when it is compared to the egotistical display of one's naked body.
The crime is having the photos stolen. That would be a crime no matter WHAT was in the photo.
Rape is forced sexual intercourse. Equating the two is disrespectful to rape victims of both genders.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)the theft was not consensual.
ann---
(1,933 posts)It's not even remotely saying anything like that. It's saying that rape and theft of nude photos taken with CONSENT are NOT the same.
And, the theft did not do physical harm to the person who WILLINGLY posed for the nude photos.
Theft of nude photos is not even remotely comparable to rape. Ask anyone who has been raped.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)without your consent is the same as having sex without consent. However, the arguments defending and minimizing either comes from the same moral stance.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Explained it very well.
ann---
(1,933 posts)read the title of the original post which states:
There is no moral difference between blaming a woman for having her pics stolen, or for being raped.
THAT is totally, 100% incorrect, in my view, and is the same as saying that having your naked pics distributed without your consent is the same as having sex without consent.
I am not the one "conflating" two issues.
riqster
(13,986 posts)It says that the morality behind victim -blaming is the same in these cases; not that the crimes are equivalent.
ann---
(1,933 posts)because the person WILLINGLY posed nude and put them on an iphone/computer. That certainly doesn't give anyone the right to steal those photos and distribute them, but it is NOT like rape. And, it trivializes the ordeal of those who were raped. in my opinion.
riqster
(13,986 posts)That fact destroys your argument. And exposes you as a prime example of the immoral behavior called out in the OP.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)is not the same as saying the events are the same.
ann---
(1,933 posts)"similar" to rape. Rape is an UNWILLING PHYSICAL attack on one's person - not distribution of nude photos that were WILLINGLY taken.
riqster
(13,986 posts)
Mz Pip
(27,439 posts)Just because a woman consents to have sex with someone doesn't mean she is consenting to be raped by someone else.
Just because a woman takes photos in the privacy of her own home for her boyfriend or husband , it doesn't mean the world has the right to see them.
What is it about consent that people don't understand?
riqster
(13,986 posts)I don't, however, want to minimize the gender inequality aspect. It is important as well.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Kind of like how, in the Zimmerman case, a lot of people focused on Martin's history of pot smoking and (minor) disciplinary issues, despite those being almost entirely irrelevant.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)
AuntPatsy
(9,904 posts)Sad...
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)and slut shaming is the same.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)ie, what's the big deal, it's just nudity, get me a fainting couch....
know what I mean?
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)but its certainly minimizing the damage to the victims.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)it's just the opposite of slut shaming.
judging a woman based on her sexuality or perceived sexuality.
ie, calling women frigid, cold, prudes.... because a woman states she thinks it's wrong to steal naked photo's and distribute them to the world. Believe me it happens.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)to the hacked photos. Link please.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)read what is written, please. and please stop demanding links from me.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)And I'm going to ask again. Please link to the post calling you a prude for objecting to the release of the hacked photos.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)No they just intimate it. You know sort of what happens when one is slut shamed. The word slut doesn't have to be uttered for the shaming to occur. You had your bout with it upthread.
Now that I've answered you twice now, I hope you can move on.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)ie....What's the matter with them being upset about their nude photo's being every where. It's just nudity. people need to stop being so uptight.... etc. it's not slut shaming.... it the you know the opposite.
Now can you move on, please. I've answered you three times. One where you asked a question not based in reality, another asking the same, but in a much more accusatory fashion, all because you are failing to comprehend what I have written or you have twisted it.... and lastly go on to tell me that I am wrong for not providing you proof to something you misread and you claiming victory that you are right.....
Reading comprehension is important.
BuckeyeBrad
(15 posts)And rape was used as an example because it's an instance where it's easier to see the act of victim blaming as a horrible thing to do. The act of blaming a victim for a crime committed against them is the same act regardless of the crime committed. Basically it's an awful thing to do on its own regardless of the crime you are blaming the victim for.
riqster
(13,986 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)On this site in particular.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Surprising and disappointing.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)not the kind of using the poster can see themselves doing.
If those women didn't want to be fap fodder for internet losers they shouldn't have been born female.
It's not people ignoring consent. It's technology! These days you can't walk up the street without tripping over a masturbating robot.
I'm not posting a sarcasm icon because if anybody thinks that's serious I don't fucking know what to tell them.
riqster
(13,986 posts)davidn3600
(6,342 posts)The internet is not safe and secure. There is no privacy online. There are hackers, scammers, spammers, trolls, perverts, liars, cheats, and thieves. Basically it is everyone you deal with in real life, but much more anonymously.
So it's just not wise to pass pictures of your nude self through unsecured networks.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Turns out, the security was less than advertised, but the people involved did their due diligence.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)Some storage is secure, some not.
sub.theory
(652 posts)You're making exactly the argument the OP is very rightly criticizing. Is it ok to rob your home if you didn't have a foolproof security system and a Rottweiler? Is it ok to rob a store if they didn't have proper loss prevention? I mean, everyone knows there's robbers!
Is it ok to rape a woman if she's wearing a short skirt? Well, I guess she should have had some mace, right? This is the crazy argument you are making. Seriously, can you really not see how wrong this is?
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)What's going on here is Im coming from a realist perspective and you are coming from an idealist perspective.
Your solution is that hackers shouldn't hack and that people shouldn't violate the privacy of others. I agree with you. However, it's not realistically possible. That's like trying to solve crime by telling people not to commit it. It isn't going to work. There will always be hackers on the internet. That will never go away.
The one hacker broke into Scarlett Johanssen's phone and stole her pics and got 10 years in prison. That didn't deter this latest hacker from going into Jennifer Lawrence's iCloud account and stealing pics. No matter what laws you pass, hackers will always be there. These kind of hackers dont care about the government's laws and they don't care about respecting women.
You are providing no realistic solutions to a real world problem and then attack anyone that attempts to explain the nature of that real world problem.
riqster
(13,986 posts)On other words, what I described in the OP.
sub.theory
(652 posts)We are not discussing the particulars of internet security. No one here is against improved security to protect people from the hackers and other scumbags of the world. The issue is people blaming the victims of a disgusting crime. It doesn't matter how good or bad the security of iCloud was or whether it is wise to be putting nude photos into the cloud. That doesn't excuse the crime that was committed and the victimization of these women. Saying that they should have known better is just further victimizing them. That is the OP's point, and a very valid one. Can you see that this isn't about internet security? I don't think you are in favor of these women's victimization, but it really does add to their victimization to criticize them for not being more careful. That is exactly what many, many rape victims are told. That is the point here.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Which has the (even if unintended) effect of downplaying the perpetrators' responsibility for what they did.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)No one is saying the hacker isn't to blame or responsible. But what exactly do you want? OK let's blame the hacker, who we can't find. And then continue to upload our nude pictures to unsecured networks.
Let's see how that plan works out.
There is an issue here of common sense and taking precautions. All I am saying is that if people are going to take nude pictures of themselves, they should take precautions. If you are going to post it on the internet, just be aware the internet is NOT a secure place. Don't operate under the assumption that your data is ever secure and private. I dont care what Apple or Microsoft says...their networks and devices are NOT secure.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)unsecured networks." It's just that this particular invasion of privacy seems, oftentimes, to be treated less sympathetically than others (like, say, theft of bank account info).
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)SHOCKED if you belatedly learn that the Internet is not hack-proof (have these actresses not heard of Edward Snowden?!).
If a store "didn't have proper loss prevention" and is subsequently robbed, you'd better believe the insurance company would NOT be sympathetic to YOUR argument.
sub.theory
(652 posts)I'm not wrong at all. You're just refusing to accept that blaming the victim is morally repugnant and further victimizes them. This is sadly not at all uncommon when women are sexually abused.
When a woman is murdered by an abusive husband are you part of that crowd that says, "Well they should have had a gun"? That argument is rightly scorned by most people. Would it have improved her chances of survival? Maybe. Still, most people recognize that the woman isn't in any way responsible for her death. But when it comes to sex crime, far too often it's the victim's fault.
"She shouldn't have gotten drunk."
"She should have gotten in his car."
"She shouldn't have let him in her house."
"She shouldn't have worn that outfit."
"She shouldn't have been flirting with him."
"She's slept with everyone"
You're making the EXACT same argument whether you want to admit it or not.
Women are not responsible for their victimization no matter how unwise or risky their decisions may have been leading up to it. It is repugnant to suggest otherwise. You aren't even suggesting it. You're loudly stating it.
If you want to advise women that storing nude photos online puts them at danger, that is one thing. It is ENTIRELY different to claim it's their fault their photos were stolen because they put them online (in a secure, non-public space).
I'm sorry you can't understand that, and it speaks volumes about how you see women.
phil89
(1,043 posts)Is it the same as blaming him for being raped?
riqster
(13,986 posts)Last edited Sat Sep 6, 2014, 09:04 AM - Edit history (1)
But it's not the same social and cultural situation. Women are oppressed and men are not. (Edit: assuming that we are referring to white men in North America, the dominant socioeconomic class.)
phil89
(1,043 posts)for being raped than to blame a man for being raped?
riqster
(13,986 posts)
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]
riqster
(13,986 posts)dem in texas
(2,674 posts)Look at Governor McDonald. It was all his wife's fault. Look at the Time cable ad where the coach is giving a disposition to the two attorneys and they discover that the coach was not called to testify. One attorney calls out a woman' name, as though she is his secretary, it was her fault that the coach is there. It is built into a man's DNA to blame a woman for everything that he can't get away with or goes wrong in his life. How many men who beat or kill their wives, say it was her fault because she wouldn't leave him along, nagged him too much, wouldn't do what he said, spent too much, it goes on and on.
sub.theory
(652 posts)It's disgusting the number of people defending this or minimizing it. I guess if they can get their rocks off, then it's fine and who cares about the damage to these women. The theft of these pictures is a gross violation of these women, and there is just no way to defend it otherwise. I agree that it's disturbingly similar to "slut shaming" rape victims. Both are disgusting attempts to blame the victim for being victimized.
frustrated_lefty
(2,774 posts)Most of the blaming regarding the stolen pics, at least the little I've heard, is focused on storing the images online. It's portrayed as a use of poor judgment. It's a hard-nosed and unsympathetic point of view, but it's also applied to both men and women fairly commonly in my experience. Employees and medical students, regardless of sex, are frequently told to keep anything they want kept private off the internet. That's simple practicality in a time when identity theft remains a common occurrence.
Blaming of rape victims tends to be about their identity, who they are as a person. That's not practicality, it's plain evil.
sir pball
(4,741 posts)I'd have the exact same opinion whether it were nude selfies or tax returns that got leaked. I wouldn't even say it's "your fault", rather it's a cost-benefit thing -- you decided the convenience of having your data globally accessible and backed up outweighs the risk of having it leaked. Hell, I store a lot of stuff in "the cloud", but only stuff I don't want leaked. Now, did Apple make it clear enough that while they'll try really hard, at the end of the day they actually, legally, guarantee no security whatsoever? Probably - it's just a shame that it's taken such a massive breach of privacy and dignity to thrust this into the public eye.
riqster
(13,986 posts)It is NOT applied to men and women equally. It's very much applied disproportionately to females.
MineralMan
(146,286 posts)is wrong. The blame lies with the criminal, not with the victim. Those who blame victims are simply wrong.
