General Discussion

rrneck

(17,671 posts)

93. There's a gigantic difference

Wed Oct 2, 2013, 01:23 PM

Oct 2013

between photographing a model in a pre arranged setting and a snapshot with a camera phone.

When I taught figure drawing cameras of any kind were verboten.

The issue is not the existence of the images, but their distribution. The onus should be on the distributors. If some woman finds her image is making somebody else money, she deserves a cut of the profits. That's what releases are for, not for policing interpersonal integrity.

If you want to market porn, produce your own content. Don't profit off other peoples freebies.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

168 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

'Revenge porn' outlawed in California [View all] Eugene Oct 2013 OP

Good MattBaggins Oct 2013 #1

Thumbs up! Heidi Oct 2013 #2

Good. That has nothing to do with free speech. nt bemildred Oct 2013 #3

Yes, Anthony Weiner never intended those pictures to be public jberryhill Oct 2013 #4

About time fitman Oct 2013 #5

and you as a grown man, setting an example, tell these boys it makes them a POS seabeyond Oct 2013 #6

I tell them how it was when I was growing up in the 70's and early 80's fitman Oct 2013 #7

thank you for taking the time with these boys. i raised two. my husband is right there with you seabeyond Oct 2013 #9

LOL Skittles Oct 2013 #147

NO where near as common as today. fitman Oct 2013 #161

as long as they don't outlaw Pity Sex, I'll be ok NightWatcher Oct 2013 #8

LOL lillypaddle Oct 2013 #11

I'm married..what is sex? fitman Oct 2013 #14

I'm married and the only sex I get is doggie style NightWatcher Oct 2013 #15

My wife and I have nothing... Whiskeytide Oct 2013 #17

There is the ever-popular "rimshot" graphic Warren DeMontague Oct 2013 #25

You're welcome rocktivity Oct 2013 #26

We have one. dogknob Oct 2013 #94

o yuk, you must be a real pistol in bed. Whisp Oct 2013 #61

Rusty, prone to jamming, and barred from upscale establishments? Scootaloo Oct 2013 #151

Snub-nose? Fla_Democrat Oct 2013 #164

there's something about load and discharge there too Whisp Oct 2013 #168

what an explosive retort Supersedeas Oct 2013 #167

wow, a little subthread of the husbands sexist little joke at the wifes expense. really, if none seabeyond Oct 2013 #18

Keep it balanced. Both sexes are guilty of this and showing "revenge pics" inch4progress Oct 2013 #20

i see three husbands being disrespectful to their wives. and you are demanding i be balanced. seabeyond Oct 2013 #22

I see men making fun of themselves, and joking about their relationships inch4progress Oct 2013 #27

yes. the poor besotted man that doesnt get it any more cause he married is not a diss seabeyond Oct 2013 #34

Oh, good Lord... sibelian Oct 2013 #92

you want me to feel bad, pointing out sexism on du. not gonna happen. ignore is your friend. seabeyond Oct 2013 #166

No its not? He has the right to vent, Its healthy and normal as long as he isn't being abusive. inch4progress Oct 2013 #100

your profile says peter, male and does not go with your post. and i gotta ask, who are you? seabeyond Oct 2013 #103

I'm gay. inch4progress Oct 2013 #107

thank you. seabeyond Oct 2013 #108

Naturally, you deserved it considering the context. I Shudda mentioned it in early post or profile. inch4progress Oct 2013 #109

Humor is usually exaggeration built upon a foundation of truth. AtheistCrusader Oct 2013 #43

I don't see it as disrespectul. It becomes disrespectful when they quit using humor or worse inch4progress Oct 2013 #101

do you contend that racial jokes too, are "pretty harmless?"? LanternWaste Oct 2013 #118

Yes, a joke about marital sex is the exact same thing as a racist one. Warren DeMontague Oct 2013 #120

Would you joke about your wife's sexual practices online? BainsBane Oct 2013 #131

My wife is many things, but humor-impaired isn't one of them. Warren DeMontague Oct 2013 #136

I do trust you on that BainsBane Oct 2013 #138

I understood it to be a joke, and not a terribly mean-spirited one at that. Warren DeMontague Oct 2013 #141

Hey, I wrote an OP in support of gay marriage BainsBane Oct 2013 #142

Well, if I joked about my lousy sex life, no one would believe me. Warren DeMontague Oct 2013 #143

I think you are confirming the other point I made BainsBane Oct 2013 #144

Not sure which one, but if it's the point that no gender has a monopoly on sex drive or lack thereof Warren DeMontague Oct 2013 #145

Pleasssee fitman Oct 2013 #24

"...just not with each other!" Warren DeMontague Oct 2013 #31

Sexist? No, both those jokes are poking fun rocktivity Oct 2013 #35

yes. at the womans expense. the cultural conditioning that the man is all that sexually seabeyond Oct 2013 #36

It's not a sterotype fitman Oct 2013 #46

so, this is your reality and not really a joke, which was suggested from the being. not seeing seabeyond Oct 2013 #47

The good guys fitman Oct 2013 #49

wow. why dont we take it one step further. wtf... now lets tell the jokes about old mens ED seabeyond Oct 2013 #50

As I said fitman Oct 2013 #55

where is the joke? you told me it was true. and you are stoic sucking it up and seabeyond Oct 2013 #57

Women's sex drives are every bit as strong BainsBane Oct 2013 #58

That is true. Whisp Oct 2013 #62

Partially true but not always fitman Oct 2013 #69

why are men asexual and women are frigid? seabeyond Oct 2013 #74

In my view a asexual man is frigid fitman Oct 2013 #76

of course. that would be the societal condition we talk about and how one is a diss seabeyond Oct 2013 #77

Ok you are right on that one fitman Oct 2013 #79

sigh... seabeyond Oct 2013 #80

...so the guy says to the genie, "No, No, I didn't ask for a 12 inch PIANIST!" Warren DeMontague Oct 2013 #122

LOl that too... fitman Oct 2013 #67

You chose to expose yourself BainsBane Oct 2013 #68

yep you caught me fitman Oct 2013 #70

Kinda hypocritical are you?? fitman Oct 2013 #73

Hypocritical? BainsBane Oct 2013 #75

I never said my wife has a lack of interest in sex fitman Oct 2013 #78

If you don't want comment BainsBane Oct 2013 #82

Do you really believe that was the intent... kurosagi Oct 2013 #65

almost 3 yrs on the board, 15 posts and you find me to call out. yes, i think the intent seabeyond Oct 2013 #66

Seriously? You walk in here and accuse someone of trolling? Enjoy your stay. Squinch Oct 2013 #96

No kurosagi Oct 2013 #104

Sorry about my wording kurosagi Oct 2013 #105

So delete it. Squinch Oct 2013 #106

Guess you're not really sorry at all, then. Because your wording is still there. Squinch Oct 2013 #153

I heard two wives digging at their husbands caseymoz Oct 2013 #48

or, as the poster now admits it is their reality, little digs and get to say.... seabeyond Oct 2013 #51

I know better ... Lurker Deluxe Oct 2013 #83

Clue me in here Doctor_J Oct 2013 #148

Pity sex is a sexist term. It suggests a woman giving sex to a man because she feels bad. Gravitycollapse Oct 2013 #152

Don't think so. Bohunk68 Oct 2013 #163

Wow Doctor_J Oct 2013 #165

Uh-oh. Don't mess with the humorless. Comrade Grumpy Oct 2013 #87

I know. Someone pissed off the joke police. Warren DeMontague Oct 2013 #121

Okay, I have a good one BainsBane Oct 2013 #133

we are not allowed to make weiner jokes. the men have already cried foul. and i have banded with seabeyond Oct 2013 #134

I thought I'd test how good their senses of humor are BainsBane Oct 2013 #135

I can't speak for anyone else, but when have I *EVER* objected to a Weiner Joke? Warren DeMontague Oct 2013 #139

That's good! Warren DeMontague Oct 2013 #137

I lol`d... opiate69 Oct 2013 #140

I forgot what this thread was about! cui bono Oct 2013 #125

Haha... cui bono Oct 2013 #123

While I am against 99% of internet censorship, this one is a no-brainer. A very good step. marble falls Oct 2013 #10

K&R Sissyk Oct 2013 #12

Good!!! TRoN33 Oct 2013 #13

I think the sentence is too short. caseymoz Oct 2013 #16

I guess a state cannot create a felony Tumbulu Oct 2013 #52

States can create felonies sir pball Oct 2013 #60

In think the sentence too long. morningfog Oct 2013 #72

Yes, the exes consented, but this law, like others, sets limits to legally effective consent. Jim Lane Oct 2013 #160

Although arguably, a less-harsh penalty may increase the chances of conviction. nomorenomore08 Oct 2013 #156

Good! Although I might argue that 'intent' ought to be irrelevant petronius Oct 2013 #19

exactly. make it clear. the wrong is putting it on the net without permission. nt seabeyond Oct 2013 #21

I think you meant "without", right? Warren DeMontague Oct 2013 #30

thank you seabeyond Oct 2013 #32

+1 redqueen Oct 2013 #44

The intent element is the only thing that makes it arguably Constitutional jberryhill Oct 2013 #64

Without "intent", it would be struck down by the first court that reviewed it. Xithras Oct 2013 #71

Exactly. The "intent" part may seem unnecessary, but without it the law would be too vague. n/t nomorenomore08 Oct 2013 #157

I've always been of the opinion that showing naked photos of your partner rocktivity Oct 2013 #23

Well, typically the partners don't see it that way. Orrex Oct 2013 #28

well, it exposes what's inside of the person NewJeffCT Oct 2013 #45

Yeah, that ought to be a crime. Warren DeMontague Oct 2013 #29

This law is necessary, but really won't stop it inch4progress Oct 2013 #33

Fine objective but it's hard to prove intent. nt rrneck Oct 2013 #37

Not really...just don't post a picture of a naked friend. Tikki Oct 2013 #81

What if consent was given but then denied? rrneck Oct 2013 #84

Well, we learn to err on the side of 'just don't do it under any circumstances.' Tikki Oct 2013 #86

It's much better to err rrneck Oct 2013 #90

My husband took photos of semi-nudes for his art class...there had to be a release signed with terms Tikki Oct 2013 #91

There's a gigantic difference rrneck Oct 2013 #93

Lets talk interpersonal relationships...If you and someone are in a sexual relationship.. Tikki Oct 2013 #97

Pimping is a business transaction. rrneck Oct 2013 #99

Photography releases don't grant rights, they limit them. Xithras Oct 2013 #126

Correct...if you don't have prior permission for any circumstances then don't publish.. Tikki Oct 2013 #132

Is intent required? Wouldn't privacy laws cover this? Taverner Oct 2013 #115

I think some sort of culpable mental state is required for any crime. Shrike47 Oct 2013 #128

Two things: Orrex Oct 2013 #38

i would think it was also. a while ago, i was reading how texas was going after this. seabeyond Oct 2013 #39

Jerry Brown rocks! mindwalker_i Oct 2013 #40

He's my guv!! ailsagirl Oct 2013 #154

Good law Politicub Oct 2013 #41

And now for something completely different...I am so proud to be a Californian where we are moving.. Tikki Oct 2013 #42

Excellent. It's about time. Some days I am actually proud to be in California... Hekate Oct 2013 #53

excellent this should be nationwide gopiscrap Oct 2013 #54

Good for California. duffyduff Oct 2013 #56

Good! sick bastards. n/t Whisp Oct 2013 #59

"The American Civil Liberties Union had opposed the bill" n/t PoliticAverse Oct 2013 #63

Yep. Because it is unconsitutional Taverner Oct 2013 #89

Harassment maybe, but libel or defamation? I doubt it. Orrex Oct 2013 #110

Harassment would probably be the best way Taverner Oct 2013 #111

That's an interesting point Orrex Oct 2013 #116

Invasion of privacy might be a better route Taverner Oct 2013 #112

I agree that privacy might be the issue, but I'm not sure about that example Orrex Oct 2013 #117

Is it just me, or did this thread get hijacked? Doctor_J Oct 2013 #85

Because I don't think this law will stick Taverner Oct 2013 #113

Good luck Taverner Oct 2013 #88

The intent element is critical, though jberryhill Oct 2013 #127

Prosecutors will end up abusing it davidn3600 Oct 2013 #129

You still need a jury, since intent is purely a fact / totality of circumstances issue jberryhill Oct 2013 #130

I agree with your analysis. I think this bill will pass muster. nt msanthrope Oct 2013 #155

K&R nt stevenleser Oct 2013 #95

It's unconstitutional... davidn3600 Oct 2013 #98

How is it possibly unconstitutional? inch4progress Oct 2013 #102

USSC is pretty protective of the right to distribute images under the 1st amendment. Xithras Oct 2013 #124

Presumptively, one has a right to publish pictures jberryhill Oct 2013 #159

Because it's a prior restraint on free speech. eom TransitJohn Oct 2013 #162

Bravo! nt MrScorpio Oct 2013 #114

Anthony Weiner, Scott Brown and Larry Craig suggest we should think this through. lumberjack_jeff Oct 2013 #119

I totally misread the subject, when I saw the term "Revenge Porn" I thought they were talking... Humanist_Activist Oct 2013 #146

Falling Down was brilliant black comedy. Warren DeMontague Oct 2013 #149

Yeah, haven't seen it in years, now that I think about it, its more of a... Humanist_Activist Oct 2013 #150

I would hope the law at least makes a difference as far as saying "This isn't okay." nomorenomore08 Oct 2013 #158