View Single Post
  #172  
Old October 23rd, 2014, 10:27 pm
canismajoris  Male.gif canismajoris is offline
The Forums Red Hypergiant Star
 
Join Date: 17th February 2006
Location: əɹəɥ
Age: 36
Posts: 2,766
Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions

Quote:
Originally Posted by FurryDice View Post
Of course, people - men and women - should be careful not to expose themselves. However, that should not not mean it's a free for all when they do. Just like people should be careful to remember to lock their cars - but it's still a crime to steal something, even if the owner forgets to lock the car.
Would it be a mitigating factor for a burglar if the homeowner forgot to lock their front door? Didn't have an alarm, or forgot to set it? Would it earn the burglar a reduced sentence, because the homeowner wasn't careful? Then why on earth are there such mitigating factors in sex crimes?

By the way, let me say that I understand that this case was thrown out because the individual in question hadn't broken any laws. I'm speaking about sex-related crimes in general.
Well right, and while I want to believe there's not much room to say that a victim is to blame for taking inadequate precautions, in many other areas of life (that is, other than sex crimes, say), it really isn't uncommon or outrageous to label someone a fool for it. Just like traffic jams, rain, and stock market crashes, criminal acts are things people should probably learn to expect from time to time.

I think we get so caught up in arguing about where blame belongs that we ignore the reality that a lot of crimes can be prevented in the first place by doing exactly what you mentioned--preparing security measures for your property, providing for personal defense, and generally being mindful of risks. Failing to do so doesn't mitigate the guilt of a criminal, but it does peg you as naive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FurryDice View Post
I think there is something to condemn in society when society as a group seems to think that it's acceptable to violate the privacy of others. Clearly there's a market for these photos -both paparazzi and stolen. If there was no market for it, the paparazzi wouldn't be taking up-skirt shots, the hackers wouldn't be stealing.
And here's a question - why is there no demand for stolen nude pictures or paparazzi nude photos of male celebrities???
That is an interesting question... to what extent male celebrities are celebrated as sex objects I'm not certain. As a hetero male, I only really find Ryan Gosling, Henry Cavill, Matt Bomer, and OK I should probably stop.

Ultimately it may boil down to two things: First, our (American) society's squeamishness about male nudity in general, as expressed in television and film. For every shot of a man fully nude on screen in mainstream works, there are probably hours and hours (and hours) of footage of nude women. Why is that exactly? It's not even the disparity between the sexes itself that seems odd to me, it's the almost implausible dearth of men stripping down on film that's strange. We don't have much of an appetite for gentleman parts.

Second, and I haven't researched this (and don't plan to), so it's just a guess, but in the recent photo hacking situation, I'd bet that the majority of the women victimized have never appeared nude on screen or in photo shoots.

So putting those two factors together, it isn't only that there's demand for nude women and not much for nude men, nor that there's a market for nude images of female celebrities, but even worse, that there's a subculture for obtaining private photos of those female celebrities who specifically don't want their naked bodies out in public. It may be disturbing in those terms, but really I think even average people who know intellectually that it's wrong are likely to be curious, at the very least. Considering how widespread these recent images became, clearly it wasn't only scumbags who were viewing them.


Sponsored Links