The Fappening

[Vraith]

were you surprised the fappening happened?

that isn't the point, and I don't care if it is surprising, or caused by stupid/naive actions.
the thought process that says "they should have been more careful" is attached to process that leads to rape and other crimes not being reported, not being prosecuted, not being found guilty, acceptance/excusing of the crime being committed.
People can say all they want that the two are different...and in many ways they are...but they are in fact psychologically conflated.
They can say "I'm not blaming the victim, but..."
But that is just a nod and a wink for getting away with shit.

All that [combined with the difficulty of tracing/proving] means that ONLY the victims will be punished. Punished TWICE [at least]...cuz no one cares enough to try and track the perpetrators. Even if they did, no one is going to punish the shitfucks snickering and masturbating over them.

Someone[s] might think that's a bit over the top...you're wrong. It's under the top. Go home some night and tell your significant other "I was hangin out with the peeps at the bar, and they were telling me how much they got off looking at the stuff they stole from you. And some other peeps were like "aren't you mad at them?" And I told them "well, a little, but they didn't actually COMMIT the crime...they just kinda watched. And YOU shoulda been more careful."

[peter]

V., dosen't the Law take 'extenuating circumstances' into account every day. In France the 'crime passionelle' law I believe regularly takes the position "I'm not blaming the victim but...." - and is it not right to do so? What would make this position so appropriate if used in a court of law but so inapropriate if brought into our thinking outside. Surely we all bear a degree of responsibility for our own actions [and their consequenses] unless we are mentally below par to the point where it cannot be expected of us?

One problem here is that it is the viewing of such illegally obtained matereal that contributes to a large degree to it's 'value', and hence the reason why the hackers go after it. If no-one looked at it, no-one would go to all that trouble to get it.

Another question is , why do people want to look at this stuff. The net's is crawling with any and every variation of matereal adjunctive to the activities of the 'five fingered widow-maker', so why bother to search out this not intended for public viewing stuff. The answer is of course no more or less than human nature. Just as 'rubber-necking' a car accident is a vile thing to do, humans do it [I don't as it happens, but lots of people do.]. Humans have a prurient streak that doesn't easily brook refusal, and so, if they hear that Jennifer Lawrence's tits [that they have been so adroitly teased with in the form of numerous appearences in tight fitting costumes in a variety of film and magazine shoots] are suddenly available, then of course they will go and have a look. It doesn't in any way justify the crime, but it does explain the drive behind why it is commited bot on the part of the hackers and the viewers.

[Vraith]

V., dosen't the Law take 'extenuating circumstances' into account every day.

And in some cases it is logical/reasonable to do so.
This isn't one of them.
It's pretty amazing [in a bad way] how often [not always, but common] those "extenuating circumstances" and its variations exist in law only cuz otherwise juries wouldn't find the perpetrator guilty at all. Because they blame the victim.

[aliantha]

I realized last night that this situation has some similarities to the 9/11 terrorist attacks we've been talking about elsewhere. We can take all the safeguards we can think of -- up to and including encrypting stuff in an unbreakable code, loading it onto a pristine storage device, and locking it in a vault -- but all we've really done is inconvenience ourselves. Because every action we can take -- just as every security measure we've taken since 9/11 -- is reactive. We're always protecting ourselves against the last attack. But at the same time, the criminals are looking for a loophole we didn't think to protect against -- a back door we've left unlocked. They will *always* find a way in.

But when it comes to a terrorist attack, only a few people sit back in judgment and say, "Well, see, you were stupid not to be having people take off their shoes at a checkpoint all along. It's your own fault this happened to you." And the few who do are shouted down by those who feel violated and who want to go out and get the attackers.

So why don't we view cyberattackers the same way we view terrorists? It's the same basic mindset. The goal is the only difference. Why do we blame the victims in one instance, but vow with missionary zeal to stop the perpetrators in the other?

[peter]

Ruth Ellis suffered at the hands of a brute of a partner who abused and beat her over a sustained period before she shot and killed him. The result of not allowing for extenuating circumstances in her case was that she hung. Thankfully in our more enlightened times this would not have been the case. Chief Inspector John Stalker - one of the UK's most respected police chiefs of recent years - said in interview at his retirement, that one of the saddest aspects of his work was to see people sentanced to mandatory life sentances on the basis of a single moment, an instant where for a split second they broke and did something they had never done before, and would never do again.

The sex drive in humans is strong. Strong often beyond the point of refusal which is why on a daily basis men and women betray their partners and families who they love for no more than sexual gratification. Yet in our society, a person who is goaded and jibed to the point where in rage they snap will recieve at least a degree of understanding, but one who is subjected to sexual teasing to the point of madness and does the same, will not.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

So why don't we view cyberattackers the same way we view terrorists? It's the same basic mindset. The goal is the only difference. Why do we blame the victims in one instance, but vow with missionary zeal to stop the perpetrators in the other?

This is because many people still do not think that a cyberattack can do actual damage even though a correctly orchestrated cyberattack can do significantly more damage without all the bodies lying about afterwards.
Shutting off every traffic light in a major metropolitan area? This will result in tens of thousands of people thrown into extreme frustration, untold amounts of money lost due to the loss of productivity, and probably a handful of death.
Knock out the electric grid over a large area? Yes, they may restore power relatively quickly but what if the grid is shut off in such a way that the restoration is more difficult?
What about an attack on a dam where they manage to open flood gates when it hasn't been planned?
An attack on an air traffic control system could be particularly devastating.

I could keep going on but you get the idea. A cyber attack is a terrorist attack; the only difference is (usually) that the collateral damage is not body parts in the street.

[wayfriend]

Hashi, I think it's fairer to say that cyber attacks can be terrorist attacks. Others are pure larceny. Others are forms of protests in the vein of civic disobedience. Others are political. Others are forms of government espionage. In this case, stealing some celebrity nudes to post online seems like merely mischief-making, with the attendant perceived status enhancement.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

hrm....excellent point. Okay--they could be terrorist-style attacks, depending upon the target and the reasons for engaging in that behavior.

[wayfriend]

They are certainly a chilling new medium for terrorist activity, and ripe with possibility at that, and as such deserve concern and scrutiny.

[Avatar]

I miss the internet. If people start looking at it like that, they're just going to fight harder to try and regulate it even more.

--A

[peter]

On the original point.....to ransack someones private photo store in the cloud is in effect no different to rifleing through their handbag in the staffroom or dressing room and then displaying any photo's you found therein publically. No - it's morrally wrong to do it and morrally wrong to view it.

Alas the 'freedom of the internet' will always be a claw in the side of government and for sure all governments of all persuasions will ever be looking for a means of controlling it [on this if nothing else they will be agreed even if only some will overtly admit to it]. It may be the very 'hackers' who pose such a threat in some respects who alo have the skills to evade the stifling practices that authority will always be intent on getting into place. Alas - the activities of the few will be used for the justification of the controll of the many. It is ever so.

[Cambo]

It's crazy hoe events like these draw some hardcore sexism out of the general public. One of the first headlines I saw on this was along the lines of "When Will Celebrities Learn?"

Learn to do what? Not have private lives? Sexualities? Bodies that are desirable? That last one would be a bit hard considering the general reluctance of Hollywood to allow any woman outside a very narrow set of bodily criteria into their gilded halls.

And it's pretty damned clear to me that this is a feminist issue. Anyone aware that Colin Farrell has a leaked sextape? I would have considered him a fairly desirable man, but I must have missed the tabloid drama that arose from that little non-event. But the bodies of male celebrities simply aren't subject to the same level of scrutiny as women's.

The whole thing is gross.

[aliantha]

Agreed, Cambo.

[SoulBiter]

And it's pretty damned clear to me that this is a feminist issue. Anyone aware that Colin Farrell has a leaked sextape? I would have considered him a fairly desirable man, but I must have missed the tabloid drama that arose from that little non-event. But the bodies of male celebrities simply aren't subject to the same level of scrutiny as women's.

The whole thing is gross.

Well, psychologically, men are predisposed to be more visually stimulated than females. So the fact that this seems to have a gender gap doesn't surprise me.

[Vraith]

And it's pretty damned clear to me that this is a feminist issue. Anyone aware that Colin Farrell has a leaked sextape? I would have considered him a fairly desirable man, but I must have missed the tabloid drama that arose from that little non-event. But the bodies of male celebrities simply aren't subject to the same level of scrutiny as women's.

The whole thing is gross.

Well, psychologically, men are predisposed to be more visually stimulated than females. So the fact that this seems to have a gender gap doesn't surprise me.

And women are predisposed to smell, taste, and touch.
Does that mean women go around violating people, sniffing, licking, and fondling them cuz victims didn't "secure" themselves against it?
Screw that...men probably wish they did. It would give them even MORE legal stupid excuses.
It's the same idiocy as "Dealing with bullies is a learning experience, don't interfere so much"...which completely, totally, utterly IGNORES the fact that the way MOST people "learn to deal with bullies" is by kissing their ASSES, and JOINING the bullies.
People think they'll "sort it out"...and they do. But not by getting better/stronger.

[Cambo]

And it's pretty damned clear to me that this is a feminist issue. Anyone aware that Colin Farrell has a leaked sextape? I would have considered him a fairly desirable man, but I must have missed the tabloid drama that arose from that little non-event. But the bodies of male celebrities simply aren't subject to the same level of scrutiny as women's.

The whole thing is gross.

Well, psychologically, men are predisposed to be more visually stimulated than females. So the fact that this seems to have a gender gap doesn't surprise me.

Do you know what difference this makes? I watch porn more frequently than most women, and discreetly check people out on the street more often than most women. These, and related, differences are all that biological gap should account for.

The way the media place undue emphasis on women's bodies over their personal achievements is a hangover from the days when a woman's physical appearance (and romantic success) was her personal achievement. The differences in which we view each other's bodies or experience attraction could be due to biology, sure (though I believe even that has been shown to have a large social component). But all the expected roles and baggage we attach to each other's bodies (no, men's bodies are not excluded from this- but we cop it in different ways that are not under discussion here)- that's pure sexism.

[Orlion]

Do you know what difference this makes? I watch porn more frequently than most women, and discreetly check people out on the street more often than most women. These, and related, differences are all that biological gap should account for.

This is, I believe, a sort of false dichotomy. Take away the tired sitcom jokes and there are a lot more in common between the sexes in this regard then you might think.

I mean, Fifty Shades of Gray is a MASSIVE bestseller.

Game of Thrones is very popular among the women, and this goes completely against traditional views (I remember there was an article that was puzzled that a good portion of the audience not only were women but they seemed to LIKE the sexposition!)

For anecdotal evidence, a lot of women I know will objectify men as much as men objectify women... checking them out, drooling over topless photos, etc.

In fact, they are much more likely to go to a strip club (featuring men, of course) then the guys in my group.

And don't get me started on how when given the opportunity to choose a restaurant, one female friend chose Hooters over the objections of the guys in the group... it was actually a favorite restaurant of hers!

Really, the biggest disservice I see is this idea that women as a whole somehow have a dampened sexuality, and if it is similar to or greater than a man's, it is 'unnatural' or they are whorish.

[Cambo]

Visual was the only distinction I was addressing there, Orlion. I think you've got me a bit wrong- I do believe women are just as horny as men, and from talking to the women in my life, that's not unfounded. Note my use of "more" in the quoted text- of course women watch porn, of course they check out guys and are turned on by the sight of men's bodies. However, science, and my own anecdotal evidence, seem to indicate that when it comes to the importance of turn ons, visual factors are more important to men than to women. 50 Shades of Grey is a good example, as much as I loathe the content for glorifying actual sexual assault and misrepresenting BDSM. Erotic stories in general have a huge female audience, because women tend to love context, character and story in their porn, as well as attractive people.

But you're right in that whatever differences are there hardly matter, and that women should be celebrated for having as much sexuality as men do. To bring it back to topic, there's a large amount of slut-shaming that arises when "scandals" like these happen. A general discourse about these women being caught "behaving badly," as if voluntarily displaying themselves sexually for whomever they choose was some kind of ethical breach. Fuck that noise.

I don't think we disagree here.

[SoulBiter]

And it's pretty damned clear to me that this is a feminist issue. Anyone aware that Colin Farrell has a leaked sextape? I would have considered him a fairly desirable man, but I must have missed the tabloid drama that arose from that little non-event. But the bodies of male celebrities simply aren't subject to the same level of scrutiny as women's.

The whole thing is gross.

Well, psychologically, men are predisposed to be more visually stimulated than females. So the fact that this seems to have a gender gap doesn't surprise me.

Do you know what difference this makes? I watch porn more frequently than most women, and discreetly check people out on the street more often than most women. These, and related, differences are all that biological gap should account for.

The way the media place undue emphasis on women's bodies over their personal achievements is a hangover from the days when a woman's physical appearance (and romantic success) was her personal achievement. The differences in which we view each other's bodies or experience attraction could be due to biology, sure (though I believe even that has been shown to have a large social component). But all the expected roles and baggage we attach to each other's bodies (no, men's bodies are not excluded from this- but we cop it in different ways that are not under discussion here)- that's pure sexism.

The media puts out there what sells. If men (and women) didn't buy this stuff, if millions weren't not just actively seeking these pictures but paying to access them, you wouldn't see this being so predominant. Is everyone mad because there aren't more naked men pictures being 'hacked'?

[Cambo]

Well, psychologically, men are predisposed to be more visually stimulated than females. So the fact that this seems to have a gender gap doesn't surprise me.

Do you know what difference this makes? I watch porn more frequently than most women, and discreetly check people out on the street more often than most women. These, and related, differences are all that biological gap should account for.

The way the media place undue emphasis on women's bodies over their personal achievements is a hangover from the days when a woman's physical appearance (and romantic success) was her personal achievement. The differences in which we view each other's bodies or experience attraction could be due to biology, sure (though I believe even that has been shown to have a large social component). But all the expected roles and baggage we attach to each other's bodies (no, men's bodies are not excluded from this- but we cop it in different ways that are not under discussion here)- that's pure sexism.

The media puts out there what sells. If men (and women) didn't buy this stuff, if millions weren't not just actively seeking these pictures but paying to access them, you wouldn't see this being so predominant. Is everyone mad because there aren't more naked men pictures being 'hacked'?

That's only one side of the coin. The media isn't a slave to the whims of the public. It's a dialogue. Media produces culture as well as reflecting it. But yes, on the other side there is a real demand for this stuff. That just means there's an ugliness in our general culture as well.

I'm mad this is happening to anyone at all, but I also perceive it as part of a particular way we have of dealing with women's bodies. This doesn't happen in a vacuum.