THE FAPPENING (9/11 for Celebrity Privacy) (NSFW) (Obviously) ITT: NO TITTIES

[Evildrider]

You're a bad fucking Christian.

[HaemishM]

Jesus Christ? More like Jesus Cockblock. 

[Shannow]

fucker deserved to be crucified for doing that.

[angry.bob]

Have none of you rubes watched the Simpsons?

25 years is way too many quotes to try and remember. You need to post a gif or something with that shit.

[Paelos]

You're a bad fucking Christian.

Admittedly yes. I don't think there are "good" Christians though. We're all failed at something and have to own up to it.

I don't think I'm wrong here. There's nothing wrong with those photos. They were taken by a person that saw nothing wrong with doing it. I don't see a moral failing in seeing a photo that those people had zero problem creating in the first place.

Is it a privacy issue? Sure. But I don't think privacy in this case is a moral issue at all, even moreso when that person is classified as a public figure.

[Malakili]

So.. you'd be totally cool with releasing all the photos you've ever taken to the public?  Send me the link when you've got them all uploaded.  Or just give you login info to some hackers and let them do the leg work.

[Paelos]

So.. you'd be totally cool with releasing all the photos you've ever taken to the public?  Send me the link when you've got them all uploaded.  Or just give you login info to some hackers and let them do the leg work.

A - If you can find a naked photo of me anywhere ever, good luck. They don't exist. Because I didn't take them, nor did anybody else.
B - Any stupid pics of me are already on Facebook, it's the entire reason that stupid thing exists for my friends to post shit there, but yeah whatever. Don't care. Load em up.
C - I'm a random dude like you. We're not celebrities or public figures already trying to make cash on our bodies. You think Kate Upton gets paid on her personality? Even the laws are different for celebrities.

[MahrinSkel]

There are a couple of polaroids from back in the 90's that I sincerely hope don't exist anymore.  But if they turned up, I'd probably just say "Damn, I was ripped back then!" and move on.

Anyway, once you take those photos, you pretty much have to accept the possibility that they may turn up in contexts you will find embarrassing.  The risk is probably part of the thrill.  Does that free the hackers from moral responsibility? No.  But it doesn't leave much to attach to the people who eventually see them.

That being said, I haven't gone to any particular effort to look at these, mostly I've just seen meme-ified versions that turned up in various places.  That's out of apathy towards Yet Another Celebrity Nudes Leak, rather than any moral choice.  Yay, more proof that everyone is naked under their clothes, and even famous people make foolish decisions.

--Dave

[Paelos]

I just think we're being selectively moral here because it's nudity. If it were drugs i don't think you'd see the same arguments come up

[Thrawn]

Did I get lost and wander into Politics? 

[Mithas]

I think you can be selectively moral on something like this. Being naked is an intensely private thing for most people. Doing drugs just doesn't rise to that level.

[jgsugden]

These arguments that it is ok because of how these people sell themselves as stars is rubbish.  That is step one on a path that is very ugly.

These women do not want you using or viewing their private images.  They took efforts to keep them out of your hands.  Due to failures (by them and/or others), those images ended up in the public domain.  That does not change the fact that a woman is saying NO and you're going ahead with what you desire regardless of her wishes.

If you're comfortable being that guy, nobody is going to say anything to change your mind.  

If you're not comfortable with it, and you want to be a person that does the right thing, you may have to put some effort into resisting temptation.

On a separate note: Don't be so sure your images are not on a computer somewhere just because you did not click a button yourself... hacks (webcams, tablets, tvs), sleazy exes, hidden cameras in gyms/restrooms, etc...  are real issues.  My gym used to have a problem where some lady would steal smart phones, download an app, set them to transmit video, and then would hide them in the gym locker room.  I doubt all the women she filmed know they'd been recorded.

[Salamok]

I think you can be selectively moral on something like this. Being naked is an intensely private thing for most people. Doing drugs just doesn't rise to that level.

In hindsight it didn't turn out that way but I can see how the Phelps bong hit photo could have cost him millions in endorsements.  And while I agree that being naked is an intensely private thing for most people, those same people aren't the ones taking selfies of their nakedness.  It is obvious that these celebrities have been victimized but I also think that if they ever catch the idiot that did this that person is going to be subjected to a miscarriage of justice that far outweighs the damage done.

[Samwise]

if they ever catch the idiot that did this that person is going to be subjected to a miscarriage of justice that far outweighs the damage done.

Being as he was trying to make millions of dollars off the stolen photos, I'm going to put him in the "professional criminal" category and say he knew the risks.   

[Merusk]

I just think we're being selectively moral here because it's nudity. If it were drugs i don't think you'd see the same arguments come up

Nope.

They had pics taken from themselves and the person(s) they gave them to engaged in a perfectly legal act and spread about without their consent.  Doesn't equate.

I'd have the same problem if they'd charged Phelps with drug use based on the photo.

You want to ogle someone's photos they'd rather keep private without their consent at least have the character to own it and the insight to realize what you're doing.

[Paelos]

I didn't hear this kind of outrage when Mark Sanchez had his naked ass plastered all over the tabloids by two chicks who videotaped it and sold it without his permission.

Because we just said he was stupid and should know better. My problem with this kind of pearl clutching is because there are literally thousands of examples where this kind of shit has happened to celebs before with drugs, or nude pics, or compromising photos, and they made an entire industry out of it.

If you want to blame the people for stealing or for making money off something that the celebrity didn't endorse, fine. I'm with you there.

If you want to get on a moral high horse against people for being curious, I'm never buying that argument. Which is fine. We disagree completely on what constitutes their boundaries. I think there are some pretty obvious double standards people are doing about looking at a photo.

[Threash]

You didn't hear any outrage because most people have no idea who the hell Mark Sanchez is.

[Merusk]

I didn't hear this kind of outrage when Mark Sanchez had his naked ass plastered all over the tabloids by two chicks who videotaped it and sold it without his permission.

Because we just said he was stupid and should know better. My problem with this kind of pearl clutching is because there are literally thousands of examples where this kind of shit has happened to celebs before with drugs, or nude pics, or compromising photos, and they made an entire industry out of it.

If you want to blame the people for stealing or for making money off something that the celebrity didn't endorse, fine. I'm with you there.

If you want to get on a moral high horse against people for being curious, I'm never buying that argument. Which is fine. We disagree completely on what constitutes their boundaries. I think there are some pretty obvious double standards people are doing about looking at a photo.

I don't follow sports and we didn't have a 4-page 8 page "OMG I'M WANKING IT TONIGHT, BOYS. SHOW ME THE COCK NOW" thread about it, either.  They were wrong, and equally terrible people. Let's call 'em utter bitches.

Being curious and/ or catching sight in browsing is one thing.  Hunting it down, hooting and hollering like you won the lottery as shown in this entire thread is something else.  Yeah, we're not going to agree on that any more than some of us agree about inebriation and decision making.

[Paelos]

You didn't hear any outrage because most people have no idea who the hell Mark Sanchez is.

That's in no way shape or form true. The NFL is the most watched TV thing in the USA. And he was a QB in New York city.

[Samwise]

You didn't hear any outrage because most people have no idea who the hell Mark Sanchez is.

That's in no way shape or form true. The NFL is the most watched TV thing in the USA.

What's an NFL?

[Rasix]

Yes, yes. We know your thoughts on handegg, Sam.  

This thread sure went downhill.  As soon as the leaks dried up, out come the knives.

[Samwise]

I seriously have no idea who Mark Sanchez is, though.

[eldaec]

I don't often say this, but if you don't know who Jennifer Lawrence or Kaley Cuoco is, you need to crawl out of your fucking cave and pay attention to like, something. Anything. They're two of the biggest celebrities in the world right now. Kaley is on the number one rated show for like 5 years running (Seinfeld / Friends level ratings) and JLaw is in fucking EVERYTHING.

This. "Who's Jennifer Lawrence" is on the same level as "Who's Barack Obama".

No.

No it isn't.

And anyone who honestly doesn't know who she is, you aren't missing much. Except that science oven joke.

[Rasix]

I seriously have no idea who Mark Sanchez is, though.

The most lasting contribution of his career:

[angry.bob]

These women do not want you using or viewing their private images.  They took efforts to keep them out of your hands.  Due to failures (by them and/or others), those images ended up in the public domain.  That does not change the fact that a woman is saying NO and you're going ahead with what you desire regardless of her wishes.

Can you just go ahead and say that anyone looking at the pictures is a rapist for gaining sexual gratification against their will using their bodies and depriving them of agency? You'r doing an okay job of tiptoeing around it but I can feel that you're dying to say it.

[Evildrider]

I don't often say this, but if you don't know who Jennifer Lawrence or Kaley Cuoco is, you need to crawl out of your fucking cave and pay attention to like, something. Anything. They're two of the biggest celebrities in the world right now. Kaley is on the number one rated show for like 5 years running (Seinfeld / Friends level ratings) and JLaw is in fucking EVERYTHING.

This. "Who's Jennifer Lawrence" is on the same level as "Who's Barack Obama".

No.

No it isn't.

And anyone who honestly doesn't know who she is, you aren't missing much. Except that science oven joke.

[Samwise]

Also:



although given the context of that gif I feel posting it here.

[El Gallo]

I just think we're being selectively moral here because it's nudity. If it were drugs i don't think you'd see the same arguments come up

If somebody said to me "hey Gallo, you want some drugs? I just broke into Paelos's house and stole them!" I would say no...

[Lakov_Sanite]

I just think we're being selectively moral here because it's nudity. If it were drugs i don't think you'd see the same arguments come up

If somebody said to me "hey Gallo, you want some drugs? I just broke into Paelos's house and copied  them!" I would say no...

[HaemishM]

These women do not want you using or viewing their private images.  They took efforts to keep them out of your hands.  Due to failures (by them and/or others), those images ended up in the public domain.  That does not change the fact that a woman is saying NO and you're going ahead with what you desire regardless of her wishes.

Can you just go ahead and say that anyone looking at the pictures is a rapist for gaining sexual gratification against their will using their bodies and depriving them of agency? You'r doing an okay job of tiptoeing around it but I can feel that you're dying to say it.

I don't normally agree with Bob on things like this but here I agree.

I'll own that I looked at pictures someone else didn't want me to see and those pictures were arousing. I don't have any problem with admitting that. I have a problem trying to turn that into the moral equivalent of rape. Because it's not and it never fucking will be.

[ajax34i]

a woman is saying NO and you're going ahead with what you desire regardless of her wishes.

"Honey, can you get me another beer?"
"NO!"
"Well, I'm gonna get a beer, want one?"
"NO!"
"Well, I'm gonna get a beer."
"Haven't you had enough?  You better stop drinking."
"I'm getting a beer, woman."

[El Gallo]

I just think we're being selectively moral here because it's nudity. If it were drugs i don't think you'd see the same arguments come up

If somebody said to me "hey Gallo, you want some drugs? I just broke into Paelos's house and copied  them!" I would say no...

In that circumstance I would steal the guy's drug-copier and get rich, duh.

[jgsugden]

Can you just go ahead and say that anyone looking at the pictures is a rapist for gaining sexual gratification against their will using their bodies and depriving them of agency? You'r doing an okay job of tiptoeing around it but I can feel that you're dying to say it.

I don't normally agree with Bob on things like this but here I agree.

I'll own that I looked at pictures someone else didn't want me to see and those pictures were arousing. I don't have any problem with admitting that. I have a problem trying to turn that into the moral equivalent of rape. Because it's not and it never fucking will be.

I didn't say rape.  The foundation may be the same, but you're not rapists (AFAIK).

I'm saying the people looking at these pictures are disrespectful and selfish.  I'm absolutely saying that if you feel guilty about looking at them, you should listen to that guilt and do better next time.  I'm saying that anytime a woman - in any sexual context - says or conveys a desire that you not do something, it should be respected and heeded.  That is all I'm saying - and I doubt any of you really disagree with any of it.  And if you do, I'd appreciate it if you'd give your folks a ring and tell them they failed miserably.

[Samwise]

I'm saying that anytime a woman - in any sexual context - says or conveys a desire that you not do something, it should be respected and heeded.  That is all I'm saying - and I doubt any of you really disagree with any of it.  And if you do, I'd appreciate it if you'd give your folks a ring and tell them they failed miserably.

This woman desires that you never touch yourself sexually ever again.  Or engage in any other sexual activity outside the framework of a sacramental marriage.



She doesn't know you, her desire does not concern you specifically, and your actions have no impact on her, but I trust you will respect and heed her nonetheless.

[Ironwood]

I seriously have no idea who Mark Sanchez is, though.

Sorry, I don't either.

And I think it's fucking stupid to bring sex or sexual desire or whatever the fuck some assholes are talking about.  You guys do what you want.  For me, the lassies didn't want this shit out there and I'm going to respect that and not look because it doesn't make me feel good.  I don't care what the rest of you do; and I don't mean that in a bad way.

I'm kinda doing to others what I'd like done to me.  And whatnot.