• Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -710 months ago

      Trying to pretend it’s not is feeding the culture of not listening to victims.

      It’s like saying that cat calling is harmless, forcing people to be reminded they are seen as a sex object is well known and documented as a tool of keeping the victim “in their place.”

      It’s harassment, and when done at the scale famous folks experience for the crime of being well known and also attractive, basically amounts to a campaign of terror via sexual objectification.

      Nevermind how tolerating it makes space for even more focused acts of terror like doxxing and making threats of sexual assault.

      • @thantik@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        4
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Then you need to take a step back and look at your argument.

        Producing the work isn’t the problem here. Distributing it and harassing people with it is.

        So why don’t we just make distributing it as a form of harassment illegal instead? You deal with the specific thing that causes the problem, not the thing that it stems from broadly just because you don’t like nudity.

        But if I want to sit here and make AI pictures of women and whack off to them in my bunk, fake women who might incidentally look like some real woman – Nobody should be penalized because of that. You’re painting with broad strokes of a brush here, without thinking of the larger repercussions.

        What about twins? Who consents there? If one gives permission and the other doesn’t…then what? How do you handle edge cases like that? Because you’re trying now to put rules around something that’s awfully grey-area here.

        You lose all those weird edge cases once you attack the real problem: Harassing people with sexual images. It’s not the nudes that’s the problem, it’s the harassment.

        • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Nah it’s the nudes, and you have more than enough free material on pornhub from consenting participants to not need to crusade about your god given right to spank bank Jennifer Lawrence over her objections to you getting to have nude images of her.

          As much as it enrages people who don’t touch grass, you’re not actually entitled to non-consentually get yourself fap material of people who don’t want the public having fap material of them, and insisting you are is pretty fuckin’ rapey actually. I’m sure you insist you’re a nice guy or nice girl too and can’t wonder why the pretty people won’t give you a shot over the jerks and hoes.

          • @thantik@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            Happily Married for 20 years with 3 kids, but yeah…sure. Whatever you need to tell yourself to justify your confirmation bias. The rest of us who think logically have worked through this already. No need for some religious puritanist to tell us naked = bad.

      • @Fal@yiffit.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -110 months ago

        Trying to pretend it’s not is feeding the culture of not listening to victims.

        No, it’s insulting to actual victims of actual events that happen in real life

        • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin
          link
          fedilink
          English
          010 months ago

          Getting spammed with artificially generated nudes to “put you in your place” is real life, and jackasses like you are why victims hesitate to report this behavior that often escalates to credible threats of physical violence.

          • @Fal@yiffit.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            210 months ago

            Being spammed and harassed and threatened is a totally different thing that, like you said, is real life.