I don't see how the victim's lack of knowledge could nullify if a crime was committed. If someone trespasses on your property but you never find out, does that mean no trespassing occurred? Assuming the person did nothing else wrong.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
- Status
I don't see how the victim's lack of knowledge could nullify if a crime was committed. If someone trespasses on your property but you never find out, does that mean no trespassing occurred? Assuming the person did nothing else wrong.
Who are these people? My argument has nothing to do with the creeps in question, mine was weather taking pics could and should be considered wrong or not when there really isn't majority ruling in favor of it being a creep thing to do.
Yep girls certainly don't want any attention directed at their physical features. They certainly don't know how common those soul stealing machines are either.
You really want to get creeped out? If you're attractive you're probably in someone's "spankbank".
virtuoso88
Member
Being creepy is not a crime.
Strange concept I know, but people aren't dressing up for you. What is attire that wouldn't qualify as drawing attention to the fact that they have the physical features of a woman?
And to the bolded: give me a fucking break. I'm not saying they're soul stealing machines and the idea that it's okay because cameras are common is absurd.
ReBurn
Gold Member
I wasn't specifically talking about you. But I'll answer you. It doesn't need a majority ruling. Taking a candid picture of another person without consent is creepy and anyone who does it is an inconsiderate human being. I don't understand why this would even need a vote. It is even worse when the sole purpose is to objectify that person. Textbook stalking.
Devolution
Member
Yeah I really don't get this thread. It should be pretty obvious why this type of thing doesn't need defending.
faceless007
Member
So the "gateway" theory, that we should prosecute people on the assumption they will later commit greater crimes? I have reservations about that practice. (See California's Three Strikes law, which I also don't like.)
Well, that's a fundamentally different conception of harm and one I don't think you could prosecute anyone for. (People who are a threat to themselves get committed, not prosecuted.) It also completely changes your argument that the law is meant to address harm done to the subject.
That's rather tautological: Something is only harmful if one is caught and prosecuted for it?
I wasn't referring to photos being uploaded, hence my "for private use only."
Note that I'm not defending the act, but arguing that if we're going to criminalize it I think we need a more legally substantive (and provable) rationale than "it's creepy" (which I agree it is).
It matters if the specific rationale being put forth for the law is that it causes harm. That requires harm to be specifically demonstrated.
Do these people think they're invisible when out in public? Where do you draw the line when talking about attention you give to another person? I don't think I should feel shame for noticing someone I find attractive in "sexy" clothes even if they aren't wearing them specifically for me. Taking a picture isn't really that much different than what I do.
If they're having trouble dealing with people in public looking at them when they're in certain clothes then they probably shouldn't be wearing them out. Someone taking a picture just doesn't seem that much different until they start sharing it with the masses.
Devolution
Member
The most harm you could probably come close to proving is the tenuous link between voyeurism and sexual offenses. You'd have to address what allowing people whom are obviously dispensing and trading this material are doing to encourage such disorderly behaviors among each other. How you would go about legislating this or if you even could then becomes debatable. People are caught taking pictures of those in private situations for sexual gratification and many of the victims don't even know, peeping toms in the bush or webcam hacking, but it's still punishable.
Maybe, but I still think its one of those things that can't really be judged right or wrong especially since they have to be called inconsiderate human beings for something like this. If it was so obvious like raping someone I don't think people would be having this argument.
Honestly this topic is all over the place and people seem to be arguing different points, I don't know what to make of this anymore.
It doesn't need to be criminalized because it already falls under existing harassment or stalking laws, depending on how far the creeper has taken it and when they get caught.
The issue I'm seeing here is trying to understand how some people can be stupider than a box of rocks made out of stupidolomite and not be capable of understanding why it's not a good thing to do.
I see:
- women shouldn't wear anything that shows off their body parts (victim blaming) because people have cameras and will take pictures if you show off your ass or boobs (body shaming), even going so far as to include clothing that covers more of their body than equivalent male clothing that none of them feel would qualify as attention whoring in their eyes
- a justification of "it's okay because a lot of cameras are out there". yeah, and rape is fine because rape happens a lot and women should know better to just stay inside, or any other victimizing act because the components to do it are widely available.
The long of of it is it feels like a bunch of people that need to say what they really want to stay, or stop being a sperg patient, or realize that people can be functional human beings and not participate in an act because they have 100% control over their own actions, control that a victim of creeper shots / stalking doesn't get to have or have a say in.
It causes harm regardless of whether the victim knows. That's just my view.
Devolution
Member
It's wrong. What do you really need clarified?
Well people viewed gay people and getting off to porn as wrong(which to many people both are still wrong). All i'm saying is people aren't always right on judgement calls.
Yes I know the situations are different i'm still just saying though.
Devolution
Member
Both of these things you mentioned involve consent (excluding any sort of exploitative derived porn) and rather issues with what is considered sexual deviancy. Creepshots do not. The people taking and trading these pictures are getting off on the idea that the person being photographed is not a willing participant. Do you see the problem with that?
Also quite a bit of the pictures were provided by a teacher and of minors.
You're trying to compare being a creep who violates the privacy and personal space of other people with being gay or watching porn?
Fucking seriously?
DUR. Focus on this: "consent."
Well right and wrong differ from person to person so it's impossible speak in absolutes there.
As a society there is a fairly defined moral compass though. It influences the laws that govern it. If people did this blatantly most people would be creeped out or take objection to it.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
If someone is making money off of it, yes. If it's just posted, then maybe. If it's taken in a place where you obviously don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy, then maybe not. Unless...you live somewhere with thought crime laws on the books, or if you can make a plausible case that this constitutes a threatening pattern of harassment.
Dems jokes son
The woman can wear whatever the hell she wants but if she's in public, attractive, and wearing clothes that make her even more attractive then she's going to get attention. I'd hardly consider them a victim if they keep going out in public the same way to the same kind of attention. (notice "same" before your inevitable "but... but... rape!")
Well, knowing how everybody has a camera on them at all times has certainly changed the way I present myself when out in public. We're in a different time and people are going to need to adapt unless they want a life of hurt feelings.
Devolution
Member
So far these pictures just seem to be people in stores and going about their business. I don't really follow your logic here. It matters much less about what they're wearing as their figures and the very idea that these shots weren't consented to by the subjects of the photos. That's the problem here.
Wearing "more attractive" clothing is all subjective though. If the norm was for women to wear head-to-toe burkas, then women wearing plain t-shirts and jeans would be targeted. Besides, in many of these creepshots, the women aren't wearing anything particularly revealing.
It's bullshit how guys like you are quick to point out what women are doing wrong.
Really? What have you done to adapt?
Rocket Scientist
Member
If all women wore burka's this wouldn't be a problem.
Ok I understand, its just one of those things that bugs me when I didn't use to have to think about it being wrong.
Seriously, now what? Thought yourself crafty huh?
shanshan310
Member
rCIZZLE appears to believe that women who go out in public wearing anything that might 'make them look attractive' are asking for attention and are indeed consenting to having creeper shots of themselves up on the internet. Am I reading this right?
nope
Even went as far as to saying people who post pictures like that on those types of forums are either weird or doing it for the "up votes".
And yes, if you go out in public you're probably going to get attention, especially if people find you attractive. SHOCKING, I know. My posts have been directed at the people who think taking a picture without sharing is that much different than looking or that women have little control over the amount of attention they receive. (omg victim blaming lol)
cutmeamango
Banned
The closer your could get is store policy not allowing photographs and videorecordings.
You are awful at this. Sperg patient made me laugh of how ignorant that is!
No.
Stores don't need to put up signs reminding people to breathe, among other common sense items.
cutmeamango
Banned
Sometimes I wish they did, I passed out twice in the fish aisle for holding my breathe and forgetting to let go.
This is one of those threads where the lines get blurry.
Ok i actually look at the OP and yeah that's all bad, didn't know they were posting the shit on the net.
This reminds me of a question I asked someone else about what if all websites required state ID pictures as avatars for registration. Would they still post and say the same things? I think this will be a requirement in the future in some places anyway.
Well if a female is sexy there really isn't a way for them to win even with that.
This reminds me of a question I asked someone else about what if all websites required state ID pictures as avatars for registration. Would they still post and say the same things? I think this will be a requirement in the future in some places anyway.
Well if a female is sexy there really isn't a way for them to win even with that.
shanshan310
Member
This seems to be the argument of all the creeper-shot apologists. "Well they are weird, I'm not denying that, buut..." I never mentioned anything about you saying they weren't creepy, only that you're blaming the victims. What is the solution then? Do I have to mess up my hair and wear a hoodie and jeans everytime I leave the house? Oh wait, jeans reveal the shape of my legs! I guess I'm just asking for attention and creeper shots then right? Women with large breasts tend to have a lot of difficulty hiding their shape, are they looking for attention too? You are really really overstating the amount women care about getting attention when they go to the supermarket.
There is a huge difference between ogling a woman in the supermarket and photographing her, keeping the image forever and jerking off to it at home.
Look at those racist posts on twitter and facebook, nothing would change.
You go to the supermarket in your jeans and your t-shirt because you're shopping for mans
Exactly what I was looking for. Thank you.
I have no idea why an image from the LDS church is relevant here at all. This is the official sign that I should probably go to bed now.
Well for neogaf it'd probably make a difference because its moderated better maybe?
You know when you're wacking off and right after you cum you feel bad about not having intimate relations but sitting in your bed watching a girl take dong for $$$? Now imagine if those girls weren't getting paid.
I'd feel so awful. Almost like tugging it in public but without any eye contact.
I'd feel so awful. Almost like tugging it in public but without any eye contact.
lol what
Kite
Member
IMO it is more like the ACLU defending the kkk and other hate speech groups.
erm deal with the fact that being merely a creep isn't illegal and you don't have a right to not be offended or creeped out by the world. lol otherwise there are a ton of actions I find creepy as well. Lets start with racist assholes giving me the death glare when I walk down the street, start regulating dem thought crimes aww yeah.
Aaaand we're back to the victim blaming.
Maybe i'm too judgmental, but he looks to be on the older and weightier side. I highly doubt the majority of men who are doing this are young and spry looking dudes..
shanshan310
Member
Being a creep isn't illegal. Taking and distributing photos of someone on the internet without their consent IS, or it should be. Again, there is a big difference between ogling someone who walks past and taking a photo of them, jerking off to that photo in private and sharing it on the internet.
- Status