And she should be. She speaks out about the photo hacking and the culture that encourages it.
Lawrence also addresses the legal ramifications of the hack. “It is not a scandal. It is a sex crime,” she tells Kashner. “It is a sexual violation. It’s disgusting. The law needs to be changed, and we need to change. That’s why these Web sites are responsible. Just the fact that somebody can be sexually exploited and violated, and the first thought that crosses somebody’s mind is to make a profit from it. It’s so beyond me. I just can’t imagine being that detached from humanity. I can’t imagine being that thoughtless and careless and so empty inside.”
In the cover story, the Hunger Games star vents her frustration not just with the offending hackers but also with those—including people she knows—who viewed the images online. “Anybody who looked at those pictures, you’re perpetuating a sexual offense. You should cower with shame. Even people who I know and love say, ‘Oh, yeah, I looked at the pictures.’ I don’t want to get mad, but at the same time I’m thinking, I didn’t tell you that you could look at my naked body.”
I haven’t seen them and am not interested in seeing them: I’ve seen naked consenting women, and they’re far more interesting than stolen photos. But apparently there’s a whole lot of messed up men who think the aspect of unwillingness makes them better.
Those people are the problem, not the fact that Jennifer Lawrence sometimes takes off her clothes in the privacy of her home.
With friends like these…
This part makes my skin crawl. It’s rape culture in a nutshell. People close to her not only looked but also are apparently perfectly at ease telling her so and she feels obligated not to get angry with them.
In most instances that I hear about Jennifer Lawrence, I marvel at the down-to-earth, common sense nature of her statements. This is not hard stuff… but culture has warped the perception of these crimes and misconducts such that your average person has extreme difficulties grasping why it is simply wrong. Neither innocuous, nor her fault for taking photos of herself, nor for storing them in a cloud somewhere, nor anything really.
I feel sorry for her having to live with this crap; but at the same time I am happy that she is speaking out.
Also, what PZ said.
It is a sexual violation. It’s disgusting. The law needs to be changed, and we need to change.
> proceeds to be photographed naked, with tits hanging out with a ‘come hither’ look on her face, for the cover page.
Fucking hypocrite.
Seven of Mine@2,
Exactly. Probably those people who have sought out the stolen photos have not committed a legal offence but morally, they are sex offenders too, just as much as the voyeurs who drill holes in shower-room and toilet walls. The comments on the linked article are also a fine illustration of rape culture.
tsktsktsk@4,
You are a disgusting individual. Clearly, you have no understanding of consent. If Lawrence now chose, or had previously chosen, to take part in any kind of porn you like to mention, that would make no difference at all.
@6,
I mean any kind of porn that did not itself violate anyone’s consent or involve those incapable of giving consent, of course.
Yep, you are. What she chooses to display and how, is her business, not yours. You get no say, so your opinion is irrelevant and condescending. You need to apologize for not understanding the concept of consent.
tsktsktsk @4,
Jennifer Lawrence pretty effectively covered the distinction with “It’s my body, and it should be my choice, and the fact that it is not my choice is absolutely disgusting.”; what point are you trying to make?
@tsktsktsk: Fuck you. The key word is consent. That someone may or may not have voluntarily made public a naked photograph does not give anyone the right to steal her private naked photographs and publicize them. Next you’ll be telling us that since she posed for that picture it gives you the right to rape her, too.
tsktsktsk @ 4
The following is a concept with which you ought to familiarize yourself: consent.
tsktsktsk @ 4
You may wish to familiarize yourself with the concept of consent.
I am referring to her perpetuating rape culture by continuously presenting herself in a hypersexualized way. She is herself acting against the change she insists must happen. This is what makes her a hypocrite.
tsktsktsk
“hypersexualized”
Maybe she just can’t find a burqa in her size.
tsktsktsk@12,
You are simply demonstrating – at best – your complete ignorance of both consent and rape culture. Go away and learn.
From the wiki article on rape culture:
“Examples of behaviors commonly associated with rape culture include … sexual objectification …”
Ergo, she is herself part of rape culture. You’re welcome.
Ms Lawrence makes an excellent point. This stuff wouldn’t be nearly as pervasive if the web sites hosting the pictures were actually held responsible for doing so.
And tsktsktsk, shut the fuck up.
Heaven forbid that as a woman, Jennifer Lawrence should have the right to choose whether or not to reveal her body to others.
@4
Look at me! I’m a nincompoop who thinks signing a contract to take photos means forfeiting one’s right to privacy forever!
Tsktsk sounds like the idiot who was claiming that Beyonce couldn’t be a feminist because she wears sexy costumes when she performs. It’s the perfect catch-22. Having boobs and acting sexy, even once, discredits everything the boob owner might say forever and totally justifies any misogyny. The Taliban is more honest than these assholes.
tsktsktsk
Controlling your own sexuality is not the same as sexual objectification. That’d be what the men who stole her photos and publicized them did. You’re blaming women for other people’s actions and trying to control how they present themselves, you’re wrong and engaging in rape culture yourself.
Secondly, you must not follow her if you think she’s always portrayed like that cover. Ignoring her choices and other work is such a foul thing to do.
Awfully kind of tsktsktsk to conduct this Dunning-Kruger demonstration for us without even being asked, IMO.
Kudos to Jennifer Lawrence for sticking to her guns on this one. It would have been so disheartening if her response had been at all apologetic. Here’s hoping the rest of the world follows her lead.
Tsktsk, sexual objectification is not something the would-be ‘object’ does, but something the viewer does. The difference between sexual subject and sexual object is often in perception (though some creative decisions can shape it; the photo crop that conveniently shows only the torso, for instance).
Also ‘it is all right to enjoy photos, even sexy photos, I have consented to being taken and publish, but please don’t take photos I have not consented for publication, and were taken in a private venue’ is self consistent. Go write ‘consent’ on the chalkboard until it sinks in.
Seven of Mine@21: Good grief, no kidding. Read posts 14 and 15 back to back. I mean just look at them. Could you ask for a more in-your-face demonstration of someone who doesn’t know enough to see how little they understand?
Only in your demented misogynic mind. She makes choices. You don’t. Your hypocrisy of pretending to a Vulcan is exposed for the hypocrisy of yours. You are biased. Dismissed.
tsktsktsk@15,
Add “sexual objectification” to the list of concepts you don’t understand. Really, you’re making an almighty fool of yourself.
@Tsktsktsk
You can call out JL for hypocracy when shes starts viewing, distibuting or advocating the viewing or distribution of OTHER peoples private stolen images. As far I know this polar opposite of what she is saying.
tsktsk, it is more than possible to look at a sexy picture without objectifying the subject of the picture. No woman who consents to having a sexy picture of herself taken and distributed for others to see EVER contributes in ANY way to objectification, unless she has telepathic powers and is capable of controlling the minds of strangers at a distance. At worst she provides others a CHOICE to objectify or not to objectify. A CHOICE that THEY, as presumably independent moral agents, are 100% RESPONSIBLE for making for THEMSELVES.
But that is entirely beside the point. Your attempt to derail this thread, and distract from the ACTUAL message, is breathtaking its dishonesty, hypocrisy, and transparency.
You should be ashamed of yourself, if you were actually moral enough to be capable of feeling shame, which I highly doubt.
I know, I had that feeling too. It made me very sad for her. I would not want to continue that conversation either. I’m imagining having that conversation with a a friend or friend’s husband or a coworker or a cousin. It’s gross and super creepy and every one of those assholes owes her an apology.
One of the first things I thought about after it blew up in the news was that I didn’t want to look because I didn’t want to contribute page views the the assholes willing to publish them and because those women are crime victims. Why would I want to participate in that? I made a mental note to not click links in articles even from reliable news sources because I didn’t want to risk it. It was not difficult to avoid them. In fact, it took no effort at all. All I had to do was not look for them.
@tsktsktsk #12: Sexualization is not the same thing as objectification (as an aside, it might help to develop a more thorough understanding of issues you wish to discuss than can be gleaned from reading a single Wikipedia article if you want to make authoritative proclamations – you’re dealing with at least some people in this commentariat who have degrees in social sciences, some of us even in the fields of gender and sexuality studies, which examine rape culture as a primary topic of study). Even the commodification of sexualization is not objectification if the person in question retains agency i.e. the commodification is consensually negotiated. Capitalism is inherently problematic, so capitalization of sexuality is also problematic, but it’s because of the capitalism bit, not the sexuality bit. And, again, rape culture is about a culture that normalizes ignoring consent; consensually posing for sexualized photographs doesn’t reinforce rape culture in any way that I can see.
“…don’t read the comments after the Vanity Fair article…don’t read the comments…”
* clicks on comments…
” AAARRRGGGHHHHH….”
AP
@tsktsktsk, 4
One of my ex-girlfriends was raped, a long time before I met her. She reported it to the police, but nothing much came of it. Later, after we’d met, obviously, she had sex with me, freely and happily. She even enjoyed it, as far as I could tell.
Hypocrisy! Right? Because if something happens against your will, and you consider it a bad thing, you are never allowed to do that thing of your own free will afterward. Right?
Seriously, this is why the opposition to consent is such a fucking issue. The problem is not the fact that there are naked pictures of her out there. The problem is that she was not alright with them being posted. One lot, she did not consent to, the other, she did. Can you comprehend the difference? What the hell must be going on in your head for you to fail to understand how utterly ridiculous your logic is?
And, re your later comment, the issue with sexual objectification is the objectification bit, not the sexual bit. Not all acts of sexualisation are objectifying. Nor are all acts of objectification sexual, for that matter, but that’s probably a bit too advanced.
Tsk,
Women being sexually desirable or openly sexual is not contributing to rape culture. Shut your stupid, misogynist mouth. She is the victim of a crime. Calling out the criminals and those who participated in the sex crime by enjoying her stolen nude photos while still being a beautiful movie star is not remotely hypocritical. Learn what consent is. You’ll be a less horrible person for it.
@32. Yeah, a massive litany of whingey double-think.
Brian @23 is right.
Jennifer is right to be pissed off, and I’m glad she’s come out clearly to show the slyme why it’s not her who should be apologetic. Only makes me respect her more.
The difference is consent, shit for brains.
This is, of course, not particularly consistent with the historical usage of the term, but the abuse of the term “objectification” to mean “anything remotely sexuality-inflected and involving women which I, the speaker, do not approve of, irrespective of consent” is a different problem, one which I do not think Shit For Brains here has any sincere desire to solve.
*logicking like tsktsktsk*: the fact that you eat regularly means that it’s perfectly fine for me to forcefeed you right? If you’ve eaten potato before, you’d be a hypocrite to protest me making you eat it when I want. I mean you like eating, so you must be fine with it under *all conditions.* Also, if you’ve ever eaten in a restaurant in public, you are contributing to the obesity endemic, just sitting there eating whatever you like.
Well, I was going to say that anyone blaming the victim here should just shut up forever and have a good hard think about you have failed as a human being, but golly gee look! Three comments in it starts!
Ok, tsktsktsk, you let Ms. Lawrence know exactly how she is supposed to approach her sexuality. Since clearly she can’t have a clue herself, because reasons.
I mean, thank goodness you’re here to guide her, because otherwise she might make the terrible mistake of making her own decisions! Next thing you know, she’ll be wanting to vote! Uppity, isn’t she?
Four comments in.
And I’m not sure how much of a tangential point this is, but her “tits” are actually below the water line, so I’m not sure how one could consider them to be “hanging out”. Unless one just wants to shame women, of course.
@Rey Fox, 43
To be honest, I was a little confused by that. How does someone manage to make three false statements in two words?
This, incidentally, is slut-shaming.
Shorter tsktsktsk…
“Consent. How does it work?”
#43 Rey Fox
Because they are not properly contained in the torture devices known as bras and their beguiling magic suppressed by wrapping them in more fabric. Duh. /snark
Also, really? Considering how tsktsktsk described it, I assumed everything but nipples are showing before clicking through, which is still fine because her choice and all. But it’s barely the top, which usually shows because shirts that go higher feel like you’re being strangled by your own breasts. At least, I do anyways. And that’s a come hither look? Is that just every look a woman makes now? I personally thought “strong, defiant and speaking out” from her expression, but that might be because of the article, since I knew that before seeing the cover. It’s a rather neutral look though with just her mouth opened.
Particularly when the so-called “come-hither” look is highly subjective, and the “tits” in fact are not hanging out, but are covered, the “nakedness” is only suggested by the image cropping, and no more skin is actually exposed than what would be by a typical strapless evening gown, of a kind Lawrence has worn countless times in the past in public.
Which is to say that every single point that tsktsktsk made in that post is a willfully dishonest distortion on his part.
As far as I can tell, a “come hither” look is whatever a man decides is one, and can constitute any and every possible arrangement of eyes, nose, lips, cheeks, eyebrows and teeth on a female face.
I hope Jennifer’s friends and family who viewed the photos read the article and get a clue or two from it.
She also says right before the part PZ quoted:
Too bad the full interview is behind a paywall.
tsktsktsk @ 13:
Nope, you have that completely wrong. A woman can’t be a sexual being without people being judgmental assholes on all sides, much like you’re doing with this asinine comment. Rape culture pretty much guarantees any woman will be viewed not as a person, but as a hypersexualized slab of meat. So, that would be you perpetuating rape culture.
tsktsktsk @4:
::blinks::
Posing for those pictures was her choice.
Having nude photos hacked and spread around without her consent was done against her wishes.
There’s a world of difference between the two.
Consent–you need to learn what this word means.
@13:
If a woman chooses to present herself in a sexualized manner, that is her choice.
What happened to Lawrence and other celebrities was a violation of their right to privacy. There was no consent involved.
Consent–you need to learn what this word means.
@16:
In addition to Consent,
Sexual Objectification–you need to learn what this phrase means. I’ll help:
Appearing partially or wholly nude is not an example of sexual objectification.
Oh, and when it comes to sexual objectification, this is something others do to a person, not something one does to oneself.
Please familiarize yourself with the terms you’re using before you attempt to use them. You’ll look much less the fool if you do so.
I’m really getting depressed by this. I even have very liberal, open minded friends spouting the ‘well she’s stupid and it was her choice to take naked photos for her boyfriend b/c she was so afraid of him watching porn’. The other main comeback from commenters seems to be some weird dualist thinking about the nature of cybercrime. That the iCloud can be hacked seems to convince too many people that having naked pictures on there is accepting a crime cannot occur. If someone steals from my online bank account that’s still a crime right? If someone threatens to kill me over Twitter – still a crime, yes? So why is this not a sex crime?
Like I say, already depressed by every conversation I have today. I truly admire how any of you here manage to keep on fighting day after day. I don’t post very often but you do inspire me with your determination.
@53
That is exactly the kinds of things i’ve heard from people in my environment too. She uploaded the pictures to the cloud, that was very stupid, therefore she brought this on herself. The fact that people can say that but would instantly recognize the absurdity of it if it had been anything else, like your online back account example, shows that they actually, trully want these crimes to be commited so that they can look at stolen naked pictures of people.
I can understand curiosity…we all feel it, but there should be a voice in your head telling you that satisfying your curiosity doesn’t justify acting against the wishes and rights of others.
Amphiox, #49
This little fragment of research springs to mind… http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2007/11/on-the-sexual-predilections-of-turkeys/
@tsktsktsk
For the safety of others, please refrain from leaving your house until you have learned what consent is.
And maybe learn how objectification works, because you seem to be confused about that topic, as well. (and no, copy/pasting from Wikipedia does not demonstrate an understanding. If anything, you managed to demonstrate your complete lack of it.)
From me:
That’s like saying someone who wants to commit suicide deserves to be murdered because they’re already trying to kill themselves. She can present herself in a sexual way if she wants, doesn’t mean you can violate her privacy.
Her body, her choice how to portray it.
Ergo, you’re a fucking idiot.
The really ridiculous part about hunting down nude photos of people who don’t consent to you seeing them is that there’s already an outlet for that and it doesn’t run afoul of any moral issues. Much like many other disturbing desires people seem to have… Rule 34 – there’s porn for that. I’m quite happy to let people with disturbing tastes deal with their fantasies harmlessly like this.
“tsktsktsk” sounds like a troll here and almost certainly won’t listen but sure, why not… General rule of thumb: Not objectifying women means those thoughts and feelings you have when you look at pictures of women are all yours. Beautiful, ugly, whatever, you own them. Pictures are great for this, they don’t add anything – it’s all you (and you aren’t bothering anyone while you figure this out). Start treating them like they’re people instead of a pair of tits to stick ugly ideas onto and you’ll find you can have healthy, rewarding relationships with them that don’t involve madonna/whore issues. It’s always easier to blame other people for your BS but the faster you realize that’s what you’re doing the sooner you’ll be able to appreciate the other half of the species. Think about that. No longer writing off half the species. Helluva goal, eh? Get going.
lanir @ 58
I don’t quite agree with this. I think men (and it is mostly men) who get their rocks off by looking at stolen nude photos, whether hacked or posted as revenge porn, are explicitly getting off on the violation – it’s certainly not the nudity since there are billions of photos of naked women on the internet that were put there consensually. These men can’t substitute porn that simulates this idea because the women in the porn vids are doing it consensually. Even if you made a porn film that was about a woman having her nude photos stolen, it would still all be consensual (hopefully) and they probably wouldn’t get their “thrill” out of it.
I’m not sure what the solution to that is, though. I’m not okay with trying to police people’s thoughts or desires, but when it comes to actions like perpetuating the violation of a person’s bodily autonomy, different story.
The ones commenting on r/jailbait and The Fappening certainly were.
I’ve not seen any of the photos, through the simple expedient of not looking for them. I have no curiosity about them, for the reason that Ms. Lawrence outlines: they’re non-consensual. Looking at them would feel like sexually violating her, and that’s plenty to make it clear this is not for me. Blaming her is explicitly blaming the victim.
tsktsk @16, objectification is seeing this
and fixating only on JL’s sexy pics. JL has presented herself complexly. You have reduced her to a subset of her photographs.
I see the horde is being obsessed with consent again.
/snark
One of the positives that came out of the Jennifer Lawrence ordea (other than raised awareness, and statements like this from her, and I’m so sorry she had to go through this)l is that I greatly cleaned up my FB page. All of the sites, and friends, that posted links, were deleted/unfollowed with a brief, direct statement of just how disgusting their behavior was.
Has TskTskTsk been told to fuck off enough yet? Just in case it’s not enough, please kindly go fuck off. Then go play a game of hide and go fuck yourself.
I already had a woman-crush on JL for her seeming very down to earth and honest personality, and this just adds to it even more. Good on her for standing up tall and saying what needs to be said.
I actually thought the nude photo shoot was a powerful artistic expression. It’s a way that she is showing that she owns her body, and she is making the choice to express her sexuality under her own terms in her own way.
And seriously??? “tits hanging out?” Do you realize how misogynistic and slut-shaming your language is? Do you even care?
Correct. If it isn’t this, it’s a come-hither. Even then there’s probably room for doubt.
Imagine a culture that doesn’t even blink at nudity instead of making it a “sex crime” in various scenarios. Problem solved! Modern attitude towards nudity, especially in the United States, is simply ridiculous and perpetuates the sick attitudes of people towards nothing more than bare skin. A tit should NOT be a bigger deal than a depiction of someone being shot to death as it is on television in the USA. A tit should not be a big deal, end of story. By the way, the act of Jennifer Lawrence telling everyone that they are committing a sex crime by viewing her photos only makes her photos that much more valuable to the people who give a shit in the first place. How about we stop making tits and pubic hair some kind of ultra magical special secret privileged prize and instead say, “WHO THE FUCK CARES?” Women who are thinking that their mammary tissue and pubic hair are two of their most valuable assets is fucked up! Nudity needs to stop being a big deal. I personally value women for their minds and their physical fitness, the same as I value men. The only reason anyone cares about these pictures is because it is a socially constructed ridiculous taboo.
@Jesus Christ #67: I think you’re missing the issue. The problem isn’t that Jennifer Lawrence is showing some skin (or boobs or pubes), which I think is pretty well illustrated by her photo-shoot. The problem is that her privacy was violated and her consent ignored. Even in a country that doesn’t blink at nudity, it would still *NOT BE OKAY* if nude pictures were stolen and spread over the internet. So sorry, your proposed solution isn’t much of a solution.
Yawn, any pseudonym like JC is like anybody with “skeptic” Rational”, “Intelligent” in one, which means anything they say is likely drivel. And it was. Not surprised.
Until consent is used discussed intelligently, that is up to JL, and not you, then there is nothing cogent to be said. At best, #67 is a strawman, at worst, utter irrational drivel.
@Jamie #68 and @Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls #69
The point is that if these were bikini photos, NOBODY would give a shit.
She wouldn’t care, I still wouldn’t care, and no one else in the world would care either, with or without consent. Consent is not an issue in western culture to see a woman’s bare neck, but a nipple? OH NO! QUICK EVERYONE! FREAK OUT! These photos to a society that doesn’t care about nudity have no power, no relevance, and no importance. The ONLY reason anyone cares is because of nipples and pubic hair, which is really dumb. I really wish society stopped caring about nudity completely then none of this would be anything.
JC @70:
That’s the point in your head. For many other people, the point is that Jennifer Lawrence’s privacy was violated. People acquired her pictures and spread them around without her consent.
@67:
That doesn’t solve the problem of people violating the privacy of others.
Nor does it solve the issue of lack of consent.
The crime wasn’t the nudity. The crime was that her privacy was violated and some fuckwitted hacker(s) decided her consent wasn’t necessary to spread those images.
That you can’t understand the issue is part of the problem. Too many people don’t understand the importance of consent.
@JC, 70
It’d still be theft, it’d still be an invasion of privacy, it’d still be a problem, it just wouldn’t be overtly sexualised.
The thing is, on a certain level, I agree with you. If society wasn’t utterly obsessed with women’s sexuality, this wouldn’t be a problem, because people wouldn’t be driven to steal pictures like this. That may well be a valid criticism. What isn’t a valid criticism is acting as if we’re wrong to react negatively while our society is utterly obsessed and people do feel the need to steal these kinds of pictures.
Yes, in an ideal world, this would never be an issue, but we do not live in that world, and so it remains an issue. Do you see?
@Athywren
Yes.
@ Jesus Christ
Taking shit that doesn’t belong to you is theft, fuckwit. Sure, in an ideal world, we probably wouldn’t be more concerned with nude photos than we would be anything else. Unfortunately, in the real world, society is obsessed with policing everything about women’s bodies and sexuality and shaming them for being anything other than either virgins or married with children. The solution is to fix that, not to gripe at us for caring that Jennifer Lawrence’s privacy was violated.
I don’t think it’s a necessary, or likely, part of an ideal society that people would regard nudity with the kind of indifference Jesus Christ advocates. AFAIK, all human societies have had clothing – even if it’s just a penis gourd or a string of leaves around the waist – and norms about when nudity is appropriate. Moreover, although of course I have not seen them, the context – photos specifically for her boyfriend to enjoy – makes it’s clear that these nude photos were intended to be sexual. But of course, as several people have pointed out to Jesus Christ, that’s a complete side issue. Jennifer Lawrence is quite right to say that those who stole and published her photos are guilty of a sex crime, because her right to consent was violated.
Ok ok ok already, I get it, Jesus Christ! But I will say that perhaps a small amount tech education might help the situation too, like if you have something you don’t want someone to see, like others have said, do not put it anywhere on the internet, and also use very strong passwords. I know it is “not her fault” at all HOWEVER if you leave twenty thousand dollars and some priceless jewelry in the glove compartment of your car, you lock the door, but tens of thousands of people somehow suspect strongly for whatever reason that you very likely have those things in your glove compartment, well… I’m just saying they are better kept in a safety deposit box in your house, or at the bank.
Shorter JC: “I’m not trying to victim blame here, but it’s really the victim’s fault, I’m sure you can see.”
Really. Fuck off with the victim blaming. No part of this is her fault. NONE. The fault lies entirely with the people who violated her privacy and consent, and no one else, not even in part. Asshole.
Jesus Christ @ 76
Oh do fuck off already. Violation of privacy and consent are not natural fucking disasters that are only avoidable by being somewhere else when they happen. They’re deliberate acts committed by one human being against another with the intent to cause harm.
I just said it’s not her fault CaitieCat, I agree it is not her fault and my analogy holds a lot of truth, this is why millionaires don’t keep all their money in a box in the mud room. Yes, they would be victims too if someone broke in and stole all of it. Wouldn’t be the “fault” of the millionaire either. Get it yet? Also, “sex crime” is rape, molestation, and genital mutilation. This is a sexual privacy violation for looking at the photos and robbery for stealing them. Which is wrong and bad.
Jesus Christ, you need to learn the first rule of holes: When you’re in one, quit digging.
JC, do you understand what words are? Do you get that they mean things? No matter how many times you say “it’s not her fault”, when you follow that up with “but here’s all this extra stuff she should have done to avoid this” you are, in fact, blaming her. Because that’s what “fault” means. I swear you fuckwits are all the same. You use these words and phrases like “I’m not saying XYZ” as if they’re magical incantations which absolve you of responsibility for the implications of the words you follow them up with.
JC, if you agree it’s not the victims’ fault, then STOP trying to victim-blame. Why don’t you fault the internet companies for selling their “private” storage as safe (and for manipulating non-tech-savvy people into adopting automatic cloud storage)? Why don’t you fault the people who actively went after her account and hacked it to obtain photos illegally? No, you have to keep making an oblique point about this being a blunder of hers somehow.
Only you give a shit they aren’t, since this a fuckwitted non-sequitur. The problem is the breach of privacy, not the subject matter per se. If you don’t see that, you have nothing to add to a discussion.
Nope, no way. You dismiss the PRIVACY issue, making you another non-sequitur, and somebody who’s opinion is not the be trusted.
Yep, asshole opinion worth only the cost of electrons to post it. Non-sequitur. Doesn’t say anything about the breach of privacy.
And here you are the whatever you disclaim in the first part of the sentence. You don’t get it. Her privacy was breached, and pictures stolen. The fault is irrelevant to the crime. You aren’t and can’t make your case until you address the perps who stole the pictures. And their criminality.
Obviously you don’t loser.
JC, what, in your opinion, would have been an reasonable level of precaution to avoid pictures ending up on the internet? Do you think that this is both reasonable to expect of human beings and safe from the type of people who would go out of their way to steal pictures from someone’s private cloud account? I’m just wondering, because I had a run through some of the precautions that I could think of, and I really couldn’t find a single one that ticked both of those boxes at the same time.
I honestly think that, rather than coming up with reasons why these kind of things are, ‘not the person’s fault but what did they expect if they were going to leave their jewels in a glove box,’ we should probably be focussing on stopping the people who violate other people’s rights. We should also probably talk about how deeply creepy it is to compare a woman’s body to objects that can be bought, sold, or stuffed into glove boxes at some point.
For the record, I’m also a little confused as to why you would start out by seemingly proposing an instant and global conversion to nudism, and then follow up with the logic of, “well, if you’re gonna flaunt it!” There is a middle ground between those two positions, and I have to admit that I find it odd that you wouldn’t have at least travelled between it briefly if one of those positions was honestly held.
I know that it is purely the fault of the iCloud, the hackers, distributors, and the massive amount of media attention (another entire subject, but without the attention, not many people would have the photos). Not her blunder. Not her fault. It is not victim blaming to say that this is the INTERNET in 2014, and unless you’ve been under a rock for a few years, hackers, spam, and PRISM are common knowledge. I’m fairly certain PRISM has a lot of illegal access to everything, and that’s just the government. Yeah, just the government. Isn’t this a great future we’re going to have? Also, remember when we all had to learn the difference between real e-mails and scam spam from some prince in Nigeria? It is now 2014. Besides that, being “tech savvy” is irrelevant. Knowing the internet is not fully secure is common knowledge and has been for a long time. I feel bad for her and I know it was a crime. I hope she sues the balls off the iCloud people, and the hackers if they are found out, and win. I also hope internet security improves and people continue to understand that hackers, scams, and PRISM, are all real internet things that we actually should be aware of.
@ Jesus Christ
If it’s common knowledge, why do you feel compelled to bring it up? Why is it a useful thing to say? What the fuck is your point other than to imply that Jennifer Lawrence should have known better; should have done more and thus should own at least some of the responsibility for what happened? I’ll answer for you: it’s not fucking useful unless your goal is to imply that the victim should own some of the responsibility for what was done to them or so that you can feel superior in the knowledge that this would never happen to you because you’re more tech savvy than that. Or both. Nobody needs you to explain to them that they’re on the internet and that the internet is inhabited by lots of shitty people who will do shitty things. So, yes, it is victim blaming because the effect it has is to focus the conversation on shit the victim ought to be doing. And it’s self serving. No matter how much you protest, comments like yours are not coming from a position of giving a shit about the victim.
Jesus Christ @ 85: Given what we know about how fragile the Internet is, on a scale of 1-10, how much “responsibility” does someone like Jennifer Lawrence have for the crimes committed against her?
This is an accurate statement, but you “but” is what makes you a victim blamer, and potential misogynist. There is no “but” that doesn’t do that. So, why are you pretending the fault is with the victim, and not the perps? Think about that for six months or so….