Revenge !!!!!! - have you experienced it or have your children?

Tropez

mgdavid wrote: »

people commit all sorts of crimes for the ones they love - that doesn't ever make it right.

That was a figure of speech. Misplacing trust isn't a crime, nor is taking pictures of yourself, explicit or otherwise.

Georgiegirl256

Buzzybee90 wrote: »

I'm in my 20s, when I was at school most of my friends (male and female) were doing it. People saying "don't take it and it can't be used against you" don't seem to grasp that it's very much the norm.

Yes a lot of people do it, but to say it is the norm is ludicrous!

My views aren't as extreme as either Peters or Lily's views, but I do believe that if you take the photos in the first place then you are partly to blame. I think Tiddlywinks explained it well.

Of course the majority of the blame should land with the person spreading the photos, but if you took the photos in the first place, then of course you have to be accountable for your actions.

dandelionclock30

Buzzybee90 wrote: »

No you're right, drugs and sending a photo to someone you love are exactly the same.

.

Your clearly missing the very simple point that people have choices regarding what they do. A person doesnt have to do something because everyone is doing it. I dont think thats a hard point to grasp.
Sending a photo of yourself naked is stupid and everyone with half a brain cell should get that even kids.

Georgiegirl256

Buzzybee90 wrote: »

You started work in the 50s making you, what, 70 something? It's impossible for you to understand how it is to be a young person in the 21st century because things have changed so much.

Patronising much?

Tropez

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

Yes a lot of people do it, but to say it is the norm is ludicrous!

My views aren't as extreme as either Peters or Lily's views, but I do believe that if you take the photos in the first place then you are partly to blame. I think Tiddlywinks explained it well.

Of course the majority of the blame should land with the person spreading the photos, but if you took the photos in the first place, then of course you have to be accountable for your actions.

What is accountable then?

Because what is happening is that some people are finding these private images online, finding people leering over them and making grossly perverted comments about what they'd like to do to them. In some cases, the uploaders have even included identifiable information, including names, home addresses, links to Facebook pages and other profiles. (Have a Google for a parasite named Hunter Moore and look at the damage he did, and the way he's proud of what he did).

Several suicides have been linked to this crime (again, Google revenge !!!!!! suicides). Others have reported the inability to trust anyone, profound feelings of anxiety, panic, distress. Fear of being sexually intimate. Being forced to leave their jobs, even relocate to other cities.

Is this the type of accountability they should face?

At most, they made a mistake. An error of judgement, born out of naivety and misplaced trust. People make those mistakes quite commonly.

It is just as heinous to me that someone should suggest that they deserve to be blamed in any way for it, as it would be to most people here if someone suggested that a victim of domestic violence who stayed with their abuser for months was to blame for their situation. In both scenarios, the victim placed their trust in the wrong person.

thorsoak

Buzzybee90 wrote: »

You started work in the 50s making you, what, 70 something? It's impossible for you to understand how it is to be a young person in the 21st century because things have changed so much.

Yes - I am 71. I have worked with and for young people for most of my life (am still working now, fwiw) - and whilst I am no longer a young person, I can take the long view, and give careful, measured advice based on experience.

j.e.j.

The internet CAN be policed, it's just a question of how and how much.

If you look at cases of people who must never be identified, like the Bulger killers, for example. No-one anywhere can put pictures of them on the net, nor anything that identifies them. I quote this just as an example of how things can be controlled in cyberspace, not to compare the killers with people taking nude pictures, obviously!

I think fwiw the problem needs to be tackled from both sides, - clamping down on people posting pictures of others without their permission, and also people protecting themselves from idiots who might at some stage use the digital images of you for nefarious purposes.

I agree with those posters who are saying, just because "everybody else" is doing it (and who is this mythical 'everybody else', anyway) doesn't mean that you have to do it.

Buzzybee90

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

Patronising much?

I wasn't trying to be, but it's a fact. I couldn't imagine being young in a different era, because I wasn't. By the norm I don't mean everyone is doing it, but it's not shocking if someone does.

In 2010 there was even a top 10 song called "Dirty Picture".

lostinrates

j.e.j. wrote: »

I agree with those posters who are saying, just because "everybody else" is doing it (and who is this mythical 'everybody else', anyway) doesn't mean that you have to do it.

There was a very similar thread on DT not that long ago where I admitted sending pictures of my breasts and other parts of me ( including intimate bits) to men who are not my husband via email.

All for quite practical and sensible purpose, and a purpose these professional people have other people send pictures to them for too.

Nonetheless, some of them look quote 'arty'. In a weird way.

Person_one

Tropez wrote: »

That was a figure of speech. Misplacing trust isn't a crime, nor is taking pictures of yourself, explicit or otherwise.

Agreed, this is all a bit weird.

Taking erotic images, sharing nude pictures and so on is something that you do when you love someone and trust them completely.

It happens all the time that when people love someone and trust them completely they then get betrayed and realise the person wasn't trustworthy enough. As an example, I've never seen anybody be blamed or called foolish for opening a joint bank account with their loved and trusted husband if said husband runs off with another woman and empties it. The blame rightly is placed with the person who broke that trust.