People have been taking candid photos and videos since the technology to do so became available. It's only been recently that the risk of getting exposed to the entire world was introduced. I don't think it's reasonable to blame the victims here.
Exactly. It's kind of a stupid thing to do because of the potential consequences, but at the same time if people want to explore their sexuality through exhibitionism their privacy should be respected.
That being said, it's still probably not a good idea. But it sucks that people who might want to experiment with that should be so scared to. I don't see anything inherently wrong with that.
There's always been a risk of sensitive materials being shared with unauthorized parties, the only difference now is how many. I'm also not sure that "warning people of very obvious risks" constitutes victim blaming. If you can do something to easily avoid a problem and you didn't do it, well, that should be a lesson for your ass. There's a difference between "it's your fault" and "you unwisely accepted risk."
Don't loan money you can't afford to lose, don't say things you don't want remembered and don't share photos you don't want loose.
Photos taken during intimacy are taken with the reasonable expectation of privacy. It is not the fault of the victim that the person they initially trusted betrayed that trust. How about instead of teaching people to be afraid to trust we teach people not to betray that trust?
" It is not the fault of the victim that the person they initially trusted betrayed that trust. "
You're not listening. Again, there's a difference between saying "this was your fault" and saying "you exposed yourself to risk, and the dice didn't go your way."
"How about instead of teaching people to be afraid to trust we teach people not to betray that trust?"
For the same reason that we teach people not to run into traffic AND teach drivers to look out for random pedestrians running out into traffic: Because there are TWO points of failure in the equation. Pretending there's only one is not going to help anyone. Why do you insist on a false dichotomy of "either/or" when, clearly, both approaches are called for?
"Teach people not to betray each other." Human society and psychology are not remotely as black and white or as simple as you're suggesting.
There are certain things we learn not to do. Don't kill people. Don't hurt people. Don't steal. When people follow their impulse to do these things anyway we focus on their behavior as the primary fault. Sure we can teach people how to minimize the threat from getting hurt or stolen from but we don't shame the victims for what was done to them. Chiding people who take candid shots of themselves is blaming the victim.
People have been taking candid photos and videos since the technology to do so became available. It's only been recently that the risk of getting exposed to the entire world was introduced. I don't think it's reasonable to blame the victims here.
Exactly. It's kind of a stupid thing to do because of the potential consequences, but at the same time if people want to explore their sexuality through exhibitionism their privacy should be respected.
That being said, it's still probably not a good idea. But it sucks that people who might want to experiment with that should be so scared to. I don't see anything inherently wrong with that.
There's always been a risk of sensitive materials being shared with unauthorized parties, the only difference now is how many. I'm also not sure that "warning people of very obvious risks" constitutes victim blaming. If you can do something to easily avoid a problem and you didn't do it, well, that should be a lesson for your ass. There's a difference between "it's your fault" and "you unwisely accepted risk."
Don't loan money you can't afford to lose, don't say things you don't want remembered and don't share photos you don't want loose.
Photos taken during intimacy are taken with the reasonable expectation of privacy. It is not the fault of the victim that the person they initially trusted betrayed that trust. How about instead of teaching people to be afraid to trust we teach people not to betray that trust?
" It is not the fault of the victim that the person they initially trusted betrayed that trust. "
You're not listening. Again, there's a difference between saying "this was your fault" and saying "you exposed yourself to risk, and the dice didn't go your way."
"How about instead of teaching people to be afraid to trust we teach people not to betray that trust?"
For the same reason that we teach people not to run into traffic AND teach drivers to look out for random pedestrians running out into traffic: Because there are TWO points of failure in the equation. Pretending there's only one is not going to help anyone. Why do you insist on a false dichotomy of "either/or" when, clearly, both approaches are called for?
"Teach people not to betray each other." Human society and psychology are not remotely as black and white or as simple as you're suggesting.
There are certain things we learn not to do. Don't kill people. Don't hurt people. Don't steal. When people follow their impulse to do these things anyway we focus on their behavior as the primary fault. Sure we can teach people how to minimize the threat from getting hurt or stolen from but we don't shame the victims for what was done to them. Chiding people who take candid shots of themselves is blaming the victim.