A Friendly Correction for those Man-Haters who Delve to be Single

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Does it make you an asshole to look at the picture of Bar Refaeli with a curling iron in her asshole?

Amen! Of all the things discussed about these pictures, how is Refaeli's ass play not a media fixation?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Why does she "need" to?

She doesn't "need" to, that being an expression of sorts, but it is tedious to hear her do so. As someone else noted earlier, it's human nature to look at this stuff. Calling people the equivalent of hackers for looking at the stuff sounds naively high-handed and overly moralistic.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

She doesn't "need" to, that being an expression of sorts, but it is tedious to hear her do so. As someone else noted earlier, it's human nature to look at this stuff. Calling people the equivalent of hackers for looking at the stuff sounds naively high-handed and overly moralistic.

When you're the victim of the hacking, I think the rest of us can bear a bit of your moralistic tedium. If you looked, it's a shockingly small price to pay.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Not Bob's Id

Thanks, Liz. Now Not Bob is lost for the day.

https://mobile.twitter.com/PhizLair/...44217932259328

The next time some wingnut complains about the sort of scientific research being funded with our federal dollars, I'm pointing to that article.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

She doesn't "need" to, that being an expression of sorts, but it is tedious to hear her do so. As someone else noted earlier, it's human nature to look at this stuff. Calling people the equivalent of hackers for looking at the stuff sounds naively high-handed and overly moralistic.

I'm sure she's deeply concerned about sounding high-handed to men stroking themselves in front of her hacked pix.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

She doesn't "need" to, that being an expression of sorts, but it is tedious to hear her do so. As someone else noted earlier, it's human nature to look at this stuff. Calling people the equivalent of hackers for looking at the stuff sounds naively high-handed and overly moralistic.

I think she's fully entitled to think that the people who looked were assholes. And to let them know that she thinks they're assholes.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

I think she's fully entitled to think that the people who looked were assholes. And to let them know that she thinks they're assholes.

No doubt. And 98% of those she thinks are assholes will just shrug their shoulders and looked again at the next batch of photos.

Not saying it's right - just that it's true.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

I think she's fully entitled to think that the people who looked were assholes. And to let them know that she thinks they're assholes.

I don't think you have the right to say whether you think that she is entitled to think that the people who looked are assholes.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I'm sure she's deeply concerned about sounding high-handed to men stroking themselves in front of her hacked pix.

Go on...

[Not Bob's Id]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

The next time some wingnut complains about the sort of scientific research being funded with our federal dollars, I'm pointing to that article.

You and Atticus actually read the article? Wow. Not Bob stopped at Liz Phair talking about finding her g-spot. It's almost as bad as the time he found out about Jane Wiedlin's graphic novels.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

I think she's fully entitled to think that the people who looked were assholes. And to let them know that she thinks they're assholes.

A person is entitled to feel anything they like. But here's the thing... People are going to look. And hell-- it was almost impossible not to do so. The links were right in our faces.

I've been filmed in lurid acts (as have almost all you you here, I'm certain). The equivalent of circulation of a celebrity's private nude shots would be an ex or one's current SO accidentally (or via hack) sending sex pics of one us around to family and friends.

If some ex of mine were to be hacked or send out stills of something we made, or my wife to send something like that to friends by accident, I'd be embarrassed. But I'd also be absolutely certain that everyone I knew who had access to the thing would view it. Half would lie to me about not viewing it. The other half would make fun of me ruthlessly.

I could get mad at them, sure. But I'd be ridiculous. People are going to look. And I'd be a complete fool to allege that anyone was "further perpetrating a sexual crime" against me by having looked at the shots.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I'm sure she's deeply concerned about sounding high-handed to men stroking themselves in front of her hacked pix.

So some guy's wanking to your image in his parents' basement. What interest is being harmed here, save that of the iPad suffering its 100th semen stain? A little Windex and all's better again.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

When you're the victim of the hacking, I think the rest of us can bear a bit of your moralistic tedium. If you looked, it's a shockingly small price to pay.

I don't have a problem with her saying anything she likes. I'm just suggesting she be a little more pragmatic.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I could get mad at them, sure. But I'd be ridiculous. People are going to look. And I'd be a complete fool to allege that anyone was "further perpetrating a sexual crime" against me by having looked at the shots.

From a legal perspective she seems to be eliding what's happened to her with the dissemination of things like child porn or even non-consensual pictures (e.g., subway upskirts). It doesn't make right what happened, but there's a difference between distributing child porn, where the child didn't consent, and distributing more copies of a picture that she originally consented to.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Not Bob's Id

You and Atticus actually read the article? Wow. Not Bob stopped at Liz Phair talking about finding her g-spot. It's almost as bad as the time he found out about Jane Wiedlin's graphic novels.

There’s a graphic in the article showing the hidden structure of the clitoris and penis. The point is to illustrate their structural similarity. I just found it terrifying. It made them look like this:



Cannot unsee.