Is this an example of victim blaming?

[possibletarian]

I recall reading about a young female wrestler whose tapes and photos have been stolen. They contained graphic information, so I don't wish to get a warning. Anyways, there are people who often say that people whose graphic information doesn't wish to get stolen should not have photos or tapes made in the first place. I don't think it is fair way to judge a situation. I understand the "buyer beware", "be careful", or "not to put yourself in a situation", but would all of those situations also constitute victim blaming? While it doesn't happen to the sexes equally, should young men also be cautioned of this if they were victimized by anyone wishing to expose their most private moments?

I do not think both are to blame, I think it would be careless foolish even to leave something where others could steal it. But for me the blame is 100% on those who take something that is not theirs to take.

 

[Gadarene]

While it doesn't happen to the sexes equally, should young men also be cautioned of this if they were victimized by anyone wishing to expose their most private moments?

They probably should, usually because people don't care nearly as much when it happens to men, and often the people remonstrating others for leaking nudes of female celebs are trying to find the same sorts of pics of male celebs when they're leaked.

 

[Paradoxum]

Feel free to twist my words as a SJW.

I'm not an SJW... I don't like SJW's in general.

Not even sure how the silly example you brought up is the same as a sex tape/photo. A sex tape is a private thing that no one should see. Walking through the park is nothing private. Its just walking through the park. If you get raped then obviously its not your fault. I mean I seriously hope no one really believes it would be the rape victims fault.

The point is that you shouldn't be raped walking through a park, and that you shouldn't be publicly exposed by sending private photos to a trusted person.

Now back to the sex tapes. If the person didn't know about the recording. Then obviously only the thief is to blame. But if you knew/wanted it to be filmed, then you put your trust in someone elses hands. So your half to blame. And putting it on the Cloud for example is just really silly. I mean any computer geek can tell you using things like the Cloud is not advisable with personal info.

Trusting someone doesn't mean you're half to blame. Again, if you go into someone's house, and they rape you... you aren't half to blame.

Even walking through a park, you are to some extent trusting others not to attack you. So if you're raped in a park is that half the victims fault?

I will say I seen an article at a website that talked about the celeb photos that were leaked (that the celebs took of themselves) and one woman was saying the thief should be charged as a rapists. And anyone looking at the pictures was also a rapist. I mean... we can agree the guy (assuming it was a guy) who hacked the cloud for them is a terrible person. But a rapist?!? Talk to someone whos actually been raped and they will be hurt and insulted that the word rape is being used in something that didn't involve any rape. Ask my mother. When I told her she was furious. She was molested, raped and beaten by her father for the first 16 years of her life. Almost every day. You CANNOT compare that and say looking at a leaked celeb photo is the same exact thing.

I agree.

I suspect people complain about such picture because they think it's immoral, how they're taken and sent. They want to blame the victim.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

The point is that you shouldn't be raped walking through a park, and that you shouldn't be publicly exposed by sending private photos to a trusted person.

Well I agree that you shouldn't be exposed of course. However taking nude pics (regardless of reason) means you risk them being exposed. So best not to take them.

Its like leaving propane tanks near your fireplace and a ember comes out and blows them up and your like "That wasn't my fault! I didn't chose for that to happen!".

Trusting someone doesn't mean you're half to blame. Again, if you go into someone's house, and they rape you... you aren't half to blame.

But rape isn't the same as a nude pic. Rape is never the victims fault. Where as taking a nude pic/allowing it to be taken does place partial blame on you.

 

[Paradoxum]

Well I agree that you shouldn't be exposed of course. However taking nude pics (regardless of reason) means you risk them being exposed. So best not to take them.

Standing near the edge of a cliff means someone could push you over the edge. Is that your fault though? If you allow someone near you with a knife is that your fault? You could come up with many examples of innocent stations easily leading to harm if someone you trusted decided to harm you.

So I genuinely ask, what is the difference?

Its like leaving propane tanks near your fireplace and a ember comes out and blows them up and your like "That wasn't my fault! I didn't chose for that to happen!".

Though my examples involve trust of a person, and so are more related. Fire is predicable, people are not.

But rape isn't the same as a nude pic. Rape is never the victims fault. Where as taking a nude pic/allowing it to be taken does place partial blame on you.

How so? An author in the UK somewhat recently died because her husband killed her, involving sleeping pills. Was that her fault for trusting people and not being alone?

Is it stupid to trust someone with nude pictures, but not stupid to trust someone with your life? Is anyone who lives in the same house as another to blame if they are killed by that person? Maybe we should all lead sad lonely lives.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

Standing near the edge of a cliff means someone could push you over the edge. Is that your fault though? If you allow someone near you with a knife is that your fault? You could come up with many examples of innocent stations easily leading to harm if someone you trusted decided to harm you.

So I genuinely ask, what is the difference?

Those are grasping at straws. As I said in other places the difference being.... technology. If you take nude selfies and load them to the cloud and the cloud gets hacked. Its the hackers fault but you also play a part because anyone with the ability to make a thought knows nude pics of yourself are NOT secure online.

How so? An author in the UK somewhat recently died because her husband killed her, involving sleeping pills. Was that her fault for trusting people and not being alone?

Is it stupid to trust someone with nude pictures, but not stupid to trust someone with your life? Is anyone who lives in the same house as another to blame if they are killed by that person? Maybe we should all lead sad lonely lives.

Technology. If you don't get it then your probably just a SJW who doesn't care for obvious answers.

With that said are you from another forum from years ago called "AO"? Your name looks familiar.

 

[Paradoxum]

Those are grasping at straws. As I said in other places the difference being.... technology. If you take nude selfies and load them to the cloud and the cloud gets hacked. Its the hackers fault but you also play a part because anyone with the ability to make a thought knows nude pics of yourself are NOT secure online.

Anyone knows that if you are near a cliff, someone might push you off. Or on the edge of a road. You are not secure there.

So what's the difference?

Technology. If you don't get it then your probably just a SJW who doesn't care for obvious answers.

'Technology' isn't actually an explanation. Why does 2+5*3=17? Because Math. Yeah... great explanation.

With that said are you from another forum from years ago called "AO"? Your name looks familiar.

AO?

 

[Cearbhall]

Anyways, there are people who often say that people whose graphic information doesn't wish to get stolen should not have photos or tapes made in the first place. I don't think it is fair way to judge a situation.

I agree with you. Digital graphic material should not be regarded any differently than digital financial material. When someone is a victim of credit card fraud, we don't tell them they shouldn't have a credit card. When someone gets hacked and their passwords and banking information were potentially compromised, we don't blame them for having a Facebook account and a checking account. If someone's phone gets hacked and it has pictures of their children on it, no one says that they shouldn't have taken digital photos of their children.

They're within their rights to possess that property, and they have a right to privacy. A right to control who has access to what information. Period.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

Anyone knows that if you are near a cliff, someone might push you off. Or on the edge of a road. You are not secure there.

So what's the difference?

Technology.

'Technology' isn't actually an explanation. Why does 2+5*3=17? Because Math. Yeah... great explanation.

Technology.

I'm not great at explaining things in easy ways. Well one way to think of it is anything in life has risks, yes. But people still do those things because most of the time the risk is rare. Getting hit by lightning, rare. Getting in a car accident, rare. Getting pushed off a cliff, even more rare. Getting hacked because of technology.... common. And thats why I say technology as a response.

Look at how many accounts, emails....etc were hacked in the last 5 years alone. With stuff so easy to hack into your chances of your stuff being seen (not just photos but info...etc) are WAY higher then most things in life. Even me with my long complex password was part of a hack that affected millions of account for a service I was using (game related). So if you have intimate stuff stored on a server that is not impossible to hack, you know the odds probably aren't in your favor. Heck if you frequent the web at places likes Reddit (or other dark places.... including the dark web) people are ALWAYS leaking peoples nude pics they found whether it be on the cloud, photobucket, email....etc.

So in general we all really accept the risk of info being found out since we are online. Even me.

 

[Lax]

I recall reading about a young female wrestler whose tapes and photos have been stolen. They contained graphic information, so I don't wish to get a warning. Anyways, there are people who often say that people whose graphic information doesn't wish to get stolen should not have photos or tapes made in the first place. I don't think it is fair way to judge a situation. I understand the "buyer beware", "be careful", or "not to put yourself in a situation", but would all of those situations also constitute victim blaming? While it doesn't happen to the sexes equally, should young men also be cautioned of this if they were victimized by anyone wishing to expose their most private moments?

Generally I think it's a philosophical conflict between punitive and preventive mindsets.

Punitive people primarily focus on punishing the perpetrator.

Preventive people primarily focus on preventing the perpetrator from having an opportunity.

From a punitive person's perspective, a preventive person highlighting carelessness seems like blaming the victim. From a preventive person's perspective, a punitive person highlighting the act seems like endorsing carelessness.

 

[Paradoxum]

Technology.

If I were with you in person I'd be giving you a weird look.

Looking at your reply below, your answer is likelihood, not technology.

I'm not great at explaining things in easy ways. Well one way to think of it is anything in life has risks, yes. But people still do those things because most of the time the risk is rare. Getting hit by lightning, rare. Getting in a car accident, rare. Getting pushed off a cliff, even more rare. Getting hacked because of technology.... common. And thats why I say technology as a response.

I'm not sure what the chances of these things are.

Look at how many accounts, emails....etc were hacked in the last 5 years alone. With stuff so easy to hack into your chances of your stuff being seen (not just photos but info...etc) are WAY higher then most things in life. Even me with my long complex password was part of a hack that affected millions of account for a service I was using (game related). So if you have intimate stuff stored on a server that is not impossible to hack, you know the odds probably aren't in your favor. Heck if you frequent the web at places likes Reddit (or other dark places.... including the dark web) people are ALWAYS leaking peoples nude pics they found whether it be on the cloud, photobucket, email....etc.

So in general we all really accept the risk of info being found out since we are online. Even me.

I'm not sure that leaked photos being more common than some there events means the victim is to blame.

Though I've kind of lost track of this discussion.

 

[possibletarian]

Generally I think it's a philosophical conflict between punitive and preventive mindsets.

Punitive people primarily focus on punishing the perpetrator.

Preventive people primarily focus on preventing the perpetrator from having an opportunity.

From a punitive person's perspective, a preventive person highlighting carelessness seems like blaming the victim. From a preventive person's perspective, a punitive person highlighting the act seems like endorsing carelessness.

I like that view, or should I say view of views !

I understand and agree with both, I think people do have a responsibility to not put themselves in dangerous situations, for instance purposely walking across a pedestrian crossing when I have the green light does not mean that I should not look to make sure the traffic is stopped. The legal fault would probably be with the driver of the car should I get knocked over, but that's little consultation for both parties.

I'm aware that I live in a world where others are careless, thoughtless and others simply don't care and I do have a duty to myself as well as others.

And the flip of that is that though it would be foolish for me to leave my wallet on the dashboard of my car with the window down and walk away, and would be very annoyed with myself for doing so on realising that my wallet had gone, I would not be to blame at all for someone making the decision to simply take what they knew was not theirs to take.

To steal is not carelessness, it is a choice ..mostly. Circumstances can though lead to morally debatable actions, if for instance my children were starving I would be very tempted to take the cash. I find these issues moving targets of morality so to speak, I try to take care of myself and be responsible to those around me.

I'm not an SJW... I don't like SJW's in general.

I had to Google SJW, I need to get up to speed with abbreviations !

Andy

 

[Kylie]

I recall reading about a young female wrestler whose tapes and photos have been stolen. They contained graphic information, so I don't wish to get a warning. Anyways, there are people who often say that people whose graphic information doesn't wish to get stolen should not have photos or tapes made in the first place. I don't think it is fair way to judge a situation. I understand the "buyer beware", "be careful", or "not to put yourself in a situation", but would all of those situations also constitute victim blaming? While it doesn't happen to the sexes equally, should young men also be cautioned of this if they were victimized by anyone wishing to expose their most private moments?

The fact that someone has had images of a personal nature stolen from them does not mean it is acceptable for those images to be made public. You can't blame the victim for the actions of another person.

 

[Kylie]

If someone does something you described, both parties are equally to blame.

For example, say I'm thoughtless and leave an iPad to get stolen at the cafe. A thief steals it. The thief should be the only one to get prosecuted, but it was also my fault - I deserve some verbal blame.

Why? What did you do wrong?

 

[Strathos]

Sounds like victim blaming to me

 

[Phil 1:21]

If I leave my garage door open all night and somebody decides to steal my tools, yes they are to blame for the crime, but I’m also a bit stupid for leaving my door open. Not all crimes are avoidable, but there are obvious instances where the victim could have prevented the problem by exercising some common sense. Although, as I’m constantly reminded, common sense isn’t very common anymore.

 

[Kylie]

If I leave my garage door open all night and somebody decides to steal my tools, yes they are to blame for the crime, but I’m also a bit stupid for leaving my door open. Not all crimes are avoidable, but there are obvious instances where the victim could have prevented the problem by exercising some common sense. Although, as I’m constantly reminded, common sense isn’t very common anymore.

But would a judge reduce the punishment for the thief if you had left the door unlocked? Their crime is still just as great, after all...

 

[IAMABELIEVER1979]

I recall reading about a young female wrestler whose tapes and photos have been stolen. They contained graphic information, so I don't wish to get a warning. Anyways, there are people who often say that people whose graphic information doesn't wish to get stolen should not have photos or tapes made in the first place. I don't think it is fair way to judge a situation. I understand the "buyer beware", "be careful", or "not to put yourself in a situation", but would all of those situations also constitute victim blaming? While it doesn't happen to the sexes equally, should young men also be cautioned of this if they were victimized by anyone wishing to expose their most private moments?

Yeah, I think both parties are to blame.

 

[HannahT]

Is it stupid to trust someone with nude pictures, but not stupid to trust someone with your life? Is anyone who lives in the same house as another to blame if they are killed by that person? Maybe we should all lead sad lonely lives.

Your comparables are completely confusing. Having pictures and trusting someone not to kill you? I don't get the connection at all.

In this day and age we have all seen people get exposed due to things on their phones, or in their storage online. Things that should be for their eyes only. Hackers and Thieves are out there waiting for vulnerability to do just that, and no doubt REALLY hot to trot for celebrities stuff. We have our bank stuff stolen, because of security breaches. Credit stolen and used. The list goes on.

Sadly, in this day and age we take risks with all those things. We all have to make sure it is worth it to us - the risks when we put things on our phones, or store it online. Hackers lie in wait. Companies load up on security, and there is always a possibility of that getting stolen anyway. It's a constant battle. Hackers are constantly looking for ways to OUT DO the security. They tell you that even using your phone with public wifi is risky, because hackers enter your phone that way. Stolen phone? No doubt a bit easier for them. It's terrible.

It's not right what happened to her. Yet, all of us take that risk today. Whatever is on our phones, storage, etc is at risk. Nothing in those realms are safe anymore.

I do hope they find the person responsible, and prosecute them.

 

[Phil 1:21]

But would a judge reduce the punishment for the thief if you had left the door unlocked? Their crime is still just as great, after all...

I don't think anyone's diminishing the crime. They're saying that certain crimes could be prevented by the use of a little basic common sense on the part of the victim.