Was it prudent of Jennifer Lawrence to take pictures of herself nude in the first place? Y/N?

[carnex]

Potentially not all of them are actually hurt by this incident. For some it might be god sent. Sex tame is well known media stunt for publicity.

And they all could feel horribly violated. Your baseless "coulds" and "maybes" are pointless, but to ease the guilt of malicious thieves.

That said, most actresses either maintain certain public image of themselves that are core to their careers. Many of them actually demand huge amounts of money for their nudity. But most of all it's personal moral standards that are violated. Do they have far too prudish moral standards? Opinions on intersection of sexuality and morality will never be same between reasonable large group of people.

You actually asked the question, do the victims of a sex crime have "too prudish" standards. I just wanted to point that out.

This is actually getting ridiculous. You are, again, trying to put words I didn't say into my mouth. We have nothing to talk about. Have a nice day.

 

[carnex]

Yeah, but if your moral standards are "I'll take it, but then overreact when someone sees it" you loose my respect. Just a personal opinion though.

There is a big difference between personal/intimate and public space. At least there is for me and I would dare for majority of people. We are prepared to do many things within out intimate/personal space that we wouldn't do under any circumstances, if we can help it, in public space. Nudity is one of those things for so many people. Sex for even greater percentage.

 

[Verlander]

Yeah, but if your moral standards are "I'll take it, but then overreact when someone sees it" you loose my respect. Just a personal opinion though.

Someone sees it? Allow me to strip out your deception and display the truth of the matter:

Someone took a private, intimate photo. It could be for themselves, it could be for a loved one. A person they do not know stole it. People they do not know shared it. Now a countless number of perverted assholes are viewing private, sensitive material of the most personal nature.

So, no. No they did not "just" take a photo and then get upset when "someone" saw it.

What you meant was "let me misframe what you wrote". We were talking about the moral standards, not the crime. I perfectly aware of what happened.

 

[Verlander]

Yeah, but if your moral standards are "I'll take it, but then overreact when someone sees it" you loose my respect. Just a personal opinion though.

There is a big difference between personal/intimate and public space. At least there is for me and I would dare for majority of people. We are prepared to do many things within out intimate/personal space that we wouldn't do under any circumstances, if we can help it, in public space. Nudity is one of those things for so many people. Sex for even greater percentage.

Awesome, good for you. I sincerely mean it. I just don't personally respect that outlook as being healthy or constructive.

 

[SexyGarfield]

Clip. Won't let you get me again

In all seriousness, I think the escapist might own our forum post. Might have to check the terms of service, or not. The value I receive from these forums is equal to or more than the value of anything I would conceivably post here.

 

[Reaper195]

I am not victim blaming here.

Except you're going to do just that:

I simply feel that if she should not have taken compromising pictures of herself in the first place.

You're sending a lot of mixed messages here, at one point you're condemning those people for saying the exact same thing you said at the end of your post:

And to all those that downloaded said pictures and use "Well she shouldn't have taken them in the first place.", fuck off that's not the point of the argument to justify your invasion of a woman's privacy.

What a person does on their phone is their own business, whether it's sending messages, sending nude photos to someone else, or something else not illegal or dangerous to the public, full stop. Breaching that privacy is wrong, regardless of whether the person is a public figure or not.

Christ...this thread pretty much ended at the first response. Nothing else can really be added that you didn't just say.

 

[Verlander]

Yeah, but if your moral standards are "I'll take it, but then overreact when someone sees it" you loose my respect. Just a personal opinion though.

If your moral standards are "when a woman is sexually violated it's her own fault" you lose my respect. Just a personal opinion though.

Lucky I didn't say that then.

snip

Have you ever heard a leaked phone conversation, judged someone on something they did in their private life? Do you judge "celebrities" like Mel Gibson, despite having never met him? Have you got an opinion on Donald Sterling? Do you support Wikileaks, or have you seen people being gunned down by police on videos? All of this footage is released without consent, for better or worse, and nearly all of it is far more damaging and serious to the people involved than "nudies" are to these celebrities. Do you know what would be worse? If the only copy of a photo of a dead relative was destroyed, or the record of the birth of a child, NOT an image of the body that you take everywhere. It's a fucking body, we've all got one.

I'm sure that these ladies feel violated, and I feel sorry for anyone who is the victim of crime. However, to judge me for dismissing prudishness while fitting any of the above criteria either makes you a hypocrite, (or someone with very twisted morals).

 

[LetalisK]

Was it prudent? Probably not. Does that matter? Also, probably not.

 

[Batou667]

I'm not going to say J-Law had it coming, or deserved it, or shouldn't have taken photos in the first place.

However...

I don't think it's particularly surprising to hear she got hacked. It almost has a grim inevitability about it. One of the hottest female stars in Hollywood at the moment, I expect she has paparazzi camped outside her house 24/7 with telephoto lenses in the hopes of seeing half a nipple in the reflection of her TV when she wears a low-cut top around the house. Actual, bona-fide, nude photos represent the freaking MOTHER LODE. As much as J-Law has the same basic right to privacy as the rest of us, truth be told shes significantly different to the rest of us by dint of being a fabulously wealthy and successful, attractive young celebrity. She's going to attract a lot more attention, some of it unwanted.

To reiterate, what happened wasn't her fault, but it's not entirely remarkable that people put a lot of effort into seeing her nekkid.

 

[Verlander]

Do you support Wikileaks, or have you seen people being gunned down by police on videos?

What do Wikileaks and police shootings have to do with each other?

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/or_1?q=Or

All of this footage is released without consent, for better or worse, and nearly all of it is far more damaging and serious to the people involved than "nudies" are to these celebrities.

You don't get to make that call for the victims.

Haha, you hypocrite, you're making this call for them! When you talk about them being violated, but many of them have shrugged the leak off.

Do you know what would be worse? If the only copy of a photo of a dead relative was destroyed, or the record of the birth of a child, NOT an image of the body that you take everywhere. It's a fucking body, we've all got one.

Again, this is not even remotely your call to make.

Again, you're a hypocrite, you're making this call yourself.

I'm sure that these ladies feel violated, and I feel sorry for anyone who is the victim of crime. However, to judge me for dismissing prudishness while fitting any of the above criteria either makes you a hypocrite, (or someone with very twisted morals).

Prudishness does not extend to being upset that a nude image of you was stolen. So your argument falls apart utterly.

Prudishness extends to your feelings about the content of what is stolen, you know, "the call I'm not qualified to make" (but you are). So the argument stands, even if you don't quite understand it.

 

[Verlander]

Prude -

A person who is excessively or priggishly attentive to propriety or decorum.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prude

If you consider it excessively attentive to decorum to not wish your nude body be shared with perverted assholes, you are simply wrong.

No, I simply have a different opinion to you. I consider it to be far less of a crime than many others committed in the same way. A body is a body, and the second people get over that we'll live in a happier world.

I've never defended the crime, I just disagree with the reaction to it.