This isn't like its revenge porn or anything though. Everything about the filming of the scene was consentual and released to the public consentually. Whats the issue with a dude wanting to organixe and jerk off to the scenes?

Involuntary porno sounds like something was leaked or filmed at gunpoint.

[–] Kissaki@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Whats the issue with a dude wanting to organixe and jerk off to the scenes?

There's a fundamental difference between doing that and publicizing something though.

[–] Ohmmy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 months ago

But would it not be just as weird, creepy, and taboo for one to do it with non-nude and therefore non-pornographic material? Would pictures of feet being passed around not be just as weird but also not covered under this law?

[–] Vendetta9076@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago

Is there? According the the law the issue is that he took the scenes as pornographic when they weren't. Not that he organized and posted the scenes in the first place.

[–] datavoid@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Maybe the scenes being filmed weren't intended to be viewed sexually? There are lots of ways you can make nudity non-sexual.

I think the whole point is that the actresses didn't agree to be jerked off to going in.

[–] Facebones@reddthat.com 8 points 2 months ago

Its like how in general (in the US) you dont have an expectation of privacy in public - You went to the mall, if someone is filming at the mall you might get caught in that.

You performed nude in this movie that was released to the public, you can't then get mad that people are looking at you nude. Are we going to start monitoring streaming services for people who start a movie then click immediately to 00:49:32 a few times a week then go arrest them too?

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I think the whole point is that the actresses didn’t agree to be jerked off to going in.

I don't think anybody agrees to being jerked off to or not. There's no contract between actors and audience.

[–] datavoid@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 months ago

Not in America, at least

[–] wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 2 months ago

I feel like that's a stretch, and there's some important things to consider here.

People are weird, and can fetishize all sorts of shit. There's no reasonable way to control say, someone jerking off to pictures of hand models. Or to stop someone shlicking it to your shlubby beer gut at the beach photos you put up on social media if that's their thing (and I know a woman who's thing was "straight bears" for a long time).

But no one has any agency or ability to prevent that. No one has any agency to prevent any random person passing them on the street and then later using that memory plus imagination as cranking fuel.

For the sake of every individual's personal sanity, I think it's important that each and every one of us understand and accept that. Existing in the world is naturally giving up a certain amount of control. This is part of it, as disgusting as it is.

This is even more the case when you put content out there. Whether through acting in film or other media, creating artwork, posting pictures, etc. Creating content in the current age of the internet is inherently ceding ownership and control over it. The moment it hits the public space, you cannot control what is done with it, and the sooner people can learn to accept that, the better off I think we all will be.

I understand that feeling of violation to learn that someone has used you purely as an object for arousal.

abuse

Multiple times an ex manually stimulated me to physical arousal and used me as a human dildo. At the time I convinced myself I was into it, because I was a guy. I wasn't, and while my trauma is relatively minor, it exists.

That said, there is nuance. This content was not edited, it was merely taken out of the original context. Are we going to prevent news from doing this to prevent using content in ways unintended and unanticipated by the original creators?

"I'll know misuse when I see it" is not a sustainable method for evaluating misuse at scale.

"If it's clearly being used for erotic purposes" likewise doesn't work, as defining that line isn't straightforward. Do we ban reposts of bikini shots?

This isn't something that was created for private use that was leaked. It was content made for public consption. Being disgusted with how the public chooses to consume it is your right, but there's no way to control that.

Again, I entirely sympathize with the women experiencing this. Being used in this manner is dehumanizing.

But there's no stopping it. Best to accept as best you can and ignore it.

[–] krolden@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 months ago

What? Its from the movies they were already nude in