The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.

Someone needs to get 'Anonymous' on this issue. They could hack the lives of all the site owners and make their private business public. Turnabout's fair play, dickheads.

This is fucking hilarious!

You need to define your comment better, we don't know if your comment should be upvoted or downvoted.

Do I now? Think I'll leave it be and let people assume the worst, take the down votes and then let the self reflection of your own thoughts do everything for me.

Oh, I like this guy.

*doublepromote *quality

And if you don't get it, it is fine by me.

I'm so proud of this woman, I could spit.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by bareboards2.

Double-Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Wednesday, January 21st, 2015 12:59pm PST - doublepromote requested by bareboards2.

Unfortunately, though I could be wrong, I'm pretty certain a significant number of Anonymous members are also involved in that (pathetic, spiteful, cry-for-attention) that was that feminist-gaming-fiasco idiocracy. Anonymous has done great things, and horrible things, and sadly, by their nature, they've nothing to direct them but the panic of the crowd. (I do think they're a great force for good most of the time, however).

I do disagree with this continuing theme of the "Hatred for women". Exploitation doesn't mean hatred. What's so often (mis)labeled as hatred or misogyny is simply the expression of power of one group over another. I don't think hate factors into it for the majority of participants. It's the same as school-yard bullies; they don't pick on kids because they literally hate them, they're just getting off on power and feeling good about making others feel less. No one really hated Ghyslain Raza (the "Starwars kid"), they just wanted to make someone else feel like shit so they could feel less pathetic about their own lives.

But I'm not trying to argue against her point. I think what she did is truly the best way to shove it in the face of those who've wronged her in the most intimate and public way. I'm sure she'll feel the pain of this violation for the majority of her life, as most people would in that situation, but the bravery of being proactively engaged against those who exploited her should give her, and any other woman who has experienced something similar, empowerment today.

I'm judging you! I'm judging the hell out of you right now, and I totally don't care that it's going to chafe for weeks!

You want it, you got it. Won't bother me a bit to downvote it.

Are you saying that anonymous was part of gamergate (spiteful little doxxing fucktards that they are)?

That's really disappointing.

Hate to be that guy but if you send someone nude pictures of yourself, you're taking a significant risk. Even if you trust that person, digital media is inherently insecure. This isn't a matter of rights or principles. The people who steal and leak such things don't care about either of those. It's a matter of common sense.

Touchy subject. Can't really say or comment about the issue. But given that most incidents have a reactive counter-measures, there is also a pro-active method to ensuring that such sensitive photos aren't somehow leaked.

People take for granted the ability to store the photos that they've taken in the cloud. This is convenience that a lot of people like, myself included. However, by storing a digital photo onto the cloud, two things happen: the photo is there "forever" and the photo can be stolen, nearly irregardless of security.

As far as security, the first and only line of defense is the password. Unfortunately we live in a day and age where password won't work no matter what you use -- complex, generated, correcthorsebattery (or whatever it was), and what else there is. Given time, the password will be cracked and the account compromised. We, as human beings, prefer convenience and are willing to give up security in order to make it easier for us to remember the billions of accounts that we have laying around -- Twitter, Google, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat. Having that one-password-fits-all kind of system, the line of defense is very thin and can break easily.

The pro-active method for intimate photos is to simply not store them onto the cloud. Instead, back them up into cold storage. Put it onto a backup drive and unplug it when it's not in use. It'll be inconvenient for many. But in most cases, it'll make it very difficult for anyone to steal those photos that some treasure so much. Once the photos are backed up, delete them off the device.

So yeah, most people would say to not take the photo in the first place. Unfortunately for me, I'm one who would say that too. Dammit...

It's unfortunate for anyone whose intimate photos are stolen. I know these victims must remain vigilant and strong to fend off the morons who make stupid comments about it. But the mind can only take so much verbal abuse. The sad thing about it all is that it doesn't matter whose at fault or who is to blame. Everyone loses.

Not actually true. 2 factor authentication has been available on many services for years. It's not impenetrable, true, but it's a damn sight harder to get around.

And again, the message shouldn't be "don't take the photo", it should be "don't steal someone else's photos", and "don't look at other peoples stolen photos". The only person not to blame her is the girl in the photo.

No, but they should accept in this day and age that a ton of douches might snap secret pics of them (potenially upskirt shots when the girls are going up an escalator or something), fap to said pics, then upload the pics for others to potentially fap to. Not saying that's right, but it's a possibility that anyone wearing a mini-skirt would be foolish to ignore.

It's a digital world now. As @Jerykk was pointing out, the best way to avoid naked pics of yourself showing up on the Net is not to take naked pics of yourself (and even then some scumbag might install a hidden camera in a changing room or shower and you wind up on there anyway). From jilted ex-lovers to NSA hoovering data to security breaches/password leaks that seem to be making headlines every day, the odds of a naked pic of yourself being made public against your will (whether you're male or female) are exponentially higher these days. I think anyone who takes naked pics of themselves and doesn't expect them to show up online at some point (could be decades from now) is being a bit naive, especially if they are digital pics,

Sorry, but that's a stupid argument. Just because we live in a digital world doesn't mean people have any less right to privacy.

Or do you think people whose emails are hacked should have used snail mail?
What about all those idiots who use online banking?

Stop blaming the victim.

If victims have no responsibility for their plights, then they have no ability to respond and they will forever remain victims. While this makes sense linguistically (victims are victims, by definition they have no ability, duh!), in the real world if someone wants to NO LONGER be a victim, then they will seek out ways they are ABLE to RESPOND (aka, RESPONSIBILITY) to the injury. This is PRECISELY what this woman did - she found a way to respond. She took to herself the ability to respond. She took responsibility. You merely obfuscate the issue with emotional confusion by throwing out the "victim blaming" phrase, but in so doing you also reinforce the fallacious notion that they ought to remain as powerless victims with no ability to respond (responsibility). Now it is true, some can be calloused and downright hateful in their delivery of their proposed solution - and they may not care at all if the victim does empower themselves for betterment. I'd agree the "victim blaming" pejorative carries appropriate sentiment in those cases. But in cases where the solution is well thought out, couched in sympathy and care, and delivered with love (like many responses here) "victim blaming" argument is incredibly detrimental to the victim. It is a bad, wrong, argument.

Having said all that, I think her chosen response is ultimately counter productive generally, even if it does make her feel a little better about herself. The proactive solution is no digital naked pics. But that will take us deeper into moral contemplations, and I think Mr. Chaos has enough on his plate with my previous comment.

Yeah I just didn't want to use the 'official' term for them because they don't deserve the recognition.

I could be wrong though, I just recall a lot of info that seemed to suggest they arose from the same social arena as the former group. Let's hope I'm wrong?

Gonna have to completely disagree. The stupid argument is that victims are just useless turds that have no ability for self empowerment. Also, if we applied "the victim role" to every situation, which it most definitely should be if you favor it, we kind of seem stupid ourselves. Down here in Florida you don't cross the street just because the little man is white and says its okay. You get run the fuck over if you try that shit. No, see, stupid people drive so I teach my children to look both ways; even as adults, despite the fact that this falls in to your idea of blaming the victim. Also, I will teach them not to drink around frat parties or to do it alone. Not because I blame them if they get raped at college. Precisely the opposite. Empower them with facts.

A newspaper op did just that. Hey, they warned, be safe please. And they were blasted...so parents are blaming when they teach the same? We should teach that it's okay for people to be stupid just to spite assholes? That it is on teenage boys not to send naked pics of their girlfriends rather than saying, "Hey kid, don't send naked pics to your boyfriends..."

Please don't say any of that was apples to oranges...because it all applies. Please think rationally. Nobody is saying the victim is to blame--we are simply saying don't walk in a minefield to protest the war.

And yes, this woman is right. Men do 90% of this abuse. But women have the copyrights on other forms of abuse--at least in America.

And how dare she compare this to rape...or upshotting for that matter? (She did...............................................................) I agree this was dickish and that people should go to jail for it...and if it were my kids I would want to hurt someone. But rape would make me want to kill someone...

Would have been nice if she included that she was not going to get paid for her pics...at least I hope she did not. One thing to stand for these morals, and good for her. Another thing to post porn in protest...

Again, this isn't about rights or principles. It's about reality. We live a world where many people don't care about your rights or the law. If you give them the opportunity, these people will exploit you. If you don't want to be exploited, you need to avoid creating such opportunities whenever it is practical to do so. Ideally, we wouldn't have to do this. Ideally, everyone would share the same principles and values and we would all coexist in harmony. But that's not the world we live in.

Also, your analogies are pretty silly. Sending nude pics of yourself to someone is in no way comparable to using online banking. Banks have exponentially more security than whatever messaging or e-mail service you're using to send pictures, not to mention that the person receiving the pics can do whatever they want with them.

Okay, now I'm a bit embarrassed that I started watching because of the thumbnail. She makes great points though.

I know most of you are well intentioned, but when you learn that a woman has been violated, I think the first response has always got to be sympathy; not to give her safety tips.

If her purse were stolen because she left it in an unlocked car, that might be an appropriate time to lead with safety tips. But not when a woman is humiliated or sexually assaulted. If you fail to condemn the crime but only criticize her level of caution, it comes off as misogynistic.

I'm not sure it matters if it is "true" hate or not. It is a malicious act, the intent is to do harm. Aside from that, misogyny is also defined as the mistreatment of women, so ya, I don't think it is a misnomer at all in this case.

No, there is a world of difference between having a responsibility for your plight and choosing how you respond.

The correct response to being assaulted, robbed, or otherwise offended against, is never to bow down to what your attackers want. You can apply this logic to all kinds of situations.

Don't want cat calls? Don't wear a sexy outfit.
Don't want to be gay bashed? Don't go into the rural south.
Didn't want to be shot? Shouldn't have published those cartoons.

FUCK

THAT

SHIT

But funnily enough, no-one ever tells a white guy that if he didn't want to be car-jacked, he shouldn't be driving that corvette.

It's pretty fucking awful that the assholes who stole the photos manage to be both puritan and lecherous at the same time. Telling the woman she's a slut for posing naked whilst masturbating to the images. It's the height of hypocrisy.

And meanwhile, you have a bunch of guys telling her what she should or shouldn't do in the privacy of her own home.

Who said people don't have a right to privacy? In an ideal world people would respect that right. But we don't live in an ideal world do we? So it makes sense to assess the risks and take precautions.

Look at it from another perspective. If I constantly leave my house unlocked with all the ground floor windows open when I go out, do I deserve to be robbed? No. But through my actions have I made it exponentially more likely that I'm going to be robbed? Yes. Does that mean the robber should get a lighter sentence if caught? No. Could I have easily prevented the crime from happening by taking basic precautions? Yes. Does that mean the crime is my fault? No. But was I naive to think that no one would ever rob my house? Absolutely, unless I happen to live alone on a deserted island!

It sucks what happened to her. It's not her fault. She deserves justice and I hope they catch the person who did it. The point of my previous post was that anybody taking naked pics of themselves these days--particularly digital ones--is exponentially increasing their risk of a humiliating exposure. That's the reality, whether you think it is "stupid" or not. If a person is not comfortable with that level of risk, they shouldn't engage in the behavior. This in no way implies that a person who has taken naked pics of themselves doesn't deserve justice if they are victimized. But it does imply that they are a bit naive (or haven't been paying attention to current events) if they thought there was little risk in taking naked pics of themselves and posting them online (as this person apparently did on her Facebook page) given the current security situation on the Internet.

Since the term "blaming the victim" came up, I thought this might be a good read:

http://www.zurinstitute.com/victimhood.html

I don't agree with everything he wrote, but he's got some sensible ideas about the term and how it has been stretched to the point of absurdity.

The wording is your quibble?

Do you exploit people that you respect? That you love? That you consider equals?

*sexuality

Adding video to channels (Sexuality) - requested by messenger.

You're conflating the choice to take naked pictures with the choice to distribute somebody else's stolen naked pictures. Is it a bad choice to take nude photos? Maybe. Maybe not. It's risky. So are a lot of things people who which end up biting them in the ass. But this video was never about that.

This video was about how so many people think it's OK to distribute other people's stolen naked pictures without their consent.

But society tells a man, enshrined in law and tradition, that if he does not want to be forced into wage-slavery for 18 years of an unwanted child's life, he should not have had sex with the girl in the first place. It makes women victims of sex, not equal participants, fully capable and fully responsible. The woman chooses to have, abort, abandon or offer for adoption. The man does not have any choice over that, including if he wants to keep and she does not.

And that double standard stems from the inherent sexist bias that men are the big strong responsible ones, and women need protecting and helping. I keep seeing Emma Watson's face plastered all over facebook with "He For She" gash-tagged. He for she? HE... for SHE? She does not need he, and the campaign ridiculously reinforces the male hyper-responsibility and female hypo-responsibility that has led us to this system which is sexist to both males and females. If anything, we need we, but wee-wee probably isn't a good tag-line.

So why did i bring sexism up? Well, either you can't tell people to act a certain way if they don't want consequences, or you can.... and we as a society do not have a standard to use, because we legally force fathers into wage-slavery at the whim of the mother and tell him exactly that. Is it any surprise men are using the same unfair argument by which they can be and are financially crippled? That's the heart of the debate imo; society raises men to be fully responsible for their actions, but raises women not to be (which as we see is sexist and unfair to both).

Only one thing is certain - equality of the sexes is important for both sexes. Because when society is willing to accept that women can be responsible for themselves, men will not be held responsible for a woman's decision to have a child. And then maybe men will stop using the argument which they must bow to by law.

Pre-emptive edit:
I will never let it be said that the views expressed herein are sexist, nor that i am sexist. I am a huge proponent of the fact that women are gifted with the same cognitive potential as men, and that any physiological differences are irrelevant in the modern world. But equality comes with a price - and that price is real equality. I am not encouraging irresponsible male behaviour... i am stating, loud and proud, as a feminist.. that women should be allowed to be fully responsible for their choices and actions, because i believe them to be fully capable of it.

That's a really tired analogy.

She didn't "leave the doors and windows open". The house was locked.

What you're saying is "don't give your partners a key to your house, they might go nuts later and steal your shit".

There's no middle ground here. She did nothing wrong. NOTHING.

Yeah, she could have "prevented the crime" by not posing for the photos. But she shouldn't have to. If two people want to share intimate photos of each other, it's no-one else's damn business.

Put it this way. Let's say she and her partner decided to have a consensual threesome or do whatever other non-traditional intimate acts society doesn't consider "normal". Should she not do that? After all, her partner might later decide to tell everyone she's a "slut" or a "freak" or whatever. At what point do you start telling people what they should do with their partner?

I don't know anythign about Emma Watson or "he for she" or whatever so I'm not going to comment on that.

But jesus rollerblading christ.... are you seriously comparing the unintended consequences of consensual sex to the violation of someones privacy?

I honestly can't believe what I'm reading.

I would never say that if you don't want a kid, don't have sex. I will absolutely say that if you don't want a kid, practice safe sex.

But it's a biological fact that, with the best will in the world from both parties, children can result from intercourse. Please tell me this isn't news to you.

One is an unalterable fact, like gravity. The other results from someones deliberate actions.

So yeah, if you can go skydiving, accept the fact that if everything goes wrong and you hit the ground, you will get injured.
But don't tell me not to go skydiving in case some asshole cuts my parachute.

I give up. Continue telling this young woman how to live her life and what she should do in the privacy of her own home with her partner.

Then why are you being this guy?

Did you listen to what this woman has been subjected to? In what universe does she bear any responsibility for actions of these cretinous individuals of all ages?

Not the wording: the definition. Exploit does not mean hate, and at no point was I defending misogyny or abuse or hatred of anyone. But this odd definition of exploitation of women being re-labeled as 'hatred' has always struck me as an awkward manipulation of reality. To me, it's akin to redefining being punched in the face as 'rape'. Both things are terrible, but repurposing a worse word to apply to a lesser one is over-exaggerating the situation only to draw attention to the crime.

As for exploiting people, that's just getting into a Freudian psycho-analysis, the nuances of which could honestly make everyone guilty of exploitation just by human nature. But we should bypass that because the subject isn't applicable and is wide and deep enough to spawn a hundred websites just dedicated to just that topic alone, and no one in this tier of human evolution will ever find a conclusion to that conversation.

But this is something different. This is an intentional action to belittle others for the sake of social or personal insecurity. I am entirely against that, but I have to draw the line at blowing things out of proportion for the sake of drawing attention to the issue, especially when it's done on a culturally-wide level, because that makes all of us collectively dumber in the end. I demand progress through honesty.

And that's the issue right there. I think you and I are arguing about completely different things. In terms of the person who stole the photos and posted them, yes there is no middle ground--that person 100% committed a crime and needs to be punished.

However, in terms of responsibility of people for putting themselves in the position to be victimized, there is a huge range of possibilities--but often this range of possibilities isn't examined for fear of someone shouting "Blaming the victim!" The link I posted above goes to great lengths to point out that the criminal who commits the crime is 100% responsible for the criminal act (by virtue of having made the choice to commit it) but that the victim can in fact also have contributed to the crime in a continuum of ways starting with not at all (100% innocent, as in a child who is abused) to fully responsible (as in the case of a rapist who is killed by a potential victim in self-defense during the rape attempt--in this case the rapist becomes the "victim" of a shooting that he brought completely upon himself). There is lots of middle ground between these extremes.

Let's examine a simple case:

I am walking down the street in LA during the early evening in a neighborhood that normally has very little crime. A homeless man shambling past me suddenly pulls a knife, rams it into my chest, and steals my wallet which happened to contain several hundred dollars. I think we can agree in this situation I've no responsibility for this incident occurring. I could not have predicted it would happen and there is little I could have done to anticipate or prevent it. I am 100% an innocent victim in this scenario.

Now let's change the situation. I go down to Skid Row in the early evening and start showing all the homeless people there wads of $100 bills and telling them how worthless they are and how if they only got off their asses and worked hard like me they could have money too. Again, I get shanked in the chest and my money is stolen. Am I 100% an innocent victim in this case? It seems a bit absurd to say yes, doesn't it? My actions (choosing to go to an area that is not often policed, at night, alone, and flash money while belligerently accosting random people who don't have a lot left to lose) are directly linked to the stabbing.

Note that in both cases the person committing the crime is still 100% responsible for their own actions--they chose to stab me and steal my money. But in one case I clearly could not have foreseen or prevented the attack coming whereas in the other it was reasonably foreseeable that my actions were going to lead to problems (not necessarily a stabbing but at the very least some sort of altercation, unless the most patient and forgiving homeless people on Earth happened to be gathered on Skid Row that day). Does that mean the stabber in the second case should get a lighter sentence? No. But it does mean I have some responsibility for what went down and can be justly criticized for my actions. I can't hide behind the "don't blame the victim" catchphrase. I still deserve justice, though, despite being an offensive idiot.

Back to the case at hand.

You are correct, the woman did nothing "wrong" in the moral or legal sense, and the person who violated her privacy is 100% responsible for making the photos public. But I dislike the idea that because she's a victim of a crime, her actions can't be criticized. She might not have done anything "wrong" but she did indeed make a huge error of judgement when she decided to snap naked pics of herself and post them to a social network which is known for dodgy privacy practices. Given the state of technology today, one should be able to infer that there is a pretty high risk that racy photos are going to get leaked at some point, particularly if posted online. If you are okay with that risk, go ahead and post them. And if they are leaked, by all means prosecute the offenders. But don't expect people not to criticize you for gambling that nothing is going to happen, especially when there is plenty of evidence to believe the contrary.

We're talking about two different things.

She is not responsible for someone deciding to steal and post the photos nor is she responsible for cretinous emails she later received.

She IS responsible for 1) taking the photos and 2) posting those photos in a place that made it likely they would be leaked (i.e. Facebook).

She's not responsible for the crime, but it should have been foreseeable that her actions were likely to result in the photos being made public someday (whether by a hacker, a jealous ex-lover, a stolen/misplaced laptop, etc.). So, she's a victim of a crime (which is deserving of compassion) and at the same time she's also a victim of her own actions (which is deserving of pity but possibly also deserving of some criticism for not thinking things through).

I suppose throughout this thread I've been a bit dismayed by the idea that we can't criticize her actions because she's been the victim of a crime. If she wasn't a victim of a crime but instead posted a video about how she takes naked pictures of herself and posts them to Facebook, would it still be wrong to point out that she clearly wasn't thinking things through about how much higher the odds are these days of personal info being leaked online?

Naked pictures are not really the issue.

If her pictures had been stolen and looked at, but she didn't KNOW that they had been seen, her psychological damage from this theft would have been very different. Wondering who has seen them, being uncomfortable when meeting someone -- has this person seen them? That person? Not happy, not cool. And, in fact, she took back that particular psychological assault by posting this video and claiming her naked body for herself. Here. Look. I want you to look. It's my body and it is a fine body.

The real damage are the personal attacks, exposing personal information, attempted blackmail, active psychological assaults on her mind.

You guys can have your intellectual conversation about the cloud and how to protect yourself.

But that is not the problem.

I had to stop reading the comment stream when I realized it was starting to include crap about -- oh this isn't misogyny, this isn't hatred.

Yes. It is. It is violence against women, and this woman in particular.

And when you ignore that, and focus on the fact that she had made something that was vulnerable to theft... well, we get back to that feminist/humanist trope of -- you are part of the problem. #Not All Men? Well, men who focus on immaterialities while a violent psychological assault is taking place? I'd say #Those Men.

I know you don't mean any harm. I know you aren't #Those Men, not really. But I'm here to tell you that there is new harm being committed when you ignore the actual violent psychological crimes.

I am aware that some of what I have written might sound really stupid in light of the above comments, since I didn't read them. I'm okay with that. It is better than subjecting myself to what feels like an additional violation.

We're part of the problem because we believe that people should take precautions and avoid unnecessary risks? Make no mistake, it's awful that someone stole her pictures and distributed them on the web. She's definitely the victim here. Nobody is arguing otherwise. However, making angry videos chastising the people who perpetrated these crimes is a waste of time. They knew exactly what they were doing and most certainly don't feel any remorse. Explaining the psychological impact of leaked nude pictures isn't going to convert those people into saints.

There are a lot of assholes in the world who don't care about your feelings or your rights. You should take that into account with every choice you make, such as taking nude pictures of yourself and sharing them with others on the internet. People take precautions all the time. You lock your doors, you look both ways before crossing the street, you don't carry too much cash at any given time, you stay out of dark alleys, you wear warm clothing in cold weather, you cover the seats of public toilets before using them, you wash your hands after using toilets, you get flu shots, etc. Using the internet should be treated no differently. Teaching people that sobering fact is going to be way more productive than trying to turn assholes into good people.

What part of the statement "naked pictures are not really the issue here" did you not understand?

@bareboards2

Oh, I totally get what you are saying. You've seen my comments in other threads. You know I think there are definitely social issues with how women are both perceived and treated in real life and portrayed in media. Yeah, absolutely, we can look at this story from the perspective of "men behaving badly" because they have the power and they can. And they certainly did. Totally agree with you that it is misogynistic behavior and that we can use the story as an example highlighting social problems and showcasing how one woman tried to turn the tables.

But that's only one perspective to view the story from. We can also view the story as a cautionary tale about Internet safety in the 21st century and comment on how the victim in this case actively (albeit completely unintentionally) contributed to her own victimization. And that's another valid perspective. Personally, I don't see them in conflict, nor do I see the need to shout down one perspective in favor of the other. I could see someone coming along and trying to use the 2nd perspective to negate the 1st (i.e. something along the lines of "she got what she deserved because she behaved like a slut") but ironically a comment like that would only validate the 1st perspective even further.

Actually, @ChaosEngine's comparison to online banking is exactly analogous to this situation. Her pics were hacked from her account. Thus, the day that your account is hacked and your identity is stolen...why are you online banking? That's a great way to get all of your money stolen. You really should have known better. If you end up homeless with no money, it really was your fault for not protecting yourself better.

You and others are correct that it does indeed present some level of risk to take nude photos of yourself at all, but all things in life present risk. If you don't want bad things to happen to you, maybe you shouldn't ever leave your house, log on to the internet, or talk to anyone. Of course, that's wildly unrealistic. The way that you present yourself makes it seem like you're callously taking this argument too far.

In contrast, @SDGundamX has taken a pleasantly moderate viewpoint on this, and I feel more enlightened from reading his posts and considering the moral ambiguity. I just wish he didn't get snarky at the end, and be 'dismayed' that people would criticize those who take the opposing stance =P.

All of the arguments aside, I appreciated her rebellion against this negative situation, and I hope that this tasteful video does good things for her.

How am I taking this argument too far? History has shown that taking nude pics of yourself and sending them to others is risky. How many leaks have there been that have caused humiliation or worse yet, ruined careers? Plenty. Comparisons to online banking, leaving your house, talking to people, etc, are ludicrous because those are things you need to do to function in modern society. You absolutely do not need to take or send nude pictures of yourself. It's a completely unnecessary risk that has bitten many people in the ass. Do you have the right to do it? Of course, but that doesn't make it a smart thing to do.

The absolute definition of a 'First World Problem'.

Boo hoo, someone stole my nude pics, so i'll take more and release them MYSELF! That'll show them, hear me roar, #takingbackthepower.

Is it wrong to steal pics and then slut-shame someone? Yeah. Is she to blame? No. Should she get over it and just block people from email and social media that are harassing her? YES!!!

I guaran-damn-tee that the women being raped and sold into slavery by ISIS and Boko Haram would slap her silly for getting into a tizzy over someone using mean words at her.

I think she is getting over it by making this video. I think this video might be intended as a way of helping other women who have been wronged in a similar manner take back some element of control.

As for the definition of first world problem, I'd say it was taking enough offense over a video on the internet that you feel the need to belittle her experience by comparing it to the problems of others.

Boo hoo, somebody posted a video about how they are coping with the theft of naked pictures. I'll helpfully put their plight into perspective, hear me whine, #imadouchebag.

Should you stop posting thoughtless noise? YES!!!

Wanna click the upvote button to what you said until my mouse breaks in half.

We are assuming her account was hacked but there is very little information from Ms. Holten about exactly where these pictures came from. Some of her posts about the source of the pics states that the pictures were released without her permission while other posts state they were stolen. Did her boyfriend at the time take the pictures with his camera/phone or did she? I think it is more likely that her boyfriend took the pictures, with Ms. Holten's permission, and uploaded them without any hacking being involved. In that case, the analogy doesn't hold up. It does sound better for the media to say she was hacked and it generates more sympathy for her as a victim, but I don't buy it. I just don't believe that every ex-boyfriend is somehow a hacker; sharing your password with someone and having them steal your information does not mean that you were hacked.

That certainly came out of left field. What does that have to do with anything?

Maybe try reading the context in which it was posted. If you still can't figure it out, well... I'm not your reading comprehension coach.

I think there is a lot of truth behind this and, in my opinion, Ms Holten does share in some of the responsibility for at least the existence of these pictures. Being a young and likely naïve person without much relationship experience (which can apply to both men and women), she allowed her boyfriend to take those intimate pictures. Loss of private information is not a new occurrence and there have been some big stories about data theft or loss in the past decade or so. Ms Holten must have realized that these intimate pictures might still have ended up on the internet even if her boyfriend hadn't posted them: phones get lost or stolen all the time; personal computers and cloud storage services are not always secure, etc. Ms Holten seems like an intelligent woman, so I think one can assume that she was at least aware of the risks and, at the time, accepted them.

If Ms Holten's boyfriend had taken the pictures without her knowledge and then released them to the internet, she would clearly, at least in my opinion, have zero responsibility. That is not the case though. She willingly allowed the creation of the original erotic pictures and accepted the risks associated with their existence. That does not make her any less of a victim, but she is partly responsible for the existence of the pictures; if the pictures didn't exist, her boyfriend couldn't have put them on the internet and she wouldn't be subject to the ridicule she is receiving now.

A good example is sharing your banking username and password with someone. This is intimate information that you might only ever share with someone that you trust completely. Even so, many banks are very clear that this is a violation of their terms and conditions and can result in you being held responsible for any monetary losses incurred from unauthorized use. Another example: Enterprise administrators are constantly admonishing users for writing down their network credentials and leaving them lying around. While someone shouldn't use your credentials without your consent, that doesn't mean they won't and therefore you have the responsibility to protect that information. To me this is a demonstration of common sense: don't expose information that you can't afford to lose control of. With that said, Ms Holten's boyfriend absolutely committed a crime and should be punished. Furthermore, it's likely that many of the unsolicited emails that she received overstepped the line between opinion and harassment. I have no argument with that.

Lastly, releasing nude images of herself in order to regain control of her life is admirable and shows courage, but it's naïve to assume that it will shame or impact, in any way, the lives of her harassers; the media headlines about her "getting revenge" are laughable and nonsensical. Ultimately, the new nude pictures probably just gives her harassers more material to enjoy. Still, if it helps her move on, power to her. After all, it is her choice. I'm curious if Ms Holten will post a follow-up about the response to her new images.

I already did read through your straw man arguments and classic feminist dogma, but I must admit that one bit caught me up. I get the feeling, from your posts in this thread, that you don't even know what you meant by that either. So keep deflecting...

I think what he meant is that by driving a cool expensive car the guy was asking for it, it being carjacked. I am not sure why he felt the need to elaborate on the race of the man driving, but I 'assume' that he said it because white people apparently never jack cars.

Although he could have been saying that non-white people can't afford corvettes, but that would be racist.

My thoughtless noise is just as valid as yours, friend.

In my opinion, it's still an awkward statement, given the context, but not a big deal. I was merely curious if there was deeper intent to what was written.

you're right, what the fuck was I thinking, imagining that violating someone's privacy like that is a bad thing. Those feminists have brainwashed me good.

I know exactly what I meant as do plenty of others. Again, a minimum standard of reading comprehension is expected here.

It seems you should take your own advice about reading comprehension - do you even realize that I wasn't referring to your whole post, just a particular statement? I guess not because otherwise you wouldn't be continuing to ramble on about something that I never even implied; show me where I wrote that her situation wasn't a bad thing. There, you see, I didn't.

Her situation is horrible but she is still responsible for the existence of those pictures as they were taken consensually and with her full knowledge. That her trust was misplaced and breached isn't the point of contention here. If you disagree, then consider if Ms Holten or her boyfriend had accidentally lost the phone containing the pictures and some unscrupulous person found it then posted the pictures online. It doesn't change the fact that Ms Holten is still responsible for the existence of the pictures to begin with and she should have retained tighter control over them (keep them on an encrypted hard drive, etc.)

Let's not forget that we are only hearing her side of the story. Have you seen these hateful emails that she speaks of? The details of whether her accounts were hacked or if the boyfriend just uploaded the pics from his phone are vague as well (but an important detail in my opinion.) Unless I missed an article, and that is always a possibility, I didn't see any mention of charges being brought against the boyfriend for an obvious crime - if he indeed "hacked" her phone or accounts, that is a criminal offence. I've also not seen any mention of legal action against the websites that host(ed) the pictures. I'm not trying to imply that she is lying and in all likelihood her ex-boyfriend is a douche, but I like to hear both sides of an argument first and get all the facts.

But I understand you quite clearly now: if you can't attack the argument, attack the person. Got it...you big cyber-bully...

i am with @ChaosEngine on this one.

his "short skirt" analogy,from an absolute moral standpoint is correct.

so i am reading most of these comments in the abstract:"while it is a shame how you were raped and those men are deplorable and vicious...you REALLY should not have gone out wearing that skirt".

and as @entr0py noted,it comes across as mysoginistic.

was that the intent?
probably not,but it does explain chaos becoming so frustrated with this thread.something that should be self-evident is being buried under good intentions and a healthy dose of double standards.

as for this being her "revenge"...
i dont see it as revenge but rather as her recapturing her dignity and self-determination.

basically..fuck the haters.
and on that note i say "well played miss holten,well played".

That's just like, your opinion, man.

No but srsly, the amount of bullshit in these comments is astounding. I thought ppl were better than this. Perhaps I was wrong.