Pointless semantics really unless you’re looking to charge someone. Maybe you should ask women who’ve been victims of this kind of thing whether they feel abused or violated.
At the end of the day all of these issues are connected and the AFL has shown that they are either not serious or incapable of dealing with them.
Well yes, I agree it’s semantics - since I was talking about words.
And I’m not disputing the severity and impact of the action - so please don’t go down that road with me.
But it is not a ‘sex crime’.
No I don’t think you’re disputing that at all. I just think getting that bogged down in definitions is avoiding the real issues at play.
My personal opinion is that this stuff should be stamped out, and in particular - awareness raised.
The reason I commentated, is because there was question on whether it was a ‘sex crime’ or not. Not getting bogged down.
I also do not like the whole ‘victim-blaming’ thing that goes on. What someone does (legally)in expected privacy has no bearing on public ramifications. Linking the two is a cross-wired way of thinking. It’s the old ‘she shouldn’t have worn a miniskirt’ kind of thing.
Who wanted the photo taken? Somoene wanted a photo of the medal and a topless girl.
If she wasn’t wearing the premiership medallion, would the photo have been taken? No.
They are both stupid for doing this. It shouldn’t have been taken and it shouldn’t have been spread. Then what becomes of the photo? Look back on it when they are 80 and go ‘ahhh good times’
Don’t take nude photos.
So is it ok if a man does a ■■■■ pick to a woman at her request and she circulates it? Or are we just perverted?
@cul_de_sac when did I lay the blame solely on her? I said I dont agree with him, BUT some of the blame should be laid on her for putting herself in that situation.
If a man sends a woman a solicited nude photo with the understanding that it’s private and she circulates it, then she is in the wrong. Simple. I don’t know why you would think it would be any other way.
If a man sends a woman an unsolicited nude photo, then he is in the wrong and she can do whatever she chooses to with it.
I reckon the media would see it differently.
So you’re getting upset about a hypothetical scenario that you dreamed up in your head? Your comments in this thread paint you as someone who’s fragile masculinity is far too easily threatened.
Men are not the victim here. Suck it up little man.
And your painting yourself as a feminist ‘women can do no wrong’ but each to their own.
I didnt say he did no wrong and never have but take it as you will. What I have said before you get on your moral high horse is that both parties are in tje wrong. Legal or morally.
Broad was legal and socially. The girl was morally.
Except for the example above where I clearly outlined a scenario where a woman would be in the wrong.
And feminism is not the belief that women can do no wrong, far from it. Once again your male insecurities are showing.
In my opinion - no. Gender should not come into this - at all.
It isnt complicated
Can someone tell me definitively what Broad did with the photo? We know where the photo ended up (everywhere) but where did Broad post the photo and to whom was it available once he posted it?
No supposition please. I just want to know the facts.
I don’t think it’s complex at all. Lovers/sexual partners taking nude photos of each other seems to be part of life these days, but it’s done on the basis that the photos are for the two of them and nobody else — unless there’s EXPRESS permission to show them more widely.
Showing a nude photo of your girlfriend to a third party is a breach of trust and a breach of promise. Broad did that. OK, he’s young and probably not a Rhodes scholar but basic decency should have prevented him from doing that. And once it’s in the hands of a third party, it’s everywhere.
Not trying blame the victim here but there are only two things someone is going to do with that photo.
Or
Your point?
Shelton10- you’ll note that we agree on the decency and lack of truthfulness issues. A good person or friend would have agreed to the woman’s request to delete.
Where we disagree is that you’ve assumed a prior or implied arrangement that nude photos cannot be shared. I am not certain on this, but I think that if you agree to pose in a photo which I take on my camera, I think the property of the photo belongs to me. I am not sure the ‘model’ can demand deletion given consent has already been given.
I gather it’s against the law to upload this nude photo on FB - I am trying to find out what Broad actually did with the photo - but there is no longer an issue of illegality here, as the police are not pursuing the case; but if it was Broad who uploaded the photo where many could see it, then this I agree effects the morality of his action. If he just showed a few friends - and then one of them made it ‘public’ - then he’s stupid but not malicious.
What I object to (and I’m waiting to get the facts regarding what Broad actually did with the photo) is the public shaming, humiliation and suspension of Broad for his ‘lack of decency’. The paparazzi don’t have any consent at all for the photos they take, and sometimes the celebs are topless. Why aren’t they suspended from their jobs?
I don’t think so.
Technically (and legally), the original photo belongs to you. What doesn’t belong to you, however, is sharing an image for profit or gain without express consent. For that, you would need a consent form. You are also, legally, not allowed to share a photo that breaches ‘expected privacy’.
Edit: I am not assuming anything here, just giving you info.
Certainly the owner of the camera with which the photo was taken has property, in the legal sense, in the photo. But there’s definitely an implied agreement that it will not be shown to others. Put aside the fact that it was a football player and his girlfriend and assume it’s husband and wife, or any boyfriend and girlfriend, and they take photos of each other naked. Is there really any doubt that they are doing so on the basis that the photos are for the two of them alone?