My last post got me thinking about the issue of "revenge porn". In light of recent publicized incidents, some people are calling for the criminalization of "revenge porn". Now, when any kind of porn is categorically considered for criminalization, I sit up and take notice. These people's hearts may be in the right place, but I'm concerned that we criticize and criminalize the right thing, and not end up chipping away at the freedom of speech (especially sexual speech, which so rarely gets the defense it needs) in the zealous pursuit of condemning abusive and antisocial behavior. I mean, isn't that kind of behavior already dealt with in the law, without having to make a special category for what's being called a type of porn? You can bet the anti-porn crusaders are going to latch onto this opportunity to associate pornography with harm, in an issue so morally-centered that to oppose it is to come off, at best, looking like an insensitive jerk. (I, like so few citizens and politicians alike, am willing to take that risk in the pursuit of liberty and justice).
The first problem comes up with regard to the very term "revenge porn", and what we mean when we use it. I think the term is a little bit misleading, because although it may involve sexually explicit (or, in other cases, merely suggestive, or just nude, or only implied nude) images, the phenomenon that (I think) we refer to as an instance of "revenge porn" is really not about people getting off, sexually. The images, when they were produced, may have been about that, but when they become "revenge porn", it is - to my understanding - all about the revenge part. A scorned lover (or, perhaps more accurately, ex-lover) distributes these intimate and sexually-compromising pictures that were meant to remain private in an effort to hurt and humiliate the woman who scorned him.
In this case, I think it's dangerous to lean too heavily on the sex part, although it is a crucial part of the activity - these pictures wouldn't be humiliating if they didn't involve sex or nudity (the same thing in most people's eyes). But the sex part is a means to an end, it's not the goal in and of itself, and therefore "revenge porn" wouldn't exist if society had a more appropriately healthy approach to people's bodies and sex lives (you can't blackmail someone with a nude picture at a nudist resort, for example). (But try suggesting that as the solution, and you'll find that people are far more interested in treating the symptoms than preventing the disease in the first place). So the violation here (whether or not the law considers it a crime, and whether or not it should) is not the result of a pervert seeking sexual stimulation through an act of non-consent, but rather a psychological attack that involves a violation of the victim's confidences, as well as her privacy.
This is not to downplay the unacceptable nature of this behavior, but merely to put it into a reasonable context. If somebody takes pictures of you (or you show them pictures that have already been taken) that you stress are to be kept private, and that person subsequently takes those pictures and publishes them publicly (which is what happens when you post them on the internet), then that is absolutely a violation of confidence, and what I would consider to be a form of theft, not all that different from a stranger hacking into your wired device and leaking data (such as private images of an intimate nature) to the world. This is generally not considered acceptable behavior, but it should be dealt with as an invasion of privacy, and not equated to a form of sexual assault, as some would have it.
But this situation dovetails uncomfortably with a whole different sort of phenomenon - the fact that there are people out there who do make an effort to steal private images from people (or trick them into handing them over) for a primarily sexual purpose. This is similar to what happens in "revenge porn", but I believe it should be distinguished from "revenge porn" due to the very different motivation involved, and the fact that the emphasis is on sex, and not specifically the humiliation of the individual persons being victimized. This is another tricky issue in the realm of internet sexual behavior, and one that I touched on a bit in my last post, about the high supply and relatively low demand of sexual expression in our sexually neurotic world.
But what I'd like to deal with in the remainder of this post is what I (optimistically) hope is an even rarer phenomenon than people who are simply unconcerned with the ethics of where the pictures they look at on the internet come from. Namely, those who actually enjoy the abusive aspect of what we might call "revenge porn" (via, for example, verbally abusing the woman in the picture in order to get a sexual thrill) - not for a personal, vindictive reason, but due to a sexual fetish involving humiliation, which I shall recognize as a particular form of BDSM. As a sex-positive individual, I will try to be as kind as possible to those who have this fetish, while attempting to navigate the very real ethical concerns that are involved (as with a lot of alternative, BDSM, and fetish-related sexual activities).
I think that when people complain about "revenge porn", they are complaining about a mixture of men (if not also women) who are either: 1) engaging in a personal vendetta; 2) these kind of fetishists; or 3) taking advantage of an opportunity to express their prudish or misogynistic beliefs (much like those who bully and slut-shame teens who sext). They all may overlap to some degree where "revenge porn" occurs, but I think it is useful to distinguish between them. In the first case, we have the theft and invasion of privacy as discussed above. And in the last case, we have cruel opportunists for which I have no sympathy or respect, although I think the criminality of their behavior should solely be a function of the attitude the ruling body (which may be a private company as much as the government) has towards the freedom of speech, as well as the acceptability of verbal abuse and what one might consider hate speech.
The middle case is the interesting one I'd like to consider as an amateur sexologist. And I stress that whatever defense I may make of these fetishists in the course of this discussion, it is not meant to be taken as a defense of these other groups who engage in cruel abuse, slut-shaming, and misogyny. The only justified form of "abuse", as far as I'm concerned, is one that is enacted as a fantasy, with concern for the one being "abused" (if not outright, express consent - this depends entirely to what extent the "abuse" victim is involved; for example, I do not believe anyone needs another person's consent to be featured in their private fantasies, no matter how depraved those fantasies might be). I believe that even those who have problematic sexual desires deserve satisfaction, so long as they can achieve it without hurting anyone. Moreover, considering the difficult position they involuntarily occupy, I believe they deserve a little bit of sympathy, and (whenever reasonable) the benefit of the doubt, as well.
Now, the problem here - to the extent that there is a problem - is that people are engaging in BDSM activity with people who haven't consented to it. Except, it's a little murky, because it's not like they're abducting people and then whipping them against their consent. It's the pictures we're talking about. If you post pictures publicly on the internet, then what anyone else does with themselves in private while viewing those pictures is their own business. Otherwise, we'd have to start considering fantasy a form of rape, if you didn't first ask for the consent of those featured in your fantasy - and that's too much like thoughtcrime. If the pictures were indeed stolen, then that's theft and invasion of privacy, as described above, but the thief is the one primarily responsible.
In any case, once you start making comments about a person featured in a picture posted to a public forum, you're now responsible for those statements. But I think people who have this kind of humiliation fetish deserve an outlet. To be fair, let me imagine for a moment that one of my pictures ended up on a website for people with a predilection for hurling abusive comments toward others as a means of sexual stimulation. If the picture was stolen, I'd be justifiably angry, not just for the theft, but for the questionable behavior it was being used for, unauthorized. A lot of my pictures are public, though. If it were one of those, I suppose I wouldn't have much to say, as long as my copyright wasn't being violated (e.g., by making a profit, or claiming ownership). As long as all that they are doing is a form of sexual fantasy (and are willing to make this clear when confronted), then that's something I understand, and can condone. (If, on the other hand, they're just being mean because they don't like how sexually liberated I am, then they can just fuck right off).
As a savvy internet resident, I understand that not everybody always means everything they say. And with my experience in the erotic underbelly of the internet, I understand that that's even more true when people are involved in their own form of sexual foreplay. I get messages, sometimes, from people who are turned on by my pics who tell me they want to fuck me in the ass (for example). I don't take this as a threat. I don't even take it as an invitation - because although sometimes it is, most of the time it's not. These people are pretty much just jerking themselves off, and by posting my pictures for that purpose, I've included myself to at least a minimum level in that. Doesn't mean I'm obligated to cyber with them or even reply at all. It's just that I understand the context in which those comments come.
So if it seems as if I'm coming down in defense of "revenge porn" here, you have to understand the caveats that I've raised. My primary concern is that everybody gets to seek sexual satisfaction as long as they don't hurt anyone, no matter what tastes they have. "Revenge porn" (in the truest pornographic sense, which might more accurately be called "abuse roleplay porn", so as to distinguish from the other reasons people post "revenge porn") would seem to be intrinsically harmful, and thus impermissible, but that conclusion rules out sexual satisfaction for anyone who has the particular fetish I've described, and I don't think that's right or fair. People with rape fetishes are allowed to roleplay with consenting partners without (ideally) being considered monsters and maniacs (and, especially, actual rapists and sexual abusers). And, above all, a person can fantasize about anything they want, no matter how depraved. Even if they do it while looking at somebody's picture, and even if that somebody has no idea, or didn't consent to be part of their sexual fantasy.
So, with something like "revenge porn" that involves considerable ethical issues, I'm not going to rule out people's ability to satisfy themselves, but merely say that, people with this fetish have the responsibility to engage in it in ethical ways. And when they don't, they deserve whatever criticism they receive, provided it's limited to the ethical violations they've committed and not in the form of discrimination against them because of the unpopular sexual tastes they have. And meanwhile, the rest of us should at least have a little compassion about people who have problematic sexual desires, and struggle with dealing with how to achieve satisfaction without turning into a bad person (try to imagine what that's like). But none of this condones any activity committed in the pursuit of personal vendettas, misogyny, or any form of slut-shaming.
