Join the best erotica focused adult social network now
Login
lafayettemister
Over 90 days ago
Straight Male
0 miles · New Orleans
Forum
Active Ink Slinger
Someone is raising that little girl right. Sweet little girl.
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by CurlyGirly
Would you be OK if she were to have a fling?
If it is ok, have her fling it at me.
Active Ink Slinger
Whoa whoa whoa. If there's a jerk off contest, none of you other jokers have a shot. No pun intended. I'll win this, hands down. And up. And down.
Active Ink Slinger
I still procrastinate. I still HATE to be the center of attention in a room full of family or friends.
Active Ink Slinger
My Saints got their asses kicked in Seattle last night. But, the refs cheated for Seattle. Listen to this shit!! They stretched our balls!!
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by wolverine15
Not so much the site, but the people. Specially one in particular.
Aww shucks. W, you're gonna make me blush. Flatterer.
Welcome back.
Active Ink Slinger
I don't have a major issue with the "butterface" fetish. If a guy likes a chick with a smoking body, But-'er-face... that's his prerogative. I think the issue that may arise from someone having this particular fetish is thinking that a guy is doing a "butterface" a favor by sleeping with her.
It's really no different than someone being a "chubby chaser" or into "midget" porn or being a size queen. The problem comes about because the focus and naming of some fetishes is on a negative aspect of a person. So it tends to bring up body and emotional issues.
All of us have needs. I knew a guy that was into "big" women because he said they were better in bed. Said they'd do more to satisfy him than "skinny chicks" who thought it was his honor that he got to fuck them. Sadly, there may be some truth to that, and it could easily apply to "butterface" women (and men). A woman that isn't the best looking woman but has a slamming body may use her best asset to get a man/bf/husband. If she's great in the sack, willing to fulfill all his (whoever he may be) desires, maybe he'll stick around longer. Or she may dress provocatively, showing off her curves and body in order to attract a lover.
We all do that to some degree. Not much different than a guy with a little dick being a master pussy licker/eater. He knows he may not be able to fuck her hard and deep, so he'll make damn sure he eats her out like a champ. No different than a wealthy butterface or overweight dude that spoils his gf/wife with stuff. His money is his best asset so that's what he uses to his advantage. How else can anyone describe some ugly dude like Jeff Garcia dating hot Playboy bunnies.
My first exposure to butterfaces was the Howard Stern show. I always felt so horrible for the women in his Butterface Beauty Pageant. These poor women would come out in bikinis, smoking bodies, but with paper bags over their heads. The "panel" would say how hot their bodies were, until they took off the paper bags. Then the panel would gasp and torment them for being so ugly. Those poor women would be so down and out in life that they'd humiliate themselves just to win whatever monetary prize for "winning". And to win you'd have to have a great body but the ugliest face. How brutal.
Butterface fetish as liking a woman whose face isn't as "hot" as her body... yeah okay. If that's what turns you on, fine.
Butterface as a way to demean, ridicule, or humiliate a woman? Nah, that's just being an asshole.
It's really no different than someone being a "chubby chaser" or into "midget" porn or being a size queen. The problem comes about because the focus and naming of some fetishes is on a negative aspect of a person. So it tends to bring up body and emotional issues.
All of us have needs. I knew a guy that was into "big" women because he said they were better in bed. Said they'd do more to satisfy him than "skinny chicks" who thought it was his honor that he got to fuck them. Sadly, there may be some truth to that, and it could easily apply to "butterface" women (and men). A woman that isn't the best looking woman but has a slamming body may use her best asset to get a man/bf/husband. If she's great in the sack, willing to fulfill all his (whoever he may be) desires, maybe he'll stick around longer. Or she may dress provocatively, showing off her curves and body in order to attract a lover.
We all do that to some degree. Not much different than a guy with a little dick being a master pussy licker/eater. He knows he may not be able to fuck her hard and deep, so he'll make damn sure he eats her out like a champ. No different than a wealthy butterface or overweight dude that spoils his gf/wife with stuff. His money is his best asset so that's what he uses to his advantage. How else can anyone describe some ugly dude like Jeff Garcia dating hot Playboy bunnies.
My first exposure to butterfaces was the Howard Stern show. I always felt so horrible for the women in his Butterface Beauty Pageant. These poor women would come out in bikinis, smoking bodies, but with paper bags over their heads. The "panel" would say how hot their bodies were, until they took off the paper bags. Then the panel would gasp and torment them for being so ugly. Those poor women would be so down and out in life that they'd humiliate themselves just to win whatever monetary prize for "winning". And to win you'd have to have a great body but the ugliest face. How brutal.
Butterface fetish as liking a woman whose face isn't as "hot" as her body... yeah okay. If that's what turns you on, fine.
Butterface as a way to demean, ridicule, or humiliate a woman? Nah, that's just being an asshole.
Active Ink Slinger
I'm not going to weigh in on the content of the original post but I will clarify the "butterface" thing. It's a fairly common term, made famous by Howard Stern. He actually has Butterface Pagents on his show. Or at least he did at one time.
It comes from guys saying stuff like, "Ooooh she's got a smoking body, BUT HER FACE...." So, the term butterface...
It comes from guys saying stuff like, "Ooooh she's got a smoking body, BUT HER FACE...." So, the term butterface...
Active Ink Slinger
I thought most answers would be a fireman... because he has the biggest hose...
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by Mazza
LM, I think it's already well-established that in cases of domestic abuse that verbal and mental abuse are just as destructive as physical abuse - in fact, I'd say more so - one generally heals quickly from a physical injury, but the long term effects of emotional abuse can last a life time. How many kids who were bullied no longer bear the scars of that?
While you may not be causing 'actual physical' to a person by posting these pics - the knock on effect could be devastating and lifelong
I agree it can be long lasting. But people generally don't go to jail for verbal and mental abuse. They typically lose divorce cases and custody of their children more than they are convicted of a crime and go to jail for it.
There are also plenty of people that have lifelong emotional scars from bad parenting. Even if it wasn't necessarily abusive, it could have been unsupportive to a child. That doesn't make it a crime. It's awful, but not criminal.
A dad could be ashamed of his gay son and disown him. That's an awful thing to do to a person and would and could leave lifelong and devastating effects on a person.. but it's not criminal. You can't lock the dad up for being an asshole.
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by LadyX
Help me understand how they are fundamentally different. According to your logic thus-far, both sets of victims have civil routes to justice available to them, no?
Physical assault is different. It's physical, obviously. When someone hits you, it's different. It's touch, it can cause physical damage and harm. A black eye on one person is the same thing as a black eye on another person.
Posting something online that causes someone to FEEL humiliated is different. What humiliates one person may not humiliate another. Basing crime on emotions and feelings is a dangerous step. One person may be humiliated by topless pics of herself broadcast online. But another person my FEEL humiliated by having his story of molestation and abuse broadcast online via blog or whatever.
The problem as I see it is how to you calculate what is or isn't enough humiliation? What's the test for that? It's too subjective to quantify for a legal definition.
And then there's the gray area of personal responsibility. No, I'm not saying anyone deserves anything. But a person does have some control over their own actions. Assault is a crime. But if I walk up to Mike Tyson and tell him his wife is a whore, chances are he's going to knock me out. Did I deserve to be knocked out? No. Is he in violation of the law to knock me out? Yes. Could I have prevented it? Yes.
Some things can have a better impact on society via civil litigation. If some dude posts a sex video of his ex online somewhere, she finds out and sues him for thousands or tens of thousands of dollars, it will make quite a few other guys NOT do the same thing he did. The reason newpapers don't print untrue things about people isn't because they're afraid of going to jail but rather they know they'll be sued for millions of dollars.
edit.. that's my time folks, i'll be out of pocket for the rest of the night. i'm sure by tomorrow there will be lots of posts and i doubt i'll be able to answer them all. i know i'm in the minority opinion on this and that's okay. have a great night all
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by LadyX
Yes they could want that all they want. It's just unlikely the police would find a compelling case, as you describe it. It also wouldn't likely stand up even if they did. They could also sue you in civil court.
As for the crimes I mentioned: why are those things crimes? If you were physically assaulted, you could sue them for medical damages as well as pain and suffering. Why make criminal laws? They'll get theirs if you feel victimized and want to hire a lawyer, right?
Apples and oranges. Not the same thing in my mind.
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by LadyX
I doubt that would be the case in a criminal inquiry. Either way, the possible anomaly case is a poor reason to not offer protection to victims.
Do you believe physical assault should be a criminal offense? How about theft? Or maternal/paternal kidnapping?
If the person in the forwarded photo felt victimized and wanted police to press charges, they would.
Yes, of course those things are crimes.
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by LadyX
but this is where the gray areas, the marginal cases, come into play. There are always legal judgment calls in any law. Was it murder or self-defense? Was it theft or was it actually his rightful property?
If Joe and Jen had a horrible breakup and Joe sent revengeporn.com the videos he has of Jen sucking his cock while wearing kitty ears and meowing each time she comes up for air, then perhaps that's a clear-cut case that the prosecutor will choose to act on. Less clear is the case of the man formerly known as Lafayettemister, who was once forwarded pics that he didn't take, who once sent those pics to somebody else, and three years later the subject of the photos finds them on wouldyoubonethisbroad.com and flips out.
All of which is to say- yes, I'd delete lush pics too, law or no law. But if you're not actively shaming another person by doing something you know will hit them like an atom bomb, you're not in realistic danger of becoming a felon.
I think Jen should sue the fuck out of Joe for breaching their contract of not sharing such private stuff.
Lafayettemister would be responsible for the crime because he forwarded the picture. Sharing with one person or one million, still sharing and victimizing someone.
Of course I'd never share anything I have.
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by overmykneenow
But as far as you're concerned they don't deserve any assistance from the law.
No.
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by LadyX
I know you didn't- but since you bring it up, the victim has no choice in the matter of their exploited videos and images, either. Surely you're not venturing into "they did it to themselves" meatball-territory by claiming otherwise. Those who do are the types likely to believe the other two statements I typed atop my last post.
Do you believe physical assault should be against the law? How about vandalism or property theft?
I don't think they did it to themselves, no. I don't think a person who becomes a victim intended it to happen nor are they responsible for someone else's actions.
edit... if this ever does become law where i live, the first thing I'd do is to delete any and all pictures i've received on Lush or via email. If I ever were to get hacked somehow I wouldn't want to be legally and criminally responsible for the pictures being leaked for public viewing
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by LadyX
There should be no revenge jpg laws.
Also, drunk girls have it coming, and bully victims are crybabies.
You're doing a decent job finding the gray areas in the margins. Those are present with all laws; it's up to law enforcement, prosecutors, and grand juries to separate wheat from chaff on those cases that "could go either way". Some say there are worse crimes to prosecute; and they are right. But that doesn't preclude the validity of this issue. Some say it's a stupid issue, and if you're "dumb enough" to have issued a pic of yourself then you deserve it. Those people lack the ability to think critically, and mask it with meat-head machismo and/or a worldview that punishes the weak because they see some sort of Darwinian justice in it. Have fun with that, gang.
Lots of cases aren't gray at all. Lots of cases are nothings short of character assassination. An assault on one's pursuit of happiness, and as long as NightMan's not around to talk about orwellian totalitarianism in modern life, the victim's freedom is very much curtailed. It's a new(ish) issue, but better to get our heads around it and protect real victims than pretend it's 1979 and it doesn't exist.
I never said drunk girls have it coming, never said bully victims are crybabies. Those are serious issues where the victim has no choice in what happens.
The law has to take into account all areas; black, white, and gray. I never said anyone that shares pictures is dumb nor that they get what they deserve. They don't deserve it at all. I don't think revenge porn should be against the law. Someone who is victimized by it can sue in court and acheive justice that way.
Active Ink Slinger
I'll just add again, criminalizing revenge porn as it's called shouldn't be a crime. It's a shitty thing to do but I can't see how someone posting a picture taken with his or her own camera is a crime. Celebrities have oops pictues, nipple slips, upskirts, taken all the time. They don't have any choice in those pictures going public and nothing can legally be done to the photographer, professional or amateur.
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by slipperywhenwet2012
Oh, please.
Which proves my point. You may not find any of that to be humiliating. But for something to be humiliating, the subject's opinion is all that matters. Think that boy in that picture wasn't humiliated when his friends at school saw it? I bet he was, and therefore since HE felt humiliated he should have the photographer charged with a crime? No, I don't think so. That's the thing about this possible law, not everyone will agree on what is or isn't humiliation. Humiliation is an emotion, emotions are subjective and change from person to person.
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by slipperywhenwet2012
This is all a lovely notion. But it's along the same lines as saying don't wear certain clothing if you don't want bad things to happen to you. Or saying stay off the internet if you don't wanna get bullied via the internet. It's victim blaming.
Yes it's important to be wise and cautious...but mistakes happen...or we trust the wrong people. And said people having the power to publicly humiliate and cause severe emotional damage as a result is much too severe of a punishment for petty mistakes.
Adding consequences and repercussions to this type of behavior will go a long way in PREVENTING it...so civil suits and dragging things through the mud and bringing even more attention to the situation won't need to happen.
Publicly humiliating someone is an asshole thing to do, but it's impossible to objectively criminalize it. If that is the standard... public humiliation.
Then any husband that's publicly caught cheating on his wife, thereby public humiliating her.. criminal
And woman that post-breakup goes onto facebook and says something like, "Bob has a 3in dick and cums in 20 seconds", publicly humiliating him... criminal
Any kid that goes online and says, "Betsy is a fat cow and needs to go on a diet".. public humiliation.. criminal
Any college kid sitting in class and says, "Mark farted and it stinks".. public humiliation.. criminal
Any exboyfriend that goes online and posts that his ex has fake breasts.. criminal
The person that took this picture and shared it online...
I bet that guy felt humiliatedOr this girl...
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by slipperywhenwet2012
Yeah, it's a waste of time until it happens to you. Then I bet you'd want something done about it.
It's a sad day when you can't feel secure about sending a lover something to spice things up without them being able to do what they want with it and add further insult to injury by making a profit from it. The issue isn't with responsibility. It's with the lack of responsibility on the part of the person who decides to abuse certain privileges.
Drugs and murder are all terrible crimes, but so is violating someone's right to privacy. And I for one am glad we're moving towards the direction of protecting one's right to privacy. One crime shouldn't be ignored just because others are taking place. That's preposterous.
There is something she can do about it, she can sue in civil court. Whether or not she would win is anyone's guess.
The only way to protect one's privacy is to not share what you don't want to be public.
There's not much difference between sharing a private shared picture and sharing other privately shared intimate information. What would be more hurtful? If a person shared pics of an ex's body or sharing secrets shared between lovers? Such as if a person tells a bf or gf about past abuse, something they were arrested for, molested as a child, had an abortion, something private and not for public consumption and then after the couple breaks up, the ex shares that information verbally or in print? Would that person also be charged with a crime? The victimized person's privacy has been destroyed, but if it's true then no law was broken.
There are lots of people on Lush that have topless and/or nude pictures open for everyone to see. Or open only to Lush friends. I have several friends who I've seen their bits and pieces. But, in chatting with them I've learned some very intimate and personal details about their lives. Those details getting out to the masses would be more hurtful to them and more of a betrayal to them than if I shared a picture of boobs. (of course I'd do neither) I'd have violated their confidence and their privacy, but I wouldn't not have violated the law.
Plenty of ex spouses have spread private details about their former husbands and wives, stuff that was meant to never be shared. And is more damning than boobie or dick pics. Privacy isn't just about pictures and images, it's about lives. If you criminalize freely given/taken pictures then you'll have to criminalize the spoken and written word in relation to privately shared personal information.
Active Ink Slinger
I've never been to a nude beach so I don't know all the rules. I know they are more common in Europe than the States, do all of them have disclaimers? I have no idea. But the point remains... taking a picture in public.
There's an entire section of most, if not all, porn sites dedicated to exhibitionism. Girl flashes her tits in a restaurant, in the grocery store, in a public park, at a public beach, on roller coaster.. where ever. To me there's just too many variables and exceptions that would make this hard to prosecute. If a guy takes a pic of his gf flashing her boobs or more in a public place, with his camera, and posts online... it's his picture, his property? He'd be an asshole but not a sex offender.
Even inside bedroom pics, if a girl takes pics of her bf's dick inside her own bedroom, and he doesn't live there.... what right to privacy does he have if he consents to the pictures? Now, if the camera is hidden and consent is not given, that's a totally different story.
There's an entire section of most, if not all, porn sites dedicated to exhibitionism. Girl flashes her tits in a restaurant, in the grocery store, in a public park, at a public beach, on roller coaster.. where ever. To me there's just too many variables and exceptions that would make this hard to prosecute. If a guy takes a pic of his gf flashing her boobs or more in a public place, with his camera, and posts online... it's his picture, his property? He'd be an asshole but not a sex offender.
Even inside bedroom pics, if a girl takes pics of her bf's dick inside her own bedroom, and he doesn't live there.... what right to privacy does he have if he consents to the pictures? Now, if the camera is hidden and consent is not given, that's a totally different story.
Active Ink Slinger
It depends on what happened in her past sexual life.
If she was part of a donkey show or any other aspect of beastiality, then yes it can matter.
If she were part of a 200 man gang bang, yes it can matter. Not entirely because she had sex with 200 guys at once, but that it reveals that there may/could be some other deep and traumatic underlying emotional issues.
If she was ever involved in an incestuous relationship, it can prevent her from being "the one". If she had consensual sex with her brother. Or her dad. That could be a warning sign for dangers to any future children we produced together.
If she was part of a donkey show or any other aspect of beastiality, then yes it can matter.
If she were part of a 200 man gang bang, yes it can matter. Not entirely because she had sex with 200 guys at once, but that it reveals that there may/could be some other deep and traumatic underlying emotional issues.
If she was ever involved in an incestuous relationship, it can prevent her from being "the one". If she had consensual sex with her brother. Or her dad. That could be a warning sign for dangers to any future children we produced together.
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by overmykneenow
Copyright laws protect everyone. If you created something - even if it's just a picture of your meat and two veg - you have copyright of that image and you're able to enforce that image's usage (according to copyright law). You don't have to put the little (c) sign on it, you don't have to include terms and conditions. If you created it - you own it.
The person is carrying out a sexually motivated attack on someone - that sounds like a sexual offence to me.
Then they can sue in civil court for damages. And that doesn't protect something created by the "offender". If my gf and I go to a nude beach, I take pics of her naked body, on a public beach and then post it online; have I broken this supposed law? Do I not have the same copyright protection you mention?
Post a pic of an ex online is more of a revenge motivated attack than a sexually motivated one, to me. The tool of the attack may be sexual in nature but doesn't necessarily qualify as sexually motivated. I understand your point and I respect your opinion, I just disagree this time.
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by overmykneenow
No it doesn't and no he can't unless given express permission by the content creator. Much like buying a DVD doesn't give me the right to share it online.
A DVD is protected under copyright law, dick pics aren't. If guy takes a pic of his topless girlfriend, that's his pic, his property.
I also don't think a person convicted of this should have to register as a sex offender. Imagine some 17-18 year old kid, getting his heart broken, angrily posts topless pics of his ex online. A lifetime of not being able to get a job, labelled in the same category as violent rapers.. too harsh a penalty.
Active Ink Slinger
Newsflash: There are lots of lonely people out there.
I don't think it makes anyone an asshole to go into a chat room on a sex stories site and assume that there will be some other lonely people there looking for similar things. I'd assume people that go onto sites about basket weaving would assume others would be interested in talking about many things, including basket weaving.
Where being an asshole comes into play is when a guy initiates sex talk and his target declines. He should move on and not be offended that the girl didn't want to play with him. And not get all butthurt about it. Plenty other fish in the sea of Lush. But, seeking sexual gratification on a site centered around sex, that alone doesn't make anyone an asshole. IMO
I don't think it makes anyone an asshole to go into a chat room on a sex stories site and assume that there will be some other lonely people there looking for similar things. I'd assume people that go onto sites about basket weaving would assume others would be interested in talking about many things, including basket weaving.
Where being an asshole comes into play is when a guy initiates sex talk and his target declines. He should move on and not be offended that the girl didn't want to play with him. And not get all butthurt about it. Plenty other fish in the sea of Lush. But, seeking sexual gratification on a site centered around sex, that alone doesn't make anyone an asshole. IMO
Active Ink Slinger
I don't think this law should pass. Sharing an ex lover's pics is a shitty thing to do, but it shouldn't be a criminal offense. Legislating morality doesn't work.
If Person A takes pics of his junk and gives it to Person B, then it becomes property of Person B and Person B can do with it whatever he wants. (assuming everyone involved is not a minor) Does it makes Person B a shitty douchebag of a person? Fucking right it does. Person A, the victim, does have some remedy. He can sue Person B in civil court for damages, emotional distress, and presumably breach of verbal contract to NOT share pics.
This law would be way too easy to abuse. In this day and age of smartphone, a person could have pics of a lover's boobs from a text on his phone. Phone is stolen, or even a friend could borrow the phone, whatever.. see the pics and post them somewhere. No way to prove who did or didn't post the pics. A scorned lover could easily post naked pics (exact copies of what's been willingly sent to an ex) of him/herself on a website under the ex's name.
This is just the new technological age of a scorned lover telling everyone that their Ex has a little dick. Or that his Ex is a whore and has a loose pussy. Or posting personal, intimate, couple-related information on facebook about an ex, that can be just as bad. Humiliating an ex in some lame attempt to make himself feel better. Shitty.. yes. Illegal.. no.
If Person A takes pics of his junk and gives it to Person B, then it becomes property of Person B and Person B can do with it whatever he wants. (assuming everyone involved is not a minor) Does it makes Person B a shitty douchebag of a person? Fucking right it does. Person A, the victim, does have some remedy. He can sue Person B in civil court for damages, emotional distress, and presumably breach of verbal contract to NOT share pics.
This law would be way too easy to abuse. In this day and age of smartphone, a person could have pics of a lover's boobs from a text on his phone. Phone is stolen, or even a friend could borrow the phone, whatever.. see the pics and post them somewhere. No way to prove who did or didn't post the pics. A scorned lover could easily post naked pics (exact copies of what's been willingly sent to an ex) of him/herself on a website under the ex's name.
This is just the new technological age of a scorned lover telling everyone that their Ex has a little dick. Or that his Ex is a whore and has a loose pussy. Or posting personal, intimate, couple-related information on facebook about an ex, that can be just as bad. Humiliating an ex in some lame attempt to make himself feel better. Shitty.. yes. Illegal.. no.