3 ms·

> involving someone in a sexual situation without their consent That's rather a broad definition of "involving someone in a sexual situation". I think it's amo

by Veen 9y ago

> involving someone in a sexual situation without their consent That's rather a broad definition of "involving someone in a sexual situation". I think it's amoral too, but I don't think it's a sexual consent issue. My intuition is that it has more to do with inauthenticity and coopting a person's likeness, their public reputation. You could do the same sort of thing to have people endorse political candidates or products against their will.

nailer 9y ago
> That's rather a broad definition of "involving someone in a sexual situation". Why? The situation is clearly sexual. The person whose image is used is clearly involved. > You could do the same sort of thing to have people endorse political candidates or products against their will. You could make a video of comsone endorsing a political candidate that they don't endorse, label it prominently as a fake, and it woulnd't have much effect - nobody would be misled. Whereas publishing a video, labelled as fake, of someone engaging in a sex act they didn't actually engage in still arouses people.
nailer 9y ago
Re-reading your post, I just realised by 'sexual consent' you meant rape. I'm not comparing this to rape at all, I mean consent as in consent. Same as the political didn't consent to being videoed or the model didn't consent to be used in the documentary.
- Veen 9y ago
  I still have the same disagreement with your point. The person is not being involved in a sexual situation. A person is not the same thing as a representation of a person. An image or representation is being involved in a sexual situation, the person is not. It's an important distinction to make because the language we use affects how we think and argue about the wrong being done and what should happen to punish or prevent it. I think we agree that it's a shitty thing to do with someone's image, and it will become more shitty as the technology improves to the point at which it's difficult to tell the fake from the real.

by Veen 9y ago

nailer 9y ago

> That's rather a broad definition of "involving someone in a sexual situation". Why? The situation is clearly sexual. The person whose image is used is clearly involved. > You could do the same sort of thing to have people endorse political candidates or products against their will. You could make a video of comsone endorsing a political candidate that they don't endorse, label it prominently as a fake, and it woulnd't have much effect - nobody would be misled. Whereas publishing a video, labelled as fake, of someone engaging in a sex act they didn't actually engage in still arouses people.

nailer 9y ago

Re-reading your post, I just realised by 'sexual consent' you meant rape. I'm not comparing this to rape at all, I mean consent as in consent. Same as the political didn't consent to being videoed or the model didn't consent to be used in the documentary.

Veen 9y ago
I still have the same disagreement with your point. The person is not being involved in a sexual situation. A person is not the same thing as a representation of a person. An image or representation is being involved in a sexual situation, the person is not. It's an important distinction to make because the language we use affects how we think and argue about the wrong being done and what should happen to punish or prevent it. I think we agree that it's a shitty thing to do with someone's image, and it will become more shitty as the technology improves to the point at which it's difficult to tell the fake from the real.