4 ms·

You would want to press criminal charges for a dick pic? I never really understood who that hurt, especially when it is adult to adult. I've had them sent to

You would want to press criminal charges for a dick pic? I never really understood who that hurt, especially when it is adult to adult. I've had them sent to me before and it never really bothered me.

001spartan 7y ago
It is sexual assault to expose someone to unwanted sexual advances. It's the same thing as flashing. Why should someone be exposed to a picture of another's genitals when it's unwanted? It's forcing someone else to engage in a sexual way without consent, even if the only reaction is to block the sender, or look away.
GaryNumanVevo 7y ago
I'm a guy and I'd definitely press charges. Especially if that person close in proximity to me, I'd prefer to NOT be sexually harassed. Pressing charges hopefully would suppress this behavior.
crazygringo 7y ago
You can already press criminal charges for someone exposing themselves to you sexually in public. How is it any different whether it's in person or in pixels? Do you honestly think you should be able to go up to anyone in public and wave your genitals in their face, that that should be legal? Because I don't see a big difference. I believe that it's right and proper to maintain a certain level of public decency and enforce that by criminal law. And today in 2019 in New York City (where I live), that means being topless or dressing risque in public is OK... but that exposing yourself or having sex in public is not. That seems like a pretty reasonable line.
- Joe-Z 7y ago
  Yes, that is a reasonable line. The big difference that I see is, if someone is waving his genitals in my face I may fear he may come unto me, rub his penis against me or whatever else. A dick pic is just that, a picture of a penis. I'm not sure what we're enforcing when we ban other people from exposing themselves to others is 'showing genitals to others' but rather 'behaving very sexually aggressive towards someone else'. And you can't really argue that with an anonymous dick pic. Of course dick pics are rude, but arguing they are just the same as exposing yourself in public seems ingenuous
  - flycaliguy 7y ago
    Everything about sending a women a dick pic from the other side of a subway ride is threatening. Since she will have to step off the subway and walk to her destination alone, I consider it a serious offense.
    - michaelcampbell 7y ago
      How about a picture of a gun? A knife? A baseball bat? ... carried by a little leaguer in his team photo? Where is that line drawn? </rhetorical>
      - michaelcampbell 7y ago
        I knew this would get downvoted, instead of actually answered. Emotional arguments are easy to make, but hard to justify.
    - gowld 7y ago
      Would it somehow be better if the perp didn't airdrop a duck pic... And then followed her off the subway?
  - oh_sigh 7y ago
    So if a perv is on an empty subway platform, there should be no punishment if he exposes himself to people on the train after the doors have closed? Those people have no realistic fear that he could get into the train or get in anyones face at that point.
    - Joe-Z 7y ago
      Ha, nice one! :) Sure he would be punished, but who'd call him out for it? I guess it'd rather be the people coming into the subway station after the train has left than the ones in the train.
- blub 7y ago
  Most people can tell the difference between actions taking place in the real world and pictures. European law does too, I believe all sexual crimes involving pictures are punished less severely compared to real world abuse. Saying there's no difference reads like an anthropological report of a visit to an isolated tribe which is amazed by the people living in the little TV box.
Raphmedia 7y ago
What if that person randomly shares it to a child? Receiving such a picture, especially in public, can be quite distressing even for grown adults. You start wondering which passenger sent you the picture. "Is this person looking for a reaction in order to identify me?" "Will they follow me outside?" "Should I be worried about being attacked"? "Is it me? Should I not wear this shirt anymore? Do I look like I'm asking for it?" "Perhaps I should call the police just in case? What if the police laugh at me?" "Should I skip my station in case I'm followed and that person wants to find out where I live?" "Is it that person who sent it? I commute with them daily. Should I be worried? Should I change my commute schedule?" Overall, not an experience that you want forced upon you.
- gowld 7y ago
  All of these problems are the same problems you have whenever you are near a stranger without airdrop, and are solved the same way: by ignoring it.
  - Raphmedia 7y ago
    Of course, if someone physically shows their genitals, the situation is about the same. That does not mean that it's a light situation. In Canada, that is a criminal offence. Indecent acts 173. (1) Everyone who wilfully does an indecent act in a public place in the presence of one or more persons, or in any place with intent to insult or offend any person, (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years; or (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months.
- blub 7y ago
  People predisposed to paranoia should probably set AirDrop to contacts only or disable it. Maybe not even use messaging or E-Mail and stay at home just in case.
  - Raphmedia 7y ago
    Reacting strongly to receiving the genitals of a stranger who is statistically likely to be stronger than you and probably able to pin you down without too much trouble is not paranoia. It's one thing to send empty death threats online. It's another to push your genitals on someone who's within 30 feet of you (AirDrop's range). This is the last thing that I'd want to receive at night while commuting in a dirty bus or while walking back home in the dark alone. Yes, disabling the feature is a solution. However, I'll bet that most people are not aware that they have it on or don't suspect that it can be a vector of attack. The problem here is people abusing of the system. Don't blame the victim for it. If anything, blame Apple for not explaining the feature better or for a not allowing to keep the feature to "everyone" and disable image previews.

001spartan 7y ago

It is sexual assault to expose someone to unwanted sexual advances. It's the same thing as flashing. Why should someone be exposed to a picture of another's genitals when it's unwanted? It's forcing someone else to engage in a sexual way without consent, even if the only reaction is to block the sender, or look away.

GaryNumanVevo 7y ago

I'm a guy and I'd definitely press charges. Especially if that person close in proximity to me, I'd prefer to NOT be sexually harassed. Pressing charges hopefully would suppress this behavior.

crazygringo 7y ago

You can already press criminal charges for someone exposing themselves to you sexually in public. How is it any different whether it's in person or in pixels? Do you honestly think you should be able to go up to anyone in public and wave your genitals in their face, that that should be legal? Because I don't see a big difference. I believe that it's right and proper to maintain a certain level of public decency and enforce that by criminal law. And today in 2019 in New York City (where I live), that means being topless or dressing risque in public is OK... but that exposing yourself or having sex in public is not. That seems like a pretty reasonable line.

Joe-Z 7y ago
Yes, that is a reasonable line. The big difference that I see is, if someone is waving his genitals in my face I may fear he may come unto me, rub his penis against me or whatever else. A dick pic is just that, a picture of a penis. I'm not sure what we're enforcing when we ban other people from exposing themselves to others is 'showing genitals to others' but rather 'behaving very sexually aggressive towards someone else'. And you can't really argue that with an anonymous dick pic. Of course dick pics are rude, but arguing they are just the same as exposing yourself in public seems ingenuous
- flycaliguy 7y ago
  Everything about sending a women a dick pic from the other side of a subway ride is threatening. Since she will have to step off the subway and walk to her destination alone, I consider it a serious offense.
  - michaelcampbell 7y ago
    How about a picture of a gun? A knife? A baseball bat? ... carried by a little leaguer in his team photo? Where is that line drawn? </rhetorical>
    - michaelcampbell 7y ago
      I knew this would get downvoted, instead of actually answered. Emotional arguments are easy to make, but hard to justify.
  - gowld 7y ago
    Would it somehow be better if the perp didn't airdrop a duck pic... And then followed her off the subway?
- oh_sigh 7y ago
  So if a perv is on an empty subway platform, there should be no punishment if he exposes himself to people on the train after the doors have closed? Those people have no realistic fear that he could get into the train or get in anyones face at that point.
  - Joe-Z 7y ago
    Ha, nice one! :) Sure he would be punished, but who'd call him out for it? I guess it'd rather be the people coming into the subway station after the train has left than the ones in the train.
blub 7y ago
Most people can tell the difference between actions taking place in the real world and pictures. European law does too, I believe all sexual crimes involving pictures are punished less severely compared to real world abuse. Saying there's no difference reads like an anthropological report of a visit to an isolated tribe which is amazed by the people living in the little TV box.

Raphmedia 7y ago

What if that person randomly shares it to a child? Receiving such a picture, especially in public, can be quite distressing even for grown adults. You start wondering which passenger sent you the picture. "Is this person looking for a reaction in order to identify me?" "Will they follow me outside?" "Should I be worried about being attacked"? "Is it me? Should I not wear this shirt anymore? Do I look like I'm asking for it?" "Perhaps I should call the police just in case? What if the police laugh at me?" "Should I skip my station in case I'm followed and that person wants to find out where I live?" "Is it that person who sent it? I commute with them daily. Should I be worried? Should I change my commute schedule?" Overall, not an experience that you want forced upon you.

gowld 7y ago
All of these problems are the same problems you have whenever you are near a stranger without airdrop, and are solved the same way: by ignoring it.
- Raphmedia 7y ago
  Of course, if someone physically shows their genitals, the situation is about the same. That does not mean that it's a light situation. In Canada, that is a criminal offence. Indecent acts 173. (1) Everyone who wilfully does an indecent act in a public place in the presence of one or more persons, or in any place with intent to insult or offend any person, (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years; or (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months.
blub 7y ago
People predisposed to paranoia should probably set AirDrop to contacts only or disable it. Maybe not even use messaging or E-Mail and stay at home just in case.
- Raphmedia 7y ago
  Reacting strongly to receiving the genitals of a stranger who is statistically likely to be stronger than you and probably able to pin you down without too much trouble is not paranoia. It's one thing to send empty death threats online. It's another to push your genitals on someone who's within 30 feet of you (AirDrop's range). This is the last thing that I'd want to receive at night while commuting in a dirty bus or while walking back home in the dark alone. Yes, disabling the feature is a solution. However, I'll bet that most people are not aware that they have it on or don't suspect that it can be a vector of attack. The problem here is people abusing of the system. Don't blame the victim for it. If anything, blame Apple for not explaining the feature better or for a not allowing to keep the feature to "everyone" and disable image previews.