How Justin Bieber's Nudes Show Where Equality Is At

[Jolson131]

By now I'm sure most, if not, all of you have heard/seen Justin Bieber's nude photos that were taken while he was in Bora Bora. And quite honestly it disgusts me and frustrates me to a point I can't explain. Not the pictures...the reaction.

Equality has been one of the hottest topics for god-knows how long. Brave women are constantly battling to be treated as men. Except one thing continues to happen. Most women appear to want what I call "privaleged equality". Basically, all that I mean by that is that women want to be treated equally, until it cuts into the privalege they hold because they are women.

Example: Women want equality, and while it is still wrong for a man to hit a man, it is much more frowned upon for a man to hit a woman. "It's never ok to hit a woman."

Why is it never ok to hit a woman? I'm pretty sure in an event where a woman poses as a threat, a man has the right to defend himself or another person. But the trend continues that the man must turn the other cheak or he looks like some woman-beater who is never going to be able to get a job and will be sued by the woman's family and she will likely win because she has a vagina and he doesn't.

Some of you have also probably seen these pics.

I'm gonna keep this one really short and simple. Imagine a guy running on the field of a womens softball game and touching the girls butts. Imagine the feminist reaction to that. But men don't get a say because this is harmless, but if a guy did it, it would be considered harrassment and unwanted touching.

Now for the main topic, Justin Bieber's nudes and equality.

You may recall a similar incident that happened about a year ago. Over a dozen female celebrites had nude photos of them leaked onto the internet and a major internet event came about that would be known as "The Fappening". There was a total outrage. Women's rights activists took to twitter, facebook, basically anywhere they had a choice that couldn't be quieted. Some women celebrities even chimed in. Emma Watson tweeted, "Even worse than seeing women's privacy violated on social media is reading the accompanying comments that show such a lack of empathy". And don't get me wrong, I'm not say it was ok at all to view the nudes of the women celebrities if they didn't give consent. I'm just frustrated that women constantly push for equality, but then they do a lot of the same stuff that annoys them, to men. Sexual objectification is wrong for a man to do to a woman? Yeah, it really is. But is it wrong for a women to make a man into a sexual object? The woman's privacy and right to her body is very important for sure, but what about the man's body. Bieber didn't give consent for you girls to view his naked body. He was wrongfully exposed.

You know the whole thing about if you watch a crime happen and don't do anything about it, it's almost as though you did the crime. Men deserve the same amount of respect to their bodies as women do. Respect everyone's privacy.

[Anonymous]

OK. I'll be the one to say it and get all the downvotes. Yes, many women want privileged equality. So do men.

I see men here complaining every day about double standards that hurt them, but then go on and justify double standards that hurt women. They complain about pressures society puts on them based on their gender, but then justify shaming women for their sexuality (key and lock thing is always used as an excuse). They whine about having to approach girls, but praise girls who think girls should do all the cooking and cleaning. They complain about male rape victims not being taken seriously (which is horrible of course) but then they blame female rape victims for wearing the wrong clothes or going to a party. They ridicule girls for behaving like victims and then behave like the biggest victims of all. When female celebrities got their photos stolen, you think guys wrote mytakes or showed outrage about how horrible it was? No, they were too busy jerking off.

The thing is, we are all more concerned with things that happen to a group that we belong to and can relate to (in this case gender) and don't care as much about what happens to others. We're just not all that good with empathy I guess.

And yes, what happened to Justin was horrible. He has a right to privacy by all means.

Hate me all you want, but that's my opinion.

[Jolson131]

I think you are totally right

[BangBadBxtches]

You're only talking about the dickheads in the male population or the losers on this site.

[Bards]

No one cares about his nudes. And women don't normally pass nudes around and sabotage people like guys do. Also if a girl leaks a guys nudes he won't get even close to the backlash a girl would get for it.

[BruceJender]

Says who, you?

[Jolson131]

Bullshit pretty much every girl is fueled by seeking revenge. Thanks Carrie Underwood for carving your name in my Legacy

[aliencreature]

i dont think we should be less harsh on justin beiber. he's a piece of shit. i just think we should be harsher on women. no one fucking owes you empathy, emma watson.

i do think the public acting as a hypocritical moral synopticon is just further proof our world is turning into a dystopian society. thats not right, and no one should be leaking anyones nudes. but no one has the right to demand the public to come to the aid of women or even sympathize with them for things that are already illegal and already being dealt with and no one has the right to just demand the public to see them better. they're entitled to their own opinions no matter how shitty or prejudiced they may be

the bottom line is feminists are mainly the ones creating a public outcry and everyone else is either too afraid of them or too eager to please them to do anything about it. it is always do as i say, not as i do. they're hypocrites about EVERYTHING

they're hypocrites about equal pay, charging mauritian women unlivable wages to work in sweatshops and then getting the police to beat them when they go on strike

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMCJh85LK80

they're hypocrites about hate speech, using the idea of it to censor opinions they don't like while frothing at the mouth with degrading epithets like "scum", "worthless pigs", harassing and demeaning the victims of suicide

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0

they're hypocrites about violence and sexual assault, gathering in angry mobs to attack men, degrade them, spray paint their faces and persecute their religion, sexually assault them

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOCD_T9Qqpc

they're hypocrites about domestic violence, initially violently against the domestic violence movement until they realized they could profit from it, attacking the creator of the first DV shelter, threatening her family, killing her dog and trying to bomb her

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ix5-jqQYU1M

literally everything that they do is pander to the radical sensationalism of whatever fear is sweeping the nation, profit immensely from it without paying taxes (supposedly "non profit"), use it as a moral hazard to gain more freedom to act however they like and then hypocritically behave as the biggest culprits of their own supposed criticisms and then hide behind this straw man of "equality" as if what they say they want will make a difference in what they actually do. nudes leaking are the LEAST of our concerns

[Cookies_AndMilk]

I agree with you. And every woman that put her hands on those men deserves to be stomped into the ground. Those people are scum and wouldn't dare stand for it if the roles were reversed.

[pnl86]

Or...

This just proves the alternative point...

"So what? What's the big deal?"

A girl is running on the field at a baseball game and... (complete the sentence)

1. Commits an act of SEXUAL ASSAULT, or
2. Grabs a guy's butt and runs away

Okay, so what?

A man gets involuntarily (supposedly) "exposed" ...

Okay, so what?

Where is the harm, exactly?

Now, to preface what I'm about to say, we all agree that things like "rape" and "sexual assault" are crimes. The fact that they are crimes is undisputed, and beyond dispute, unless one cannot read. For that reason alone, those things are "wrong."

Now, on a "moral" level, we can debate "whether" those things are "wrong," and, assuming they are, "how wrong" or "to what degree" those things are wrong.

In law school, criminal law was the very last class we took (along with family law). That means, we had taken contracts, property, and torts. And the philosophical and academic question that was posed was as follows:

"Murder is clearly a criminal wrong. No degree of money can bring a person back, and so given the severity of the harm, the punishment must be more severe than mere money damages."

"Yet, what about when someone dies, but it's an accident? Say, during a car crash. That's 'negligence,' but not to the point where it's so reckless or careless that it's 'criminal.' That's a tort - the French/Latin word for 'wrong,' but not so wrong that it rises to the level of being criminal. There, even though the harm caused is death or loss of life, the punishment is only money damages, based on the value of the life lost."

"What about when someone gets hit, but doesn't die? Money damages for the value of the loss of an eye, or lost time from work, or the value of using their property without their permission."

"So, where do sex crimes fall into all this, in a state where prostitution is not legal. If it's illegal to sell your body for sex, then we know the money damages for loss of earnings or theft of services... is $0.00. So, other than some nominal money damages for 'trespass' onto one's body... is there any substantial physical injury? No. So, what is the nature of the offense? What is the nature of the harm or damage? If some people can just "laugh off" a pinch on the butt or unwanted and unsolicited sexual physical contact, why is that human behavior on the same criminal level as assault with a deadly weapon, or arson, or murder?"

Just a philosophical question, in light of your Take.

[Cookies_AndMilk]

Are you implying rape and sexual assault aren't big deals?

[pnl86]

@Cookies_AndMilk that's not at all what I said. Go back and re-read, especially the time spent prefacing. The legal philosophy question posed is, if murder punishes the loss of life; if assault punishes serious physical damage; if fraud or theft punishes the loss of property... we "know" of course what the crimes of rape and "sexual" assault punish... but given how "subjective" the harm (or whether there even was any "emotional") harm is, where do we draw the line? Why not group "yelling" or "being mean" into the same category? When your boss threatens to fire you, and makes you work late, or makes you do demeaning work, that you wouldn't otherwise do, that you don't really consent to... but are more or less coerced and forced into doing... and you feel worthless - dehumanized... why is your boss not in jail - with the same criminal severity as if he has murdered someone, or violently assaulted someone with a deadly weapon?

[pnl86]

Should the criminal law punish objectively verifiable consequences, or the maximum potential subjective harm?

That is all.

[Cookies_AndMilk]

I'm still not understanding because even the explanation sounds like the same thing. Are you saying it isn't a big deal because this has happened to a male? It honestly just sounds as though you're dismissing the severity of sexual harassment and assault.

[pnl86]

@Cookies_AndMilk "to preface what I'm about to say, we all agree that things like 'rape' and 'sexual assault' are crimes. The fact that they are crimes is undisputed, and beyond dispute, unless one cannot read. For that reason alone, those things are 'wrong.'"

It's a legal theory and philosophy question... not a "moral philosophy" question.

It's also just a question to ponder, think about, and consider... in the abstract. It's not an opinion, it's not a statement of belief, etc.

In personal injury for example, if someone gets hit over the head with a metal pan, and they only suffer a bump, the money damages are nominal. If their skill breaks and they die, the money damages are hundreds of thousands. The "damages" proportionately follow and are derivative of the harm suffered.

[pnl86]

In civil cases of "negligent infliction of emotional distress" or "intentional infliction of emotional distress," the reason the courts (our legal system) is so hesitant to grant relief and "punish" the "wrongdoer," is because when the damages are "emotional" ... we don't have a "brain machine" that can go into a person's mind and accurately assess just how much harm has honestly been done.

So, in the civil context, there is a "bright line" rule of a blanket rejection of torts where the harm is purely "subjective." The only "emotional distress" torts that survive are ones with "clear physical manifestations or symptoms" (i. e., objectively verifiable), or "proximately within the zone of danger when witnessing the loss of life of a close family member" (i. e., objectively verifiable). With "negligent" inflection of emotional distress... although a defendant may be found "liable," the jury may ultimately again only award "nominal" money damages if not convinced of any real harm suffered.

[pnl86]

So, with something like "sexual assault" or "forcible touching," what we're saying is that no matter if the object (i. e., receiver) of the touching received the tort-equivalent of a "bump" on the skull, or "a cracked skull followed by death," or "a pleasant tickle followed by a laugh," the default no-more-questions-asked punishment is as if the object of the touching "always" suffered from the tort-equivalent of "a cracked skull followed by death."

Although the object of the touching is not analogous to a plaintiff in the civil context, criminal and civil defendants are more analogous in the sense that they both receive "liability" and must pay for the harm caused onto another.

Similar to how the civil defendant must "over pay" a windfall to a plaintiff when the plaintiff hasn't really suffered that much harm... this take illustrates how sometimes, the nature of punishment of these crimes may cause the same to occur in the criminal context.

[pnl86]

cf.girlsaskguys.com/.../...7-b7d1-94d32001b3fa.jpg

For example, look at that guy's face. He's smiling. He thinks it's just a funny childish act, he's waiting for security to remove the nuisance situation and simply continue playing the baseball game.

Yet, the act was already committed.

See, codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/PEN/THREE/H/130/130.52

So, "hypothetically" (as opposed to theoretically), the baseball player in that picture could report this to the police, she could get arrested, and she could be charged with "forcible touching," because she's checked off all of the elements. The "harm inflicted" is not even an element of the crime.

Would that be "justice"? Would that serve the goals of criminal punishment? If the prosecutor's inaction is any answer to that question, the answer would be, "No."

No, because despite the plain English text of the statute, no harm was actually suffered. So, to "punish" this woman for what is plainly forcible touching would cause her to "over pay" criminally compared to the harm the baseball player suffered.

[Cookies_AndMilk]

Okay, I understand where you're going with that, isn't that how things work. Usually someone doesn't try to press charges unless they do feel violated in some sort. If my boyfriend gave me a pat on the bum that was uninvited and unexpected I'm not going to feel violated or harmed in any way, but if it were a stranger I would feel disgusted and repulsed. I'm certainly not going to press charges on my boyfriend because no harm was done, if it was a stranger then yes I would, because harm was received.

[pnl86]

@Cookies_AndMilk "pressing charges" is a TV concept.

The police investigates enough to make an arrest, and then investigated enough to make out a case for the district attorney.

Once the DA has enough to charge, it is the DA's sole decision whether or not to charge someone with a crime. Additionally, if there is "overwhelming evidence" that a crime has been committed, many states make it "mandatory" for the DA to bring charges against a person.

The "charging instrument" is drafted by the DA, not the victim of a crime.

So, there are many cases where someone cries wolf on their neighbor or friend, and they simply cannot later "take it back."

The common example is roommates that try to get one of their roommates in trouble for drug possession (in retaliation for him not paying rent on time). Police come in, collect evidence, and the DA charges all the roommates with drug possession.

The victim of a crime is just a witness, not the prosecutor.

[pnl86]

In that photo and video, there is overwhelming evidence that a crime was committed.

Yet, "should" this girl face the brunt of criminal punishment for forcible touching where the "victim" didn't even mind or care, and even laughed about it?

Alternatively, what if the "victim" only acted offended externally, but inside, didn't really care and just wanted additional media time for his team and public sympathy for endorsement deals?

Is that really serving the purposes of the criminal justice system and theories of punishment?

Again, the whole thing is just an academic excercise. The law is what it is. In that example, the police and DA ignored the law. Some would argue the law should have been rightfully ignored and not applied in this instance. But, therein lies the academic problem and issue. All that indicated to a legal theorist is that the law is not very well drafted if "selective enforcement/prosecution" is "necessary" to do justice.

[Cookies_AndMilk]

Well then in that case yeah. It might come off as unfair but maybe she shouldn't be running around slapping people's bums.

[Lolomon]

Those celebs nudes where stolen from their private storage. Justin was out in public , you see nude photos of princess Kate taken of her on her estate. Women generally hit when they feel threatened , granted their are some who do it out of frustration that being said it's a biological difference between the male sex and female, men are stronger but unless your going up against a fighter men are at advantage. But I wouldn't hit a man and not expect him to hit me back. No one should be touching anyone's butt without consent but I know men who frankly could care less and like it. But speaking on equality why is acceptable for a man to cheat and the women is expected to forgive the man because hey he is a man. But when a woman cheats she is a slit and the man morw than likely won't take her back. And to be realistic men and women are so biologically different , the sexes are not equal in all aspects but what one lacks the other makes up for. Equality is subjective, realistically we cannot be equal across the board.

[jaydogs1990]

I sorry did you just advocate girl on guy domestic violence?

[Lolomon]

@jaydogs1990 well, sir I think you need read my comment because that was never said.

[Anonymous]

I agree. I've personally known guys who are emotionally damaged due to sexual abuse from women as 12-14 year old boys, including, I suspect, my own father.

It's a larger problem than just "women want entitled rights" though. Read the comments from guys when a boy turns in his teacher for statutory rape, for instance. "What a fag," some will say. "I wish I'd been screwed by my teacher," others will say. These are the comments with the most upvotes.

One of my very close friends had a position so many guys on this forum say they envy and even turn spiteful towards. He slept with dozens of women each year. In truth, he'd been a victim of statutory tape and manipulation. He was depressed and had low self worth. He worried that if his muscle tone diminished or his hairline receded, nobody would love him. He went to bed with girls who ridiculed him for his promiscuity, and with some he wasn't even attracted to because he had severe social anxiety and would latch on to sexual attention as a way to cope. It was sad.

Overall, society needs to see that while men are very sexual, their sex lives are more than mechanical humping. It's still personal. They're still human, not walking hard ons.

[JSmuve]

It's probably because society has no clue what to do with sexual acts commited against females. With guys it's easy: no one gives a fuck because guys are 'supposed to like' the sexual attention. We are the stereotypical more sexual of the two sexes afterall. But girls have historically been protected from anything sex related. They're viewed as not wanting the sexual attention. Hence all the uproar when nudes are leaked or their butts are grabbed. However, it's well documented, particularly with the millenial generation, that women can be just as sexual as guys. But this new identity clashes with the historical image of women, and society is slow to catch up. So women are seen as chaste little angels who can do no sexual wrong because guys want the attention while guys are seen as pervs who can do no right.

On a completely unrelated note, fuck bieber. He's probably revelling in all the publicity that this doesn't deserve.

[Anonymous]

Violating someones space, no matter the gender, is a big no from me. Looking at the pics of the girl grabbing the baseball players butt is not ok to me, at all. I've never seen them before.

With Justin, while I don't like him... he is a celebrity. Did you not see what happened was it last year with the hack and all the nude leaks of actresses? People went crazy for them. Not just men, but women looked as well. Why? Because they are famous.

I'm not saying it's right, having private photos of anyone, famous or not, is not right in my book. But people are curious and want to see. It's in their nature, for most not all. I don't care for nude "leaks", even if it was set up by the celebrities PR team or not. I don't really want to see it in movies, either, but it is what it is... and it's at least consensual then.

But I agree, respect other's privacy.

[AleDeEurope]

Dude, it's always been like that, I'm not surprised.
Equality when it benefits them, that's the story.
It doesn't apply to every woman, I've met many who do want equality even when it doesn't benefit them, but it's not as common as seeing the opposite.

[shivering]

I don't know anything about the Justin Bieber incident. I don't want to look it up since I really don't want to come across any potential nudes. However, I do believe that respecting one's privacy has nothing to do with gender. Man or woman... it isn't right for people to put up your private business out for the world to see.

[Homicidal_Queen]

I don't think anyone should hit anyone unless in self defense. AND why would anyone want Justin Biebers nudes? He's a prick. But I don't think anyone should touch anyones butt w/o consent or look at someones nudes which is an invasion of privacy and whoever leaked them, their trust.

[BangBadBxtches]

Yea, same thing happened to the australian boy band, his dick pick got leaked and a author ON A HUFFINGTON POST ARTICLE broadcasted for everyone to see was calling it cute, it's fucking ridicuous. If it was a male that did that he would have been fired.

[WhatTheHellAmy]

I couldn't give less fucks about this fucktard being naked.

Or the kardashians showing their pussies. I hate them equally.

[Anonymous]

Okay. Let's clear this up. Equality. That means being equal. That means you get the same rights- and responsibilities.
Guys should not hit girls. Guys should not hit guys. Nobody should hit anybody!! (Unless in self defence or as part of a disciplined sport).
It's quite simple. Equality means you either need to be nice to everyone or nobody. You've just got to make that choice.

[tynamite]

Men are the disposable sex. Men get longer sentences than women for the same crime, are laughed at when they get raped and have less money spent on them for cancer funding.

static1.squarespace.com/.../?format=1500w

[VampireEmpress]

the article that I found that finally showed the nude pics had his dick completely blocked out... that's not fair because? and all of his fans were pissed.

[COCOCHANEL]

i love it when men hit men

[crayven]

No you don't.

[Jolson131]

@crayven 😂

[BruceJender]

Always knew you were twisted.

[Vehii]

I think you're completely right about this.

[Anonymous]

screw that fag