The Brocial Network

gargleblaster

You may have read or heard about this already.

A men-only Facebook group which requires that its members share a sexy picture of a female friend as a condition of membership. I think it's been shut down now.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/05/18/the-brocial-network-proves-just-why-we-need-sl-twalk/

Of course the first reaction is (what else?) those women shouldn't have posted those pictures! Which is neither here nor there. They did nothing wrong. That fact, sadly, of course, is lost in the blaming and shaming of women who (had it coming, should have expected it, weren't being careful, etc etc ad nauseam).

Just another symptom of a culture that views and treats women as objects. But no, let's not treat the cause, let's just address the symptoms. That's worked very well so far, right?

krudler

facebook got started by guys rating Harvard girls pics (unless the movie lied to me :pac: ) so its got some seedy beginnings anyway.

Sorry, but I can't get outraged about women posting pictures on the internet and having them elsewhere on the internet

krudler

bluewolf wrote: »

Sorry, but I can't get outraged about women posting pictures on the internet and having them elsewhere on the internet

someone who has an innocent snapshot on a beach taken and happens to be wearing a bikini top that winds up on there= right to be outraged

someone who is posing in a schoolgirl outfit on a night out, cleavage showing, duckface on, blatantly doing the "look how HAWT I am" pose= no right to be outraged, dont want to be ogled, dont go out of your way to post pics of yourself like that.

krudler

krudler wrote: »

someone who has an innocent snapshot on a beach taken and happens to be wearing a bikini top that winds up on there= right to be outraged

I see your point but it's facebook... lock down your privacy and trust your friends, or...
I mean if a friend did that I'd be p!ssed off and wonder about the friendship, but I am not sure it is something to get outraged about on general principle

Morag

gargleblaster wrote: »

You may have read or heard about this already.

A men-only Facebook group which requires that its members share a sexy picture of a female friend as a condition of membership. I think it's been shut down now.

It's that the same way child pron groups/lists/forums are run?

Having read the article the group encourages men to violate the privacy filters on their female friends photos.
If someone I knew did that to me there'd be war.

baby and crumble

How is this much different from those "cute hubby of the week!" pics in magazines like Now or Today or Womans Weekly or whatever?

Yes, it's an invasion of privacy, but if they are photos in the public domain anyway I have no idea why people are getting into a snit.

FFS people there's worse things in the world than someone thinking you're hot :rolleyes:

krudler

zoegh wrote: »

FFS people there's worse things in the world than someone thinking you're hot :rolleyes:

especially if you go out of your way to flaunt it. If I stuck a pic of myself half naked (not that many would want to see it) posing on facebook and got some compliments I wouldnt be horrified, but I wouldnt put the pics up to begin with, massive difference between looking good on a night out and taking a pic of yourself wearing half nothing in a blatant "look at MEEEEE!" pic

gargleblaster

I wasn't actually claiming this was the worst problem in the world.

What I said was that it's a symptom of a larger problem.

It is very different from 'cute hubby' pictures. Those are not put up as a requirement, and presumably the wife has permission to share them. It's all public and very lighthearted.

TaraFoxglove

krudler wrote: »

facebook got started by guys rating Harvard girls pics (unless the movie lied to me :pac: ) so its got some seedy beginnings anyway.

IRL, both men and women were rated for their hotness on that site. Just FYI.

gargleblaster

TaraFoxglove wrote: »

IRL, both men and women were rated for their hotness on that site. Just FYI.

Which is all well and good as long as everyone is aware!

The issue with this network is the way it was done.

Kooli

Well this thread has already conformed to what the OP was talking about - let's all blame the women!!

Yes, maybe they should have been more careful, but seriously?? Why are we focusing so much on what these women did 'wrong' here??

The great thing about Facebook is that if there's something on there that bothers you, you can just log off and carry on with your life.

TaraFoxglove

gargleblaster wrote: »

Which is all well and good as long as everyone is aware!

The issue with this network is the way it was done.

Oh, I know, I was just clarifying.

Though... as far as I'm aware, people didn't know they were put on the Facemash site.

Links234

that's pretty despicable alright

I'm pretty paranoid about putting my pics up online anywhere public. I had (very stupidly in retrospect) posted a pic of myself on an imageboard, and it ended up on 4chan. I didn't show my face but some of the replies were a bit disturbing. anyway, it's out there now and there's nothing I can really do about that.

krudler

Kooli wrote: »

Well this thread has already conformed to what the OP was talking about - let's all blame the women!!

Yes, maybe they should have been more careful, but seriously?? Why are we focusing so much on what these women did 'wrong' here??

it depends on the pics tbh posed for "rawr how hot am I?" pics? nah, you wanted to get people looking at you, mission accomplised. if you dont want to be ogled dont put pics of yourself in skimpy outfits posing on the internet, simples. If you put pics of yourself up for attention seeking purposes you cant really complain if that exact thing happens.

Feckfox

It's a tricky one. I think it is an invasion of privacy for your friend to take your photo and show other people who you have not allowed to see it (with privacy settings) but what do you think of one person showing their friends all your Facebook photos? This obviously happens a lot - is it similar?

baby and crumble

gargleblaster wrote:

I wasn't actually claiming this was the worst problem in the world.

What I said was that it's a symptom of a larger problem.

what bigger problem though? Perhaps in an ideal world women wouldn't be objectified, but then neither would men. People are human, therefore we ALL spend a lot of time looking at hot people. How many replies are posted in the 'hot man" thread on here? You might say thats different, they're famous, they put themselves in the public eye. Fair enough, but if ANYONE is dim enough to post pictures of themselves online in any kind of revealing atire, be they male or female, I honestly think they have no right to whinge about what is done with their pictures after the fact.

The amount of women I know that are JUST as shallow as men, and who check out friends of friends on facebook to see if they can spot a beach pic is quite astonishing.

I am female, and it really really cheeses me off that if a guy comments on a girls boobs or bum they are some kind of pervert, yet of a girl does the same thing it's just in good fun. WTF???!?!?!?!??

gargleblaster

zoegh wrote: »

what bigger problem though? Perhaps in an ideal world women wouldn't be objectified, but then neither would men. People are human, therefore we ALL spend a lot of time looking at hot people. How many replies are posted in the 'hot man" thread on here? You might say thats different, they're famous, they put themselves in the public eye. Fair enough, but if ANYONE is dim enough to post pictures of themselves online in any kind of revealing atire, be they male or female, I honestly think they have no right to whinge about what is done with their pictures after the fact.

The amount of women I know that are JUST as shallow as men, and who check out friends of friends on facebook to see if they can spot a beach pic is quite astonishing.

I am female, and it really really cheeses me off that if a guy comments on a girls boobs or bum they are some kind of pervert, yet of a girl does the same thing it's just in good fun. WTF???!?!?!?!??

Just about everyone nearly without exception appreciates a good looking person. That is not the issue.

You're missing the context in this situation.

In the situation on facebook, people have privacy settings, yet those are being circumvented. The problem here is people breaking the rules, and betraying their supposed friends. Not women taking attention-seeking pictures.

And despite however sexily they pose or dress, that does not excuse anyone from not following rules or betraying someone's confidence. That doesn't mean I expect that everyone will act within rules or be a good friend and not a creep, rather that it is educational to see how quickly people will leap to blaming the victim rather than the person being a creep, breaking rules, etc.


As for appreciating sexy pictures, that's neither here nor there in this discussion. Maybe there's a discussion to be had about that subject, that men are chastised for ogling pics and women aren't. However I don't know how well it would go, due to the severe imbalance in not only the amount of ogling done, but also the tone. (The kind of comments made about those being ogled, that is.)

28064212

Kooli wrote: »

Well this thread has already conformed to what the OP was talking about - let's all blame the women!!

Yes, maybe they should have been more careful, but seriously?? Why are we focusing so much on what these women did 'wrong' here??

What about a woman that self-publishes a book of photographs of herself? To her, it's an expression of freedom, a celebration of freedom, whatever. A guy buys it because he finds her sexually attractive, shows it to his friends, makes sleazy comments between each other etc. Who's "to blame" here?

If you're going to publish stuff, you don't get to decide how it's interpreted. People have this notion that stuff they put on the internet is somehow private because they don't mean for other people to see it. Where there is a case to answer is when the subject has restricted access (e.g. friends only), but someone in that access group takes the photo and republishes it to a wider audience without consent. Doing that is completely unfair (and possibly illegal), but sharing open links are fair game

epgc3fyqirnbsx

Ah look, this is just a crowd of prats being immature meatheads. They're not worth a second thought and things like this get shut down on sites like facebook.
That doesn't mean there aren't other simialr sites, hasn't there been some talk of a site recently where schoolgirls (mostly) take pics of hot guys on the tube and post them on the site. It's the world we live in unfortunately, the fact is as soon as you step outside the door someone can post your image on the internet.
Does this make them d1cks. Yep.
But there's always d1cks and seeing as all of us spend so much time on the internet it doesn't come as a surprise that this is their number one platform.
Ignore this sort of tripe, it isn't going anywhere but there's much better stuff to look at

CK2010

i dont use facebook.i dont see the point tbh. i guess i understand for some people who communicate with friends/family they dont see on a regular basis.. but all this '20 photos of me sitting on a toilet in a club thinking i look hot' crap i dont understand why people feel the need to document and share with the world every aspect of their life- thats neither here nor there though tbh, im just saying i may be biased because of this.

if you put up photos of yourself- regardless of how you're dressed-on the internet you are going to be seen and forever seen on the internet. once its up its up. you are giving that picture to god knows how many people by putting it on the internet. if you cant handle the fact that some people may be assholes and use it for a reason you never intended for it to be used then dont upload it.
but if a friend takes a photo of you and uploads it themselves then its a different story imo.

IrishEyes19

bluewolf wrote: »

I see your point but it's facebook... lock down your privacy and trust your friends, or...
I mean if a friend did that I'd be p!ssed off and wonder about the friendship, but I am not sure it is something to get outraged about on general principle

Locking down on your facebook, can be controlled. No problem there. But trust your friends, trust people. There are enough posts on boards.ie to show that you can never fully trust anyone.

Of course you have the right to be outraged. :rolleyes:

WindSock

Step one, set up a male account. Step two, get pic and join. Step three, look for anyone you know and see if they put your pic up. If you have identified yourself, take a pic from your friends photos and meme or PhotoShop it, post on your wall with a message then unfriend them. Petty, yeah.

Mallei

gargleblaster wrote: »

Just another symptom of a culture that views and treats women as objects. But no, let's not treat the cause, let's just address the symptoms. That's worked very well so far, right?

Actually, it has. Given that this is the Patriarchy defending its own - "boys will be boys" - even if that means the utter degredation of women, then addressing the symptoms has worked. If we're talking about fairness and equality then, no, it's not worked very well. But those doing it aren't striving for equality and therefore making a mistake here - they know exactly what their aims are and are therefore doing exactly the right thing to achieve those.

Blame the women, make them feel at fault, and you can carry on degrading them like this to your heart's content.

Mallei

Also, I like that yet another thread has just been swarmed by male posters (same old culprits, too) telling us that there's no problem here and we should just get on with it.

Mallei

Mallei wrote: »

Also, I like that yet another thread has just been swarmed by male posters (same old culprits, too) telling us that there's no problem here and we should just get on with it.

Yeah, who is that? Because I see very few

CK2010

Mallei wrote: »

Also, I like that yet another thread has just been swarmed by male posters (same old culprits, too) telling us that there's no problem here and we should just get on with it.

im not going to get into the males on tLL argument on this thread because its already been adressed elsewhere but just for the record i personally like to see a males point of view (even if it is in tLL) on womens issues. i also dont see the point in bringing up their gender as if it invalidates their opinion, just because they dont agree with yours. i get that its tLL but still. and i have to say as a woman i agree with the male posters and their 'victim blaming'. unless, as i stated earlier, they are unaware that a photo has been uploaded onto the web.

Mallei

bluewolf wrote: »

Yeah, who is that? Because I see very few

Well you seem to agree with them that the women are entirely at fault for having their pictures stolen and degraded, so I'm hardly surprised.

Mallei

Mallei wrote: »

Well you seem to agree with them that the women are entirely at fault for having their pictures stolen and degraded, so I'm hardly surprised.

Hardly surprised at what exactly, mallei? That a woman exists on the thread who disagrees with your point of view? I should hope so; this forum is great for being supportive but I would hate to think that no dissenting opinions are allowed.
I would still love to know where this "swarm" is, I count 2 male posters disagreeing at best - and the idea of identifying genders to decide who we will and won't engage with is ludicrous.

If you have a problem with my post please by all means explain to me! But let's start off with the right post - I said if you post your picture on the internet, I don't see the issue with having it end up... on the internet. Any so-called friend who does it for kicks would have the friendship re-evaluated by myself, as I have already said, but yelling about the evil patriarchy? No.

Mallei

It's a strawman to suggest I'm claiming some evil white men are sitting in an office cackling as they post women's pictures; I'm saying that, whilst the actions of these men are the responsibility solely of these men, it is the cultural norm for men to act this way - or at least it is seen as "acceptable". They do this because society has led them to believe that they can and that there is nothing wrong with doing so, and whatsmore in the aftermath of the incident - as we can see - others will vehemently defend their rights to do so.

CK2010

Mallei wrote: »

I'm saying that, whilst the actions of these men are the responsibility solely of these men, it is the cultural norm for men to act this way - or at least it is seen as "acceptable". They do this because society has led them to believe that they can and that there is nothing wrong with doing so, and whatsmore in the aftermath of the incident - as we can see - others will vehemently defend their rights to do so.

perhaps its the fact that women make these pictures accessable?? that they play up to and facilitate this behaviour by putting up suggestive pictures?

i know all women dont do this but alot do and until those women stop facilitating it the men will continue to behave that way. its not all one sided. its wrong on the mens part but they're not the big baddys in all this.

liah

krudler wrote: »

it depends on the pics tbh posed for "rawr how hot am I?" pics? nah, you wanted to get people looking at you, mission accomplised. if you dont want to be ogled dont put pics of yourself in skimpy outfits posing on the internet, simples. If you put pics of yourself up for attention seeking purposes you cant really complain if that exact thing happens.

Let's reword your paragraph for a sec.

"nah, you wanted to get people looking at you, mission accomplised. if you dont want to be ogled raped dont put pics of yourself in wear skimpy outfits posing on the internet, simples. If you put pics of yourself up wear skimpy outfits for attention seeking purposes you cant really complain if that exact thing happens."

I'm not trying to be dramatic, just illustrating a point - do you see why people may disagree with the logic? Where do you draw the line, exactly?

The point is, the pics are being used for a purpose the person in them didn't intend. By their so-called "friends," no less. It doesn't matter what the women in the pictures are doing, it truly doesn't - the creepy factor comes from the men blatantly disrespecting women they call friends in order to get into some stupid e-group. It's an invasion of privacy if they're going around privacy filters to get the pictures. Whatever about if they were made public, fine, but that wasn't the case here, was it?

So why blame the women, and not the absolutely creepy-as-all-get-out men?

The pictures aren't the problem, it's how the men view their female friends that's the problem.

krudler

CK2010 wrote: »

perhaps its the fact that women make these pictures accessable?? that they play up to and facilitate this behaviour by putting up suggestive pictures?

i know all women dont do this but alot do and until those women stop facilitating it the men will continue to behave that way. its not all one sided. its wrong on the mens part but they're not the big baddys in all this.

Bingo, the men arent right to do this without permission, so that isnt being condoned at all, its pretty fcuking sleazy and a massive breach of trust to do that so someone on your friends list, but if women didnt post the pics themselves to begin with there wouldnt be an issue.
again I'm not talking about innocent profile pics or the kind of stuff you'd see posted on this very forum in the know your loungers thread,general snapshots and pics of people looking good, I mean the attention seeking, duckface posing in your underwear pics, of which there are thousands of on facebook.
Some women love male attention and they're getting it by posting pics on the net, if I did the same and posted a pic of myself wearing a towel or posing in my underwear and got "phwoar look at him" comments I wouldnt be all "zomg I'm being degraded!" since the very intention was to show off in the first place.

Men arent all the bad guys in this either, look at people like Katie Price or Paris Hilton, these supposed role models who basically tell young girls "why become a doctor or a scientist when you can get famous for getting your tits out and being a vacuous airhead? if boys drool after you life is easy! teeheehee girls!" You have musicians like Rihanna and Britney in videos being seen by young girls singing about S&M and dressing in seductive clothes and portraying themselves as sexual objects, then complain when they're seen as exactly that?
Media these days is telling girls that a hot body and looks is an easy road to fame, thats the bigger picture, men will lust after women and women will lust after men until the end of time. the means in which they do it is often questionable especially in this instance but theres far more things at work here than a bunch of guys on a facebook page.

edit: type "hot guys on facebook" into facebook search, there are just as many of those pages by women for women so its not a one sided thing by any means.

28064212

liah wrote: »

"nah, you wanted to get people looking at you, mission accomplised. if you dont want to be ogled raped dont put pics of yourself in wear skimpy outfits posing on the internet, simples. If you put pics of yourself up wear skimpy outfits for attention seeking purposes you cant really complain if that exact thing happens."

Now that's a strawman. The purpose of wearing skimpy outfits is not because you're offering yourself up for sex with anyone. The purpose of publishing pictures on the internet for viewing is to publish pictures on the internet for viewing. You don't get to decide what people decide to do with them after you've made them available. What about a group of women who decide to make catty comments on the fashion sense of other people?

liah wrote: »

The point is, the pics are being used for a purpose the person in them didn't intend.

The intention is irrelevant when you've published it for public consumption. A writer doesn't get to decide how other people have to interpret their work after they're finished.

liah wrote: »

Whatever about if they were made public, fine, but that wasn't the case here, was it?

AFAICS, that is the case here. Seems like they're sharing links to accessible photos. Now if they're republishing photos, then I agree that the men are completely in the wrong. And probably breaking the law.

28064212

28064212 wrote: »

AFAICS, that is the case here. Seems like they're sharing links to accessible photos. Now if they're republishing photos, then I agree that the men are completely in the wrong. And probably breaking the law.

I assumed they are republishing photos taken from FB profiles, yes.

TaraFoxglove

krudler wrote: »

Bingo, the men arent right to do this without permission, so that isnt being condoned at all, its pretty fcuking sleazy and a massive breach of trust to do that so someone on your friends list, but if women didnt post the pics themselves to begin with there wouldnt be an issue.

Sorry, what? So what if the women put the pics on their private Facebook page? This COMPLETELY comes down to the breach of trust issue. Some women love male attention, yuppers, but how does the guy who shares these pics with others know this for sure of his friend?

28064212 wrote: »

You don't get to decide what people decide to do with them after you've made them available.

If the photos are posted on a FB page with privacy settings, then yes you do.

krudler

bluewolf wrote: »

I assumed they are republishing photos taken from FB profiles, yes.

and thats not right at all thats not even up for debate.

krudler

TaraFoxglove wrote: »

Sorry, what? So what if the women put the pics on their private Facebook page? This COMPLETELY comes down to the breach of trust issue.

err yeah I just said that also thats not my point, but well done on taking that line out of context

TaraFoxglove

krudler wrote: »

err yeah I just said that also thats not my point, but well done on taking that line out of context

You said it's a breach of trust but the women are also at fault for putting the pics there in the first place (bolded bit):

krudler wrote: »

Bingo, the men arent right to do this without permission, so that isnt being condoned at all, its pretty fcuking sleazy and a massive breach of trust to do that so someone on your friends list, but if women didnt post the pics themselves to begin with there wouldnt be an issue.

No, they're not, if they have privacy settings on their page that only friends are allowed to see the pics, they are not at fault. At all. Their so-called friends are at fault.

The_Morrigan

Mallei wrote: »

It's a strawman to suggest I'm claiming some evil white men are sitting in an office cackling as they post women's pictures; I'm saying that, whilst the actions of these men are the responsibility solely of these men, it is the cultural norm for men to act this way - or at least it is seen as "acceptable". They do this because society has led them to believe that they can and that there is nothing wrong with doing so, and whatsmore in the aftermath of the incident - as we can see - others will vehemently defend their rights to do so.

Mallei are you aware of the fallout from the rating system in PWC?
It was not seen as acceptable and all the men involved were disciplined for their actions - maybe you perceive that the world accepts this type of behaviour, but I don't and many others don't either.

liah

28064212 wrote: »

Now that's a strawman. The purpose of wearing skimpy outfits is not because you're offering yourself up for sex with anyone. The purpose of publishing pictures on the internet for viewing is to publish pictures on the internet for viewing. You don't get to decide what people decide to do with them after you've made them available. What about a group of women who decide to make catty comments on the fashion sense of other people?

I know it's a strawman. It still doesn't matter if it is or isn't - the point is, the logic used to blame the women for what the men did is as absolutely flawed now as it is when it is equally applied to victims of rape or anything else. It's just a really, really retarded line of logic that has no business being in an intelligent debate.

Did you miss the part where it said they had to go around privacy settings to get the pictures or what? They didn't (all) post them for the entire world to see, they posted them for their friends to see. Why should they be blamed for that? Why should they be blamed for a "friend" using their picture without their knowledge or consent? How does that make sense?

The intention is irrelevant when you've published it for public consumption. A writer doesn't get to decide how other people have to interpret their work after they're finished.

Again, did you read this at all? Not all of them were made public. Just because they're on Facebook doesn't mean their profiles are set for the world to view. Obviously, if they weren't public, then they didn't want the images to go public - so why is it still their "fault" that someone ELSE broke their trust?

AFAICS, that is the case here. Seems like they're sharing links to accessible photos. Now if they're republishing photos, then I agree that the men are completely in the wrong. And probably breaking the law.

Then why did someone mention there were instructions on how to get around Facebook's privacy settings? If it were all above-board, why would they need that information?

krudler

TaraFoxglove wrote: »

You said it's a breach of trust but the women are also at fault for putting the pics there in the first place (bolded bit):



No, they're not, if they have privacy settings on their page that only friends are allowed to see the pics.

what I also said was that it depends on the pics the trust issue isnt even up for discussion, but if you dont want seductive pics of yourself getting on the net, dont put them on the net. I'm obviously not going to post pics to compare but you can easily find examples.

pic 1: a night out in a group or just a random smiling for the camera snapshot, an innocent photo you wouldnt mind anyone seeing and chances are nobody is going be to posting on other sites.

pic2: taken by you, in your underwear and a vest or bra in your bathroom, looking over your shoulder showing off your ass cheeks or bending over showing your cleavage in a deliberate "look at me pose", possibly with added duckface.

one is a simple photo, the other is blatant attention seeking, and theres a much bigger picture to it.

TaraFoxglove

krudler wrote: »

one is a simple photo, the other is blatant attention seeking, and theres a much bigger picture to it.

Yup, doesn't matter! If the person has privacy settings for photos, that should be respected. They have those settings for a reason. Sin é. Anything else is veering into moral relativism territory.

krudler

TaraFoxglove wrote: »

Yup, doesn't matter! If the person has privacy settings for photos, that should be respected. They have those settings for a reason. Sin é. Anything else is veering into moral relativism territory.

I completely agree, again the privacy breach isnt up for debate.

SerialComplaint

gargleblaster wrote: »

Just another symptom of a culture that views and treats women as objects.

I wonder if they have a 261 page thread titled the FEmail form appreciation thread?

Silverfish

SerialComplaint wrote: »

I wonder if they have a 261 page thread titled the FEmail form appreciation thread?

Like the one in TGC? Or the ones in the entire private forum dedicated to the wonder of the female form?

The difference is, the photos in that are not swiped from Facebook, the majority have been taken professionally with the subject's knowledge that this photo will be used for publicity.

TaraFoxglove

SerialComplaint wrote: »

I wonder if they have a 261 page thread titled the FEmail form appreciation thread?

They have a 64 page one which was only started last year as opposed to the linked 4 year old one:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055853138&page=64

SerialComplaint

Silverfish wrote: »

The difference is, the photos in that are not swiped from Facebook, the majority have been taken professionally with the subject's knowledge that this photo will be used for publicity.

Indeed, there is a difference on the privacy issue.

However, in relation to the underlying issue of treating people as objects based on their appearance, it is hard to see a fundamental difference there.

Silverfish

SerialComplaint wrote: »

Indeed, there is a difference on the privacy issue.

However, in relation to the underlying issue of treating people as objects based on their appearance, it is hard to see a fundamental difference there.

I believe that normal people going about their day to day lives and business do not deserve to be treated like objects. Allowing people you know to see a photo of you does not mean you sign away your right to that.

I believe that someone who requires publicity, fame and a career based on their appearance is themselves requiring themselves to be treated like an object, and their looks are a commodity which they endorse.

pickarooney

What kind of pictures exactly would you share with a male friend (not a boyfriend) but not want in the public domain?