"In almost all cases it is not possible to bring a civil action against" a website that hosts your nude images posted without your consent.

November 13, 2011 1:22 PM

This past July, Forbes blogger Kashmir Hill posted a three-part series about "online defamation and involuntary nudity." The first entry focused on an offender: Hunter Moore, owner of IsAnyoneUp.com (Link is NSFW.) The second entry focused on a victim: Paul Syiek, whose company was defamed by a disgruntled ex-employee on the consumer website Rip-off Report. The third profiled a Senior Copyright attorney at Microsoft, Colette Vogele, who co-founded a side project this year to help victims: WithoutMyConsent.org.

More:

Stanford Lawyer's Fall 2011 cover story is: Your Privacy at Risk: Hidden Dangers of Life on the Internet: Can Laws Protect Us?

posted by zarq (53 comments total)

Can we not have a link to IsAnyoneUp.com on the front page? I love the post otherwise
posted by Blasdelb at 1:32 PM on November 13, 2011 [2 favorites]

Blasdelb: "1Can we not have a link to IsAnyoneUp.com on the front page? I love the post otherwise"

OK, but it's linked repeatedly in two of the linked articles of the post.

If anyone on the mod team would prefer not to provide them with traffic and would like to edit the post, removing the link is fine with me.
posted by zarq at 1:47 PM on November 13, 2011 [2 favorites]

- Forbes magazine

- starts off with a legitimate, obviously terrible grievance-- wait, he honors takedown requests and has a policy for that so uhh

- now we're talking about a business but you know maybe they have actual problems, can't find the evidence but maybe I missed it

- a Microsoft Copyright Attorney wants to make an organization that supposedly deals with that

look I am sure this thing being mentioned in Forbes and run by Microsoft attorneys is absolutely a legit organization for individual victims' rights and i absolutely do not see what could possibly be off about it.

also this communications decency act they mention sounds terrible, we should repeal it
posted by This, of course, alludes to you at 2:21 PM on November 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

Yeah, I had never heard of the site and felt violated just giving them a hit.
posted by Mcable at 2:22 PM on November 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

Yeah, I took a look at the site (IsAnyoneUp.com).

Besides reaffirming my belief that I am now traveling at a high velocity far, far, far outside the gravitational pull of popular culture (ie, it was difficult for me to parse what the website was all about), I took note that whoever runs the site actually will take down photos by request.

However, presumably not before someone on the internet has been shamed by having their legal name linked to pictures of their dick or their tits. That is just nasty.
posted by KokuRyu at 2:24 PM on November 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

The takedown policy is just a legal fig leaf. As KokoRyu mentions, by the time someone realizes their pictures have been posted without their consent and asks to have them taken down, the damage has likely been done. A site like this is obviously going to be used by some for the purposes of revenge and shaming, and an ethical operator (yes, there are such, even in porn) would have measures in place to prevent this from happening in the first place. If the problem of having peoples' pictures posted without their consent cannot be solved in a satisfactory manner, then the site should not exist at all.
posted by Scientist at 2:32 PM on November 13, 2011 [3 favorites]

I'm apparently a pendant. In the third part of the series Kashmir Hill says the Streisand Effect is "named for Barbra Streisand who sued to get a site to take down paparazzi photos of her home." My immediate reaction to this was: "What! It wasn't paparazzi photos!"

It's unlikely her attempt to have the photo taken down would have attracted nearly as much public attention if some paparazzi had posted it to his web site. It became an internet cause célèbre because the photo was in an online collection of photos assembled by scientists and researchers interested in documenting coastline erosion (the California Coastal Records Project). The project paid to have a helicopter fly the length of California taking photos of the coast from offshore. A photo of her home ended up in this collection because she resides on a beach cliff. Her lawsuit drew particular interest in California because the California constitution declares that all California beaches below the mean high tide line are public property, and there is continual low-level tension between property owners and the State about public access to these public beaches.
posted by RichardP at 2:45 PM on November 13, 2011 [20 favorites]

The first I heard of IAU was a couple of days ago in this answer to an AskMe about keeping a sexy video private. Once facial and body recognition becomes ubiquitous, a lot of people are going to be surprised to be connected to nude photos and videos that they had thought were anonymous. But because of how ubiquitous I expect that software to be, I'm not sure what can be done to prevent this -- my guess is that we are making a change to privacy that can't be undone, for both better and worse.
posted by Forktine at 2:46 PM on November 13, 2011 [2 favorites]

I can't get over the feeling that this is astroturf bullshit made to push an agenda. Maybe I am just a paranoid, though.
posted by This, of course, alludes to you at 2:48 PM on November 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

astroturf bullshit made to push an agenda

What agenda would that be?
posted by Kadin2048 at 2:51 PM on November 13, 2011

aren't there laws already about this? I mean, when i photograph models, i need a model release form, especially if money is going to made from them (haven't made any yet, but could some day). They clearly are making money, web sites with any traffic does really, so besides takedown notices, why can't they go after any money they made while the image was up (based on page views or whatever?).

On a side note, i do wonder if we weren't so uptight about sex if this would really matter. Seeing people getting fired for nude photos and such. I watched Terry Jones show about the history of sex, and it was really telling how much the entire world has just needs to learn from the pagans who felt it meant getting closer to god. Less shaming, could mean sites like this would just be ignored.
posted by usagizero at 2:53 PM on November 13, 2011 [3 favorites]

astroturf bullshit made to push an agenda

What agenda would that be?

In my own case there is just a general suspicion about causes where focus seems to be about ways to keep stuff off the internet, or to get it off the internet in the first place. Even if the particular example sounds benign all us paranoid foil-beanie-wearing folks immediately wonder "what nefarious, free speech supressing, motives are behind this?"
posted by selenized at 2:55 PM on November 13, 2011 [4 favorites]

On the one hand, I think harassment is too damn bad, and some of the stuff that goes on (exes posting sex pictures or vids with names attached in order to get revenge) is just gross.

On the other, I'm with This, of course... above. There's a reason why "a Senior Copyright attorney at Microsoft" might take interest in this, and I can't really see what could be done about these issues without having a major chilling effect on free speech online. I'd support the ability to file suit pseudonymously, though, as described at WithoutMyConsent.

All this having been said: part of the problem here is the puritanism and hypocrisy of our society. In a sane world we'd simply admit that everyone has genitals, and that many people like to take photos of their genitals for their romantic partners to enjoy. The only shame here should belong to the cowards who are using these photos as an instrument of revenge.
posted by vorfeed at 2:56 PM on November 13, 2011 [3 favorites]

What agenda would that be?

More censorship and control over the internet, I would imagine.
posted by delmoi at 3:12 PM on November 13, 2011

"I'll take it down on request" is the bullshittiest bullshit disclaimer ever.
posted by kmz at 3:12 PM on November 13, 2011

i like how they segue from evil, grotesque sexual near-abuse up through mom-and-pop business being attacked by crazy person

and then the final stop is this thing put together by Friends of MS Legal Team that Forbes conveniently knows about and is so fresh they didn't even bother to take "test" out of the FAQ
posted by This, of course, alludes to you at 3:13 PM on November 13, 2011

That younger people are themselves making nude pics of themselves available makes me wonder how much is tied into the psychology of invincibility that is typical of the late teens and early twenties. Consequences seem so far away when you feel very powerful and in control. And no matter how sophisticated facial or mole recognition gets, it will always be the personal networks that are the main source for identifying and shaming.
posted by saucysault at 3:14 PM on November 13, 2011

What agenda would that be?

It's Forbes magazine. Give them time and they'll connect it to accusations against banks by OWS.
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:21 PM on November 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

Is IsAnyoneUp.com a site exposing (no pun intended) the misdeeds of powerful individuals, companies, and governments against the public good? Are privacy laws a common good? Why do you care about privacy if you've got nothing to hide?
posted by kmz at 3:32 PM on November 13, 2011

Is Colette Vogele working within her role as Microsoft counsel to help victims? The post says "side project"
posted by Ad hominem at 3:34 PM on November 13, 2011

"aren't there laws already about this? I mean, when i photograph models, i need a model release form, especially if money is going to made from them"

My understanding is that in theory many of those pictured could sue the posters who are using the site as a mechanism to publish their photos and information, but not the provider of the means of publication under current law.

"On a side note, i do wonder if we weren't so uptight about sex if this would really matter. Seeing people getting fired for nude photos and such. I watched Terry Jones show about the history of sex, and it was really telling how much the entire world has just needs to learn from the pagans who felt it meant getting closer to god. Less shaming, could mean sites like this would just be ignored."

I'm not so uptight about sex either, but I am very uptight about consent. Of course it is wrong that people, whether teachers or not, get fired for their personal sex lives. However, even if that didn't happen, invading someones sexuality without their consent is a thing which is always wrong regardless of context.

As much as I don't like traditional Christian sexual mores, pre-Christian pagan mores were so so much worse. From the large pile of 1-2 day old male baby skeletons archeologists found in a drain under an ancient brothel, the theory is that female infants would have been profitable in just a few years, to state sanctioned mass rape as a routine and celebrated tool of war and long term economic policy, shit was fucked up back then on a truly epic scale. Pre-Christian pagans would probably have been likely to agree that what Hunter Moore does is funny, but I don't think the salient connection to their times is a happy one.
posted by Blasdelb at 3:36 PM on November 13, 2011 [8 favorites]

aren't there laws already about this?

This article goes into that in some detail. The short answer is, he's protected by some legal language he puts on his website and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act which "protects websites from defamation, libel, or invasion of privacy suits for content submitted by individual contributors."
posted by Houstonian at 3:38 PM on November 13, 2011

I really don't want to weigh in too heavily here but it is a side project. She's apparently passionate about the subject. The organization had existed for months, and had been mentioned on several law blogs and in a NYT editorial months before Ms Hill covered them.
posted by zarq at 3:39 PM on November 13, 2011

I'd post my cock online, but metafilter doesn't honor the image tag.
posted by cjorgensen at 3:43 PM on November 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

I'm apparently a pendant

*snerk*
posted by norm at 3:51 PM on November 13, 2011 [10 favorites]

"protects websites from defamation, libel, or invasion of privacy suits for content submitted by individual contributors."

well sure but doesn't most of the internet rely on that

it seems real real easy to abuse especially since, if you're responsible for stuff people submit, a dude could in theory just post a bunch of libelous shit on a site and call it in?

i mean IANAL but can someone who is explain how this is not very very easily abused
posted by This, of course, alludes to you at 3:55 PM on November 13, 2011

As much as I don't like traditional Christian sexual mores, pre-Christian pagan mores were so so much worse. From the large pile of 1-2 day old male baby skeletons archeologists found in a drain under an ancient brothel, the theory is that female infants would have been profitable in just a few years, to state sanctioned mass rape as a routine and celebrated tool of war and long term economic policy, shit was fucked up back then on a truly epic scale. Pre-Christian pagans would probably have been likely to agree that what Hunter Moore does is funny, but I don't think the salient connection to their times is a happy one.

I'm not an expert on pre-Christian pagans, but what you're saying seems to be analogous to assuming all Catholics endorse raping choirboys. I do think pre-Christian pagans would be pretty astounded by the internet in general, though.
posted by snofoam at 3:56 PM on November 13, 2011 [6 favorites]

Norm, I'm a pedant writing comments from a phone with autocorrection enabled. :-)
posted by RichardP at 3:57 PM on November 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

'this' being a situation sans that section
posted by This, of course, alludes to you at 3:57 PM on November 13, 2011

So, I did find one submission that was removed from the IsAnyoneUp website.

He'd posted leaked stills from a sex video of musician Craig Owens and porn star Raven Alexis. The NSFW stills are copied here. You can see that they were posted on the website on January 13 and probably removed sometime around January 17 because that is the day that Craig Owens posted the an explanation and the full video on his website. He trolled them all, because it was a music video for a song named "Sex Life" with lyrics like, "If you had a sex life, would you even worry about mine?"

Owens even took some screenshots of comments about his "leaked stills" pre-explanation. Moore posted the music video without comment.

The deleted post is only marked "Removed by request". Both the deleted one and the music video are almost completely without comments, so I assumed they were removed as well (by Moore's own request to himself, no doubt).
posted by Houstonian at 4:20 PM on November 13, 2011

Dude can hide behind legal technicalities all he wants, but if the law won't protect people, I can't help thinking it's only a matter of time before someone resorts to self-help measures that Mr. Moore will find rather unpleasant.
posted by dixiecupdrinking at 4:40 PM on November 13, 2011

IsAnyoneUp is in violation of the 2257 documentation laws. I highly doubt they have photocopied drivers licenses of those naked people. Pretty sure a single letter any state attorney general by an offended party would get that site shut down pretty quick.
posted by amuseDetachment at 4:40 PM on November 13, 2011 [2 favorites]

Also, I'm pretty confident that the pictures aren't from facebook. No one's crazy enough to post naked pictures on facebook, and if they are, they'll get their account banned pretty quickly. Most likely they're stolen from a user's photobucket account via fusking. Photobucket has notoriously bad UX design when it comes to privacy, many albums that people think are private probably aren't, which creates these situations.
posted by amuseDetachment at 4:47 PM on November 13, 2011

>...reaffirming my belief that I am now traveling at a high velocity far, far, far outside the gravitational pull of popular culture (ie, it was difficult for me to parse what the website was all about)…<

This keeps happening to me lately. I went to the site first, but had to read the article to understand what it was supposed to be.
posted by bongo_x at 4:48 PM on November 13, 2011

"I'm not an expert on pre-Christian pagans, but what you're saying seems to be analogous to assuming all Catholics endorse raping choirboys."

I'm not sure which part of my comment you are objecting to; infanticide, child prostitution, rape in military victory, sexual slavery of the women, were common and uncontroversial parts of life before Christian objections to the practices. I'll just elaborate on all of them.

In Greece and ancient Rome a child was virtually its father's chattel, in Roman law, the Patria Protestas granted the father the right to dispose of his offspring as he saw fit. The Twelve Tables of Roman Law held that "Deformed infants shall be killed" De Legibus, 3.8. Of course, deformed was broadly construed and often meant no more than the baby appeared "weakly." The Twelve Tables also explicitly permitted a father to expose any female infant. Cicero defended infanticide by referring to the Twelve Tables. Plato and Aristotle recommended infanticide as legitimate state policy. Cornelius Tacitus went so far as to condemn the Jews for their opposition to infanticide. In Histories 5.5 He stated that the Jewish view that "it was a deadly sin to kill an unwanted child" was just another of the many "sinister and revolting practices" of the Jews. Even Seneca, who was famous for his relatively high moral standards, stated, "we drown children at birth who are weakly and abnormal" in his work De Ira (1.15). Hell, infanticide was a casually considered phenomenon, check out this letter that we have, "Know that I am still in Alexandria.... I ask and beg you to take good care of our baby son, and as soon as I received payment I shall send it up to you. If you are delivered (before I come home), if it is a boy keep it, if a girl, discard it." Naphtali Lewis, Life in Egypt Under Roman Rule, page 54.

Child prostitution did not have the future changing societal implications that infanticide had, which led Romans and Greeks to talk about it, but there is ample evidence and early Christians could not shut up about the practice. There were pre-pubescent sex workers of both genders at Pompeii and records of military child slaves being sold to pimps and brothels. This is from the First Apology of Justin Martyr "But as for us, we have been taught that to expose newly-born children is the part of wicked men; and this we have been taught lest we should do any one an injury, and lest we should sin against God, first, because we see that almost all so exposed (not only the girls, but also the males) are brought up to prostitution."

Homer, Herodotus, and Livy all talked about war rape in Greek and Roman armies, and it is clear that it was common, routine, sanctioned, and often, though not always, celebrated. The Old Testament has tons of passages that non-judgementally describe war rape, prescribe it in some instances, and uniformly present it as just a natural thing for an ancient army to do. Check out this description of war rape by Tacitus in Histories 4.14, the Batavian rebellion it caused was the problem, not the rape.

In Greece and Rome forced prostitution was regulated, commonplace, and uncontroversial. It was also one of the primary destinations for women caught in the wrong place at the wrong time of the wrong ethnicity during Roman wars of conquest. If this is something you are interested in learning more about I'd recommend these books.

"I do think pre-Christian pagans would be pretty astounded by the internet in general, though."

Well at least we can agree on something.
posted by Blasdelb at 5:12 PM on November 13, 2011 [10 favorites]

I just re-read that first sentence and figure I should clarify that war rape was considered unnecessary and cruel by some authors but they had no effect on the practice and it was at least as often celebrated
posted by Blasdelb at 5:16 PM on November 13, 2011 [2 favorites]

OK, I'm still hopelessly confused after trying to figure it out. What the heck is isanyoneup.com?
posted by Yowser at 5:37 PM on November 13, 2011

Oh, I just figured it out, kind of. Personal blog where a dude posts naked pictures of people. The twist is that he also posts their real identities.
posted by Yowser at 5:51 PM on November 13, 2011

isanyone up is basically a blog where people submit nekkid photos and identify who is in the photo (even if the face is hidden or whatever) and either they provide facebook/social networking links or the site "investigates" the person's online presence. The blog readers then spam everyone/social sites related to the person with links back to the isanyoneup post about them in the tradition of b/tards.
posted by saucysault at 5:54 PM on November 13, 2011

Ugh, that's worse than I thought. So shaming people in order to drive up page hits. Got it. I hope he gets sued into oblivion.
posted by Yowser at 5:58 PM on November 13, 2011

Blasdelb, I don't really disagree that things were pretty brutal 2,000 years ago and before, and I agree that idealizing pre-Christian religion involves overlooking lots of stuff. On the other hand, it seems like usagizero's comment simply pointed out that contemporary Christian attitudes towards sexuality are part of the problem today and that there is something to be learned from the stance of some pagans, not a blanket endorsement of all ancient pagan practices.

In that context, your examples seem out of place to me. While it is maybe a bad idea to generalize about contemporary Christianity or ancient paganism, I think if one was to look at the professed values of the Christian denominations that comprise most of the contemporary Christian population, one could find some consensus about sexual morals as they relate to things like pornography, sex and marriage, etc. These are values that, in many countries in the world with large Christian populations, have significant influence today.

On the other hand, I find it much more difficult to see how the incidents you cite are actually related to pagan religious beliefs specifically. It also seems much more tenuous to assume that there is some shared morality between all religions that are not Christianity, Judaism or Islam. Plus, it's not like prostitution and raping armies haven't been problems in Christian societies.

Basically, it seems like you're citing a bunch of ancient brutality, and I'm sure it happened, but I don't see it as a reasonable indictment of all pagan sexual attitudes, or more importantly, that it precludes the idea that at least some pagan religions may have had healthy ideas towards sexuality.
posted by snofoam at 6:06 PM on November 13, 2011

Also, without going on the record as pro-infanticide, I am not so quick to judge the folk of 449 B.C. Infant mortality was already incredibly high compared to today, medicine was basically nonexistent and basic survival was much more difficult. As someone from an affluent western society of the 21st century, I have no way of putting myself in their shoes or conceptualizing if such a law might actually be more-or-less reasonable for the times and the situation. In my society of today, of course it is horrifying and I'm sure there were cases back then when it was heartless and expedient rather than necessary, like your example of the brothel theory. But maybe in other cases it did make sense to give parents some leeway, because maybe sometimes the alternative was just as awful.
posted by snofoam at 6:27 PM on November 13, 2011

Once facial and body recognition becomes ubiquitous, a lot of people are going to be surprised to be connected to nude photos and videos that they had thought were anonymous. But because of how ubiquitous I expect that software to be, I'm not sure what can be done to prevent this -- my guess is that we are making a change to privacy that can't be undone, for both better and worse.

But I mean, to what end? I can imagine a few, like blackmail I guess, but I just don't see this being that big of a deal in the future. People now (especially young people) already have different expectations around privacy and exhibitionism, and I really think people are underestimating how much this is going to be part of our culture in the future. I'm sort of imagining how now we have politicians who have admitted to doing drugs in the past, and no one really cares. I don't see why it won't be the same in the future, with respect to there being nude photos of people around.

Not only that, but if you're referring to people who take nude photos without showing their face in hopes of being anonymous, I don't think gait or automated body recognition is going to really provide a compelling enough story that there will be major scandals around it (although I do think it could be significant in legal scenarios, if the technology actually works.)
posted by !Jim at 7:05 PM on November 13, 2011

Would a EULA tatoo with copyright notice provide further protection?
posted by humanfont at 7:40 PM on November 13, 2011 [4 favorites]

Child prostitution did not have the future changing societal implications that infanticide had, which led Romans and Greeks to talk about it, but there is ample evidence and early Christians could not shut up about the practice.

Don't forget the age of consent in Delaware was 7 until 1889. It's not just pagans and early christians that have the specter of that. Not to mention the pope defending the ones accused of the abuse, and also the not very much talked about abuses in the middle east. Some by our side, some by those who live there. Also don't forget it's the victors who write the history, to also make the other side seem worse.

My point about the pagans was more about imagery and showing of sex. We've gotten so out of control that the british museum has a section that is basically out of bounds all with statues and books that were considered "harmful to society".

I agree though that consent is what really matters, and this site has none (the one talked about).

One thing i'm curious about though, is that it keeps getting mentioned that because it's submitters that are on the hook, not them, that confuses me. They host it, they put it out there, they make money off it. Why are they both (submitters and site) not responsible? Wouldn't it be if i stole an image (the photographer is generally the copyright holder of the image) and sold it to a major magazine, and they published it, why would we both not be held responsible?
posted by usagizero at 8:06 PM on November 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

usagizero: "aren't there laws already about this? I mean, when i photograph models, i need a model release form, especially if money is going to made from them (haven't made any yet, but could some day). They clearly are making money, web sites with any traffic does really, so besides takedown notices, why can't they go after any money they made while the image was up (based on page views or whatever?).

On a side note, i do wonder if we weren't so uptight about sex if this would really matter. Seeing people getting fired for nude photos and such. I watched Terry Jones show about the history of sex, and it was really telling how much the entire world has just needs to learn from the pagans who felt it meant getting closer to god. Less shaming, could mean sites like this would just be ignored."

Not sure sky-clad means inserting a lotion bottle into a graffiti clad rectum. I may be conflating, but I'm just saying.

However, I think I know how some of these people feel. I had a situation where I worked at a health insurance company. I didn't know a coworker did stripping on the side, until I attended a party where she performed. She was attractive and fairly talented, but I had a seriously difficult time looking at her in the same way in the workplace again. No lack of respect for her, but it made every time she came in my office to request help with a PC issue just downright odd.

Maybe it's just my hangups about nakedness only occurring around people I am intimate with, but seeing someone naked, especially if they don't know you saw them naked can really spin an odd power dynamic.

(No, I don't think she saw me at the party. As soon as I recognized her, I pulled a Lamont Cranstonesque fade to prevent any discomfort on her part.)
posted by Samizdata at 8:15 PM on November 13, 2011

snofoam,

Perhaps my original point was lost in the examples I was trying to use to show that the horrific brutality wern't isolated incidents but part of a systemically different view of what is wrong or horrific that permeated ancient society and was part of a core set of moral beliefs that their sexual mores were based around. I was intending to demonstrate that the pervasively accepted immorality of it isn't comparable to how Catholics are actually horrified by abuse in the Church at all.

There was in fact a shared sense morality in the pre-Christian Pan Hellenic and Roman world*, exhaustively and internationally documented by contemporary writers, that I think you would find certainly holds up a lot better to generalization than all of modern monotheism could. Sex in ancient Greece and Rome, with the notable exception of some special and constrained homosexual relationships, was expected to revolve around violence, exploitation, the possession of people as chattel, or a means to some other end. That is fucked up on a fundamental level. There was no meaningful cultural concept of the necessity of consent being universally binding or of mutual benefit as a virtue, that is outside of those special gay relationships that are incidentally in a lot of respects progenitors of modern western romance.

Of course infanticide, forced prostitution, and war rape didn't end with Constantine, but they did become things which were no longer considered ok over the course of a few generations and promptly declined dramatically.** I know Christian values arn't exactly popular around here, and hey as a person of queerness I have a lot of very strong feelings about the traditional obsession with shame and ultimately arbitrary markers too, but goddamn are they amazing compared to what they replaced.

I'm also not intending to judge ancient pre-Christian pagans for their values, I wasn't there and benefit in amazing ways from all kinds of advances over the last couple thousand years, but I do think that wanting to return to those values is insane.

*This was at least the definition I took usagizero to mean in context of Terry Jones' History of Love & Sex

**Feel free to MeMail me if you want citations, but this is getting a little lengthy for a derail and I need to go to bed

On preview, I'm not saying that Christianity was perfect or even good, but I hope you would agree that the fate of the odd seven year old in Delaware marrying someone with the expectation that nothing would happen until puberty is a lot better than what happened to any seven year old left abandoned or orphaned in, or many taken captive by, ancient Rome.

Christians have for millennia justified their system by saying that any alternative is the same as what Paul was originally crusading against in Corinth, I hope we are currently proving them wrong.
posted by Blasdelb at 8:25 PM on November 13, 2011 [3 favorites]

I know Christian values arn't exactly popular around here, and hey as a person of queerness I have a lot of very strong feelings about the traditional obsession with shame and ultimately arbitrary markers too, but goddamn are they amazing compared to what they replaced.

Personally, I don't see the problem with saying "hey, these guys didn't do the shame thing, and maybe we could learn from that". The idea that this necessarily means "wanting to return to those values" (where "those values" are specific things like war-rape) makes about as much sense as the idea that admiring Plato means ditching quantum mechanics in favor of the theory of forms.

As far as I'm concerned, the "shame and ultimately arbitrary markers" are as inextricable from Christian sexual morality as brutality was from Roman sexual morality; if you can see some good in the former system nonetheless, then others ought to be able to do so with the latter. Or, as snofoam put it, "it seems like usagizero's comment simply pointed out that contemporary Christian attitudes towards sexuality are part of the problem today and that there is something to be learned from the stance of some pagans".
posted by vorfeed at 11:37 PM on November 13, 2011

IsAnyoneUp was featured on The Awl last week too.
posted by xqwzts at 1:47 AM on November 14, 2011

I think the Pre-Christian era gets romanticized out of all proportion to what actually went on.
It certainly was a worthwhile derail to discuss it a bit.
Privacy which was taken for granted really never quite existed for people in disagreement with the political status-quo.
Phones were bugged, neighbors were questioned, people got followed. Disgruntled employees could mess up your business.
All of this was harder, but it was done. I really feel the greatest concern for people who are trying to escape abuse. If there is no privacy, how do you hide if you need to in order to live?
posted by Katjusa Roquette at 7:45 AM on November 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

Hey xqwzts, thats the second link at the top of this thread, we're already talking about this kind of stuff here
posted by Blasdelb at 8:35 AM on November 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

Mea culpa for missing the link in the OP, I read the forbes articles and remembered seeing the one in the Awl earlier, so I thought it might be handy.
posted by xqwzts at 3:08 PM on November 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

amuseDetachment writes "IsAnyoneUp is in violation of the 2257 documentation laws. I highly doubt they have photocopied drivers licenses of those naked people. Pretty sure a single letter any state attorney general by an offended party would get that site shut down pretty quick."

Why hasn't an ambitious if misguided state attorney not gone after sites for violating 2257? There is so much low hanging deep pocket fruit lying around like Flickr, imgurl and photobucket.
posted by Mitheral at 4:47 PM on November 20, 2011