Sex baiting on craigslist
September 8, 2006 7:17 AM   Subscribe

Andy Baio blows the lid off a disturbing new trend: sex baiting on craigslist. The story is pretty simple: man makes up fake Casual Encounters ad posing as a woman looking for a good time, then he publishes any and all responses in a public forum. All hell breaks loose.
posted by mathowie (218 comments total) 9 users marked this as a favorite

 
I hope Jason Fortuny gets his life sued away. What a fuckin' loser. In addition to turning people's lives inside out he's rendered a portion of CL useless. It wouldn't surprise me if someone hands him his ass.
posted by dobbs at 7:30 AM on September 8, 2006


If you're going to send naked pictures of yourself to strangers, you should also expect they might fall into the wrong hands. Eeediots.
posted by liquorice at 7:31 AM on September 8, 2006


Had these men replied to a different ad on Craigslist, their information would still be indexed by Google would it not?

I don't see what the big deal here is.

Were these men assuming they had privacy because ads on craiglist expire after a period of time? With website scrapers, caching, indexing, feeds, and so forth, that was a bad assumption.
posted by banished at 7:35 AM on September 8, 2006


I've been on a couple of boards where this has been going on with craigslist and myspace for a year or two already. A few even resulted in the victim being outed to their families and employers.
posted by oraknabo at 7:35 AM on September 8, 2006


Had these men replied to a different ad on Craigslist, their information would still be indexed by Google would it not?

Craigslist (at least the Toronto one) isn't a forum/web board. People post ads and the responses are sent via email. Google doesn't archive email.
posted by dobbs at 7:38 AM on September 8, 2006


Oh, I should specify that CL does have forums, but the Casual Encounters section works as above.
posted by dobbs at 7:38 AM on September 8, 2006


I have a suspicion that privacy laws will get enacted, once the first politician gets caught in this kind of scam. I propose that Jason Fortuny is perhaps trying to do his fellow citizens a great service, sacrificing a few for the good of the many.

I wonder what a search engine would report in a post-Craig's Law world? There would be this glut of embarassing personal stuff in Google's database all the way to 2006 — a quiet, asexual lull would follow forever afterwards.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:40 AM on September 8, 2006


I mean, so I've heard...
posted by klangklangston at 7:40 AM on September 8, 2006


1. You'd be stupid to post pictures of your face and use your real identity in such a manner, it was only a matter of time before some prankster did this;
2. The prankster's real goal seems to be some kind of weird legal baiting, maybe he wants to spend a lot of money on lawyers and such. Why not do this anonymously if outing CL Casual Encounterers.
posted by maxpower at 7:42 AM on September 8, 2006


"Dat's why ah never kiss 'em on the mouth!" - Jayne Cobb
posted by ZachsMind at 7:44 AM on September 8, 2006


I hope Jason Fortuny gets his life sued away. What a fuckin' loser.

Gotta agree with that. It's a deliberate scam on a population he strongly suspected would be stupid enough to bite. There's no reason to shift any of the blame to the victims here, even if they were colossally stupid. They were abused, end of story.
posted by mediareport at 7:47 AM on September 8, 2006


This is why I always send naked photos of Scott Baio.
posted by Astro Zombie at 7:51 AM on September 8, 2006


*cancels date with Astro Zombie*
*sobs*
posted by Floydd at 7:53 AM on September 8, 2006


Oh, this LJ icon.... I tried not to laugh. I am going to hell.

One of the respondents (mike m) has a goattie. I love a man with a goattie.
posted by iconomy at 7:53 AM on September 8, 2006


Wow, Devon Walters is rather intense.
posted by fire&wings at 7:54 AM on September 8, 2006


Lawyer : Your Honor, the defendant argues that Mr Asshole harmed defendant reputation !
Judge: How dared he ! What exactly did he do ?
Lawyer : Well *mumble* Asshole did ..mhh...postofapicutreofdefendantcockontheinternet DEFAMED and disparaged on the internets !
Judge: Come again ?
Lawyer : *allredinface* Mr Asshole posted a picture of the nude defendant pleasuring his penis on the internet
Judge: ...........who gave Mr Asshole the picture ?
Lawyer: well defendat responded to an anonymous request for sexual companionship on the internet and sent a photograph wilfully
Judge : Get The Fuck Out of My Court ! NOW !
posted by elpapacito at 7:54 AM on September 8, 2006 [1 favorite]



Regardless of the outcome, it's a fascinating experiment.
posted by fluffycreature at 7:56 AM on September 8, 2006


Regardless of the outcome, it's a fascinating experiment.

How so? The results are exactly what one would expect from such an experiment. How is that fascinating?
posted by dobbs at 8:00 AM on September 8, 2006


FWIW, gay men have been living in fear of similar outings for years. A common sport among hick cops is to loiter around men's rooms, entrap someone into trying to have sex with the cop, then publish their name and photo in the local newspaper well before any conviction. Here's a recent example, an elementary school principle whose life has been ruined by the good police of Beaumont, TX.
posted by Nelson at 8:01 AM on September 8, 2006


maxpower: the pictures and information were not posted to CL. They were emailed to this tool in response to a posting on CL. There is some reasonable expectation of privacy w/r/t personal email. Yes, it's not a strong expectation, but there's a great deal more than if they had posted the images and information to a forum.

Further, CL has some cachet as a trustworthy community of users. This is not by accident. A lot of effort and care has been invested in building a community of users who do not engage in exploitation. This asshat's actions go way beyond hosing the lives of a handful of people, it gets at undermining what makes CL the place I turn to when buying or selling goods and services. CL has been an awesome resource for me in the past few months and I hate to see that crapped on.
posted by Fezboy! at 8:01 AM on September 8, 2006


it's a fascinating experiment.

Really? What's "fascinating" about it, other than a prurient delight in getting a sneak peak at other folks' fantasy lives? (and it's not like you can't find that all over the net). The experiment itself is predictable, even dull. The only excitement is waiting to see whether the guy gets shot, stabbed, run over or the shit kicked out of him.
posted by mediareport at 8:02 AM on September 8, 2006


If this is his address, he pretty much says come and get me. I think someone will.
posted by pracowity at 8:05 AM on September 8, 2006


Yeah, that's what I mean. I'm on the edge of my seat on that one.
posted by mediareport at 8:08 AM on September 8, 2006


He's punishing people for being into kinky sex and/or somehow being more of a slave to their impulses than he is, although there is no doubt that he is getting pleasure from humiliating people, which is pretty funny. He's a mental and social sadist. I'm not overly sympathetic to people who send strangers pictures of themselves and their dicks and faces with names and addresses attached, just on the common sense angle, but the guy is a whole other level of asshole, no one should have the cesspool of their private thoughts and urges pried open. We're all pretty odd down there at the base level I think.

The web is a really powerful force multiplier for the darker parts of the human id.
posted by Divine_Wino at 8:11 AM on September 8, 2006 [3 favorites]


Fezboy: "CL has some cachet as a trustworthy community of users." I must disagree. On the "stuff to sell" side of CL (as opposed to the dating side), any high-dollar item posting will generate responses from scammers, not to mention all the postings by scammers. I know CL does try to police that kind of thing, but plenty still get through. In my experience, dealing with CL has always required alertness.

I have no experience with the dating side of CL—maybe that's different. I agree that CL is an excellent service in general, and this kind of thing is bad for it.

In Fortuny's case, I don't know who I have more contempt for—Fortuny himself or his marks.
posted by adamrice at 8:15 AM on September 8, 2006


I can't decide if I'm pleased or mortified that I recognized the picture as one I had seen before. On one hand, I'm all "Ha! You would not catch me in your slimy trap, as I have seen far too much amateur porn on the internets to be fooled by such obvious bait!" while on the other, I'm "oh man, I've seen far too much amateur porn on the internets".
posted by yhbc at 8:20 AM on September 8, 2006 [1 favorite]


liquorice writes "If you're going to send naked pictures of yourself to strangers, you should also expect they might fall into the wrong hands. Eeediots."

I quoted just because it is worth repeating ; it is not like they sent a pic to gf/bf and they are getting mad at you post the pic on the net. It's a pic to complete perfect strangers.
posted by elpapacito at 8:21 AM on September 8, 2006 [1 favorite]


I can't figure out what would motivate the baiter to publish all the responses with all identifying information. I'm not going to shed tears for the outing of married guys using CL to get their extramarital jollies; and anyone responding to such a posting with identifying information should know that it could be published and be prepared to face the consequences. But what purpose does this serve?
posted by Joe Invisible at 8:25 AM on September 8, 2006


Stupid guys got caught by a venal moron who probably thinks social commentary or art justify this. My local CL had a pretty young Japanese woman who could bellydance looking for love and I assumed it had to be something like this or else just a gay dude trolling for mens nude pics. "The only excitement is waiting to see whether the guy gets shot, stabbed, run over or the shit kicked out of him." Yeah, karma.
posted by Iron Rat at 8:30 AM on September 8, 2006


Fezboy! -- You are right, and I knew it wan't posted to CL but it came out all wrong, thanks for making the important distinction that private info was emailed and then posted online.

Regardless, I still think that it is generally foolish to send emails with explosive details of your personal life to random strangers.
posted by maxpower at 8:32 AM on September 8, 2006


rfjason is an objectivist lol
posted by thirteenkiller at 8:37 AM on September 8, 2006 [1 favorite]


To further the Web2.0ness of this whole thing, maybe someone could auction hitman services on eBay. Or post a knee-breaking gig on CL.
Then the community of victims could all chip in using a paypal tip jar.
And the crimescene photos could be posted on Flickr.
posted by bashos_frog at 8:39 AM on September 8, 2006 [1 favorite]


Damn. There are some sad, lonely, and desperate motherfuckers out there.

Maybe they haven't heard but we have these places that serve a liquid that when consumed alter the perception so that we may find others, and they us, temporarily more attractive. This process lubricates social-sexual interactions and minimizes the potential humiliation of rejection. We call these places "singles bars." Look in to it.
posted by tkchrist at 8:43 AM on September 8, 2006 [1 favorite]


Wow, assholes know how to use the internet? Who knew?
posted by Vindaloo at 8:44 AM on September 8, 2006 [2 favorites]


more and more, i'm thinking that the internet brings out the worst in people rather than the best ... jason wouldn't DARE do this in meatspace ... and it's a measure of his stupidity that he's pretty much crossed over into doing that anyway

from live journal's TOS

"You agree to NOT use the Service to:

1. Upload, post or otherwise transmit any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive to another's privacy (up to, but not excluding any address, email, phone number, or any other contact information without the written consent of the owner of such information), hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;

11. "Stalk" or otherwise harass another person or company;

15. Allow usage by others in such a way as to violate LiveJournal's TOS;"

he's in clear violation ... he should have his account yanked
posted by pyramid termite at 8:45 AM on September 8, 2006


I got baited before on CL, so I guess I always had a bit of distrust on the postings there. Back in 2000, when the SF rental market was nuts, people would post too-good-to-be-true listings for rentals, then publish the responses and laugh at the sob stories. Thankfully, I never sent my penis as an attachment for a 2 bedroom going for only $1,000/mo so it's not the same.

This one is weird in that it's not completely illegal, just kind of skeevy to out people in this way. On the other hand, if I found out my spouse was trolling for sex, I'd be glad to know it was time to end the relationship.

I can't believe some of the people that posted responses from big corporations and obvious military email accounts. I'm sure they'll be learning a lesson in trying to remain anonymous when you do this sort of thing.
posted by mathowie at 8:47 AM on September 8, 2006


Jason Fortuny is an evil little cunt. I'd like to break his head open on a curb and eat his brains with a fork then piss in his hollowed out skull.

I hate feeling so ambiguous on issues like this.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 8:49 AM on September 8, 2006


Wow. I find this kind of bait & shame tactic repellent, but out of curiosity I browsed the testosterone-laden Encyclopedia Dramatica page... and this couldn't have happened to a nicer buncha guys.
posted by Operation Afterglow at 8:52 AM on September 8, 2006


Note that they went WAY out of their way to fuck with the CL community aspect: "The post got flagged and removed eight different times, requiring reposting"

EIGHT TIMES. And they just kept reposting it.

This was a total dick thing to do. What a huge case of "internet balls."
posted by drstein at 8:53 AM on September 8, 2006


Fortuny deserves an ass-kicking. I never would have done anything so dumb, back when I was single and looking for some lovin', but even though the respondents are stupid it is still wrong to take advantage of stupid horny people like this.

You know, consenting adults and all that.
posted by Mister_A at 8:56 AM on September 8, 2006


considering this for my epitaph: Thankfully, I never sent my penis as an attachment.
posted by found missing at 8:58 AM on September 8, 2006


I wonder if all the responses in this thread would be the same if the post was about vanilla sex instead of S&M.

I guess I am suprised to hear people call the respondents to the original ad 'victims'.
posted by nadawi at 9:00 AM on September 8, 2006


To me, the casual encounter section of CL houses some of the sexual dregs of society. Thats my opinion and has no bearing on the fact that Jason Fortuny is a complete and utter twat. He found a tooth with a cavity, poked a red hot needle in it. Not exactly cutting-edge science/reseach if you ask me.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 9:01 AM on September 8, 2006


Did nobody learn the lessons of usenet?

(Apparently not.)
posted by jdfalk at 9:03 AM on September 8, 2006


Is it possible that some of the responses to this cretin were not from the people whose photos and info they included?
posted by owhydididoit at 9:05 AM on September 8, 2006 [1 favorite]


"He was clearly disturbed by it, but after contacting LJ's support staff, realized there wasn't much they could do. If they find abusive information, they act quickly to remove it, but in this case, all the identifiable information is on a third-party site"

Oh yeah, that reminds me of the whole myspacedeaths drama - yet livejournal's "support" people yanked that journal a few times, if I recall correctly. Even though all of the "identifiable information was on a third-party site."

LJ's abuse team really does some.. peculiar stuff sometimes. I'm surprised that they're letting this one stay up.
posted by drstein at 9:10 AM on September 8, 2006


"I'm not overly sympathetic to people who send strangers pictures of themselves and their dicks"

The malicious ad was posted in the context of wanting to receive dirty e-mail. He didn't post "hey, just looking for a nice date, or a new friend", he posted "hey, come fuck me with your big cock you studs".

It was willfully deceptive, and clearly the only point was to out guys who respond to girls asking for sex. The guy is an asshole. Lemme give you an example:

GIRL IN BAR: Hey baby, you're cute. Give me your number.

DUDE IN BAR: You're cute, yourself. 555-555-5555.

GIRL IN BAR: HEY EVERYONE THIS LOSER WANTS TO GO OUT WITH ME SOMETIME HERE'S HIS PHONE NUMBER LOL

The only difference is that Mr Hot Shot Blogger substituted "you're cute" for dirtier things.
posted by Mikey-San at 9:13 AM on September 8, 2006 [2 favorites]


That having been said, PEOPLE ARE ASSHOLES. The Internet gives them an entirely new and larger audience than ever before. This is why you don't give out personal details on the Internet.

Do something that can be mocked, and you could/will be fucked with.
posted by Mikey-San at 9:17 AM on September 8, 2006


I'm surprised he didn't ask for submissives if he knew it was going to go down this way. Some of those guys look like people I would never want to meet under any circumstances, let alone these circumstances. Maybe he has a death wish?
posted by stinkycheese at 9:23 AM on September 8, 2006


I can't figure out what would motivate the baiter to publish all the responses with all identifying information.

Mainly because he's trolling.
posted by hugsnkisses at 9:24 AM on September 8, 2006


-5 VILE
posted by The corpse in the library at 9:25 AM on September 8, 2006


No Mikey-San, I agree. I just spend most of my waking hours expecting to be tricked, scammed and fucked over by the broad mass of humanity (I don't get how anyone with half a brain could think otherwise) and so I am less than impressed by people who stand there in their tube socks and gimp mask, blinking, going "what, it was a trick? but it was a post on the internet, from someone I don't know, who wanted me to slap them around for sexual pleasure, NO FAIR." I'm just saying it's dumb, I don't care what consenting adults do to blow their hair back, not one bit.

I think it's funny that people are writing to this scammer saying "I'm gonna pee on you, I'm gonna rub your nipples with a frayed hemp rope, I'm into blood sports and I know all about evil and the dark side and blah blah blah" and they fall for the old "whoops here's my face, shvance, home address and phone number posted on the internet for my wife to see" bit, that con's at least as old as the Spanish Prisoner or the Pigeon Drop.

The scammed are kinda goofy and boy do all of our sexual hangups look pretty tawdry in the cold light of day, but the scammer, he is an utter asshole and the worst kind of internet toughguy.
posted by Divine_Wino at 9:28 AM on September 8, 2006



I wonder if all the responses in this thread would be the same if the post was about vanilla sex instead of S&M.


I wonder if all the responses in this thread would be the same if the post was about pedophiles instead of S&M.

Jason set bait that could have resulted in non-harmful reponses. A single person sending a hotmail address asking for further info for example. His respondents didn't have to be married or send compromising photos of themselves in order to respond. But some did and thusly the result.

It ain't really necessary to pick sides on this one, there's enough obvious ethical and stupidity issues all round no?
posted by scheptech at 9:30 AM on September 8, 2006


Bravo Nelson!!

Straight people get outed while crusing for sex???? Yawn.

It's been happening to the gays for centuries.
posted by matty at 9:31 AM on September 8, 2006


Did nobody learn the lessons of usenet?

meow
posted by pyramid termite at 9:32 AM on September 8, 2006


mmmm...Pigeon Drops!
posted by owhydididoit at 9:36 AM on September 8, 2006


>mmmm...Pigeon Drops!
mmmm ... arruluga!
posted by pyramid termite at 9:42 AM on September 8, 2006


Is it possible that some of the responses to this cretin were not from the people whose photos and info they included? -- owhydididoit


Now there is a nasty nasty prank. Simply collect a photo of someone you hate (the mark?), write up an email pretending to be that individual, attach a picture of a random penis and the mark's real face, and write out a short note explaining what you are into. "***LOL don't tell my wife (wife@otheremail.com)***"

Wait for servicing requests from CL and fire off pranking email from anonymous account. Evil.
posted by maxpower at 9:47 AM on September 8, 2006


I favorited Encyclopedia Dramatica.
posted by ninjew at 9:48 AM on September 8, 2006


It ain't really necessary to pick sides on this one, there's enough obvious ethical and stupidity issues all round no?

except that it comes down to just another variation on 'she was asking to be raped because she dressed like a whore'...not only are people are ever too willing to suspend fairness and due process for the morally inferior (the criterion for which is that such person has 0.1% less moral character than the person making the judgment; or, more accurately, that such person's moral shortcomings are 0.1% more exposed than the person making the judgment)...but more of us get off on watching it happen...that's what's getting more creepy for me, i think...there are always people who are going to try to screw somebody over...but there seem to be too many people who take pleasure in it and who are overly malleable in their approval of the targets...considering that all of us fall below someone's threshold of approval, it seems we really are eating our own...(and as someone not very well educated, i'm curious to ask someone with better insight: has it always been this way, or is it getting worse?)
posted by troybob at 9:51 AM on September 8, 2006 [1 favorite]


Guys really send naked pictures of themselves in response to an ad on craigslist without any prior contact with the other person... how dumb is that?

That being said, sex-baiters are assholes. No argument there. Should one of them get beaten up in anger I wouldn't pity him/her. If you go around kicking hornet nests you have to expect to get stung every once in a while.
posted by clevershark at 10:06 AM on September 8, 2006


maxpower - agree, that would be evil - but this situation is made worse by the fact these respondents (supposedly) are real and will not be able to refute the prank - marriages may end, jobs may be lost - the only way those real-world effects can happen is because of the manner of participation of the respondents, i.e., they share in this too, no?

troybob - the whole thing's creepy, and yup, our interest in it is part of the overall situation, without an audience like us to present his findings to Jason wouldn't have been motivated to do anything. The only innocents in this situation would presumably be the wives and children of (some of) the respondents.
posted by scheptech at 10:09 AM on September 8, 2006


"it's a fascinating experiment."
"Really? What's "fascinating" about it, other than a prurient delight in getting a sneak peak at other folks' fantasy lives? (and it's not like you can't find that all over the net). The experiment itself is predictable, even dull. The only excitement is waiting to see whether the guy gets shot, stabbed, run over or the shit kicked out of him."
posted by mediareport

Hang on a tick, mediareport.

If I'm reading some of the wry sympathy expressed for the "victims" right, it's based on a mixture of feeling their embarrassment, the dismal-in-the-cold-light-of-day quality of their s & m sexual fantasies, lack of global importance of what we've learned from the scam, outrageous violation of privacy etc etc.

But why are you imagining a transfer of violence to the real world?

It sounds as though you'd view the con guy getting roughed up in revenge as somehow understandable? Not reasonable, of course, or legal but - hey - not entirely batshitinsane either!

I'm not sure I'd want you on a jury if you reckon a wounded "fantasy" male sexual ego is grounds for expecting genuine violence.

Like fluffycreature I also found the experiment fascinating - especially the differences between the responses -and I read every one.
posted by Jody Tresidder at 10:30 AM on September 8, 2006


Jody Tresidder writes "I'm not sure I'd want you on a jury if you reckon a wounded 'fantasy' male sexual ego is grounds for expecting genuine violence."

I don't think you've thought this through very far.

In a perfect world, yes, the only thing that happens is that the guy gets "taken down a notch". In real life, however, a situation like this can lead to messy divorces and (concomitant) financial ruin, it can lead to loss of employment, estrangement from family and the community in which one lives, and ultimately it can get also lead to physical harm done to the person being "outed" in this way. There's certainly no shortage of hicks (urban or rural) who have nothing better to do than harass other people for not "living right" in their eyes.

And for what? For the simple cruel pleasure (on the part of the "outer") of causing this to happen just to see it happen, and no more. If at least there was profit involved at some point it might be at least a little excusable, but there isn't, and therefore it isn't.
posted by clevershark at 10:44 AM on September 8, 2006


Jody Tresidder: I'm not sure I'd want you on a jury if you reckon a wounded "fantasy" male sexual ego is grounds for expecting genuine violence.
Hey, look everybody- Jesus McBuddha herself has posted! Congrats on your utter enlightenment and all-encompassing aura of forgiveness and understanding.


Then again, if you read all the responses and found them fascinating, you're something of a sadist. In Guy World, this is perfectly legitimate grounds for getting your ass kicked- although maiming or death would be going too far- and no right-minded guy would really disagree.

Sometimes, someone's just gotta learn there are consequences, and you can't go around hurting people in a non-physical way and then hide behind the shield of "physical violence is wrong!". A good ass-kicking would probably cure this guy of his urge to torment people now that he's tired of tormenting small animals (or he gets off on it, hence the posting of his contact info). And it's ultimately nicer: if I wronged someone and had to choose between being humiliated the way these people were humiliated, or just getting beat up one time and taking my lumps... I'll take a punch to the face every time.

This was a brutally cruel stunt to pull, a very "Mean Girls" stunt, and the idea that there is no recourse for the wronged parties because somehow inflicting public humilation and emotional harm is perfectly a-OK or "fascinating" while physical violence is bad, BAD... well, that's just silly. The hurt from these 'outings' is almost certainly far greater than just getting into a fight. The latter is an icepack and some advil, the former could mean the dissolution of your marriage, job difficulties, humiliation to your friends and co-workers, etc.
posted by hincandenza at 10:45 AM on September 8, 2006


Then again, if you read all the responses and found them fascinating, you're something of a sadist. In Guy World, this is perfectly legitimate grounds for getting your ass kicked- although maiming or death would be going too far- and no right-minded guy would really disagree.
Just to clarify, because that paragraph structure was misleading: I'm saying the original action of the trolling/outing was grounds for getting one's ass kicked, in the "guy" world of how men's minds think... not to suggest that Jody's voyeurism in reading the responses was grounds for ass-kicking.
posted by hincandenza at 10:50 AM on September 8, 2006


It figures. RFJason is an Objectivist, or at least shares some beliefs.

Not that it's relevant, but he also uses Internet Explorer, which to most web designers would make him even more evil.
posted by Brainy at 11:09 AM on September 8, 2006


...I also found the experiment fascinating...

how do you define the experiment? is the experiment the publication of sexually explicit responses to an equally (or more) explicit solicitation for such responses--which could have had equal value had the publication maintained the privacy of the subjects? is the experiment the exposure of identities of people who thought they were engaging in private email correspondence?

see, in either case--and in those cases in which we will participate as non-protesting observer in any type of personal exploitation, whether via tabloid tv or internet prankster--i think such participation implies your consent to be exploited in the same way...which means that were i so inclined to track down your personal details and catalogue your faults and embarrassments--particularly if i or my audience would view them as immoral, illegal, or unintelligent--including soliciting information from you under false pretenses--then it would be fine and dandy for me to make that information public in the interest of entertainment or social experiment...i'm just curious as to whether you would go as far as saying i could justify attaching your name and photos, or any identifying information, to that research...
posted by troybob at 11:09 AM on September 8, 2006


"...a situation like this can lead to messy divorces and (concomitant) financial ruin, it can lead to loss of employment, estrangement from family and the community in which one lives..."

clevershark,
That's a hell of an extended timeline you've got going there! I'm surprised you don't have the scammed responders dying of shamed old age!

I can understand your point - but I certainly don't see these poor guys falling out of favor with their "urban or rural hick" buddies because they boasted about wanting to give an internet trollope several iron lengths of hot violent big guy sex.

"A good ass-kicking would probably cure this guy of his urge to..."

hincandenza

Bully for you, literally.

You could fill in the blanks after your personal kick-ass philosophy to "cure" any urge you don't personally like, couldn't you?
posted by Jody Tresidder at 11:09 AM on September 8, 2006


Jody Tresidder writes "That's a hell of an extended timeline you've got going there! I'm surprised you don't have the scammed responders dying of shamed old age!"

Well, that's how consequences work. They don't all happen right away. By making the whole thing public the "outer" is really making the decision to involve a lot of people in the whole affair, most of which he knows nothing about. What if "outee"'s wife has a brother with a violent temper who's protective of his baby sister? That's been known to happen, and that's only the most obvious example to come to mind. You can't trust people to respond "reasonably" to something you or I would, frankly, consider a trifle.
posted by clevershark at 11:19 AM on September 8, 2006


That's a hell of an extended timeline you've got going there!

Actually, I think he's right on the mark and it's you, Jody, who lives in a fantasy world if you don't think all of those things are not only possible but likely.
posted by dobbs at 11:23 AM on September 8, 2006


Then again, if you read all the responses and found them fascinating, you're something of a sadist.

Sadist? I think you misspelled "social anthropologist".

Condemn prurient interest and merciless jolly schadenfreude if you like, but don't assume that taking an interest in the mode and variety of human responses within specific contexts is a priori sadism—that's pure kneejerk stupidity.
posted by cortex at 11:26 AM on September 8, 2006


Oh...it seems this runs much much deeper. From an introspective post on August 27th:
Why do I have so many first dates that end in sex? Because I find women who are sexually overt with me and respond to my sexual overtness. One or both of us sees this overtness as a signal of genuine attraction. That perceived attraction translates into that highly charged, tangible feeling I always act on. But, the truth might be that we're just responding to each other's approval (or willingness to express attraction to each other), and thus we have our first screw up: going after almost any attractive woman who gives "yes" signals.
Later...
Special note here: I often have an instinct immediately after sex that sometimes fills me with the urge to "RUN!"
Maybe this is all due to shame...?
I typically get involved with women who:...have a willingness to submit to me sexually, and are driven to please whatever needs I have, and derive satisfaction from pleasing me. We usually enjoy excellent sex.
He sums it up as:
So, the cycle seems clear: find a hook up, feel good about the approval from an attractive woman, get a nagging feeling to RUN, get in a relationship anyway and give it a try, things end badly.
< shooting from the hip>
I'm going to play pop psychologist for a moment because this current task at work is boring. He has no dad and doesn't respect his mom. He looks for the love he never got as a child but because he is still a child, can only see love as control. He can only respond with women who also seek to control (see the part where the girls usually admit they slept with him to bait him into a relationship).

The reason he possibly has the ego he does is because maybe he was faced with a dilemma when he was a kid. "I don't respect mom, but she has good intentions and therefore good intentions are worth nothing because I'm fucked up anyway. So fuck good intentions, it's all about a Right and a Wrong and therefore, she can be blamed because she was not Right." Therefore, I am better.
< / shooting from the hip>

This kid is gonna fall hard one day.
posted by Brainy at 11:26 AM on September 8, 2006


We could analyze this objectively and subjectively for days and days on end, with many erudite thesis proposed, with undoubtedly endlessly satisfying counter-arguments leading to many delightfully split hairs and so on and so on.

But "OMFG what an asshole!" or "How long until he gets his ass thoroughly and righteously kicked?" pretty much sums it up.

Unless the actual "victims" are hoaxes themselves, my money is on the odds that the cosmos itself is going to make a unfortunate stain out of this poor schmuck.

Has anyone started a deadpool? Does he qualify for the Darwin Awards?
posted by loquacious at 11:32 AM on September 8, 2006


."..i'm just curious as to whether you would go as far as saying i could justify attaching your name and photos, or any identifying information, to that research..."
posted by troybob

Troybob,
That question did give me pause.

I hated it when very much that sort of thing happened to me.

In my case, it involved being put through the humiliation wringer by national tabloid newspapers - so I was able to use the limited bite of the UK's Press Complaints Commission to get a retraction (because false information was involved). Fighting back took almost two years - so, yes, I lived with the damage.

And, in a way, I should be logically horrified via empathy by the outing of the sex ad responders - and not sitting in the "fascinated" section.

But I'm not.
And I expect they'll live it down, frankly.

After all, they're all "big boys", aren't they?.
posted by Jody Tresidder at 11:35 AM on September 8, 2006


In Guy World, this is perfectly legitimate grounds for getting your ass kicked- although maiming or death would be going too far- and no right-minded guy would really disagree.

Does the same apply to Tucker Max and the howwasshe.com guys?
posted by transona5 at 11:35 AM on September 8, 2006


Jason is also naked on the internets. (NSFW, but really its just a butt shot.)
posted by Brainy at 11:40 AM on September 8, 2006


I wonder if all the responses in this thread would be the same if the post was about pedophiles instead of S&M.

Are you seriously comparing consentual sex between adults with sex with little children?
posted by Mikey-San at 11:46 AM on September 8, 2006


Jody Tresidder : "After all, they're all 'big boys', aren't they?"

Is "living down outings" part of the definition of "big boy"?
posted by Bugbread at 11:55 AM on September 8, 2006


How do we know that the original bait was posted by Jason Fortuny?
Maybe it was really posted by someone who wanted to see that guy's ass kicked "thoroughly and righteously".

After all, he must be aware of the connection between the virtual and the real world, so it would seem to be way too careless to use his real name and address.
posted by sour cream at 11:55 AM on September 8, 2006


In Guy World, this is perfectly legitimate grounds for getting your ass kicked- although maiming or death would be going too far- and no right-minded guy would really disagree.

transona5: Does the same apply to Tucker Max and the howwasshe.com guys?
Not sure if you're trying to blow my mind with your gender reversal because you think I'm some troglodytic meathead, but yes, I suspect it does. If they were posting publicly identifiable information (i've not seen that site, and don't feel like visiting), then sometimes there's no better way to say "stop being an asshole".

For example, in this rfjason's case, one suspects he's immune to the logic stick already, and would actively relish getting into a verbal argument, because in his own head he'd always be convinced he'd "won" any argument with "small minded fools" who didn't see his brilliance and genius. Hence the reality that a little non-verbal communication could work wonders where appeals to reason would not.
sour cream: How do we know that the original bait was posted by Jason Fortuny?
Maybe it was really posted by someone who wanted to see that guy's ass kicked "thoroughly and righteously".
I'd had that same thought at first, but his rfjason persona seems well established over a period of time, and on that same LJ he's talked about the bait/scam, so I'd say it's him. And yes, he really is that stupid, I guess.
posted by hincandenza at 12:00 PM on September 8, 2006


liaisons dangereux
posted by owhydididoit at 12:09 PM on September 8, 2006


Jody Tresidder: I appreciate that you considered my comments.

...and I can appreciate the fascination with the nature of the email responses--what people are willing to reveal, or what they will request or advertise; i was just wondering how much the fascination hinges on the fact that the responder's identity is revealed, how much has to do with that person's public embarrassment--which may not have the life-destroying effects we might imagine, but the potential for this is there...consider, for instance, if one out of the outed 'big boys' were your dad or brother, or a close friend...your boss, employee, or coworker...you earlier characterized the respondents in not particularly flattering terms--and perhaps the email responses reflect that to some degree--but on would have to assume that the author is relating his true personality and not playing a role (and the email solicitation, which i did read, certainly invites this)...

...and also, while i've tended to view this situation in larger terms of whether we as a society can accept that we each are justifiably subject to the level of exploitation that we willingly would direct toward any other private citizen...i think that while here a lot of people can criticize the email respondents as stupid or unrealistic in their expectation of sending such explicit, intimate correspondence and expect to maintain privacy, you have to consider also that this community is comprised of savvy net citizens...as the informal go-to guy in my office for computer problems--for intelligent, well-educated people--i know that even they can consider the computer a big box of mystery, and while some users go as far as being relatively overly fearful in giving out details (to the point of not shopping online, for instance), many would figure that such revelation is the norm and could not reasonably predict that their information would be misused...yes, there are warnings all around about identity theft and such, but the scams are persistent and varying...and we're talking about a larger community of users who have had the internet and computers marketed to them as something anybody can do--so easy your kid can do it--and given such low expectations we can fault them only so much for living down to them...
posted by troybob at 12:09 PM on September 8, 2006


Not sure if you're trying to blow my mind with your gender reversal because you think I'm some troglodytic meathead, but yes, I suspect it does.

I guess I was just reacting to the idea that there's specifically a "guy code" that prohibits publicly humiliating other men for their sexual experiences. Because I think all the other examples that we've seen around here (the two I mentioned, as well as "sweat hogging" and a few others) involved humiliating women. Although now that I look back, the reaction to all of these was at about the same level of revulsion as the reaction to this Craigslist guy.
posted by transona5 at 12:17 PM on September 8, 2006


Are you seriously comparing consentual sex between adults with sex with little children?

Of fer goodness sake - I'm wondering if people would see the same one-side-bad-only ethics in the situation if Jason had outed kiddy-diddlers, pedophiles.

And yes, he really is that stupid, I guess.

It's a stupid-fest all round, one ignoramus baiting a bunch of other ignoramuses.

we can fault them only so much for living down to them...

Ok it's a personal assessment, but I think we can fault them for screwing around on their wives or even for lesser irresponsibilities as sending home-made pornography to someone who for all they know could be a minor.
posted by scheptech at 12:19 PM on September 8, 2006


Is "living down outings" part of the definition of "big boy"?posted by bugbread

Seriously, I'm not quite sure of your meaning, bugbread?

(But there's so much projection going on in defence of these idiots, I find that fascinating too.)
posted by Jody Tresidder at 12:21 PM on September 8, 2006



I wonder if all the responses in this thread would be the same if the post was about vanilla sex instead of S&M.

I guess I am suprised to hear people call the respondents to the original ad 'victims'.
posted by nadawi at 9:00 AM PST on September 8 [+] [!]

...

Are you seriously comparing consentual sex between adults with sex with little children?
posted by Mikey-San at 11:46 AM PST on September 8 [+] [!]


if you really want to you can.
posted by YoBananaBoy at 12:28 PM on September 8, 2006


SixSixFive used to do this sort of thing from time to time.
Here is the best one, which continues here and here.
posted by Kwine at 12:30 PM on September 8, 2006


If I was caught up in such a thing, and lost my marriage/income/custody and the like, I would not be considering an ass-kicking.
Rather, I'd be leaning towards a punishment involving handcuffs, rubber-tubing, hacksaws and razor wire. And a printout of scarabic's advice for disposing of the body.

A bruised ego is the least of it. Consider the fact that some of these guys may have a significant part of their lives at risk, when they were just curious about CL ads, or just interested in a little dirty email/chat or the like, and they were too dumb to understand what might happen to their info. Add that to the fact that this creep is doing this just for kicks, and it makes me boil.

I doubt there's a person alive who couldn't be tempted into doing something that could ruin their life, given the right incentives and encouragement. Everyone has a weak spot.

Ironically, I'd feel differently if he was trying to blackmail them. At least the motive is understandable, and Fortuny would be risking prison in the process. If he had tried to blackmail them, I don't think anyone would be complaining about his being punished severly, or saying that his victims were anything but victims.

Not all victims have to be innocent - the town slut can still get raped, right?
posted by bashos_frog at 12:33 PM on September 8, 2006


It sounds as though you'd view the con guy getting roughed up in revenge as somehow understandable? Not reasonable, of course, or legal but - hey - not entirely batshitinsane either!

When it comes right down to it, there is exactly one law of human relations: Might Makes Right. No matter what the law may say, no matter what society may think, there's always the chance that you'll end up facing the law that provides no right of appeal. Violence may not be fair and it may not be right, but it is still an unescapable part of reality. Reasonable people understand this, and act toward others accordingly.

You, on the other hand, seem to think that "reason" or "propriety" or some such abstract ideal will protect you from people that you've wronged in a very public manner, for no motive other than your own enjoyment. People that, I might add, you subsequently dared to come after you. I suppose I should wish you good luck -- you're probably going to need it.
posted by vorfeed at 1:13 PM on September 8, 2006 [2 favorites]


Wow. This guy is a master baiter.
posted by darksasami at 1:28 PM on September 8, 2006


Thankfully, I never sent my penis as an attachment for a 2 bedroom going for only $1,000/mo so it's not the same.

matt, call me crazy, but I think a sunporch might be a better attachment for an apartment than your penis, but there's no accounting for taste.
posted by jonmc at 1:37 PM on September 8, 2006


Holy shit.
posted by Arthur "Two Sheds" Jackson at 1:49 PM on September 8, 2006


Wow. This guy is a master baiter.

I dunno, shooting fish in a barrel...
posted by scheptech at 2:20 PM on September 8, 2006


Jody Tresidder : "Seriously, I'm not quite sure of your meaning, bugbread?"

And I wasn't sure of yours, hence my question. You said that they should be able to live the outings down because they're "big boys". I don't know what you mean by "big boys", hence my question. If you mean "they're adults", then are you saying that outing doesn't affect adults, only children? Or only immature people? Are outed gays who have problems due to their being outed "little boys"? Or does "big boy" only refer to heterosexuals? What, in short, is your meaning?
posted by Bugbread at 2:25 PM on September 8, 2006


Kwine : "SixSixFive used to do this sort of thing from time to time.
Here is the best one, which continues here and here."


I haven't even read the contents of the page, but chuckled just at seeing the first image on the page: He used a photo of Namie Amuro. Basically, it's the equivalent of writing a dating scam in Japan using a photo of Britney Spears.
posted by Bugbread at 2:29 PM on September 8, 2006


"Not all victims have to be innocent - the town slut can still get raped, right?"

Fascinating that you picked out that particular analogy in support of the guys, bashos_frog.

Which bit of the cruddy porn so eagerly written by your apparently defenceless, conned, humiliated, victimised men made you think of a raped woman with a sullied past?

This cute bit of come-on to the fake date from one 'Mark Richards' at the link? "You are a totally worthless bitch that deserves to be hammered on relentlessly by a dirty bastard power sport fucker like myself..."

Then you bluster absurdly that physical torture ["rubber tubing, hacksaws" etc] would be an appropriate law of the jungle punishment for the conman!

Is there no room in your world view for the "dumb" guys to figure out that the lesson is about avoiding stupid internet behavior in the future?

Not proving what total jerks they are in real life too?
posted by Jody Tresidder at 2:37 PM on September 8, 2006


vorfeed: Violence may not be fair and it may not be right, but it is still an unescapable part of reality. Reasonable people understand this, and act toward others accordingly.

You, on the other hand, seem to think that "reason" or "propriety" or some such abstract ideal will protect you from people that you've wronged in a very public manner, for no motive other than your own enjoyment.
Thank you, vorfeed, for expressing this more articulately than I was able.

Essentially, it is a fact of life that people are violent. All of us are- it's human nature, and it's inside all of us. Just like Steve Irwin always knew that those crocs and spiders and snakes were actually dangerous, it's helpful to remember that if you're going to attack people, they may attack back... and there's no law of the universe that says they must retaliate in the way you attacked them. It's nice to imagine you can do the adult version of taunting and teasing, and then run and hide behind mommy's dress... but realistically, that's insane.

Sure, poetic justice would be this guy getting scammed the same way, but he'd a) probably not even feel bad about it, or at least convince himself that he doesn't mind because he's so "badass", and b) that's asking a lot of the people who he's wronged.

Not everyone is as adept at using their mind, or their words, to hurt or do battle. So if you go after them maliciously, they may feel their only resort is in an area they do excel (and judging from some of those pictures, those areas may include weightlifting and martial arts). rfjason should count himself lucky if he learns this lesson with only a bruise or two to show for it, at worst.
posted by hincandenza at 2:44 PM on September 8, 2006


Oh, god, this is hilarious. Something bad is going to happen to Jason.

I actually know him personally.

He's... definitely... something.
posted by blacklite at 3:05 PM on September 8, 2006


"If you mean "they're adults", then are you saying that outing doesn't affect adults, only children? Or only immature people?"

Bugbread,
Thanks, that's clearer.

I was using "big boys" in the sense of adult/grown up/mature (and with a silly wink to the big boy parts so prominently - and optimistically -displayed in the undressed photos).

You, of course, are using "outing" as if it is always a dreadful thing in and of itself. As if it's all the same dirty trick whether you are exposing someone as secretly gay, or a secret shopaholic, a secret former member of the SS or secretly somehow in any way at odds with their preferred image.

Being busted for sending pumped up s & m emails and tasteless pictures of your massive member to a swinger who doesn't exist could be a Friday night laugh down the bar for one guy - and a domestic disaster for another. It obviously depends.

I also believe there are many more valid and complicated reasons for keeping your sexuality a private matter than a "lifestyle" taste for porn or violent phone sex (or whatever the guys might claim they were "only" into - given that they'll all probably say it was the "first time" anyway!).
posted by Jody Tresidder at 3:15 PM on September 8, 2006


I'M IN UR CREGZLST POSTIN UR N00DZ via
posted by robot at 3:47 PM on September 8, 2006


Jody Tresidder : "Fascinating that you picked out that particular analogy in support of the guys, bashos_frog. "

Not really. The "she was asking for it rape example" is usually used in discussions where something bad happens to someone and there is debate about whether they deserved it due to their negligence, regardless of whether it's a sexual issue or not. It comes up in discussions about sex, about theft, about violence; about everything, really. What would be more fascinating would be if this thread hadn't had that example.

Jody Tresidder : "You, of course, are using 'outing' as if it is always a dreadful thing in and of itself."

No, not always. Sometimes, it's probably a decent thing (closeted gay person in very accepting community with very accepting friends and family, who is needlessly worried about their reactions, gets outed for whatever reason, and finds out that everyone already pretty much suspected and didn't care anyway, and thereby has a great weight lifted from his shoulders), sometimes neutral (a bit o' good, a bit o' bad), and more often than not a bad thing (after all, outing is publicising something that someone would prefer remain a secret, usually because it becoming public would be bad).

Jody Tresidder : "As if it's all the same dirty trick whether you are exposing someone as secretly gay, or a secret shopaholic, a secret former member of the SS or secretly somehow in any way at odds with their preferred image."

That's how I was using it? That's certainly not what I meant.

Jody Tresidder : "I also believe there are many more valid and complicated reasons for keeping your sexuality a private matter than a 'lifestyle' taste for porn or violent phone sex"

Yes, and presumably among those more valid and complicated reasons are the family and company issues that people in this thread are going on about. Very few people are saying that the problem with the outing is due to the innate privacy of lifestyle tastes.
posted by Bugbread at 4:05 PM on September 8, 2006


I actually know him personally.

He's... definitely... something.


Oh--you can do better than that. Details, we want details.
posted by vaportrail at 4:49 PM on September 8, 2006


This is terrible. Yes, those guys shouldn't be trolling for another woman when they are married, but other than that, you know, they didn't really do anything wrong except perhaps trusting someone that shouldn't have been trusted. The truth is, there are a lot of people that are into a lot of things, and if they want to talk about being nasty and deviant to someone that is asking for nasty and deviant well, how can you really say they deserved it?
posted by Holy foxy moxie batman! at 5:10 PM on September 8, 2006


Conceivably some of these married guys have kids, so what happens when they find out about this little prank? I wonder if this Jason guy had stopped to consider the downstream effects of this prank: I wouldn"t want that on my conscience
posted by lilboo at 6:36 PM on September 8, 2006


why are you imagining a transfer of violence to the real world?

Huh? I'm not imagining it, or delighting in it. I'm predicting it. Someone said the experiment was fascinating; I disagreed. It's boring and predictable, as is the likelihood of some kind of retribution aimed at the prankster. I simply noted there's no real suspense here except the nature of the coming retribution.

Yeesh. Talk about projecting...
posted by mediareport at 7:01 PM on September 8, 2006


So. Ever since the posting, he seems to revel in the attention he's getting: NYTimes, etc.

You'd think he'd know when to stop...surely, this man has orchestrated one of the more unique suicides in our times.
posted by diastematic at 8:00 PM on September 8, 2006


Ever since the posting, he seems to revel in the attention he's getting

most narcissists do ...
posted by pyramid termite at 8:58 PM on September 8, 2006


...there is only one thing more embarassing than being the victim of internet vigilante justice; it comes in the form of really superbly bad internet poetry...
posted by lilboo at 9:21 PM on September 8, 2006


oh wait that wasn"t him
but this is
posted by lilboo at 9:31 PM on September 8, 2006


I'm looking forward to the follow-up fpp reporting this guys brutal murder.
posted by bob sarabia at 9:35 PM on September 8, 2006






Jody Tresidder

Lets say there was an ultra-fundamentalist christian who posted on craigslist pretending to be a woman. His backstory is that (s)he has just had an abortion and is feeling quite depressed about it, but (s)he hasn't told her family and friends about it because they all feel abortion is immoral. Since none of her family/friends know about it (s)he reaches out to the craiglist community looking for other women who have had the same experience, so that (s)he could get together and talk about things without fear of being judged.

But in reality the poster is just trolling for pictures/personal information of these women in order to post them to a website called 'These women have had abortions' designed to shame 'ungodly murderous fornicating whores' by listing their private info for the world to see.

I have no problem with kinky sex, and I have no problem with abortion, but I recognize that people might have reasons to keep their behavior under wraps.

Now you seem to be trying to play this off with a profound condensation towards these males in particular, and from the tone of several of your posts men in general.

If this was the abortion case I outlined above, I would still maintain the guy deserves to get his ass kicked. Would you feel "I'm not sure I'd want you on a jury if you reckon a wounded "fantasy" female image of purity is grounds for expecting genuine violence." ?

If it was the abortion case would you still just shrug it off saying the outed women were "Big Girls" and deserve what they got for taking the risk of sharing her abortion story with a stranger? Would you stand by the hypothetical statement "Is there no room in your world view for the "dumb" girls to figure out that the lesson is about avoiding stupid Internet behavior (i.e revealing your abortion to a stranger, and providing them with your name etc.) in the future?"

Just curious.
posted by Jezztek at 10:14 PM on September 8, 2006


You can always get "famous" by being a douchebag.
posted by dhammond at 10:20 PM on September 8, 2006


You know, if he'd posed as a dom looking for a sub, I think he could have made an excellent case that he was merely entertaining their fantasies. You know, humiliation, degradation, etc.

Instead, he chose the opposite, extremelys stupid route, and posed as a sub looking for a dom. Did you see some of those guys? They're friggin' huge badass motherfuckers. Sure, sure, a lot of them looked like pipsqueak accountant mofo-wannabes, but more than a few looked genuinely psycopathic. These are not the kind of people you want to be publicly humiliating.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:16 AM on September 9, 2006


Jezztek,
Hey, hey, hey!
Wait just a minute..

"If this was the abortion case I outlined above, I would still maintain the guy deserves to get his ass kicked."

On the face of it, that's not a badly thought through comparison.

BUT - I hold no admiration - sneaking or otherwise - for the douchebag who conducted the social experiment or however he cares to dignify it.

My immediate outrage point was the laddish lynchmob mentality of posters here - who seemed awfully keen to take "guy world" umbrage on behalf of the outed men and justify - or enjoy intellectually excusing - a damned good retributive ass-kicking.

I hate that "a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do" groupthink.

BECAUSE their attitude was mightily defensive, there were some awfully theoretical assumptions going on - specifically that the outing would cause job, home, income, kids being taken away - so suddenly we are looking at cruelly wounded innocent working stiffs who take the law into their own horny, soil-encrusted hands against the jeering Mephistopheles of the sexual internet.

(And, jezztek, my patronising use of "dumb" was a direct quote from the laddish defenders.)

No, I certainly wouldn't condone ass-kicking from outed women who had had abortions. Not for one minute - as furious as I would feel.

Though their reasons for sharing their stories with a manipulative con artist would be much more complicated and less self-serving than merely lining up to obtain a mutually desired s & m lay from a refreshingly trash-talking cyberspace floozie.

It's self-evident that the guys thought they were unloading their fantasies and some fascinatingly ill-considered photos in a safe space. They surely didn't deserve the unsolicited publicity.

In fact, some of them shouldn't actually be embarrassed at all - because their responses are almost sweet!
The others though - oh boy!

And if defenders of the guys' potential wounded bull behavior are going to base that defence on the imagined cliche of small town values/unsophisticated sexual attitudes of rubes etc - they should think harder themselves.

Since when has being revealed as a guy who wants to roughly shaft a trollope who is openly begging for a good slapping ever gotten him drummed out of the backroom bar in Clusterfuck, Nowheresville?
posted by Jody Tresidder at 8:33 AM on September 9, 2006


Can't you get it through your skull that it isn't the backroom bar they are worried about? It is the company picnic, the corner store, the church service etc.

But I have a few acquaintances (at the bar and elsewhere) who would definitely look askance at me for visiting an S&M club, a gay bar, or the like and I live in NYC.

I even had a guy get visibly uncomfortable when I told him I used my poker winnings to go to a strip club.

Once, I had a coworker who put a piece of tape over the label of her Sony walkman, and wrote walkPERSON on it. She also told me she enjoyed shocking people (read: men) in meetings by wearing a sleveless top and displaying her unshaved armpits.

For some reason, you remind me a lot of her.
posted by bashos_frog at 9:36 AM on September 9, 2006



Jason Fortuny's privacy policy on his contact page:

I will never sell, rent, or give away your address to any outside party, ever

Ouch.

And here's describes how he'll protect his customers from the risk of privacy lawsuits:

Personal privacy lawsuits can seek punitive damages at the million dollar level.

Zinger!

Yes yes, anyone can be a sociopath and a hypocrite. But Mr. Fortuny added an extra bit of spice to the mix. In addition to his address, his phone number, numerous pictures of himself, and his own horrible poetry, he's also a publicly posted scan of his own signature.

One thing his suicide plot lacks: subtlety
posted by zota at 10:01 AM on September 9, 2006


Jody Tresidder : "BECAUSE their attitude was mightily defensive, there were some awfully theoretical assumptions going on - specifically that the outing would cause job, home, income, kids being taken away - so suddenly we are looking at cruelly wounded innocent working stiffs who take the law into their own horny, soil-encrusted hands against the jeering Mephistopheles of the sexual internet."

Well, to be fair, the argument is along the lines, not that "this guy probably caused some people to lose jobs, homes, income, and kids, so someone is going to beat him up", but "this guy probably caused some people to lose jobs, homes, income, and kids, so one of the people who lost one of those things is going to beat him up". If this results in no job losses, divorces, etc. etc. etc., I'm pretty confident that no-one would expect him to get beat up. After all, nobody is saying he'll get beat up by some noninvolved non-aggrieved party, but by an aggreived party. No aggrieved parties, no beatup.

Jody Tresidder : "laddish lynchmob mentality" "laddish defenders"

It's a little hard to take you seriously when you keep use maleness as a term of derision.

Jody Tresidder : "Since when has being revealed as a guy who wants to roughly shaft a trollope who is openly begging for a good slapping ever gotten him drummed out of the backroom bar in Clusterfuck, Nowheresville?"

I don't think the argument is that this outing is going to get people kicked out of backroom bars, S&M clubs, or strip clubs. The argument is about getting people drummed out of church groups, PTAs, and summer camp counsellor positions.

I may be wrong. Perhaps there are people here who are arguing that this will get these guys kicked out of backroom bars in Clusterfuck, Nowheresville. But until someone pipes up and says so, it looks like you're arguing against a position that no-one is actually taking. In which case you should probably make it clear that you're not actually arguing with people in this thread, but hypothetical people in some other thread, so that folks won't get the wrong idea and think you're intentionally ignoring and misreading their positions.

Just for the record, I should probably find myself all outraged, on some position here, whether it be against the guy publicising the info or the guys dumb enough to send cock pictures to people they don't know, but I can't bring myself to really have a position on the argument. The above is not meant as a defence of the other people in the thread, but just due to being annoyed that, whether they are right or wrong, you're kinda ignoring what they say and arguing against positions people aren't taking.
posted by Bugbread at 10:01 AM on September 9, 2006


jt: i think you rely a bit heavily on the 'backroom bar' characterization of the email respondents (which characterization seems buried in some outdated stereotypes)...i'm not in that particular circle, but i'm guessing for such guy groups, if they exist anywhere, the whole online conquest thing goes over as well as going to a tanning booth to work on your farmer's tan...

what you're seeing on craigslist is quick-and-easy sexual encounters...and good for them, if that's what they want...but check out the ad this guy posted in order to get these responses...it wasn't a 'nice girl wants to meet a nice guy' ad...this was a trashy-whore ad that was meant to elicit the kind of response you want to criticize...and it's the type of ad that invites roleplaying...a woman who posts an ad, for instance, saying she wants to be beat up and raped, isn't saying literally that she wants to be beat up and raped...she wants a guy to jump in and play the game...so it's as less likely that a guy who responds to something like that by adopting the role literally wants to beat up and rape the woman...he's more likely trying to match the fantasy...the woman wants somebody who can take on the bad-boy role; the guy tries to fill the bad-boy role...it's not saying that the reality of this kind of violent sex play doesn't exist, and soliciting for it or responding to it is taking on a risk (part of the thrill of it in the first place)...the thing is that those fantasy roles play out in all types of men and women, ones that we all know and love--so making a judgment of these people based on what they offer in the context of sexual fantasy isn't really accurate...

...and the 'theoretical assumptions' you point to are realistic potential consequences of having your sexual fantasies (and nude photos as well) exposed to those around you...you seem a bit too comfortable to characterize these men and their lives as small, but what they have is important to them...i'm not even talking about the married guys having affairs--just the lonely guy in the next cubicle...

as for lynch-mob ass-kicking...were i one of the guys exposed and had my life affected by this, who knows what i would do...as an outsider, i don't think it should happen as much as i think it is inevitable, and this guy--who himself is doing what he can to turn online interaction into real-life consequence--is going to see some real-life consequence to his online adventures---he's hiding behind the keyboard as much as any of the guys he has decided to exploit...the difference is that he invited them to participate (under false pretenses) and not vice versa...
posted by troybob at 10:07 AM on September 9, 2006


I hope Jason Fortuny gets his life sued away. What a fuckin' loser.

What dobbs said.
posted by scarabic at 10:16 AM on September 9, 2006


From what little I've encountered this issue in the past, it is at the very least copyright infringement to post entire emails someone sent you.
posted by scarabic at 10:17 AM on September 9, 2006


Once, I had a coworker who put a piece of tape over the label of her Sony walkman, and wrote walkPERSON on it. She also told me she enjoyed shocking people (read: men) in meetings by wearing a sleveless top and displaying her unshaved armpits.For some reason, you remind me a lot of her.posted by bashos_frog

Oh, man - you've made me coo with pleasure, bashos_frog

But - play fair - you're a gal pretending to be a guy!!!
You mischievous minx, you!!

"Sleeveless top...unshaven armpits.." Stop, stop!!

And the bit about folks "looking askance" or "visibly uncomfortable" at your possibly racier-than-average predilictions!!!

Look, I love your feminist satire. Fancy a cocktail sometime? I could send you a nice picture - and we could meet in a terrific Alphabet City bar -if you know what I mean?

(What's with the bashos_frog name, btw? You French or something? Formidable!!)
posted by Jody Tresidder at 10:19 AM on September 9, 2006


troybob...I think...you may have spilled something on your keyboard...From what I can tell...your period key...is sticking........

...
posted by Bugbread at 10:21 AM on September 9, 2006


Jody Tresidder : "What's with the bashos_frog name, btw? You French or something?"
ふる池や
かはづ飛び込む
水の 音
(the old pond
a frog jumps in
the sound of water)
-Matsuo Basho
posted by Bugbread at 10:26 AM on September 9, 2006


what's with everybody and my periods lately
posted by troybob at 10:27 AM on September 9, 2006


I hope there's a way to sue this guy. (IAAL, but I don't practice in this, um, area.) I agree that the musings about what may happen to this guy outside of the law (that is, violence) have something to do with male-ness -- the fact that Jason is male, the maleness of the victims, the topic of the violation (public airing of males talking privately about their (male) sexuality), the fact that Jason solicited men to respond sexually to a "woman" who turned out to be male. More all of those than that the posters here are male. I don't think there is an easily imagined female analog to the situation here -- though I liked the abortion hypothetical -- that would trigger the same risk of real or imagined violence against the perpetrator. For example, I just don't think there would be the same risks of violence for a perpetrator who published, say, pictures of women's breasts, or tales of a woman's sexual exploits, without consent.

Most of the responses that I read (I didn't read them all, they started to blur together) seemed fairly forgettable. If it were me as one of the victims I'd say I was just "playing" and wasn't really going to meet the woman. I would think most people would forget about it pretty soon. But then again I live in San Francisco, home of the inappropriate public sexual disclosure -- it's hard for me to imagine the dire consequences, beyond relationship issues (which would happen whenever the partner discovered not-permitted cheating), though I will take folks' word for them.

Jason has a strangely unlimited commitment to his public psycho-drama.
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 11:00 AM on September 9, 2006


Responses = responses to the CL ad.
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 11:02 AM on September 9, 2006


JT, I'm not trying to attack you here, but it just seems so obvious that you're personally offended by what these men posted, so you feel that they deserved it. It may come as a shock to you, but some women actually like to be abused in this way. I have friends that are heavy into the S&M scene and if they posted an ad, they most surely would not want a sensitive guy offering to buy flowers and hold their hand while walking on the beach. That guy would not have a chance....what it boils down to is this: it's just sex. It may not be your kind of sex, but it's someone's kind of sex. I would just try to be a little more open about the situation here and stop bashing the guys for trying to get the attention of a nasty girl's post.
posted by Holy foxy moxie batman! at 11:10 AM on September 9, 2006


"The argument is about getting people drummed out of church groups, PTAs, and summer camp counsellor positions."


Bugbread,

Do some of those guys at the link look like they're the image-conscious mainstays of church groups, PTAs and summer camp counsellor positions?

Somehow we're turning them into holy small town heroes already?

Come on: who is making up hypothetical people here! I'm not.

"It's a little hard to take you seriously when you keep use maleness as a term of derision."

>

No, I don't think "maleness" is something to be derided. Yes, in this context I am using laddish lynchmob groupthink in a critical manner. Because of quotes like...

hincandenza wrote: "In Guy World, this is perfectly legitimate grounds for getting your ass kicked..."

bashos_frog wrote: "If I was caught up in such a thing, and lost my marriage/income/custody and the like, I would not be considering an ass-kicking.
Rather, I'd be leaning towards a punishment involving handcuffs, rubber-tubing, hacksaws and razor wire
."

Iron rat wrote (quoting mediareport):"The only excitement is waiting to see whether the guy gets shot, stabbed, run over or the shit kicked out of him." Yeah, karma."
posted by Jody Tresidder at 11:14 AM on September 9, 2006


Holy foxy moxie batman! : "JT, I'm not trying to attack you here, but it just seems so obvious that you're personally offended by what these men posted, so you feel that they deserved it."

I dunno, I'm not getting that from JT. I'm getting more a "it's no big deal" vibe. It isn't that the men are nasty and deserved to be outed, but that JT thinks "it's no big deal, it's all a laugh at the pub next week".
posted by Bugbread at 11:15 AM on September 9, 2006


Jody Tresidder : "Do some of those guys at the link look like they're the image-conscious mainstays of church groups, PTAs and summer camp counsellor positions?"

Some of em do, yeah.

Jody Tresidder : "Somehow we're turning them into holy small town heroes already?"

Eh? Maybe it's because I'm not from a small town, but in my home city, being a PTA member or church guy or the like wasn't a hero, any more than being the plumber or being the guy who worked at kinkos was a hero. They're just positions that frown on members being into S&M. "Hero" was reserved for, I dunno, ambulance workers or cops or folks running charities or the like.

Jody Tresidder : "Yes, in this context I am using laddish lynchmob groupthink in a critical manner. Because of quotes like..."

Well, first off, hincandenza's whole "Guy World" thing was a load of arse, if you ask me. So I have the same complaint against his comment (supporting beating the guy up) as against yours (opposing beating him up).

Past that, though, I don't think you've really found an example of "groupthink" so much as "people agreeing". I know that the general internet tendency is to think of any two people who think the same thing as being either hiveminders, groupthinkers, or sheeple, but it is sometimes the case that people just happen to agree with eachother.

Personally, I don't think the guy should get beat up, but I wouldn't mind if he got yoinked in the same way (publishing of his own personal stuff, etc), or if legal action were brought against him. I'm a guy, so does that mean that thinking violence against him is a bad thing is also laddish, or does laddish only apply to males you disagree with?

And, in this thread, do we have enough females chiming in with their opinions to determine if wishing violence on the person is a male thing, or just a MeFite thing in general? Maybe it's not "laddish" thinking but "personish" thinking.

For that matter, you're including folks who think the guy will get beat up, but haven't expressed whether they think that's a good thing or a bad thing, in the "laddish" pool. Is expecting an outcome in itself somehow bad behaviour?
posted by Bugbread at 11:27 AM on September 9, 2006


"JT, I'm not trying to attack you here, but it just seems so obvious that you're personally offended by what these men posted, so you feel that they deserved it. It may come as a shock to you, but some women actually like to be abused in this way."posted by Holy foxy moxie batman

That's probably a fair - if unoriginal - assumption. I don't think I said I wasn't at all offended.
Well, I wasn't remotely. My first thought was "oh, you idiots," swiftly followed by "wow - that's hilariously embarrassing for those idiots", capped with "jeesh, what vile angles for photographs - what idiots...".

But, do tell me, Holy foxy.

These "some women" who like this abuse for real? You know them? I mean, really know them?
Not from skin mags, or "trusty"internet sites or a friend who once met this lady in Cuba or a great film you saw?

A close reading of the linked responses - my goodness, the effort I've put into making sure I'm not projecting! - indicates the giddy excitement of fishermen who believe they've landed the mythical "big one" - and just can't believe the fantasy has come true!

They were, of course, right.
It was all fantasy.
posted by Jody Tresidder at 11:34 AM on September 9, 2006


Somehow we're turning them into holy small town heroes already?

No, we're turning them into normal average folks. You seem to want to turn them into puppy-strangling convicted rapists, it seems.
posted by cortex at 11:43 AM on September 9, 2006


"And, in this thread, do we have enough females chiming in with their opinions to determine if wishing violence on the person is a male thing, or just a MeFite thing in general? Maybe it's not "laddish" thinking but "personish" thinking."

Bugbread

Yes, that's made me quietly uneasy.
I did suspect I was largely attacking a self-selected pool who happened to be male, as far as I could tell. But "happening to be male" didn't seem to be trivial.

"For that matter, you're including folks who think the guy will get beat up, but haven't expressed whether they think that's a good thing or a bad thing, in the "laddish" pool. Is expecting an outcome in itself somehow bad behaviour"?

No - but some commenters could make it a jolly sight clearer if they are NOT armchair vigilantes, frankly.
posted by Jody Tresidder at 11:43 AM on September 9, 2006


These "some women" who like this abuse for real? You know them? I mean, really know them?

You didn't ask me, but yes, I do. Absolutely, I know women (and men) who like to be "abused".

No - but some commenters could make it a jolly sight clearer if they are NOT armchair vigilantes, frankly.

Why? Because people like yourself infer they meant something that you then suggest they implied? The fault doesn't stem from their statements but from your tunnel-visioned interpretation of them.

Regardless of the genders (I know, not a phrase you would say very often), what Jason did to these people was wrong. It doesn't matter whether they're male or female.
posted by dobbs at 12:06 PM on September 9, 2006


"No, we're turning them into normal average folks. You seem to want to turn them into puppy-strangling convicted rapists, it seems."
posted by cortex

Well, you seem to be trying to turn them into normal average folks BUT with significant fpp-worthy caveats. Which kind of trumps the "normal, average" bit.

Normal, average folks don't generally send explicit photos showing their erect penises with funny porno essays to complete strangers. Or they don't do it "on average". Or if they do it "on average" it's not normal we see it. Either way it's out of the ordinary - for very good self-protective reasons.
Sheesh!
posted by Jody Tresidder at 12:14 PM on September 9, 2006


Either way it's out of the ordinary - for very good self-protective reasons.

Not so strange here in SF. (See prior post. And disclaimer: I personally have neither sent nor received such photos/posts.) But then again, where ordinary it would not be dire-consequence-inducing (assuming it really is so in some places).

Hmm, this thread is approaching dead-horse-ness. And yet here I am, thwack.
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 12:48 PM on September 9, 2006


One thing that seems to have gotten lost in the debate over sexual morality:

The picture associated with the fake ad was unrelated porn. But the text of the ad was (as far as anyone knows) "real." It wasn't written by the male sociopath who posted the contact info -- it was copied out of another publication for people seriously interested in B/D.
posted by zota at 1:02 PM on September 9, 2006


ROFL

Somehow this all reminds me of the Kinsey Report of the 1950's.

So ... we all have freaky neighbors?! ** Y A W N **

Will America ever grow up?
posted by Surfurrus at 1:02 PM on September 9, 2006


Jody Tresidder : "These 'some women' who like this abuse for real? You know them? I mean, really know them?
Not from skin mags, or 'trusty'internet sites or a friend who once met this lady in Cuba or a great film you saw?"


I know that was aimed at Batman, but for my part, I know neither these real women who like to be abused, nor these real men who like to abuse. So, unfortunately, as an argument it somewhat cuts both ways.

Jody Tresidder : "No - but some commenters could make it a jolly sight clearer if they are NOT armchair vigilantes, frankly."

Admittedly, at the start some of the comments seemed to indicate a relish for the upcoming violence. But some posters have made the effort to point out that their statement was one of forecasting, not anticipation. Even mediareport, who phrased himself so ambiguously here:
mediareport : "The only excitement is waiting to see whether the guy gets shot, stabbed, run over or the shit kicked out of him."
...followed up with this:
mediareport : "I simply noted there's no real suspense here except the nature of the coming retribution."

Which I can understand. It's like watching a spectacular car crash. Watching a car crash can be interesting, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you think the people in the crash deserve it. Mediareports initial statement makes it sounds like he was in the "interesting to watch it happen because it should happen" camp, but his followup points out that he's actually in the "interesting to watch it happen because it could happen one of several ways, and seeing which way it happens is interesting" camp.

dobbs : "The fault doesn't stem from their statements but from your tunnel-visioned interpretation of them."

I'd say both. I'm not so up-in-arms about the issue either way, but even I misinterpreted a few of the statements above. I think with Jody, tunnel vision was half the problem, but ambiguous phrasing by others was the other half.

Jody Tresidder : "Normal, average folks don't generally send explicit photos showing their erect penises with funny porno essays to complete strangers. Or they don't do it 'on average'. Or if they do it 'on average' it's not normal we see it."

Well, see, there you've gone and said exactly what the other side has been arguing. The argument isn't that they're saints, but that some of them are probably people with normal societal lives (note, I'm not saying they're "normal people", maybe they are and maybe they aren't. And I'm not saying that they all have normal societal lives. I'm just saying that, given the size of the trawl, it's a certainty that at least some of them have normal societal lives, and that there's a non-zero chance that this will impact their lives.) And, as you point out, what makes this situation not normal, and worthy of an FPP, is that "'on average' it's not normal we see it", but in this case that which is normally hidden has been exposed. That's the entire point of what Jason did, and it's the entire point of the FPP and ensuing discussion.
posted by Bugbread at 1:12 PM on September 9, 2006


If you read his livejournal, the funniest thing about it are all the comments from people saying things like "Do I know you? Why did you add me as a friend?" Like most narcissists, this guy is clearly starved for attention. I bet his father touched his butthole.
posted by dhammond at 1:35 PM on September 9, 2006



Jody Tresidder: These "some women" who like this abuse for real? You know them? I mean, really know them?
Not from skin mags, or "trusty"internet sites or a friend who once met this lady in Cuba or a great film you saw?


Um, yes, I do really KNOW them. My best friend is a Dom in SF where this sort of thing is pretty normal. He whips girls and has even "kidnapped"one of them in a long play session that involved a planned rape scene. I know his girlfriends, they're very open about what they do (as his he) and they love getting verbal abuse and the like. So yes, I do know them, not from some internet site. Believe it or not, this behavior is not all that uncommon.
posted by Holy foxy moxie batman! at 1:40 PM on September 9, 2006


Oh, and I also should add that I have never met a nicer guy in my life. He has the manners of a 1950's movie star and outside of the bedroom and he treats his girlfriends better than most men I've seen. I would hate to see his name smeared all over the internet and have people judge him based on his bedroom habits. People that don't know that scene would get a bad picture painted of him.
posted by Holy foxy moxie batman! at 1:44 PM on September 9, 2006


I'm female. That seems to matter to one of the respondents here, so I thought I'd call it out right off.

I think what Fortuny did was repulsive. I agree with those who find him to be a sociopath. I doubt anything will happen to him because most people are all hot air and have little follow-through and he's received far too much publicity at this point.

If something horrible did happen to him because of this, however, I honestly can't imagine anyone would be too terribly surprised. Violence isn't the answer, but if you've just spent *days* taunting a large group of humiliated men, most folks will assume you were kinda hoping for something to go down.

The guys who were attempting to cheat are also repulsive, but that's between them and their partners. We are well beyond the days of the Scarlet Letter and public stockades, and that's cool with me.

Yes, there truly are women - real women - who like to be roughed up and even degraded in their sexual endeavours. I don't understand 'em, but they do exist and I have a few friends in their ranks. Baffling but true.
posted by batmonkey at 2:43 PM on September 9, 2006


Jody Tresidder writes "Do some of those guys at the link look like they're the image-conscious mainstays of church groups, PTAs and summer camp counsellor positions?"

No, you're right. No one ever has a "secret life" that other people would cringe at if they knew about them. No siree. Everyone wears their heart on their sleeve and a picture of them at any given moment will show you every single thing you might want to know about them.

If you honestly think that your world is that one-dimensional you must surely be thick as a brick. The real world holds many surprises for you, young Jedi.
posted by clevershark at 2:57 PM on September 9, 2006


Apparently our friend Jason (or perhaps his buddies) has no qualms about harassing the wife of one of the gentlemen caught up in his vigilante sting operation. Because she moderates a community he was banned from. Considering what a great guy he seems to be, I'm sure his banning was completely undeserved.

One of the things that makes me most uneasy about this whole thing is how easy it would be to fabricate a response from someone. Most people have pictures readily available on MySpace or Facebook or whatnot, and from there it's pretty easy to fake up an e-mail, either by sending one from a fake account or just by making up one and claiming you received it. How could you prove that it had been falsified?

I've been wary of CL for a while. There's a lot of people on there trying to scam people, from the mildly obnoxious ones like brokers who post Brooklyn apartments in the Manhattan category, to people who spam the jobs section with pyramid schemes disguised to look like jobs, to a lot worse stuff. I'm reluctant to buy anything from CL these days, because I've heard stories of people getting ripped off at gunpoint and whatnot.
posted by anjamu at 4:09 PM on September 9, 2006


One of the things that makes me most uneasy about this whole thing is how easy it would be to fabricate a response from someone.

that's a good point ... and where an actual legal case could be made ... person x has a website with his picture on it ... person y has a grudge and decides to answer jason's ad with person x's picture and perhaps some cropped nude shots from someone else along with some suitably raunchy prose ... jason publishes the whole mess along with pictures and names

person x finds out ... person x has a very good libel case

as far as the "laddish" violence angle ... all i know is that there's a lot of crazy people out there and one can have the misfortune of running into them without doing anything but being in the wrong place at the wrong time ... and jason is substantially increasing his chances of meeting a crazy person by doing this kind of thing and pissing people off ... i don't think we live in the kind of world where it's smart to go around pushing people's buttons the way he does ... saying so is no more justification of violence than saying that a person who smears bacon grease all over himself in the woods is asking for an unpleasant encounter with a bear

smart people don't do things like this ... (not to mention kind and decent people)

but, of course, he's special and privileged ... nothing like that ever happens to narcissists like him
posted by pyramid termite at 4:39 PM on September 9, 2006


He took the poetry down :(

anybody still have it from their cache?
posted by lilboo at 4:55 PM on September 9, 2006


Once, I had a coworker who put a piece of tape over the label of her Sony walkman, and wrote walkPERSON on it. She also told me she enjoyed shocking people (read: men) in meetings by wearing a sleveless top and displaying her unshaved armpits.For some reason, you remind me a lot of her. posted by bashos_frog

Mmm, always love my serving of sexist tripe in the morning to be hot and spicy. Thanks!
posted by liquorice at 4:55 PM on September 9, 2006


liquorice : "Mmm, always love my serving of sexist tripe in the morning to be hot and spicy. Thanks!"

Bashos frog's coworker isn't sexist, she's a startling iconoclast!
posted by Bugbread at 5:09 PM on September 9, 2006


Humiliation is a very powerful emotion. The sense of having lost face, of being made to look ridiculous and losing the respect of one's community or friends has inspired people -- especially men -- to do some really evil shit . Just think about how much social energy -- in all kinds of cultures, in all kinds of social encounters -- is focused on saving face. There's a reason for that, just as there are reasons that human beings try to manage and control sexual jealousy. Both of these emotions are thermonuclear.

It's not wise to fuck with the volatile combination of humiliation and testosterone. Add the gratuitous posting of his contact information and I can only conclude that this kid is even more fucked up than he seems. I sincerely believe he is suicidal. I would draw the same conclusion about somebody who got drunk and decided to play in traffic or who liked to hit on bikers' girlfriends.

I know that this dude is a total asshole and a narcissist but I still feel sorry for him.
posted by jason's_planet at 5:20 PM on September 9, 2006


It's a former coworker, and other than her occasion forays into feminism of the excessively in-your-face variety, ashe was actually a pretty smart and decent individual.

She wound marrying a guy who wouldn't take any of her shit, feminist or otherwise - go figure.

I lost touch with her after that. I'd post her name so you could verify, but that would be kind of stupid given the topic of this thread.

The stuff about cocktails/gender-hoaxing or whatever, I didn't really get. I'll have to ask my wife about that.
posted by bashos_frog at 7:02 PM on September 9, 2006


This isn't an "experiment," it's performance art. This guy is a fucking genius. Look at people here freaking out in vicarious outrage. And like so many geniuses, he does indeed seem to be a genuinely odious individual. I can't imagine him reacting to the varied calls for him to get his ass kicked with anything other than delighted laughter. Gotta love the internet: execute it sufficiently well and pretty soon the shit stirs itself.

I predict he ends up neither sued nor beaten.
posted by nanojath at 9:43 PM on September 9, 2006


This isn't an "experiment," it's performance art.

i didn't know vo-ed schools gave out grants for that
posted by pyramid termite at 9:58 PM on September 9, 2006


This guy is a fucking genius.

I'm not sure if most people would agree with your definition of the word "genius".
posted by Stauf at 10:44 PM on September 9, 2006


I, uh, know of girl who did a similar thing on a Texas craigslist, posted photos of said guys, etc. This isn't an experiment. It's confirmation of the obvious for the purposes of degradation. Yes, men are likely to make that first approach. Huge shocker there.

I find that kind of thing revolting. It reminds me of the scene in Heathers where they pass a fake note to Martha "Dumptruck" Dunstock, just to get her to approach the jock in question, for humiliation and laughs. I don't care if the respondents in question are nude - it's the emotional nakedness and rejection for kicks that is cruel.

This kind of approach, for sex, for love, for friendship, is based on trust in a moment of vulnerability. Do we really need to make people less trusting? It's easy to moralize when it comes to sexually-themed personal ads.

Maybe it is a guy thing, a thin baby-blue wall of silence. If it is, you have to wonder if it is connected to the various feminist writers/bloggers who wonder why young men seem so uninterested in women now. It's easy to blame pornography, unrealistic standards, but how about a lack of trust?
posted by adipocere at 10:45 PM on September 9, 2006 [1 favorite]


Will they ever learn to trust again, enough to email photographs of their penises to anonymous strangers?
posted by nanojath at 10:56 PM on September 9, 2006 [1 favorite]


adipocere : "It's easy to blame pornography, unrealistic standards, but how about a lack of trust?"

I'm going to have to go with nanojath here. If you're sending photos of your cock to someone that you've never met, the problem isn't so much lack of trust as excess trust.
posted by Bugbread at 5:29 AM on September 10, 2006


Pyramid termite has put a finger on the basis for my sour 'laddish lynch party' swipes at some metafilter commenters:
"i don't think we live in the kind of world where it's smart to go around pushing people's buttons the way he does." This is meant to refer to Jason-The-Unrepentant Conman; it applies more widely, I think.

And Pyramid then - confoundingly -contradicts his own point by adding: "...saying so is no more justification of violence than saying that a person who smears bacon grease all over himself in the woods is asking for an unpleasant encounter with a bear."

This IS a justification: because it's saying it's in the bear's nature to attack the bacon greased hiker. Basically, the bacon hiker was asking for it. That's apparently the bit we can all easily understand.


Going back a bit for just a second: Bugbread is right that we can't possibly know what real world impact Jason's shitty outing has on the individual wannabe s & m guys. And clevershark is right - and quite funny about it - that you can't possibly judge people either way by how they look. That particular crack of mine was dreadful. As Kinsey said (thanks surfurrus) - more or less - half a century ago: it takes all sorts, sexually speaking. And then some!

So what we've got are SOME sex baited men who are quite possibly very mad indeed because of the possible effects of being outed. Right?

And we've got SOME commenters here getting rather red in the face in the wrong way, (their armchair macho quotes pulled above at 11.14 am) on their behalf, and eagerly wondering about violent retribution.

Plus jason's planet comment about humiliation prompting a thermonuclear reaction.

What sticks in my craw is the tough talking assumption that sexual humiliation on the internet is grounds for guys to beat up the guy who did it.
Why?
Why should anyone here egg this on by saying such a reaction is understandable?
That's a form of not-so-smart button pushing that strikes me as incredibly stupid.

I think it was a nasty prank, no question. Though, yes, I was fascinated by the results.

But even nastier is the notion that it's understandable the humiliated guys should take their anger over exposing themselves to an internet trollope who never existed and transfer it to the prankster.

(I'll also be fascinated how the New York Times handles the story next week. How are they going to deal with the meat of it without burying the facts in so many po-faced caveats that no one knows what the hell they're talking about?)
posted by Jody Tresidder at 5:51 AM on September 10, 2006


By the way, bashos_frog, loved your follow-up comment about your feminist friend with the unshaven armpits who, apparently, I put you in mind of.

"It's a former coworker, and other than her occasion forays into feminism of the excessively in-your-face variety, ashe was actually a pretty smart and decent individual. She wound marrying a guy who wouldn't take any of her shit, feminist or otherwise - go figure."

Oh, so she got married did she?
The patriarchy breathes a sigh of relief!
posted by Jody Tresidder at 6:07 AM on September 10, 2006


assumption that sexual humiliation on the internet is grounds for guys to beat up the guy who did it

Let's try it again.

Sexual humiliation is not the point. If I were to do something as stupid as send a picture of my cock to some anonymous stranger who had asked for it, and it wound up on the internet, it might be embarrassing, but not worth violence. There are plenty of pictures online of passed out frat boys getting teabagged - humiliating, yes, but no one is getting hurt over it.

If, however, I lost my job, or my wife, or both - with concomitant financial losses - well, then I'd be quite sure that the person who took advantage of my trust in the implied contract suffered at least as much, and probably a lot more. Legally if possible, extra-legally if necessary.

As to the hacksaws/handcuffs quote - it was a reference to Sin City (Marv & Kevin) - kind of a guy's flick/graphic novel thing - I guess you wouldn't understand.
posted by bashos_frog at 6:27 AM on September 10, 2006


Like I said, separate out the sex. Sex makes it easy to point fingers and go "ha-ha." What if they were just love letters?

Not quite so funny now.
posted by adipocere at 6:28 AM on September 10, 2006


Like I said, separate out the sex. Sex makes it easy to point fingers and go "ha-ha." What if they were just love letters? Not quite so funny now.
posted by adipocere

I totally agree, adipocere.

I went to the links from this comment posted earlier on this thread:
"SixSixFive used to do this sort of thing from time to time.Here is the best one, which continues here and here.
posted by Kwine at 12:30 PM PST on September 8"


The link gives you more "private" emails from duped guys.
With sarky ha! ha! gotcha! editorializing from the duper.

I thought this was a low, filthy, uninteresting bit of hoity toity finger pointing.

Maybe it's the difference between offering your heart and your hopes on the internet - and your erect penis.
posted by Jody Tresidder at 7:19 AM on September 10, 2006


"Sexual humiliation is not the point...If, however, I lost my job, or my wife, or both - with concomitant financial losses - well, then I'd be quite sure that the person who took advantage of my trust in the implied contract suffered at least as much, and probably a lot more. Legally if possible, extra-legally if necessary. "

Bashos_frog,
I call BS on this.
Unless you think violence - or whatever is hidden behind your "extra legally" obfuscation - is okay whenever a guy loses his job, shirt, wife, dog, dignity because his self-serving trust/greed/sexual needs, dingbat naivety etc got him screwed?

In fact I call double BS because you have said you're a New Yorker, I think, which means you're doing the ill-considered rus in urbe Clint Eastwood strut from your sofa.

Which is exactly where I originally came in on this thread.
posted by Jody Tresidder at 7:50 AM on September 10, 2006


This IS a justification: because it's saying it's in the bear's nature to attack the bacon greased hiker.

it's not a justification ... it's an appreciation of reality ... just as it's in the bear's nature to attack bacon greased hikers, it's in some people's nature to attack people who have humiliated them, if they get the opportunity ... we can call it right or wrong if we like, but that's not going to change that such people exist and they can react in that manner
posted by pyramid termite at 7:52 AM on September 10, 2006


Jody Tresidder : "But even nastier is the notion that it's understandable the humiliated guys should take their anger over exposing themselves to an internet trollope who never existed and transfer it to the prankster."

I suspect you mean "act on it on the prankster" instead of "transfer it to the prankster", because their anger is, from the start, at the prankster. There's no transfership involved. If you mean "act on that anger" when you say "transfer", that makes a bit more sense.

Jody Tresidder : "The patriarchy breathes a sigh of relief!"

Whenever I read about what the patriarchy does or doesn't do, I always wonder how much spare time the patriarchy has such that it becomes a great relief to it that some individual somewhere got married. Doesn't the patriarchy have some widescale oppression to be involved in, or does it always get bogged down in petty individual cases?

Jody Tresidder : "Maybe it's the difference between offering your heart and your hopes on the internet - and your erect penis."

Well, an erect exposed penis is a penis that wants to be in something, but isn't. In a sense, the exposed erect penis (as opposed to an erect penis hidden in a vagina, a rectum, or a chicken) is a physical symbol of ones hopes.

Or a physical symbol that one has just woken up. One of the two.

Jody Tresidder : "Unless you think violence - or whatever is hidden behind your 'extra legally' obfuscation - is okay whenever a guy loses his job, shirt, wife, dog, dignity because his self-serving trust/greed/sexual needs, dingbat naivety etc got him screwed?"

I don't think that's quite a fair representation of what bashos frog is saying (though it's close-ish). Probably it would be fairer to say "Unless you think violence [et al] is okay whenever a guy loses his job, shirt, wife, dog, dignity because his self-serving trust/greed/sexual needs, dingbat naivety etc was intentionally taken advantage of and got him screwed".

If someone's naivette gets them screwed, but no-one intentionally screwed him, I doubt bashos is saying violence would be justified. (For example, if a guy assumes that screwing around on his wife won't be noticed because he's all the way across town, but doesn't realize that the bar he's at trying to pick up women is one that his wife's friends often hang out at, he may be 1) screwed, 2) by his self-serving sexual needs, with 3) dingbat naivety, but I doubt bashos frog would therefore say he should beat up his wife's friend for catching him there. The "intentionally taking advantage of said naivety" is the big part of this issue, and whether the conclusion that violence is justified is right or wrong, leaving that out of your interpretation of what others is saying is going quite wide of the point.)

Also, absolutely appropos of nothing, and not remotely related to the topic at hand, might I ask if you're British, Jody? I get that feeling from some of your expressions, but I can't tell.
posted by Bugbread at 8:14 AM on September 10, 2006 [1 favorite]


"What sticks in my craw is the tough talking assumption that sexual humiliation on the internet is grounds for guys to beat up the guy who did it."

If a person is flashing a lot of cash around in a shitty neighborhood, it's not surprising if they have the shit beaten out of them and the money stolen.

It would not be surprising if Jason had the shit beaten out of him. Perhaps it's wrong, but he's flouted a pre-legal social convention (meaning that the law is not a guide for behavior here) and taken glee in provokation.

Calling someone a cunt or a nigger isn't "justification" for kicking their ass, but it's not surprising when they have their asses kicked by the offended party.

But please, continue elaborating an anti-patriarchy thesis out of this. No one here is likely to kick your ass for trolling.
posted by klangklangston at 9:20 AM on September 10, 2006


I have a theory: RFJason pulled this prank, not out of malice, but in order to impress this "demure" chick.

After reading their exchanges, it looks to me that he was obviously viewing her as a sexual conquest, as was she & in turn, they both use this type of manipulation as a test. So the whole thing boils down to a power struggle: for both of them this is not merely seduction, it's a battle, a game of chicken really.

No wonder people got hurt.

Welcome to Dangerous Liasions in the 21st century.
posted by lilboo at 9:33 AM on September 10, 2006


"..it's not a justification ... it's an appreciation of reality ..it's in some people's nature to attack people who have humiliated them, if they get the opportunity.."
posted by pyramid termite

Obviously, we disagree.
You call it "reality" as if it's some morally neutral clear-sightedness.

I don't agree one should be neutral about equating men's behavior when provoked with that of baited bears.

I prefer to see wild bears from a distance (like from the top of a water park slide in New Jersey as I did - very happily - just the other weekend) not behind an email.

"Doesn't the patriarchy have some widescale oppression to be involved in, or does it always get bogged down in petty individual cases?"

Dunno, bugbread.

But in this case it WAS bashos_frog getting bogged down in the unshaven armpits of feminists, so maybe he should raise his nose?

"I suspect you mean "act on it on the prankster" instead of "transfer it to the prankster", because their anger is, from the start, at the prankster. There's no transfership involved. If you mean "act on that anger" when you say "transfer", that makes a bit more sense."

Nope, bugbread.
I do mean "transfer".

I can see a lot of righteous anger at taking the trouble to proudly wave your stiff willy at a dirty, hot, willing bitch who didn't even bloody exist. I think transferring that anger to the prankster on top of the public con humiliation makes quite a lot of sense.

"...might I ask if you're British, Jody? I get that feeling from some of your expressions, but I can't tell."

Certainly, you may ask. British-raised and educated (hence the give away expressions), but - sadly - the wrong passport.
posted by Jody Tresidder at 10:36 AM on September 10, 2006


"The patriarchy breathes a sigh of relief!"

The above quote was sarcasm,* and funny too -- I thought it was a good repost to the marriage update. *Not a reflection of a belief that the patriarchy takes interest in individual cases.

If you take out the sexual nature of the posts, including the penises, then it becomes a completely different animal, IMO. Same if you change around the gender of the posters or postee. The incendiary nature of the "experiment" depends upon all of those, again IMO.

Thwack. Jab. Kick. I just can't stop.
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 10:43 AM on September 10, 2006


You call it "reality" as if it's some morally neutral clear-sightedness.

i call it reality because it exists ... people have been saying that other people shouldn't react violently to certain provocations, such as humiliation, for 7,000 years of recorded history, and yet we continue to see people react violently ... i never said it was right, or that it "should" be, but that it is ... and knowing that it is, wise people conduct themselves carefully ... and yes, conducting oneself as if these facts don't exist is "asking" for trouble

you insist that things "should" be different ... fine, people "should" be different ... in fact, people "should" be nice to each other always and never die

and yet, they continue to be mean and all of them die, no matter how many of us say they "shouldn't"

conclusion ... "should" is not a useful word in dealing with the reality of human nature or of the universe it functions in ... deny that all you want to, call it a "justification", call it "wrong", but you won't change it

i feel no need for further refutation, as the world around us provides it on a daily basis
posted by pyramid termite at 11:14 AM on September 10, 2006


Jody Tresidder : "I can see a lot of righteous anger at taking the trouble to proudly wave your stiff willy at a dirty, hot, willing bitch who didn't even bloody exist. I think transferring that anger to the prankster on top of the public con humiliation makes quite a lot of sense."

Ok, now I'm lost. The only person who seems to be angry that people waved their willies at a nonexistent person is you. But you haven't transferred your dislike of those people to Jason, so the transfer isn't by you.

The other big angry category are the people in this thread, who (presumably) were not among the dick showers, so the transfer doesn't apply to them either.

The third category, whom we can only presume are angry, because they're not in here to tell us for sure, are the people whose dicks got posted on the net. If you think they're primarily angry about the dirty hot willing bitch not existing, and are transferring that anger to Jason, well, I certainly don't have any concrete scientific evidence whereby I can prove your assumption is wrong, but my assumption is that that's totally incorrect. They are probably disappointed that the dirty hot willing bitch doesn't exist. And they're probably extraordinarily embarrassed that they sent pictures of their dicks to some guy, and some are probably angry about that. But most are probably angry that pictures of their dicks (and faces and email addresses to match) were posted on the internet.

I suppose you could consider there to be a transfer of anger, but I'd say it's akin to getting a flat tire, getting angry, going out to fix it, and getting hit by some careless driver. I'm sure that some amount of the "angry at flat tire" anger will be redirected at the careless driver, but that's trivial to the amount of anger directed at the careless driver from the start.

So, here, we probably have people with 10 Anger Points from not having found the willing bitch of their dreams. And they may have 900 Anger Points from having their dick splashed up on the WWW. And some may have transferred those 10 willing bitch AP to the 900 dick-on-internet AP. But it's such a small percentage of the total that it's trivial.

ClaudiaCenter : "The above quote was sarcasm,* and funny too -- I thought it was a good repost to the marriage update. *Not a reflection of a belief that the patriarchy takes interest in individual cases."

My answer was sarcasm as well, just not funny, that's all.

Jody Tresidder : "You call it 'reality' as if it's some morally neutral clear-sightedness."

Er, are you saying that no-one has a proclivity to attack people who humiliate them? Because that's what pyramid termite is saying: "Some people attack those that humiliate them". And you're saying "I disagree".
posted by Bugbread at 11:21 AM on September 10, 2006


"Well, an erect exposed penis is a penis that wants to be in something, but isn't. In a sense, the exposed erect penis (as opposed to an erect penis hidden in a vagina, a rectum, or a chicken) is a physical symbol of ones hopes."
posted by bugbread

Ths is where Hallmark should probably come in?
posted by Jody Tresidder at 11:22 AM on September 10, 2006


"Er, are you saying that no-one has a proclivity to attack people who humiliate them? Because that's what pyramid termite is saying: "Some people attack those that humiliate them". And you're saying "I disagree"."
posted by bugbread

I'm saying people should watch themselves sitting in the cosy sidelines oozing empathy for possibly OTT reactions to sexual humiliation on the internet.

I'm saying we've probably all seen the furtive faces in mugshots of people caught up in lynch mobbery of various stripes - and probably thought "sheesh! what were they thinking?"

I'm saying there was a groundswell of mefite "nodders" to some of the crasser comments about retributive karma for creepy Jason.

I'm saying there was some pretty elaborate "what iffing?" going on to justify potential retributive reaction on the part of the sex baited men.

And I'm saying klangbloodyklangston can lay off the "No one here is likely to kick your ass for trolling" nonsense. Because this is NOT trolling by any stretch - so there with brass knobs on!
posted by Jody Tresidder at 11:41 AM on September 10, 2006


But even nastier is the notion that it's understandable the humiliated guys should take their anger over exposing themselves to an internet trollope who never existed and transfer it to the prankster.

I'm sorry that you find this notion so nasty.

Reality can be like that sometimes.

Jody, human nature isn't always pretty. Yeah, people should be fair and kind to each other. And oftentimes, they aren't. People should be rational. They usually aren't. People should laugh off insults and humiliations. And most of the time, they do, because they're housebroken and civilized but sometimes they respond to these provocations with frightening violence. That's life.

I most emphatically was not supporting or encouraging violence against Fortuny. I went out of my way to say that I think he has serious emotional problems and that I feel very sorry for him, no matter how much I might dislike him.

That's really all I have to say about this, but pyramid_termite said it much better:

conclusion ... "should" is not a useful word in dealing with the reality of human nature or of the universe it functions in ... deny that all you want to, call it a "justification", call it "wrong", but you won't change it
posted by jason's_planet at 12:03 PM on September 10, 2006


I most emphatically was not supporting or encouraging violence against Fortuny"
posted by jason's_planet

Totally agreed.
I tried to make the distinction clear by putting your comment separately. I am genuinely sorry if it looked otherwise because you were very plain.
posted by Jody Tresidder at 12:30 PM on September 10, 2006


I am genuinely sorry if it looked otherwise because you were very plain.

OK. Thank you. I appreciate the clarification. No harm done. We're good. I apologize for any defensiveness on my part.
posted by jason's_planet at 12:46 PM on September 10, 2006


Jody:

All of what you're saying makes sense. But I take it, then, that you're not saying that nobody ever kicks someone else's ass for embarrassing them?

If you're not disagreeing with that statement, then, why did you tell pyramid termite "I disagree"?

Jody Tresidder : "I'm saying there was some pretty elaborate 'what iffing?' going on to justify potential retributive reaction on the part of the sex baited men."

I don't know if "justify" is the right word. Perhaps "explain". "Justify" means "explain why it would happen, and say that it's morally right". Most of the followup has shown that there was no "moral right" implied (by most parties), just "this is probably going to happen".

But, regardless, we're not talking outlandish hypothetical situations as basis/justification for some real event which happened. We're talking (for the benefit of the doubt) outlandish hypothetical situations as the basis for a hypothetical event. The hypothetical result is contingent on the hypothetical cause.

Rephrased: if you find the "if" part of the "if then" situation to be incredibly unlikely, then you'd logically find the "then" part to be incredibly unlikely. So why are you treating the "then" part as so contentious, if you think the "if" part is unworthy of note? Why get all bothered by a "then" which, in your opinion, will never happen because the "if" part won't happen?
posted by Bugbread at 1:01 PM on September 10, 2006 [1 favorite]


Bugbread,
I don't think I'm being as complicated -or as specious - as you think?

We've got a bunch of guys here who may or may not be feeling exceedingly sore at being sexually humiliated over the internet.

We've got another bunch of (mainly) guys on metafilter who are offering empathy to varying degrees with the humilation suffered and who agree that Jason is a complete shit.

Some of these metafilter (mainly) guys suggest that Jason might find himself on the sharp end of a dose of rough justice.

It's possible, so the speculation runs, that some of the baited guys might suffer bad real-world consequences as a result of their outing.

Men, after all, can react like baited bears when mad enough, it's a rough old world out there, people aren't always nice, karma goes around, these bozos aren't going to get much satisfaction from the courts etc etc.

Furthermore, dumb old suicidal Jason is still waving and laughing about his hilarious social experiment - ooh - lookee, there he goes.

Now, bugbread, what would YOU do - as one of the extremely unhappy baited guys if you googled "craigslist" and "sex"?

And found a bunch of commenters high-fiving each other - "neutrally"! of course, about karma and "guy's world" rules and shit happening and "might is right" and "The only excitement is waiting to see whether [Jason] gets shot, stabbed, run over or the shit kicked out of him ".

Wouldn't you feel the commenters are pushing quite a lot of your angry action buttons?

Commenters who don't even have a dog in this fight - because it didn't happen to them!

Hell, they're practically telling you what they expect you to do!

Maybe you'd do nothing.

Or maybe you'd rise to the occasion? (Just as you did with your dumb photo and letter to The Internet S & M Tramp Who Wasn't There.)

Which takes me back to that first part of Pyramid's quote - the only bit I do strongly agree with: "i don't think we live in the kind of world where it's smart to go around pushing people's buttons"
posted by Jody Tresidder at 2:44 PM on September 10, 2006


Wouldn't you feel the commenters are pushing quite a lot of your angry action buttons?

if metafilter members had that kind of power to influence people, bush would be in prison, brittney spears would be working at a grocery store, fat people would be sent to fat camps and every church door in the country would have a warning sticker on it saying "this place will rot your mind"

you will notice that bush is still president, brittney is still a pop star, people are still overweight and churches have no warning labels

you could also notice that you're just as much as a voyeur as the rest of us are
posted by pyramid termite at 3:05 PM on September 10, 2006


Jody,

First, your general summary of the thread was pretty fair. Thanks.

Jody Tresidder : "Now, bugbread, what would YOU do - as one of the extremely unhappy baited guys if you googled 'craigslist' and 'sex'? "

Nothing. I'm a pretty passive guy. I'd get angry and embarrassed, but dread would be my strongest emotion. And I'd probably hope the guy got his head pounded in by somebody else.

Jody Tresidder : "And found a bunch of commenters high-fiving each other - 'neutrally'! of course, about karma and 'guy's world' rules and shit happening and 'might is right' and 'The only excitement is waiting to see whether [Jason] gets shot, stabbed, run over or the shit kicked out of him '."

Ah. If I stumbled on this thread, I'd probably think "Good. Lots of people seem to think he's going to get his head pounded in, so it may actually happen."

Now, what would I do if I were some other guy, with different ways of thinking? I dunno. Depends what kind of hypothetical guy I'd be. But now you're playing the highly-unprobable-hypothetical game ("What if there were a person who was on the list, and who got fucked over for being on the list, and was violent, and was easily swayed by suggestion, and read Metafilter, and lived near Jason?")
posted by Bugbread at 3:19 PM on September 10, 2006


Just for the record, gender of the victim does not make a difference to me. If someone like an ex-boyfriend posted nude pictures of my sister on the internet, just to hurt her marriage - I'd want payback just the same.

On the other hand, if I found out that my sister posed for pictures for a porno mag, and they later got posted on the internet (a la Dr. Laura), well, there's no malicious intent, nor is there a reasonable expectation of trust that the pictures are private, so she'd just have to deal with it.

bugbread was right in that "was intentionally taken advantage of" is the key part of the motivation to revenge.
posted by bashos_frog at 4:02 PM on September 10, 2006


"you could also notice that you're just as much as a voyeur as the rest of us are"
posted by pyramid termite
Yup, perfectly true.

As for Brit, Bush et al.
Of course, you are generally correct.

The only reason that my point is less than completely, totally stupid is that craigslist is an online community whatsit, the outed guys were notified how and where their responses were published, creepy Jason keeps updating responses to his stunt - so checking the wider extent to which one's humiliation has spread mightn't be completely out of the question.

And, of course, this fpp is predicated on the notion that internet publication is not without effect.
posted by Jody Tresidder at 4:24 PM on September 10, 2006


update from waxy.org

September 10: Jason Fortuny modified his homepage to remove all references to his professional life: portfolio, resume, and references to past clients are all gone. (Compare to the older versions on the Internet Archive.) It also looks like he's been scrubbing his personal contact information from his Livejournal comments and homepage. For example, this link from my post originally went to a comment with his contact information, but it's been removed entirely. (Strangely, he didn't remove his home address and phone number from this entry. Also, Encyclopedia Dramatica has been down intermittently all day, presumably because of the traffic.

suddenly, it seems like the person who's feeling outed and exposed, with his career and online life affected is jason

i wonder 5 years from now if people google for his victims' real names, they'll find any of this ... i don't wonder what they'll find if they search for jason fortuny ... they're sure to run across this sorry thing he did

seems to me that the real revenge on jason has already been done ... by jason himself

way to go, loser
posted by pyramid termite at 4:54 PM on September 10, 2006


picked up by wired:
At first I thought of this "prank" as frat boy boorishness, but its worse than that.

It's sociopathic.

My sympathies to the guys who responded and take note -- any of you out there -- anything you divulge over email can come back to haunt you, even when divulging that information is illegal.

posted by bashos_frog at 11:19 AM on September 11, 2006


A shame he's been busy scrubbing up.
Here's some sauce for the gander.

RFJason
Jason Fortuny
726 Kirkland Cir
Apt C203
Kirkland, WA
98033, US
(425)5765417
(425)5765417
RFJason@Hotmail.com

via whois, by way of slashdot.
posted by bashos_frog at 2:05 PM on September 11, 2006


Oh - that's a terribly silly gesture, bashos-frog

Especially with today's date somehow.
posted by Jody Tresidder at 2:59 PM on September 11, 2006


The point is that he did something deliberately, maliciously cruel. If a girl had posed as a guy and baited girls, then posted the respondent's info for all to see, this whole thing would have been framed differently, in an unknowable way. One thing's for sure though: she'd be a lot less likely to face physical violence. Women mete out justice in their fashion, men mete out justice in theirs. If you're going to judge one way as primitive or bad, I'd like to hear your suggestions regarding a better way to handle people who do things that need to be negatively reinforced.

Jason: Asshole. Going to have something unpleasant happen to him, and deserve it.

Jody Tressider: Feminist, but not a troll, because that requires intent. Going to respond in the way that most reinforces her existing worldview, not going to answer my question about what she thinks should happen to the guy.

Me: Just tellin' it like it is.
posted by Mr. Gunn at 4:47 PM on September 11, 2006


Jody, let me apologize. That part of the last post where I mentioned you didn't conform to my usually high standards of thoughtfulness. Sorry about that.
posted by Mr. Gunn at 5:22 PM on September 11, 2006


I meant to say, he did something malicious and cruel, and should expect something malicious and cruel to happen to him, simply because most people on this planet haven't evolved beyond the old "eye for an eye" mentality. There are plenty of better alternatives out there, but it's highly unlikely that all those bad dudes into violent sex are also all buddhists.
posted by Mr. Gunn at 5:40 PM on September 11, 2006


Even if they are buddhists - the guy's got some kind of bad karma headed his way.
posted by bashos_frog at 6:42 PM on September 11, 2006


And with all due respect, fuck today's date. I worked across the street from the towers, and I lived 5 minutes away. I sent my wife and son 11,000 miles away while I stayed and breathed the 'safe' air for 6 months.

And all I can think about today's date is that it marks the anniversary of the beginning of the end of what this country was all about.

You wanna make a holiday out of 9/11, be my guest - but I won't be goosestepping in the parade, thanks.
posted by bashos_frog at 6:49 PM on September 11, 2006


Mr. Gunn/bashos_frog,

And with all due respect back at you guys, I'll respond after September 11.

('Karma' and all that).
posted by Jody Tresidder at 8:13 PM on September 11, 2006


Jody Tresidder writes "Especially with today's date somehow."

What's wrong with September 12?
posted by Bugbread at 9:13 PM on September 11, 2006


Jody Tresidder writes "Especially with today's date somehow."

What's wrong with September 12?

posted by bugbread

Nothing, bugbread. Now that I've got over my PMS (that's a feminist joke Mr. Gunn)

"I meant to say, he did something malicious and cruel, and should expect something malicious and cruel to happen to him, simply because most people on this planet haven't evolved beyond the old "eye for an eye" mentality. There are plenty of better alternatives out there, but it's highly unlikely that all those bad dudes into violent sex are also all buddhists."posted by Mr. Gunn

Pulling biblical cliches out of your back pocket to justify drive-by baiting of a bunch of steamed-up guys is woeful.

And I notice just about the only time 'karma' gets mentioned (bashos_frog) is when it's shorthand for giving a good old macho nudge to the concept of tit for tat.

True, the law seldom offers immediate visceral satisfaction - and maybe it's because I'm a girl that I prefer movies like The Sting to Death Wish.

It seems to me there's only one lesson here - and that it's been around for eons in many forms: don't ever stick your dick on a plate and hand it over to a complete stranger.
posted by Jody Tresidder at 10:01 AM on September 12, 2006


Holy shit, you guys are still talking about this?

Jody, there may be such a thing as too many women's studies classes. I hope you someday realize that men are not your enemy just because we're missing a section of an X chromosome you.
posted by hincandenza at 10:13 AM on September 12, 2006


"Holy shit, you guys are still talking about this? "

Yeah, like you were just passing by on your way to the bait store!

Never taken a "women's studies" class in my life - thankyouverymuch, hincandenza!
posted by Jody Tresidder at 10:35 AM on September 12, 2006


Jody Tresidder writes "Pulling biblical cliches out of your back pocket to justify drive-by baiting of a bunch of steamed-up guys is woeful."

Well, so is interpreting any statement of opinion about how things are as a justification.

Here, watch this:

"I think there's a lot of violence in the world because people are not understanding of cultural and personal differences"

Did I just justify violence?

"Some women are raped by men because those men are seriously disturbed individuals"

Did I just justify rape?

Basically, can one give the cause for anything bad in this world without it being interpreted as justification?

If you don't consider my statements to be justifications, and you think that people can describe the causes for bad things without them being justifications, why is it that "Much of the world still has ancient beliefs about violence" (i.e. "Much of the world hasn't evolved behind the 'eye for an eye' mentality") is justification?
posted by Bugbread at 10:51 AM on September 12, 2006


Yeah, like you were just passing by on your way to the bait store!

Jody, you see that link up top that says "My Comments"? We're always passing by on the way to the bait store. All paths lead to the bait store.
posted by cortex at 10:56 AM on September 12, 2006


"Basically, can one give the cause for anything bad in this world without it being interpreted as justification?"

Seriously, bugbread, do you think I have eyesight problems, or something?

Mr. Gunn wrote: "Jason: Asshole. Going to have something unpleasant happen to him, and deserve it."

THEN, the very same Mr. Gunn wrote about the old eye for an eye thing to explain HOW Jason deserves an unpleasant payback to equalize his unpleasant stunt.

How on earth is that not a justification?
I'm NOT the one interpreting here at all. (Heck - my cup overfloweth with examples.)

...We're always passing by on the way to the bait store. All paths lead to the bait store.
posted by cortex


Cortex: thanks for assisting me to see my own quip.
posted by Jody Tresidder at 11:31 AM on September 12, 2006


Let me put it more explicitly. Your quip can be interpreted in two distinct ways, neither of which works. Vet these paraphrases and let me know if you disagree:

1. I, Jody, have been no more obsessive about this thread than you have, hincandenza; hence, your comment about our continuing discussion is disingenous.

2. Surely, to have seen that this thread continues onward, you, hincandenza, must have gone out of your way to load it; therefore, your mockery of the continued discussion is disingenous.

Why do they fail?

1. You have been a—arguably the—central figure in this ongoing thread for several days. Your constant return is presupposed. Whereas hincandenza had not commented for four solid days in the thread before making his comment. He has, clearly, not been hounding it; the contrast between his involvement and yours is starkly obvious.

2. My Comments exists, which makes it very, very simple to casually track threads. There is no effort required, and so any implication that a days-later followup requires any obsession with a thread is deserving of ridicule.

Honestly, my presumption that you did not know about My Comments was the generous interpretation—at least that would be a simple mistake in apprehending the site interface. If your jab at hincandenza was actually based on an attempt at a parity comparision between his level of activity in or obession with this thread in the last halfweek and yours, we move beyond simple mistake to a blinding, stunning failure in self-perception.

Which is a rather long-winded and hyperanalytical way to go about saying that, frankly, your quip was weaksauce.
posted by cortex at 12:02 PM on September 12, 2006


As for the substance of the argument:

THEN, the very same Mr. Gunn wrote about the old eye for an eye thing to explain HOW Jason deserves an unpleasant payback to equalize his unpleasant stunt.

Actually, the very same Mr. Gunn wrote about how there exists the perception of eye-for-an-eye as an ethical POV, which explains why something bad might happen to Jason. He was not excusing it, he was making a reasonable obseravation about how some folks do in fact react to perceived harm. He even says:

There are plenty of better alternatives out there...

Which makes it pretty clear he doesn't consider a violent backlash to be an ideal thing. That this longer and more balanced comment followed the snarkier summary suggests he actually wanted to clarify and better state his take on it.
posted by cortex at 12:13 PM on September 12, 2006


A commentor at Slasdot: I know this guy personally, yes he's real.
posted by ericb at 2:40 PM on September 12, 2006


And a former friend posts about him.
posted by ericb at 2:41 PM on September 12, 2006


He's in trouble:
"First, it can be argued that the e-mail exchange had an expectation of privacy. This is akin to inviting a house guest over and using a hidden camera on them while they take a shower. The expectation of the e-mail sender is that the e-mail was being sent to who they said they were and that the contents would remain private.

Second, this would make him responsible for any and all damages to the individual. This includes loss of job and any emotional distress caused to marriages, relationships, friendships, and other social consequences the publication of the e-mails would cause.

Finally, he had no right to publish the images. Not only are the images not his property, but the e-mailer should be given that expectation of privacy. But the biggest issue he could fall into is the fact that posting nude images online without proper 2257 documentation is illegal. You can't post nude images online in the US without proof that the individual is 18 years of age or older. A single offense could be a fine of $25,000 and up to 5 years in jail."
IANAL, but to those who are do these points have merit?
posted by ericb at 2:46 PM on September 12, 2006


Oops -- link for above quotation.
posted by ericb at 2:46 PM on September 12, 2006


Cortex,
What on earth are you on about?

"Actually, the very same Mr. Gunn wrote about how there exists the perception of eye-for-an-eye as an ethical POV, which explains why something bad might happen to Jason. He was not excusing it..."

"Not excusing it"?
When Mr. Gunn also wrote: "Jason: Asshole. Going to have something unpleasant happen to him, and deserve it."

Certainly, he went on to clarify and amplify his statement. Nowhere, however, was that central point - "deserve it" - retracted as Mr.Gunn's personal response to "Asshole" Jason's action, and the adjusted snark-quotient was nothing to do with the argument itself anyway!

And I just don't get all the other somewhat pompous stuff. You sound like a dime-an-hour lawyer, what with "my presumption that you did not" and "parity comparison" and "is deserving of ridicule".

I don't mind "long-winded", cortex (logorrhea can be my weakness). But what's with all the deadly dissection of a light, edgy quip about going to the bait store?

Hincandenza said his various pieces (his explanation of "guy world", my "Jesus McBuddha" traits, my allegedly sadistic tastes - haha!), then pops back and pulls my pony tail about "women's studies" and men as the enemy and I tweak him back - with a nod to his jokey "amazement" that we're still talking (about something he had pretty firm opinions on himself since he said creepy Jason needed a good ass kicking etc) by implying I jokily believed he was on his way to something more manly - the bait store - which was itself a nod to the sex baiting topic - and happily - also to the whole point of making firm comments to other people here on Metafilter!

And you get snippy on his behalf!
posted by Jody Tresidder at 3:20 PM on September 12, 2006


Certainly, he went on to clarify and amplify his statement.

Precisely. Your willingness to fixate on the pithy first attempt instead of the later clarification makes your arguments seem self-absorbed and fruitless—"oh, well, yes, I see what he said there, but look what he said here! This! See?" You want not to see compromise in Gunn's later comments, is how it looks.

And yet you're taken aback by a dissection of your own attempt at pithiness.

That you've been stirring it up with hincandenza doesn't make your jokey comment any more functional. That was my entire point, there—you attempting to make a joke does not equate to you successfully making a joke. He dinged you, you tried to ding him back, I dinged your ding, you tried to ding my ding, I got loquacious.

Plus, I was on lunch and feeling chatty.

I don't truck one way or the other with whatever hincandenza's arguments have been, and if you want to take a look through the thread, you can note the distinct lack on my part of (a) cheap jabs at feminism or (b) approving remarks re: violent retribution. I'm not defending hincandenza's position, I'm complaining about your weak-ass zing. Being as how you've pretty much pitched a tent in this thread, you ought to expect strangers to come squat by the campfire now and then.
posted by cortex at 3:36 PM on September 12, 2006


And please don't take this too personally—I know I'm being curmudgeonly, and it's all a bit silly at this point, and I don't usually do this sort of thing, but my ability to work on fun, creative metafilterian things is pretty limited while at work and there hasn't been any good traffic on metatalk today and OH GOD I'M SO LONELY &c.

Just maybe recognize that, regarding obsessive close readings of select comments, you're standing in the living room of a great big glass chateau, hefting a rock. You'd be well-served to take a more charitable view of your interlocutors if you're trying to actually find some understanding. If you just want an argument without end, hell, as you were.

posted by cortex at 3:46 PM on September 12, 2006


This week on Metafilter: Cortex teaches French to pig; wastes time and annoys pig.

Of course, I'm just casually following the last 10 or so comments every day or so, so what do I know?
posted by klangklangston at 4:33 PM on September 12, 2006



Klangklangston?

Je referai volontiers connaissance quand vous serez à jeun.
posted by Jody Tresidder at 4:41 PM on September 12, 2006


Someone is driving the snarky bus around here.
posted by Holy foxy moxie batman! at 5:21 PM on September 12, 2006


Jody Tresidder writes "Mr. Gunn wrote about the old eye for an eye thing to explain HOW Jason deserves an unpleasant payback to equalize his unpleasant stunt.

"How on earth is that not a justification?"


On this earth, it isn't a justification because he wrote that the world has not gotten past the 'eye for an eye' thing, which is very strongly implying that 'eye for an eye' is not an optimal situation, but something to get past, something incorrect.

Now, don't get me wrong, Mr. Gunn has been pretty clear in stating that he thinks the violence is justified. To be honest, I don't care if he really believes Jason deserves it, and his later statements are backpedalling, or if he didn't really believe it, and his first comment was joking, or if he vacillates from day to day. But when he says, effectively "Jason will get beat up because many people follow primitive, antisocial teachings", I don't count that specific example as justification.
posted by Bugbread at 8:16 PM on September 12, 2006


Executive Summary: Person X may think action Y is justified. And he may provide reasons why action Y will happen. However, this does not automatically make all reasons that are provided into justifications.
posted by Bugbread at 8:21 PM on September 12, 2006


Women get their schadenfreude on just as eagerly as men. I'm living proof.
posted by ryokoblue at 11:17 PM on September 12, 2006 [1 favorite]


Dan Savage weighs in: Fortuny Sucks (and so do a lot of other "clenched-butt fuckwits," a phrase that I intend to employ with regularity).
posted by scody at 4:07 PM on September 20, 2006


« Older What Are They Thinking?   |   Bill Clinton foils plot for Disney to make Mickey... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments