Girls how would you feel if a guy showed your nude pic to a friend

>implying I'm stupid enough to send nudes

Once a cute girl added me so I googled viking dick and sent it too her.

I was told she was a slut, but I'm typical quiet nice guy so it really freaked her out

>>18117240

> would you like the thought of someone liking you that much?

in what world does wanking off to amateur porn equate with 'someone liking you that much' ?

its not like its the first time you've jerked off to porn or even amateur nudes.

>>18117255
In the world of heterosexual men, deal with it.

>>18117261
They were pointing out that wanking to you =/= 'liking you that much'

>>18117261

>deal with it

no.

>in the world of heterosexual men, you should feel complimented that someone who jerks off 3 times a day to anything from pictures of animated little girls, to random nudes on the internet chose to jerk off to you once.

no.

>>18117240
It entirely depends on whether I gave the guy permission to share the pic with anybody else. If I were to give somebody a nude pic, I'd tell them it was under confidence before sending it, and then if he shared it with anybody without my permission, the real issue I'd have would be the breach of trust. But if I let somebody see my nudes with my consent, then whether or not they fap to that becomes their own business.

>>18117277
I agree that sharing nudes without permission is a scummy thing to do, but also so common that you've pretty much given "permission" for your image to be shared as soon as you decided to take the photo and send it to someone.

>>18117283
And attitudes like this is why you shouldn't send nudes, ladies.

>>18117289
Fuck off, dyke.

>>18117289
I'm just telling it like it is. I pretty much agree with you

>>18117283
That feels an awful lot like saying a girl "permits" somebody to rape her because she dresses loosely in a bad neighborhood at night. Or like a guy "basically" permits his girl to cheat on him by letting her go out to a club alone. Or like I permit somebody to straight up steal my ming vase because I let them borrow it.

Whenever you trust anybody with anything, then them betraying your trust is admittedly a foreseeable consequence to your action of trusting them. But allowing yourself to be responsible and prepared for that possible consequence isn't the same as saying you permitted it to happen. If someone betrays your trust then that douchebaggery is still entirely on them.

This post got deleted as I was typing it, so I had to retype it, and it might not have turned out as good the second time around.

>>18117240
it would probably make the girl hate her self for trusting that person, thats why women are crazy now, they dont trust men.

>>18117326
>That feels an awful lot like saying a girl "permits" somebody to rape her because she dresses loosely in a bad neighborhood at night.
you can't rape a photograph femanon

>>18117391

>like

>>18117391
You can't rape a vase either. I used multiple examples to try to get across the concept commonly known as victim blaming.

>>18117390
Well they shouldn't be retarded enough to send nudes to guys.

>>18117409

duly noted. we'll be sure to never send nudes since doing you that favor of course means we have to be okay with the world seeing it.

its our fault for trusting you not to share.

>>18117409

duly noted. we'll be sure to never send nudes since doing you that favor of course means we have to be okay with the world seeing it.

its our fault for trusting you not to share.

>>18117394
>>18117407
Its a total false equivalency though, the severity of your comparisons are nothing near to what rape is. The doublethink here is fucking incredible.

>>18117416

>its a total false equivalency

thats why its used as an example anon. because you're too dumb to understand why this one thing is bad we use an EXAMPLE of somethign severe to show you the correlation, both showing a blatant violation

>>18117416
It's just communicating the very basic concept of crime by using examples of various degrees. You can just ignore the more severe one instead of autistically latching onto it and trying to change the subject by saying they aren't properly comparable and missing that they share a fundamental principle.

>>18117419
>>18117427
Using something less severe to describe a horrible thing is fucking stupid and defeats the point you're trying to make. I hate this shitty modern campus mentality of "EVERYTHING IS RAPE" now, because it waters down the severity and brutal reality of what actual rape is.
As a guy who HAS been sexually assaulted, I can't stand all you cunts online and in real life belittling men on their perception of rape, thinking you know more about it than I do just because you have a vagina. Its absolutely disgusting.

>>18117407
Offering advice to avoid being victimized is not "victim blaming." Victim blaming is when you offer the advice to someone who has ALREADY been victimized, when it's too late to be helpful, and you're just rubbing the victim's nose in it.

Sharing nudes is a bad idea because it creates a permanent record of an impulsive moment, that is so easy to share that people even do so by ACCIDENT all the time. And then it could come back to bite you in the ass, causing trouble in relationships & careers, at any time in the future.

I don't think it's a bad thing to make people aware of the potential consequences of their actions. A girl who has her nudes plastered all over the Internet against her will does not deserve to have that happen. It would be cruel and unhelpful to pull her aside and remind her of all the ways she could've avoided it. But other girls can, and should, learn from her mistake. It would be cruel and unhelpful to those girls to tell them they should do whatever the hell they want with their bodies & their nude photos, and nothing bad will happen. See the difference?

>>18117433
okay

>>18117433
>Using something less severe to describe a horrible thing is fucking stupid and defeats the point you're trying to make.
That's literally the opposite of what he was doing. He was using a horrible thing to describe the less severe thing. He's not equating sharing someone's nudes with rape, he's drawing a (rough) analogy between them.

>I hate this shitty modern campus mentality of "EVERYTHING IS RAPE" now, because it waters down the severity and brutal reality of what actual rape is.
Yeah, no, HE'S NOT DISPLAYING THAT MENTALITY. You are hallucinating something that is not there.

>>18117433
I was only making a point about the concept of trust. Sorry you can't handle being triggered and have to assume a conversation is suddenly about belittling your perception as a man even though literally nobody even brought that up. Nobody claimed men can't get raped, you did those mental gymnastics all on your own.

>>18117436
>Victim blaming is when you offer the advice to someone who has ALREADY been victimized, when it's too late to be helpful, and you're just rubbing the victim's nose in it.


>so common that you've pretty much given "permission" for your image to be shared as soon as you decided to take the photo and send it to someone

The post in question is speaking in the past tense, both applying to people this may happen to in the future and speaking down to those it has happened to in the past.

I'm just going to repost what I said before:
>Whenever you trust anybody with anything, then them betraying your trust is admittedly a foreseeable consequence to your action of trusting them. But allowing yourself to be responsible and prepared for that possible consequence isn't the same as saying you permitted it to happen. If someone betrays your trust then that douchebaggery is still entirely on them.

So, yes, a person sharing their nudes should be aware of and prepared for the possible consequence that they may be shared. But I stand by that the person sharing them against the original person's consent is ultimately the party at fault.

>>18117413
This.

Unless a girl is a camwhore that actually wants to share her stuff you should never ever assume it is okay with others seeing it.
I would freak out if an ex shared pics of me like that.
Just because you kept them private, doesn't mean your friend isn't gonna post it online where someone else she knows can find it.
That's a huge violation of her trust in you.
Regardless of how the relationship turned out, nobody deserves to feel that vulnerable and exposed to someone they would never have exposed themselves to.

>>18117478
>But I stand by that the person sharing them against the original person's consent is ultimately the party at fault.
Well, no shit, I agree, but that isn't exactly helpful to hear if you're bombing every job interview because photos of your naked body pop up on a basic Google search of your name. "Well, at least it's not my fault, even though I seem to be suffering all of the consequences while he suffers none!"

I think it's a pretty good idea to make everyone aware of the long-term risks of trusting a stranger or casual partner with a photograph that could ruin your life for years. Some people, especially younger ones, really AREN'T aware of just how seriously that could damage their future

>>18117413
>>18117486
Nobodies saying they're at fault, but sending nude pictures is risk-taking, and stupid from my perspective.

>>18117489
Yes, but how a girl should handle having her nudes posted all over the internet wasn't the subject of OP's post. The situation presented there was of a guy (presumably OP) sharing a nude of a girl privately to just one friend, and the friend wanking to it.

>>18117504
Same concept on a smaller scale, no?

The guy who broke her trust is an asshole. The girl who trusted him with the nudes is a chump. He clearly wasn't trustworthy, and the worst-case scenario of the nudes getting shown around far outweighs the best-case scenario that... the guy she sent the nudes will enjoy the nudes.

Morally speaking, it's far worse to be an asshole than a chump. We can agree on that much. But the chumps tend to suffer a lot more, it's not terribly desirable to be a chump either and there ARE more than two options.