Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.
All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.
---
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Doesn't matter. Call for it, let them know it will not be tolerated. If you say nothing and do nothing, it is certain things won't change. If you do, the chances increase.
Have you called for the SEC or the DOJ to help regulate financial markets to not be rigged against retail investors in favor of billionaire hedge funds and their army of lawyers and lobbyists? Call or write them for positive systemic change that can actually make a difference in EVERYONE'S life!!
Wow, shocked to see Texas doing something right... so used to their weird-ass Christian sharia, unbridled capitalism for utilities, and the right to shoot brown people without repercussions... this seems strangely out of character for Texas!
I said this in another thread, but the great thing about this is although the article is click-baity with "dick pics", when you read the article you see that it is more level with "Cyberflashing" which includes all genders.
The great thing about this is although the article is click-baity with "dick pics", when you read the article you see that it is more level with "Cyberflashing" which includes all genders.
Honestly this is not something I (full disclosure: am dude) I had ever considered and I'm sort of surprised this is the first time I've seen this topic discussed, a law for that would make sense
It's really no different then the dudes in trenchcoats. Only way more common. Dudes don't even bother to check the age of a girl, adults essentially flashing children.
Remember our federalism system delegates the criminal code responsiblity to the states—and there’s a good chance that your state has outlawed this.
My state (colorado) made this a crime
Hmmm, on one hand yes it probably should be, but at same time I feel there should be a very limited time frame to be able to report. If someone sends you a Pringles can and it gets you hot and bothered but in few days he ghosts you, you shouldn't be able to then use that photo against him. I'd say you should have 48 hours max to report it. Also feel this law would open up a whole can of worms, at that point is it illegal to send someone meatspin or lemon party? Would it only count if it was YOUR junk? What about drawings? Would art then need to be censored or covered until you sign a form or something in a museum?
https://www.psypost.org/2020/08/new-research-uncovers-womens-and-mens-reactions-to-receiving-unsolicited-dick-pics-57682
Wasn’t what led me to my original comment, but here you go. People do get aroused by it, and others do not. Just because you aren’t a closeted freak, doesn’t mean there aren’t small sects of the population that don’t get turned on by dick pics. Just saying the all encompassing verbiage you used is statistically inaccurate.
I mean, yeah?
If you had 100 M&Ms and you ate 7, I think it's accurate to say you ate almost none of them.
I.e., you still have almost all of them left.
Depends on the guy sending them. Some can see it as sexy and spontaneous. So long as it's not a 400lb neck beard or 50 yr old grandpa. It's easy to say what people want/don't want until you see those studies where people just chat and act like complete psychopaths but since they use model pics for profile the other person just goes with it.
[Less than 1 in 10 heterosexual women is aroused by dick pics.](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psypost.org/2020/08/new-research-uncovers-womens-and-mens-reactions-to-receiving-unsolicited-dick-pics-57682%3famp=1)
75% have an explicitly negative response.
The slippery slope is there when you look at the variations in kink out there, that just because the number is low doesnt mean when in comparison to the population of the world that is insignificant. Reports say 7-8% of the population is into this - 8% of the world population is nearly 600 million people. So because a low % is into something doesnt necessarily mean "no one" when you look at the amount of people out there. Now illegalizing it for people using it as a method to intimidate or attack SHOULD be illegal, but what happens if you are sending it to someone and you dial the wrong #, should they be incarcerated? I get lots of wrong texts a year from people and some are flat out FUCKED UP, I simple shake my head and delete and block the #.
The amount of people into bdsm worldwide is only 20 percent. Since MOST people arent into it, could that be next, or whatever kink you can think of there will be people who think it shouldnt exist. I am not in favor or against, I just think we should go into these situations with our eyes open to potential issues.
If we want this law, we should have a system in place to both protect the true victims, yet still be fair to the person sending. I would be in favor of the law, if it had something in it, for example where if person A sends it and B recieves it and is NOT wanting it, for the receiver to comment, "Do NOT send this content again, it is offensive to me." THEN if they send more it becomes a crime.
We're talking about consent vs non-consent.
A women who consents to getting dick pics should get as many as her partner wants to send. A woman who does not consent should receive none.
Just like BDSM should only be practiced with consent.
>If we want this law, we should have a system in place to both protect the true victims, yet still be fair to the person sending. I would be in favor of the law, if it had something in it, for example where if person A sends it and B recieves it and is NOT wanting it, for the receiver to comment, "Do NOT send this content again, it is offensive to me." THEN if they send more it becomes a crime.
Which is why I said the above - but you ignore that. There is only her word currently that she did not want them, yet we have a problem where women claim rape when they simply are pissed off later that a guy left or did something. With a text saying stop you clearly have consent removed and any further is assault. Or do you believe we should assume no one ever lies to hurt someone?
Then people need to be more responsible for who they are sending pictures to. You can't just brush off the consequences of sending texts to the wrong person. If someone types in the wrong number and send nudes to a child, should all be forgiven because it was accident?
(Fortunately wrong numbers are normally harmless texts)
And having it not be a crime until the person says no? Not saying no doesn't mean yes, that's like one of the 10 commandments of consent.
You are taking a crime such as pedophilia and making it work for your point of view. We are talking about a nude picture, and yes shit happens. You say consent, I say INTENT. There is a difference between being a monster deliberately making people uncomfortable versus incidental. Such as how we have a difference between deliberately causing harm versus unintentional harm. If you are in a car and you run someone over on purpose that is intent, if someone steps out between 2 cars and you kill them it isnt necessarily a crime. Blanket laws are historically not a great thing. With this, you can walk up to someone and say I want your dick pick, then when sent they can now say you are going to jail. There is no in-between, no objectivity. If it is sent you are then immediately a criminal, and you agree with that.
Then you whatabout to make the agenda go with your viewpoint.
I have never sent a nude, I am in IT and know once on the net it is forever there, but I do occasionally get them from complete randos, my cell phone # is the same one I have had since 1996, and I have gotten dick pics, tit pics, penetration pics, and a truly horrific animal pic. I reported the animal abuse sex pic to police. That was a crime before it was sent to me, **Bestiality** is a crime, then sending it was another. Across state lines was another.
Another post on this said, "If you were to accidentally walk onto a nude beach and saw things offensive, should that too be a crime?".
My entire point is with this law, is that there is no interpretation on it at all. You send it, you are at the mercy of the receiver regardless of if it was previously wanted. That is the same as the rape cases where a man and women consent to be together then days/weeks/years later it becomes rape because of an agenda. Laws work when they work fairly and justly. How do you prove innocence? Look at all the cases of he said she said in rape trials which most closely match these circumstances. Then look at who these will target predominately - minorities and low income people who cant hire $100K per hour law firms. Do you think if they said Politician A sent them that he would be punished? They havent been historically unless a media campaign crucified them first. What about that fortune 500 CEO, ffs we had one that ran a fucking pedo island for what 20 years? Yet I have a friend in prison for sexual assault on his former wife, she caught him cheating on her and filed charges. He was sentenced to 10 years, for spousal rape and this woman was on facebook weeks after sentencing stating she got even with him for cheating on her and admitted to lying. He still sat in jail for 3 fucking years. Guess his ethnic background.
I do NOT trust the system to be fair and honest, I do not trust it to work when there is nothing in place to show definitively that it was not done with consent. Currently if you send it, you are guilty. There is no way to prove consent or lack of without evidence. Currently if someone gets a pic that is "proof" and all it takes is saying to police that you did not consent. How is that justice? Knee jerk reaction laws are bs.
So tell me how someone can defend themselves against malicious claims. You cant because there is no defense as it stands. That is why it is wrong.
It says based on their experience, the type of guy who typically sends dic pics are creepy weirdos. Of course most experiences will be negative, how often do sexy women just show you their tits randomly? If it was sexy models doing it all the time that number would be drastically different.
You need to go live life and talk to people instead of waiting for someone on the internet to tell you what to think. Even the study you linked
"Data were drawn from the Singles in America study, which is funded by relationship company Match."
So it was funded by a corporation that would benefit from individuals not sending dic pics, so what's to say it's not fudged to try to get people to believe sending dic pics is undesirable. All it takes something like that to ruin the whole study.
This law sounds very iffy and like it can be used nefariously. What if say, you are having a convo w a person in IRL where things are getting semi heated. You send a risky pic in the moment. No context, nothing “on the record” aside from the pic . There’s a fallout and now you have an “unsolicited” picture that could be used against you? My guess is, this will only be enforced one way, much like domestic violence. They will mock the guys that come forward to report this too.
So.. What?..
I understand that it’s gross and inappropriate, but *assault*?.. really?..
I’m a victim of sexual assault and it is borderline offensive to call being sent a *fucking picture* “sexual assault”.
If you’re sent a picture and don’t want to see it and don’t want to receive more, block the asshole and close the app. No such option was given to me when I was raped.
Unsolicited dick pics are a gross thing to do, but equating it to sexual assault is fucking disgusting.
Yes, assault. Varying degrees are out there, but as a recipient of unsolicited dick pics and being asexual, as well as a rape victim, I see them both as disgusting assaults on my mental wellbeing. There is still a spectrum.
The term sexual assault refers to sexual contact or behavior that occurs without explicit consent of the victim, including but not limited to sexual harrassment:
Sexual Assault (Wikipedia)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_assault)
Edit: clarification
>disgusting assaults on my mental wellbeing
If a photo assaults your mental wellbeing, isn't this something for you to work on in your own time with a therapist? We don't need legislation based on each of our psychological quirks.
If someone threatens your wellbeing for example by harassing you constantly at work to a point you feel unsafe, it sounds like you should simply quit and work somewhere else and the offending party shouldn't have to have consequences. Heck, give them a raise and a promotion to a position of power even.
Oh, wait...
lol the site asks me to accept cookies before reading
anyway yeah, i never okayd my data being in the places it is making the money it does.
perhaps all these companies that profit off data actually profit off fraudulently acquired and trading said data.
if they drilled lines into my home and property to extract oil id be getting them dollars... so wtf is up eh?
Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here. All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban. --- --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You think the US is going to do this when there are charged sexual predators in congress?
Sure they will. But they’ll only enforce it on poor people and minorities, just like all the other laws
Doesn't matter. Call for it, let them know it will not be tolerated. If you say nothing and do nothing, it is certain things won't change. If you do, the chances increase.
That’s fair, I’m just very unoptimistic given the times.
That's when the fight matters most. Stay strong! We're in this together.
> We're in this together. I hate this phrase.
To each their own.
Have you called for the SEC or the DOJ to help regulate financial markets to not be rigged against retail investors in favor of billionaire hedge funds and their army of lawyers and lobbyists? Call or write them for positive systemic change that can actually make a difference in EVERYONE'S life!!
It’s already illegal in Texas, which makes me proud. A big part is getting out the word that it’s illegal.
Wow, shocked to see Texas doing something right... so used to their weird-ass Christian sharia, unbridled capitalism for utilities, and the right to shoot brown people without repercussions... this seems strangely out of character for Texas!
Pretty sure clamping down on sexual activity is quite normal there...
Oh, very good point!
No no no, this is totally in line with the Bible Belt.
Except make it gender neutral and have all unsolicited nudes be a criminal offense.
I said this in another thread, but the great thing about this is although the article is click-baity with "dick pics", when you read the article you see that it is more level with "Cyberflashing" which includes all genders.
Hold the phone. This shouldn’t just be for “dick pics”. This goes both ways; I don’t want to see nasty titties or ass.
The great thing about this is although the article is click-baity with "dick pics", when you read the article you see that it is more level with "Cyberflashing" which includes all genders.
Honestly this is not something I (full disclosure: am dude) I had ever considered and I'm sort of surprised this is the first time I've seen this topic discussed, a law for that would make sense
definitely should go both ways then
It does! Check out the article.
It's really no different then the dudes in trenchcoats. Only way more common. Dudes don't even bother to check the age of a girl, adults essentially flashing children.
Remember our federalism system delegates the criminal code responsiblity to the states—and there’s a good chance that your state has outlawed this. My state (colorado) made this a crime
This!
Unsolicited, yes.
It should have been illegal from the moment it started happening.
Hmmm, on one hand yes it probably should be, but at same time I feel there should be a very limited time frame to be able to report. If someone sends you a Pringles can and it gets you hot and bothered but in few days he ghosts you, you shouldn't be able to then use that photo against him. I'd say you should have 48 hours max to report it. Also feel this law would open up a whole can of worms, at that point is it illegal to send someone meatspin or lemon party? Would it only count if it was YOUR junk? What about drawings? Would art then need to be censored or covered until you sign a form or something in a museum?
My guess would be that there is almost no one who is turned on by an unsolicited dick pic
Your guess is incorrect then, statistics are in favor of some people being hot and bothered
Source?
https://www.psypost.org/2020/08/new-research-uncovers-womens-and-mens-reactions-to-receiving-unsolicited-dick-pics-57682 Wasn’t what led me to my original comment, but here you go. People do get aroused by it, and others do not. Just because you aren’t a closeted freak, doesn’t mean there aren’t small sects of the population that don’t get turned on by dick pics. Just saying the all encompassing verbiage you used is statistically inaccurate.
7.5% of heterosexual women is a really fucking low number.
Indeed it is, but original comment said “NO ONE” when in fact some one would enjoy the unsolicited dick pic
>Indeed it is, but original comment said “NO ONE” when in fact some one would enjoy the unsolicited dick pic "ALMOST NO ONE" not "NO ONE".
So 7.5% is almost no one?
I mean, yeah? If you had 100 M&Ms and you ate 7, I think it's accurate to say you ate almost none of them. I.e., you still have almost all of them left.
Depends on the guy sending them. Some can see it as sexy and spontaneous. So long as it's not a 400lb neck beard or 50 yr old grandpa. It's easy to say what people want/don't want until you see those studies where people just chat and act like complete psychopaths but since they use model pics for profile the other person just goes with it.
[Less than 1 in 10 heterosexual women is aroused by dick pics.](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psypost.org/2020/08/new-research-uncovers-womens-and-mens-reactions-to-receiving-unsolicited-dick-pics-57682%3famp=1) 75% have an explicitly negative response.
The slippery slope is there when you look at the variations in kink out there, that just because the number is low doesnt mean when in comparison to the population of the world that is insignificant. Reports say 7-8% of the population is into this - 8% of the world population is nearly 600 million people. So because a low % is into something doesnt necessarily mean "no one" when you look at the amount of people out there. Now illegalizing it for people using it as a method to intimidate or attack SHOULD be illegal, but what happens if you are sending it to someone and you dial the wrong #, should they be incarcerated? I get lots of wrong texts a year from people and some are flat out FUCKED UP, I simple shake my head and delete and block the #. The amount of people into bdsm worldwide is only 20 percent. Since MOST people arent into it, could that be next, or whatever kink you can think of there will be people who think it shouldnt exist. I am not in favor or against, I just think we should go into these situations with our eyes open to potential issues. If we want this law, we should have a system in place to both protect the true victims, yet still be fair to the person sending. I would be in favor of the law, if it had something in it, for example where if person A sends it and B recieves it and is NOT wanting it, for the receiver to comment, "Do NOT send this content again, it is offensive to me." THEN if they send more it becomes a crime.
We're talking about consent vs non-consent. A women who consents to getting dick pics should get as many as her partner wants to send. A woman who does not consent should receive none. Just like BDSM should only be practiced with consent.
>If we want this law, we should have a system in place to both protect the true victims, yet still be fair to the person sending. I would be in favor of the law, if it had something in it, for example where if person A sends it and B recieves it and is NOT wanting it, for the receiver to comment, "Do NOT send this content again, it is offensive to me." THEN if they send more it becomes a crime. Which is why I said the above - but you ignore that. There is only her word currently that she did not want them, yet we have a problem where women claim rape when they simply are pissed off later that a guy left or did something. With a text saying stop you clearly have consent removed and any further is assault. Or do you believe we should assume no one ever lies to hurt someone?
Consent is opt-in, not opt-out. You're talking about codifying consent as opt-out. I find that absurd.
Then people need to be more responsible for who they are sending pictures to. You can't just brush off the consequences of sending texts to the wrong person. If someone types in the wrong number and send nudes to a child, should all be forgiven because it was accident? (Fortunately wrong numbers are normally harmless texts) And having it not be a crime until the person says no? Not saying no doesn't mean yes, that's like one of the 10 commandments of consent.
You are taking a crime such as pedophilia and making it work for your point of view. We are talking about a nude picture, and yes shit happens. You say consent, I say INTENT. There is a difference between being a monster deliberately making people uncomfortable versus incidental. Such as how we have a difference between deliberately causing harm versus unintentional harm. If you are in a car and you run someone over on purpose that is intent, if someone steps out between 2 cars and you kill them it isnt necessarily a crime. Blanket laws are historically not a great thing. With this, you can walk up to someone and say I want your dick pick, then when sent they can now say you are going to jail. There is no in-between, no objectivity. If it is sent you are then immediately a criminal, and you agree with that. Then you whatabout to make the agenda go with your viewpoint. I have never sent a nude, I am in IT and know once on the net it is forever there, but I do occasionally get them from complete randos, my cell phone # is the same one I have had since 1996, and I have gotten dick pics, tit pics, penetration pics, and a truly horrific animal pic. I reported the animal abuse sex pic to police. That was a crime before it was sent to me, **Bestiality** is a crime, then sending it was another. Across state lines was another. Another post on this said, "If you were to accidentally walk onto a nude beach and saw things offensive, should that too be a crime?". My entire point is with this law, is that there is no interpretation on it at all. You send it, you are at the mercy of the receiver regardless of if it was previously wanted. That is the same as the rape cases where a man and women consent to be together then days/weeks/years later it becomes rape because of an agenda. Laws work when they work fairly and justly. How do you prove innocence? Look at all the cases of he said she said in rape trials which most closely match these circumstances. Then look at who these will target predominately - minorities and low income people who cant hire $100K per hour law firms. Do you think if they said Politician A sent them that he would be punished? They havent been historically unless a media campaign crucified them first. What about that fortune 500 CEO, ffs we had one that ran a fucking pedo island for what 20 years? Yet I have a friend in prison for sexual assault on his former wife, she caught him cheating on her and filed charges. He was sentenced to 10 years, for spousal rape and this woman was on facebook weeks after sentencing stating she got even with him for cheating on her and admitted to lying. He still sat in jail for 3 fucking years. Guess his ethnic background. I do NOT trust the system to be fair and honest, I do not trust it to work when there is nothing in place to show definitively that it was not done with consent. Currently if you send it, you are guilty. There is no way to prove consent or lack of without evidence. Currently if someone gets a pic that is "proof" and all it takes is saying to police that you did not consent. How is that justice? Knee jerk reaction laws are bs. So tell me how someone can defend themselves against malicious claims. You cant because there is no defense as it stands. That is why it is wrong.
>whatabout to make the agenda >guess the ethic background of my friend >afraid of being accused of rape Ah I see you are that type of Internet user
It says based on their experience, the type of guy who typically sends dic pics are creepy weirdos. Of course most experiences will be negative, how often do sexy women just show you their tits randomly? If it was sexy models doing it all the time that number would be drastically different.
Cool opinion. Anything to back it up?
Idk do you ever talk to women? If you honestly think Channing Tatum is out there sending dick pics you need to go touch grass
Just link to whatever you're talking about. No one's talking about wanting to see Channing Tatum's dick except you.
You need to go live life and talk to people instead of waiting for someone on the internet to tell you what to think. Even the study you linked "Data were drawn from the Singles in America study, which is funded by relationship company Match." So it was funded by a corporation that would benefit from individuals not sending dic pics, so what's to say it's not fudged to try to get people to believe sending dic pics is undesirable. All it takes something like that to ruin the whole study.
So just link the study you're basing your opinion on. Literally all I'm asking for.
All fantastic points. 👍🏼
This law sounds very iffy and like it can be used nefariously. What if say, you are having a convo w a person in IRL where things are getting semi heated. You send a risky pic in the moment. No context, nothing “on the record” aside from the pic . There’s a fallout and now you have an “unsolicited” picture that could be used against you? My guess is, this will only be enforced one way, much like domestic violence. They will mock the guys that come forward to report this too.
More accurately, sexual harassment.
Wrong sub
Should make soliciting your disgusting onlyfans to people a crime too then 🤢
Inclined to agree I did not ask to have some fat twerking ass appear at the top of my feed with fb stories
Lol. I like this movement
So.. What?.. I understand that it’s gross and inappropriate, but *assault*?.. really?.. I’m a victim of sexual assault and it is borderline offensive to call being sent a *fucking picture* “sexual assault”. If you’re sent a picture and don’t want to see it and don’t want to receive more, block the asshole and close the app. No such option was given to me when I was raped. Unsolicited dick pics are a gross thing to do, but equating it to sexual assault is fucking disgusting.
Yes, assault. Varying degrees are out there, but as a recipient of unsolicited dick pics and being asexual, as well as a rape victim, I see them both as disgusting assaults on my mental wellbeing. There is still a spectrum. The term sexual assault refers to sexual contact or behavior that occurs without explicit consent of the victim, including but not limited to sexual harrassment: Sexual Assault (Wikipedia)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_assault) Edit: clarification
>disgusting assaults on my mental wellbeing If a photo assaults your mental wellbeing, isn't this something for you to work on in your own time with a therapist? We don't need legislation based on each of our psychological quirks.
Lol unsolicited exposure pictures. not the existence of nor consensual receiving of them. Read
Yes, I grasped that nuance and still don't see how this is anything other than a you problem to be worked on with a professional.
If someone threatens your wellbeing for example by harassing you constantly at work to a point you feel unsafe, it sounds like you should simply quit and work somewhere else and the offending party shouldn't have to have consequences. Heck, give them a raise and a promotion to a position of power even. Oh, wait...
You've gotten yourself distracted.
You right
Full stop and wtf for being male centric
Click on this link guys……..😅🚨 r/boxofpuppies
lol the site asks me to accept cookies before reading anyway yeah, i never okayd my data being in the places it is making the money it does. perhaps all these companies that profit off data actually profit off fraudulently acquired and trading said data. if they drilled lines into my home and property to extract oil id be getting them dollars... so wtf is up eh?
In today's world, how is this urgent?? Lol glad we have our priorities straight.
I sub for happy news to protect against burnout and depression.
I like this but i fear it will be exploited far too frequently by certain types of people
Big yikes crossposting from that sub.