Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
 ?
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How would they work out who ‘knobbinghood12345’ actually is?" This is not that “hard”. Firstly reverse image trace, there’s likely to be some overlap between profiles which would lead to an ID. At some point you have had to provide some ID to register for an service, and plod just need to contact site owners. Even easier is your IP and MAC address can be traced. It’s a challenge for the man on the street, but for someone who works in the field it’s bread and butter work. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A warning might put some off but wonder how it would work in terms of someone reporting it to the police. How would they work out who ‘knobbinghood12345’ actually is?" Profiles are linked to email and IP addresses. If the site took it seriously enough they could supply that info. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A warning might put some off but wonder how it would work in terms of someone reporting it to the police. How would they work out who ‘knobbinghood12345’ actually is? Profiles are linked to email and IP addresses. If the site took it seriously enough they could supply that info." There are many email sites that can be anonymous and a VPN takes care of the IP address but then most folk on her sending cock pics probably aren't that advanced given they are thinking with their little brains  | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How easy it is to avoid prosecution though. Simply do not send pictures of your penis to anybody. If only all life's problems were so simply solved." As a forum mod, maybe you have an iota more sway in getting something implemented? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How easy it is to avoid prosecution though. Simply do not send pictures of your penis to anybody. If only all life's problems were so simply solved. As a forum mod, maybe you have an iota more sway in getting something implemented?" I have no influence at all. But how easy for this to be a self imposed restriction. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
Prosecution? Really?
For something that’s mildly annoying?
A hefty Fine at the most | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How easy it is to avoid prosecution though. Simply do not send pictures of your penis to anybody. If only all life's problems were so simply solved. As a forum mod, maybe you have an iota more sway in getting something implemented? I have no influence at all. But how easy for this to be a self imposed restriction. " Exactly this, it's not difficult not to send your genitals around without being asked. Mrs | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it’s a bit ridiculous
Prosecution? Really?
For something that’s mildly annoying?
A hefty Fine at the most"Mildly annoying - is that what you'd say to some randomer that flashed his dick at young women/girls in the street? No! Mrs | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How easy it is to avoid prosecution though. Simply do not send pictures of your penis to anybody. If only all life's problems were so simply solved. As a forum mod, maybe you have an iota more sway in getting something implemented? I have no influence at all. But how easy for this to be a self imposed restriction. Exactly this, it's not difficult not to send your genitals around without being asked. Mrs " I have to say it's not a daily struggle for me to avoid shoving my phone up my skirt, snapping away and firing the resulting artwork off to randomers. But I have hobbies, so... | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it’s a bit ridiculous
Prosecution? Really?
For something that’s mildly annoying?
A hefty Fine at the most"WTAF?? How would you feel if someone did that to your mother, sister or daughter?  | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it’s a bit ridiculous
Prosecution? Really?
For something that’s mildly annoying?
A hefty Fine at the most"As someone faced with this myself yesterday. It was more than mildly annoying, it was in fact disturbing, uncomfortable and wrong. So yeah I think prosecution is a great deterrent for people who feel it’s ok to send unsolicited explicit images | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it’s a bit ridiculous
Prosecution? Really?
For something that’s mildly annoying?
A hefty Fine at the most
Mildly annoying - is that what you'd say to some randomer that flashed his dick at young women/girls in the street? No!
Mrs "In the street? That’s different | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it’s a bit ridiculous
Prosecution? Really?
For something that’s mildly annoying?
A hefty Fine at the most"Good grief  | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it’s a bit ridiculous
Prosecution? Really?
For something that’s mildly annoying?
A hefty Fine at the most
WTAF?? How would you feel if someone did that to your mother, sister or daughter? "Do you know my Mother? 
She’d laugh, delete the pic, block the person & carry on with her day.
I wonder if people’s staunch opinions would be different if the genders were reversed | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it’s a bit ridiculous
Prosecution? Really?
For something that’s mildly annoying?
A hefty Fine at the most
Mildly annoying - is that what you'd say to some randomer that flashed his dick at young women/girls in the street? No!
Mrs
In the street? That’s different "It’s still exposing yourself without the other person consenting | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it’s a bit ridiculous
Prosecution? Really?
For something that’s mildly annoying?
A hefty Fine at the most
WTAF?? How would you feel if someone did that to your mother, sister or daughter?
Do you know my Mother?
She’d laugh, delete the pic, block the person & carry on with her day.
I wonder if people’s staunch opinions would be different if the genders were reversed "Absolutely! I wouldn’t dream of exposing myself to someone without consent, electronically or in real life…gender doesn’t even come into this! It’s public decency and respect! | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it’s a bit ridiculous
Prosecution? Really?
For something that’s mildly annoying?
A hefty Fine at the most
Mildly annoying - is that what you'd say to some randomer that flashed his dick at young women/girls in the street? No!
Mrs
In the street? That’s different
It’s still exposing yourself without the other person consenting "It’s a bit more than that. Public indecency? Violation of a person's personal space? It’s technically assault | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it’s a bit ridiculous
Prosecution? Really?
For something that’s mildly annoying?
A hefty Fine at the most
Mildly annoying - is that what you'd say to some randomer that flashed his dick at young women/girls in the street? No!
Mrs
In the street? That’s different
It’s still exposing yourself without the other person consenting
It’s a bit more than that.
Public indecency?
Violation of a person's personal space?
It’s technically assault "So why is it different electronically? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it’s a bit ridiculous
Prosecution? Really?
For something that’s mildly annoying?
A hefty Fine at the most
Mildly annoying - is that what you'd say to some randomer that flashed his dick at young women/girls in the street? No!
Mrs
In the street? That’s different "And why is that? It's still genitals in your face you didn't ask for. Mrs | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A warning might put some off but wonder how it would work in terms of someone reporting it to the police. How would they work out who ‘knobbinghood12345’ actually is?" From requesting the website to hand over the IPadress then they can see who the computer belong to. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it’s a bit ridiculous
Prosecution? Really?
For something that’s mildly annoying?
A hefty Fine at the most
WTAF?? How would you feel if someone did that to your mother, sister or daughter?
Do you know my Mother?
She’d laugh, delete the pic, block the person & carry on with her day.
I wonder if people’s staunch opinions would be different if the genders were reversed "Strangely enough I've never received an unsolicited vag pic - seems many women have some sense of consent and decency. Mrs | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it’s a bit ridiculous
Prosecution? Really?
For something that’s mildly annoying?
A hefty Fine at the most
WTAF?? How would you feel if someone did that to your mother, sister or daughter?
Do you know my Mother?
She’d laugh, delete the pic, block the person & carry on with her day.
I wonder if people’s staunch opinions would be different if the genders were reversed
Strangely enough I've never received an unsolicited vag pic - seems many women have some sense of consent and decency.
Mrs "Me neither | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Strangely enough I've never received an unsolicited vag pic - seems many women have some sense of consent and decency. Mrs " Are we talking about on here or on other platforms? Because I’ve received plenty of unsolicited Vag on here. Never on other platforms though. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Strangely enough I've never received an unsolicited vag pic - seems many women have some sense of consent and decency. Mrs Are we talking about on here or on other platforms? Because I’ve received plenty of unsolicited Vag on here. Never on other platforms though." I've never received one on either. I have however had cocks from every single social media platform & LinkedIn - vile! Mrs | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Strangely enough I've never received an unsolicited vag pic - seems many women have some sense of consent and decency. Mrs Are we talking about on here or on other platforms? Because I’ve received plenty of unsolicited Vag on here. Never on other platforms though. I've never received one on either. I have however had cocks from every single social media platform & LinkedIn - vile! Mrs" Even on LinkedIn !?!! That’s crazy. I didn’t realise people were like that | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it’s a bit ridiculous
Prosecution? Really?
For something that’s mildly annoying?
A hefty Fine at the most"I think you are missing the context of the case, it was on an ordinary vanilla social media platform and one of the recipients was a minor, still think it’s just mildly annoying? It shouldn’t be happening at all but I think on a site such as FAB it is less clear cut what you consent too when you join. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it’s a bit ridiculous
Prosecution? Really?
For something that’s mildly annoying?
A hefty Fine at the most"Broooo! Have you tried thinking before you type? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it’s a bit ridiculous
Prosecution? Really?
For something that’s mildly annoying?
A hefty Fine at the most
I think you are missing the context of the case, it was on an ordinary vanilla social media platform and one of the recipients was a minor, still think it’s just mildly annoying?
It shouldn’t be happening at all but I think on a site such as FAB it is less clear cut what you consent too when you join. "If it wasn't asked for, it is unsolicited. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Strangely enough I've never received an unsolicited vag pic - seems many women have some sense of consent and decency. Mrs Are we talking about on here or on other platforms? Because I’ve received plenty of unsolicited Vag on here. Never on other platforms though. I've never received one on either. I have however had cocks from every single social media platform & LinkedIn - vile! Mrs Even on LinkedIn !?!! That’s crazy. I didn’t realise people were like that " Unfortunately yes, I'm dreading the day my little girl is old enough for social media because of these "mild inconveniences" (fucking creeps) it's a sad world people think sticking their cock in your face is appropriate. I totally welcome the new laws & very happy about the outcome. Mrs | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it’s a bit ridiculous
Prosecution? Really?
For something that’s mildly annoying?
A hefty Fine at the most
WTAF?? How would you feel if someone did that to your mother, sister or daughter?
Do you know my Mother?
She’d laugh, delete the pic, block the person & carry on with her day.
I wonder if people’s staunch opinions would be different if the genders were reversed "Well I know that my mother would turn in her grave and the abuse my daughters has experienced sickens me. Whilst my profile contains graphic material I can put my hand on heart and say I have never sent a unsolicited pic of my tits - let alone my gash - to anyone | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you send an unsolicited pic of your genitals to anyone online, whether on LinkedIn, Facebook, or Fab then you should be open to prosecution. If the recipient hasn't consented then you have committed a crime. Fab needs to set the standard high with this. And as for those men who would dismiss this as nothing worth bothering about - ugh, please stay away from women, you are a danger to them if you do not understand the basic premise of consent. MJ" Amen | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Instead of us giving our emotive opinions of this issue... LETS LOOK AT THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, SHALL WE. *The person in question, Nicholas Hawkes was a Registered S*x Offender *This was not his first violation/offence *The images he sent was to an under*ged lady This wasn’t an isolated incident. He deserved to be prosecuted." The lady who reported the image was of age. It was later found he sent to a minor. Mrs | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Instead of us giving our emotive opinions of this issue... LETS LOOK AT THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, SHALL WE. *The person in question, Nicholas Hawkes was a Registered S*x Offender *This was not his first violation/offence *The images he sent was to an under*ged lady This wasn’t an isolated incident. He deserved to be prosecuted." Ok but if you do this *should* you be a registered offender? Does the amount of times you do this make a difference He also sent to another woman, the woman was in fact of age and the one that reported in the first place. Yes the fact that one of the victims was a minor is the worst part…BUT regardless he should’ve been prosecuted….his actions and the actions of anyone that sees this behaviour as acceptable should be held accountable | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it’s a bit ridiculous
Prosecution? Really?
For something that’s mildly annoying?
A hefty Fine at the most
WTAF?? How would you feel if someone did that to your mother, sister or daughter?
Do you know my Mother?
She’d laugh, delete the pic, block the person & carry on with her day.
I wonder if people’s staunch opinions would be different if the genders were reversed
Well I know that my mother would turn in her grave and the abuse my daughters has experienced sickens me.
Whilst my profile contains graphic material I can put my hand on heart and say I have never sent a unsolicited pic of my tits - let alone my gash - to anyone"I take on the onus of responsibility by looking at your profile. Repeatedly, just in case I missed something the 4th time | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Instead of us giving our emotive opinions of this issue... LETS LOOK AT THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, SHALL WE. *The person in question, Nicholas Hawkes was a Registered S*x Offender *This was not his first violation/offence *The images he sent was to an under*ged lady This wasn’t an isolated incident. He deserved to be prosecuted." The fact is he sent unsolicited images of his penis to two women. Their age is kind of irrelevant because the key fact is that neither of them asked to see his penis - no one of any age should have to put up with this kind of behaviour. That is why he was prosecuted and thankfully convicted. If you cannot understand that the lack of consent is key to this, then please stay away from women. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How easy it is to avoid prosecution though. Simply do not send pictures of your penis to anybody. If only all life's problems were so simply solved. As a forum mod, maybe you have an iota more sway in getting something implemented? I have no influence at all. But how easy for this to be a self imposed restriction. Exactly this, it's not difficult not to send your genitals around without being asked. Mrs I have to say it's not a daily struggle for me to avoid shoving my phone up my skirt, snapping away and firing the resulting artwork off to randomers. But I have hobbies, so..." If you ever can't resist the urge...  | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it’s a bit ridiculous
Prosecution? Really?
For something that’s mildly annoying?
A hefty Fine at the most
I think you are missing the context of the case, it was on an ordinary vanilla social media platform and one of the recipients was a minor, still think it’s just mildly annoying?
It shouldn’t be happening at all but I think on a site such as FAB it is less clear cut what you consent too when you join.
If it wasn't asked for, it is unsolicited. "Unfortunately in some circumstances consent can be deemed to have been implied. The terms on a site like FAB need to be much tighter to avoid that being an issue. Most people know what is right and wrong but you have to cover the bases to deal with people who clearly don’t. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
Sorry if I caused offence to anyone. Don’t think I approve of such behaviour.
I myself have had d*ck pics sent to me. On this site, other sites & IRL.
I shouldn’t have imposed my own set of standards onto others. What offends me, won’t necessarily offend you. And vice-versa
Again, I’m sorry to you all | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ok fine, I apologise
Sorry if I caused offence to anyone. Don’t think I approve of such behaviour.
I myself have had d*ck pics sent to me. On this site, other sites & IRL.
I shouldn’t have imposed my own set of standards onto others. What offends me, won’t necessarily offend you. And vice-versa
Again, I’m sorry to you all "Your own standards, which are way too low btw, are irrelevant. The Online Safety Act makes sending dick pics without the consent of the recipient against the law. That is the only standard that counts. No consent? Then you are a creep who deserves to be prosecuted. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it’s a bit ridiculous
Prosecution? Really?
For something that’s mildly annoying?
A hefty Fine at the most
I think you are missing the context of the case, it was on an ordinary vanilla social media platform and one of the recipients was a minor, still think it’s just mildly annoying?
It shouldn’t be happening at all but I think on a site such as FAB it is less clear cut what you consent too when you join.
If it wasn't asked for, it is unsolicited.
Unfortunately in some circumstances consent can be deemed to have been implied.
The terms on a site like FAB need to be much tighter to avoid that being an issue.
Most people know what is right and wrong but you have to cover the bases to deal with people who clearly don’t. "I posted a thread on this a couple of days ago. Tried to cover different ways the site could deal with the new law. T&Cs is an obvious one, but they could also implement other features with a little investment. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Was reading about uks first conviction for cyber flashing. If read it right it looks like if you send a dick/sexually explicit picture to someone who did not ask for it electronically then you can be prosecuted.....Would you put a warning on profile that they are not wanted and failure to comply would lead to prosecution ?
"Just don't send them, its simple really  | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Strangely enough I've never received an unsolicited vag pic - seems many women have some sense of consent and decency. Mrs Are we talking about on here or on other platforms? Because I’ve received plenty of unsolicited Vag on here. Never on other platforms though." Never sent or received unless asked but would expect both on here! Would not bat an eyelid! If I got one on f book might b bit surprised! But not offended tbh! X | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A warning might put some off but wonder how it would work in terms of someone reporting it to the police. How would they work out who ‘knobbinghood12345’ actually is?" That's really easy I work in IT! | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A warning might put some off but wonder how it would work in terms of someone reporting it to the police. How would they work out who ‘knobbinghood12345’ actually is? Profiles are linked to email and IP addresses. If the site took it seriously enough they could supply that info." What if you use VPN that hides I.P. Address not that I'm a flasher lol | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A warning might put some off but wonder how it would work in terms of someone reporting it to the police. How would they work out who ‘knobbinghood12345’ actually is? That's really easy I work in IT!" Everything you do is logged against your IP address both by the site your on and your isp. With a warrant to acquire the data you just match the two sets of data and boom! | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it’s a bit ridiculous
Prosecution? Really?
For something that’s mildly annoying?
A hefty Fine at the most
Mildly annoying - is that what you'd say to some randomer that flashed his dick at young women/girls in the street? No!
Mrs
In the street? That’s different
It’s still exposing yourself without the other person consenting
It’s a bit more than that.
Public indecency?
Violation of a person's personal space?
It’s technically assault "And that's exactly how it feels to some people when it's done online. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What if you use VPN that hides I.P. Address not that I'm a flasher lol " There’s still the MAC address of your device and your network connection into the VPN. Someone, somewhere can always tell what you’re doing. Sometimes it just takes a little longer. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Based on the above discussions would this not also apply to profile pics / avatars? Posting those on the forum presents me with a dic pic I didn’t consent to. " I think there’s a way to turn off explicit images on the general site. Not over sure but think I’ve heard about something that does. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think there’s a way to turn off explicit images on the general site. Not over sure but think I’ve heard about something that does. " Problem is then I miss out on all those pics that I do very much consent to. I just think willies are a bit naff. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What if you use VPN that hides I.P. Address not that I'm a flasher lol There’s still the MAC address of your device and your network connection into the VPN. Someone, somewhere can always tell what you’re doing. Sometimes it just takes a little longer. " This seems highly unlikely. Particularly with mobile devices. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes I'm not a fan of the erect cock avatar but it doesn't bother me to the point I'd wish to send them to prison "Think it's only the case in this instance because it was a minor involved? X | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This seems highly unlikely. Particularly with mobile devices." How do you think it connects? That traffic has to route to you somehow. The network adaptor in your phone has a MAC address as well as an IMEI, so it identifies the device on either the WIFI or the mobile network. Your provider is routing the traffic and so has to authenticate you as a paying customer. With a VPN there’s an additional layer of protection but there’s still social engineering and image metadata. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes I'm not a fan of the erect cock avatar but it doesn't bother me to the point I'd wish to send them to prison
Think it's only the case in this instance because it was a minor involved? X"It was actually the woman who reported it not the minor that came out later in the investigation. Mrs | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This seems highly unlikely. Particularly with mobile devices. How do you think it connects? That traffic has to route to you somehow. The network adaptor in your phone has a MAC address as well as an IMEI, so it identifies the device on either the WIFI or the mobile network. Your provider is routing the traffic and so has to authenticate you as a paying customer. With a VPN there’s an additional layer of protection but there’s still social engineering and image metadata. " I won't derail the thread with nerd talk but I'll maintain it's highly unlikely. If it were as simple as you say the police would have a very easy time of tracing st0len laptops, phones etc. etc. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes I'm not a fan of the erect cock avatar but it doesn't bother me to the point I'd wish to send them to prison
Think it's only the case in this instance because it was a minor involved? X
It was actually the woman who reported it not the minor that came out later in the investigation.
Mrs "But likely because of the minor a jail sentence? One would hope anyway? X | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think there’s a way to turn off explicit images on the general site. Not over sure but think I’ve heard about something that does. Problem is then I miss out on all those pics that I do very much consent to. I just think willies are a bit naff. " Ah true | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes I'm not a fan of the erect cock avatar but it doesn't bother me to the point I'd wish to send them to prison
Think it's only the case in this instance because it was a minor involved? X"Well i don't know the details or want to but in this day and age it must be very difficult to completely protect young people from sex related images and i have to assume the guy deliberately sent the pic or pics to the young person and knew it was a young person? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes I'm not a fan of the erect cock avatar but it doesn't bother me to the point I'd wish to send them to prison
Think it's only the case in this instance because it was a minor involved? XWell i don't know the details or want to but in this day and age it must be very difficult to completely protect young people from sex related images and i have to assume the guy deliberately sent the pic or pics to the young person and knew it was a young person? "Yes would hope so! And yes absoulutley! X | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes I'm not a fan of the erect cock avatar but it doesn't bother me to the point I'd wish to send them to prison
Think it's only the case in this instance because it was a minor involved? XWell i don't know the details or want to but in this day and age it must be very difficult to completely protect young people from sex related images and i have to assume the guy deliberately sent the pic or pics to the young person and knew it was a young person?
Yes would hope so! And yes absoulutley! X"Oh well he deserved the punishment then | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Tbh I don’t think the law would apply to this site, as it’s an adults only sexual site that has features such as “top videos” “top pics”, a policy that allows nudity and even the ability to add nudes to profile photos. In addition to that it’s common practice for people to send revealing images (yes women and couples too. I get them all the time). So by joining and participating you’re accepting that you are likely to see nudity. I’m sure it’s even in the T’s & C’s. By all means put something on your profile if you want. But it’s unlikely to hold up in court, since you can’t supersede this sites on t’s and c’s you agreed to when signing up." Do you think a site's terms and conditions supersede a national law? That's cute. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Glad it's been brought in. We're on another swingers app who are currently implementing a blocking feature so people who message you for the 1st time can't send unsolicited mature themed pics. They've also teamed up with a sexual offenders register to run facial ID scans for registered sex offenders, so they can't register with the app. All good news imo, these type of apps need a damn good clean up of the trash. Mrs" Think we may be on the same app. It doesn't matter if it's a sex site, the law should still apply because without consent it's assault. Fab needs to up it's game. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Tbh I don’t think the law would apply to this site, as it’s an adults only sexual site that has features such as “top videos” “top pics”, a policy that allows nudity and even the ability to add nudes to profile photos. In addition to that it’s common practice for people to send revealing images (yes women and couples too. I get them all the time). So by joining and participating you’re accepting that you are likely to see nudity. I’m sure it’s even in the T’s & C’s. By all means put something on your profile if you want. But it’s unlikely to hold up in court, since you can’t supersede this sites on t’s and c’s you agreed to when signing up. Do you think a site's terms and conditions supersede a national law? That's cute. " Especially considering the sites terms and condition also state they abide by UK law. Mrs | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Tbh I don’t think the law would apply to this site, as it’s an adults only sexual site that has features such as “top videos” “top pics”, a policy that allows nudity and even the ability to add nudes to profile photos. In addition to that it’s common practice for people to send revealing images (yes women and couples too. I get them all the time). So by joining and participating you’re accepting that you are likely to see nudity. I’m sure it’s even in the T’s & C’s. By all means put something on your profile if you want. But it’s unlikely to hold up in court, since you can’t supersede this sites on t’s and c’s you agreed to when signing up. Do you think a site's terms and conditions supersede a national law? That's cute. Especially considering the sites terms and condition also state they abide by UK law. Mrs " There's been law about this - someone buried a clause in their terms and conditions to say that if you use their free wi-fi, you pledge your first born child to them. There are limits to what terms and conditions can force you to do. Depending on how the law continues to develop in this area (because our law depends on the statute and the way that cases are decided in the courts) I can very much see that the stuff out in the open, there's implied consent, because this is the kind of site that this is. And a dick (or other genitalia) in the inbox, people need to opt in to receiving. A bit like if you go to a swinging club, you'll see nudity/ sexual activity. Consent is implied. But if someone shoves their bits in your face without consent, they'll have a problem. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Tbh I don’t think the law would apply to this site, as it’s an adults only sexual site that has features such as “top videos” “top pics”, a policy that allows nudity and even the ability to add nudes to profile photos. In addition to that it’s common practice for people to send revealing images (yes women and couples too. I get them all the time). So by joining and participating you’re accepting that you are likely to see nudity. I’m sure it’s even in the T’s & C’s. By all means put something on your profile if you want. But it’s unlikely to hold up in court, since you can’t supersede this sites on t’s and c’s you agreed to when signing up. Do you think a site's terms and conditions supersede a national law? That's cute. Especially considering the sites terms and condition also state they abide by UK law. Mrs There's been law about this - someone buried a clause in their terms and conditions to say that if you use their free wi-fi, you pledge your first born child to them. There are limits to what terms and conditions can force you to do. Depending on how the law continues to develop in this area (because our law depends on the statute and the way that cases are decided in the courts) I can very much see that the stuff out in the open, there's implied consent, because this is the kind of site that this is. And a dick (or other genitalia) in the inbox, people need to opt in to receiving. A bit like if you go to a swinging club, you'll see nudity/ sexual activity. Consent is implied. But if someone shoves their bits in your face without consent, they'll have a problem." Totally agree, if it's on their profile I've chosen to look, that's on me. If they stick it in my inbox my consent has been taken away they are nothing but a pathetic prick, how difficult is it to not send your cock without consent. The blokes justifying it or making it out to be nothing needs to give their heads a wobble. Believe it or not guys not everyone wants your cock in their face. I've never been so put off men since joining this site. Mrs | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Tbh I don’t think the law would apply to this site, as it’s an adults only sexual site that has features such as “top videos” “top pics”, a policy that allows nudity and even the ability to add nudes to profile photos. In addition to that it’s common practice for people to send revealing images (yes women and couples too. I get them all the time). So by joining and participating you’re accepting that you are likely to see nudity. I’m sure it’s even in the T’s & C’s. By all means put something on your profile if you want. But it’s unlikely to hold up in court, since you can’t supersede this sites on t’s and c’s you agreed to when signing up. Do you think a site's terms and conditions supersede a national law? That's cute. Especially considering the sites terms and condition also state they abide by UK law. Mrs There's been law about this - someone buried a clause in their terms and conditions to say that if you use their free wi-fi, you pledge your first born child to them. There are limits to what terms and conditions can force you to do. Depending on how the law continues to develop in this area (because our law depends on the statute and the way that cases are decided in the courts) I can very much see that the stuff out in the open, there's implied consent, because this is the kind of site that this is. And a dick (or other genitalia) in the inbox, people need to opt in to receiving. A bit like if you go to a swinging club, you'll see nudity/ sexual activity. Consent is implied. But if someone shoves their bits in your face without consent, they'll have a problem. Totally agree, if it's on their profile I've chosen to look, that's on me. If they stick it in my inbox my consent has been taken away they are nothing but a pathetic prick, how difficult is it to not send your cock without consent. The blokes justifying it or making it out to be nothing needs to give their heads a wobble. Believe it or not guys not everyone wants your cock in their face. I've never been so put off men since joining this site. Mrs " Second this  on your profile, fair enough. In a first message or any message out the blue, it's uninvited & isnt consented.
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A warning might put some off but wonder how it would work in terms of someone reporting it to the police. How would they work out who ‘knobbinghood12345’ actually is?" they'll be able to I'd you through your isp number | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"those thinking oh its ok we are a adult site well we may be adult themed but its very much a open to public site there no age checks and the site has to abide by the laws too .... cant say it loud enough consent is everything that is especially important with a sexual themed site too ... swinging and kink scenes are built on consent ... i 100% can see someone taking things further on a site like fab i dont think guys and women who flash realize how much they piss people off" Their of course is an age check the site can only be accessed by over 18s | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it’s a bit ridiculous
Prosecution? Really?
For something that’s mildly annoying?
A hefty Fine at the most"Mildly annoying? Really? Just spend a few seconds thinking about how it feels to be on the receiving end. In many cases it is frequent and intimidating. Men (the perpetrators are usually men), we need to be better. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From reading the law, I’m pretty sure fab wouldn’t fall under its jurisdiction. But if anyone is upset by nsfw photos then maybe they could add a filter that blurs them." They aren't upset by NSFW photos. They are upset by pathetic men sending dick pics via DM without consent. There is a huge difference. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What if you use VPN that hides I.P. Address not that I'm a flasher lol There’s still the MAC address of your device and your network connection into the VPN. Someone, somewhere can always tell what you’re doing. Sometimes it just takes a little longer. This seems highly unlikely. Particularly with mobile devices." Not at all as you probably have Gmail or position info turned on too. It's EASY! | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This seems highly unlikely. Particularly with mobile devices. How do you think it connects? That traffic has to route to you somehow. The network adaptor in your phone has a MAC address as well as an IMEI, so it identifies the device on either the WIFI or the mobile network. Your provider is routing the traffic and so has to authenticate you as a paying customer. With a VPN there’s an additional layer of protection but there’s still social engineering and image metadata. " As your connected to a public site at the other end it'll make little difference. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What if you use VPN that hides I.P. Address not that I'm a flasher lol There’s still the MAC address of your device and your network connection into the VPN. Someone, somewhere can always tell what you’re doing. Sometimes it just takes a little longer. This seems highly unlikely. Particularly with mobile devices. Not at all as you probably have Gmail or position info turned on too. It's EASY!" Most people are uttely unaware of MAC address's. A long time qgo i admin'd on a reasonble sized hobby forum and some previously banned users would go to great but pointkess lenghts to get back on for whatever reason. Bqr chqngind devices, tho some tried invariably they had logged in on onenof these dvices already. Its not quite hackers/sneakers (the films!) | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From reading the law, I’m pretty sure fab wouldn’t fall under its jurisdiction. But if anyone is upset by nsfw photos then maybe they could add a filter that blurs them. They aren't upset by NSFW photos. They are upset by pathetic men sending dick pics via DM without consent. There is a huge difference." And as I said - receiving photos on fab wouldn’t fall under this law in the vast majority of instances. So adding an optional filter would fix that issue. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From reading the law, I’m pretty sure fab wouldn’t fall under its jurisdiction. But if anyone is upset by nsfw photos then maybe they could add a filter that blurs them. They aren't upset by NSFW photos. They are upset by pathetic men sending dick pics via DM without consent. There is a huge difference. And as I said - receiving photos on fab wouldn’t fall under this law in the vast majority of instances. So adding an optional filter would fix that issue." How does sending pictures of your genitals to strangers who do not consent to receive them NOT fall under the new legislation? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From reading the law, I’m pretty sure fab wouldn’t fall under its jurisdiction. But if anyone is upset by nsfw photos then maybe they could add a filter that blurs them. They aren't upset by NSFW photos. They are upset by pathetic men sending dick pics via DM without consent. There is a huge difference. And as I said - receiving photos on fab wouldn’t fall under this law in the vast majority of instances. So adding an optional filter would fix that issue. How does sending pictures of your genitals to strangers who do not consent to receive them NOT fall under the new legislation?" Because the law states it has to be done “to gain sexual gratification, or to cause alarm, distress or humiliation.” It’ll be pretty hard to argue the last three on a sex site. The first one is debatable - it’s standard practice on here to exchange intimate images to arrange meets, rather than for gratification. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What if you use VPN that hides I.P. Address not that I'm a flasher lol There’s still the MAC address of your device and your network connection into the VPN. Someone, somewhere can always tell what you’re doing. Sometimes it just takes a little longer. This seems highly unlikely. Particularly with mobile devices. Not at all as you probably have Gmail or position info turned on too. It's EASY!" Fair enough. So where am I right now? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From reading the law, I’m pretty sure fab wouldn’t fall under its jurisdiction. But if anyone is upset by nsfw photos then maybe they could add a filter that blurs them. They aren't upset by NSFW photos. They are upset by pathetic men sending dick pics via DM without consent. There is a huge difference. And as I said - receiving photos on fab wouldn’t fall under this law in the vast majority of instances. So adding an optional filter would fix that issue. How does sending pictures of your genitals to strangers who do not consent to receive them NOT fall under the new legislation? Because the law states it has to be done “to gain sexual gratification, or to cause alarm, distress or humiliation.” It’ll be pretty hard to argue the last three on a sex site. The first one is debatable - it’s standard practice on here to exchange intimate images to arrange meets, rather than for gratification. " Sending images without consent is the whole point. I feel that a lot of people are straining to find a grey area where it doesn’t exist. If you’re sending pictures of your junk without it being consented and asked for, then you’re guilty of the offence. It’s quite simple really, stop sending cock pics | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From reading the law, I’m pretty sure fab wouldn’t fall under its jurisdiction. But if anyone is upset by nsfw photos then maybe they could add a filter that blurs them. They aren't upset by NSFW photos. They are upset by pathetic men sending dick pics via DM without consent. There is a huge difference. And as I said - receiving photos on fab wouldn’t fall under this law in the vast majority of instances. So adding an optional filter would fix that issue. How does sending pictures of your genitals to strangers who do not consent to receive them NOT fall under the new legislation? Because the law states it has to be done “to gain sexual gratification, or to cause alarm, distress or humiliation.” It’ll be pretty hard to argue the last three on a sex site. The first one is debatable - it’s standard practice on here to exchange intimate images to arrange meets, rather than for gratification. " Or be reckless to whether or not it causes alarm or distress. "Imma send my pussy to every guy within 50 miles of me. Some may love it, some may ask what the fuck is growing there, some may vomit. Why the fuck should I care? I do what I want!" | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From reading the law, I’m pretty sure fab wouldn’t fall under its jurisdiction. But if anyone is upset by nsfw photos then maybe they could add a filter that blurs them. Really? The way I read the relevant areas, section 187 adds to the Sexual Offences Act that it is against the law for one person to send pictures to another when they either intend or are reckless to whether or not it will distress them. (I'm paraphrasing) This doesn't let Fab off the hook, it's just that the person doing the sending may be in shit. Regulated pornographic providers have additional requirements under section 81, which a site is exempt from if the pornographic content is user-generated. Fab is exempt from section 81, but that says nothing about the rest of the law. Unless you're saying that Fab is not a user-to-user service as defined by the act? "an internet service by means of which content that is generated directly on the service by a user of the service, or uploaded to or shared on the service by a user of the service, may be encountered by another user, or other users, of the service." Or maybe you haven't read section 188, the one after the cyberflashing section. I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but I would put money on Fab being affected by this law." I agree. Irrespective of the fact that it’s a site where such images are used, if they’re sent without consent (implied consent is a ridiculous claim) then that’s the offence right there. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Sending images without consent is the whole point. I feel that a lot of people are straining to find a grey area where it doesn’t exist. If you’re sending pictures of your junk without it being consented and asked for, then you’re guilty of the offence. It’s quite simple really, stop sending cock pics " I will preface my post by confirming that the easiest way not to fall foul of the law is simply don’t send this material, it’s really very simple. I don’t think there is a grey area over the sending of the material. I think there is a grey area over whether your signing up too this site gives some form of implied consent, and I don’t think the answer to that is within the scope of anyone on this thread, it would ultimately only be answered definitively by a case being brought in a court and the outcome then becoming a precedent. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe I'm desensitised to genitals online, I think it's abit over the top. I have been using the Internet since I was teenager and lost count the many randomers on my MSN chat who wanked off as I eat cereal. I just simply close the chat/ cam. We used to add lots of random people back in the day and weren't very savvy but can't say I'm mentally scarred. Honestly, I can't get worked up by the human body. It's very easy to block random people and if they are a friend, it's easy to say John put your tiny dick away or maybe you need to go to the gum clinic. Mrs " Just because it doesn't bother you, doesn't mean it's okay. Would you be happy with your 15yo daughter receiving unsolicited penis pictures from a convicted paedophile (or in fact, anyone)? I know I wouldn't. With modern social media, it's all too easy to work out where people go to school or college or work and for undesirable people to take their twisted ideas into reality. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It’ll be pretty hard to argue the last three on a sex site. The first one is debatable - it’s standard practice on here to exchange intimate images to arrange meets, rather than for gratification. " "Standard practice" ....I've never exchanged intimate pictures to arrange meets.... | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From reading the law, I’m pretty sure fab wouldn’t fall under its jurisdiction. But if anyone is upset by nsfw photos then maybe they could add a filter that blurs them. Really? The way I read the relevant areas, section 187 adds to the Sexual Offences Act that it is against the law for one person to send pictures to another when they either intend or are reckless to whether or not it will distress them. (I'm paraphrasing) This doesn't let Fab off the hook, it's just that the person doing the sending may be in shit. Regulated pornographic providers have additional requirements under section 81, which a site is exempt from if the pornographic content is user-generated. Fab is exempt from section 81, but that says nothing about the rest of the law. Unless you're saying that Fab is not a user-to-user service as defined by the act? "an internet service by means of which content that is generated directly on the service by a user of the service, or uploaded to or shared on the service by a user of the service, may be encountered by another user, or other users, of the service." Or maybe you haven't read section 188, the one after the cyberflashing section. I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but I would put money on Fab being affected by this law. I agree. Irrespective of the fact that it’s a site where such images are used, if they’re sent without consent (implied consent is a ridiculous claim) then that’s the offence right there. " I agree too. When you read the wording of what the actual offence is I don’t see how fab can’t be included in it | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From reading the law, I’m pretty sure fab wouldn’t fall under its jurisdiction. But if anyone is upset by nsfw photos then maybe they could add a filter that blurs them. They aren't upset by NSFW photos. They are upset by pathetic men sending dick pics via DM without consent. There is a huge difference. And as I said - receiving photos on fab wouldn’t fall under this law in the vast majority of instances. So adding an optional filter would fix that issue. How does sending pictures of your genitals to strangers who do not consent to receive them NOT fall under the new legislation? Because the law states it has to be done “to gain sexual gratification, or to cause alarm, distress or humiliation.” It’ll be pretty hard to argue the last three on a sex site. The first one is debatable - it’s standard practice on here to exchange intimate images to arrange meets, rather than for gratification. " The men who send penis pictures in their first pictures are *only* doing it for their own sexual gratification. If they weren’t, they would ask first. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Sending images without consent is the whole point. I feel that a lot of people are straining to find a grey area where it doesn’t exist. If you’re sending pictures of your junk without it being consented and asked for, then you’re guilty of the offence. It’s quite simple really, stop sending cock pics I will preface my post by confirming that the easiest way not to fall foul of the law is simply don’t send this material, it’s really very simple. I don’t think there is a grey area over the sending of the material. I think there is a grey area over whether your signing up too this site gives some form of implied consent, and I don’t think the answer to that is within the scope of anyone on this thread, it would ultimately only be answered definitively by a case being brought in a court and the outcome then becoming a precedent. " Just so we’re clear, there is no such thing in law as “implied consent.” There is consent, and there is a lack of consent. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From reading the law, I’m pretty sure fab wouldn’t fall under its jurisdiction. But if anyone is upset by nsfw photos then maybe they could add a filter that blurs them. Really? The way I read the relevant areas, section 187 adds to the Sexual Offences Act that it is against the law for one person to send pictures to another when they either intend or are reckless to whether or not it will distress them. (I'm paraphrasing) This doesn't let Fab off the hook, it's just that the person doing the sending may be in shit. Regulated pornographic providers have additional requirements under section 81, which a site is exempt from if the pornographic content is user-generated. Fab is exempt from section 81, but that says nothing about the rest of the law. Unless you're saying that Fab is not a user-to-user service as defined by the act? "an internet service by means of which content that is generated directly on the service by a user of the service, or uploaded to or shared on the service by a user of the service, may be encountered by another user, or other users, of the service." Or maybe you haven't read section 188, the one after the cyberflashing section. I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but I would put money on Fab being affected by this law. I agree. Irrespective of the fact that it’s a site where such images are used, if they’re sent without consent (implied consent is a ridiculous claim) then that’s the offence right there. I agree too. When you read the wording of what the actual offence is I don’t see how fab can’t be included in it " Good lord! It must be the end of days if Nora is agreeing with me! | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe I'm desensitised to genitals online, I think it's abit over the top. I have been using the Internet since I was teenager and lost count the many randomers on my MSN chat who wanked off as I eat cereal. I just simply close the chat/ cam. We used to add lots of random people back in the day and weren't very savvy but can't say I'm mentally scarred. Honestly, I can't get worked up by the human body. It's very easy to block random people and if they are a friend, it's easy to say John put your tiny dick away or maybe you need to go to the gum clinic. Mrs Just because it doesn't bother you, doesn't mean it's okay. Would you be happy with your 15yo daughter receiving unsolicited penis pictures from a convicted paedophile (or in fact, anyone)? I know I wouldn't. With modern social media, it's all too easy to work out where people go to school or college or work and for undesirable people to take their twisted ideas into reality." People seem to have lost resilience. cyberbullying is another example - unplug. I dont let my teens on social media- I have open discussions with them and yes they will see things online which we have discussed or shall. If I'm letting them have unsupervised access to the Internet they know there are plenty of weirdos and pop up ads show some pretty weird shit. I cant even have tea with the kids at 5pm without the viagra ad coming on.. sex/ dicks/ tits / porn is everywhere. Mrs | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe I'm desensitised to genitals online, I think it's abit over the top. I have been using the Internet since I was teenager and lost count the many randomers on my MSN chat who wanked off as I eat cereal. I just simply close the chat/ cam. We used to add lots of random people back in the day and weren't very savvy but can't say I'm mentally scarred. Honestly, I can't get worked up by the human body. It's very easy to block random people and if they are a friend, it's easy to say John put your tiny dick away or maybe you need to go to the gum clinic. Mrs Just because it doesn't bother you, doesn't mean it's okay. Would you be happy with your 15yo daughter receiving unsolicited penis pictures from a convicted paedophile (or in fact, anyone)? I know I wouldn't. With modern social media, it's all too easy to work out where people go to school or college or work and for undesirable people to take their twisted ideas into reality. People seem to have lost resilience. cyberbullying is another example - unplug. I dont let my teens on social media- I have open discussions with them and yes they will see things online which we have discussed or shall. If I'm letting them have unsupervised access to the Internet they know there are plenty of weirdos and pop up ads show some pretty weird shit. I cant even have tea with the kids at 5pm without the viagra ad coming on.. sex/ dicks/ tits / porn is everywhere. Mrs " So you’re saying that we should just be ok with convicted sex offenders sending pictures of their genitals to fifteen year old children because the child can just learn a bit of resilience and turn their phone off? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"cant belive how many think consent is blurred by being on this site ??? so by that are you saying you can sexually abuse someone in a swinging club just because its a swinging club ??? consent is consent ... sex site ..chess club .. police station... " Can't be bothered to read through the posts so apologies if I'm well off track, but... When I go to a club I feel it reasonable to expect that I'm likely to see naked people and sex acts whether I ask to or not. When I joined this site I knew it was likely I'd see the same. Again whether I asked to or not. When I log in to Instagram I don't expect to see those things. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"cant belive how many think consent is blurred by being on this site ??? so by that are you saying you can sexually abuse someone in a swinging club just because its a swinging club ??? consent is consent ... sex site ..chess club .. police station... Can't be bothered to read through the posts so apologies if I'm well off track, but... When I go to a club I feel it reasonable to expect that I'm likely to see naked people and sex acts whether I ask to or not. When I joined this site I knew it was likely I'd see the same. Again whether I asked to or not. When I log in to Instagram I don't expect to see those things. " I expect to see pictures of genitals on the hot pictures and peoples profiles. I don’t expect to see them in my inbox without consent anymore than I expect to have someone touch me in a sex club without my consent. Just because the environment is sexual, doesn’t mean I consent to sexual activity with everyone. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I expect to see pictures of genitals on the hot pictures and peoples profiles. I don’t expect to see them in my inbox without consent anymore than I expect to have someone touch me in a sex club without my consent. Just because the environment is sexual, doesn’t mean I consent to sexual activity with everyone." You're comparing unwanted sexual activity in a club to viewing genitals on a screen. I'm in no way defending people who send unsolicited pics here or anywhere. But I don't think your comparison stands up. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I expect to see pictures of genitals on the hot pictures and peoples profiles. I don’t expect to see them in my inbox without consent anymore than I expect to have someone touch me in a sex club without my consent. Just because the environment is sexual, doesn’t mean I consent to sexual activity with everyone. You're comparing unwanted sexual activity in a club to viewing genitals on a screen. I'm in no way defending people who send unsolicited pics here or anywhere. But I don't think your comparison stands up." - both are one to one situations - both require consent according to the law - both are usually unwanted and contribute to making the victim feel vulnerable, harassed, or abused A crime doesn’t have to be as awful as another crime for it still to be a crime. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What if a profile picture is cock or vagina? If you message someone does your profile picture attached count underneath this? If so lots of men/women need to chat pictures " Personally I’d like to see Fab ban nudity in profile pictures. There’s no need for it, and it makes fab difficult to use anywhere but at home and in private. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A warning might put some off but wonder how it would work in terms of someone reporting it to the police. How would they work out who ‘knobbinghood12345’ actually is? From requesting the website to hand over the IPadress then they can see who the computer belong to." IP address means nothing. Most ISP use a gateway, which is what a site like this would see and is shared with upward of a few hundred to a few thousand people. Plus there is VPN and IP spoofing. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" - both are one to one situations - both require consent according to the law - both are usually unwanted and contribute to making the victim feel vulnerable, harassed, or abused A crime doesn’t have to be as awful as another crime for it still to be a crime. " Which goes back to my first comment. If you walk into a sex club you accept you're likely to see sex. If you take the time to sign up to and log in to this site you accept you're likely to see sex. I don't like a lot of what I see on the home page. I either block it or ignore it. Similarly we rarely check our messages, particularly first time messages with attachments. Not so much because we're offended, mostly because we're not interested but still, if I choose to open them I do so knowing what they may be. I knew it when we signed up and when we logged in. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What if a profile picture is cock or vagina? If you message someone does your profile picture attached count underneath this? If so lots of men/women need to chat pictures Personally I’d like to see Fab ban nudity in profile pictures. There’s no need for it, and it makes fab difficult to use anywhere but at home and in private." Your arse is your profile pic!! | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What if a profile picture is cock or vagina? If you message someone does your profile picture attached count underneath this? If so lots of men/women need to chat pictures Personally I’d like to see Fab ban nudity in profile pictures. There’s no need for it, and it makes fab difficult to use anywhere but at home and in private. Your arse is your profile pic!! "A bum in underwear is hugely different to a graphic picture of genitals. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What if a profile picture is cock or vagina? If you message someone does your profile picture attached count underneath this? If so lots of men/women need to chat pictures Personally I’d like to see Fab ban nudity in profile pictures. There’s no need for it, and it makes fab difficult to use anywhere but at home and in private." So true. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" - both are one to one situations - both require consent according to the law - both are usually unwanted and contribute to making the victim feel vulnerable, harassed, or abused A crime doesn’t have to be as awful as another crime for it still to be a crime. Which goes back to my first comment. If you walk into a sex club you accept you're likely to see sex. If you take the time to sign up to and log in to this site you accept you're likely to see sex. I don't like a lot of what I see on the home page. I either block it or ignore it. Similarly we rarely check our messages, particularly first time messages with attachments. Not so much because we're offended, mostly because we're not interested but still, if I choose to open them I do so knowing what they may be. I knew it when we signed up and when we logged in." I don’t know if you’re being deliberately obtuse or if you just don’t understand. When people log onto this site they agree to seeing nude pictures if they navigate to the hot pics list or peoples profiles. What they don’t agree to is being send explicit genital pictures in direct messages by strangers. People haven’t explicitly consented to being sent explicit pictures to their direct messages simply by being on this site. People should not send them without explicit consent. It is against the law to do so. You do not have to consent to one to one sexual activity just because you are on a website with a sexual environment. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" - both are one to one situations - both require consent according to the law - both are usually unwanted and contribute to making the victim feel vulnerable, harassed, or abused A crime doesn’t have to be as awful as another crime for it still to be a crime. Which goes back to my first comment. If you walk into a sex club you accept you're likely to see sex. If you take the time to sign up to and log in to this site you accept you're likely to see sex. I don't like a lot of what I see on the home page. I either block it or ignore it. Similarly we rarely check our messages, particularly first time messages with attachments. Not so much because we're offended, mostly because we're not interested but still, if I choose to open them I do so knowing what they may be. I knew it when we signed up and when we logged in. I don’t know if you’re being deliberately obtuse or if you just don’t understand. When people log onto this site they agree to seeing nude pictures if they navigate to the hot pics list or peoples profiles. What they don’t agree to is being send explicit genital pictures in direct messages by strangers. People haven’t explicitly consented to being sent explicit pictures to their direct messages simply by being on this site. People should not send them without explicit consent. It is against the law to do so. You do not have to consent to one to one sexual activity just because you are on a website with a sexual environment." But I never consented to seeing your ass. Arguably having it as a profile pic is worse than sending it as a message. With a message I can choose to ignore. As your profile pic I have no choice and therefore cannot consent. I should point out I'm in no way offended by your ass - just an example | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" - both are one to one situations - both require consent according to the law - both are usually unwanted and contribute to making the victim feel vulnerable, harassed, or abused A crime doesn’t have to be as awful as another crime for it still to be a crime. Which goes back to my first comment. If you walk into a sex club you accept you're likely to see sex. If you take the time to sign up to and log in to this site you accept you're likely to see sex. I don't like a lot of what I see on the home page. I either block it or ignore it. Similarly we rarely check our messages, particularly first time messages with attachments. Not so much because we're offended, mostly because we're not interested but still, if I choose to open them I do so knowing what they may be. I knew it when we signed up and when we logged in. I don’t know if you’re being deliberately obtuse or if you just don’t understand. When people log onto this site they agree to seeing nude pictures if they navigate to the hot pics list or peoples profiles. What they don’t agree to is being send explicit genital pictures in direct messages by strangers. People haven’t explicitly consented to being sent explicit pictures to their direct messages simply by being on this site. People should not send them without explicit consent. It is against the law to do so. You do not have to consent to one to one sexual activity just because you are on a website with a sexual environment. But I never consented to seeing your ass. Arguably having it as a profile pic is worse than sending it as a message. With a message I can choose to ignore. As your profile pic I have no choice and therefore cannot consent. I should point out I'm in no way offended by your ass - just an example "Still not sure if you’re being obtuse or you just don’t get it. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe I'm desensitised to genitals online, I think it's abit over the top. I have been using the Internet since I was teenager and lost count the many randomers on my MSN chat who wanked off as I eat cereal. I just simply close the chat/ cam. We used to add lots of random people back in the day and weren't very savvy but can't say I'm mentally scarred. Honestly, I can't get worked up by the human body. It's very easy to block random people and if they are a friend, it's easy to say John put your tiny dick away or maybe you need to go to the gum clinic. Mrs Just because it doesn't bother you, doesn't mean it's okay. Would you be happy with your 15yo daughter receiving unsolicited penis pictures from a convicted paedophile (or in fact, anyone)? I know I wouldn't. With modern social media, it's all too easy to work out where people go to school or college or work and for undesirable people to take their twisted ideas into reality. People seem to have lost resilience. cyberbullying is another example - unplug. I dont let my teens on social media- I have open discussions with them and yes they will see things online which we have discussed or shall. If I'm letting them have unsupervised access to the Internet they know there are plenty of weirdos and pop up ads show some pretty weird shit. I cant even have tea with the kids at 5pm without the viagra ad coming on.. sex/ dicks/ tits / porn is everywhere. Mrs So you’re saying that we should just be ok with convicted sex offenders sending pictures of their genitals to fifteen year old children because the child can just learn a bit of resilience and turn their phone off?" Not at all, that's a minority case. I'm talking about adults. I do find it iconic that the ones really fighting this on this thread in the next breath don't mind girls being exposed to penise's in gyms/changing areas as long as the person says they are a woman. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
Essentially I'm stupid because I have a different view than yours.
I'm not sure if I even do. That's how discussions work - people debate and potentially understand things differently. But that isn't really your thing.
Good luck with the non naked profile pic thing | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What if a profile picture is cock or vagina? If you message someone does your profile picture attached count underneath this? If so lots of men/women need to chat pictures Personally I’d like to see Fab ban nudity in profile pictures. There’s no need for it, and it makes fab difficult to use anywhere but at home and in private. Your arse is your profile pic!! "Really makes you want to draw a poo emoji but I'm just really childish | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What if a profile picture is cock or vagina? If you message someone does your profile picture attached count underneath this? If so lots of men/women need to chat pictures Personally I’d like to see Fab ban nudity in profile pictures. There’s no need for it, and it makes fab difficult to use anywhere but at home and in private. Your arse is your profile pic!!
A bum in underwear is hugely different to a graphic picture of genitals."It is still nudity if half your bum is out of your pants You can use the "hide images" function if you are out and about BTW | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What if a profile picture is cock or vagina? If you message someone does your profile picture attached count underneath this? If so lots of men/women need to chat pictures Personally I’d like to see Fab ban nudity in profile pictures. There’s no need for it, and it makes fab difficult to use anywhere but at home and in private." Blimey! Is this the right site for some I would say to that? X | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What if a profile picture is cock or vagina? If you message someone does your profile picture attached count underneath this? If so lots of men/women need to chat pictures Personally I’d like to see Fab ban nudity in profile pictures. There’s no need for it, and it makes fab difficult to use anywhere but at home and in private. Blimey! Is this the right site for some I would say to that? X "I would agree with you | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What if a profile picture is cock or vagina? If you message someone does your profile picture attached count underneath this? If so lots of men/women need to chat pictures Personally I’d like to see Fab ban nudity in profile pictures. There’s no need for it, and it makes fab difficult to use anywhere but at home and in private. Blimey! Is this the right site for some I would say to that? X I would agree with you "Me too. Especially as you can choose to hide images. I’m totally with the unsolicited sending privately thing but to ban nudity on fab?! | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What if a profile picture is cock or vagina? If you message someone does your profile picture attached count underneath this? If so lots of men/women need to chat pictures Personally I’d like to see Fab ban nudity in profile pictures. There’s no need for it, and it makes fab difficult to use anywhere but at home and in private. Blimey! Is this the right site for some I would say to that? X I would agree with you
Me too. Especially as you can choose to hide images. I’m totally with the unsolicited sending privately thing but to ban nudity on fab?!"I think people are getting carried away to be honest the guy sent pics to a minor and is in jail, many would say they are here for sex and many think with their dicks but its a sex site, not a chat site or a dating site a sex site, although having said that I'm looking for a partner and a date but I'm odd | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Tbh I don’t think the law would apply to this site, as it’s an adults only sexual site that has features such as “top videos” “top pics”, a policy that allows nudity and even the ability to add nudes to profile photos. In addition to that it’s common practice for people to send revealing images (yes women and couples too. I get them all the time). So by joining and participating you’re accepting that you are likely to see nudity. I’m sure it’s even in the T’s & C’s. By all means put something on your profile if you want. But it’s unlikely to hold up in court, since you can’t supersede this sites on t’s and c’s you agreed to when signing up. Do you think a site's terms and conditions supersede a national law? That's cute. " Exactly. They don't. In the same way tgat some companies attempt to get around various laws by stating 'exceptions' in their company policies and such. No company policy trumps the law | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What if a profile picture is cock or vagina? If you message someone does your profile picture attached count underneath this? If so lots of men/women need to chat pictures Personally I’d like to see Fab ban nudity in profile pictures. There’s no need for it, and it makes fab difficult to use anywhere but at home and in private. Blimey! Is this the right site for some I would say to that? X I would agree with you
Me too. Especially as you can choose to hide images. I’m totally with the unsolicited sending privately thing but to ban nudity on fab?!I think people are getting carried away to be honest the guy sent pics to a minor and is in jail, many would say they are here for sex and many think with their dicks but its a sex site, not a chat site or a dating site a sex site, although having said that I'm looking for a partner and a date but I'm odd "It's a swingers site, not a sex site, not a dating site, not a hook up site, a swingers site, being a swingers site doesn't take the need for consent away. Mrs | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm bored of men sending just dick pics. Yes, it's a sex site but I'm more interested in what craic the man has & then what they look like. " Not to be confused with ass cracks | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From reading the law, I’m pretty sure fab wouldn’t fall under its jurisdiction. But if anyone is upset by nsfw photos then maybe they could add a filter that blurs them. They aren't upset by NSFW photos. They are upset by pathetic men sending dick pics via DM without consent. There is a huge difference. And as I said - receiving photos on fab wouldn’t fall under this law in the vast majority of instances. So adding an optional filter would fix that issue. How does sending pictures of your genitals to strangers who do not consent to receive them NOT fall under the new legislation? Because the law states it has to be done “to gain sexual gratification, or to cause alarm, distress or humiliation.” It’ll be pretty hard to argue the last three on a sex site. The first one is debatable - it’s standard practice on here to exchange intimate images to arrange meets, rather than for gratification. " But obviously some are doing it for the gratification and it does cause distress to those recieving them. I get men doing it on purpose after I've said no thanks. Because I've asked people not to do it on my profile. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From reading the law, I’m pretty sure fab wouldn’t fall under its jurisdiction. But if anyone is upset by nsfw photos then maybe they could add a filter that blurs them. They aren't upset by NSFW photos. They are upset by pathetic men sending dick pics via DM without consent. There is a huge difference. And as I said - receiving photos on fab wouldn’t fall under this law in the vast majority of instances. So adding an optional filter would fix that issue. How does sending pictures of your genitals to strangers who do not consent to receive them NOT fall under the new legislation? Because the law states it has to be done “to gain sexual gratification, or to cause alarm, distress or humiliation.” It’ll be pretty hard to argue the last three on a sex site. The first one is debatable - it’s standard practice on here to exchange intimate images to arrange meets, rather than for gratification. But obviously some are doing it for the gratification and it does cause distress to those recieving them. I get men doing it on purpose after I've said no thanks. Because I've asked people not to do it on my profile." It would be hard to argue that a tribute pic isn't for someone's sexual gratification. Or a message accompanying a pic with graphic detail. I have enough problems thinking I'm traumatising someone with a face pic, never mind one of my gentleman parts. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What if a profile picture is cock or vagina? If you message someone does your profile picture attached count underneath this? If so lots of men/women need to chat pictures Personally I’d like to see Fab ban nudity in profile pictures. There’s no need for it, and it makes fab difficult to use anywhere but at home and in private. Blimey! Is this the right site for some I would say to that? X I would agree with you
Me too. Especially as you can choose to hide images. I’m totally with the unsolicited sending privately thing but to ban nudity on fab?!I think people are getting carried away to be honest the guy sent pics to a minor and is in jail, many would say they are here for sex and many think with their dicks but its a sex site, not a chat site or a dating site a sex site, although having said that I'm looking for a partner and a date but I'm odd "its a swingers site it a lifestyle site yes theres sex involved but its involved within a scene its not what many men think it is ie a sex site and thats where so many fail at meeting anyone or so few | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What if a profile picture is cock or vagina? If you message someone does your profile picture attached count underneath this? If so lots of men/women need to chat pictures Personally I’d like to see Fab ban nudity in profile pictures. There’s no need for it, and it makes fab difficult to use anywhere but at home and in private. Blimey! Is this the right site for some I would say to that? X I would agree with you
Me too. Especially as you can choose to hide images. I’m totally with the unsolicited sending privately thing but to ban nudity on fab?!"I didn’t say we should ban nudity on fabs. I said it would be great to see profile pictures made to be non-explicit. There’s an interactive grey area there now. If it’s illegal to send a graphic sexual image to a stranger in a PM, then on this site it probably also includes the profile image since that’s sent with every message. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From reading the law, I’m pretty sure fab wouldn’t fall under its jurisdiction. But if anyone is upset by nsfw photos then maybe they could add a filter that blurs them." Perhaps the flashers could just stop flashing. It's so much better when two parties want the same thing rather than one party forcing something upon another. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Folks,I've read the entire thread and the most important word after Consent has only been mentioned twice!! CONSEQUENCES! People that send unsolicited genital pictures don't care about how the recipient feels...and the reason they continue to send images like these is because there are no consequences! Until now! When a few more people are prosecuted/convicted and named publicly then attitudes will start to change. There is no grey area ...the law is quite clear. Avoid a possible conviction and the sex offenders register...don't send genital pics unless you've been asked! It's not rocket science!" Couldn’t agree more! We say on our profile we don’t want dick pics, we still get them. Maybe we need to start responding quoting the law and potential sentencing…. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's fantastic news, no one anywhere should be flashing their genitals to people who haven't consented! Mrs " Agreed! | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think that disclaimer would work on a site like this as there's an implied consent that by using Fabswingers you'll see images of an adult nature. Although I will add a disclaimer on to my profile in the hope that it stops all those pesky women sending their unsolicited vag shots to me "There's no such thing as 'implied consent.' You cannot perform illegal acts and then go 'yeah but she was on a website/d*unk/at a sex club/wearing a short skirt so she deserved it.' | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think that disclaimer would work on a site like this as there's an implied consent that by using Fabswingers you'll see images of an adult nature. Although I will add a disclaimer on to my profile in the hope that it stops all those pesky women sending their unsolicited vag shots to me
There's no such thing as 'implied consent.'
You cannot perform illegal acts and then go 'yeah but she was on a website/d*unk/at a sex club/wearing a short skirt so she deserved it.'"Implied consent does exist in UK law (it is a complex issue). Obviously it doesn't cover illegal acts and a person still can't consent to certain things such as ABH etc. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think that disclaimer would work on a site like this as there's an implied consent that by using Fabswingers you'll see images of an adult nature. Although I will add a disclaimer on to my profile in the hope that it stops all those pesky women sending their unsolicited vag shots to me
There's no such thing as 'implied consent.'
You cannot perform illegal acts and then go 'yeah but she was on a website/d*unk/at a sex club/wearing a short skirt so she deserved it.'
Implied consent does exist in UK law (it is a complex issue). Obviously it doesn't cover illegal acts and a person still can't consent to certain things such as ABH etc.
"But I don't consent to recieving explicit photos in my inbox. I state this very clearly, twice, on my profile. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think that disclaimer would work on a site like this as there's an implied consent that by using Fabswingers you'll see images of an adult nature. Although I will add a disclaimer on to my profile in the hope that it stops all those pesky women sending their unsolicited vag shots to me
There's no such thing as 'implied consent.'
You cannot perform illegal acts and then go 'yeah but she was on a website/d*unk/at a sex club/wearing a short skirt so she deserved it.'
Implied consent does exist in UK law (it is a complex issue). Obviously it doesn't cover illegal acts and a person still can't consent to certain things such as ABH etc.
"Implied consent doesn't exist for sex or sexual acts. Either someone has consented, or they have not. And sending graphic pictures of your genitals to someone without first obtaining their consent clearly means that consent does not exist because people do not consent to one-to-one sexual encounters just because they are in a sexual environment. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think that disclaimer would work on a site like this as there's an implied consent that by using Fabswingers you'll see images of an adult nature. Although I will add a disclaimer on to my profile in the hope that it stops all those pesky women sending their unsolicited vag shots to me
There's no such thing as 'implied consent.'
You cannot perform illegal acts and then go 'yeah but she was on a website/d*unk/at a sex club/wearing a short skirt so she deserved it.'
Implied consent does exist in UK law (it is a complex issue). Obviously it doesn't cover illegal acts and a person still can't consent to certain things such as ABH etc.
Implied consent doesn't exist for sex or sexual acts. Either someone has consented, or they have not.
And sending graphic pictures of your genitals to someone without first obtaining their consent clearly means that consent does not exist because people do not consent to one-to-one sexual encounters just because they are in a sexual environment."Regarding sexual acts - a man and a woman chat on Fab and meet up for a drink. They go back to her place and kiss on the sofa. One thing leads to another and he performs oral sex on her followed by penetrative sex. They enjoyed each others company and the next day leave glowing verifications. In this scenario where was the Explicit Consent to have sex given? Regarding the issue of cyber flashing, I think it's more to do with intent to cause distress/harm than simply being stupid or annoying. Fab provides a block button for this purpose so I can't see many fabbers being hauled to court for thinking with their dicks instead of their brains. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Regarding sexual acts - a man and a woman chat on Fab and meet up for a drink. They go back to her place and kiss on the sofa. One thing leads to another and he performs oral sex on her followed by penetrative sex. They enjoyed each others company and the next day leave glowing verifications. In this scenario where was the Explicit Consent to have sex given?" Poor practice in the past doesn't mean you can't be better in the future. I always ask partners if they're enjoying themselves and want to continue before we take it to the next stage. It's sexy - you should do it too. "Regarding the issue of cyber flashing, I think it's more to do with intent to cause distress/harm than simply being stupid or annoying. Fab provides a block button for this purpose so I can't see many fabbers being hauled to court for thinking with their dicks instead of their brains." No, that's not what the law says. This is what it actually says: ---- (1)A person (A) who intentionally sends or gives a photograph or film of any person’s genitals to another person (B) commits an offence if— (a)A intends that B will see the genitals and be caused alarm, distress or humiliation, or (b)A sends or gives such a photograph or film for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification and is reckless as to whether B will be caused alarm, distress or humiliation. ---- The key is the OR in the middle of (a) and (b). Cyberflashing is a crime IF a person intends to cause alarm, distress, or humiliation OR if a person intends to gain sexual gratification. No person on a site like this is sending pictures of their genitals on first contact unless they are gaining sexual gratification from doing so. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Regarding sexual acts - a man and a woman chat on Fab and meet up for a drink. They go back to her place and kiss on the sofa. One thing leads to another and he performs oral sex on her followed by penetrative sex. They enjoyed each others company and the next day leave glowing verifications. In this scenario where was the Explicit Consent to have sex given? Poor practice in the past doesn't mean you can't be better in the future. I always ask partners if they're enjoying themselves and want to continue before we take it to the next stage. It's sexy - you should do it too. " I think in the situation described, the recklessness element would be important. If at any point a partner is indicating they're not enjoying themselves and you continue, you are reckless as to their consent. If they continue to indicate that they are enjoying themselves, then you are not likely to be being reckless. Although I swear to god this is the same argument for anything ever. "How am I supposed to know that grabbing a random woman's bum might be a bad thing? It's a compliment! She's in a club, of course you'd like it!" and other even worse versions of the same. The answer I've always liked is, replace "random woman" with "your boss". Would you grab your boss's arse without knowing he or she would like it, or without caring whether or not she would because you might like it? If not, don't grab a stranger's arse. Same for sending lewd pictures. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
