Figleaf's Real Adult Sex

This post is about an effective way to deal with people who post sexually “incriminating” information about others against their will: outing the posters so that their future employers, partners, and customers find out when they Google them.

On Saturday at Sex 2.0 Maria Diaz gave “revenge porn”a presentation on “Revenge porn” is the umbrella term for the act of distributing information about a person’s sexual nature against the victim’s wishes, but it’s most closely associated with posting nude photos taken before a relationship ends as a way of getting back at an ex.

One of the big concerns for victims is that even if they get redress from perpetrators… or even if the perpetrator genuinely regrets their decision, once information goes into circulation online it can’t be recalled.

One potential bright spot is that as more, and more, and more people “grow up online” and as more and more people’s naked photos end up in distribution (either involuntarily and voluntarily) we can expect to reach a saturation level. After that point the existence of such photos won’t be scandalous at all.

We’re already seeing something like that saturation effect. In 1984 the discovery of years-old nude photos of Vanessa L. Williams obliged her surrender her position as Miss America. But just a few years later the disclosure of far more sexual photos of rabid right-wing radio host “Doctor” Laura Schlessinger raised eyebrows but caused no her lasting damage. Just recently the discovery of photos of controversial figure Carrie Prejean have caused scarcely a ripple. (Compared, at least, to her more-genuinely scandalous but unconcealed homophobia.)

Odds are that it won’t be that long before such photos wouldn’t derail a Supreme Court nomination.

That will be then, however. This is now. And now? Now, for whatever reason, not only do people feel embarrassed and threatened when a former partner posts photos, they also face potential discrimination from future partners, colleges, and employers during routine background searches.

So what to do?

Well, Google and background checks cut both ways. Well, sure, Google can turn up “incriminating” photos indicating that, like the entire rest of the population, one has a pee-pee and an inclination to do things that feel nice with them. But! Google can also turn up information on the assholes who think it’s fun, funny, or “revenge” to post such photos.

And you know what? While a “saturation” effect will likely protect victims in the future it’s extremely unlikely that perpetrators will be similarly protected. It’s unlikely that future employers, partners, journalists, or biographers will ever be pleased when they turn up evidence that a candidate has posted such photos.

“Youthful indiscretion” is almost by definition a transitory phenomenon that, again almost by definition, has no bearing on one’s likely future performance. Which is why the existence of naked photos you’ve posted of yourself, or that have been posted by others, are becoming less and less eyebrow raising.

“Being an asshole,” on the other hand, can be a little more… indicative. (For instance it’s very likely that no matter what he does in the years between, 30 years from now Jason Fortuny’s odds of a supreme-court nomination will be approximately what they are now: zero.)

So to the extent you can’t recall “revenge porn” photos once they’re posted on the internet I’d like to suggest making it just as difficult to erase information identifying the perpetrators who posted those photos. Social media seems tailor-made for disseminating and preserving that kind of out-the-outers information.

Yes, I’m aware that many victims would prefer the incident be forgotten as quickly as possible rather than dredged up again in the future. That’s obviously fine. But not every victim will feel that way. And, really, it only takes a few examples of damage to perpetrator’s careers or social lives to create a laudable “chilling effect” on other would-be perpetrators.