Should have bought a dog!

It seems like she said that shit on purpose to be in a meme.

It's too perfectly stilted:
Do we even know - who is this For - Chan -person, or website?

She needs to be introduced to Mr. Google.

That's called victim shaming. You can't suggest something like that now.

Two more points: that first comment, was it legit? Did she seriously ask that question? Or was someone over at CNN trolling and hoping to score a new meme?

And also, how many Ariana Grande nudes got posted? Was it more than four, because I've only seen four.

jreid- it's not victim shaming. I'm glad they took those pictures, and would encourage them to take more.

I'm really not caught up on the story from the celebrities' POV. I'm no celebrity but I wouldn't post a dick pick if my life depended on it. Back in the days of usenet this was pretty common but most of them were faked or taken from a film's nude scene. Then one day I found one of my best friends. Maybe it was shopped but this was like 1998. She was in no way a celebrity and I wasn't even on an adult alt.. just like /an you can ask a question about your cat's vomiting problem and get a bukakke gif. I'd like to think that celebrities would know this would happen, especially since they made a fucking movie out of it called sex tape starring the guy from I don't know and the chick from somethings wrong with mary.

The photos are still their property, and it was stolen. Subject matter aside, they own the copyright on any photos they took.

Just taken as zeroes and ones, if someone stole your CC numbers, you'd demand the thief be punished, yes? Or do you just shrug and say, "I shouldn't have shopped at Home Depot and Target if I didn't want my credit stolen"?

If I write a movie script and store it on Google Docs and a hacker gets a hold of it, is it my fault for having it on the cloud, then?

Morality seems funny with a lot of people when boobs on people who look way prettier than them are involved.

Whether digital data can ever be considered "property" is very much a matter for debate. *Data* is nothing more than information. *Property* is a legal fiction derived from scarcity. As there is no intrinsic scarcity to information (beyond artificial barriers created by those who would deny you access to knowledge), how in the world can data ever be considered property?

Credit card numbers are a bad analogy. The numbers themselves should not be verboten (09 F9, brothers!!!), and indeed, for most purposes they are not: we give out our credit card numbers every day, to any number of strangers, from grocery store cashiers to Amazon's robotic hive-mind. What would be considered validly illegal is *using those credit card numbers to steal money and fraudulently transfer debt*. The money, not the numeric string on your card, is the real concern.

And yes, if hackers steal your script, it's your fault (or, if you don't like being blamed, then chalk it up to bad luck and an Act of God). You may, of course be able to protect the contents of your script by claiming copyright, depending on the circumstances. (but it bears pointing out that even here, you are not necessarily in the right, as in the case of modern copyright law, what you are legally entitled to is rarely what is rational or just)



If you're really interested in siding with the celebs, then I think the best you could do in a situation like this is argue that people should not be blackmailed by hackers. I'd agree with that! It's happened before, and it's pretty bogus. But, to the best of my knowledge, no blackmail or extortion took place here. This was simply information liberated from a publicly accessible server and redistributed freely to the masses.

EvilHomer, do you think it's cool that people who took intimate pictures of themselves now get to have those intimate pictures posted on the internet without their consent?

Or what about this: If you wrote a suicide note for therapy (hey, don't knock it, it works!) -- a very private, intimate note that involved a lot of private, personal confessions -- would you be okay if a bunch of strangers found where you hid it, made a copy, and published it with your name attached?

I don't ask a lot from my fellow (semi) furless primates. I'd prefer them not to steal, kill, rape, or abuse me or my friends (or anyone, for that matter). I'd like them to not cut me off in the grocery line, particularly not when it's a 15-item-only express lane and they *clearly* have 16 items.

And I'd *really* like them to not think they have any fucking right whatsoever to take those things which are dear and private to me -- those things I share only with those I feel earn the right to see that part of me -- and post them online for everyone to oogle at, masturbate to, and otherwise fucking *mock*.

And yes, nude pictures fucking count. And no, it's never my fault that someone decided to take something of mine clearly marked 'private' and make it public.

If you think otherwise, you have failed miserably at the definition of 'fault'.

But yeah, no, you're right -- you getting fresh wank material is *way* more important than anyone's state of fucking mind.

And having something deep and personal and intimate of yours brutally ripped from you and exposed to the world -- and then having that very same world blame you for not being clever or savvy enough to protect it from those who wanted to exploit it -- is totally not harrowing, and is absolutely something we should treat frivolously with funny jokes and 'HA HA MOAR NUDIE PIX AMIRITE GAIS'.

I'm sorry if I'm being an asshole here, but it seems like 90% of the world agrees with you -- which means 90% of the world consists of insensitive pricks who are completely fucking wrong. So, yeah, I'm a little bitter about this.

It's not fun living in a world largely ruled by morally deranged emotionally stunted manchildren.

The pictures weren't posted without their consent. The pictures were posted *by them*!

Now, the pictures were *redistributed* without their consent, but come on. This is the internet. We all know by now that anything you post online has the potential to grow out of your control and become part of the public domain. If you didn;t know that, well, now you do. And "brutally ripped"? Are you serious, Mister Hippo? It was hacked. Some fat teenager figured out a password and hit right-click-save. "Brutally ripped" implies that there was some sort of violence involved in the transaction. There was not. Please, don't exaggerate what happened here; if you need to exaggerate in order to get the point across, the point is probably not one worth making.

Also, "state of mind"? What state of mind would that be, pray tell? None of the people who got hacked seem especially "harrowed" over this; on the contrary, the reaction so far has been both mixed and muted. This really isn't surprising, seeing as invasions of privacy are part of the job description for celebrities, not to mention the fact that most of the people involved have countless nudes (both real and fake) plastered all over the internet already. And good on them! After all, this is the 21st century. We don't have to condemn nude people as sluts or adulterers or whatever else you may think they become once they Post Tits. To quote the immortal words of Ariana Grande herself:

“It was hot. Who cares?”

Was it right? No.

Is it the TRAUMATIZING SOUL RAPE that people who like to speak for the celebs claim? No.


We're seriously likening this to credit card and property theft? That's the reasoning that record companies use to sue Limewire kiddies for six figures.

Private therapy notes? Still not the same. Those most likely contain damning content about the person's major emotional flaws that could put their career in jeopardy.

So, someone's nude pix. Not damaging (unless it's some bizarre fetish or they have a secret Quatto head). If it's not a celebrity then who's going to trace it back to the person? I guess if they were posted up around the person's workplace, and it would only be damning if they worked at some job with ridiculous puritan requirements like American school teacher.

But nude pics of celebrities? Nothing but free publicity (and let's face it the chick who played Jesse's property manager on Breaking Bad could use it) and adoration from dudes. Sorry that just doesn't bring out my inner outraged alarmist.

Anita Sarkessian does share your viewpoint though, calling this whole thing clear proof that "women are under attack". Getting in bed with FOX news language isn't quite my thing but different strokes.

Who the fuck is Ariana Grande?

OZ - she's an actress and pop singer who until recently starred in a string of Disney Channel shows; the cream of the latest crop of twenty-something starlets. You may recognize her signature magenta-dyed hair, a look which has proven popular at local community colleges, and made her a fixture on the BodyBuildingForums. She's actually not too bad a singer, and she's got this retro-vintage, almost burlesque sensibility about her, and there's a good chance she'll be the next Katy Perry, at the very least.

Miss Grande is also one of the naked celebrities in question, although the quote was originally stated in reference to another nudie-pic scandal, that one involving her friend, Jennette McCurdy.

I will never cease to be amazed at the spectacular moral failures of otherwise intelligent people; nor the lengths they will go to in order justify those moral failures.

God I had to look up Katy Perry that's how out of the loop I am.

Once again, Mister The Hippo, there is nothing immoral about being nude. These celebrities did nothing wrong, please don't shame them.

IZ - seriously? You hang out with all kinds of obscure indie rock and underground film guys, yet you've never heard of Katy Perry?! She was on Sesame Street, for God's sake!

Yeah I'm in the same boat.

And just having that opinion means we're bad people and 'part of the problem,' like somehow people are incapable of sympathizing with the victim while pointing out the stupidity that led them to victimhood in the first place.

It's not even just the internet - humanity is and always has been full of assholes who will insult, exploit, rob, and generally fuck you given the chance.

Yes, if you left money in the middle of the street and it got stolen, people *would* call you a stupid fuck. Which is actually pretty terrible. I don't think we should call people stupid for having the audacity to trust others, nor existing in circumstances that leave them vulnerable to exploitation. When someone gets exploited, I don't think our response should ever be 'Well, their behavior was clearly dumb and left them open to exploitation'.

I mean, what's the point, here? Do you think telling people their behavior is dumb is going to make them change their behavior? Particularly when you're telling them this *after* they've been exploited? If getting exploited didn't change their behavior, mocking them isn't going to work -- obviously their behavior is the way it is for some reason.

Maybe the guy keeping his money in the middle of the street is homeless. Maybe he suffers from dementia. Maybe he doesn't *remember* where he put his money. Suddenly, your perspective changes -- his behavior wasn't stupid; it was a product of his circumstances. Or would you call a homeless man suffering from schizophrenia a moron for getting robbed because he kept all his money in a tin can he kept besides himself in the middle of an alley?

What I'd like you to do -- what I'd like *everyone* in the fucking world to do -- is to stop needing to go to the homeless man example to start realizing that calling a victim's behavior 'stupid' is insensitive and dumb. Because for whatever reason, someone behaved in a way that lead them to be exploited -- you don't know the reason why, and calling them a moron for doing so isn't going to *help*. Or do you think getting exploited wasn't incentive enough for them to change? If getting exploited didn't give them cause to change their behavior, do you think labels like 'dumb' are going to help?

Whether or not you could have taken better steps to protect yourself from being victimized is irrelevant: Someone decided it was okay to exploit you. Saying 'Well, you were stupid for not taking these steps' makes you part of the problem, not the solution. No one cares what steps you could have used to protect yourself, or how you made yourself vulnerable. What's important is someone saw that you were vulnerable, and decided it was perfectly fine and reasonable to exploit you.

So yes, you're both part of the problem. And just in case you were wondering, you're not alone: Pretty much 95% of the world agrees with you. So, here's my thought of the day: If you want to actually *help* end exploitation, stop calling people stupid fucks when they get exploited.

Peace out, hugs all around.

The equivalent to "leaving money in the middle of the street" would be if these celebrities left their photos on a public share. They didn't. They stored their photos on private sites that were supposedly secure.

To put in another way, they left 00 in the middle of a bank vault, and it got stolen. No, they aren't stupid for having done so.

So Hippo, are you Boomer's new alt or just using his shtick?

You're...calling celebrity nude pictured yoinked from a server using a stolen password...the same thing as the Randian claim that people are only poor because they choose to be?

I was going to give some pointers how using venomous niceties as a closing to lectures is straight out of the tumblr bush league playbook, but I don't think that's going to help if you're that disconnected from reality.

I'm sorry, but that's wrong. Leaving 00 in the street isn't a perfect analogy, but it's closer than the bank vault thing. It would be more accurate to say that the person left 00 in an unlocked and unguarded bank vault that anybody who knew where it was could just walk in and take whatever they wanted completely unmolested. *Maybe* we'll catch them later.

And we should ABSOLUTELY be mocking these people for being stupid, because they ARE stupid. How many of these people just skipped through any setup prompts asking about automatic cloud storage because they couldn't be asked to figure out how to use their technology? The main selling point of the products exploited to gain access to these pictures is "look, understanding things is hard. Let us help you have neat gadgets and don't trouble yourself with knowing how any of it works."

This kind of thing is exactly why we should care about the power we've given tech companies over our lives, and not enough people do.

I'm not saying it's the case here, but there are plenty of circumstances in which externalizing blame can lead directly to people not learning from their mistakes.

That a crime is easy justifies or excuses the crime seems like a difficult position to defend, and all you've offered as argument so far is to emphasize the easyness.

But, hey, keep trying if you're into it.

I'm not justifying or excusing any crime. Underscoring the ease of the crime makes the argument that the celebs aren't completely blameless, and that all this very fake seeming and icky righteous indignation is probably unjustified.

I feel very sorry for anyone who feels their privacy has been violated, but I don't let it blind to the fact that they figuratively asked this to happen.

On a scale of "wearing mildly provocative clothing" (not asking for it) to "walking down the sidewalk wearing a viciously racist sandwich board" (totally asking for it), this ranks pretty high up there.

Believing that online services are secure is only market hype. There's no actual basis for it. Thus the leaving money on the street analogy.

And yes, there's thousands of years of recorded history, and people have always taken advantage of the weaker or less able. Bad things are just not going to go away, because some people on the Internet say it's a bad thing to do.

People NEED TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEMSELVES instead of this "it's not my fault the world is such a bad and scary place!" stuff.

All I can say in response is that I hope none of you experience having something intimate and private of yours made public, and then have others tell you it's your fault for not being clever enough to protect it sufficiently.

Having my private pictures stolen from my home, shame on you.

Having my private pictures stolen from an unsecure online service, shame on me.

"Only idiots believe than online services are secure!" is an easy thing to say if you're a POETV user, which is to say, most likely, a hopeless geek and relatively advanced computer user. But not everyone goes into this with those same expectations. I can't blame less sophisticated users for assuming that their online data is relatively safe: multi-billion dollar corporations are advertising them as such and everyone uses computers for everything these days, and it seems to work out pretty well! Why would these enormous companies staffed by zillions of computer nerds market such an unsafe product, anyway?

Assuming that your online data is relatively safe is a bad bet, but I'm not surprised that Joe Public makes it. Tech companies have designed their products as easy to use, accessible, and cheap enough, in some form, for just about everyone. I'm not sure the "money in the street" analogy is correct here. I'd choose the "getting your car's GPS stolen after parking it in a relatively seedy part of town." Foreseeable in hindsight? Well, yeah. But somebody actually had to exert some effort, if not a superhuman effort, to commit these crimes. Some slightly misplaced trust was violated, but I think the person or persons who actually stole the photos should get most of the blame.

I'm not blaming the users for the cracker (the computer term, not the racial term) breaking in Apple's system. I don't think no one is, it's just a straw man argument someone came up with.

Let's try this:

Telling criminals they're bad: prevents 0% of crime

Telling users they should securely store their files: prevents some cases

Okay, I still disagree with your analogy, but I'll agree on principle with your last statement.

"I'm not blaming the victims, but it's totally their fault for being stupid."

I don't know who Arianna Grande is, but if I looked like that I'd probably take some nude selfies to look at when I was 67.

This is such a weird area. If you're an attractive actress who has managed to achieve fame without showing your tits, that's money in the bank. It's a guaranteed news story when you might need it in the future, or a chance to hold out for a shitload of money. So yeah, this is a personal violation. And it's a kind of monetary theft. sort of.

Walking the tightrope between blaming the victim, and the victim was stupid is always difficult. I've been pretty much immersed in the internet and Linux for twelve years, full time, and there's still plenty of stuff that I don't understand. On the other hand, I'd never put anything sensitve on a remote server. Some things, you don't even want on your hard drive.

No they weren't stupid, but maybe we can all be smarter in the future.

ashtar, there is a *slight* difference in blaming a person for something another person has done vs. calling out someone who got a rap on their fingers, because they were too gullible.

And by being too gullible I mean uploading intimate photos to the Internet, when there's a continous stream of news about Internet services getting broken into.

JHM makes some great points re: the economic value of female nudity and the losses occasioned by this theft AND the fact that taking nudie shots is a more or less natural urge. I'm a chubby dude, but if I was some woman with a gorgeous bod, I'd want to take a few pics to commemorate that thing for posterity, 'cause beauty fades. This even applies to female celebrities.

I think Hippo's right about the "stolen is stolen" part. Whether the celebs are savvy or not, the theft was committed by someone else, not the celebs. The celebs aren't morally or legally responsible for the theft. (They are partly causally responsible, of course)

I am not sure that we can get to 'sex predators' from 'stolen pics'. Maybe the word predator should be saved for violent felons and not onanistic hackers.

On the celebrity-specific end of this, um...
live by the sword, die by the sword

Does passive aggressive sex predator beat passive aggressive vigilante murderer?

Honest to fuck, this place's perpetually outraged crowd is getting scarey. First it was just getting your righteous indignation high by calling people names, then it was labeling anyone who criticized Sarkessian as a "hate group", then calls for violent mob murder and "kill all gamers", and now we've finally arrived at genocide over pilfered nude pics.

I just don't know where we can go from here.

I mean this seriously look at where we are right now. The videos featuring the most concrete, directly damaging to society downright evil examples of racism, lynching, and shitbag Republican politicians passing horrifying laws draw only a fraction of the venom as a story about candid celebrity nudes and princesses in video games.

wait who is calling for genocide here

I'm definitely more in Hippo's camp than the other one if forced to choose but I can't say I think either is particularly rational.

Oh, meme calls for forced human extinction about as often as EvilHomer brings up ponies.

^ hah
I love memey-d, but, yeah...

Nominal, the political slide toward "frivolous left of left of left" has bothered me as well, but I haven't won a lot of friends around here lately.

Nominal, I'd agree that this isn't exactly the most important issue to come across our screens lately, but it's not our goddamn fault that you seem to have a basic empathy deficit and most of the opinions that follow from it.

I like both of you, That Guy and Nominal. The fact that you're so depressingly stupid on narrow, specific topics is what's so infuriating.

I honestly don't really care about the hack itself (sure, it sucks but oh well). It's the arguments that people are employing to justify and excuse it that I find annoying.

Well, in this case I am NOT saying the theft was justified in some way. I just don't think it's time for a UN tribunal. That much is clear, I hope?

I didn't say "forced." Human extinction will be carried out by the defect so mentioned.

I love you guys, but you're not sentient at all.

In fact, the inevitability of your nonsentient asses killing all life on earth has pretty much destroyed any desire I have for myself to try and build a future, not that I think I deserve one, but still.

Learning your brains fail at reason in a way so absolute and stupid that it would never happen in a successfully compiled C++ script just makes me hate you too.

Do you know who has more optimism and faith in a better future than I ever will in regards to humanity? WAUGH. Waugh believes something has been done to humans to ruin them, while I believe that humans were never capable of anything else.

Look to Waugh for your better people, I see no such thing.

.....nnnnn

You could probably go take a walk while the sun's out sometimes. Probably wouldn't hurt.

wait, what? if you have an exploit, dictionary attacks are useless nowadays?

>>then it was labeling anyone who criticized Sarkessian as a "hate group",

Some actual criticism, instead of threats and character assassination, would refreshing.

>>then calls for violent mob murder and "kill all gamers",

I'm against that.

>>and now we've finally arrived at genocide over pilfered nude pics.

Ditto.

ih JHM, it's like you don't know where the edit button is.

I meant "oh JHM'

Decades? This has been going on as long as cameras and celebrities have coexisted. Ask Clara Bow.

Also I read a FANTASTIC editorial a few months ago about the myth of authenticity that's so big in the American zeitgeist right now, written around the juxtaposition of public opinions of Kim Kardashian and Beyonce.

I'm pretty sure it was on the Baffler blog but I cant be assed to track it down at this hour.

I would guess that the outrage is because the apologists of the hack are using logic similar to people blaming rape victims for being stupid and putting themselves in a vulnerable position.

I've always been outraged over those things -- outraged over those assumptions. It actually gets a little exhausting after a while, though, Nominal. I mean, my outrage gland is all outraged out.

I guess I posted here because I kind of respect this place, and think of a lot of the posters here as intelligent -- and it particularly stings to see them saying shit like 'oh man I hope more nudie pictures come out!'.

You can take that sentiment of mine as an attempt to manipulate you and others ('you guys are sooooo much better than this!'), but it really is what it is: I said what I said because I genuinely like reading the posts here, but I also genuinely *don't* like what I've read expressed in this thread.

And yeah, sometimes I *do* wish humanity would go extinct. Not violently; just quietly, with everybody's consent. Not because someone posted a celebrity's nude pictures online -- but because we really are terrible, sometimes. And the justifications here are pretty much just carbon copies for justifying awfulness elsewhere. Rape, murder, assault, bullying, gay-bashing, whatever. Pick your evil; the justifications are always the same.

That gets really, really tiring after a while. Sometimes, it's really hard not to just pray we all decide to stop having kids and let natural selection try to come up with something better. It probably won't, so instead, I sometimes yell at people on the internet fruitlessly to vent my frustration over all the awfulness. Of course, people don't change in response to having me yell at them, so it's all kind of pointless, and that makes it even *more* exhausting, so...

Yeah. I'm sorry for posting here. I hope you and those who agree with you one day understand why your position is completely wrong. I also apologize if I came off as venomous and bitter over this -- it's only because I *am* venomous and bitter over it. I have loved ones who have been hurt, violated, and abused -- *I* have been hurt, violated, and abused -- only to be told by someone that we should have put more effort into not making ourselves so vulnerable.

Sometimes, when people say that, it's really, really hard not to want to do terrible things to them, then tell them they should have put more effort into not being so vulnerable to terrible things. But that would be *extraordinarily* wrong.

So instead, I make long, rambling posts like this, then go back to my long period of silence. Either way, I wish you luck in life.

Well, let's not forge who the real victims are here: men who have suffered purely theoretical photo hackings and internet commenters who are sick of hearing about actresses that women seem to admire and relate to. And the children, of course.

Oh, and Hippo is indeed great.

Also, yes: This would have been terrible if it happened to Ryan Gosling. It would have been terrible if it happened to some homeless dude with a smart phone. It would be terrible if it happened to Rush 'Feminazi' Limbaugh. My outrage toward the act of exploitation does not magically change based on the target of that exploitation. Why is that hard to grasp? That the standard isn't 'don't exploit female celebrities by sharing their intimate pictures with everyone', but rather, 'don't exploit people', PERIOD?

Somebody above mentioned how there's a threshold between 'not asking for it' and 'asking for it' -- a person with revealing clothes wasn't asking for it, but a person with a violently racist placard walking on the sidewalk was.

But that entire continuum is just deranged: No, walking on the sidewalk with a violently racist placard on your chest does not mean you were 'asking for it'. The only way to ask to be beaten, abused, raped, or otherwise have your life violated is to *literally* ask for these things to happen. And yes, I mean the word 'literal' in its most literal sense.

There is nothing anyone can do that makes them deserving of being beaten, abused, or otherwise violated. The fact that people think that my rights as a human being are conditional -- that there are circumstances under which, by my actions, I am somehow at fault for the abuse I suffer -- is genuinely disgusting. And no, if you kill me in self-defense, I *still* didn't 'deserve' to die -- and neither do you.

I realize this paradigm is bizarre to pretty much everyone reading this message. That life is precious; that death is terrible; that abuse and cruelty are things we should avoid as much as possible -- that we should not violate, exploit, or otherwise behave unjustly to others, and we should never blame someone when they are taken advantage of, regardless of how easy it was to take advantage of them. It's sometimes very painful to realize just how many people disagree.

But I'll be okay: I've found a small circle of friends and loved ones who agree with these things. I'm sure there are other small circles out there too, and I hope that those circles get bigger, and eventually these circles meet, and we can all start calming the fuck down and behaving like responsible, mature, loving, compassionate, empathic adults.

I realize I have rambled way too long on the comment thread regarding leaked celebrity nudes. At this point I probably sound like a fucking lunatic. I just wanted to put all of this out there because I can't say these things in real life -- a lot of people get really angry when I do. That, and maybe someone reading this agrees with me -- and if they do, I just want that person to know that no, you're not alone. There *are* people out there who genuinely believe that cruelty is wrong, and there are *no* actions you can take to somehow make it okay to abuse, violate, or otherwise harm you.

To those who disagree (Nominal, Cube, EvilHomer, etc): I apologize for all my bitterness, and I genuinely wish you well. I also hope that one day, you'll understand why I and people like me take this shit so seriously, even though (to you) the stakes probably seem so very low. It's partly because your rhetoric is used to justify things when the stakes seem (to you) much, much higher -- but it's also because you really don't know how devastating having pictures you shared privately be made public can be to any of these people. Maybe all the celebrities involved are not devastated at all; I certainly hope so. But if they did feel devastated -- if this really did hurt them -- I would certainly not think them wrong to feel that way. I get the sense you would, because you don't see it as a big deal -- but as any reasonable psychologist/therapist would tell you, people are complex -- just because you can't imagine how something could be devastating doesn't mean it can't be devastating.

For realsies, now: Hugs to all, peace out.

(PS: yes, I know I am great

...that last bit was supposed to be a heart followed by a closed parenthesis. Oh well, whatever.

SERIOUSLY OUT NOW Y'ALL.

>>And can we be completely honest for one minute and admit that if this was limited to stolen nudes of Ryan Gosling, that the outrage would be non-existant?

But it's not.

Always we get the hypothetical. And it's always a hypothetical.

If it was it was A MAN that was getting hundreds of rape threats on twitter and endless character assasination in youtube, no one would care."

I guess we'll never know.

I think the other important distinction to make is that women don't usually clamor for nudie shots in the same way that men do. Some women, sure. But even for porno purposes, most women seem to do fine with the odd shirtless shot, dudes dressed all sharp, and dudes in fanfic. As a straight man, though, I demand a beaver shot. I can't help it! I think that gives the whole thing a more exploitative edge.