And what’s the deal with airline peanuts? I mean, who are they trying to keep out of these things?
What’s being pitted here? The harassment of a guy who, as far as your link says, has done nothing wrong? Or the guy himself? Because it sounds a bit like the latter. That would be kinda lame.
“A college spokeswoman said investigators would look into whether the photo could have been falsified.”
That’s one committee I’d prefer to pass on.
Don’t you mean “com-meat-tee?”
I have a friend currently online dating - she responds with pictures of larger penises.
Granted, some might go for size – but does a dick-pic even really show the size? There’s nothing but the guy’s hips to give it scale, and nothing to give scale to the hips.
Typically, people will put things next to it for scale / comparison. Bottles, cans, remote controls, etc.
No, I meant what I said. cum-mit-tee
I’d like to think most women could tell if there was a dick pic in our inboxes without having to check. 
Wasn’t there a law proposed or something against revenge porn? Isn’t that what this is, assuming no laws have been broken?
People need to get it out of their heads that working at the NSA, CIA, FBI, DoD or any of those places means people are less likely to be idiots or dirtbags. Contrary to what the general public seems to think the people that work at those places are no different than the people who work anywhere else, they just happened to pass a background check. There are lazy good for nothing fuckups at all of those places. I’ve worked in several of those orgs and the people are no better or diff.
Background checks are there to keep the obvious traitors from passing secrets to the enemy, and even that process is far from perfect.
And we have a winner! Absolutely brilliant.
The guy in the original article does seem to have been the victim of revenge porn and not in the same class as people who send dick pic unsolicited to women. BUT, he was the staffer of a Republican politician; if you are going to be part of a political movement dedicated to surpessing other people’s sexuality, you deserve every bad thing that happens to you when you fail to surpress your own.
I have heard it happening once, the source was pretty reliable.
Mostly, it’s this guy’s stupidity (as I noted, you’d think an NSA analyst would know better than to assume that something put online with the intention of keeping it private is necessarily guaranteed to remain private).
There’s also the “Big Brother apologist” angle – if you take the “you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide” side of the privacy debate, you can hardly complain if your less savory secrets pop up (so to speak).
He didn’t “put it online”. He sent it in an SMS to a woman who acknowledges it was a consensual exchange. She then tweeted a screenshot and claimed she “wanted to inform his wife & embarrass him”, and he lost his job.
If a female had foolishly shared a “compromising” photo and found it published by someone else before being fired over it, intelligent, thinking people would be outraged at the arsehole who shared her private picture and the thoughtless boss who fired the victim. I also suspect a thread pitting this hypothetical woman’s “stupidity” wouldn’t go as the OP hoped and there would be quite the pile-on. I know the “if the victim were someone else” comparison got old a long time ago, but it remains a very relevant point in this case.
Relevant Guardian opinion piece: “It’s still revenge porn when the victim is a man and the picture is of his penis”.
So we have to winnow these case by case not according to the subject photo having an innie vs outie, but rather unwanted porn-bombing vs revenge porn? do we have the cultural apparatus to deal with this?
of course we do. revenge porn is a form of gossip. Gossip is a strange thing. Do we use it to punish those who were exposed doing the same things we all do buy have so far avoided exposure? Is it to warn us not to do some things that we are entirely apt to do? Is it a consolation prize for those who have missed out on some of life’s furtive pleasures, for whom “virtue is its own reward” just doesn’t quite cut it.
Or all of the above. But ultimately, in all but the most extremely censorious-worthy cases, it is understood by anyone who graduated middle school that to gossip is worse a thing than to be gossip.
The next issue doen the line is to disavow slut-shaming but not via smut-shaming; not to castigate anyone who enjoys online erotica, but that particular erotica that can only be categorized as revenge porn. (pithy wrap-up sentence): A picture on the internet of a woman with her boyfriends cock in her mouth should cause as much shock and hoot as a woman in the store with a box of tampons in her cart.
Did he get fired for the picture, or because it revealed he was having an affair? I understood that if you had a high-level security clearance affairs were relevant because they open you up to blackmail.
If so, that’s very different than getting fired because someone published a private photo of you.
I don’t think people in general have a problem with revenge porn because it is showing images that are supposed to be kept private. I think they object because it’s usually some jilted lover trying to punish someone who didn’t do anything wrong.
But that’s not the case here. Having an affair is wrong. So people are okay with this because it provides evidence of what he did. Even if they ultimately decide it’s unimportant, most people seem to at least want to know if their public figures are having clandestine affairs. And, in this case, due to security clearance, it is arguably relevant.
I do not think a woman in a similar position would be treated differently, and, if she were, that would be wrong, too. Both would be stupid to leave evidence like this behind when you are doing something that could get you fired. Especially when you work for an organization that specializes in finding out things people want to keep secret.