Assuming it was totally innocent, then I’d expect no less of the homeowner than to immediately destroy the recording. Anything else is just creepy.
Well, it could be the case that he doesn’t think about the recordings at all, except in this unusual case of a false rape accusation, at which point he starts to think of ways to defend himself including, oh by the way, a recording of some of the events at the house.
In any case, if the accusation is false, he may or may not be a sleaze, but she is certainly a liar.
Der Trihs feels that he is entitled to sex under circumstances that he himself assumes no woman would consent to.
Not such a huge leap.
Now, I don’t believe that Der Trihs is an actual rapist. Or even a misogynist. He’s just an amoral misanthrope. I’m certain he’d have no problem treating absolutely anyone with as little decency as he would treat his hypothetical sexual partners.
@Bryan…
Any man who feels the need to protect against false rape accusations has got more screws loose than a Studebaker. Perhaps he should choose those he (or she) beds with his head rather than his/her crotch.
Possibly, and this is something Quartz’s hypothetical friend and Der Trihs may have in common, but I can buy the possibility that the recordings are made to protect the homeowner against various crimes, primarily burglary and vandalism. Certainly once the false accusation has been made (regardless of what the accusation is specifically of)), the man is entitled to protect himself by impeaching (or at least trying to impeach) the credibility of the accuser.
This is something of an impasse. I can buy that the man might be sleazy, but I accept the possibility that he might not, and in any case the simple act of slapping on a “sleazy” label accomplishes very little. To the specific issue of this thread, I get the impression Zipper was egging Diana on in the other thread because her reaction was so energetic and comical, and Der Trihs was just being his usual self, which by now should surprise and outrage absolutely no-one.
I would object to being taped because everyone knows that men put that stuff up on their facebook pages to get revenge after they get dumped. Women have to protect themselves from that kind of shit.
Reread the OP of the original thread. There’s no indication that the homeowner ‘forgot’ about the cameras. There is, in fact, the indication that he’s fully aware of them, because “sometimes a man needs more than a condom for protection”. :rolleyes:
The question is “Is it okay to record sexual encounters without the consent of your sexual partners?” The answer is “No.”
And ultimately, this isn’t about sex. It’s about the fact that it is not okay to treat people badly just in case they turn out to be bad people. It is, in fact, insane troll logic. There are honest and decent ways of protecting yourself that don’t involve violating trust. If you’re an honest and decent person, you’ll stick to those methods.
“And not to boast,” growled the sallow-faced man, smoothing back one oily forelock and tapping an aerosol burst of Binaca across his yellowed teeth, “but I’ve had a lot of hypothetical sex partners…”
I’d add the small caveat that it depends what plans (if any) were made for these recordings.
Sorry, I don’t subscribe to such categorization. It’s too close to the “No True Scotsman” fallacy for me.
If video taping your sex partners without their consent is unethical, what is having a child without their consent and extorting 18 years of salary garnishment out of your sex partner? Video taping people without their consent may be a little skeevy, but if you have already agreed to let someone penetrate your body or for you to penetrate theirs, I think a demand for privacy about that act is a non-issue where the other partner is concerned.
Well, you can always go with the hole in the sheet method if want to keep it all kosher.
PS. Man I love the Turnip.
In my experience there are people who are capable of anything. Most people aren’t sociopaths, but enough are (and divorce proceedings are some of the cess pits of family law), that it is better to be safe than sorry.
That’s not a small caveat, that’s a nullification.
What else is it okay to do to a person without their consent, as long as you personally feel your plans merit it?
Stop that, no good comes of it.
Wouldn’t that make identifying the parties in the sex act more difficult? All the Jews I know say the hole in the sheet method is an urban legend as far as they are concerned. It was depicted in Like Water for Chocolate, but I have never heard independent conformation of that custom from any Mexican or Mexican-American people.
Yeah, like there are people that actually think that women who get pregnant without their partner’s consent should be* killed*. :eek: Can you imagine??
One of DT’s common debate tactics is to refer to some article he read some time ago, but doesn’t remember exactly where so he can’t cite it.
Its a joke son. But it would technically make the act more “private” (but in a silly way IMO). You need to watch more Larry David.
No kidding. That bit about the wives photographing their husbands bathing the kids so that later on they can accuse the guy of being a kiddy-fiddler is just… wow. Wow. That’s impressively crazy even for an Internet message board.
I’m not sure what this means.
It’s not clear to me that anything is being done to anyone, less so if the situation is as I described in one case - the video being temporarily stored and discarded without review unless an inquiry is made.