That woulda been a real “gotcha!” moment, if only I were WhyNot.
News flash. Herpes is REAL, with real world effects. A non consensual video of you having sex, that isnt reviewed, or distributed, that you have NO idea that it exists is pretty much a theorectical construct with no real world implications. You don’t know it exists. You dont even know your consent was violated. And, again, even if your consent was violated without your knowledge, it has no effect in the real world.
Its right up there with being upset that imaginary angels are calling you bad names. Or watching you while your screwing like a rabid pug with epilepsi (I just stole that).
Its kinda like being against guns for real world bad effects you think they cause. That can at least be rational. But being against guns just because doesnt carry alot of philosophical weight.
I just can’t believe that there are people out there who go into a marriage thinking “this person may or may not prove to be a sociopath, so I better prepare for my inevitable divorce by finding ways to falsely prove that my husband was a child molester!”. Why on earth would you marry someone if you thought they had any chance at all of being a sociopath? Why would a man marry a woman who treated him with such thinly veiled suspicion? How is is possibly a defence to say that just because some people in the past have done something completely mental, it is okay to regularly do something completely mental to defend yourself?
Look, I get that there are genuine sociopaths out there, and there have been crazy cases where people have been screwed over. But if you are so highly paranoid that you cannot extend even the most basic trust to the people that you choose to date and even marry, then maybe you are better off just living alone.
:smack:
Well, fuck me sideways, on a video camera. Sorry about the confusion.
billfish, video (actual video, not the hypothetical video of the OP) is real, and its security is *never *guaranteed. I strayed from that aspect of the hypothetical in this instance, because it wasn’t terribly relevant to the conversation I was having with mhendo.
You’re welcome to continue to stick on that aspect of the hypothetical which allows you to say it’s fine to videotape a person without their consent if your intent isn’t to use the video. I’ll continue to disagree with you.
mhendo, no worries. 
So, following the same logic, a guy who has sex with a woman who is unconscious or otherwise unaware of what he’s done (comatose, etc) has “* no real world implications. You don’t know it exists. You dont even know your consent was violated. And, again, even if your consent was violated without your knowledge, it has no effect in the real world.*” Is this your position?
Are you really as stupid as this question suggests?
That really is a terrible example, but there are certainly things that you can do that don’t really harm a person that are still shitty things to do.
If you took a penny out of my bank account every day for the rest of my life, I’d never notice or know about it. I certainly wouldn’t suffer any meaningful harm. Does that make it okay?
@ mhendo
I’m pointing out that any idiot who thinks the “no blood, no foul” rule applies to secretly filming an individual in an intimate act because the filmed person never finds out she’s been filmed. Asinine.
The " even if your consent was violated without your knowledge, it has no effect in the real world. line is about ridiculous as anything I’ve ever read on this board. I just inquired as to how far he was willing to continue his farce.
I tried to go real slow, did you keep up?
Keep up?
Dude, i’m well ahead of you, because i understand that a physical intrusion into a person’s body is a very different thing than capturing their image on video.
If you want to argue about security issues, that makes some sense ( I am sure you are reassured about my approval of this 
)
But penny theft and coma sex (oh yeah baby, oh wait, I was thinking about comma sex) are still more real and have more real world implications than some electrons sitting somewhere doing nothing. Also, the penny theft and coma sex AFAICT are not done to prevent some possible great injustice…somebody just wants free pennies and/or free hot coma putang/massive throbbing coma cock.
IMO the “problem” here is you are arguing about the immorality of an act that has (or at least could have in certain scenarios) great utilility in preventing a possible action that most certainly DOES HAVE serious real world impact.
Or, in the great words of Mr Spock, “the needs of the somewhat paranoid outweigh the needs of the theorectically offended”.
And to be honest, I don’t necessarily totally agree with that concept. But, on the other hand, I sorta see the point and don’t automatically freak out about it either.
And I got dibs on Throbbing Coma Cock as a band name so you other SDMB band member wannabees can suck on it
It would have the exact same impact if she knew about it.
What if someone captures the photons that bounce off your account? Are you still harmed?
Help me to understand why you think it’s a silly question, in light of billfish’s argument that what I don’t know doesn’t hurt me, and anything you do is fine as long as I’m not harmed.
In this case, notwithstanding recording (since most people wouldn’t want to be recorded, no matter what their intentions), what would you recommend?
Your question isn’t silly - even a minuscule theft of a cash is still a theft. My question, though, is more relevant to the videotaping issue.
Scenario #1
Der Trihs gets lucky and brings a woman home for sex. He secretly video tapes her and she later falsely accuses him of rape but her dastardly accusation is foiled by his video evidence.
Scenario #2
Der Trihs gets lucky and brings a woman home for sex. He tells her he’s going to video tape the session “for his own protection”. She says FU and leaves.
Scenario #3
Der Trihs gets lucky and brings a woman home for sex. He secretly video tapes her but no accusation of rape is ever made.
1 and 2 result in exactly the same protection from a false accusation, the only difference being is in 2 Der Trihs doesn’t get any. So of course a dirtbag would choose 2.
3 results in a record, without her knowledge or consent, of an act any woman would reasonably expect to be private in the hands of a dirtbag.
I think that sums up DianaG’s point.
Not bad, except for two things.
You’ve decided what defines a dirtbag. And then you added a nice dose of circular reasoning/argument.
For a while now, I’ve been convinced that he has never had a romantic relationship in his life, and thus has bizarre notions of what such a relationship is like. Also, the lack of such a relationship is one of the things that has enabled him to have such a black-and-white view of all other issues of the world.
I know that whenever I go to far off the deep end myself, my wife pulls me back.
I would think the closest analogy are upskirt videos, which I find completely unacceptable when they are taken without consent.
I would think most of us would say that if you are doing something that involves another person and you don’t ask for consent because you think they might turn you down you’re probably doing something wrong.
You ask and she says no, well, she’s not the woman for you. So you’re out a sex partner. There are other sex partners.
There is something insanely creepy about someone saying they can’t ask for consent because consent might not be given. That’s exactly the purpose of asking consent, to weed the willing from the unwilling.
It’s really not much different than having some out-there sexual fetish, or anything else that could be a dealbreaker to others. Yes, it sucks that they won’t still sleep with you when they know you’re going to start chittering like Flipper and eating live fish in bed, but them’s the breaks.