NationStates Jolt Archive

Via waxy.org:

"On Monday, a Seattle web developer named Jason Fortuny started his own Craigslist experiment. The goal: "Posing as a submissive woman looking for an aggressive dom, how many responses can we get in 24 hours?"

He took the text and photo from a sexually explicit ad (warning: not safe for work) in another area, reposted it to Craigslist Seattle, and waited for the responses to roll in. Like Simon's experiment, the response was immediate. He wrote, "178 responses, with 145 photos of men in various states of undress. Responses include full e-mail addresses (both personal and business addresses), names, and in some cases IM screen names and telephone numbers."

In a staggering move, he then published every single response, unedited and uncensored, with all photos and personal information to Encyclopedia Dramatica."

***WARNING: If you choose to visit the Encyclopedia Dramatica page for this experiment (which I have chosen not to link directly) you will encounter extremely graphic sexual images and language. I mean REALLY graphic. You have been warned.***

So. What do we think of this?

This guy posts an ad as a woman looking for violent sex. He gets flooded with responses which range from comical to deeply frightening. He then "outs" all the responders by posting all the personal information they chose to send him.

Entrapment?

A well-deserved "outing" for a bunch of sickos?

A silly prank?

A potentially dangerous scam? (Remember, somebody could easily respond to such an ad with somebody else's personal info, and get them into a heap o' trouble.)

Any legal experts out there know about privacy laws? Can the "outed" men sue?

I don't know how it would work in America, but there would be a very strong case in Europe for the 'outed' people to claim a breach of their privacy under the European Convention on Human Rights.

If anything happened to any of them, you would also have a strong case to go after the guy on some sort of assisting an offence charge.

EDIT: BTW, Bottle, I'd edit out the names of the sites where this info is, if I were you. People have been banned for providing instructions on where to find porn before, even without links.

To out consenting adults for their sexual behavior? Wow, that sounds familiar.

That's disgusting, why would anyone do that? What does the guy who did that have to gain other than feeling better about himself because he exposed a bunch of supposed "perverts".

Sick fucker.

That seems childish and stupid.

Why does he need to 'out' these people if they are looking for a consentual relationship? And does he think that publicy embarrassing these people is going to have a positive effect on those 'on the edge' as I imagine he fears?

Seems like just another internet troll to me. Of no value other than to be an asshole.

I don't understand any other purpose.

I'm honestly having trouble sorting out how I feel about this.

On the one hand, I tend to feel little sympathy for men who fling their personal information at total strangers over the internet and then whine about lack of privacy. If you want your private life to stay private, you probably shouldn't send pictures of your penis to total strangers.

On the other hand (and to steal a friend's analogy), if I walk past an unoccupied Mercedes with unlocked doors, rolled down windows, and the keys in the ignition, I think, "What a dumbass." But I don't steal the car.

On yet another hand, some of the shit that the responders posted was deeply sick. One fellow described how he'd cut off the woman's hands before having violent sex with her. Part of me likes the idea of exposing men with these kinds of violent fantasies, so that their partners really know what they're getting into.

On a fourth hand (perhaps I should switch to tentacles?), I don't support the forced "outing" of people who prefer homosexual sex, so why should I condone the outing of people who prefer this type of sex?

The tone of the original ad was extremely graphic and violent, and the responses followed suit. It's not like this guy posted an ad to sell his stereo and got back some crazy BDSM stuff. It was more like,

"I want some kinky BDSM sex!"
"I want to give you some kinky BDSM sex!"
"PERVERT! I'm outing you!"

Gah, I just keep thinking myself in circles on this one.

-snip-

Violent responses or not, there is no justification for 'outing' them in this way. It may have just been 'sexual play', so to speak, and so no harm would have come of it. On the other hand, if there was genuine cause for concern, the original poster should have alerted the authorities.

This is vigilante 'justice', and nothing more. There is no excuse for it.

"I want some kinky BDSM sex!"
"I want to give you some kinky BDSM sex!"
"PERVERT! I'm outing you!"

Gah, I just keep thinking myself in circles on this one.

Sounds to me like he posted something wanting the most graphic responses so he could inflame people. He's trolling, and once he got some guys on the line when decided to publish all their info.

A good lesson for a bunch of chumps.

They should never assume privacy when talking to another person.

Why would he "out" them? What's the point? It's not as if they were doing anything illegal, or, come to think of it, anything uncommon...

But I guess there are probably some poor suckers around with even less of a love life than those guys who replied, and it probably makes those poor losers feel all warm inside that the others got "outed" *insert nerdy astmatic snigger here*

:rolleyes:

Why would he "out" them? What's the point? It's not as if they were doing anything illegal, or, come to think of it, anything uncommon...

But I guess there are probably some poor suckers around with even less of a love life than those guys who replied, and it probably makes those poor losers feel all warm inside that the others got "outed" *insert nerdy astmatic snigger here*

:rolleyes:

Teach them to show a bit more discretion in their dealings.

Giving information to random strangers on the internet is a pretty fucking dumb idea.

I'd like to say serious crime but not being up on the untold number of laws in this country I'll just say - An unfair violation of privacy for the "outed" men

Once you piss off enough people, the odds are that there is one that will try to get some retribution. If the perpetrator of this nonsense is lucky, that retribution will only come in the form of a lawsuit.

Teach them to show a bit more discretion in their dealings.

Giving information to random strangers on the internet is a pretty fucking dumb idea.

Sure it's a dumb idea, but don't dismiss the asshattery of the guy who published the information. His sole motivation was to fuck with people who's sexual tastes he objects to.

Teach them to show a bit more discretion in their dealings.

Giving information to random strangers on the internet is a pretty fucking dumb idea.

It's true that its dumb to give out personal information to strangers. Hell, even non-strangers fuck over people close to them (like say an ex-boyfriend publishing an ex-girlfriends nudes on the net), so really you can't trust anybody... still I don't think that they deserved to be 'outed' just because they trusted someone online that they didnt know personally for years, just as the ex-girlfriend in my example didn't deserve what she got.

Sure it's a dumb idea, but don't dismiss the asshattery of the guy who published the information. His sole motivation was to fuck with people who's sexual tastes he objects to.

[DEVIL'S ADVOCATE]

Regardless of his intentions, he didn't force anybody to send him their information. Assuming that the fellow in question is to be believed (which is obviously up for debate), he didn't go looking for anybody, he didn't pursue anybody, and he didn't encourage anybody to send further information.

So should somebody really have an expectation of privacy if they share this kind of information with a total stranger?

[/DEVIL'S ADVOCATE]

Sure it's a dumb idea, but don't dismiss the asshattery of the guy who published the information. His sole motivation was to fuck with people who's sexual tastes he objects to.

I'm not, I'm just saying that being stupid means you get what you deserve.

I've no problems with these fellows sexual tastes, but, I find their gullibility amusing.

So. What do we think of this?A crass violation of the right to privacy.

A crass violation of the right to privacy.

No violation here. They gave him the info, without any included stipulations about it's use.

Teach them to show a bit more discretion in their dealings.

Giving information to random strangers on the internet is a pretty fucking dumb idea.

Yep. But people are pretty fucking dumb on the whole.

Yep. But people are pretty fucking dumb on the whole.

I know that full well.

No violation here. They gave him the info, without any included stipulations about it's use.

The dating pages I sometimes use normally have huge big warning labels not to give phone numbers, bank account details or similar information to people you don't know. And if email addresses are posted in the profiles, they will actually be removed.

Then again, I'm pretty sure that a clever lawyer could make a case out of this by claiming that the data was provided on a dating site for the purpose of making contact, which would be a normal social interaction, and no explicit indication was given that the data was going to be made public.

That's a difficult one. I doubt most of these guys are actually dangerous - or would actually go through with a meeting if one were planned - so putting a bunch of personal information up seems to be going a bit far.

I agree with this sort of thing when it is adults looking to prey on young children - because that needs to be exposed. But doing it in regards to and adult looking for something kinky? I don't think that's a good idea or necessary.

Now, is it illegal? I really don't know. If you send me a letter in the mail, and include no disclaimers to the contrary, am I allowed to make copies of it? It is my property at that point - and you freely gave it to me.

Gah, I just keep thinking myself in circles on this one.

I do, too, and I'm in an even weirder situation, as someone who is not only actually a submissive female, but who, as a submissive female, has encountered a fair number of so-called "dominants" who would be better termed "abusive bastards who think if they call themselves 'dominants' that will magically make it okay that they get off on hurting people." I can't help but approve of seeing those sorts of men outed to the world at large...but I don't at all like seeing men who just happen to be into kinky sex so outed. That really is unfair.

Of course, there's also the part where I think that anyone dumb enough to send their name, address, and nude pictures to a stranger on the internet is kind of asking for this sort of thing to happen, and it's hard to have too much sympathy for people when they knowingly do monumentally stupid things...

I do, too, and I'm in an even weirder situation, as someone who is not only actually a submissive female, but who, as a submissive female, has encountered a fair number of so-called "dominants" who would be better termed "abusive bastards who think if they call themselves 'dominants' that will magically make it okay that they get off on hurting people." I can't help but approve of seeing those sorts of men outed to the world at large...but I don't at all like seeing men who just happen to be into kinky sex so outed. That really is unfair.

The problem is when one confuses Dominant and Submisive with Sadist and Masochist. As long as the sadist is getting off while hurting a masochist who has agreed of their own free will and kinky nature to be hurt by them then yeah it's magicly ok. When they hurt someone who does not want the pain then they are abusive bastards who should be suspended by their genitals from a red hot hook.

No violation here. They gave him the info, without any included stipulations about it's use.Perhaps no legal violation in the US. Should be though.

When they hurt someone who does not want the pain then they are abusive bastards who should be suspended by their genitals from a red hot hook.You could get into a neverending circle with that one...

Entrapment of the most spiteful and conceited kind.

For those of you who can't picture how serious it is... try out this scenario:

What if this asshole targeted military personnel who figured this would be a discreet deal, and because this fucker outed them, they were court-martialled and dishonorably discharged?

Teach them to show a bit more discretion in their dealings.

Giving information to random strangers on the internet is a pretty fucking dumb idea.

I don't like the "that will teach 'em" defense, because we're actually excusing assholery with it.

The case isn't that 'someone will do it,' it's that this guy did it. That's really what gets me when someone says, "well, someone would do it." Yeah, someone would, but you did. Just because someone else might have no matter how certain, you actually did and I don't think that the fact that someone else would have lets you off the hook for being an asshole.

And I really wish that the power hadn't gone out while I was typing this so I could post it in a timely fashion, but what'r'ya'gonna'do...

Hey, power is back on...

You could get into a neverending circle with that one...

Well there's a difference between suspending someone from a red hot hook by their genitals because they're abusive assholes who deserve it and doing so because it excites you sexualy.

One would have to wonder at the wisdom of purposely enraging people predisposed to violent tendencies. It's cute that he thinks he was performing a sociological experiment and not just being a colossal douchebag.

One would have to wonder at the wisdom of purposely enraging people predisposed to violent tendencies. It's cute that he thinks he was performing a sociological experiment and not just being a colossal douchebag.

Irony would be his name and address leaked to all those men.

Owned. This guy gets the GNAA award for IRL trolling...personally, I think it's pretty damn funny but I'm just an asshole.

Yeah, when did sociological experiments become studies in douchebaggery.

The problem is when one confuses Dominant and Submisive with Sadist and Masochist. As long as the sadist is getting off while hurting a masochist who has agreed of their own free will and kinky nature to be hurt by them then yeah it's magicly ok. When they hurt someone who does not want the pain then they are abusive bastards who should be suspended by their genitals from a red hot hook.

I actually wasn't referring exclusively to physical pain. There's absolutely nothing wrong with consenting S&M, consenting D/s, or the combination thereof - I've been a big fan of all of the above. There is, however, something very wrong with using one's position as dom/Master/top/whatever as a means to abuse and manipulate your sub(s). I've met a few "dominants" who truly seem to believe that being submissive means that you relinquish all rights and priveleges as a human being, and that's really, really not okay. (In an extreme case, one "dominant" I used to know literally gave his friends permission to gang-rape his submissive while he watched. That's a guy whose genitals thoroughly belong on that hook.*shudder*)

I'm honestly having trouble sorting out how I feel about this.

On the one hand, I tend to feel little sympathy for men who fling their personal information at total strangers over the internet and then whine about lack of privacy. If you want your private life to stay private, you probably shouldn't send pictures of your penis to total strangers.

On the other hand (and to steal a friend's analogy), if I walk past an unoccupied Mercedes with unlocked doors, rolled down windows, and the keys in the ignition, I think, "What a dumbass." But I don't steal the car.

On yet another hand, some of the shit that the responders posted was deeply sick. One fellow described how he'd cut off the woman's hands before having violent sex with her. Part of me likes the idea of exposing men with these kinds of violent fantasies, so that their partners really know what they're getting into.

On a fourth hand (perhaps I should switch to tentacles?), I don't support the forced "outing" of people who prefer homosexual sex, so why should I condone the outing of people who prefer this type of sex?

The tone of the original ad was extremely graphic and violent, and the responses followed suit. It's not like this guy posted an ad to sell his stereo and got back some crazy BDSM stuff. It was more like,

"I want some kinky BDSM sex!"
"I want to give you some kinky BDSM sex!"
"PERVERT! I'm outing you!"

Gah, I just keep thinking myself in circles on this one.

I feel very much the same as you on this. The outed ones pretty much outed themselves on the net to a stranger and the outer is just plain wrong for setting it up and doing it. A sad tale indeed.

No violation here. They gave him the info, without any included stipulations about it's use.Except they didn't give it to him. They gave it to the non-existant girl. It's fraud. Just like when phishers ask for your financial details. Some of the outed participants are evidently asking the Washington AG to look into it, and the CraigsList people aren't particularly happy either.

It's cute that he thinks he was performing a sociological experiment and not just being a colossal douchebag.Not sure he does; he may just be trying to cover his ass. Some of the LJ entries by his accomplice make it pretty clear they were out for "internet lulz" and generally had screwing people over as the prime goal.

I found it amusing that of all the responses the vast majority are obviously not from the bdsm community (and in fact a number tagged it as unreal).

To out consenting adults for their sexual behavior? Wow, that sounds familiar.

That's disgusting, why would anyone do that? What does the guy who did that have to gain other than feeling better about himself because he exposed a bunch of supposed "perverts".

Sick fucker.
I agree completely.

What a fucking asshole.


The tone of the original ad was extremely graphic and violent, and the responses followed suit. It's not like this guy posted an ad to sell his stereo and got back some crazy BDSM stuff. It was more like,

"I want some kinky BDSM sex!"
"I want to give you some kinky BDSM sex!"
"PERVERT! I'm outing you!"

Gah, I just keep thinking myself in circles on this one.
Honestly, I don't have any conflicting feelings on this one, not at all.

It's exactly as you say: The men replied to an ad asking for "extreme" BDSM sex in no uncertain terms (even though I think it sounds like a lot of totally inconsistent bullshit (inconsistent in terms of some parts being pretty tame and some parts describing the poster as "extreme/on edge" and stuff :rolleyes:)). So how exactly does that make them stupid? They responded to an ad, it's not like they put their posts and pictures up on the church message board

I'm honestly having trouble sorting out how I feel about this.

On the one hand, I tend to feel little sympathy for men who fling their personal information at total strangers over the internet and then whine about lack of privacy. If you want your private life to stay private, you probably shouldn't send pictures of your penis to total strangers.

On the other hand (and to steal a friend's analogy), if I walk past an unoccupied Mercedes with unlocked doors, rolled down windows, and the keys in the ignition, I think, "What a dumbass." But I don't steal the car.

If I see an ad for a used couch and I call their machine and leave my number because I want that couch, and it turns out it's just a bunch of kids making up a mock ad - does that make me stupid? Hell no.
And yeah, this isn't a used couch, but that doesn't change the fact that there are still some things that are basically based on trust, and *any* kind of ad is something like that.

And yeah, I wouldn't send nude pictures (or any pictures) of me when replying to an ad like that on craigslist, but I guess one would still have to leave some kind of email address and, well, some message as to why I'm replying - which would probably entail saying that this-and-this about the ad turned me on etc.
So if some asshole douchebag is gonna post my reply on the internet, does that make me stupid?

And also, when would be the moment when it would stop being stupid? I mean, that guy could have kept up that charade for weeks, until even the most cautious respondents would have given info about themselves. Would they still be "stupid"? Why? Are we supposed to never trust anyone with anything?

On yet another hand, some of the shit that the responders posted was deeply sick. One fellow described how he'd cut off the woman's hands before having violent sex with her. Part of me likes the idea of exposing men with these kinds of violent fantasies, so that their partners really know what they're getting into.
Well, as much as this freaks me out, I also believe that we're still talking about fantasies, and not things they'd actually do. Let's be realistic.
Plus, considering how the original ad was phrased, they may have just "bragged" and made themselves looked really badass.
Basically, I don't exactly believe that a crazed serial rapist/hand-cutter-offer/killer would answer an ad in craigslist advertising his favourite things to do.
So I don't exactly see why I should go about "exposing" anyone's fantasies especially considering they're already "exposing" them themselves by telling the poster up front what their fantasies are.
I mean, this is so totally different from, I don't know, finding the diary of your best friend's plain vanilla hubby and discovering he's secretly dreaming about maiming her.

On a fourth hand (perhaps I should switch to tentacles?), I don't support the forced "outing" of people who prefer homosexual sex, so why should I condone the outing of people who prefer this type of sex?
EXACTLY. There is nothing that's need to be "outed". It's just sex. Jeez. Most of that stuff creeps me the hell out, but what do I care what other people do as long as everybody involved consents to it?

Irony would be his name and address leaked to all those men.
As I understand it, the fellow who did this originally had all his own contact information posted on his site. He has since taken much of it down because he says he is being swarmed with calls and emails, but he doesn't seem to be shrinking from the spotlight...he reportedly is talking about trying to push this as far as possible, in the hopes of finding some way to get rich off of it.

But again, I'm getting this all through other 'net sites, so heaven knows if any of it is accurate.

What a fucking asshole.

I think we can all agree with that. :D

That's a difficult one. I doubt most of these guys are actually dangerous - or would actually go through with a meeting if one were planned - so putting a bunch of personal information up seems to be going a bit far.

I agree with this sort of thing when it is adults looking to prey on young children - because that needs to be exposed. But doing it in regards to and adult looking for something kinky? I don't think that's a good idea or necessary.

I'd be interested to see some different permutations of this idea.

For instance, a friend of mine endured a bunch of harassment on Craigslist when she posted an ad looking for somebody to do yardwork and made the mistake of mentioning that she's female. In situations like that, I completely support "outing" any asshole who decides to go out of his way to be a jerk. It's like a version of Hollaback NYC, where women post photos they snapped of men who harassed them on the streets, "outing" the harassers.

I think that, at the end of the day, I'm not cool with what this guy did because I really believe it's none of anybody's business what consenting adults like to do with each other in the bedroom (or dungeon). However, the moment an element of non-consent comes in, all bets are off.


Now, is it illegal? I really don't know. If you send me a letter in the mail, and include no disclaimers to the contrary, am I allowed to make copies of it? It is my property at that point - and you freely gave it to me.
I think what this dude did was trolling, and deeply obnoxious, but I'd be annoyed if it turned out that any of the victims had a legal right to sue. They sent personal info to a total stranger, of their own free will, and I don't think they had any right whatsoever to assume that said stranger would refrain from showing it to others.

"On Monday, a Seattle web developer named Jason Fortuny started his own Craigslist experiment. The goal: "Posing as a submissive woman looking for an aggressive dom, how many responses can we get in 24 hours?"

An 'experiment'? Uh-huh. I'm sure he used both hands to type the advert. Oh wait.

I'd be interested to see some different permutations of this idea.

For instance, a friend of mine endured a bunch of harassment on Craigslist when she posted an ad looking for somebody to do yardwork and made the mistake of mentioning that she's female. In situations like that, I completely support "outing" any asshole who decides to go out of his way to be a jerk. It's like a version of Hollaback NYC, where women post photos they snapped of men who harassed them on the streets, "outing" the harassers.

I think that, at the end of the day, I'm not cool with what this guy did because I really believe it's none of anybody's business what consenting adults like to do with each other in the bedroom (or dungeon). However, the moment an element of non-consent comes in, all bets are off.
Ever see the documentary War Zone?


I think what this dude did was trolling, and deeply obnoxious, but I'd be annoyed if it turned out that any of the victims had a legal right to sue. They sent personal info to a total stranger, of their own free will, and I don't think they had any right whatsoever to assume that said stranger would refrain from showing it to others.

I don't know, there should be a certain degree of an expected right to privacy. They didn't give their information to a publishing organization, they gave it to what they where led to believe was another private individual. If we're going to get upset at companies selling our information that they collect from us to use their services, why can't we excpect that in a personal exchange a certain degree of right to privacy be respected? I don't want to live in the world depicted in the identity theft ad where people introduce themselves as, "Hi, I'm Noneofyourbusiness." I give my phone number out to people on Craigslist when I'm looking for jobs because I want them to call and hire me for their jobs. I don't think it's unreasonable for me to expect that they only use that information for the stated purpose of calling me and giving me a job.

I don't know about the rest of you, but craigslist has really gone downhill because of all the men lurking there for the slightest hint of an available female.

As an aside, try going to a swingers' club where they've lifted the restriction on single males for the night.

The place looks like a sausage factory.

As an aside, try going to a swingers' club where they've lifted the restriction on single males for the night.

The place looks like a sausage factory.

Full of industrial machinery and dead animal carcasses?

Full of industrial machinery and dead animal carcasses?

Close. Add an unlimited supply of cock...

As an aside, try going to a swingers' club where they've lifted the restriction on single males for the night.

The place looks like a sausage factory.
As a female, I've got to admit that if I'm going to a club I will vastly prefer ones which artificially impose more equal gender ratios, such as places with "Ladies' Nights" and soforth.

Yup, that's right folks, Bottle just said she digs gender discrimination. Savor the moment.

For one thing, I like paying less money for drinks. If I'm going to make 70 cents on the dollar for the same work as a man, then I think it's only fair that I pay 70 cents on the dollar for my booze.

For another thing, the more men there are in a room the less attention I get. See, lots of women think that it's great when they're the only female around, because they think they get more male attention. Not so. With tons of single hetero boys in the room, the homosocial competition goes through the roof. The boys are so busy trying to out-manly one another that they totally forget about what should be their primary goal: making themselves attractive to me.

Why am I hijacking my own thread, you ask? Because this whole thing kind of bums me out, what with all the mutilation fantasies and outing of sexual non-conformists. There's just no happy side to this mess for me, so I'm going to escape to my fantasy world of cheep booze, discoballs, and oiled manflesh.

Stupid prank.

How about another, similar experiment? Where a guy poses as a sensitive, genuine, caring and honest man looking for romantic love with a special woman.

Then he publishes any information he gets from prospective women who fall for it! LOL HUMILIATION AND DISHONESTY, FUNNY EH?

Close. Add an unlimited supply of cock...

USian sausage factories contain infinite amounts of penises?

You know, this happens on a daily basis. Drunk incriminating photos posted all over schools and campuses. Men and women using the other for sheer enjoyment and humilation.

It happens, wrong or right.

I say, if you are stupid enough to be trapped in a prank, then I'm going to laugh. If it's me being the one trapped in a joke, be sure to laugh your asses off with me!

:D

Stupid prank.

How about another, similar experiment? Where a guy poses as a sensitive, genuine, caring and honest man looking for romantic love with a special woman.

Then he publishes any information he gets from prospective women who fall for it! LOL HUMILIATION AND DISHONESTY, FUNNY EH?
Um, I think the difference would be that seeking love and companionship is viewed as slightly different than fantasizing about cutting off somebody's hands before you rape them.

Maybe that's unfair. Maybe it's an artificial societal norm. But there you have it.

Remember, women are SUPPOSED to want love and companionship (cuddling, but never sex!), so it's unlikely that many women will be embarassed if people know that they are doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing. On the other hand, a great many people would prefer that their families and friends and employers not know that they secretly like to engage in violent sex acts.

Again, perhaps this is totally unfair and arbitrary. But there you have it.

USian sausage factories contain infinite amounts of penises?
Given the crap that our meat-packing industry has been busted with in the past, it wouldn't necessarily be surprising if this were the case.

*shudder*

A good lesson for a bunch of chumps.

They should never assume privacy when talking to another person.

Right. Like if you find that someone has somehow stolen your credit card information and used it to buy a bunch of shit online, you should have not redress, nor should you have any consumer protection. You were an idiot for allowing your stuff to be stolen.

By the same token, if someone tells you that they have certain interests that might be embarrassing if publicly known and you admit that you have them too, then there's nothing wrong with that person using that to embarrass you for no reason at all.

Right. Like if you find that someone has somehow stolen your credit card information and used it to buy a bunch of shit online, you should have not redress, nor should you have any consumer protection. You were an idiot for allowing your stuff to be stolen.

Theft is a totally different subject. If somebody takes your personal information without your consent, that is different than if you choose to mail them nude photos of yourself along with your home phone and address. Remember, these individuals weren't even personally solicited; they saw a public ad and decided to respond to it.


By the same token, if someone tells you that they have certain interests that might be embarrassing if publicly known and you admit that you have them too, then there's nothing wrong with that person using that to embarrass you for no reason at all.
Reading through the "experiment," I did not see any point at which the ad promised confidentiality. I didn't see any of the responders mention that they wanted to keep things quiet, though I should stress that I did NOT read all the responses so there may be some who did.

If these men were so concerned about not having their private lives made public, why did they send a total stranger pictures of their privates?

Um, I think the difference would be that seeking love and companionship is viewed as slightly different than fantasizing about cutting off somebody's hands before you rape them.

Is it rape if one is willing? Seems to me that soliciting things in BDSM as a submissive female indicates willingness, but then again that assumes one is not being a deceptive cybertroll trying to entrap people.

Also, how many of those responses were about fantasies involving hand-chopping? How many weren't?


Remember, women are SUPPOSED to want love and companionship (cuddling, but never sex!), so it's unlikely that many women will be embarassed if people know that they are doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing.

Ha! Yeah okay, so maybe women wouldn't mind being lied to and having any and all personal information they've sent out while being fooled, published for the sake of being humiliated.

Or maybe we could call it a community service, ya know, telling the guys just what gullible and attractive women there are, and where they live. It's a public service, should get tax funding!

Remember, women are SUPPOSED to want love and companionship (cuddling, but never sex!), so it's unlikely that many women will be embarassed if people know that they are doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing. On the other hand, a great many people would prefer that their families and friends and employers not know that they secretly like to engage in violent sex acts.

Again, perhaps this is totally unfair and arbitrary. But there you have it.

It is pretty arbitrary. At the risk of sounding like a militant lesbian (I'm a straight man) the whole idea that women have some inherent sexual aversion is a product of objectification of women. A society in which men obsess over the parentage of their children glorifies the ability for a woman to prove that her husbands children are definitly his. Matrilinial societies have virtually no anguish over lack of sexual fidelity.

As for women being "supposed" to want their sex tender and gentle cuddle-time... Have you ever read "My Secret Garden?" It's a book of women's sexual fantasies compiled by the author in interviews at a time when women tended not to discuss such things. The most common response she got when she asked women if they had any sex fantasies was "what? you mean like the rape thing?" In a society that burdens sex (both the act and the societal role) with all sorts of taboos and obligations you are necessarily going to have perverts.

Women who like being forced because if you didn't have a choice then you can't feel guilty about liking it. Men who like to be forced because they need a break from being the one responsible for everything. Men who are attracted to garments because they're too timid to approach the actual body part it's supposed to be worn on. Women who are only attracted to married men because it's proof that those men are desirable...

The list goes on and on. From the perspective of another society our aversion to public nudity and obession with sexual fidelity might both be seen as emotional disorders.

We really have no right to judge other people's sexual preferences as long as they don't involve hurting unwilling participants. With the possible exception of consensual cannibalism (http://english.people.com.cn/200604/20/eng20060420_259740.html). If you can't do a sex act twice, I'm not sure it should count as simply 'kinky.'

Is it rape if one is willing? Seems to me that soliciting things in BDSM as a submissive female indicates willingness, but then again that assumes one is not being a deceptive cybertroll trying to entrap people.

Like I said, the line may very well be an arbitrary one. I haven't really given it much thought.


Also, how many of those responses were about fantasies involving hand-chopping? How many weren't?

Feel free to go read them and keep a tally. I'd rather not do so just now.


Ha! Yeah okay, so maybe women wouldn't mind being lied to and having any and all personal information they've sent out while being fooled, published for the sake of being humiliated.

Would they mind? Maybe. But I don't think you can honestly compare the two situations at all, since the potential humiliation is far lower.

Which would embarass you more: for your mother to find out that you are seeking a loving and tender relationship, or for her to know that you are longing for somebody to pour hot wax on your nipples? Which do you think would be more embarassing to the average person?

Which do you think would be more potentially problematic if an employer found out about it? Do you think there is much chance of somebody being fired for having responded to a tender personals ad? How about if somebody's boss finds out that he likes posting violent rape fantasies on line? What if one of the men in question is a middle school teacher or a pediatrician? Don't you think maybe he could end up in a bit more trouble than if a female teacher or doctor was "outed" as being in search of a loving romantic relationship?

I think the experiment you proposed would be far more likely to simply backfire. Mainstream society is squigged out by hardcore BSDM, so they are at least a little bit primed to dislike the "weirdos" who are into BDSM. On the other hand, mainstream society likes women who are into romance and cuddling. To give your counterexperiment a chance of working, you have to target a class of people who are generally disliked about as much as men who into hardcore BDSM. You have to pick a group who have a sexual preference that is considered wrong, immoral, or otherwise yucky. Romantic women seeking cuddly companionship are not going to fit that profile.


Or maybe we could call it a community service, ya know, telling the guys just what gullible and attractive women there are, and where they live. It's a public service, should get tax funding!
We've already got that. It's listed under "personals" in your local paper.

Theft is a totally different subject. If somebody takes your personal information without your consent, that is different than if you choose to mail them nude photos of yourself along with your home phone and address. Remember, these individuals weren't even personally solicited; they saw a public ad and decided to respond to it.

The vast majority of "identity thefts" are commited by people misrepresenting themselves to the victim and simply asking for the information. Why do you think AOL had to start that whole "AOL Staff members will never ask for your password," on their IM boxes. People kept stealing accounts by asking people for their passwords, and those people just handed it over. The same thing is done by email all the time. At this moment my inbox has 2 emails asking me to verify my credit card info for the good folks at ebay. I don't have an eBay account.

The vast majority of "identity thefts" are commited by people misrepresenting themselves to the victim and simply asking for the information. Why do you think AOL had to start that whole "AOL Staff members will never ask for your password," on their IM boxes. People kept stealing accounts by asking people for their passwords, and those people just handed it over. The same thing is done by email all the time. At this moment my inbox has 2 emails asking me to verify my credit card info for the good folks at ebay. I don't have an eBay account.
All very good reasons to not give out your personal information over the internet, and very good reasons to never disclose sensitive information to unknown sources.

Feel free to go read them and keep a tally. I'd rather not do so just now.


Well, you yourself mentioned only one. I can't imagine hand-chopping-off to be a very common thing even among BDSM.

Would they mind? Maybe. But I don't think you can honestly compare the two situations at all, since the potential humiliation is far lower.

Humiliation is all subjective, just because you wouldn't find it as embarassing doesn't mean the victim wouldn't.

Which would embarass you more: for your mother to find out that you are seeking a loving and tender relationship, or for her to know that you are longing for somebody to pour hot wax on your nipples? Which do you think would be more embarassing to the average person?

Both are embarassing when one is seeking it from anonymous online strangers. But its the betrayal and deception and then publication that makes both bad, not how far from Mommy's sensibilities one is.

Which do you think would be more potentially problematic if an employer found out about it? Do you think there is much chance of somebody being fired for having responded to a tender personals ad? How about if somebody's boss finds out that he likes posting violent rape fantasies on line? What if one of the men in question is a middle school teacher or a pediatrician? Don't you think maybe he could end up in a bit more trouble than if a female teacher or doctor was "outed" as being in search of a loving romantic relationship?

See above, only replace employer/public for Mommy.

I think the experiment you proposed would be far more likely to simply backfire. Mainstream society is squigged out by hardcore BSDM, so they are at least a little bit primed to dislike the "weirdos" who are into BDSM. On the other hand, mainstream society likes women who are into romance and cuddling. To give your counterexperiment a chance of working, you have to target a class of people who are generally disliked about as much as men who into hardcore BDSM. You have to pick a group who have a sexual preference that is considered wrong, immoral, or otherwise yucky. Romantic women seeking cuddly companionship are not going to fit that profile.

While its easy for people to support it when its those yucky yucky BDSM 'freaks,' I doubt many people think betraying an 'ordinary' woman's trust in the same fashion is just jake. That's the point of the counterexperiment, to show how this kind of thing seems to be acceptable as long as its a minority sexual preference. Ultimately as a way of showing that this 'experiment' bit is just trollish nonsense.

All very good reasons to not give out your personal information over the internet, and very good reasons to never disclose sensitive information to unknown sources.

The point was, there is not a substantial qualitative difference between using other people's stolen credit card information and misusing their attempts at making connections via personal ads.

Either way you're violating a trust, however foolishly placed. It is no more fair for this person to "out" BDSM enthusiasts than it is fair for a person to buy stuff with stolen credit card information.

I'll pretend to be God, lure him in promising answers to his prayers, and post on the Internet that he's an idiot for believe in either God or God-on-the-net. That'll get 'em for sure.

Um, I think the difference would be that seeking love and companionship is viewed as slightly different than fantasizing about cutting off somebody's hands before you rape them.

But they can have the same effect on someones life/career if the information became public knowelege. Imagine a woman working in a male dominated field (especially as a supervisor/boss). That kind of info getting out could kill her credibility among her peers. It could quickly destroy a hard earned image of a tough, no nonsense, hard working woman when it is public knowledge that she is out trolling the web looking for a cuddly-wuddly huggy kissy bear. She could just as easlily loose her job over it as a man could over "illicit" sex. And that's not even going into the humiliation she would feel over the whole ordeal. No, the analogy is a good one.

Is it rape if one is willing? Seems to me that soliciting things in BDSM as a submissive female indicates willingness, but then again that assumes one is not being a deceptive cybertroll trying to entrap people.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I'm hoping I'm misinterpreting you here, but that sounds very much as if you're saying that if a submissive female says she wants someone to dominate her sexually, she has thereby consented to letting positively anyone dominate her sexually in any way they choose. This is very obviously untrue. (It is also entirely possible to rape someone who has consented to submit sexually to you, as submissives generally do set some sorts of limits. I've met submissive virgins. Heck, I've been a submissive virgin. It happens.)

And like I said before, I have no doubt some of these hundred-and-some guys are creepy bastards who probably deserved to be outed. I also have no doubt that most of them are - well, still not entirely un-creepy, as they're sending naked pictures to strangers on the internet, but basically harmless human beings, and there wasn't any attempt made on the part of the "experimenter" to sort the chaff from the wheat here. That's what really bothers me. I can see the point in trying to expose real potential abusers/rapists/child molestors/etc., but there's simply no good justification for targeting people who just like kinky sex.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I'm hoping I'm misinterpreting you here, but that sounds very much as if you're saying that if a submissive female says she wants someone to dominate her sexually, she has thereby consented to letting positively anyone dominate her sexually in any way they choose.

No. Keep in mind we're talking about a venue for expressing sex fantasies online.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I'm hoping I'm misinterpreting you here, but that sounds very much as if you're saying that if a submissive female says she wants someone to dominate her sexually, she has thereby consented to letting positively anyone dominate her sexually in any way they choose. This is very obviously untrue. (It is also entirely possible to rape someone who has consented to submit sexually to you, as submissives generally do set some sorts of limits. I've met submissive virgins. Heck, I've been a submissive virgin. It happens.)

It's always been my understanding that in any dom/sub encounter or relationship it is always the sub who has the real power. They set the agenda as to what is and isn't going to happen in any given encounter. The dom is merely along for the ride.

It's always been my understanding that in any dom/sub encounter or relationship it is always the sub who has the real power. They set the agenda as to what is and isn't going to happen in any given encounter. The dom is merely along for the ride.

I'd say that's pretty much true of any healthy BDSM encounter/relationship, yup.

Well, you yourself mentioned only one. I can't imagine hand-chopping-off to be a very common thing even among BDSM.

Hand-chopping, specifically, was in only one entry I read. There are plenty of other posts that describe...extreme...behaviors.

As I said several times already, I realize that the line between "normal" and "extreme" is created by the subjective judgments of the people in a society. However, I'm not trying to talk about whether or not these behaviors are OBJECTIVELY "extreme" or "not extreme," I'm talking specifically about how society will PERCEIVE the activities. Because of that, virtually every single reply to this guy's experiment would be seen as "extreme" by mainstream American society, and that will impact how the "outed" individuals are viewed and treated.


Humiliation is all subjective, just because you wouldn't find it as embarassing doesn't mean the victim wouldn't.

Yes, I know, and I already acknowledged that. However, it is possible to make evaluations of the likelihood that a typical member of a given society will be humiliated by particular things, and it is also possible to make reasonable predictions about the relative "humiliatingness" of different things.

Example: most American men aren't going to be feeling humiliated if they are "outed" as being a fantastic lover. They are far more likely to be humilated if they are "outed" as a terrible lover who farts during sex. Gosh, look at that! We could design two "outing" scams using precisely the same methods, yet we'd get different levels of "humiliation" feeling from the victims of our scam!


Both are embarassing when one is seeking it from anonymous online strangers. But its the betrayal and deception and then publication that makes both bad, not how far from Mommy's sensibilities one is.

You seem to be missing the point. Yes, both can feel rotten, because it sucks getting scammed. However, if we are talking about the potential to seriously disrupt people's interpersonal relationships, different exposures will have different amounts of impact based on our social context.


See above, only replace employer/public for Mommy.

Dude, honestly, whether or not you lose your job/career is a big deal. If you get scammed, maybe you're bummed about it personally. But if you get scammed and you lose your family, friends, and job, you're even more bummed personally AND you can't make rent. For most Americans, money isn't coming all that easy of late, so something that threatens their employment is a serious problem.


While its easy for people to support it when its those yucky yucky BDSM 'freaks,' I doubt many people think betraying an 'ordinary' woman's trust in the same fashion is just jake. That's the point of the counterexperiment, to show how this kind of thing seems to be acceptable as long as its a minority sexual preference. Ultimately as a way of showing that this 'experiment' bit is just trollish nonsense.
Dude, that was my entire fucking point. After all this, you just agreed with me.

My whole point was that your counterexample was OBVIOUSLY not going to work, because nobody would respond to it the way you seem to want. Being "outed" as wanting a vanilla romance simply WILL NOT have the impact on people's lives that being outed as into BDSM will. You seem to want to brush that fact aside in favor of talking about hurt feelings, but that means you are ignoring the biggest issue in this topic.

It's like how you aren't going to hurt the average American if you "out" them as being heterosexual, but "outing" people as homosexuals can often get the fired, disowned, or even physically harmed.

But they can have the same effect on someones life/career if the information became public knowelege. Imagine a woman working in a male dominated field (especially as a supervisor/boss). That kind of info getting out could kill her credibility among her peers.

As a woman working in a male dominated field, let me reassure you: I would not lose any credibility if people found out I was secretly seeking love and companionship. Believe it or not, men seek those things too.


It could quickly destroy a hard earned image of a tough, no nonsense, hard working woman when it is public knowledge that she is out trolling the web looking for a cuddly-wuddly huggy kissy bear. She could just as easlily loose her job over it as a man could over "illicit" sex.

Absolutely positively 100% false. "Just as easily" lose her job for being into love and companionship as lose her job over being into random sexual hookups? Not even close. It is POSSIBLE that some woman, somewhere, might be passed over for promotion due to something approximating the reason you describe. But there is no way in the world that the numbers are even remotely close.

Again, we're talking in general numbers here. Is the average woman who responds to a cuddly personals ad likely to be hurt if she is "outed"? Fuck no. Is the average woman who gets "outed" as looking for casual sex going to be more likely to suffer serious repercussions? Fuck yes.

Just regender it. The average guy might be embarassed if he is outed as a sensitive new-age fellow, but the average guy is going to experience a whole lot more than just embarassment if he is "outed" as wanting hardcore BDSM. Same is true for women, only more so because ANY recreational sexual behavior in women is viewed as suspect.


And that's not even going into the humiliation she would feel over the whole ordeal. No, the analogy is a good one.
The analogy stinks because it totally overlooks all of the societal context, which renders it utterly useless. Women's feelings do not exist in a vaccuum, nor do men's. If you are "outed" as doing something that is totally acceptable (or even praised) in your society, your feelings are going to be different than if you are "outed" as somebody that your society views as a sick freak.

As a woman working in a male dominated field, let me reassure you: I would not lose any credibility if people found out I was secretly seeking love and companionship. Believe it or not, men seek those things too.


Absolutely positively 100% false. "Just as easily" lose her job for being into love and companionship as lose her job over being into random sexual hookups? Not even close. It is POSSIBLE that some woman, somewhere, might be passed over for promotion due to something approximating the reason you describe. But there is no way in the world that the numbers are even remotely close.

Again, we're talking in general numbers here. Is the average woman who responds to a cuddly personals ad likely to be hurt if she is "outed"? Fuck no. Is the average woman who gets "outed" as looking for casual sex going to be more likely to suffer serious repercussions? Fuck yes.

Just regender it. The average guy might be embarassed if he is outed as a sensitive new-age fellow, but the average guy is going to experience a whole lot more than just embarassment if he is "outed" as wanting hardcore BDSM. Same is true for women, only more so because ANY recreational sexual behavior in women is viewed as suspect.


The analogy stinks because it totally overlooks all of the societal context, which renders it utterly useless. Women's feelings do not exist in a vaccuum, nor do men's. If you are "outed" as doing something that is totally acceptable (or even praised) in your society, your feelings are going to be different than if you are "outed" as somebody that your society views as a sick freak.

The better analogy would be if he had reversed the formula and outed submissive females. He would be exploiting them and it's the same consentual arrangement, same degree of public shame.

Given the crap that our meat-packing industry has been busted with in the past, it wouldn't necessarily be surprising if this were the case.

*shudder*

Hey, they make Spam out of the ones that can't get it up.

It's always been my understanding that in any dom/sub encounter or relationship it is always the sub who has the real power. They set the agenda as to what is and isn't going to happen in any given encounter. The dom is merely along for the ride.


It's a cute saying, it's not true though. It's not true because it assumes a notion of actual "power" that actually exists of either party of the other. There isn't, in either's hands. Both parties can have their limits, both have things they will, and will not do, both can stop the activities at any time, and both can walk away. That kind of saying makes the dom in the equation seem almost animalistic, only held in check by the "power" of the sub to control the situation.

It's just not true, dominants can have their comfort lines just the same, can refuse to cross them just the same, and can walk away from things just the same.

It's an old, cliched, and pretty incorrect line. It is more appropriate to say that a d/s relationship is just an illusion of power, and no real power exchange is given because both parties reserve their right to walk away.

And on seriousness of the topic, I voted that it was a violation of their privacy. Not from a legal sense since I am not sure whether there is a legal expectation of privacy out there in the wilds of the internets, but on a more general basis, it was a highly immoral and unethical thing to do.

There's plenty of blame to go around, but none of it makes this action excusable.

Should guys send personal info to a complete stranger? No, but like Bottle said, having your car unlocked with the keys in the ignition doesn't justify grand theft auto. It's stupid, but a crime is still a crime.

So was this a crime? Probably not one punishable by the criminal justice system, but I would think the outed guys would have a good strong case for a lawsuit. They sent their information with an expectation of privacy. As it turns out, they were duped. In order to win the case, they have to prove:

That the expectation of privacy was reasonable. In other words, would a normal, reasonable person expect this information to remain private?

That the information was sent in good faith

Now, since it wound up being public, one could sue on the grounds of negligence, strengthened by the fact that it was DELIBERATELY collected for the purpose of distributing this stuff on the net.

If even one of those guys suffers as a direct result of that information going public, like if he were fired, evicted, assaulted or his property vandalized, then they can all get together in a class action suit.

The guy who posted this information is screwed unless he can prove that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy AND that the disclosure of the information did NOT result in any damaging impact to the men. Next to impossible, since it would be possible to sue him for emotional distress in any case.

I'm not a lawyer, but that's how I see it.

As I understand it, the fellow who did this originally had all his own contact information posted on his site. He has since taken much of it down because he says he is being swarmed with calls and emails, but he doesn't seem to be shrinking from the spotlight...he reportedly is talking about trying to push this as far as possible, in the hopes of finding some way to get rich off of it.

But again, I'm getting this all through other 'net sites, so heaven knows if any of it is accurate.

Interestingly enough, the way I understand it, the minute he tries to profit off of this, the responders can sue. They gave up their pictures and information of their own free will, so they currently have no right to sue.

However, it is illegal to use another's image to make a profit without their permission. As such, the minute he tries to make money with all of those pictures posted, he either has to remove the pictures or get the permission of the people in the pictures (and likely pay them).

The point was, there is not a substantial qualitative difference between using other people's stolen credit card information and misusing their attempts at making connections via personal ads.

Actually, there is - measurable economic harm.

I'm not going to argue that this guy isn't an asshole, but the reason that identity theft is illegal and this isn't is simple. Now, if one of these guys did lose his job over it and thus be able to show harm, he'd probably have a case that might be made in court...

BDSM isn't perverted. It's kinky. There's a difference - one which you've failed to apply by allowing your personal repulsion of it shine through.

BDSM isn't perverted. It's kinky. There's a difference - one which you've failed to apply by allowing your personal repulsion of it shine through.

I have a feeling that the line between kinky and perverted lies somewhere different for everyone - and probably falls somewhere within the broad category known as "BDSM" for most people.

Most people, for instance, would be personally repulsed by a guy who fantasizes about cutting someone's hands off before having sex with them - even within the BDSM community.

Most people are not personally repulsed by someone who likes to tie someone down during sex, even if they aren't into it themselves.

IANAL, but if what this @$$ did isn't illegal, it should be.
However, I still reserve the right to laugh at anyone who gives personal info to total strangers online.

In Europe I think it is given that communication between individuals is assumed as private and not to be released without consent. Now giving their details etc to a complete stranger is not generally good way of doing things but with these kind of ads it is expected that any communication between the individuals is private unless otherwise stated.


Anyway apart from the shame of being exposed there is also an increase in the risk to these individuals because of their details being released so that now anyone can harrass them.

Someone pointed out earlier about a similar expt where women looking for a kind understanding etc man were exposed. It may not be shaming to the women but there is still a risk. Releasing their contact details into the public arena will mean they are now at a much greater risk of sick individuals harrassing them and contacting them to toment them etc. Now people will say that this information is already freely available in the public domain, however to find this information before would require effort, after the exposure this is not so true.

Also giving out importent contact details will expose these poeple to a much greater risk of identity theft.

Damn, I am n a rambling mood today.

This reminds me a bit of the Dateline NBC series of Internet stings they did a year or so ago. They had an FBI agent impersonate a sub-legal-age teenager (boy or girl) in a chat-room and had the agent portray him/herself as receptive to any sexual overtures made at them by the men who'd talk to them online. Then they set up a house with hidden cameras and had the agent poseur agree to meet these guys for the explicit purpose of sexual contact. Dateline NBC then filmed these guys arriving, one by one, time and time again. Some were important members of their communities, some were married, most were middle-aged. One even came into the kitchen of the house naked and "ready to go".

Men kept falling for this even after the first show in the series was aired...and the second show...and the third. Dateline NBC didn't post or display the men's personal information other than what the men admitted in the interview after they arrived at the sting house and were cornered by the show's anchor.

I don't remember what the legal wrangling was for the men in that position, but it seems to me that if you're dumb enough to try and seduce an inappropriate liaison online and are using your personal information to do it, there's always going to be someone who'll exploit that scene for fame or money or moral superiority.

As for the thread topic's version of this sting, the person so posing was not law enforcement, and no law was being broken by those responding to her fraudulent come-on. I think it's a lesson to schmucks about discretion and an illustration about how far moral crusaders will go to make themselves feel good. This kind of crap is headed into dangerous Minority Report territory, where law enforcement nabs you even if you just think about committing a crime. Both sides are losers, if you ask me.

Yea: this is an inappropriate violation of privacy.

The guy running the 'experiment' decieved the victims, and obtained personal information that he revealed to the public.

the victims did not give their contact info to him, they gave their contact info the the submissive woman in the ad.

He lied to them, and even if they fell for it, he still obtained the information through deception.

this is no better than the people who try to get your credit info by lying to you in emails.


The victims are doing nothing illegal (fantasising about cutting off hands is not illegal, even if the action itself is (unconsentually, of course). disgusting, yes. illegal, no.)

[...]
I don't remember what the legal wrangling was for the men in that position, but it seems to me that if you're dumb enough to try and seduce an inappropriate liaison online and are using your personal information to do it, there's always going to be someone who'll exploit that scene for fame or money or moral superiority.

As for the thread topic's version of this sting, the person so posing was not law enforcement, and no law was being broken by those responding to her fraudulent come-on. I think it's a lesson to schmucks about discretion and an illustration about how far moral crusaders will go to make themselves feel good. This kind of crap is headed into dangerous Minority Report territory, where law enforcement nabs you even if you just think about committing a crime. Both sides are losers, if you ask me.

Except for the decisive difference that, in the Craiglist case, the liaison they were pursuing was neither inappropriate nor criminal.

Yea: this is an inappropriate violation of privacy.

The guy running the 'experiment' decieved the victims, and obtained personal information that he revealed to the public.

the victims did not give their contact info to him, they gave their contact info the the submissive woman in the ad.

So, if she had been an *actual* submissive woman, it would have been perfectly ok?

this is no better than the people who try to get your credit info by lying to you in emails.

I keep seeing this comparison. I'm not defending this guy's behavior, but I hardly think that identity theft can be compared to this.


As for the thread topic's version of this sting, the person so posing was not law enforcement, and no law was being broken by those responding to her fraudulent come-on. I think it's a lesson to schmucks about discretion and an illustration about how far moral crusaders will go to make themselves feel good. This kind of crap is headed into dangerous Minority Report territory, where law enforcement nabs you even if you just think about committing a crime. Both sides are losers, if you ask me.

If you are talking about the stings where they arrest adults who go to meet children and have sex with them, I don't think it's going into Minority Report territory at all. If the adult makes plans with the child for this, and then actually shows up, it's pretty damn clear that the adult had every intention of having sex with the child. That sort of menace should be taken off the streets.

Just an ass with too much free time..

On yet another hand, some of the shit that the responders posted was deeply sick. One fellow described how he'd cut off the woman's hands before having violent sex with her. Part of me likes the idea of exposing men with these kinds of violent fantasies, so that their partners really know what they're getting into.

Regrettably, I just now read the replies he got - I didn't want to before, because I was too squeamish and didn't want to be one of the ones perusing what other people had written for private use, but I eventually figured it's stupid to talk about something without knowing what I'm talking about.

There is no reply that describes anything of the sort you say. Nothing even remotely close. Nothing. All there are are 2 or 3 replies that say they want to cuff her hands, so you probably misread.

So now that that most gruesome story is out of the way, and that I've read all the replies, I agree even less with your "these people must be exposed".
Seriously, most of the stuff is really, really harmless. Most of them won't shock anybody, not even mildly.

The replies that will be most off-turning to most of us are those mimicking "her" ridiculous and most vulgar original post/ad.
So the most offensive ones (and again, nothing in even the most offensive ones comes anywhere close to suggesting rape, or maiming, or whatever other depravities) are the ones promising "her" exactly what "she" asked for - domination, humiliation, severe pain, all expressed in very badly spelled vulgarities.

Honestly, 90% of the guys replying would be way too vanilla for that imaginary woman the jerk made up, so the more I look at it, the more insipid this all gets.

There is no reply that describes anything of the sort you say. Nothing even remotely close. Nothing. All there are are 2 or 3 replies that say they want to cuff her hands, so you probably misread.


Oh...my that's funny. Honestly the cutting the hands thing got me a bit squemish, but CUFF? Well that's just fun =P

I've glanced at these, trust me they're NOTHING, 'specially not with some of the folks I know...but let's not go into that again.

All I can see this as is one person having some uptight morality about something and trying to make life for people with different tastes more difficult.

And whereyouthinkyougoing, check your damn TGs =P