This article from Time.com left me disturbed, but not for the reasons the author intended. Or at least not for just those reasons. The short of it: the anonymity of the internet allows people to be horrible to each other and sexualizes more innocent photos of unsuspecting girls.
My issues: yes. But I don’t like the tone that suggests it’s better to tell the girls to be careful than to teach the boys that there are real people attached to those images who deserve to be treated with respect. It reminds me of the coloring book released several years ago that tried to teach Catholic children to beware of priests. Because it was easier to do that than to have any sort of accountability for organized crime or to try to teach your employees not to molest people.
The article talks about the people that distributes these images–“regular bored guys who like being popular”–and contrasts them from the “evil, psychopathic porn-moguls.” I think the writer has it backwards. If I understand correctly, with few exception, the porn industry is consensual. I don’t see how engaging in a contract with someone, paying for services, and promoting the result makes one a psychopath. But I can see how one can easily come to that conclusion if one thinks it’s reasonable for people to try to repress their own sexuality. I guess it’s easier to teach girls to cover up than it is to teach boys to to respect women and to ask facebook to be accountable.