It is purest sophistry to suggest that laws against theft exist to protect one against the consequences of his decision to put himself in a situation where theft from him would be possible. One might take every conceivable precaution against theft and still find himself a victim of theft. Even were everyone to be so prudent, laws against theft would still be necessary in order to dissuade potential thieves from deciding to take up the profession. Conversely, the revenge-porn law, insofar as it covers incidents in which the victim willingly took and sent the relevant pictures, protects people from their own choices, and is thus different in kind.

That one cannot conceive of a benefit for some kind of behavior is not grounds for making it illegal. Hence the argument that "no one needs an assault weapon" or "no one needs to buy liquor on Sunday" are in themselves insufficient to justify associated restrictions. Likewise, that one can conceive of benefits for a law is not grounds for enacting it. One must weigh as well the detriments, in this case the consequences of proclaiming women to be in need of protections generally reserved for those judged mentally incompetent.

If the law were to protect women from the posting of photos stolen from them, or taken without their consent, this would be another matter. As it stands, it should raise the hackles of feminists everywhere.

Self-righteous blustering on behalf of sexual freedom aside, there are arguments to be made firstly that a law criminalizing posting revenge porn is a paternalistic abomination, and secondly that the fact the law happens to benefit you personally is irrelevant to whether the law is justified.

The state does make laws that protect people from the consequences of their own actions. Thus we have laws against children buying alcohol and cigarettes, and we treat juvenile offenders differently from adults. We also have laws against taking advantage of the poor decision-making capabilities of the feeble-minded. It is another thing entirely to afford such protection to a group of people one would suppose to comprise rational adults. It is worth considering whether any benefits of the law are worth the cost of placing women as a whole (and these sites appear to focus near exclusively on pictures of women) amongst the rest of those we presume not to hold wholly responsible for their actions, especially given that women already have a difficult time getting taken seriously.

"Journals published by Elsevier, Wolters Kluwer, and Sage all accepted my bogus paper."

What are you talking about? A Russian demolished Apollo and we had to go there and get revenge.

I don't recommend this approach. That's what I did, and ultimately it divorced me and took half my stuff.

that's what I said, but they still kicked me out of my daughter's piano recital for wearing a gimp suit.

I'll be impressed when they build a product capable of infringing on its own human rights.

show me an electric car I can slap my truck nuts on without it looks like I'm doing it ironically, and you got yourself a sale

I guess you won't like Carlsen's new television advertisement for adult incontinence diapers: "For an impenetrable defense."

Nonsense. As Kurt Russell demonstrated in The Thing, it is possible for even a very bad player to absolutely destroy a seemingly unbeatable chess computer, as long as you're drunk enough to quell any tendency toward impulse control.

HELLO! GLADYS? I'M ON THE PLANE! I CAN SEE CLOUDS! ONE LOOKS LIKE A RUTABAGA! DO YOU THINK THAT MEANS ANYTHING? SO HOW WAS YOUR DAY? WAIT SOMEONE NEXT TO ME IS TRYING TO GET MY ATTENTION. EXCUSE ME CAN'T YOU SEE I'M ON THE PHONE? HOW RUDE!

great, now I have to bypass the yelling filter... sdlfjals;kdfjakl; sklsfdlkas; lsdksdk lsk dslk sdl ksdlk; dsl;sd ldslklsd klds;l dsl;k ksdkl;sdlkdskl; sd;klsdk l; sdkllks;d skdl; skldkl;ds k;ldskldsklsfjlskdfk sdl lks dklds lks;dlk ds ;klsdlk dsdkls slkldkslk;d;klsdkl dsl;skd l;kds ksdl; sdkldslk sldk;l kdsk;lsd lkkl;ds ds ;klsd kl;kdsl; k;ldsksd kl k;sdkl;sl;kd klsd;lkds l;kdslk sd;lkk; lsd;lkds l;ksd;klds ;klsdkldsl;k sd ;lksd ;klsd l;ksdl;k sd lk;dsl ;ksdl ;kds l;kds l;kdskl ;sdklsd k;l;sdkl;klsd;klsd kl;ds k;lds; lksdkl; ds;kl sdkl ;sdl ksd klsd; lkdsk ldsklsd;lkds ;lkds ;lkds ;klds; lksd;kl

I understand statistics perfectly well. Three out of three stories I've read about car explosions have involved Teslas. That's a 100% detonation rate! Who runs this company, Al Qaeda?

As any Prius owner will be happy to inform you, Priuses don't catch fire unless the owner has purchased a sufficient number of carbon credits to compensate for the fire's environmental impact.

My kid's so dumb, even when I owned Bentley, they still didn't admit him.

Imagine if Jesus had hooked Genghis up with his breakthrough water-walking technology. Khan could have taken over the entire world. 100% of the earth's population would be related to him, rather than 10% of Asia or whatever it is. You couldn't ask a girl out without then discovering she's some distant relative. Earth would become Planet Redneck.