That one cannot conceive of a benefit for some kind of behavior is not grounds for making it illegal.
Neither is it an argument for keeping it legal, which was my point. In a cost-benefit analysis, what is the benefit of keeping it legal as opposed to the obvious costs?
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.
Huh? What are you implying here? That if someone else publishes embarrassing material on you, that means you were mentally incompetent? Or that if you trust someone who later betrays you, you are also mentally incompetent? Or that if there even exists embarrassing pictures of you somewhere, you are mentally incompetent?
Also, when the fsck did this become a gender issue? I'm a guy, and I don't want others to maliciously post nude pics of me either, if they for some reason have gotten hold of any.
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.
Really, why? Why does it matter how they got hold of the pictures? Presumably, they were not given to the perpetrator with an implied consent to publish them openly on-line. Or is that what you argue; that if some girl shares intimate pictures of herself with you in confidence, perhaps because she cares about you and trusts you, you should have the implied right to break that confidence and do with them whatever you like for whatever reasons, even if the sole purpose is to harm her? Why is that so important to you?