You’ve no doubt seen the explicit photos of two women wearing nothing but a Richmond Tigers’ medal, at least one of which was circulated non-consensually.
Host of Sports Sunday, Emma Freedman weighed in on the controversy, deeming the solution to the problem was simply that the girl “should’ve kept her clothes on” – a comment about as helpful as telling someone not to own a car if they don’t want to get carjacked.
Most of the panel agreed with her to an extent, rejecting Peter FitzSimons’ assertions the AFL should suspend the player to “move themselves into the 21st century”.
Tadgh Kennelly, a former Sydney Swans player and panellist, thought the offending player should be “counselled” because there’s clearly been some kind of “misunderstanding”.
The player obviously ‘misunderstood’ when the woman said to delete the photo; he ‘misunderstood’ that she didn’t want it sent around to his mates or posted on social media; ‘misunderstood’ the ramifications it would have on her public image and that she would be lambasted as a money-grabbing slut on social media – how he interpreted all of those things is yet to be clarified.
Paul Gallen argued that players are well-educated on not distributing nude photos to your mates. I would’ve hoped the lesson of not committing image-based sexual abuse was taught well before entering the professional football circles, but obviously some athletes are missing the after-school special.
To top it off, Kennelly, and later Freedman in her ‘clarification’, blamed alcohol. The very same excuse that Stanford rapist Brock Turner used to distance himself from assaulting an unconscious woman.
“The AFL has to say ‘We have a sad history of mistreating women and we’re not doing it anymore’,” FitzSimons said – nobody else really got it.
While a disturbing amount of people are stuck firmly in the camp that no women should ever take a naked photo and if she does it’s her own fault, those who condemn the crime may be doing more harm than good with its moniker.
Incidents of revenge porn have sky-rocketed in recent years. Mainly thanks to how easy it’s become to create and post content ourselves – not only to personal social media, but to porn and other third party sites which can reach far larger audiences.
It’s stressful enough to think what a new employer might find out about you from a quick Google, but the knowledge that a compromising photo of you is on the internet, posted without your consent, is a whole new nightmare.
But why do we call it revenge porn? By definition, revenge is to get back at someone for hurting you.
Whether it’s conscious or not, calling it revenge porn creates an implication the person in the images is at fault in some way – that they did something to deserve having their photos published against their will.
The phrase distracts from what’s really happening and spreads the culpability to more than just the guilty party – a tactic rape culture has used for decades.
Some have attacked the woman in the centre of the controversy for taking the photos in the first place. Nothing new, just the same old “if you didn’t want the photos spread around, you shouldn’t have taken them” argument.
You know, like when you don’t want to get robbed, you don’t own anything – that kind of stuff.
Referring to it as revenge porn trivialises the criminality of the act, reducing it to a harmless bit of fun.
WATCH: Jennifer Lawrence was a famous victim of “revenge porn” but her reaction made us love her more.
If a woman picked the lock of her ex-boyfriend’s house and wrecked the place because she was angry about the demise of a relationship, it wouldn’t be called “revenge destruction of property”.
The unidentified Tigers woman told police she consented to taking the photo, but not its distribution. By using the word revenge, it’s implied she shouldn’t have allowed the photos to be taken, that it’s something to be ashamed of, when of course it’s not.
No one is to blame but the jerk who put the photo on the internet or sent it to his friends.
For those who are questioning where the line is – “she let him take the photos, what did she expect?” – it’s the exact same line we use to distinguish rape and sex – CONSENT.
The other problem with the moniker is that revenge porn is a catchall for other image-based abuse: the infamous hacking of Jennifer Lawrence and other celebrities’ nudes, non-consensual recordings of sexual assault and upskirting – no jilted, bitter ex in sight.
So let’s just call revenge porn what it is: it’s not a scandal or a bit of fun, it’s image-based sexual abuse, and it’s a crime.
