I felt like cheering when I read that a man in the UK had become the first to be jailed by the courts there for posting “revenge porn”.
The practice of posting sexual images of an ex-partner as a form of revenge after a break-up can and does lead to suicidal thinking and, in a very few cases, to suicide.
Legislation is to be introduced in the UK to strengthen the sanctions against people engaging in this wretched, despicable behaviour. Various other legislatures have also introduced laws allowing for the punishment of those who engage in this form of aggression against an ex.
In Germany, a court ruling means that intimate photographs must be deleted if an ex asks for this to be done.
In Ireland, Women's Aid has asked for legislation to deal with this sort of behaviour as a form of stalking by digital means. The Law Reform Commission is looking at the whole question of cyberbullying and other issues related to privacy on the internet. It's been reported that "revenge porn" would be seen by the commission as falling within the definition of cyberbullying.
That is very much to the good; my only concern is that the Law Reform Commission report, when it is eventually finalised, could gather dust.
Our Minister for Justice could do a lot worse than consider implementing a law along the lines of the legislation planned in the UK to save exes – who are almost always women – from the devastating experience of having these pictures posted online.
One could argue that it’s foolish to provide sexual images for a partner in the first place, and it is. Trouble is, when the relationship is going well, it probably doesn’t occur to either person that these images might one day be posted all over the internet by one of them in order to hurt the other. And many of the images are taken without the knowledge or consent of the person in them.
Moreover, even when the image is made with the consent of whoever is depicted, how is it right or fair that these moments of lust-driven gullibility should be punished by sustained public humiliation? And how fair is it that the smirking rat behind it all should be able to inflict this humiliation on his ex without consequences for himself?
Not right or fair at all. Bring on the law.
Addendum:
“Whenever worrisome thoughts bother me, to get a break I switch to counting (quietly or totally sub-vocally) from one to 10, over and over,” writes Joe Foyle in response to a recent column about rumination (iti.ms/1uuPWhk). The word describes the habit of thinking over and over about negative matters. Rumination can heighten anxiety and is linked with depression.
Foyle, best known for his work on speed-reading, points out that when thinking or reading, we engage in silent speech of the kind that you can probably notice right now as you read this. Counting silently means that the silent speech (sub-vocalisation) you use when thinking about your troubles is diverted to the counting. No silent speech, no thinking, which gives you a break from your rumination.
Using his counting method, he “[keeps] going resolutely. With determination I squash the efforts of worrisome thoughts to get attention. The mind and body tensions of stress disappear. Quite soon I am relaxed. I am left with the option of maintaining the break (which I now can do without the counting) to think about other things, or resuming rumination of the worrisome things without feeling stressed. Often I do the latter and work out stances that cope well with what used to be worrisome.”
Here’s a thought (pardon the pun): If Foyle is right – and I suspect he very well could be – does this mean that the elaborate hoopla surrounding some forms of meditation could actually be cut down simply to counting from one to 10?
Try it and see. And if you don’t like counting, try whistling, which Foyle also suggests – and for the same reason.
Padraig O'Morain is a counsellor accredited by the Irish Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy. His latest book is Mindfulness on the Go. His mindfulness newsletter is free by email. pomorain@yahoo.com