Is Emily Sears largely a hypocrite in her latest crusade against 'dick pics'?
Debate Rounds (5)
My position is as follows: It is consistent for Sears to label dick pics being sent to her as being annoying and in some cases harassment. It is inconsistent and hypocritical for her to extend her criticism beyond this, as she has done.
For back ground information, please see following article:
For the record, my personal position is that I am against both dick pics and her instagram account in general. However, that is not the nature of the debate. The debate is only on the issue of consistency/hypocrisy.
1st Round is acceptance. Please write 'Accept', and write a brief statement of your position opposing my stated position with a short description. I will then start the debate in the second round, and my opponent will finish in the 5th round.
She is broadcasting to her 2.3 million followers of different ages, sexes and genders that anything without consent is not okay. She is removing the ideology that sending a photo of your genitalia is fine and justifiable to do (and in Emily Sear's case) because a woman has a bikini on in her photograph -or her cleavage, stomach and legs are on show. Her instagram is in no way "asking for it" that is just feeding into rape culture that anything un-consensual (even a picture of a penis) is the victims fault because of how they decide to express themselves. She is standing against this notion of 'dick pics' and in turn helping to call out these men who are with a partner which highlights how men feel they can treat women how they want in a scopophillic way without any consequence.
Your argument is implying that although you say you are against 'dick pics' however in the case of Emily Sears you are okay with them because in your opinion her instagram is a justifiable cause for her receiving them and therefore she can not argue against? I feel that although you want to debate about hypocrisy, your argument itself just stands on the grounds of double standards.
Before I begin, one suggestion for both of us. I recommend we both quote the other person when addressing their arguments, as it makes it easier to see what the other person is referencing, as long as there is enough space to do so. I have no problem with you continuing your arguments in a single comment if there is overflow.
I'd like to clarify my position before my argument. My opponent writes: "Your argument is implying that although you say you are against 'dick pics' however in the case of Emily Sears you are okay with them because ..."
That is not my argument. My position is that Sears is being inconsistent. She is using arguments that she is not willing to apply consistently to herself. The debate is only on the matter of consistency, meaning that from my perspective, Sears has two choices:
1. Either use most of the arguments she uses against dick pics against herself as well, or
2. Don't use the arguments that she uses against either herself or the dick pic senders.
For the purposes of this debate, as I stated in Round 1, I find either choice acceptable, since this is a debate on consistency.
My argument is based on an analogy. I argue that the case of dick pic senders on Sears' Instagram account are analogous to telemarketers calling a family's telephone:
Suppose a family receives calls from telemarketers selling good/service A on their private telephone line. They do not want to buy good/service A from the telemarketers. Their response to the telemarketers will consist of two possible responses, depending on whether we are assuming the good/service A in question is objectionable/immoral.
Assumption 1: The good/service A is not immoral:
In this case, we assume there is nothing inherently immoral about the product being sold. In this case, their only objection will be that the telemarketers are calling their private line, which is not intended for them. Most people will place the telemarketers on a spectrum from annoyance to mild harassment to major harassment. Nothing about the nature of the product can be included in their complaint because they have nothing inherently against it.
Assumption 2: The good/service A is immoral:
In this case, not only will they complain to the police or whoever that the telemarketers are on the spectrum from annoyance to harassment, but will bring in the obscenity or immorality of what is being sold. If the telemarketer is a hitman selling his services, the family will complain that
1. the telemarketer is annoying
2. he is selling something immoral
My argument is as follows:
Ms. Sears' actions show that she believe in Assumption 1, that pictures intended to have a sexual effect are not inherently immoral, since she herself posts pictures that are not fundamentally different from the dick pics that are being sent to her. Therefore, if we hold that assumption to be true, the only argument that she can make is that people are sending her messages on a line not intended for them (Instagram direct messaging).
However, if we hold Assumption 2 to be true, then her arguments against the dick pic senders, that they are disgusting, obscene, objectifying women, "scopophilia" (bold is my opponent's words) etc can be true (in addition to the argument of annoyance/harassment). However, those same arguments (minus the annoyance/harassment argument) can then be applied against her, since she also engages in posting sexual pictures.
- If the dick pics are "disgusting" (see Appendix), then so are her pictures.
- If lusting after her is "disrespctful to women" or "a huge social problem reflecting the attitude many men have towards women", then so are the photos she is posting, since they are meant to induce lust.
Possible Objection 1: Sears' pictures are fundamentally different than the dick pics.
My response: I argue that there is no qualitative difference between dick pics and Sears' pictures. There may be a slight quantitative difference between the pictures, in that Sears may show 5% less than the dick pic senders, but if the dick pics are objectionable, it only means Sears' pictures are slightly less objectionable. My question is suppose the dick pic senders also modified their pictures somewhat to make them similar to Sears' pictures, such as by placing a finger in front of certain parts of the penis or wearing very tight underwear made of translucent material, etc, would Sears accept such pictures as being unobjectionable? These are simply technicalities, not fundamental differences.
Possible Objection 2: Sears' intention in her pictures is different than dick pic senders'
My response: One cannot read another person's mind, but I see no reason to assume there are different intentions. There is no reason to assume both Sears and the dick pic senders don't both have sexual intenons. Perhaps in some cultures where people always walk around naked, nudity has no sexual intention behind it, but in our culture, pictures which show nudity or technically semi-nude in certain poses, as can be seen throughout the instagram account of Sears and other models are almost always intended to be sexual in nature, generally for exhibitionist like intentions by the person posing. If we are willing to give Sears leeway on this point, and make the assumption that she is posing for the sake of 'art' or 'beauty' or "expressing themselves" (in bold was my opponent's words) etc, why would we also not give the dick pic sender the same benefit of the doubt? In addition, what precisely is the difference betweeen "scopophilia" and "expressing themselves"? I am curious as to what is the difference, as one simply seems like a euphemism for the other to me.
Possible Objection 3: The dick pic senders are ALL harassers, even if one has nothing against sexual pictures.
My response: If a family finds nothing inherently immoral about what a telemarketer is selling, do they call ALL telemarketers harassers? My guess is most people do not. If a telemarketer calls 1 time, most people just find it annoying. If the telemarketer calls repeatedly, then they will call it harassment. If Emily Sears does not call ALL telemarketers harassers, and she finds nothing inherently wrong with sexual pictures in public, then why not apply the same standard to the dick pic senders? If Emily Sears wanted to be consistent, she would only call dick pic senders who repeatedly messaged her harassers, rather than ALL of them. Suppose people started sending her cat photos via direct messages, would she call ALL of them harassers? Given that she likely does not find cat photos inherently objectionable and by her actions, shows that she does not find sexual pictures inherently immoral, why this difference?
Emily Sears is being hypocritical no matter what one thinks of dick pics. If one holds the assumption that sexual pictures and scopophilia are immoral, then both the dick pic senders and Emily Sears are guilty of being 'disgusting', 'obscene',' 'vulgar', 'objectifying women,' 'scopophilia', etc. If we hold the assumption that sexual picturs are not immoral, then Emily Sears is self servingly using arguments (beyond just calling them annoying and clogging up her instagram account) against dick pic senders that she does not apply to herself. In both cases, I argue that she is a hypocrite.
Evidence that Sears is making arguments beyond the 'annoyance/harassment' spectrum:
1. Jan 25 2016 Tweet by Emily Sears: "My favourite hobby is searching for men who send me disgusting DMs online..."
2. "I became absolutely fed up with these kinds of disturbing and disgusting messages and comments online." - Quote in BuzzFeed article
3. "We send the photos as a reminder for them to have respect for women" - Quote in BuzzFeed Article
4. "its a huge social problem reflecting the attitude many men have towards women" - Quote in Buzzfeed Article
panicinthetarids forfeited this round.
panicinthetarids forfeited this round.
Once again, my opponent has presented no arguments. My arguments still stand. Emily Sears is being hypocritical in her reasoning, as the same exact reasoning can be applied to her.
In addition to the main argument and explanation I presented above, I present 2 additional aspects of the argument here:
1. Emily Sears is being hypocritical in what she calls harassment and creepy:
There is absoutely no reason to take Emily Sears at her word when she calls someone 'creepy' or a 'harasser.' The reason is because Sears has demonstrated that she has little credibility when it comes to how consistently she applies terms like 'creepy' and 'harassment.' She applies it, as demonstrated in the following conversation, in the most self serving way possible:
In this conversation, Sears calls someone who, in the beginning, politely asked a question a 'creep.' Now, perhaps Sears doesn't want to answer any questions about what she is doing, and she has no obligation to answer. She can merely delete the message. Instead, she decides to level absurd accusations of 'creepiness.'
Suppose there was a priest or a religious figure who posted books that they read on religion, such as the bible or whatever o their instagram page, and someone who was an atheist or agnostic asked for some justification or explanation as to how they believe in what they do and why they read the books posted in their instagram pictures. Suppose the priest responded in the same manner Sears did, with insults and labeling the person who asked the question a 'creep.' What would be our response? Would we cheer on the priest, or would we label them an arrogant jackass?
I'd label them a jackass for responding to someone who asked them a question about their philosophical or other justification of what line of work they were in in that sort of manner. Yet Sears responds in this way and gets cheered. Absurd.
2. Possible Objection to Main Argument: 'But Sears is objecting to women being treated as nothing more than sexual beings rather than well rounded individuals.'
This is one possible argument that is heard in some situations of this kind. Yet this argument is also hypocritical, since it is not applied consistently either. I will demonstrate with an example:
Suppose a woman is a teacher. She is seen by her students or parents or whoever as only a teacher, nothing else. They interact with her only in her capacity as a teacher. They do not interact with her as a personal friend, a chef, a mother, a child, a romantic partner, etc. To them, their only interaction with her is as a teacher.
Suppose the teacher objected to this, and said 'How dare you only view me as a teaching being?!? Don't you know I am a full individual with a variety of roles in life?? I will stand against women being treated as nothing more than teaching beings!'
What would be our response to this? Do people become morally indignant about this? Of course not, and the reason is because we see nothing immoral or wrong about being a teacher, or only seeing a person as a teacher if that is the role they wish to play with them. The only way we would hold such a view is if we saw something immoral about viewing a woman as a teacher.
When Sears and others say that they are against women being seen by some men as nothing more than sexual beings, why do they not say the same about teachers? If they see nothing immoral about women being seen as sexual and exuding lust (as they show through their actions by posing in sexual pictures), then why this objection? The only way Sears would see something immoral about women being viewed by some men in only a sexual role and does not see anything wrong with women being seen by some people in a teaching role is if she sees something immoral about the sexual role itself.
And if she does see something immoral about men lusting after women, then she will have to indict herself, since that is exactly what her pictures and modeling are about. Again, hypocrisy.
panicinthetarids forfeited this round.
Once again, my opponent has forfeited the round. The arguments still stand from the previous rounds.
panicinthetarids forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by U.n 7 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited multiple turns.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.