We Asked a Gay Ethics Professor If It’s OK to Post Pics of Hot Guys Online Without Their Consent

This post is also available in: Spanish Portuguese French Thai Chinese (Traditional)

The Daily Mail recently discovered a website called Tube Crush in which women and gay men take pictures of male London subway commuters and then comment on and rate each guy based on his attractiveness. (For the record, guys who look muscular or wealthy get more praise — big shock). The site has 11,000 Facebook followers, nearly 10,000 Twitter followers and is being criticized for objectifying men and sharing their images without consent. One commenter said, “If men uploaded pictures of women … to rate their attractiveness; they would be slaughtered.”

If you’ve ever spent any time on Tumblr or Instagram, chances are that you’ve seen similar sites featuring pics of guys secretly taken while theyre working out at the gym, riding mass transit or walking around in public. On one hand, these shots seem hot and somewhat harmless — after all, it’s a free country, these guys are in public places and who doesn’t appreciate a good lookin’ fella? But on the other hand, posting such photos online makes private individuals public objects of desire without their permission. Is this a problem?


Tube Crush and many other sites post pics of hot guys

For another example of what we’re talking about, check out the daily “Guydar” feature on the site Boy Culture. It regularly shows pictures of hot guys walking the streets taken by the site’s owner, and we’ve enjoyed the feature in the past. But considering that thousands of people can see these photos online, it raises interesting larger questions about privacy and ethics.

To be clear, we’re not talking about the law or legality here — something can be legal and still unethical or problematic. Nor are we talking about celebrities on red carpets, politicians at public events or other public performers who seem to invite attention. We’re talking about posting pictures of unwitting everyday citizens.

On the face of it, there’s nothing inherently unethical with taking a picture of someone in public (say, as opposed to taking a picture of them in a private space like a toilet, shower, locker room or dressing room). In our surveillance culture where a majority of folks own cameraphones, it’s hard to get too upset at the idea of someone taking your image without permission. Rather, it’s what one does with the photos that matters.

Indeed, sharing these images on Tube Crush or elsewhere could be seen as a form of honorific artistic praise, the same way that one might share photos of a beautiful sunset or painting. How many times have you seen a devastatingly handsome person and thought, “Wow! What a beauty! I wish my friends could see them. Unbelievable!” It’s a gracious reading, but sometimes we post such images just to share a moving aesthetic experience (or bit of playful erotic pleasure) with others.

Boy Culture and Tube Crush often add brief complimentary captions calling the men hot or handsome, illustrating that the words placed alongside such images matter immensely. It’d be quite different if the websites wrote out explicit sexual fantasies about each guy, asked readers where to buy each guy’s clothes (or if they wrote out mocking captions like the sites She Has Had It or People of Walmart) — each would give the photos a different context and make each person subject to a completely different sort of viewer engagement.


Posting a hot guy’s pic on TubeCrush or elsewhere isn’t always so simple

Regardless of intent, as one ethicist said, “Once you put something out on the world wide web, it can be interpreted countless ways.” Viewers can then download the images and share them ad infinitum via social media with whatever comments they like. “When you subject someone who never asked to be part of your photo to those e-opinions, you bear greater responsibility,” and the larger your audience, the greater your role in whatever happens next.

Some people consider posting any picture of a private individual as a form of shaming because it potentially invites ridicule. But this gets even more complicated if you post an image of a marginalized community member, such as a woman, a trans person, a person of color, an older person, a very young person, a poorer one or a person with disabilities. These people generally have less power to fight back against their images being used without permission and are typically subject to more public abuse than, say, a middle-class, able-bodied, cisgender white male.

Image via TubeCrush

Some might also say that sharing a person’s picture is okay if you blur out their faces or post it to point out bad behavior, like public homophobia or manspreading. But even so, the waves of viral ridicule and bad publicity that follow can potentially outsize the original offense, even causing the offenders to have their personal contact information shared online, leaving them vulnerable to stalking or death threats.

It’s particularly interesting when you consider that state laws and queer spaces have increasingly recognized individuals’ right to privacy. Some U.S. states have “right of publicity” laws allowing people to sue for having their image shared based on two factors: first, whether any harm was caused by someone using their image or likeness without consent; and second, whether the person posting the image received some kind of benefit from doing so.

Though the laws differ (and are unequally applied) in every state, there’s also a growing recognition in queer spaces — like gay bars, Pride parades and other LGBTQ events — that not everyone wants to have their photo taken, either because of shyness or not being out to others.

In past years, events like QueerBomb Dallas, the city’s annual LGBTQ pride celebration, and GaymerX East, the annual LGBTQ gaming convention, have given attendees specially colored name tags signifying that, if they should appear in any photo, they’d prefer not to have their images published.


What a gay ethics professor thinks about posting pics of hot guys

We asked Dr. Joseph Abernathy*, a gay Associate Professor of ethics at a midwestern college, what he thinks about posting pics of random guys online. He suggests three possible approaches for determining its ethics.

First, we could consider the utilitarian effect of posting such pics. That is, do the consequences of posting a hot guy’s picture bring about happiness or other good effects for the greatest number of people? This approach doesn’t care whether posting a hot guy’s pic is ethical in and of itself, but rather if doing so positively affects or harms the most people.

A second ethical approach focuses on each person’s inherent rights rather than consequences. In this approach, whether posting a hot guy’s picture makes others happy matters less than whether people have a right to post such pictures or whether posting them violates other people’s rights.

A third approach focuses on virtues, that is, whether posting such images reflects any larger honor or integrity. For example, a photographer might think that it’s virtuous to share images of sexy men online because it honors their beauty and reflects the integrity of the human form. Conversely, one might question the honor or integrity of posting such a photo if the pic is especially revealing or shared on a site of low reputation.

Dr. Abernathy says that The Golden Rule — “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” — can help determine whether posting such an image is virtuous or ethical. Furthermore, he says that the Greek philosopher Aristotle would suggest basing our ethical decisions on reason rather than passion. That is, just because something makes you or others happy doesn’t always mean it’s the best choice. A larger question could ask what a rational person would think about having their picture posted in a public forum without their consent.


“I like to share with students and readers that these ethical questions have a longstanding cultural and historical basis,” Dr. Abernathy says. “So when people argue about what to post on Facebook or not, we have literally been asking these questions for centuries, only now they’re happening in public and in real time instead of over pages-long treatises.”


* We have used an alias used to protect the professor’s identity. He teaches at a conservative college.

Featured image via Tube Crush

  • Brendan S

    Is there an irony in a Professor discussing the ethics of publishing pictures taken without the consent of the subject, requesting anonymity?

  • aagold76 .

    Ever since the sexual harassment stories have poured out- I now re think when seeing a ‘hidden camera’ pic of an unsuspecting nude guy in a locker room, etc. This could be a sexual assault…and what about leaked celeb sex tapes- they may now claim (maybe should) sexual assault and harassment.

  • matthewrettenmund

    You should not have had to re-think that. It was always illegal.

  • matthewrettenmund

    “Problematic,” the buzz word of the day. My take, not that I was asked to provide input (Why would one go to the source one is talking about in an article for comment? That would be silly. Or maybe it’s a wry take on consent.), is: If you’re in public, you are in public. There is no restriction on photographing people in public legally (unless you’re deliberately doing “upskirt” type photos), nor should there be any ethical restriction. There is no invasion of privacy in a public space, period. As far as intent, it would be legal but IMO gross to post images of people and ask others to rate or rank them (I delete all negative comments on my posts), or to post pictures of people you think are unattractive. On my posts, I use wordplay in a positive way (I don’t write “hot asssss!” etc.). I’ve always seen it as a turn-the-tables thing in that the male gaze is so invasive toward women. I think many of the images are super interesting, others just super beautiful. But if a discussion is going to be had about posting images of people in public, it would decimate street and other types of photography of the past 100+ years, not to mention vacation photos with bystanders visible.

  • Chris Davis

    The internet makes the long tradition of street photography a bit more problematic, since virtually everyone is carrying around a camera today and can upload images instantly to a potentially world-wide audience. But street photography itself – documenting the reality of our world – remains honorable, interesting and important. i.e., google Vivian Maier (1926-2009) and view her amazing images.

  • Fred M

    It’s incredibly simple. If you have to conceal the fact that you are taking the picture, then it is because you suspect you would not have the consent of the individual to take their picture. At the very least to twist morality through the “public space” argument, make your actions public all-the-same. And at the very least of human decency, ask the individual if you could take a picture of them first.

    Street photography? No big deal. Your intent is clearly the street. Should someone be offended you took their picture in your street photo, tell them the truth; it was a street photo. Maybe you were actually taking a hot guy picture under the guise of “street photo,” then congratulations: you got away with taking a hot guy picture by lying to yourself and/or other people. If you’re okay with that, then be okay with that; don’t pretend you didn’t do what you did. That’s utterly lazy, cowardly, and immature. I seriously don’t get why open and honest conversations are so hard for people.

  • Markus Krampus

    No one cares anymore