Dear Jennifer Lawrence,

the right answer wasn’t “Who has looked at those pictures has committed a sexual offence”, because it’s not true, and because overdoing when you’re right makes you look like you’re not right.

The correct answer was: “Those photos were for my boyfriend, and you would not have had the chance to look at them. It was my right to take them and it was not your right to look at them. You did it and, well, who cares: at least I hope you enjoyed them and have been a great event for your life, because in my life that was just a Tuesday.”

Having said that, I think it’s also essential to state that a) it is not nice to look at pictures of other naked people if they did not intend to spread those photos, b) is not nice, and in most countries it is also a crime; c) popularity does not entitle anyone to do and say things they would not do and say to any other human being.

But I also think that in this case we’re talking about to two different actions, both serious, but definitely serious in different ways. I mean, Jennifer Lawrence has been the subject of an offence, and it’s right for her to not consider or even contemplate that distinction, but I was expecting something different from commentators who should aspire to the objective opinion one should have when is not directly involved. Justice does that. Opinion makers should too.

I know there are idiots willing to exploit this kind of distinction but, in spite of everything, this does not invalidate the argument.

You may think that those particular idiots always need a reminder of four simple concepts they should consider undisputed, so here they are:

a) Jennifer Lawrence and any other mammal in the world are free to take porn pictures when they pleases, in the positions they prefer, and to show them only to those they intended to;

b) If you think “She leaked the photos herself, to get publicity”, you are one of those idiots;

c) If you think “She had it coming when she took pictures like that”, you are one of those idiots;

d) If you think “With everything she earns she should shut up: popularity has so many benefits that can she safely withstand some disadvantage”, you are one of those idiots.

Without all these premises, the point is this: no, who has only looked at those photos did not commit an act serious as the one perpetrated by the people who have stolen and spreaded the images. There’s no violence involved, and there wasn’t — as I read — the desire to humiliate anyone. Unless you want to consider “violence” the act of masturbation itself. Or violence to have self quality time over a bikini picture of a random Hollywood star caught by a paparazzo on her private time on a random beach.

We have to support the principle that there are different types of offenses — some more serious than others — and that’s why our society choose to impose different punishments depending on the severity of the committed crime.

If you do not accept this concept, if everything is violence and everything is the greatest evil act that we can imagine, then all evil absurdities become normal and I’m worried that the boundaries of real sexual violence may become less clear in the minds of the less quick to understand.

Someone on Facebook asked me “Don’t you think it’s a violation to use a non-consenting human being as a material for masturbation?”. No, it is not. Unless you do not want to condemn the sixteen-me for violence on Phoebe Cates, Sophie Marceau and any actress or starlet active on the eighties. Any object of onanism is not normally consenting. But we could introuduce the need for an official notification:

“You’re masturbating on Jessica Alba? Well, did you asked her?”.

If, however, the problem is merely semantic, and focused on what can and should be legally considered a “sexual violation”, let’s just say this: public urination is legally considered a “sexual offence” by some countries. Do we think it is? The answer for me is no. And that’s why I think we need to state the difference between two otherwise reprehensible actions: steal & distribute those pictures, and just looking at them.

I’d like a world where the leak of Jennifer Lawrence’s naked pictures isn’t considered a news anymore. A world in which the common reaction would be: “Well, she took naked picture of herself, what’s wrong?”.

Because what really drives me crazy is the idea that “there is something wrong” in sex, like sex wasn’t an activity commonly practiced end enjoyed by the whole world.

In short, there are 3.5 billion of women in the world. It should mean that there are at least 7 billion of female’s nipples on this planet: sooner or later we have to learn that it is at least strange to keep react with surprise when we see one of them.

There is something worse than stolen porn — in which at least Jennifer Lawrence was in a state of control of her image, because she took the photos herself — and it is a kind of legal, accepted and publishable porn. It does more damage — in very serious ways —than the spread of a pair of objectively beautiful breasts.

I mean this kind of porn:

And this kind of porn:

And this kind:

And this kind:

There will be, of course, someone who will say that this is a further distinction that does not help. But who do I prefer between having a daughter who has sex often, in all places, while having fun doing something that is fun, documenting everything with the audiovisual choice in use in that particular historical period, and a daughter who thinks she’s ugly whenever she’s in front of a mirror or in other people’s company, just because the media say she is ugly?