The author of the NYT piece claimed that viewing someone else’s vulval / vaginal selfie, shared by its recipient (a married man), spurred her to write the thing. She didn’t mention the first time round that the recipient was, in fact, her own husband and, prior to these edits, either he or she or both of them shared…

If your husband cheats, he’s the whore. Save your rage for him.

I mean, if you think the various ways he played along with this hashtag saga—that the anon woman was clearly not on board with—was an incredibly mindful attempt to steer curiosity away from that woman then I don’t know what to tell you. We’re just gonna have to be at odds!

Yep. No assertion that it was not consensually sent, and really no indication that the woman knew the man she was DM’ing was married.

All this is is a hit piece on the woman who sent the photo. There’s no investigative work, no insightful quotes, just a woman and her friends very publicly getting a dig in on someone on the other side of the country.

Fuck this creep. What the hell? Why feed the innuendo and speculation, if not only for selfish self-promoting reasons?

Because he’s marketing himself off of something that not only made the woman he’s constantly referencing extremely uncomfortable but had a horrid impact on her life. It’s gross.

Yeah.

I disagree. There’s an implied wink and nudge that goes along with “a gentleman never tells.”

Once she left social media, I was extremely uncomfortable with the amount of people who were willing to brush off the inappropriateness of the original thread by saying, “but he’s fine with it!”

There have already been countless articles about Rosey Blair and her loose understanding of privacy, ethics, and basic respect for boundaries. This didn’t need to be another one. I don’t think I failed to hold Blair accountable. Instead, I was attempting to talk about an angle of this ordeal that many other pieces…

Wow this guy is awful.

Wait...so he’s gotten positive vibes, poses shirtless but she is slut shamed? Ugh this world.

That is a valid point and I also somehow missed that this was about cyber infidelity so that the husband probably asked for the picture, or at least it wasn’t out of the blue.  No matter the circumstances I don’t think she should have written about the picture so explicitly as if she wants the woman identified.

Yes! Not only is this unethical but she’s using her platform just to trash a woman her husband is cheating with.

Yeah. Why is the retraction message “We’re changing this article because we think the author’s snark was unduly influenced by her undisclosed personal relationship with the man who received the picture” as opposed to “We have updated this article to remove references to a nude photo the author described in detail to…

Reporter’s husband gets sexy pic from woman-husband-is-cheating-with. Reporter finds out, gets copy of sexy pic of woman-husband-is-cheating-with. Reporter uses the NY effen Times to call woman-husband-is-cheating-with fat with ugly vag.

If you ever want revenge porn laws to be workable in this country, yes.

The problem is that the at least one of the anecdotes sounds like person sharing the picture is the reporter, who got it because it got sent to her husband.

Wow... regardless of if it was the writer’s husband receiving this unsolicited vag pic or just some rando vag pic it is wholly disgusting to pick apart the appearance of a person’s body for the whole world without their express consent. Gross, gross, gross.