As an art historian I understand your point. What you fail to realize is that people do not post self portraits of their most intimate parts and moments for them to be assessed and critiqued as a bonafide work of art. This is not the Sundance Film Festival. When I peruse the gallery I'm not looking for the arc of the character, moody lighting, or underlying themes. I am looking for big, pretty dicks.
I used art as an example, NJ.... but the facts are the same across the board.
A forum is a commons- if you post a statement or a picture in a public commons, then you are INVITING comment.
That is all there is to it.
And an adult understands and accepts that that commentary may not be kind.
It is unreasonable and manipulative to suggest that other people must censor THEIR response to your publishing a picture of your most intimate parts.
Other people have a right to be just as forthcoming with their thoughts....
It may be hurtful... but that is the risk you take when you publish yourself.
To bring back the art analogy...
The world is full of failed and frustrated artists who simply did not have the emotional strength to take criticism... and so do not show their work.
It may be great work... even the greatest work of art will still, on wide publication, recieve
some negative responses.
If you can't stand the heat- stay out of the kitchen.
If you can't shrug off cruel commentary on your appearance... don't hang your picture in the public square.
That's true but quite often differing viewpoints are presented not as an actual opinion, but as someone playing devil's advocate just to stir the pot.
So? Freedom is freedom... In art critique or philosophical debate playing devil's advocate is central to teaching people how to understand and defend their points of view.
You don't become a better tennis player by playing someone taking it easy on you.