Though it would seem pretty straightforward, I'm not exactly sure what position to take on this.
Im not going to say I disagree with you, but I don't think its as black and white as you make it out to be.
You did lose me though when you made it about women, and not both sexes.

Firstly, the exact terminology of 'Revenge Porn' suggests that we aren't talking about a crime that was committed for no reason whatsoever, but one that was committed with the intention of getting payback or righting some perceived wrong that had been done to the person who committed it.

That would be a true definition of 'Revenge Porn'.

The example you gave was something different.
A psychotic abusive controlling partner continuing his psychotic abusive controlling behavior.

What if the woman in your story after years of domestic abuse, all the hurt, seeing herself drown in her sorrow as she watches herself get old, her kids seeing her live in misery and her not able to give them the lives she wants for them, trapped by this abusive man, what if she is the one who, after finally breaking free from his grasp - commits the revenge porn upon the man?
Most of you women would agree that that's just fine, fair is fair.
You go girl. Right?

The problem with my argument though by focusing on the word 'revenge' and accepting that it may have been done to right some perceived wrong is that I'm inadvertently condoning a 'tit for tat' power struggle that will not end in happiness for either party.

I want to touch on the issue of when the photo was actually taken.
What if consent was given at the time the photo was taken?
If a person does not want there to be a risk of naked photos of themselves appearing online, should there not be some personal responsibility to object to photos being taken in the first place?

And I will agree that a person in a domestic violence situation might not have much say in this.

Essentially, publishing anyone's photograph without their consent, is criminal and whether the photograph is pornographic or otherwise should make no difference.

However, an honest and reasonable assumption that an implied consent was given could be used as a defence, but in the case of pornographic photographs, the chances for that are diminished.

Come on Jennie, you are singing from the wrong song book, to the wrong audience.

Perhaps it might be a good idea to suggest the "ladies" in question could start to take some responsibility for their lives. They could even keep their clothes on, & their feet down when there is a camera in the room. If they don't want their picture on the net, don't take the picture in the first place. Once a photo exists, there is a pretty good chance it will surface somewhere.

You would have a good argument if the video was shot by a concealed camera, but otherwise, if you don't want people to see it, don't take the picture.

We have some great 40 year old photos to remind me of what a gorgeous 25 year old my lady was, & it is good to look back at how we were, & what we were doing. Unlike some more modern folk however, there is nothing we would not want our grand kids to come across on the net

'Perhaps it might be a good idea to suggest the "ladies" in question could start to take some responsibility for their lives. They could even keep their clothes on, & their feet down when there is a camera in the room.'

you state the obvous Hasbeen. How naive and stupid some females are in allowing themselves to be filmed. Many are still foolish enough to walk around the streets half drunk at night and still vote for middle eastern immigration. Go figure. Sexist? Yes Commonsense?

I thought it was already a crime?
What about the huge payouts that all those sports men have received in the courts because someone posted their little bits of equipment visible on social media?

If only they had kept their pants on in front of the cameras...

We already have the situation where if a naive 15yr old girl MMSs an intimate photo of herself to her boyfriend, she is guilty of distributing child pornography. That we are not locking away 1000s of teenage girls is due to the police choosing to ignore it. However, the laws as they stand can easily be abused.

While I find the revenge porn despicable, I am always wary of do gooders trying to criminalise internet activity as there are too many potential unintended consequences to go through in a short post, similarly there are always loopholes.

For example any half intelligent person wanting to post RP would simply do so anonymously using a VPN which would untraceable, and nearly impossible to prosecute. This is like banning x-rated porn and games when they can be downloaded for free.

It is gesture politics and generally futile.