|
Author
|
Topic: Peeping Thong website
|
Panama Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6478
|
posted 06 February 2005 07:58 PM
Not sure if the site still works, but it's been generating some controversy around Victoria. If anyone feels this is inappropriate, say so and I'll remove this post immediately. The Peeping Thong In short, some UVIC frat boys have taken it upon themselves to take pictures of mostly unsuspecting female students who have their thong underwear exposed in public places using camera-phones. (Un)fortunately (depending on your sensibilities), the site can't be acccessed right now... but here is the disclaimer: "If you don't want your thong displayed online then keep it in your pants. Public areas are for everyone's enjoyment; If you are not comfortable with people you don't know seeing your thong hanging out, wear less-revealing clothing.All Photos on this website were taken either with the subject's consent, or in a public venue. We only want to show the world what you already have." Personally, the photos themselves weren't too offensive to this male... however... what was much more worrying was the voting procedure to rank each photo, here's a fairly typical poll result: Poll results:
Number 6 overall.
Uhh...............brb: 44 votes
I wouldn't hesitate: 39 votes
What doing??: 7 votes
Arby's: 3 votes
MacDonalds: 6 votes
Some news clips: Martlet article TC article #1 TC article #2 I'm curious to know in particular what third-wavers think of this? Most women I've talked to thought the idea was generally immature fratboy behaviour.. but at the same time thought it was just deserts for women who appartently enjoy showing off their barely covered asscrack. Legally, the fratboys are doing this within their rights, as they aren't intruding directly in this womens space (as they would be if they were snapping pics underneath a womens skirt). Again, I don't intend to intrude in the feminism forum with a potentially inflammatory thread... let me know if this should be moved or just plain out removed.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308
|
posted 07 February 2005 05:26 AM
Seems to me there's two issues here--the pictures themselves, and the site that surrounds them.
From what people have been saying, I think there's something very objectionable about the way these dorks talk about the women.
If they like the way women with visible thongs look enough to take pictures and post them on their website, they should be grateful those women are showing them some sexiness. There's nothing necessarily all that wrong with a website showing some of the sexy women on campus and the way they make it a more pleasant place to be. There is something wrong with having the gall to insult and condescend to them for displaying what you clearly want to see. There are cases where people talk about turning women into objects and it seems to me they're reaching, but this seems like a clear, typical case of exactly that. Smegheads. The whole "peeping" thing seems like they're trying to get away with something, take something from the women but not be caught. The subtext of the disclaimer seems more or less a "Nyah, nyah--we hope women get mad, but there's nothing they can do about it". There's a power thing happening there. Which is probably why someone called it assault--it isn't, but feminists tend to think of sexual assault in terms of wielding power, and there's an element of wielding power in this whole "I can take your image without your consent" schtick. It's like they're deliberately trying to create the sense that the women shouldn't want their pictures taken, that something is being taken from them, that they should be in some way intimidated. Whether the dorks have thought all this through consciously I doubt--but it's there.Without all that subtext, the pictures themselves would not be IMO a big deal. It's the words that are the problem.
From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Other Todd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7964
|
posted 07 February 2005 07:57 PM
The fucktards made it into this morning's Citizen. quote:
Cheeky website won't pull thong shots
VANCOUVER - The administrator of a website displaying unauthorized photographs of female University of Victoria students with their thong underwear exposed remains defiant about his right to post pictures of the women.
http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=37be64b1-11a5-4096-961b-73a24ce3d19f (Anyone with a subscription can get the full story.)
From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 07 February 2005 08:26 PM
What's the difference between this and the camel toe web site, which I've seen folks linking to with amusement?I don't really have a problem with this. Every single shot I saw (except for a couple of the bedroom ones, which I assume were submitted by women who wanted their 3 seconds of internet fame) were of completely publicly-displayed thongs. These women weren't spied upon in a state of undress. You can't have it both ways. You can't say, "Hey, this is a perfectly legitimate way of dressing and showing my thong is fashionable and fun and not immodest", but then getting all prissy and hissy when someone takes a picture of your perfectly fashionable, modest, legitimately-displayed thong. Sexual assault, my ass. How ridiculous. Since when is it sexual assault to criticize someone's fashion sense? Gee, I guess every time I go to the grocery store and see all those tabloids, I'm walking past sexual assault snuff! Give me a great big freakin' break. P.S. That's not to say that I think this is a particularly nice thing to do. I think it's kind of mean to start a site where you exist only to criticize other people's fashion choices. But then again, there are an awful lot of people who like to watch that sort of thing for entertainment - like What Not To Wear and the like. I don't like it either, but I sure as hell don't think it's akin to sexual assault. [ 07 February 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Other Todd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7964
|
posted 09 February 2005 03:37 PM
Guess these guys won't care to go to "dry" Virginia:Virginia bans droopy drawers, offenders face $50 fine
08/02/2005 10:39:00 PM RICHMOND, Va. (AP) - Virginians who wear their pants so low their underwear shows may want to think about investing in a stronger belt. The state's House of Delegates passed a bill Tuesday authorizing a $50 fine for anyone who displays his or her underpants in a "lewd or indecent manner." Delegate Lionell Spruill, a Democrat who opposed the bill, pleaded with his colleagues to remember their own youthful fashion follies. During an extended monologue Monday, he talked about how they dressed or wore their hair in their teens. On Tuesday, he said the measure is an unconstitutional attack on young blacks that would force parents to take off work to accompany their children to court just for making a fashion statement. "This is a foolish bill, Mr. Speaker, because it will hurt so many," Spruill said before the measure was approved by a vote of 60-34. It now goes to the state Senate. The bill's sponsor, Delegate Algie Howell, has said constituents were offended by the exposed underwear. He did not speak on the floor Tuesday. click! [ 09 February 2005: Message edited by: audra trower williams ]
From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Email this thread to someone!
