babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » feminism   » Peeping Thong website

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Peeping Thong website
Panama Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6478

posted 06 February 2005 07:58 PM      Profile for Panama Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341

posted 06 February 2005 08:16 PM      Profile for James        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The "main link" doesn't seem to be working yet, I get a redirect to the designer's site.

That said, though it strikes me as extremely juvenile (like peeking down tops or something) it sounds it's entirely legal, so ... let the two little subgoups indulge each other.


From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 06 February 2005 09:30 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, I'd tell you what I think but the link doesn't work. I'm probably glad it doesn't although it sounds to me like they aren't doing anything illegal.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
googlymoogly
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3819

posted 06 February 2005 09:41 PM      Profile for googlymoogly     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The link worked for me. No nudity (except the occasional buttcrack); it really does seem like a couple of losers with little better to occupy their time.
From: the fiery bowels of hell | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
The Other Todd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7964

posted 06 February 2005 09:49 PM      Profile for The Other Todd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Talk about your Preston Mannings in training!

Not only do they get to judge the women for what they wear (that finger-wagging "don't do this in public" crap), but they get to sit on their high moral horses and compare notes (which, of course, only they can judge wtih impunity).

Fucktards.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 06 February 2005 10:51 PM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Fucktards is right. I'd like to see them in some thongs.

Umm..can I take that all back?


From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341

posted 06 February 2005 11:23 PM      Profile for James        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No; I think you can't.
From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Amy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2210

posted 07 February 2005 01:32 AM      Profile for Amy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
On livejournal someone decided that the only options were to either implement a nun-style dress code or ban all cameras, or anything else that could be used to capture the 'state' of these women. Then (and I'm paraphrasing) he said the 'common sense' option would be for the women who wanted to 'dress like whores' should expect this kind of attention, so they have no right to complain. In other words... no university imposed dress code, just a self-imposed one.

It really freaks me out, the idea of this guy going around taking pictures like that especially when he posts them without permission(although I don't wear revealed thongs, so I'm likely not a target) but I don't know that I agree with the quote from a women's centre employee who was quoted in the Martlet who said that it's sexual assault.


From: the whole town erupts and/ bursts into flame | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
verbatim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 569

posted 07 February 2005 02:03 AM      Profile for verbatim   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I've spoken to a couple women about this issue myself, and they seemed to share the opinion of the women Panama Jack spoke with.

It is creepy. It is pathetic. The rating system adds even more to the puerility of it all. However, these thongs are publically visible, as any trip to the university library will show you. The photos I've seen don't identify the women wearing the thongs. One of the aforementioned women I spoke to suggested that it was actually rather hypocritical for complaints to arise about pictures of things when it appears that these thongs are worn with full knowledge that they are on display. She naturally assumed that the primary reason to have your thong hiked up over your pantline was so that people could see it -- and ditto for the ass-hugging fabric of the pants.

As for the claim that it's sexual assault, well the person who said that needs to brush up on the Canada Criminal Code. Then again, maybe that person is planning on pushing this through the SCC as a landmark re-definition of sexual assault.


From: The People's Republic of Cook Street | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
peppermint
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7221

posted 07 February 2005 02:33 AM      Profile for peppermint     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
there were a lot of pics on the site that looked posed, and if those women want to post their pics online, well who am I to judge?

There's another section of the site called "hunted t-bar victims" where the women seemed thoroughly unaware. This part of the site is kind of distateful. It's generally bad form and of questionable legality to post someone's pic online without their permission. Caling them victims suggests that the "hunters" know they're doing something somewhat wrong. I wouldn't say its sexual assault, but I'd be more than a little pissed if I came across my own butt there.

AS for those who say it's their own fault: WHAT? They're asking for it???????????" Surely we've moved beyond that. When I wear a thong it's generally to hide pantylines, not to show off my underwear. .


From: Korea | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
verbatim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 569

posted 07 February 2005 02:50 AM      Profile for verbatim   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by peppermint:
AS for those who say it's their own fault: WHAT? They're asking for it???????????" Surely we've moved beyond that. When I wear a thong it's generally to hide pantylines, not to show off my underwear.

Well, it seems to me that most of the people who are saying it's their own fault (other than then website's owners) are women. I'm certainly not saying that. It's not my fault if anyone takes my picture in a public place and posts it somewhere. If you think pantylines are unattractive, you have the right to take any measures you deem necessary to eliminate them.

[ 07 February 2005: Message edited by: verbatim ]


From: The People's Republic of Cook Street | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 07 February 2005 05:26 AM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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      Profile for The Other Todd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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
kuri
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4202

posted 07 February 2005 08:08 PM      Profile for kuri   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's the power thing, and the general objectification that's truly creepy about this site. I don't care about the "anonymous submissions": those are obviously by choice. But the others...

For a whole variety of reasons, if there was one everyday invention I could uninvent, the cellular phone and all related accessories (camera, etc) would probably be it. There was one photo on that site that was kind of blurry, but what it looked was happening was that the girl was reaching down really quickly to adjust, to hike up her pants in the back. Would've been over in a second with maybe only 1 or 2 people noticing if not for these losers "t-bar hunting". It seems that not much can be done about this, legally. But I wouldn't be opposed to some counter-espionage....


From: an employer more progressive than rabble.ca | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 07 February 2005 08:26 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650

posted 07 February 2005 08:44 PM      Profile for Anchoress     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Michelle: WORD.
From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
TeamNeedles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8126

posted 07 February 2005 11:04 PM      Profile for TeamNeedles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, it's the 'ratings' system that turns it from social statement (as misguided as you may think it is) to nonsense.
From: Waterloo, Ontario | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
The Other Todd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7964

posted 09 February 2005 03:37 PM      Profile for The Other Todd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 09 February 2005 03:45 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
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.

"young blacks"??

Are black women born with visible thongs now?


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Amy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2210

posted 09 February 2005 05:46 PM      Profile for Amy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I heard about this on the news yesterday... it seems as though non-black folk can't have baggy-assed pants, or those hiphuggers.

In any case, the law seemed well, patently stupid.


From: the whole town erupts and/ bursts into flame | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca