Tag Archives: sexual double standards

Voyeurism Double Standards in the Topless Kate Photos Row

33 Replies

The recent ‘Topless Kate’ photos scandal displays two sexual double standards regarding voyeurism and privacy.  In the first place, it comes only weeks after Prince Harry was involved in a similar scandal, in that nude snaps of himself also made their unwanted way into the public domain.  However, whilst Princess Katie is being portrayed as an innocent victim of press harrassment and privacy violation, Prince Harry was castigated for bringing scandal (again) upon the Royal Family.  Moreover, whilst no British newspaper would dare to publish Katie’s bouncing breasts, and even condemnend foreign publications for doing so, the SUN published Harry’s (censored) pics on its front page.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/when-it-comes-to-privacy-is-there-a-difference-between-harrys-nude-photos-and-kates-topless-shots/article4545213/

Some telling privacy distinctions emerged as a French tabloid published photos of Kate Middleton sunbathing topless on a guesthouse terrace in Provence.

No major British publication published the photos Friday – not even The Sun, which last month splashed photos of a nude Prince Harry partying in a Las Vegas hotel room on its front page.

It seems Harry was fair game because he was prancing naked among the (cell phone-wielding) strangers he’d invited to his hotel room. Meanwhile, the images of Kate’s sunbathing ritual on a “remote” property – including Will applying sunscreen to her thonged-rear end – have been widely slammed as an invasion of privacy…

..Beyond privacy, Trierweiler and Middleton’s cases raise the possibility of a gendered element to the uproar: Would people be as incensed were it Will’s rump on the cover of the French tab?

 

The second double standard involved in this is that in neither case is the question of ‘sexual voyeurism’ being raised, simply the issue of privacy.  The reason for this is the demographic that these publications aim at, celeb and gossip magazines that will see their sales and profits rise many times for printing the photos (even at the cost of being sued).

It is overwhelmingly female.

The vast majority of the readers of Closer magazine are women.  The vast majority of the people who will buy the French edition of Closer to examine the breasts of a princess, to check for imperfections, to bitch and to compare with their own commoner bossoms, are female.  Thus, even though feminists at the European Union have forced member states to pass laws criminalizing ‘sexual voyeurism’, there is no question of the publications being charged.  Britain’s Daily Mail, home of the femiservative voice of Middle-England, repeatedly publishes pictures of female celebrities inadvertently revealing their underwear, making themselves liable for prosecution under these laws.  The same paper also regularly crows to its female readers when lonely old men are sent to prison to be raped for taking upskirt photos on spy cams (even if the photos are for personal enjoyment rather than to be posted online).  Feminist activist Kat Banyard recently intimated that even viewing upskirt pictures online should be made illegal.

As you would expect from feminist sexual morality,  it all depends on the gender of the person looking, and of the person being looked at.

Swedish Women Get Slap on Wrist for Vile Child Porn

9 Replies

Swedish women convicted in rare child porn case

(*I think we need to break this one down) :

A Swedish court on Tuesday convicted 23 women of possessing child pornography in a case that has drawn widespread attention because child pornography perpetrators are usually men.

(*True, to a certain extent.  Draconian child porn laws are clearly targetted at men, the male love of beauty and youth, the male capacity to be drawn to erotic visual stimulation, as well as the nature of internet porn searching which ‘rewards’ men’s natural hunting instincts.  If looking at porn was something that women did, rather than something that (99% of) men do, then there would be few if any laws surrounding pornography, at least for the viewing or possession of it.  The state certainly wouldn’t be breaking into the homes of thousands of women each year on account of certain twitches of their fingers on a plastic mouse in order to view 1s and 0s on a computer screen.  That’s not to say that many women don’t look at illegal child porn.  I’m sure untold thousands do, and I can imagine many of them are lesbian feminists.  The police can and do pick and choose who to raid for looking at child porn. This is unlike most crime investigations, which are usually the result of a victim making a complaint.  What is likely is that the police choose to arrest women only in the worst cases, and when they have no choice in the matter because the women were acting with men who were arrested and charged, as in this case.)

The Falun district court in central Sweden handed the women, who are aged between 38 and 70, suspended sentences and ordered them to pay fines ranging from 2,500 kronor to 18,000 kronor ($375 to $2,691, 273 to 1,965 euros).

The ringleader in the case was however a man, 43-year-old Lars Skoglund, who who distributed large quantities of pornographic material featuring children to the women.

He was convicted of aggravated child pornography and sentenced to one year in prison…

…According to the court, the photographs and films depict children being raped by adults, in some cases with the children tied up.

(*Recall that a Swedish fan of Manga was recently fined 5,000 Krona for just owning 50 cartoon pictures that a court ruled as ‘child porn’ (out of a collection of 4 million manga comics).

The court found that “most of the women were psychologically unstable,” and Skoglund had “taken advantage of the women’s poor psychological states and longing for human contact.”

The women all told the court they were not interested in child pornography.

“If Lars Skoglund had not led their conversations onto the subject of child sex, most of these women would probably never have come into contact with child pornography,” the court found.

(*What a f*****g excuse.  No such sympathy for cases where a man has been caught looking at child porn in the throes of depression, or as catharsis  for his own childhood abuse.  A man cannot even use the excuse that he is looking at child porn as a substitute for the real thing, in order to prevent himself actually abusing a child, even though there is evidence that viewing child porn does prevent such actual abuse taking place.)

Meanwhile, it has come to my attention that a thriving ‘jailbait’ subreddit has recently been shut down in controversial circumstances.  I wouldn’t have known this, given that I take great care to avoid any sites that could contain illegal material, and in Europe and much of the world, pictures of jailbait in panties or thongs are considered child porn.  Hell, even a picture of a fully clothed small breasted 25 year old could be considered ‘child porn’ by some rabidly psychotic feminist old bag if the smile on the ‘girl’s’ face was deemed ‘sexual’.

No, I only learnt of the jailbait reddit’s demise because I happened to read about it on the blog of a certain male feminist and connoisseur of ‘tender and erotic’ boy rape fantasies.  Thanks to his extensive, ahem, ‘research’, I did a little Googling of my own and found the following video that explains it all rather well :

Turning the Tables

17 Replies

http://www.spaceavalanche.com/

Of course the tables aren’t really turned because the guy would be in even more trouble for ‘sexual harrassment’ than he would be for looking at semi-exposed breasts.  I think the very first time I questioned the societal assumption that women have it worse than men was when, as a teenager, reading a Sunday tabloid column by the politically incorrect ‘doctor’ Vernan Coleman, I came across a similar example of blatant sexual double standards that the author highlighted. : If a man looks out from his window and is transfixed by the sight of a female neighbour undressing in front of her window, then he could be arrested for voyeurism.  On the other hand, if she looks out of her window and stares incredulously at the sight of him undressing in front of his bedroom window, then HE could be arrested for indecent exposure.

I think that was the moment I began to realise that feminism was just a crock of entitlement bullshit, a sexual trade union even.  By the way, don’t you think the cartoon above would make a great t-shirt?  Maybe it would provoke a few such ’epiphanal’ moments in other young men?

Meanwhile Hank Pellissier wants to talk.  He’s suggested that IEET.org could publish an article containing men’s rights criticisms of his ‘estrogen utopia’ plan :

HI — I have an idea for an article that might get run at IEET but there’s no guarantee — an article called: “Estrogen Utopia? or XX Dystopia? – feminist vs antifeminist debate”
It could be set up as a double-interview with each side answering questions and responding critically to each other’s statements. Let me know if this interests you, via facebook