Voyeurism Double Standards in the Topless Kate Photos Row
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.
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.
It’s rather like the law on peeping tom’s: If a man is caught peering through an open curtain at a woman undressing, he is charged under that voyeurism law as a peeping tom and punished severley (and it wouldn’t surprise me if he’s enrolled on the sex-offendr’s registry too).
On the other hand: if a woman similarly watches a man undressing through an open curtain: again, the man undressing is seen as committing an offence and charged with indecent exposure!
The same double standard applies.
The pussy-pass rules again and exempts women from possibly being voyeurs, or sex offenders.
According to the fair and just law: only men commit sex offences, including voyeurism.
Alan Vaughn
16 Sep 12 at 12:10 pm
Well put Alan. I guess Prince Harry can consider himself fortunate that he wasn’t arrested for indecent exposure!
And maybe re-arrested every single time that a woman clicks on his nude pic online or looks at his photo in her celeb gossip magazine!
theantifeminist
16 Sep 12 at 12:31 pm
BTW, if you think AVfM commentators are bad, you should try reddit.com/r/mensrights, which now is number 1 on Google for ‘men’s rights’ :
http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/zysza/double_standards_in_the_topless_kate_photos_row/
theantifeminist
16 Sep 12 at 12:42 pm
I know, they are such staunch ‘men’s rights’ activists at Reddit that I think the last time I even visited the site was about 12 months ago.
I refuse to even read anything there now, let alone offer a comment to the misandrist white-knights.
In fact I don’t think it’s really even a mangina’s / white-knight’s forum, more like an actual feminist blog DISGUISED as an mRA blog.
So I didn’t follow your link, because I already know what I’ll see there!
Alan Vaughn
16 Sep 12 at 2:14 pm
Now why didn’t I think of that? You’re right though, if he wasn’t a memebr of the Royal Family, he would have been for sure!
Alan Vaughn
16 Sep 12 at 2:17 pm
Whilst I totally agree with you regarding the double standard, should ever such a case arise it would be difficult to enforce this clear double standard.
What we see here is evidence of the way in which men are perceived and portrayed in the UK. For example, I walk out into the street naked and could be arrested, Surely the same applies to a woman. However, she would be perceived as ill for doing this as it is perceived to be something women don’t do. Whereas I would be perceived as bad despite male culture and TV culture throwing the naked male as acceptable. Read my blog for my thoughts on this.
I see topless men in the street, on TV, in womens magazines, who decided that topless women were offensive.
Act now!
masculistuk.blogspot.com
Masculistuk
16 Sep 12 at 4:22 pm
The American media is naturally spinning these stories as ‘proof’ of the sexual degeneracy of foreign cultures, as opposed to our supposedly ‘purer’ one.
I’d like to see all these White-Knights in the media put their money where their mouths are for a change. How about donating all the profits they make from selling these scandalous pictures to a fund for abused children or for battered-womens’ shelters? Because, according to these femi-hags in the media; viewing porn leads to abuse of women and children, so according to their own logic, this would be an entirely ‘socially responsible’ thing to do.
Eric
16 Sep 12 at 6:52 pm
Masculistuk:
If I was a newspaper editor, I would exploit this scandal as a way to disgrace the femihags and shame the paedohysterical public at the same time. Here’s how I’d do it: I’d post an online poll for male asking if any of them really wanted me to post nude photographs of Kate Middelton? If more ‘no’ votes are recieved, I would agree to publish nude photographs of some younger, more attractive girl instead.
I have a feeling that I wouldn’t be an editor very long, but the point would be made…LOL
Eric
16 Sep 12 at 7:04 pm
Those comments on Reddit are embarrassing to read. Talking about anything even remotely sexual around these White Knights is like waving a red flag in front of a bull. If Prince Harry had committed some war crime in Afghanistan it wouldn’t have gotten this level of outrage and righteous indignation.
In the prince’s case; it seems to me that the real fault lies with the British military who allowed those images to get out of Afghanistan. What happened to the legendary ‘discretionary powers’ of the British officer corps? Could anyone imagine Field-Marshal Montgomery even letting a story like this get any further than his wastebasket?
Eric
16 Sep 12 at 7:22 pm
@Masculistuk
The link to your blog doesn’t work, it’s here: Masculistuk
Or here: Masculistuk to go through the ‘front door’ where you have you accept ‘adult content’ warning…
Alan Vaughn
16 Sep 12 at 9:03 pm
Sorry, BTW: I like your blog – great work.
Alan Vaughn
16 Sep 12 at 9:29 pm
I see this ‘scandal’ as a mostly unconscious desire by much of society, and all women to control access to their image, their so called feminine mystery. It’s not right that the unwashed masses( meaning men ) should get a thrill out of seeing a woman’s body, without her permission, and without her/them profiting from that act. That’s why many traditional women and feminists alike are against pornography – it’s not right that a man should derive pleasure from such images/media without taking a woman out on dates, to dinners, buy her gifts, commits to her welfare, etc… before she finally throws him some table scraps.
Now, Harry’s photos were ok to publish – it was meant to ridicule him, show that men are immature, and need a strong, independent woman to control them. Soon, Harry will hear “Man up! Step up! Marry up!” from the old bag with the crown on her head.
Nothing to see here, just society enforcing the feminist principles.
Alex
16 Sep 12 at 9:30 pm
incisive post revealing some of the “invisible” methods the matriarchy uses to angelicize females and foment hatred against boys and men
few blogs have the gonads to tackle this stuff
the link between the Konsumer West and the ruling gynocracies of the West operates on many levels — women buy the magazines, consume the Medea, and purchase endless crap in a vain attempt to fill the abyss inside themselves, where God is supposed to be . . . but He doesn’t want anything more to do with these monstresses than ourselves! lol
women and their manservants in government, media, religion, and law/law enforcement have very profitably moved from a War on Alcohol (ie males) to a War on Drugs (ie males) to a War on Sexuality (ie males), and at each socio-legal stage, the “moral” and economic and political power of females vs males has vastly increased
it aint an accident
i’m against alcohol, drugs,and extra-marital sex, but the use of these vices as tools of matriarchal and statist power is far worse than the damage of the original vices
women and their emasculates have succeeded in creating a mass fiction of female uber-virtue and male uber-evil, while the women, girls, and manlings glut themselves on the wealth and power stolen from good men . . . and rejoice in the fathers stolen from good sons
they will pay for every penny and for every tear, not one of them will escape, fill their smug fat asses full of the arrows of truth
cheers
ray
17 Sep 12 at 12:23 am
Alex:
I might be missing something here, but I can’t figure out why any normal man would want to see Kate Middleton nude, let alone paying for it, in the first place. To expand on your comment, I’m wondering if there might not be an additional element of ‘cougarism’ involved? Maybe all of this femihag outrage is concealing their secret satifaction that some middle-aged, rather plain-looking cohort of the Sisterhood is being treated by the media as an object of sexual desire?
If Ms. Kate were a porn actress, she would be hard-pressed to earn an income; but the media slobbers over her like she was Marilyn Monroe. I think that’s angle of the situation that shouldn’t be overlooked.
Eric
17 Sep 12 at 10:26 am
Ray:
‘I’m against alcohol, drugs, and extra-marital sex, but the uses of these vices as tools of matriarchal and statist power are far worse than the original vices.’
With the arguable exception of alcohol, most men in the pre-feminist era were opposed to these vices as well; but used social shaming as way of curbing them instead of government intervention. Even in the case of alcohol use, public drunkness was frowned upon and every city jail had a ‘drunk tank’ where drunks could sober up without causing any damage.
It’s said that Wyatt Earp threw drunks into a 12-ft deep pit behind his jail, and when the troublemakers were sober enough to climb out, they could go home. Crawling out of a smelly pit in the Arizona desert heat with a hangover probably reformed a lot more men than all the ‘social purity’ movements combined! LOL
Eric
17 Sep 12 at 10:35 am
Funny you should say that Eric because the same thought passed through my mind when I first heard all about the storm-in-a-teacup on a radio news broadcast.
I would say you have hit the nail square on the head and driven it all the way home.
Alan Vaughn
17 Sep 12 at 11:00 am
You have me at a disadvantage here, Eric, as I’ve only seen Kate M. briefly on the tv news when she got married, and have never seen her nude photos, but I was speaking on general feminist principles, and on which topic the social conservatives agree completely, that men have to pay for access to female companionship and sex.
For feminist the cry was ‘no sex without a relationship’ unless they themselves want that and the social conservatives have always taken it a step further and said ‘no sex before/without marriage’. I could try to dig up the quotes by feminist leaders if you like – it might take a bit, but it should be achievable.
Easier still is to look at their public platforms. Both feminists and social conservatives decry pornography in vicious terms whenever the topic arises. Why should two camps as far divided agree on this point – I mean the feminists hate everything the SoCons and traditional marriage stand for, and vice versa. SoCons will complain that it allows men to feed their carnal lusts without having to man up and marry( the good old Pastor Driscoll), while feminists say it demeans women.
But here’s the true feminist problem with porn, from one of their leaders/mouthpieces, Naomi Wolf: “But the effect is not making men into raving beasts. On the contrary: The onslaught of porn is responsible for deadening male libido in relation to real women, and leading men to see fewer and fewer women as “porn-worthy.” Far from having to fend off porn-crazed young men, young women are worrying that as mere flesh and blood, they can scarcely get, let alone hold, their attention.” http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/trends/n_9437/
So, to bring the cart home the long way around, women – and the feminized, politically correct society they control through the ballot box since women outnumber men – will object vociferously any time a woman is ‘exploited’, which means she wasn’t paid off somehow.
If Playboy had offered Kate M. 10 million dollars to pose in some tasteful nudes, it would have been a daring breath of fresh air, a break through for women everywhere – but since the photos came about through a telephoto lens, without benefiting K.M. hell had to be raised. This is just my opinion and what’s the Internet for if not to allow whacko theories like mine, eh? I admit I may well be mistaken in my analysis of the outrage.
Hmm, I’ll admit I had not even considered the cougar angle, Eric, and it would go along with the feminine imperative to make men believe that women are sexy at every stage of life, the older the sassier, the sexier.
Just compare Sharon Stone to George Clooney physically and it’s clear that women need some good P.R. to try to sell that point. Same thing as the myth that a cougar is in a hotter state of sexual heat than a teen or twenty some year old of breeding age.
Women are quite influential in what news, gossip and social commentary is fed to the masses and it makes sense that we should be fed that kind of crap, to make all the mid-30s to mid-40s women who have hit the wall after riding a wide assortment of penises, desirable.
Alex
17 Sep 12 at 7:01 pm
Alan:
Yes, I think there’s radically wrong with these cougar women. Granted, after 20 years of marriage and several children later, I wouldn’t be disappointed if my hypothetical wife looked like Kate Middleton or Sarah Palin. But for them to pose as nubile, desirable material at that age just looks ridiculous.
I’m 41 now, 25 years ago I was a promising running-back and quarterback in high-school football. I’m still in decent shape now; but if I tried walking on to a HS or college team and telling them that I had anywhere near the athletic ability of the 16-21 y/o guys there, I’d be laughed off the field and rightly so. And these cougars ought to be laughed out of the news media as well.
Eric
17 Sep 12 at 8:16 pm
Alex;
I wasn’t disagreeing with what you said, but wanted to add the ‘cougarism’ point to complete the picture. Part of the whole Cougar Culture is about aping the younger women and the cougars have basically the same attitudes that you mentioned—that sex is something that men have to ‘man up’ and pay for in someway. After all, if they’re as sexual valuable (in their own minds) as younger women, then it follows logically that they feel entitled to the same treatment as younger women.
To bring it full circle, this is why the media hypocritically foams outrage over Kate Middleton being ‘exploited’ at the same time it holds up 52 y/o Madonna as a ‘sex symbol’. The quote from Naomi Wolf that you cited explains it perfectly. To modify the scenario she presented, the STU/feminists are trying to raise themselves to the level of ‘porn-worthy’ while censoring women who actually fit that description.
Eric
17 Sep 12 at 8:28 pm
Eric,
Madonna is in fact 54 years old, she is exactly 9 days older than me and the late Michael Jackson was 4 days younger than me. I followed both of them since they became famous in the 1970′s (albeit not exactly as a ‘fan’), simply because their birthday’s are almost the same as mine (Aug 25)…
Another famous personality I look up to for the same reason is Sean Connery, his birthday is the SAME day as mine, but he is some 28 years older than me.
I thought it almost ironic that you mentioned Madonna, because even when she was young (under 30 years old), I never really perceived her as anything like a sex-symbol, only as great singer.
So the sexual trade union cohorts must be very deluded if they seriously think anyone (man or normal woman) would ever objectify her as such, now that she’s 54 and as typically unattractive as any other ‘average’ 54 year old woman!
They must honestly and seriously believe that with all their ‘age-positive’, ‘fat-positive’ (BBW), and cougar-culture propaganda, coupled with Draconian and life destroying male sexuality laws; along with rampant paedohysteria and a corrupt white-knighting government of scared manginas manipulating an even more corrupt media: they can and will one day convince men (even by FORCE) to become interested in them sexually!
They really are pathetic!
Alan Vaughn
17 Sep 12 at 9:10 pm
That’s pretty much been the thesis of this blog since its conception Alex :
http://theantifeminist.com/what-feminism-is/
http://historyoffeminism.com/a-history-of-feminism/
I discussed the Naomi Wolf article a while back and asked whether she and the rest of the STU (sexual trade union) should be arrested for attempted rape : http://theantifeminist.com/naomi-wolf-feminist-rapist/
theantifeminist
17 Sep 12 at 9:19 pm
“Alex; I wasn’t disagreeing with what you said,”
No worries, Eric. That’s a good thing about men, we can argue about our positions and try to make our cases and then move on, without sweating the fact. I will apologize though, I see in a follow up post several links by theantifeminist that indicate my viewpoint was already covered by this blog. I meant nothing by it, just didn’t realize that fact.
I did some surfing after you brought up the cougar factor, and found a good article it. http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/11/16/the-sexual-peak-myth/
Your comments on Madonna were on target, as Alan’s comments which expanded on her – I believe she even has a daughter, and though her financial future is not in doubt, her mental stability is in question, with a whackjob like Madonna.
Alex
17 Sep 12 at 9:29 pm
I’m glad that you are one of the rare men’s rights supporters who can see what feminism really is Alex, and I hope that you stick around and continue to make valuable contributions as a commentator.
theantifeminist
17 Sep 12 at 9:34 pm
@theantifeminist
Were there ever any follow-up comments to that Naomi Wolf post, or was your blog too young (nobody knew it was online) then?
I remember reading that when I first found your blog and haven’t seen a better and more easy to understand explanation on feminism and the real reason they want to rid the world of porn, ever since.
Alan Vaughn
17 Sep 12 at 10:38 pm
@Alan
There might have been responses to that post (altought it’s true I didn’t have many readers at that time). Sometime in early 2010 my site was hacked and defaced. Unfortunately I didn’t know how to re-install a database back then, so I simply started again whilst re-posting by hand some of my previous articles. I only ended up re-posting a select few (and without the comments) – that’s why if you look at my archives (bottom of sidebar) you’ll notice a gap between nov 2008 and oct 2009. I still have all the old articles – I haven’t re-posted any for a while though. Completely forgotten to be honest.
I had my own YouTube channel (schopenbecq) for a while before I began this blog. I made a video ‘All Feminists Are Rapists’ that is referred to in that article.
theantifeminist
17 Sep 12 at 11:09 pm
Thanks Schop…
Is there anywhere that we can view any of your You Tubes?
I recall reading somewhere how that was closed down too by feminists or white-knights (or perhaps even Redditors mRA’s), because they didn’t want anyone knowing the truth about them?
Alan Vaughn
17 Sep 12 at 11:25 pm
Alan:
Even more pathetic are White Knights like Rev. Mark Driscoll, whom Alex mentioned. And also Futrelle and his camarilla. These clowns are so green with jealous rage over any man who doesn’t man up and submit to a feminist, that they’re willing to be femihag enforcers.
I think every time they see men like us with young, attractive, and agreeble women, they feel humiliated remembering how hard they had to work just to get a ferocious femihag cougar in return. Then they channel all their sexual repression into paedohysteria and become activists and male feminists.
Eric
18 Sep 12 at 4:13 am
Alex:
A lot of times the mens movement reminds me of those saloon scenes in old western movies. One minute, guys are breaking chairs over each others’ heads, and the next they’re buying each other a another round of drinks.
Eric
18 Sep 12 at 4:17 am
@Eric
Yep, you’re right! You also had me in stitches for about 10 minutes – in pain from laughing!
It’s all perfectly true, but you have such a novel (amusing) way with words and of explaining things.
LOL
Alan Vaughn
18 Sep 12 at 7:00 am
Yea, it was closed down because I showed a pair of women’s breasts (briefly) in a bbc documentary on the 60′s that I uploaded. Also because I was reported for spam for leaving a couple of comments I left underneath the German state television’s official page for uploading a video praising Poland’s decision to start castrating sex offenders (I pointed out that there was something a little questionable about German state news praising the de-humanisation and mutiliation of Polish prisoners, especially as a lot of them wouldn’t have done anything illegal under German law – age of consent Poland 15, age of consent Germany 14).
theantifeminist
18 Sep 12 at 8:30 am
Alan:
Thanks for the positive feedback! Sometimes you have to laugh about these things or you’ll go crazy.
Imagine some dork like one of those guys in Vancouver with the boxcutters. He’s hanging around a Starbucks reading some paedohysterical story in ‘USA Today’ when one of us comes in with some cutie who’s 20 or 30 years younger and having fun together; while HE has to go home to some Harriet Hartman look-alike and listen to lectures about how all men are pigs, and should be forced to bow to the White Goddess, &c.
By the time he gets to Reddit or Manboobz, he’s going to be worked into such a frenzy that he’s a ripe target for groups like the Vancouver Femistasi who’ll assure him that he can reclaim his manhood by tearing down posters and shouting obscenities at security guards and things.
Who’d want to end up like that? LOL One thing male feminists (and female ones too) are notorious for is their lack of any sense of humor!
Eric
18 Sep 12 at 9:53 am
That’s unbelievable, especially considering that the infamous You-Tube video Innocence of Muslims, a 14 minute trailer for the new anti-Muslim movie is still there, freely available for anyone to view at their leisure, because according to a spokesman for You-Tube’s Parent company: google.com: “the video was within its guidelines for content.”
He has to be kidding? !!
This is despite the fact that so far, the You-Tube trailer has been blamed for at least 28 deaths world-wide and rising daily as a result of widespread anger felt by all Muslims: giving rise to violent protests around the world.
Google.com, directed by feminist totalitarian government thought police, are more concerned about what they deem as ‘inappropriate sex’ than the lives of innocent people!
Yet, really we’re talking here about the gynocracy and paedohysteria, thus them closing down your YT channel is not so surprising or unbelievable at all really…
Alan Vaughn
18 Sep 12 at 11:09 am