The JCGirls Website

1 view
Skip to first unread message

secular_hu...@my-deja.com

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to
Has anyone here NOT visited the site yet (now at
http://jcgirls.n3.net/)? It seems a fairless harmless bit of fun to me.
Magazines such as Her World take candid photos of (mostly) ladies
walking, or shopping or whatever and award them token prizes. The
JCGirls site does the same except that no prizes are awarded. And none
of the photos appear even racy in the least. Plunging necklines? These
are far too common to be bothered about. Pictures of girls squatting
down behind shelves -- totally innocent. Girl adjusting her bra strap --
girls seem to take it to be fashionable to flaunt their bra straps
nowadays, so what's the big deal about fingering them?

So why did Singnet refuse to host the site anymore? They are probably
afraid of the controversy, but controversy about what? If anything, the
local papers are to blame for the notoriety of the site. (But without
the papers, I wouldn't have heard of the site in the first place.) It is
interesting to ask ourselves what is so controversial about the site.
Voyeurism? Too direct a statement about male interest in the opposite
sex? Females feeling cheap because their looks are discussed in the
associated forum?

Perhaps a potential issue is whether someone has the right to take
another person's photograph and publish it for all to see. Looks like a
good test case for invasion of privacy to me. I am not pretty
enough to ever pass off as a female unfortunately, but if anyone wants
to take a photo of me to display on the internet..... ;-))

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.


nw.t.

unread,
Oct 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/15/99
to

> Has anyone here NOT visited the site yet (now at
> http://jcgirls.n3.net/)? It seems a fairless harmless bit of fun to me.
> Magazines such as Her World take candid photos of (mostly) ladies
> walking, or shopping or whatever and award them token prizes. The
> JCGirls site does the same except that no prizes are awarded. And none
> of the photos appear even racy in the least. Plunging necklines? These
> are far too common to be bothered about. Pictures of girls squatting
> down behind shelves -- totally innocent. Girl adjusting her bra strap --
> girls seem to take it to be fashionable to flaunt their bra straps
> nowadays, so what's the big deal about fingering them?

Well, some people have levelled criticisms at their asking for
sponsorship on their new site.:) Generally, however, what
is the crime they have committed? What is the legal issue here?
In fact, it seems quite repellent to me that we permit the
objectification of women through modelling and the blatant
application of makeup and expensive clothing, all
over the popular media, and here are a few people
taking pictures of, IMHO, not particularly good-looking
women getting lambasted left right and centre.

> So why did Singnet refuse to host the site anymore? They are probably
> afraid of the controversy, but controversy about what? If anything, the
> local papers are to blame for the notoriety of the site. (But without
> the papers, I wouldn't have heard of the site in the first place.) It is
> interesting to ask ourselves what is so controversial about the site.

Oh, you got that right. 99% of the people who are flooding their
site are doing so purely because of the publicity it has received
through the media. I believe the pressure is actually starting
to wear on the poor buggers.

> Voyeurism? Too direct a statement about male interest in the opposite
> sex? Females feeling cheap because their looks are discussed in the
> associated forum?

Well, I definitely don't buy into their cover story that it is purely
about the "aesthetic appreciation of the Singaporean woman";
but that's besides the point. The point is that there are plenty of
people who argue for freedom of expression now feeling the bile
of revulsion rise and their moral hackles flaring at what they
perceive as some pathetic display of adolescent lust.

One may not exactly like what they have done, but is one
going to deny them their right to expression? They aren't
abversely affecting social stability. They aren't depicting lewd
and sexual acts(in fact the contributors' corner is far far
more filled with racy pictures than the ones they've captured).
They have repeatedly expressed their willingness to take down
pictures upon request. Why is the constant and unrelenting
pressure applied on them; for doing nothing more than depicting
relatively innocent women? Do they really fear that some perverse
stalker is going to take an unnatural interest in a vague side profile
of a fairly unremarkable woman on the street?(quite unidentifiable
at times: one of my sister's friends was up there, and my sister
couldn't identify it at first glance)

An addendum: on the associated forum, the puerile opinions of which
are responsible for a great deal of the hysteria surrounding the
site(the press has taken some racy soundbites off the idiots
posting their idiotic opinions on there), I noted that people automatically
and instinctively spoke of the boyfriend's "permission" or his feelings
about his gf's pic on the site. The choice of the woman or her
feelings were often of secondary importance to them.

> Perhaps a potential issue is whether someone has the right to take
> another person's photograph and publish it for all to see. Looks like a
> good test case for invasion of privacy to me. I am not pretty
> enough to ever pass off as a female unfortunately, but if anyone wants
> to take a photo of me to display on the internet..... ;-))

secular, I think you'd make a great babe of the month if you
ever tried:)

mae

unread,
Oct 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/15/99
to

<secular_hu...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:MOD$99101...@sintercom.org...

> Has anyone here NOT visited the site yet (now at
> http://jcgirls.n3.net/)? It seems a fairless harmless bit of fun to me.
> Magazines such as Her World
[snipped]

>, so what's the big deal about fingering them?
hmm, in my opinion, it's the procedure they took. They just left loopholes
everywhere for the public to attack them. Don't you find it interesting that
they ask people who do not support the site to leave them alone? :)
So why don't they shut down the site so those who don't like it won't be
pissed off? :)

> So why did Singnet refuse to host the site anymore? They are probably
> afraid of the controversy, but controversy about what?

I like to know too...so maybe singnet should announce the reason?

>If anything, the
> local papers are to blame for the notoriety of the site.

But the local papers just state the facts, it's the public that form the
opinions. If there aren't facts in the first place, there's no report to
publish.

Siew Kum Hong/Xiao Jinhong

unread,
Oct 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/15/99
to
On Fri, 15 Oct 1999 00:27:12 +0800, "nw.t." <mindg...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>The point is that there are plenty of
>people who argue for freedom of expression now feeling the bile
>of revulsion rise and their moral hackles flaring at what they
>perceive as some pathetic display of adolescent lust.

As someone who -does- believe in freedom of expression (albeit
qualified), and who -did- post on the JCGirls forum before it was
pulled, let me try to reconcile my position.

True, the operator has his right to say whatever he wants. I pretty much
said whatever -I- want on my no-longer-updated homepage. But surely his
freedom of speech ought to be qualified; I don't believe in absolute
freedoms without responsibilities.

So, you shouldn't shout "fire" in a crowded theatre, and you need to
bear the responsibility for defaming people without a valid defence.
Putting aside the questionable political uses for which our defamation
laws have been applied, IMO defamation laws are in themselves necessary
(although I also believe that political speech in good faith ought to
have more leeway).

Now, what has JCGirls done wrong? IMO, the problem was that it was
overly invasive. I can only imagine how violated at least some (if not
most) girls would feel, at knowing that their pics are up on the Net for
all and sundry to see and pass comment on. (I'll never know, because I'm
far from good-looking, even by the standards of allegedly ugly
Singaporean males :).) It's even worse, that the objects of the
photographs are not informed about it, so they can walk around without a
clue as to why adolescent males are pointing at them and sniggering
knowingly.

That is the crux: the invasion of the girls' privacy. It all comes down
to consent. If the operator had asked for consent before putting up the
pics (he can still take the pics surreptitiously, if he wants to catch
the girls "naturally"), then that would be fine. Similarly, the
contributors' pics are fine (although it all smacks of vainglory).

An ex post facto photo-removal policy is insufficient, because the
invasion would already have occurred for all on the Net to see. And to
reiterate, what if the subject and her friends -don't- surf the Net at
all?

Further, the requirement for the subject to send in another photo of
herself to verify her ID seems onerous to me, because then it requires
the subject to go to the trouble of scanning pics in, etc. To be fair, I
don't see any other way of verifying the ID; but if the operator had no
right to put the pics up in the first place (because that was invasive
of the girl's privacy), then what ground has he to complain?

At this point, people will jump in and say that there's no legal right
to privacy in Singapore. True. That's a deficiency in the law. But that
doesn't mean that there's no such thing as morality. And if I'm
outraged, of course I'll exercise my own right to speak up.

As for the site being booted off SingNet, SingNet's Acceptable Use
Policy states that subscribers can have their accounts terminated at any
time, at SingNet's discretion, for "invasions of privacy", including but
not limited to spam. That contractual term may be onerous in the sense
that it gives SingNet sole discretion, without letting the subscriber
have a right of reply, but it's there. So the operator can't really
complain about being kicked off without notice; he ought to have checked
his TOS before setting up the site.


secular_hu...@my-deja.com

unread,
Oct 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/15/99
to
In article <MOD$991015...@sintercom.org>,
"mae" <leey...@singnet.com.sg> wrote:

> But the local papers just state the facts...(snip)

Actually newspapers don't just state the facts. They add colour to
their stories, and even distort the "facts".

Referring to The New Paper story about the JCGirls site, the opening
sentence reads: "The next time you go shopping in Orchard Road,
beware." This last word adds a touch of drama to the story, as if there
is something to beware about someone taking your photo when you are
doing particularly nothing at all.

Commenting about two harmless photos of a girl in a squatting position,
the same story attributed a reader as saying: "Like the one of a girl
working in a shoe shop - he almost got her flashing her (underwear) on
film as she squatted down to get some (shoes)."

Notice that "underwear" is in parentheses -- it was the reporter who
thought he heard the word "underwear"; he wasn't sure and filled in the
gap in the sentence with that word. But what a difference a word makes!
I used very powerful magnifying glasses and could detect no hint of
underwear whatsoever. ;-)

On the whole, the story was not too sensational except for the two
instances quoted. But there you have it, newspapers often don't just
report the plain facts.

Charles Averty

unread,
Oct 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/18/99
to
joseph <joseph.de...@3.1415926.org> wrote:

> coming back to the part about owning one's image. if a
> photographer for a newspaper happen to take a picture of me and it
> appeared in the paper?

I do think that one could argue against the Newspaper should it run a
story about you, without your prior knowledge. I do think you could ask
the newspaper to remove the story, esp if there is no story, no enquiry,
just plain exposure of your life.

I know that the law does not currently exists even in Western
Countries because it does limit the freedom of speech (though that
doesn't exist either in Singapore). But the law would exist to avoid the
kind of thing which happened on that JCGirls Site. And for sure to call
that site press, is a bit of a jump; to be called "press" you need an
approval, you need to honor a "Response Right".
A new law has been passed in France, which states exactly that you
have to seek the subjects authorisation *prior* to publishing. That is
actually to protect innocents: you never know what other crazy people
might do when seeing the picture in the press.
Just think: how would you react to seeing your child's picture
published in the newspaper? how would you react to seeing your child
picture published on on site which obvioulsy calls for sexual desire?
Do not do onto others what you do not wish to be done onto yourself.

Just for the record, I am not at all against pornography (so that we
eliminate this from the list of griefs).
I am really just arguing the right to a privacy.

As for the law: to get a telephone tapped, to get the right to look
over someone much be justified. It is and should be difficult to get the
permission from a judge (as it is to get a warant to serch a house).
Now if anyone also wants to talk about the disgusting programs on TCS
showing police reconstitutions, we can start another thread.

Charles


joseph

unread,
Oct 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/18/99
to
How much alcohol caused Charles Averty <charles...@hotmail.com> to say :

: I do think that one could argue against the Newspaper should it run a


: story about you, without your prior knowledge. I do think you could ask
: the newspaper to remove the story, esp if there is no story, no enquiry,
: just plain exposure of your life.

but the harm is done. the story (actually i was talking about a
photo) is published and the best you can do is get a frontpage apology
which is not bad at all. but what about the photo? are they going to
recall all the copies of the paper sold that day and republish it
without your face in it? i doubt it.

: Just think: how would you react to seeing your child's picture


: published in the newspaper? how would you react to seeing your child
: picture published on on site which obvioulsy calls for sexual desire?
: Do not do onto others what you do not wish to be done onto yourself.

like i said, i'm not a proponent of the website, i just don't
find a good legal cause to shut it down. we can argue morals till the
cows come home but unfortunately, morals not being shared universally by
everyone, we can't use that as a justification.

: I am really just arguing the right to a privacy.

i think you're arguing on thin ice here. there is also a limit
to the amount of privacy one can have. using your argument, if i want to
take a photo of something and someone walks by and decides to be
annoying and stands besides the object i wish to take a photograph of.
then he goes on to say that he objects to having his photo taken. what
do i do? sit there till he moves away? if we institute a law preventing
photos taken of people without explicit permission, then we'll end up
creating much more hassle than the law probably intended IMO.

-joseph


Dennis Kwek

unread,
Oct 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/18/99
to
> : One's image belongs to that person.
>
> substatiating this right might be much harder than you think. so
> if i take a photo of say like a building and you happen to walk past my
> camera at the exact same time, and i happen to take a good profile shot
> of you, i have somehow violated a moral decree and at the same time your
> privacy? seems somewhat warped to me. i can understand the feeling of
> being violated because you have your photo splashed on a very readily
> accessible webpage.
> the problem i see with where you are coming from is that they
> are not warping the image (at least with the few photos that i saw) that
> they capture. these people do where those clothes and walk around in
> public. it's not as if it was a hidden camera in a dressing room or
> restroom. playing the devil advocate, i can argue that if they don't
> want to be seen in public in such appearance they shouldn't be dress
> like that anyway.

Hmm, ownership of one's own image is linked to the question of
permission given/granted. If I happened to walk by and you are taking a
photo of what you claim to be a building, but you snapped it when I'm
right in front of your camera, do I have the right to ask for the film
and insist that I do not wish to have my image in your film set?

When you point out that if they don't want to be seen in public in sexy
clothing, they shouldn't be dressed like that, you're questioning the
rights of the woman (let's admit it's women and not men that is ever at
question here) to do whatever she wants with her body. And yet if she
wore such clothing and was photographed, she'd be outraged. Why's that?
Perhaps it's because permission was not given, and image ownership is
rightly hers to do with, and when someone takes a photo without her
permission, she gets upset... (maybe? Any ladies here care to
substantiate her thoughts on this?) If I said that I'm a photographer
for a website and I'd like to take a girl's photo, and if permission is
given, would such a site as mine be controversial like jcgirls? Through
the use of digital cameras and taking photos anonymously, the nature of
their photography is akin to those found in abpe.hidden-camera or
abpe.voyeurism.

Let's take this further with another scenario. My kinky gf (erm, she's
not really that *SLAP* owww!) *inserts hypothetically in front of kinky*
invested in a digital videocam so that we could videotape our bedroom
antics (which will prolly gross out even welsh sheep), and a thief broke
in and stole the cam, put up pics from the video onto a website (much
like the pammie video :O). The point is that the image, whether it's
xrated and private, or whether it's one taken publicly, can be construed
to contain one's ownership. Maybe it's a subconscious link to ancient
notions of the mirror or film capturing one's soul.

I know I'd be upset if I find out one day that my picture, taken
anonymously, is slapped all over a classified government website on
blacklisted scsm posters :)

Dennis


mae

unread,
Oct 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/18/99
to
> No it's not. But then your sister would be twisted, and as I understand
> it, the operator's gf is somewhat sensible. I think given that fact, it
> would tend to downplay the probabilities of the operator having some
> sort of twisted perverse voyeuristic tendency in doing what he's doing.

But I do doubt the sensibility of the operator's gf and the maturity of
the web owners. Blame me, I do not know them, neither do I know you to trust
your words. Even if they do NOT have such twisted tendencies, some of the
viewers have (asking for more breasts, lower necklines, and photos from
under skirts). Call me conservative, I do not find pleasure from picturing
myself being ogled at by these catergory of men, do not wish to be famous,
do not need my looks to be "flattered" by some website, and I believe many
females share my thoughts. I do not dismiss the probability of females and
males who find this harmless, for those who do support the site, do you
think this displeasure is "harmful" ? I'm not talking about physical harm
here.

nw.t wrote:
"If you're willing to dress like that, and walk around in public, in real
colour, real flesh, and surrouded by hundreds of people, why are you so
offended by a blur capture of one particular instant,..."
On what basis does wearing spaghetti-strapped tops in public make a girl
less offended by having her photo captured? Will there NOT be a girl who
wears it solely for convenience, fashion, under Singapore's hot and humid
weather? Of course this does not justify for closing down such sites.

So if the owners decided to seek for prior permission on their next
excursion, will such site still be justified, and totally harmless? Will the
the public trust that every photgraph taken is not misused?

nw.t.

unread,
Oct 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/18/99
to

> like i said, i'm not a proponent of the website, i just don't
> find a good legal cause to shut it down. we can argue morals till the
> cows come home but unfortunately, morals not being shared universally by
> everyone, we can't use that as a justification.

Hell, forget morality. Where is the moral justification *against* that
site? Other than feelings of outrage that, however callous I may
seem for belittling, seem to be absolutely unjustified? If nothing
else, the fervour and witch-hunt mentality risen against that site
has probably *encouraged* more perverts to visit it; pasting the
"immoral" value connotation onto that site merely lends a certain
perverse kick for some people's enjoyment of it, when they might
have merely perceived it nothing more than a few fairly badly taken
pics of girls of varying beauty value(subjective beauty in my opinion,
YMMV).

> i think you're arguing on thin ice here. there is also a limit
> to the amount of privacy one can have. using your argument, if i want to
> take a photo of something and someone walks by and decides to be
> annoying and stands besides the object i wish to take a photograph of.
> then he goes on to say that he objects to having his photo taken. what
> do i do? sit there till he moves away? if we institute a law preventing
> photos taken of people without explicit permission, then we'll end up
> creating much more hassle than the law probably intended IMO.

The legislation of such an issue is absolutely impossible;
with that I concur. It seems that even its detractors realise
that no legal transgression has been committed, at least within
Singapore's legal framework, and they are objecting to it on what
they claim as personally subjective moral grounds, but given
that every human being has differing ideas of what constitutes morality..
I suppose the only way is to accede to the view of the majority
in society; and while I don't know what the demographics for or against
the site are, I still maintain that people are objecting irrationally
to a harmless web site, although I still passionately defend their
right to object.

nw.t.

unread,
Oct 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/18/99
to
>
> Let's take this further with another scenario. My kinky gf (erm, she's
> not really that *SLAP* owww!) *inserts hypothetically in front of kinky*
> invested in a digital videocam so that we could videotape our bedroom
> antics (which will prolly gross out even welsh sheep), and a thief broke
> in and stole the cam, put up pics from the video onto a website (much
> like the pammie video :O). The point is that the image, whether it's
> xrated and private, or whether it's one taken publicly, can be construed
> to contain one's ownership. Maybe it's a subconscious link to ancient
> notions of the mirror or film capturing one's soul.

Interesting sociological hypothesis:) Actually, as far as I can tell,
there is no social inhibition or superstition in Chinese culture proclaiming
taboos against mirrors or the notion of photography capturing
the soul,(B-grade HK movies using bagua mirrors against spirits aside:)
I've explicated why I think the kneejerk female revulsion or sense of
propriety originates from, but that's just my opinion and as valid as
any other rant from the street. As for your scenario above(and I think
that video tape would be a best-seller:), there is a clear invasion of
privacy within your place of residence, there is no two bones about
that particular sanctity being transgressed. Pictures of what is legally
and socially understood as the public domain are another thing altogether.

Again, it is not the right to criticise that I am strenously against,
it is the irrationality and purposeless objection people derive from
such a minor thing. I do not deny a woman has the right to have her
picture taken off that site or even not at all, I merely question why
she should be so vigorously opposed to it.

> I know I'd be upset if I find out one day that my picture, taken
> anonymously, is slapped all over a classified government website on
> blacklisted scsm posters :)

Actually, I'm kind of hoping some government ISA guy reading this
likes what I've said so far and gives me a high paying job in government
You reading this, Home Minister? *waves* :)

Dr Onya

unread,
Oct 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/18/99
to

Dennis Kwek wrote:

> Perhaps it's because permission was not given, and image ownership is
> rightly hers to do with, and when someone takes a photo without her
> permission, she gets upset... (maybe? Any ladies here care to
> substantiate her thoughts on this?)

I think this point highlights the difference between men
and women. My boyfriend would be really chuffed if he found
his picture on a web site designed for ogling girls. Who cares
about permission? But I confess I'd be put out by the thought
of all those eyes on me :) Women may be vain (as men are! -
ask my boyfriend) and we like to be admired as much as
guys - but on our terms.

I don't think it has to do with ownership so much as a
feeling that my privacy had been violated. There's a
fine line between legal rights and ethics, and this
one comes down on the ethics side. The fact that there
is no right to privacy in Singapore, as someone pointed
out, doesn't take away from the fact that some people
would feel violated.

> I know I'd be upset if I find out one day that my picture, taken
> anonymously, is slapped all over a classified government website on
> blacklisted scsm posters :)

But what if it was on a site for sex-crazed teenaged girls?
I suspect your reaction would be different :)

Onya

nw.t.

unread,
Oct 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/18/99
to

> But I do doubt the sensibility of the operator's gf and the maturity of
> the web owners. Blame me, I do not know them, neither do I know you to
trust
> your words. Even if they do NOT have such twisted tendencies, some of the
> viewers have (asking for more breasts, lower necklines, and photos from
> under skirts). Call me conservative, I do not find pleasure from picturing
> myself being ogled at by these catergory of men, do not wish to be famous,
> do not need my looks to be "flattered" by some website, and I believe many
> females share my thoughts. I do not dismiss the probability of females and
> males who find this harmless, for those who do support the site, do you
> think this displeasure is "harmful" ? I'm not talking about physical harm
> here.

I do not deny that the site has irked many people. What I do find puzzling
is the, to me, irrationality behind such chagrin. However, each woman is
entitled to her own feelings, and I do not dispute your right to be angry
or your right to object to such a site.

> On what basis does wearing spaghetti-strapped tops in public make a girl
> less offended by having her photo captured? Will there NOT be a girl who
> wears it solely for convenience, fashion, under Singapore's hot and humid
> weather? Of course this does not justify for closing down such sites.

This perhaps came out worse than I intended. I am just saying that there is
no moral, or logical basis for objecting to a depiction of an image of you
that any ogler could just have easily have seen on the street. Granted,
this time the ogler could stare at it repatedly and avidly and fixatedly
in the safety of his house on his monitor. But why should that offend
you so massively? I do not question the right of women to be offended
or to object to their depiction, I merely question the reasoning behind
why such offense is taken, when it is patently harmless, except insofar
as it jars the sensibilities and moral inhibitions society has inculcated
into everyone. Sensibilities and moral inhibtions which, to my mind,
are anachronistic, purposeless, and the cause of irrational sentiments
such as this backlash of condemnation at someone who is guiltly of
little more than tastelessness.

> So if the owners decided to seek for prior permission on their next
> excursion, will such site still be justified, and totally harmless? Will
the
> the public trust that every photgraph taken is not misused?

How is such a photograph going to be misused? There is no profit
being made out of them. There is absolutely no demenaing, no libellous
intent behind them, no misrepresentation or distortion of reality or
deception. If you worry about *some* pervert using those pictures
to physically satisfy himself, you may as well worry about some pervert
staring at you on the street with that same intent, and there is just
as little point worrying about it.


nw.t.

unread,
Oct 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/18/99
to

> I do think that one could argue against the Newspaper should it run a
> story about you, without your prior knowledge. I do think you could ask
> the newspaper to remove the story, esp if there is no story, no enquiry,
> just plain exposure of your life.

Doesn't work that way in Western countries. Otherwise, a lot of
investigative journalism and exposes(and I'm not just talking
about tabloids, I'm talking about genuine investigation) would be
disallowed on the basis that any exposure was being done
"without prior knowledge". If they expose an aspect of your life
that is factually incorrect and demeaning, then sue for libel
by all means. But they can expose any damn aspect of your life
they want, if they consider it newsworthy, and as long as it
is factual.

> A new law has been passed in France, which states exactly that you
> have to seek the subjects authorisation *prior* to publishing. That is
> actually to protect innocents: you never know what other crazy people
> might do when seeing the picture in the press.

> Just think: how would you react to seeing your child's picture
> published in the newspaper? how would you react to seeing your child
> picture published on on site which obvioulsy calls for sexual desire?

Firstly, I still seriously doubt that site calls for sexual desire; overtly
at least(at least it hasn't elicited any in me). It does not overtly
display pictures that in any way intend to depict females asking
for or desiring sex in any way whatsoever. Granted, some pervert
may derive pleasure from it, but the intent of the site, as far as I
can tell, is far from pornographic. And the perverted opinions of
the idiots on the forum need to be distinguished from the actual
site itself. As I said, it is tasteless, and offensive to a great deal
of people, but I do not believe it is harmful in any way, and I don't
see why people are being so irrationally offended.


nw.t.

unread,
Oct 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/18/99
to

> I think this point highlights the difference between men
> and women. My boyfriend would be really chuffed if he found
> his picture on a web site designed for ogling girls. Who cares
> about permission? But I confess I'd be put out by the thought
> of all those eyes on me :) Women may be vain (as men are! -
> ask my boyfriend) and we like to be admired as much as
> guys - but on our terms.

This is a fair enough answer, and I respect you for
being candid about it. I do ask, though, why the essential
distinguishing between admiration in the flesh, and admiration
of a candid depiction that is a (more or less) snapshot
of the reality which you don't mind being admired for? I
don't question your right to feel offended, I merely question
the content and reasoning behind such an emotion?

> But what if it was on a site for sex-crazed teenaged girls?
> I suspect your reaction would be different :)

I can't speak for Dennis, but I can say that, if a bunch of
sex-crazed teenaged girls got to stare at my pic, I would
be highly gratified(it would certainly be more attention
from the opposite gender than I am prone to getting),
and their libidos would certainly be drenched in revulsion
upon beholding my hideous visage:)

mae

unread,
Oct 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/20/99
to
> This perhaps came out worse than I intended. I am just saying that there
is
> no moral, or logical basis for objecting to a depiction of an image of you
> that any ogler could just have easily have seen on the street. Granted,
> this time the ogler could stare at it repatedly and avidly and fixatedly
> in the safety of his house on his monitor.
Take for example, a bunch of guys whistling at a pretty girl. The girl
have to walk through these oglers and there's no other in sight. Will it be
logical that the girl feel intimidated or even frightened? Is it morally
correct that the ogler should stare repeatedly at a girl in public, and in
order to watch her, follow her around, not a distance away but right next to
the girl? So now, the images are captured in the virtual world. Is it a
physchological *harm* to a young lady if she subjects herself to these
imaginations (why were some girls breaking into tears when they saw their
photos)? Are they just being irrational?

> Sensibilities and moral inhibtions which, to my mind,
> are anachronistic, purposeless, and the cause of irrational sentiments
> such as this backlash of condemnation at someone who is guiltly of
> little more than tastelessness.

Sensibilities and moral inhibitions, IMO, do serve a purpose in keeping
human beings together as a community. If the web owners are just tasteless,
please enlighten me why remarks such as "girls wearing less in public are
asking to be raped"(quoted somewhat in TNP), seem "logically coherent" to
them?

> How is such a photograph going to be misused? There is no profit
> being made out of them. There is absolutely no demenaing, no libellous
> intent behind them, no misrepresentation or distortion of reality or
> deception.

This taken from their webpage. "And make no mistake girls, Chief is also
known as Sex God. " Am I suppose to treat it as "DO NOT TAKE THIS SITE
SERIOUSLY! Do not take OFFENSE at the headings or captions!", or interpret
as their Chief is a Perverted Lunatic? Same for the pictures of the girls,
do I treat them as "pretty" or "they're a joke to be in this site"?

> If you worry about *some* pervert using those pictures
> to physically satisfy himself, you may as well worry about some pervert
> staring at you on the street with that same intent, and there is just
> as little point worrying about it.

On a larger scale, why worry about some perverts using *decent* female
photos to satisfy himself? Why worry that some men are treating unaware
females as sex toys? True, no physical harm YET.


secular_hu...@my-deja.com

unread,
Oct 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/20/99
to
In article <MOD$991018...@sintercom.org>,
Dr Onya <dr_...@my-deja.com> wrote:

> I don't think it has to do with ownership so much as a
> feeling that my privacy had been violated. There's a

> fine line between legal rights and ethics...

The press does the same thing all the time....almost always without
protest from those affected. Magazines such as Her World snap pictures
of people and comment on their dressing, sometimes disparagingly.

>From another perspective, the JC Girls Website may be seen as a kind of
empowerment for the ordinary Joe. It's another manifestation of the Net
as printing press of the masses. And just as tabloids are notorious for
taking photographs of celebrities in various states of undress, the JC
Girls Website elevates ordinary Janes into overnight celebrity net
babes, but in true Singapore style, they get to keep their clothes on
too! ;-)

Do we want creativity or don't we? For adolescent youths with
over-active hormones, what could be more fun (and sweetly innocent,
actually) then to take spontaneous shots of those whom they admire?

Personally, I find the site extraordinarily boring, but in the interest
of freedom, I hope that it will continue to exist for as long as the
people behind it are sufficiently interested to want it to continue and
are not pressured into shutting it down.

Lighten up, my fellow Singaporeans, and let a thousand photographs of
post-pubescent Singapore lasses flower in the JC Girls Website!

Siew Kum Hong/Xiao Jinhong

unread,
Oct 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/20/99
to
On Wed, 20 Oct 1999 07:05:29 +0800, secular_hu...@my-deja.com
wrote:

>The press does the same thing all the time....almost always without
>protest from those affected.

The inability of people to see (or even sense at a gut level) the
distinction continues to baffle me. Surely there is a world of
difference, between a single shot used in publications, eg. to comment
on the dressing, and a series of surreptitious shots that track a
person, which is more akin to stalking (albeit via a camera). The
distinction is so much clearer for the examples about catching
individuals inadvertently, in shots of buildings. In those cases, the
person is innocuously caught and virtually insignificant to the shot.

The issue shouldn't be whether a person "owns" his own image (IIRC it's
possible to run that argument in France, and it has happened b4, but IMO
it won't succeed in Sporeland), but the intrusion and invasiveness. So
long as this aspect of JCGirls is not adequately dealt with (and
actually, it has been, see ST Life! 19 Oct), I think people are just not
grappling with the right issues.

nw.t.

unread,
Oct 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/20/99
to

> > no moral, or logical basis for objecting to a depiction of an image of
you
> > that any ogler could just have easily have seen on the street. Granted,
> > this time the ogler could stare at it repatedly and avidly and fixatedly
> > in the safety of his house on his monitor.
> Take for example, a bunch of guys whistling at a pretty girl. The girl
> have to walk through these oglers and there's no other in sight. Will it
be
> logical that the girl feel intimidated or even frightened? Is it morally
> correct that the ogler should stare repeatedly at a girl in public, and in
> order to watch her, follow her around, not a distance away but right next
to
> the girl? So now, the images are captured in the virtual world. Is it a
> physchological *harm* to a young lady if she subjects herself to these
> imaginations (why were some girls breaking into tears when they saw their
> photos)? Are they just being irrational?

No one's suggesting that we tolerate physical harassment from
oglers. A woman has the moral right to not be harrassed in physical
reality, or in person, and no one denies that. But it is ridiculous
to get psychologically affected merely by someone who is probably
physically miles away, who will never see you in reality, who doesn't
know *anything* about you other than a somewhat blurred shot
(my sister couldn't recognise her friend on the webpage until I
pointed it out to her), and, more to the point, can't harm you
in anyway whatsoever(think, logically, is it possible for anyone,
in Singapore, even if he/she develops a fixation, to track down someone
from a candid shot on Orchard? With no name, and no other forms
of identification?) Unless the people running the site give are facilitating
stalking through the dissemination of identifying details to anyone
who asks, there is *zero* reason for psychological despair; hell the
only despair that they might derive is the probability that, going
by empirical evidence so far, viewers are turned *OFF*
rather than turned on by their pictures.


> Sensibilities and moral inhibitions, IMO, do serve a purpose in keeping
> human beings together as a community. If the web owners are just
tasteless,
> please enlighten me why remarks such as "girls wearing less in public are
> asking to be raped"(quoted somewhat in TNP), seem "logically coherent" to
> them?

I don't doubt their purpose in community bonding, but I think there are
points in
time when we realize that said sensibilities and moral inhibitions, in the
end,
serve the individual self-interest, just that sometimes self-interest, in
this imperfect
world, requires to surrender one's self to said conventions. Despite that,
we should be
willing to rationally discard old kneejerk pretenses and moral anarchronisms
that
inhibit our social development because they no longer have relevance in
today's era.
But that's irrelevant to this thread.

As for the above remarks seeming being logically coherent to the webmaster;
try to keep context in mind: they were being sarcastic at TNP
splicing together two unrelated sentences on the forum to derive that
conclusion.

> This taken from their webpage. "And make no mistake girls, Chief is
also
> known as Sex God. " Am I suppose to treat it as "DO NOT TAKE THIS SITE
> SERIOUSLY! Do not take OFFENSE at the headings or captions!", or interpret
> as their Chief is a Perverted Lunatic? Same for the pictures of the girls,
> do I treat them as "pretty" or "they're a joke to be in this site"?

*rolls eyes* Have you *seen* these people? It is a common fact that the
net is, despite all the dangers one associates with it, more often than not
just a forum for morons to mouth off whatever enters their little minds,
without fear of repercussion. The site may be nothing more than an
adolescent
showcase of male machismo, but it is pretty damn harmless; if you think
about
it, what kind of stalker is going to publicize his affiliation on the net?
Be more
worried about the one who doesn't put up a webpage, but goes for you
nonetheless.

> On a larger scale, why worry about some perverts using *decent* female
> photos to satisfy himself? Why worry that some men are treating unaware
> females as sex toys? True, no physical harm YET.

And probably no physical harm EVER. If you think that some guy using
"decent" female photos to satisfy himself is going to become a serial
rapist; there would be plenty of serial rapists out there given that
*decent*
female photos and the use of unaware females as sex toys(c'mon, guys
fantasize, but that DOESN'T mean they're going on a rape spree) are pretty
damn common. Do you really think that site inspires physical desire at all?
And if it does, do you really think that that site inspires someone to go
and stalk/rape a girl depicted? And even if THAT happens, do you
think that someone is going to be able to *find* that girl?

The odds of all three happening are about the same as some random
drunk/beng/construction worker who's never seen you in your life raping
you, but are you going to live your life in fear worrying about that?


nw.t.

unread,
Oct 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/20/99
to

> Do we want creativity or don't we? For adolescent youths with
> over-active hormones, what could be more fun (and sweetly innocent,
> actually) then to take spontaneous shots of those whom they admire?

*dryly* I don't think creativity has anything to do with the imposition
of that site, nor sweet innocence, but you're right about one thing;
this particular issue isn't so much about the content of what their
site depicts, but their freedom to depict it. It doesn't even impact
on any of the kinds of legal transgressions that would warrant intervention
(damage to society, damage to life/liberty of another human bring).


mae

unread,
Oct 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/20/99
to
>The press does the same thing all the time....almost always without
>protest from those affected. Magazines such as Her World snap pictures
>of people and comment on their dressing, sometimes disparagingly.
Ask yourself, will someone feel more "flattered" to be featured in Her
World, rather than a site hosted by 2(?) teenagers? Comments on dressing can
be viewed as constuctive feedback or outrageous insult. Opinions are formed
by the context of the situation, even without media publicity. How much does
it reflect on a photographer who have to stoop as low (or even lower) as the
female model to "flatter" her? Even perverts have to pay $5 before they can
ogle at the girls featured in Her World.

>From another perspective, the JC Girls Website may be seen as a kind of
>empowerment for the ordinary Joe. It's another manifestation of the Net
>as printing press of the masses. And just as tabloids are notorious for
>taking photographs of celebrities in various states of undress, the JC
>Girls Website elevates ordinary Janes into overnight celebrity net
>babes, but in true Singapore style, they get to keep their clothes on
>too! ;-)

True, there are the ordinary Joes and Janes as described. The
contributions section nicely adhere to their dreams, I have no disagreement
about that.

>Do we want creativity or don't we? For adolescent youths with
>over-active hormones, what could be more fun (and sweetly innocent,
>actually) then to take spontaneous shots of those whom they admire?

Fun it may be, as long as everybody take it lightly. And yes, they are
asking for sponsership. Which organization is willing to take on the mess
that the creators had caused and set it back on the artistic track? I really
like to see the first advert up there....

And regarding what is the rational behind kicking up such a fuss over an
adolescent website, I like to ask a question, what is the rational of
setting up a "come-see-the-girls' website to satisfy self-esteem and lust of
some men, at the cost of some women's dignity?

Dr Onya

unread,
Oct 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/20/99
to
"nw.t." <mindg...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> This is a fair enough answer, and I respect you for
> being candid about it. I do ask, though, why the essential
> distinguishing between admiration in the flesh, and admiration
> of a candid depiction that is a (more or less) snapshot
> of the reality which you don't mind being admired for? I
> don't question your right to feel offended, I merely question
> the content and reasoning behind such an emotion?

At a personal level, that's a tough one to answer, to be
honest. You're going to get different responses depending on
who you ask. As I said, I would feel uncomfortable having my
photo on a web site. But that's just the point I was trying
to make originally. Some people don't really care, others
do. Do we live in a society where people's feelings are
respected? If people respect each other's feelings
without having to resort to the law to enforce ethical
norms, you will have a society that is pleasant to be
part of. Some societies lean more heavily in the
direction of law to protect individual and collective
interests, others tend more to leave it to individuals
to do the right thing by other people. Do you believe
people can be relied on to do the right thing by you?
If not, you try to get laws passed to enforce those
rights. If Singapore doesn't have a law that recognises
the right to privacy, is it because it doesn't value
privacy that highly, or is it because people can be
relied on to respect other people's privacy?

So the way I see it, there's no right or wrong answer to
your question. People choose what sort of tradeoffs they
want and the sum of those choices gives you the society
you have. Do you like the society you have? Do you merely
acknowledge that I have a right to feel offended, or do
you also believe that I have a right not to be offended
in this way?

Onya

nw.t.

unread,
Oct 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/20/99
to

> The inability of people to see (or even sense at a gut level) the
> distinction continues to baffle me. Surely there is a world of
> difference, between a single shot used in publications, eg. to comment
> on the dressing, and a series of surreptitious shots that track a
> person, which is more akin to stalking (albeit via a camera). The
> distinction is so much clearer for the examples about catching
> individuals inadvertently, in shots of buildings. In those cases, the
> person is innocuously caught and virtually insignificant to the shot.

I can agree with you about the distinction of the latter(inadverdently
catching a person's image). But I think you're imposing a double
standard to permit one particular type of candid photography,
and then not another. The type of candid photography on the web
page does not infringe on privacy, because it is an image that anyone
in the public domain could have captured in vision. It, as I have
repeatedly stated, does not transgress any criminal or, IMHO,
moral boundaries, save the illogical visceral revulsion felt by women
towards it.

Show me where the "world of difference" is between a single shot used
in publications to comment on the dressing, and a series of shots
depicting that self-same woman. The site doesn't incite people to
stalkerism(and if it does, I wish them luck, because there's no way
to track down any of those women just by sight alone). It makes
an occasionally apposite commentary on the gesture and action,
which have now been removed. So it's just a series of pictures,
on a web page. If some pervert wants to attach sexual contexts on
to the page(and I am still hard-pressed to find *any* male I know
genuinely titillated), he could just as well do it on a magazine with
same candid shot. Or are you saying there's something about the
web that automatically elicits such perversion?

And, as I have said ad nauseam, even if there *is* such sexual
context elicited, why the fuss? Why the anger at the faint possibility
of some guy somewhere developing that kind of arousal without your
knowledge(which could just as well happen in reality). There is no
way you will ever know if guys are laughing at your picture(likely)
or getting physically stimulated(not so likely), so why take it that
seriously? Frankly speaking, the moral revulsion and the controversy
stirred by furious women against that site probably elicits more
degradation from aberrant perverts, and curious on lookers than
it would if women simply didn't care that their images were up there.

> The issue shouldn't be whether a person "owns" his own image (IIRC it's
> possible to run that argument in France, and it has happened b4, but IMO
> it won't succeed in Sporeland), but the intrusion and invasiveness. So
> long as this aspect of JCGirls is not adequately dealt with (and
> actually, it has been, see ST Life! 19 Oct), I think people are just not
> grappling with the right issues.

Neither do I. All I see are vague allusions to unjustiifable notions of
"danger" and "stalkers", when, logically speaking, there is absolutely no
intrusion or invasiveness except the illogical perceptions of women that
feel that such intrusion or invasiveness has been perpetrated against them.
It is, as I said, not their right to be uncomfortable that I question, it is
merely the absolute lack of foundation in such discomfort that I find so
puzzling.

If we suppress that site because it offends some people's baseless ideas
of moral propriety, where does it end? We start on a slippery slope which
may, through the insidious notion of precedent, wind up in a society where
the slightest bit of offensive material, whether satire, parody or simply
tasteless
puerility like the site, are suppressed simply because someone feels that
it isn't "right" or feels "emotionally distressed."

nw.t.

unread,
Oct 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/20/99
to

> Ask yourself, will someone feel more "flattered" to be featured in Her
> World, rather than a site hosted by 2(?) teenagers? Comments on dressing
can
> be viewed as constuctive feedback or outrageous insult. Opinions are
formed
> by the context of the situation, even without media publicity. How much
does
> it reflect on a photographer who have to stoop as low (or even lower) as
the
> female model to "flatter" her? Even perverts have to pay $5 before they
can
> ogle at the girls featured in Her World.

I don't get this argument. Are you saying that it's okay for a pervert to
pay for a magazine which to ogle girls? If our society can condone this,
it's blatant hypocrisy to not condone a free site that may or may not
facilitate
the same thing.

I think magazines like Her World portray female beauty along excessively
made-up, well-dressed paradigms(of course; these are their advertising
revenue), and have done more damage to spread around unrealistic views
of female beauty and brainwash females into purchasing huge amounts of
cosmetics and the like in a vain attempt to live up to those unrealistic
standards. All the jcgirls website has done is portray "reality". Simple as
that.

> Fun it may be, as long as everybody take it lightly. And yes, they are
> asking for sponsership. Which organization is willing to take on the mess
> that the creators had caused and set it back on the artistic track? I
really
> like to see the first advert up there....

What artistic track? *grins* I certainly don't see any up there. Actually,
I think the asking for advertising is taking things a bit too much, myself,
but I seriously doubt anyone's going to bother sponsoring that site;
it's not going to elicit much beyond the controversial novelty value that
I think will fade away eventually.

> And regarding what is the rational behind kicking up such a fuss over an
> adolescent website, I like to ask a question, what is the rational of
> setting up a "come-see-the-girls' website to satisfy self-esteem and lust
of
> some men, at the cost of some women's dignity?

Firstly, dignity is something that is felt, in the individual's sense of
self;
and can only be degraded when the individual feels that that dignity
has been compromised. How is a woman's dignity degraded if she doesn't know
the kind of reactions to her depiction? If she takes it calmly, and permits
her picture to remain there, that is a dignified acceptance of the
circumstances,
and does not in any way reflect upon her as a woman, even if some adolescent
pervert is gaping at the picture; the one without dignity is him, not the
woman
being depicted. If she calmly asks for it to be removed, same outcome, of
course.
I don't see how the site degrades the dignity of the women depicted; except
for the vague possibility that some male might see it as an object of
titillation.
But she might very well be seen as one anyway in reality, if we were to
consider
all the possible fantasies males have about women they know, and consider
those affronts to dignity, very few women will have any dignity left in this
world.

Why are women so disturbed or plagued by the thought that someone may
be sexually aroused or jeering at a picture of them on the web, when someone
could just as well be doing the same thing to them in reality? They will
never
know whether either possibility is occurring or not, and will never
be affected by it in any way whatsoever, so why let such an ephemeral,
unverifiable unlikelihood bother them?

nw.t.

unread,
Oct 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/20/99
to

> At a personal level, that's a tough one to answer, to be
> honest. You're going to get different responses depending on
> who you ask. As I said, I would feel uncomfortable having my
> photo on a web site. But that's just the point I was trying
> to make originally. Some people don't really care, others
> do. Do we live in a society where people's feelings are
> respected? If people respect each other's feelings
> without having to resort to the law to enforce ethical
> norms, you will have a society that is pleasant to be
> part of. Some societies lean more heavily in the
> direction of law to protect individual and collective
> interests, others tend more to leave it to individuals
> to do the right thing by other people. Do you believe
> people can be relied on to do the right thing by you?

This cuts both ways. What about the people who feel morally
offended if the site is taken down? The people who established
the site, I'm sure, have their share of supporters and are
the feelings of those who feel unjustly treated when they have,
by their own moral lights, done nothing wrong?(and this isn't
the same as a criminal who feels that his right to commit
crime has been violated; this is more along the lines of
a gray area where society is probably split
among those who feel nothing wrong with it, and those
who are offended) I always feel that a moral conflict of this
sort is best judged, on a case by case basis, along
utilitarian lines; is there any real adverse consequence
in the perpetuation of this site? The only real adverse
consequence is that some women are, to my mind,
illogically disturbed by their images on the site. Well,
simple then, ask the webmaster to take it off. Done, and done.
But why then continue persecuting the site?

Personally, I'm not a proponent site, because it's
aesthetic content and the like aren't to my taste. But I
would be offended if the site got taken out by the illogical
backlash of a strait-laced society, because, if this kind
of unfounded moral reflex can suppress a harmless site's
freedom of expression, who's next? I would suggest that
there is no harm in leaving the site as is, but the dangerous
precedent of suppressing the site is that

> If not, you try to get laws passed to enforce those
> rights. If Singapore doesn't have a law that recognises
> the right to privacy, is it because it doesn't value
> privacy that highly, or is it because people can be
> relied on to respect other people's privacy?

Privacy is a very tricky question when viewed in the
context of this web page. I'm still not convinced that
there is an intrusion of privacy in the candid capturing
of a picture taken in the public domain. I suspect
that legislation is unncessary and pointless to intervene,
because the freedom of the media to depict scenery
would also have to come under attack if you consider
that privacy needs to be enforced in the public domain.
There's a reason why indecent acts conducted in public
aren't condoned, while such acts in private are; there is a
clear delineation between the two states and in this case
it's very clear where the women depicted are in.

> So the way I see it, there's no right or wrong answer to
> your question. People choose what sort of tradeoffs they
> want and the sum of those choices gives you the society
> you have. Do you like the society you have? Do you merely
> acknowledge that I have a right to feel offended, or do
> you also believe that I have a right not to be offended
> in this way?

As I said before, that cuts both ways. What about the offense
I feel where a society that hews to illogical strictures strikes down
a harmless site? It offends my rationality and sensibility, and
I might very well be the next victim of such persecution the next
time I write or put up something that, likewise, offends the same
illogical boundaries arbitrarily imposed.

Dr Onya

unread,
Oct 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/20/99
to
"nw.t." wrote:

> in the perpetuation of this site? The only real adverse
> consequence is that some women are, to my mind,
> illogically disturbed by their images on the site.

Well. I'm staggered by that. Do you have any idea how
offensive that statement is? It's the simplest thing
in the world to dismiss as illogical something that you
don't happen to agree with and I would have hoped you
wouldn't have to resort to that.

Anyway, why is it necessary to go to one extreme or the
other on this? Why are the options limited to a free-for-all,
no holds barred site or no site at all? What's wrong with
a site with pictures obtained with the consent of their
subjects? I don't have a problem with such a site, nor
(I suspect) would a lot of other women.

Charles Averty

unread,
Oct 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/21/99
to
nw.t. <mindg...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Show me where the "world of difference" is between a single shot used
> in publications to comment on the dressing, and a series of shots
> depicting that self-same woman. The site doesn't incite people to
> stalkerism(and if it does, I wish them luck, because there's no way
> to track down any of those women just by sight alone).

Do you always use cut an paste in your posts?

Pictures in "Elle" are a "one shot" not a following multiple shot. As
for shots where they comment on the dressing I doubt (and hope) they ask
for permission before publishing. I for one would not like to have my
dressing be discussed in a magazine without my previous acceptation.
To come back to the law in France, it does not infringe the press
freedom it only concerns some kind of pictures. The case was raised
after one photographer took a picture of a girl crying (of joy) the day
we won the World-Cup. The picture made the cover of all the magazines,
dhe became a public person against her will; that's what the law goes
against. And yes, although not textually in it, the law caters more for
women as a proactive action against discrimination/objectisation (allow
me that word) of the women image.

As for tracking women pictured on JCG, Singapore is sooo small, I am
sure I would be able to find one of these girls on Orchard Road one day;
unless of course they now have to avoid Orchard Road due to that
wonderful site.

But once again if you want to prove you are right give us the
addresses of your friends (without their prior knowledge) we'll take
pictures of them and dedicate a site to them.

Charles


nw.t.

unread,
Oct 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/21/99
to

> Well. I'm staggered by that. Do you have any idea how
> offensive that statement is? It's the simplest thing
> in the world to dismiss as illogical something that you
> don't happen to agree with and I would have hoped you
> wouldn't have to resort to that.

Sorry. I stand by my point. No one has thus far given
me convincing logical reasons for feeling offended, intruded
on, or physically threatened by having one's candid picture
put op that site other then simple irrational, unfounded
psychological distress rooted IMHO, in kneejerk reflexive
moral inhibition.

My personal belief is that all moral issues should be subjected
to as dispassionate a rational evaluation as is possible within
the social and cultural limitations of our thinking unhampered
by our emotional and upbringing's baggage. Unfortunately,
this is always easier said than done.

> Anyway, why is it necessary to go to one extreme or the
> other on this? Why are the options limited to a free-for-all,
> no holds barred site or no site at all? What's wrong with
> a site with pictures obtained with the consent of their
> subjects? I don't have a problem with such a site, nor
> (I suspect) would a lot of other women.

Read the various posts I've put up on the topic. I've vigorously
defended a woman's right to have her picture taken out if
she wants to, and I've just as strenously defended a woman's
right to object and be offended by such candid photography.
I just completely see no reason why such paranoia should
exist whatsoever. If I saw my sister's/mother's/close female
relative's picture up there, I would not be disturbed in the
least, but if they wanted it removed, I *would* be incensed
if the webowners failed to accede to that request. I believe
in the woman's right to demand that such a picture be taken
down; I merely fail to see why they should exercise such a
right. I don't believe in the free-speech extreme where women,
even if offended, are obliged to tolerate having their pictures put
up even if they feel uncomfortable about it. What I do believe
in is that if we try to step in, legislate, and impose moral boundaries
on sites as innocous as this, where does it end? How far
will we go to get rid of material that the moral majority somehow
deems "offensive?"

Charles Averty

unread,
Oct 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/21/99
to
nw.t. <mindg...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I merely question the reasoning behind
> why such offense is taken, when it is patently harmless, except insofar
> as it jars the sensibilities and moral inhibitions society has inculcated

> into everyone. Sensibilities and moral inhibtions which, to my mind,
> are anachronistic

Again and again, you come back to the point which I am not arguing
against, the point which is irrelevant here (almost). The point is *not*
whetther we should accept sensual, *erotic*, sex, pornographic pictures
posted. The point *is* whether we can accept that pictures of *private*
persons be made public in such manner.
The site does call for sexual attention, there is no beauty in these
blur ugly pictures. The sole interest in this site is to admire pictures
of girls who did not know that they were stalked. Great!

As for danger: i am sure a deranged mind would be more attracted
towards someone who was stalked on an Internet Site than an anonymous
other one.

As for my moral inhibitions, I am really laughing at that...

Charles


Charles Averty

unread,
Oct 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/21/99
to
<secular_hu...@my-deja.com> wrote:

> For adolescent youths with
> over-active hormones, what could be more fun (and sweetly innocent,
> actually) then to take spontaneous shots of those whom they admire?
>

> Lighten up, my fellow Singaporeans, and let a thousand photographs of
> post-pubescent Singapore lasses flower in the JC Girls Website!

I'd agree, if they actually were creative. But these guys (and girls)
have definitely flanged their arts levels!
Let them take pictures of people in the street is fine with me,
although they are other subjects that JC girls and certainly more
interesting ones.
Publishing without consent is a no-no.


nw.t.

unread,
Oct 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/21/99
to

> Again and again, you come back to the point which I am not arguing
> against, the point which is irrelevant here (almost). The point is *not*
> whetther we should accept sensual, *erotic*, sex, pornographic pictures
> posted. The point *is* whether we can accept that pictures of *private*
> persons be made public in such manner.

I'm sorry, but you're missing my point as well. I don't care if the
picture is erotic, sensual, or not. (although I keep pointing out it
isn't, at least not to me or anyone). Those pictures of *private*
persons are taken in the *public* domain. Fine, if a private person
wants the picture taken down, because she does not like it,
by all means let her. But I have said ad nauseam that I don't
object to her wanting her picture taken down, and I agree she
has an unquestionable right to have that picture taken down
I'm just wondering why she feels that paranoid necessity
to have that picture taken down.

> The site does call for sexual attention, there is no beauty in these
> blur ugly pictures. The sole interest in this site is to admire pictures
> of girls who did not know that they were stalked. Great!

How does it call for sexual attention if there is no beauty those
blur ugly pictures? Unless you're saying the only people visiting the
site are deranged minds who don't look for beauty?

> As for danger: i am sure a deranged mind would be more attracted
> towards someone who was stalked on an Internet Site than an anonymous
> other one.

I'm sorry, but that's an unkind generalization without any proof
whatsoever. You're just assuming that the nature of the Internet
is "responsible" for stalkers. And even, as I have said before, even
if someone, however unlikely, gets the stalker idea in his head,
do you seriously think you can find any one of those girls by
staking out Orchard Road? Come on. That's like suggesting
staking out the Champs Elysees in the hope that one particular
woman will pass by that one particular spot you're waiting
at; it's not impossible, but good luck trying. And buy a few
lottery tickets while you're at it.

nw.t.

unread,
Oct 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/21/99
to

> Do you always use cut an paste in your posts?

It's easier to organize my replies if I've got what I'm
replying to right in front of me; it's a purely personal
aesthetic choice. (not cut and paste actually, just
"reply group" with include original message)

> Pictures in "Elle" are a "one shot" not a following multiple shot. As
> for shots where they comment on the dressing I doubt (and hope) they ask
> for permission before publishing. I for one would not like to have my
> dressing be discussed in a magazine without my previous acceptation.

That's not the point. If you read the whole post, I was asking what the
difference between a single candid shot in Elle or Cleo or Her World
was an a multiple candid shot pasted on the site.

> To come back to the law in France, it does not infringe the press
> freedom it only concerns some kind of pictures. The case was raised
> after one photographer took a picture of a girl crying (of joy) the day
> we won the World-Cup. The picture made the cover of all the magazines,
> dhe became a public person against her will; that's what the law goes
> against. And yes, although not textually in it, the law caters more for
> women as a proactive action against discrimination/objectisation (allow
> me that word) of the women image.

And how do we determine what is discrimination/objectisation? Where
are the boundaries? If a woman crying on the World Cup is considered
a legal no-no, then where do we end? A lot of great photographic
images throughout history were of people(okay, mostly men, but some women
as well) without their knowledge? Like the famous photo of the GI jumping
into his girlfriend's arms in New York on V-J Day after WW2. Should that
photograph, now considered one of the most poignant images of the
post-war celebration, have been banned because of its "discrimination
and objectisation" of the female image? What about the screaming naked
girl in Vietnam running after suffering napalm burns? Should that kind
of image have not been taken because of its "discrimination" of the
female image as well?

I distrust this kind of legal imperative, because it leads to the kind
of censorship that serves no purpose, not even the preservation of
order within a society or maintaining welfare, but merely gives anyone
an excuse to have something suppressed everytime they feel "offended"
or "unhappy" or "objectified".

> As for tracking women pictured on JCG, Singapore is sooo small, I am
> sure I would be able to find one of these girls on Orchard Road one day;
> unless of course they now have to avoid Orchard Road due to that
> wonderful site.

This is such a ludicrous assertion it almost doesn't beggar a reply.

If you can pick a specific picture of one of those girls you don't know,
prior and stake out a spot Orchard Road and *find* any of those girls,
I'm willing to post up a full apology retracting everything I've said.

Good luck if you do try.

> But once again if you want to prove you are right give us the
> addresses of your friends (without their prior knowledge) we'll take
> pictures of them and dedicate a site to them.

*wearily* They're *not* my friends. I resent any allegation that I'm
actually aligned with them in any way whatsoever. I don't even
know who the people running the site are. I'm just defending
their right to put up their site, not the site itself. I'm also defending
the right of women to have the pictures taken down, just
questioning their reasons to have said pictures take down.


mae

unread,
Oct 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/21/99
to
> No one's suggesting that we tolerate physical harassment from
> oglers. A woman has the moral right to not be harrassed in physical
> reality, or in person, and no one denies that. But it is ridiculous
> to get psychologically affected merely by someone who is probably
> physically miles away,...
IMO, it's not ridiculous. You as an intellectual person, may not
understand there are people who are mentally weaker. Then again for the
intellectual women, why should they succumb to the fact that they are
objects of some men's lust, and even tolerate that it is illogical to go
against it? Why the rampant use of naked women in pornographic media?
(should start another thread...)

> I don't doubt their purpose in community bonding, but I think there are
> points in
> time when we realize that said sensibilities and moral inhibitions, in the
> end,
> serve the individual self-interest, just that sometimes self-interest, in
> this imperfect
> world, requires to surrender one's self to said conventions.

So back to the question, what's the purpose of JCG? Whose self-interests
is it serving? Does it even need to stalk people in orchard?

> As for the above remarks seeming being logically coherent to the
webmaster;
> try to keep context in mind: they were being sarcastic at TNP
> splicing together two unrelated sentences on the forum to derive that
> conclusion.

And by being sarcastic plus whatever "Sex God" remarks, they are justing
painting a bad name for their site. They are just proving (again) they are
not professional, their have really bad taste, and they are out to serve
immature people.

> And probably no physical harm EVER.

I personally find stalking of girls publicly, not only invades privacy,
also diminishes the respect for women. (Women are men's sex toys, we have to
accept it. Huh!)


Dennis Kwek

unread,
Oct 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/21/99
to
> I can agree with you about the distinction of the latter(inadverdently
> catching a person's image). But I think you're imposing a double
> standard to permit one particular type of candid photography,
> and then not another. The type of candid photography on the web
> page does not infringe on privacy, because it is an image that anyone
> in the public domain could have captured in vision. It, as I have
> repeatedly stated, does not transgress any criminal or, IMHO,
> moral boundaries, save the illogical visceral revulsion felt by women
> towards it.

I'd argue that not everything that is visible in the public domain is
public and hence free game. There are private spaces that surround us as
individuals, physical private spaces when we walk around, for example.
Let me pose this scenario: YOu're walking along the streets of Spore and
suddenly you caught a glimpse of someone taking a photo of you from the
bushes. Now imagine if it's more direct, and he took a photo of you on
the street in front of you. Now... imagine if you're a WOMAN instead of
a man. There's a lot of difference here: Men usually do not mind, and
often could not be bothered about having their photos taken in public
(unless you're some paranoid anti-PAP chap in which case, you'd probably
walk around with shades, a cap, and a fake moustache). Women on the
other hand, mind having their photos taken. To some, it's the thought
that the shots were *candid* shots, not taken when they're at their best
behaviour, which offends them. They'd rather have their permission asked
for and then posed in front of the camera. To others, there's this deep
seated, unexplainable fear as to the motive of the camera person. Again,
a difference sets in if the photographer's a woman or if it's a man. A
male photographer elicits the worst kind of fear, because of
questionable motives, and the thought that perhaps this man is going to
do obscene things to the photograph in his own privacy. If you're
looking for a reason why women are distressed by the website, one VERY
good reason is the link between sex(ual perversion) and the females
involved in the photographs. I'd say that there's less uproar if the
website has JCBOYS as wellas JCGIRLS in it. The fact that it's run by
boys only alleviates any perversion-related fear.

Voyeurism (derived from french, roughly 'to look') is, I'd argue,
precisely what these boys are up to. Secrecy and danger are two defining
characteristics and subsequent aphrodisiacs to voyeurs. The photos are
taken in a style akin to those from in
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.hidden-camera or .voyeurism, in its
grainy, low resolution bad lighting style. By anonymously taking these
photos, they are giving in to their voyeuristic tendencies and then
sharing that with the world as a sense of accomplishment. Of course, all
these disguised under the banner of beautiful singaporean girls.

> Show me where the "world of difference" is between a single shot used
> in publications to comment on the dressing, and a series of shots
> depicting that self-same woman. The site doesn't incite people to
> stalkerism(and if it does, I wish them luck, because there's no way
> to track down any of those women just by sight alone).

The uncontrollable fear isn't the fear that it'll incite stalkerism, but
the fear that someone you know, who possibly lives nearby, whom you'd
never allow him to take your photo, now has access to what was
previously a mental image. A solid, physical image which he can look and
stare at time and time again, downloaded off the web, is often a symptom
of sexual pervisity. Most sexual perverts do not live their fantasies in
their minds, but reestablishes them around him in physical assets:
pictures of naked women, videos, etc, because such physical images help
to solidify their fantasies and through such photos, reenact their
sexual dreams and wishes. If you are a woman, and one day, you suddenly
realise that this strange man you always see around your neighbourhood
is looking at you in a very different way, and then realise later that
your picture's up on a popular website, I doubt you'd NOT associate one
with another. This was told to me by my significant other, as to how she
feels knowing her pictures up on the internet.
So while it may well be true that there's no way to track down any women
on the site, it's not the practical aspect of tracking down, but the
psychological fear that maybe she has already been tracked down, that
can disgust and distress a woman.

> It makes
> an occasionally apposite commentary on the gesture and action,
> which have now been removed. So it's just a series of pictures,
> on a web page.

Pictures tell more than just a factual reality. They convey a message;
they're not just 'pictures on a web page'. The message, to me, is that a
bunch of voyeurs have done what other Singaporean voyeurs have only done
privately, by publicly broadcasting their sexual thoughts. Try posting
any of these pictures onto the aforementioned two newsgroups and you'll
get tons of requests from other likeminded people praising your photos
and asking for more risque ones. And that's another point:- What we see
on the site are cleaned photos, filtered by the owners. What of photos
which were taken when the women were unaware, perhaps when they were
climbing the stairs/taking the escalators? The fact that these women
were photographed unaware leads to the possibility that more
risque/sexual photos may have been taken. You never know. You get
paranoid. You get upset. You get worried.

> If some pervert wants to attach sexual contexts on
> to the page(and I am still hard-pressed to find *any* male I know
> genuinely titillated), he could just as well do it on a magazine with
> same candid shot.

I know of males who are already, and yes, some would be titillated by
magazines with candid shots too. Oddly, they tend to be under 30 yrs old
or over 50 yrs of age :( Guys here find mail order fashion catalogues
with pictures of women in skimpy clothes and bras/underwears to be
sexually stimulating, and have worn such catalogues with use :P

> Or are you saying there's something about the
> web that automatically elicits such perversion?

Erm, yeah :)

> And, as I have said ad nauseam, even if there *is* such sexual
> context elicited, why the fuss? Why the anger at the faint possibility
> of some guy somewhere developing that kind of arousal without your
> knowledge(which could just as well happen in reality).

'Why the fuss' is a dominantly male-oriented form of thought. We pass
such problems by with a shrug. If I'm a woman (erm, let's leave it at
that), the idea that someone out there's jerking off to a photo taken
secretly (=voyeuristically) of me would give me sleepless nights. True,
if I don't know about it, what harm would there be, but if I *do* know
about it (if I saw my photos on a website, I might jump to that
conclusion that it was taken for sexual reasons), I'd be flabbergasted
and royally distressed.

> There is no
> way you will ever know if guys are laughing at your picture(likely)
> or getting physically stimulated(not so likely), so why take it that
> seriously?

In the course of teaching, I've actually been stalked before
(seriously). It started with anonymous emails to me, and I never did
find out if it's a prank or not, but I had to take it seriously, as a
student was being affected by her obsession with me. I grew paranoid
wondering who it was, why me, what on earth is she doing, and all sorts
of Fatal Attraction scenarios starting to rear their ugly heads. Sure I
could just laugh it off and see it as flattering that someone out there
actually fancies me enough to get obsessed, but I took it bloody
seriously and it was very distressing for me. So sue me and call me a
woman :P

> Frankly speaking, the moral revulsion and the controversy
> stirred by furious women against that site probably elicits more
> degradation from aberrant perverts, and curious on lookers than
> it would if women simply didn't care that their images were up there.

But women *do* care about having their images up there. If there was a
website filled with men of unhealthy stature, set up by women to point
out men's inadequacies or their lack of fitness, men would be outraged.
If there was a website filled with strapping (heterosexual) hunks taken
off the streets, run by homosexuals, men would likewise be outraged. We
just have a different yardstick to be upset about.

> Neither do I. All I see are vague allusions to unjustiifable notions of
> "danger" and "stalkers", when, logically speaking, there is absolutely no
> intrusion or invasiveness except the illogical perceptions of women that
> feel that such intrusion or invasiveness has been perpetrated against them.

But such perceptions, illogical to you it may be, are tangible and real
to women.

> It is, as I said, not their right to be uncomfortable that I question, it is
> merely the absolute lack of foundation in such discomfort that I find so
> puzzling.

That's cos *you're* a man, my friend :) Grow a pair and loose that
thingy down there and maybe you might see things differently :)

Dennis who is sometimes called Denise (but only jokingly, still, who
knows, maybe there's some truth to that. Hmm :) )


Siew Kum Hong/Xiao Jinhong

unread,
Oct 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/21/99
to
On Wed, 20 Oct 1999 19:43:07 +0800, "nw.t." <mindg...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>But I think you're imposing a double
>standard to permit one particular type of candid photography,
>and then not another.

Why? You would permit a type of sexual act in private, but not in
public. Double standards? I think not. It comes down to whether you
consider the purpose to which it is used, and the invasiveness of that
use, to be important/substantial enough to justify a distinction. I
think it does. You obviously don't think it's invasive at all, and that
has permeated your thinking. But the empirical proof is that at least
some women have felt that it was invasive, and that's regardless of
whether they're just walking around or caught adjusting their bra
straps.

And I'm not talking about morality in terms of the supposed "porn"
effect or the incitement (of others) to stalk; IMO those are just red
herrings, and I agree that cannot justify the taking down of the site.
But where one's right to speech (however ridiculous it is... taking the
Life! interview and the site together, I think these 2 guys fit pretty
well into the category of "desperate losers with no taste in girls" ;) )
interferes with another's right to privacy (albeit non-legal), then a
balance must be struck.

IMO the present JCGirls policy (of getting consent before candid shots
are put up) strikes the right balance.

As for the theory that girls ought to stay at home if they don't want to
be caught, and that by coming out they implicitly consent, well, IMO
they only consent (if at all) to judicious shots by publications (eg. to
comment on dress sense or lack thereof) or inadvertent shots of
buildings, but not to being objectified. But I do think that all this
business about consent is another red herring that merely muddies the
waters.

Siew Kum Hong/Xiao Jinhong

unread,
Oct 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/21/99
to
On Wed, 20 Oct 1999 18:15:22 +0800, "nw.t." <mindg...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>But it is ridiculous
>to get psychologically affected merely by someone who is probably
>physically miles away, who will never see you in reality, who doesn't
>know *anything* about you other than a somewhat blurred shot

Aren't you imposing upon others, your own morality on what is acceptable
and what is not? Because you're saying that it's ridiculous to be
affected by this, so we shouldn't use the fact of people being affected
as a justification for taking down the site. But then, who are you (or
any of us) to judge whether it's ridiculous or not?

Conceptually, it is the fact that people are being affected that is
important. That fact (and their right to not be so affected) must be
balanced with the right that is being sought to be curtailed, here,
JCGirls' right to free speech, and see if the 2 can be reconciled. Here,
they patently can be, by the seeking of consent. And that ought to be
the correct balance. But the rationality of the offence being felt ought
to be immaterial.


Dennis Kwek

unread,
Oct 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/21/99
to
Hi nw.t.,

Just a quick comment:-

> Sorry. I stand by my point. No one has thus far given
> me convincing logical reasons for feeling offended, intruded
> on, or physically threatened by having one's candid picture
> put op that site other then simple irrational, unfounded
> psychological distress rooted IMHO, in kneejerk reflexive
> moral inhibition.

Anyone tell you you have a near-Vulcan-like reasoning form? :)

I think the reason why no one has given you logical reasons is simply
because, at the core of it, there isn't any :P If we wish to dig deep
into our own mental recesses in an attempt to understand the nature of
such distress, we either fall into a psychological meta-trap of
logic/illogic - Freud was convinced (I'm generalising here) that
everything psychological can be explained in sexual terms, but that
simply no longer holds anymore.

Let's give a more concrete example in management terms. We have been
brought up in the so-called Harvard Business School model of management,
whereby organisational problems can be logically and systematically
broken down into components, solutions found via case-based reasoning
and prior experiential successes, and then reapplied to the organisation
to resolve the problem. Logic and logical reasoning was key to the
entire process. Such a methodology has now been critically scoffed at
simply because organisations, people and management are too complex to
even attempt to logically analyse it (and that's why management is
broadly split into mainstrain/empiricist/positivist group and the
peripheral/postmodernist/constructivist group).

You are, I think, trying to extract a logical answer to a question which
cannot be placed in a logical realm in the first place. If you ask a
woman if she'd be offended by having her photos on a website like
jcgirls, she'd more likely than not say yes, and if you try to excavate
the reasons as to why she said 'yes', to understand her logical
processes, it may be too tacit (look at Polanyi's notion of tacit
knowledge) to explicate.

But this does not mean it's due to some moral inhibitions. Just that
there may be no answers to your question. Not without some really
indepth sociological/psychological understanding of these issues at the
very least.

Have you *never* had an argument with a woman where the debate would end
with her saying the end-all statement of 'because I say so' and that's
it, she's won, irrespective of your Nobel Prize winning arguments and
research into the subject matter :P

Not everything's logical, Spock :)


*returns to eating instant noodles*

Dennis

Dr Onya

unread,
Oct 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/21/99
to

"nw.t." wrote:

> Sorry. I stand by my point. No one has thus far given
> me convincing logical reasons for feeling offended, intruded
> on, or physically threatened by having one's candid picture
> put op that site other then simple irrational, unfounded
> psychological distress rooted IMHO, in kneejerk reflexive
> moral inhibition.

Let's apply your argument in a different situation and see
where it leads. Some months ago, when I was sitting by
myself in a parked car one evening, I watched as a man
approached. When he was a few metres from me he stopped
and, when he was sure I was looking in his direction,
swiftly unzipped his trousers and extracted his male organ
before urinating. I was revolted and angry. But at no time
during the incident did I feel physically threatened. By
extension of your argument, my revulsion was a kneejerk
illogical reaction. (After all, he did not threaten me.)
By extension of the same argument, you would have to say
that he had a right to do what he did. Further, if I objected
to his actions, I should have told him to stop, and if he
did that would have put things right. Have I got that right,
or do you disagree? If you do, where do you draw the line?

Charles Averty

unread,
Oct 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/21/99
to
nw.t. <mindg...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> *wearily* They're *not* my friends.

I was not talkimg about these kids, but about your friends. So again,
if you don't object to pictures of your sister/mother/friends being
posted to the Net without their prior knowledge, feel free to post their
address here, I will be delighted to set up a site.

I even promise i will not reveal their names or addresses on the site.
Just a few pictures of them in their most natural moments on Orchard
Road.

Charles


secular_hu...@my-deja.com

unread,
Oct 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/22/99
to
In article <MOD$991020...@sintercom.org>,
"mae" <leey...@singnet.com.sg> wrote:

> And regarding what is the rational behind kicking up such a fuss
> over an adolescent website, I like to ask a question, what is the
> rational of setting up a "come-see-the-girls' website to satisfy
> self-esteem and lust of some men, at the cost of some women's
> dignity?

Isn't the rationale obvious? Girl-watching! Are you suggesting that this
is somehow an evil rationale? An unhealthy rationale? An unnatural
rationale? A loathsome rationale? That's what sex-negativity does to a
society, you know. It is the most natural thing in the world for
adolescent boys to enjoy looking at girls. Gee, my adolescence was
way-back-when, but I still enjoy looking at women. I can't help it...
it's hard-wired into my brain....and neither can those boys. We are only
doing what comes naturally. It's a perfectly healthy pasttime amongst
other pasttimes. Without this inclination to show an interest in the
opposite sex, how did we get to be six-billion strong? As a penance,
repeat to yourself ten times a day....lust is natural...lust is
good....lust is life-sustaining! ;-)

joseph

unread,
Oct 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/22/99
to
How much alcohol caused Charles Averty <charles...@hotmail.com> to say :

: But once again if you want to prove you are right give us the


: addresses of your friends (without their prior knowledge) we'll take
: pictures of them and dedicate a site to them.

two "wrongs" make a "right" now? let's not get so caught up that
we stoop to such levels.

to reiterate some points:

the jcgirls webpage isn't what we consider a "good" webpage and
most posters probably agree with me on this.

all these issues of privacy, intrusion, etc. are all very valid.
however, unlike france, it is probably not strong enough to shut them
down (i assume this is the end desire of some of the posters).

so ultimately, forget how much we dislike or what not, can we
think of a solid legal reason for them to be shut down? i can't think of
one right now. maybe you can.


-joseph


nw.t.

unread,
Oct 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/22/99
to

> Aren't you imposing upon others, your own morality on what is acceptable
> and what is not? Because you're saying that it's ridiculous to be
> affected by this, so we shouldn't use the fact of people being affected
> as a justification for taking down the site. But then, who are you (or
> any of us) to judge whether it's ridiculous or not?

Rational scrutiny of propositions here. There is nothing to do with
abstract notions of morality, only a careful, studied consideration of
whether it affects the self-interest or not, whether at an individual
or societal point of view. I certainly am not among those who believe
that just because the majority follow some moral convention gives
it any more validity simply because everyone's chasing the same
phantom, however, I would at least pretend to go along with them,
given that this is the real world, and often we are obliged, in the
name of self-interest to morally conform to norms we find ridiculous.

Some call it hypocrisy. In a semantic twist; I prefer the axiom:
"Go along to get ahead."

I am all for taking down pictures of people who feel affected by it, indeed
I relentlessly admit the notion that women have a right to go about
without fear, and as such have the right to ask for the picture's
removal. I simply *do not* think the site warrants defense of its
survival, but neither does it warrant calls for its demise. Just let
it go, is what I say.

> Conceptually, it is the fact that people are being affected that is
> important. That fact (and their right to not be so affected) must be
> balanced with the right that is being sought to be curtailed, here,
> JCGirls' right to free speech, and see if the 2 can be reconciled. Here,
> they patently can be, by the seeking of consent. And that ought to be
> the correct balance. But the rationality of the offence being felt ought
> to be immaterial.

I would agree with you here(about the balance between
free speech and freedom from fear) but I'm questioning the rationality of
the offence and trying to see if any justification for it is extant;
are we supposed to just succumb to irrationality simply because
a majority feel that way? What's the point of human social evolution
if we have the attitude: "yes it's irrational, but it's there anyway
and we should pander to it." So far, none whatsoever, and I think
it's an illustrative point that society is still dominated
by such baseless inhibitions.

"The sleep of reason makes monsters of men."


nw.t.

unread,
Oct 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/22/99
to

> Anyone tell you you have a near-Vulcan-like reasoning form? :)

*scratches palm with tip of pointy ear* Sometimes. *murmurs*
Trying to find a logical solution to things as a form
of emotional catharsis is the only alternative
for me, for personal reasons I'd rather not go into here.
Sort of self-applied gestalten psychotherapy.

> I think the reason why no one has given you logical reasons is simply
> because, at the core of it, there isn't any :P If we wish to dig deep
> into our own mental recesses in an attempt to understand the nature of
> such distress, we either fall into a psychological meta-trap of
> logic/illogic - Freud was convinced (I'm generalising here) that
> everything psychological can be explained in sexual terms, but that
> simply no longer holds anymore.

Someone was running loops around me using Godel's theorem
to poke holes in my subservience to logic.:) (the flaw with
every formalized axiomatic system). Certainly logic doesn't
always have all the answers, however much we might try to
reason things out.

It is interesting though, to note the distinction between logic
and pragmatism; reason and common sense. I like the way
the latter sometimes involves subservience or belief in strictures
you might not really suppose to be true simply because it
helps your own self-interest, or, like religion it can be like
aspirin, it can't hurt, and it just might work:)

> You are, I think, trying to extract a logical answer to a question which
> cannot be placed in a logical realm in the first place. If you ask a
> woman if she'd be offended by having her photos on a website like
> jcgirls, she'd more likely than not say yes, and if you try to excavate
> the reasons as to why she said 'yes', to understand her logical
> processes, it may be too tacit (look at Polanyi's notion of tacit
> knowledge) to explicate.

I've read that article for a knowledge management course. Certainly
there are some forms of knowledge that fall beyond articulable dimensions;
but I would still argue that this particular situation is applicable to
studied consideration along lines of logic; if nothing else as a fun
intellectual game; because, it would be absolutely impossible to
convinve people of the valid results, but, as Umberto Eco says;
even in the collision of ideas that defy common sense, there can
be a pleasing cacophany, and if you string together a few ideas
to get a catchy beat, that's nice, and if it's jazz, so much the better:)

> But this does not mean it's due to some moral inhibitions. Just that
> there may be no answers to your question. Not without some really
> indepth sociological/psychological understanding of these issues at the
> very least.

*eyes wide and innocously* Don't you know that all moral inhibitions
are sociological and psychological issues ? *rhetoric tautology
for a change:)*

> Have you *never* had an argument with a woman where the debate would end
> with her saying the end-all statement of 'because I say so' and that's
> it, she's won, irrespective of your Nobel Prize winning arguments and
> research into the subject matter :P

*grimly* More often than I can count. *melancholy brooding*

> Not everything's logical, Spock :)

*ambles off to live long and prosper*
Actually, I'm a Babylon 5 fan rather than a Trekkie:)

nw.t.

unread,
Oct 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/22/99
to

> Why? You would permit a type of sexual act in private, but not in
> public. Double standards? I think not. It comes down to whether you
> consider the purpose to which it is used, and the invasiveness of that
> use, to be important/substantial enough to justify a distinction. I
> think it does. You obviously don't think it's invasive at all, and that
> has permeated your thinking. But the empirical proof is that at least
> some women have felt that it was invasive, and that's regardless of
> whether they're just walking around or caught adjusting their bra
> straps.

I don't deny that some women have felt it to be invasive, and
hence I don't deny women their right to object to such a site. I just
find it all quite irrational, that's all.

> IMO the present JCGirls policy (of getting consent before candid shots
> are put up) strikes the right balance.
>
> As for the theory that girls ought to stay at home if they don't want to
> be caught, and that by coming out they implicitly consent, well, IMO
> they only consent (if at all) to judicious shots by publications (eg. to
> comment on dress sense or lack thereof) or inadvertent shots of
> buildings, but not to being objectified. But I do think that all this
> business about consent is another red herring that merely muddies the
> waters.

Well, it's vitally important if you consider that one of the issues
is a woman's right to go about without fear, however baseless that
fear. Therefore, giving a woman that right to request her picture be
taken down is a necessity in these circumstances.

I would illustrate though; if a woman didn't know her picture was
up there, and never knew, I'd warrant that her life wouldn't be impacted
or changed in any way whatsoever, no physical damage, no
mental trauma, just doing her own thing, no fuss. It's only once the
awareness sets in that the kind of irrational worry starts to fill
the individual, and hence the right to be free of such worry by
requesting that the picture be taken down.

nw.t.

unread,
Oct 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/22/99
to

> Voyeurism (derived from french, roughly 'to look') is, I'd argue,
> precisely what these boys are up to. Secrecy and danger are two defining
> characteristics and subsequent aphrodisiacs to voyeurs. The photos are
> taken in a style akin to those from in
> alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.hidden-camera or .voyeurism, in its
> grainy, low resolution bad lighting style. By anonymously taking these
> photos, they are giving in to their voyeuristic tendencies and then
> sharing that with the world as a sense of accomplishment. Of course, all
> these disguised under the banner of beautiful singaporean girls.

I see you've been in some weird newsgroups:)

Very coherent analysis, and I'm inclined to agree with your evaluation
of their motives, as well as the above rationale for the fear of women
towards
the voyeur-perversion connotations implied by such a site. But by now
you know my point is not that I deny or try to paint the motives of the
people in this site in any positive, "aesthetic appreciative" light, and I
certainly can perceive the kind of female fear you've noted up there; I
just still see no basis for it whatsoever. I grant that the presence of such
fear is enough reasoning for a woman to demand her picture be taken down,
after all, no one deserves to live in fear if it can be helped,
I just find it sad that people can still be motivated, controlled, their
lives
strung along the marionette-strings of such reflexive behaviour.
Demon-Haunted
World, indeed, as the late Carl Sagan put it. But I'm being blatantly
hypocritical here, *grins*, after all *everyone's* got some kind of
emotional or moral baggage that defies logical context.

I also worry about a blanket suppression on, to my mind, a harmless site
like this one in the name of either feminism(objectifying women), or
pandering
to psychological delusion. When you censor a harmless site, it sets a
precedent
for the next bit of censorship. And the next. And the next. I don't think
censoring
this site actually changes anything, but I don't think letting it continue
as it
has does either, so, in the principle that free speech is sacrosanct as long
as it is harmless, I incline towards the latter approach.

> Pictures tell more than just a factual reality. They convey a message;
> they're not just 'pictures on a web page'. The message, to me, is that a
> bunch of voyeurs have done what other Singaporean voyeurs have only done
> privately, by publicly broadcasting their sexual thoughts. Try posting
> any of these pictures onto the aforementioned two newsgroups and you'll
> get tons of requests from other likeminded people praising your photos
> and asking for more risque ones. And that's another point:- What we see
> on the site are cleaned photos, filtered by the owners. What of photos
> which were taken when the women were unaware, perhaps when they were
> climbing the stairs/taking the escalators? The fact that these women
> were photographed unaware leads to the possibility that more
> risque/sexual photos may have been taken. You never know. You get
> paranoid. You get upset. You get worried.

You already know my views on this; *baseless paranoia* with
absolutely no way of impacting your life because it is either
unverifiable, and, even if unverifiable, pretty harmless. More so
when it is to do with pictures taken in a public context;
if it was in private domain, or on your own, near your house,
changing, then I would agree there is a more germane basis
for feeling a threat to your person. But in a street, among
hundreds, by a stranger? If you're worried that if one stranger
could pick you out in a crowd and take your picture, and
associate that kind of worry with the odds of one stranger
picking you out in a crowd and stalk-raping you, it would be
impossible to live life in anyway whatsoever.

Given the reason "sexuality" thread, and my attempts
to dispassionately consider its elements and its effects
on society, you can see why this particular issue interests
me a great deal; about our sexual mores and those restrictions
and inhibitions and perceptions that render the issue such
a complicated one.

> > Or are you saying there's something about the
> > web that automatically elicits such perversion?
> Erm, yeah :)

Hmm. :) Actually, now that you think of it..

remembers the website www.realdolls.com
:)

> 'Why the fuss' is a dominantly male-oriented form of thought. We pass
> such problems by with a shrug. If I'm a woman (erm, let's leave it at
> that), the idea that someone out there's jerking off to a photo taken
> secretly (=voyeuristically) of me would give me sleepless nights. True,
> if I don't know about it, what harm would there be, but if I *do* know
> about it (if I saw my photos on a website, I might jump to that
> conclusion that it was taken for sexual reasons), I'd be flabbergasted
> and royally distressed.

I hesitate to quantify it as "male" and "female"-oriented forms of thought.
Rather, I would say that the site elicits more socially-rooted inhibitions;
the same way I've seen males who object to the site use the same
arguments women do, even if they don't feel the fear themselves(for
obvious reasons). I don't think the kind of emotion the site engenders
has something to do with gender-oriented modes of thought, despite
the assertion someone else has put that women like to be admired
on their own terms, I could also put out the assertion that so do males;
it's a very crude generalization to say that the site's offense is due
to different ways "guys" and "girls" think. Granted, so far the majority
of the offense is felt from "females"(because only females are depicted
so far), and certainly it is rooted in the primeval fear of rape which
is exclusively a crime perpetuated by males(for the most part).

> But women *do* care about having their images up there. If there was a
> website filled with men of unhealthy stature, set up by women to point
> out men's inadequacies or their lack of fitness, men would be outraged.
> If there was a website filled with strapping (heterosexual) hunks taken
> off the streets, run by homosexuals, men would likewise be outraged. We
> just have a different yardstick to be upset about.

If that were true, I'd be giving exactly the same arguments as I am now;
irrational, baseless fear, inhibition rooted this time more in the male
sense of machismo and ego rather than fear of rape, yada yada et.al.

> But such perceptions, illogical to you it may be, are tangible and real
> to women.

I'm aware of that, which is why I think women have the right to demand
such pictures be taken down anyway.

> That's cos *you're* a man, my friend :) Grow a pair and loose that
> thingy down there and maybe you might see things differently :)

Honestly though, I've been talking about it to some of the local women
here, and a substantial number of them feel that its absolutely harmless
and that they are actually flattered by it. They aren't so inhibited by the
shadowy fear of stalker or rape mentality or even that someone is being
physically aroused; different cultural paradigm I suppose.

secular_hu...@my-deja.com

unread,
Oct 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/22/99
to
In article <MOD$99102...@sintercom.org>,
charles...@hotmail.com (Charles Averty) wrote:

> I'd agree, if they actually were creative.

One person's creativity is the next person's cliche. In any case,
creativity has to be nurtured and needs room to grow before it can
flourish. If adolescent initiatives are prematurely curbed without good
reasons, it is as if creativity is snuffed out in the bud.

Thus the point is not whether the JCGirls Website is creative. Rather,
do we want to encourage creativity among youths? This means that the
community as a whole must adopt a more tolerant attitude, giving all and
sundry ample room for experimentation, space to learn from errors and at
times even accepting the unacceptable. Going on a witchhunt is a
definite no-no. Remember the recent religious painting that was made
from elephant-dung?

nw.t.

unread,
Oct 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/22/99
to

>
> Let's apply your argument in a different situation and see
> where it leads. Some months ago, when I was sitting by
> myself in a parked car one evening, I watched as a man
> approached. When he was a few metres from me he stopped
> and, when he was sure I was looking in his direction,
> swiftly unzipped his trousers and extracted his male organ
> before urinating. I was revolted and angry. But at no time
> during the incident did I feel physically threatened. By
> extension of your argument, my revulsion was a kneejerk
> illogical reaction. (After all, he did not threaten me.)
> By extension of the same argument, you would have to say
> that he had a right to do what he did. Further, if I objected
> to his actions, I should have told him to stop, and if he
> did that would have put things right. Have I got that right,
> or do you disagree? If you do, where do you draw the line?

Two points.Firstly, the differing contexts. One involves
*physical*, actual contact, where your visceral sense of
revulsion could be elicited by the visual presence of the male
and his organ. There's a two-way flow of communication
here. Furthermore, the sensory infringement includes
the detriment to hygiene, as well as olfactory(smell)
invasion. Given that, you of course felt a reason to
be angry and revolted. This sort of physical, direct
infringement to your sensibility, plus the societal
impact(hygiene again) is obviously intolerable. However,
the site we are speaking of is an entirely one-way flow
of communication. You don't see anyone having
an erection. You don't see anyone being revulsed
or titillated or otherwise on that site.
There is no similiar damage to society.

Secondly, if you really want me to take my argument
to its extreme, the only reason one should be offended
by what you saw is the offense against hygiene, and such
an act should not be condoned for that reason alone. If you
felt no physical danger whatsoever, then yes, the reaction
to the male organ was nothing more than visceral revulsion
*devoid of logical basis*, which is fair enough, however, since
most people brought up in Singaporean or most Western
social contexts would feel such revulsion to the unclothed.

However, my colleague on another post has remarked at
length about the futility of appealing to logic in issues
such as this and I must concur.

Junichi

unread,
Oct 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/22/99
to

nw.t. <mindg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MOD$991021...@sintercom.org...

> I'm sorry, but you're missing my point as well. I don't care if the
> picture is erotic, sensual, or not. (although I keep pointing out it
> isn't, at least not to me or anyone). Those pictures of *private*
> persons are taken in the *public* domain. Fine, if a private person
> wants the picture taken down, because she does not like it,
> by all means let her. But I have said ad nauseam that I don't
> object to her wanting her picture taken down, and I agree she
> has an unquestionable right to have that picture taken down
> I'm just wondering why she feels that paranoid necessity
> to have that picture taken down.

Assuming that a person really does have the right to remove the picture if
she doesn't like it. Ultimately, her picture had already been placed under
public domain without her prior consent hasn't it? Are you saying that it is
alright to put anyone's privacy at stake of the candid photographers even
when they strongly disapprove of it? And that only after the "harm" (as
perceived by the adversely affected) has already been done, a "remedy" be
provided? Imagine walking up to someone on the street, and punching him in
the nose. If he has no response to whatsoever, then you walk off telling
everyone about what you did. But if he's ticked off by the incident,
apologize to him, and pay him for his medical expenses. Keep in mind that
what's been done can't always be undone, especially so when it comes to
publishing something on the web.


>
> How does it call for sexual attention if there is no beauty those
> blur ugly pictures? Unless you're saying the only people visiting the
> site are deranged minds who don't look for beauty?

It should be quite obvious that most would find a general lack of beauty in
most of the pictures posted on the website. Most of them would generally
accept this as a fact of life and choose not to take pride of their looks.
Not to say that they are ashamed of it, but they might most probably prefer
not to revolve around the issue too much. For a website to describe them as
"the finest gems" when they are apparently not could only hold two
implications: either the webowners have an appalling bad sense of taste, or
they are just out there to humiliate these people and demolish whatever is
left of their self-respect. The webowners should at least maintain the
decency and respect for those who prefer to "keep it quiet" away from the
public.

mae

unread,
Oct 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/22/99
to
Dennis Kwek <Den...@camlann.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MOD$99102...@sintercom.org...

I like your argument, maybe mister nw.t do NOT have a significant half to
understand things from a female's perspective.

They've got their forum up again...duh....shall shift myself there (and get
pissed off by those perverts). This newsgroup is very slow moving, though
there's much more intelligent responses here. :)


nw.t.

unread,
Oct 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/22/99
to

> > As for the above remarks seeming being logically coherent to the
> webmaster;
> > try to keep context in mind: they were being sarcastic at TNP
> > splicing together two unrelated sentences on the forum to derive that
> > conclusion.
> And by being sarcastic plus whatever "Sex God" remarks, they are
justing
> painting a bad name for their site. They are just proving (again) they are
> not professional, their have really bad taste, and they are out to serve

> immature people.

No one is denying any of the above. But the intent isn't really the point.
The point is this: a) Is it doing any harm to anyone? and b)
If you suppress a site like this purely because it offends your sense
of what is right; where does it end? Censorship is a tricky,
and slippery road, and the only reason I condone it is because
at times people, and societies, aren't logically mature enough to
handle an unrestricted free-flow of ideas and some ideas may
be dangerous to a society. But this site...

> I personally find stalking of girls publicly, not only invades privacy,
> also diminishes the respect for women. (Women are men's sex toys, we have
to
> accept it. Huh!)

Frankly speaking, my respect for women are those who may see the site
as some puerile piece of rubbish, but are mature enough to accept that
it's a harmless voyeur/appreciation/whatever site,
without going off on irrational tangents about safety and going on crusades
to crush something absolutely harmless.

Some people have argued wholeheartedly that the site's main damage is
that it seems to encourage males to "cheehong" females; or at least provide
the societal impression that women are such toys. Believe me, there are far
more institutions out there like the mass media and the fashion industry
and even entertainment that are doing this, in even more subtle ways,
and no one's suggesting we ban all music, entertainment or the like.

mae

unread,
Oct 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/22/99
to
nw.t. <mindg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MOD$991022...@sintercom.org...

> No one is denying any of the above. But the intent isn't really the point.
> The point is this: a) Is it doing any harm to anyone? and b)
> If you suppress a site like this purely because it offends your sense
> of what is right; where does it end?
a) physchological harm there is, for some of the females. b) Yes, I 'm
against the site, not the contributions section, but the stalking part. Who
knows if one day, females have to search hundreds of websites on the
internet, just to have their photos removed off, what a chore.

> Censorship is a tricky,
> and slippery road, and the only reason I condone it is because
> at times people, and societies, aren't logically mature enough to
> handle an unrestricted free-flow of ideas and some ideas may
> be dangerous to a society. But this site...

Let's say I set up a site "VirginMen", it's very simple aim is to flatter
men, and for the girls to flock in. And here I have the contributions
section, of which men can contribute their own photos or other ppl's photo
as long as no girl(identities shall be kept confidential) opposed the fact
that they are "virgin", of which otherwise the guy shall be blacklisted. On
a deeper level, it serves to a)offend some men (why should they be offended?
It's harmless!), b)invade their privacy. And of course, nominated top male
virgin of the week....mister nw.t! Tell me, will you want your name off the
list? :) And who in this case, will be the really "humiliated" ones (Chief
aka Sex God of JCGirls, supporters of JCGirls)?

> Frankly speaking, my respect for women are those who may see the site
> as some puerile piece of rubbish, but are mature enough to accept that
> it's a harmless voyeur/appreciation/whatever site,
> without going off on irrational tangents about safety and going on
crusades
> to crush something absolutely harmless.

I do see the site as some puerile piece of rubbish, but I rather not sit
back and wait for it to "flourish" to something uncontrollable. It is
difficult for me to dissociate the sexual perversions the site is linked,
merely because the male peers around me DO ogle at the pictures, ogle at ALL
girls in the building, and even view pornographic materials. To an unaware
female, it DOES cause some distress, for it will be a natural response to
question the imaginations of what runs in the minds of these males.

> Some people have argued wholeheartedly that the site's main damage is
> that it seems to encourage males to "cheehong" females; or at least
provide
> the societal impression that women are such toys. Believe me, there are
far
> more institutions out there like the mass media and the fashion industry
> and even entertainment that are doing this, in even more subtle ways,
> and no one's suggesting we ban all music, entertainment or the like.

I agree, but leave the unaware females alone.

JH Wah

unread,
Oct 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/22/99
to
On 21 Oct 1999 22:41:32 +0800, Dr Onya <dr_...@my-deja.com> wrote:

>Let's apply your argument in a different situation and see
>where it leads.

[Example of exhibitionist snipped]

>By extension of the same argument, you would have to say
>that he had a right to do what he did. Further, if I objected
>to his actions, I should have told him to stop, and if he
>did that would have put things right. Have I got that right,
>or do you disagree? If you do, where do you draw the line?

Wrong analogy. In this case, what this man is guilty of is that of
outraging your modesty by exposing himself to you; not that of
threatening you, or taking candid shots of you.

Let us take look at a different situation and see where it lead us.
One day, while you are queueing up at a public place (a banking,
fast-food restaurant, whatever) minding your own business. You notice
this man standing a few metres away from you, watching you intently.
After a few moments you start to notice that the bulge in his trousers
is getting bigger and bigger... You feel revolted and angry. What
recourse did you have? Probably very little.

All this business of giving examples prompt me to give another. How
about if I am a very talented painter. I walk down Orchard Road and
see this nice girl, and on getting home, I put it to the canvas. So
who "owns" this painting? And taking this one step further, what
difference is this case from the one at hand?

JH


nw.t.

unread,
Oct 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/23/99
to

> I like your argument, maybe mister nw.t do NOT have a significant half to
> understand things from a female's perspective.

*shrugs* You can make all the haphazard guesses about my life that you want,
but I think you're sadly misguided if you actually assume you know what
my life is really like merely based on the point of views I express here.


Dr Onya

unread,
Oct 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/23/99
to
In article <MOD$99102...@sintercom.org>,
"nw.t." <mindg...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Two points.Firstly, the differing contexts. One involves

<deleted for brevity>

> Secondly, if you really want me to take my argument
> to its extreme, the only reason one should be offended
> by what you saw is the offense against hygiene, and such
> an act should not be condoned for that reason alone. If you
> felt no physical danger whatsoever, then yes, the reaction
> to the male organ was nothing more than visceral revulsion
> *devoid of logical basis*, which is fair enough, however, since
> most people brought up in Singaporean or most Western
> social contexts would feel such revulsion to the unclothed.
>
> However, my colleague on another post has remarked at
> length about the futility of appealing to logic in issues
> such as this and I must concur.

Exactly. And that's the fatal flaw in your argument. You've
been arguing that because the reactions of some people to
the web site cannot be justified on logical grounds they
should be dismissed out of hand. I'm saying that people in
a civilised society would respect the fact that such
reactions are common enough to be taken into account
and accorded respect. There's been a lot of talk about
the gracious society in Singapore. Well, it is how issues
like this are resolved that help to define how "gracious"
a society is. As I said before, there's no right or wrong
way of dealing with these issues. But to the extent that
people accord respect to each other, society is more
"gracious". All societies make the choice in recognition
of the tension between individual and collective rights.
But remember that exercising individual rights imposes
costs on others simply because we live in a community,
not on Robinson Crusoe's island.

Incidentally, in response to another poster, I wasn't trying
to draw an analogy between my experience and the web site.
I was trying to expose the flawed basis of your argument.

Onya

nw.t.

unread,
Oct 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/23/99
to

> Exactly. And that's the fatal flaw in your argument. You've
> been arguing that because the reactions of some people to
> the web site cannot be justified on logical grounds they
> should be dismissed out of hand. I'm saying that people in
> a civilised society would respect the fact that such
> reactions are common enough to be taken into account
> and accorded respect.

Well, I just think it's a pity we still have to pander to irrationality,
that's all. What's the whole point of evolution as a species and
as a society if we're still held back by baseless, almost superstitious
notions like this? Five hundred years ago, it was okay to burn
"witches" at the stake because of illogical fears about damnation,
the presence of evil;now it's okay to condemn a harmless
expression of puerile adolescence simply because some
women feel irrationally threatened. I'm not convinced,in addition,
that there is a majority of women who feel threatened or offended,
on top of that, although that would really depend on who you talk
to. But, given that a majority of people, males and females, appear
unable to put aside such moral baggage, too bad for those of us
in the minority who are doing nothing more than viewing the topic
with as much dispassionate reason as possible.

vive le political correctness.

> There's been a lot of talk about
> the gracious society in Singapore. Well, it is how issues
> like this are resolved that help to define how "gracious"
> a society is. As I said before, there's no right or wrong
> way of dealing with these issues. But to the extent that
> people accord respect to each other, society is more
> "gracious". All societies make the choice in recognition
> of the tension between individual and collective rights.
> But remember that exercising individual rights imposes
> costs on others simply because we live in a community,
> not on Robinson Crusoe's island.

I honestly don't see how society as a whole is threatened
by this; I don't see any impact on the individual self-interest,
or social impact. What I do see is the danger of setting this
kind of precedent, where we suppress the harmless free
expression of certain notions that elicit irrational fear in some
people. Once you start on this surrender to fear, the next
time some issue out, you can justify the surrender to fear again, instead
of trying to rationally and progressively overcome the irrationality
of such fear. Eventually, you have a society of people who frown
on any expression of anything that might even remotely transgress
or insult or elicit reactions of disgust or illogic from a strait-laced
majority that self-righteously imposes its baseless morality
and vain pretenses and social conventions on anyone and everyone
simpley because we want to be "gracious".

Okay, that's a paranoid scenario. But the principle remains the
same; how the hell is the society supposed to evolve as a "gracious"
and "tolerant" one if we are insist on the imposition of irrational
moral norms on all and sundry, even on absolutely harmless
pieces of puerility like the site?

--
"To be is to do" -Socrates
"To do is to be" -Sartre
"De do da do de." -Sinatra

"The things you own, end up owning you.
It's only after you've lost everything that you're
free to do anything. Self-improvement is masturbation.
Self-destruction might be the answer." -Tyler, in Fight Club


Dr Onya

unread,
Oct 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/23/99