Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Which one of you lot started this then? http://tubefitty.com/
I started this one: http://tubefashion.com/
this is barely one step removed from upskirt shots.
Really creepy and pretty objectionable.
But hardly barely one step removed from upskirt shots, is it?!
so it must have been... some cunt from Putney
I looked through to see if I featured. I didn't.
A website that allows me to objectify women.
we know what we're doing is morally dubious at best, but, hey, it's no actually illegal, and it would be wrong to deny a few fellows a laugh, right? but, yeah, just to cover our arses we'll take down any photos of yourself that you by some fluke happen to stumble upon and then prove that it's actually you by submitting another photo (which we'll find a way to use somewhere else). Everyone else, though, is fair game: agreed?
"Photographers and anyone wielding a camera are legally allowed to take your photograph unless you specifically state you don’t want to be photographed"
Shirely if this is the case then they have to let you know you're being photographed
If you are in a public place - anywhere which doesn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy (which covers anywhere from your home to a restaurant) then you are fair game. It's why paps can get pics of celebs coming out of clubs (but not in clubs), or people coming out of court. If we had to run every photo by every scumbag being frogmarched into the police van - "excuse me mate, you don't mind this going in the paper, do you?" - newspapers would never print anything.
"Any individual or film production company wanting to film or take photographs on the Tube must seek prior permission from the London Underground (LU) Film Office." - http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/5225.aspx
So, presumably TFL property isn't a 'public place'.
The PDF @ http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2/ is as good a handy reference guide to this kind of thing as I've seen.
And http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-and-the-law.html is always worth a gleg.
But you're obviously linked to this professionally so I'll leave it at that.
I suppose TfL would say it's their property, which means these photos would breach their rules, if not the law.
Anyways, you people are never happy. First you want photographers to be protected from coppers smashing in their faces when out snapping at contentious events, now you do want them to be locked up for taking pervy pics on the tube. Nothing is good enough for you, is it? ;)
have no objection to their picture being taken surreptitiously, without their consent, and then posted online for men to salivate over, pick out flaws, rate against others, etc.
...you're REALLY missing out.
who don’t look like Roger Federer.
If you are at work with a filter maybe wait till you get home. Its blocked as pornography on my work interweb fun blocker. Im can almost hear the sirens going off in the I.T hut
He once told me how he set up a system that texted him whenever someone tried to access a blocked site.
Dad's shouldn't be allowed that sort of power!
just saying like.
."you: navy miniskirt, striped top, frosty expression. me: humping your leg from kings cross to kennington. dinner?".
they were all getting wide-ons on Loose Women over it.
noone moaned about that.
yes. i am sexist.
fyi, NEVER type 'hot guys tube' into google at work, ok?
they told me "TubeFitty is not creeping, it's purely a niche in the market and
attracts a lot of visitors."
So that's fine then.
hoping that I might have featured
that site's primarily frequented by gay men. Ergo your point is invalid.
So it's semi valid.
gonna put myself ON-DA-LINE here and say that this kinda thing CAN be creepy one way (i.e men doing it to women) and not so creepy the other way (i.e women doing it to men).
Think I can say this without being like...hippocrittycal.
[just an empty space where I was]
i mean they're both fairly creepy but they are not exactly the same and men doing it is deffo worse
go on somebody, call me a sexist, I DARE YOU
is this a joke about paedophilia or something
i'm actually 20 though, am i allowed to be sexist yet?
sending that guy abusive messages.
Like, they're both not on or anything, but men aren't generally subjected to the same running gauntlet of gurning objectification. Cumulatively, men do all right of it all.
Personally, I only use my phone camera to take pictures of unintentionally funny signs.
though to reiterate, i think the men's one is pretty creepy too, as is anything that involves drooling over pictures of people taken and displayed without their consent. but women being seen as automatic objects of drooling/staring/picture-taking without consent is standard, men being seen as automatic objects of drooling/staring/picture-taking without consent is a relative anomaly, and as such it doesn't have the same impact on the men who are used in it, cos they don't have to deal with this shit as a major part of their everyday lives and as such are much more likely to find it flattering rather than invasive
Not really relevant to what I just said, though. If only they could close down both to leave more internet space for unintentionally funny signs.
We believe that our blog is an artistic expression of our appreciation of the human body, and as such, we believe we are legally entitled to publish these photos.
Now THAT's watertight.
the sites themselves are the same but they exist in completely different contexts with different cultures of objectification, consent and creepiness and they can't be viewed in a vacuum
the sites are not responsible for the different cultures of objectification and consent
the sites are either equally repugnant or equally harmless
at this point
I mean, it could be argued that both sites continue the cultures of objectification, sure...
But on the level of content both sites are totally equivalent so objection to either site should be equal
objection to the relationships between men and women in our largely patriarchal society is a separate (though related) issue
none of us are 'responsible' for the cultures we exist in, that doesn't mean that we don't participate in them. they're different in the way that it's different when a man shouts a lewd comment at a woman in the street and when a woman shouts a lewd comment at a man in the street. neither of those people are 'responsible' for the fact that their actions have different connotations, but they do
i'd 'object' to anyone of any gender shouting lewd comments at anyone else in the street, while still recognising that one of those incidents is part of a much wider and more harmful culture than the other one, and thus probably getting a bit more angry about it, even though the content of the gesture is exactly the same
and there is no reason why an individual man OR woman should have to either put up with or to relish having lewd comments shouted at them in the street just because the perceived wisdom says one is threatening behaviour and the other should be taken as a compliment
both sites are EQUALLY creepy - it is the connotations of those sites that are perceived differently
so the problem is that the objectification of individuals reduces their worth, so excusing one form of objectification and condemning another equivalent form does nothing to elevate those individuals
i've said all along that they're BOTH creepy, invasive and totally not okay. i think it's difficult to deny, however, that men and women occupy different positions in relation to perceived 'objectification'. the 'perceived wisdom' about the differences in those behaviours isn't arbitrary. the reason men are more free to take 'objectifying' comments as a compliment is because they have never had to put up with being seen as fair game for objectifying, often threatening, uninvited attention on a constant everyday basis purely by virtue of gender. that doesn't mean they SHOULD have to just 'take it as a compliment', but it's simply a fact that men occupy a position of power where such a situation is vastly less likely to be threatening or upsetting. men are not automatically assessed on looks, as a potential object of desire, in the same way that women are. so when women take secret pictures of men, or shout lewd comments in the street, that's a case of individual women being a bit dickish. when men do those things, it is part of a much more systematic, widescale objectification that's very deeply ingrained into our ideas about masculinity and femininity. neither is okay, but one is, to put it very simply, 'more creepy'
'the problem is that the objectification of individuals reduces their worth'. the problem is a lot bigger than individuals and our perceived 'worth'. the problem is that society on a very deeply ingrained level sees half the population as, first and foremost, potential objects of desire to be looked at, which creates an unequal balance in the way we interact and the way we look at each other. finding people attractive doesn't reduce their worth; equating people's worth with their attractiveness does, and that happens vastly more often to women than to men
but your original statement was that the two websites were not the same
they are in fact the very same
what you MEANT was - and what I agree with - is that the objectification of women by men in British culture is different and more dangerous than the objectification of men by women in British culture (not only in Britain of course but Britain is a specific case)
and so one could then argue that the societal function of each website is different but it is still unalterable that they are exactly equivalent of one another in content
ie they ARE the same
you're saying they're are NOT exactly the same BECAUSE their outcomes are different
I'm saying they ARE exactly the same despite their outcomes being different
when i said 'they are not exactly the same' i obviously meant that the nature of the two gestures, their implications and outcomes are different, even if the sites have equivalent content. why do you think that just because the content is the same, it's not valid to find one 'more creepy' than the other (while still finding both objectionable)? shirley the assessment of 'creepiness' has to be involve an assessment of context and power, which involves gender, which is the aspect in which the content differs? you can't assess things in a vacuum (which was my original point)
if your entire argument is that they are exactly the same in content then i'm clearly not disagreeing with that... maybe i've not been expressing myself clearly enough but i can rephrase: the two websites are exactly the same in content, but they are different in outcome and implications, and it is those differences in outcome and implications that lead me to find one creepier and more objectionable than the other
this is what i've been saying all along - which part are you disagreeing with?
because of the outcomes
the websites are equally as bad(or good depending on your POV)
I understand that you reject this because you feel that the outcomes can't be divorced from the content
I respectfully disagree
i think the interesting difference here is that you're talking about these websites as objects while i'm talking about them as actual acts of objectification. you agreed that 'objectification of women by men in British culture is different and more dangerous than the objectification of men by women in British culture'. so if creating a website to take and display pictures of people without their consent, or contributing to that website, is an act of objectification, then by your own reasoning one of those sets of acts is 'different and more dangerous' than the other. but if you see the website as an isolated object distinct from the conditions of its creation then i guess you can justify calling them 'exactly the same'
Is it worse when a jew gets murdered because of the holocaust?
and then say ''ah well it's ok for women to act like men acting creepy''.
maybe you just said it was less creepy.
I'm going home.
It's because tiramisu didn't post that. No-one did.
Seeing that URL made me think it was going to link to this... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethnal_Green_Tube_disaster#Wartime_disaster
But I am amused by the idea of the guy trying to awkwardly answer what he does for a hobby if he ever does get a date.
they seem to be commenting on their clothing more than being like 'PHWOAR, SOME PAIR ON HERE, EH LADS?' which makes me think it's run by some sweaty rapist with a fetish for women's clothes.
i'm all for falling in love with women on the tube. but this is shit. i hate men. and women though. i bet some of them love shit like this happening to them. so the idiot men get spurred on by the idiot women until it's one big idiot loop with lots of perfectly decent people getting caught in the drag.
in short, i hate everyone. thank you.