SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
South Korea is in the grip of a "spycam" epidemic with covert footage of sex, nudity, and urination posted online in what amounts to a "social death penalty" for thousands of female victims.
The footage may be taken surreptitiously by boyfriends or captured on covert devices as small as car keys. Daily camera checks are now part of life for cleaners in many public toilets.
The spy camera phenomenon has reached such epidemic proportions in tech-savvy South Korea that tens of thousands of women have taken to the streets to march for action.
Srsly?
Previously: South Koreans Protest Spy Cam Pornography
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
'Spycam' Epidemic Seizes South Korea's Women
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 94 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
I'm mentally OVERDRAWN! What's that SIGNPOST up ahead? Where's ROD
STERLING when you really need him?
(Score: 1) by Blymie on Tuesday October 23 2018, @10:43AM (3 children)
Woha... that's rather sexist, yes?
How do you know some of this isn't women? If being seeing naked is a social death sentence for women, I can very well imagine that a female rival might want to harm another in this way.
Or -- do you suggest woman are perfect creatures, which dole out zero harm on others?
Reasons a woman might do this, via jealousy / hatred:
- believes another woman is 'stuffing her bra', hates her, and wants to 'out' her
- may have a different sexual orientation, and want a peak herself
- hates the other woman, and wants to destroy her socially
- knows the other woman has a birth mark / looks imperfect naked -- and wants to use that to destroy her
I've seen women that were supposedly friends, end up doing such things to each other!
But of course, only men would use cameras like this right?
By the way, I know the parent poster may have been caught up in this mode of sexist reply (eg, it was men!), because they were responding to parent posts / articles framed in such a context. But still, I believe this needed to be said...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday October 23 2018, @01:54PM (2 children)
We've all seen women do horrible things, sure. But - why don't you figure the odds for us? How many women are doing this, versus the number of guys who simply get a thrill from peeking where the chicks don't want them peeking? I'll definitely say the number is greater than 50 to 1, quite probably greater than 100 to 1, and potentially greater than 500 to 1 that men are doing it. Other people might see the odds differently, but I seriously doubt that anyone is going to offer less than ten to one odds.
(Score: 1) by Blymie on Tuesday October 23 2018, @02:09PM
Here's the deal. Men and women are not equal.
Women and men deserve equal rights, but it is fine to say "Women are interested in shoes", or "Women/Men are better at $x".
Why? Because *averages*. Insurance companies do this all the time. They stipulate that women ARE safer drivers, due to the stats. Yet this is legal, and certainly correct because averages are just that.
And averages are what our automatic, built in human pattern matching systems are based upon. We see typical behaviour that can be associated with an identifying feature (sex, colour, race, etc).. and then by default our brains map that behaviour to ALL of that same feature.
It makes sense -- for, it is a survival mechanism. If you're a squirrel, you don't wait around to see if the next cat is friendly. You see a cat walking/running towards you, you *run* -- because it makes sense to do so, even if you've only seen one cat do "bad things", eg a specific behaviour.
Back away from all of that, and one must realise that discrimination doesn't come from understanding averages, or from knowing that stereotypical behavior exists, and is real. No, discimination is when you take that pattern, that typical behaviour and ASSUME that it means the same for all of that identifying feature.
Having breasts doesn't mean you aren't capable of doing well in, say, science -- but it is indeed an indicator of the fact that people with breasts tend to do poorly in science.
So when you try to hire someone? You interview the PERSON. When you speak about someone, you must speak about the INDIVIDUAL. This is what makes for equality. Not "this is typical behaviour", but "DESPITE typical behaviour, this INDIVIDUAL may not match that behaviour".
So when you start saying things like "But maybe only 1 out of 100!", you're actually being prejudice and sexist by doing so. Because sexism/*ism comes when assuming that NO person of group $x does thing $y, because of averages"
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Tuesday October 23 2018, @11:49PM
I think there's a pretty decent chance that there are some women involved in this practice, though most likely for profit. It would be far easier for a female to set up a spycam in a public restroom than a man.