How the guy didn't die of shame after being discovered, we'll never know.
He was just relieved that they assumed he was trying to spy on his female roommates, instead of realizing he was going for the male one.
Fun legal trivia. There are a number of states where this is not illegal. A court order prevents me from saying why I know that--but LizardBreath knows all about it.
2. And I thought that the two of you had only a professional relationship.
re: 3-4
I am immensly flattered (or insulted, I am not sure which), but I am not the photographer in question nor, to spoil the fun, was LizardBreath the subject.
LB was photographing Idealist in the shower?
I've never heard or read a convincing analysis of what makes it so.
It's power. The voyeur can see without being seen, and without being stopped. Put more dramatically, it's a visual sexual assault.
LB was photographing Idealist in the shower?
Not having met me, you have no idea how appalling the notion is.
Geez people, I'm talking about a case we worked on.
you have no idea how appalling the notion is.
Wah, LB is visually sexually assaulting you. Cry me a river.
a case we worked on
And that's totally a euphemism.
I've seen the pictures. Idealist is more or less right.
Wah, LB is visually sexually assaulting you. Cry me a river.
Actually, I was alluding to the fact that I am an unattractice, exceptionally fat old man; I can barely stand to look at myself. I imagine the idea of taking pictures of me in the shower would be fairly appalling to LB, or most anyone else.
This is a joke that I thought was clever but has gone much further downhill than I anticiated was possible. Sorry.
Idealist, you humorless so-and-so, they're just funnin'.
Wouldn't a camera in a bottle with wires sticking out of it be somewhat dangerous in a shower?
they're just funnin'
No, I am now of the considered belief that LB installed a camera in Idealist's shower. LB, you dog.
JM, are you picturing a porcupine? More like a shower-radio.
I think you're beautiful, Idealist.
it's a visual sexual assault
Maybe. But remember the look of shock and awe on Emilio Estevez's face in Stakeout when Madeleine Stowe undressed? That seemed more like ecstatic puppy than visual rapist. (Don't tell me that was fiction, dammit.)
I can't imagine it remaining undiscovered for long. No one tried to use the shampoo?
This is the kind of thing that makes you laugh because it's so pathetic, but actually freaks out the victims more and for longer than you'd expect.
So, ogged, how long did it take your victims to get over it?
So, ogged, how long did it take your victims to get over it?
It's a total coincidence that so many co-bloggers disappear, never to be heard from again.
21: What does a visual rapist look like?
although voyeurism seems to be a pretty universal turn-on, I've never heard or read a convincing analysis of what makes it so.
I think it's because the voyeur isn't at all vulnerable. You have the good (titties! hooray!) without the potentially uncomfortable side effects that usually accompany it. It's like watching very, very realistic porn.
No one tried to use the shampoo?
Maybe it was disguised as a bottle of really crap shampoo.
What does a visual rapist look like?
Like Robin Williams in One-hour Photo, duh.
(Don't...fiction...etc.)
25
a. A giant eyeball
b. An estatic puppy dog
c. LB
d. ALL OF THE ABOVE DON'T EVER SHOWER AGAIN YOU POOR SAPS
because the voyeur isn't at all vulnerable
Really, in one of these stories about some other guy who was caught, I could have sworn some shrink said that the risk of getting caught was part of the thrill.
Email checked!
Heebie, don't shower radios give off a vague aura of menace to you? Especially ones with "wires protruding from the back of the bottle"?
a. A giant eyeball
Poor Ralph Waldo and his transcendent EYEBALL.
Idealist, you humorless so-and-so, they're just funnin'.
I recognize that everyone else was "funnin." I was responding to what I read in 11 as a combination of contempt for me (whiny convervative male troll cries at the thought of being oppressed) and suggesting something that I suspect my former colleague LizardBreath would find pretty disgusting and insulting, notwithstanding quite clearly also being a joke. So yes, I am humorless. This, I think, is not news. Again, l sorry.
Idealist, I tease because I'm insecure. On the outside I may look like a hot young twenty-something, but on the inside I'm a fat old man too.
29: DON'T EVER SHOWER AGAIN YOU POOR SAPS
Woo-hoo, I'm in the clear.
But the answer to the "visual rapist" question is clearly Ralph Fiennes.
Ogged, since you clearly have a theory of your own, why don't you just tell us?
JM, I'm picturing that you have a shower radio souped up to look like a carnival clown's mouth, where the airwaves get hijacked from time to time and speak to you in a low voice about your friends and family? No?
I don't have a theory, which is why I ask, but the theories I've heard, like the ones in the thread, usually make me go, "yeah, kinda, but...."
the risk of getting caught was part of the thrill.
That might be part of the realism of the experience--the risk is part of the thrill, but actually getting caught wouldn't be so exciting. Sort of the opposite of flashers.
I am an unattractice, exceptionally fat old man
Somewhere on the Internet, someone is at this very moment jerking off to pictures and video of a man who looks very much like you. (Maybe it is you, if LB sold off the footage.)
Since we're on the topic of sexual proclivities, I'd like it if someone could explain to me what foot fetishes are all about.
I don't think a theory is really necessary. Do people like to look at porn? Do they like to go to strip clubs and see Live Nude Girls? Well then, why wouldn't they want to see real live nude girls without paying for it?
I'm sure, too, that a big part of it is the power thrill: the idea of spying on someone without their knowledge.
Here's my theory: people like seeing other people naked, particularly those they find attractive, and occasionally those they know wouldn't appreciate being seen naked.
I think it would be freaky to find out that you're being spied on, period. The in-the-shower part would particularly unnerve socially conservative women.
Somehow I got the impression we were explaining why the women freak out, not why the men get off. Ignore 44.
Speaking of eyeballs, RW Emerson had an eye operation when he was quite young, of a sophistication I found startling when I read it described, apparently with no ill effects.
Come on, AS, foot fetishes are easy: feet are often hidden and they're "personal" in the sense of being fairly unique from person to person, and also in the sense that they can't be much altered or beautified, so they're real and human. All that said, as I always say to friends, "feet are dirty in my culture." Blech.
Isn't "Porkies" canonical in this area? Shouldn't we be referencing it?
I don't get the "freaks out the victims more and for longer than you'd expect" bit. I mean, it's someone--in this case, dear god, her *roommate*--spying on her in a place where you're expecting absolute privacy. Especially if they were doing it for a period of time. It would feel astonishingly invasive and scary; the implication is that you're not alone or safe in your own home.
...longer than you'd expect, given that it's also kind of funny...
I wouldn't find it funny if someone had set up a camera in my shower.
Not that that proves anything, of course. I'm sure the rest of you would think it a laugh riot.
It's funny that someone would go to so much trouble, and that the locus of villainy is a shampoo bottle.
37.--Of course I don't have a shower radio! It's electrocution I'm worried about; I've nothing against clowns or even voyeurs, when it comes right down to it.
I'm sure, too, that a big part of it is the power thrill: the idea of spying on someone without their knowledge.
I think this is most of it. Boys probably respond differently to the thrill the risk of getting caught poses; there must always be some thrill at the illicit nature of it.
Much more typical of teenagers, I would think. How old is this guy?
53: Only in the sense that it's ironic that the guy obviously trusted his roommates not to use shampoo that wasn't theirs, while on the other hand....
Hmm... I knew a girl who set up a camera in her shower, and connected it to the internet. Which irritated some people when her boyfriends used it.
...he was using the shampoo with his other hand.
I was thinking more that they were trusting him not to set up cameras in the shower.
he idea of spying on someone without their knowledge
Also known as "voyeurism." Not, however, a great explanation of what motivates voyeurism.
57 - did she at least set up a pay site?
55: Voyeurism is "more typical of teenagers"? You really think so?
Not, however, a great explanation of what motivates voyeurism.
It's probably related to whatever makes it fun to hear gossip. Then with sex thrown in.
25 What does a visual rapist look like?
Eyebaby-maker.
61: Yes! Cameras all over her apartment, too. Brought in $1500 a month or so for a while, but then kind of tapered off. Dunno if it's still up now or not.
Although I'd be even more upset if I paid good money to view some 22-year-old hottie in the shower and then saw some hairy dude's ass instead.
49. 64. My young, unsophisticated self thought that the middle act of Porky's was cinematic perfection. Kim Cattral howling in the locker room, the shower scene and then the propossed interrogation and lineup, all ending with the giacondic smile of Ike himself.
It's probably related to whatever makes it fun to hear gossip
Yeah, I think this is closer to it. I was about to say that a good theory of voyeurism should include something about wanting to know what people's unguarded moments are like--the idea that you're seeing the "real" them--which is why the nudity explanation isn't great, I think. I'm not sure nudity is even required for titillating voyeurism: every illicitly viewed moment is eroticized.
My ex-wife's father was arrested a few years back for setting up a voyeur cam in the bathroom of the office where he worked. (In one of the states mentioned in #2 above -- they went after him because one of the women taped was underage). He'd been estranged from my wife for many years; this whole thing led my shrink to conjecture that our fucked up sex life resulted in some part from her experience of him looking at her, or more likely, forcing himself not to look at her because he knew his gaze wasn't innocent, in her childhood.
I think as a roommate I would be annoyed that someone took up prime shower real estate with a huge bottle of shampoo and ask him to move it pretty quickly. Shower caddies were invented for group homes!
It's them isdirected ingenuity that amuses me the most. That must have been quite some wiring job. So much frustrated creativity in this country. . ..
What I don't get about voyeurism is that people aren't pretty when they don't think they're being watched.
72: Oh yes they are. Also, their breasts are unusually pert and they get into pillow fights much more often.
72: And just how would you know that?
72: That's probably part of the point.
hello, power?
Yeah, but "power" is a really vague explanation. When could say that rape, voyeurism, and sliding notes under a stranger's door are all about "power" but that doesn't really get us anywhere.
it does remind me that although voyeurism seems to be a pretty universal turn-on, I've never heard or read a convincing analysis of what makes it so
This has sort of been covered, but I want to play the Theories For Ogged game: voyeurism, like strip clubs, allow the viewer to experience someone else intimately without having to offer up anything themselves.
As for what they don't want to (or can't) give up in return for real intimacy, who knows. Sometimes you need that burning misogyny to get you through the night. Sometimes she ain't buyin' what you're sellin'. Maybe a little (lot) of both.
This would be the first time I've said this aloud, as it were, but B. is getting it right, I think.
Then again, I've never seen the appeal of voyeurism, so the voyeurs might speak for themselves.
In some sense, it's about neediness. When you're super-needy, the person that you want to satisfy your needs ceases to be a full, complex person. They're just an object who happens to have the power to withhold. So you can rationalize outsmarting their withholding.
Like sneaking cookies from the cookie jar, because you see the other person as a jar-obstacle to your cookies.
78: Well, you're not offering anything.
I'm not entirely sure the visual-rapists and the asymmetrical intimacy theories have voyeurism quite right. While I've never spied on a stranger, I do like to watch my significant other doing some task, tuning everybody and everything else out. Every gesture becomes somehow sweeter and defter by virtue of its being unself-conscious.
83: Seeing somebody you care about in an unguarded moment deepens your connection to them, because you learn so much more about somebody when they are their private selves. The twist with voyeurism is there's nothing mutual about it.
Is that the same theory, or did I just switch theories mid-stream? Shouldn't do that.
Eh, I think that the unguarded moments between intimates thing is at least partly about a sense of trust, whereas vouyerism is surely in part about a violation of trust, or at least of confidence (in both senses).
Power isn't the right relation to describe voyeurism. Part of the enjoyment derived from power would seem to require that the person knew about it and was helpless to prevent it. So that doesn't seem to me to be the right model.
Rather, it's equal parts the thrill of seeing someone naked, the thrill of doing something naughty, and -what I think replaces the idea of power --the thrill of having privileged access to the person when they're most themselves, when they're not self-conscious.
I think that's the same theory, Sifu. I'd just imagine that the voyeur convinces him or herself that there's an intimate connection with or a deep and personal appreciation of the voyé(e). I'd reckon the emotions involved could be categorised under the fetishism class of preversion.
Also, I think foot fetishes are really shoe fetishes.
As with everything else, I suspect different voyeurs have different motivations.
86: Why does power require the person over whom one has it to be aware of it? I can easily imagine someone getting off on the idea that they're watching someone who doesn't know it and can't do anything about it.
Moral of the story: never trust communal shampoo. Watch your fat naked self if you work with LB.
Why do all of the naked stories center around LB?
I'll bite. A couple of (somewhat) less damning ideas about what makes voyeurism titillating:
1) We look from a distance at things we can't actually have. Vanilla porn, for instance, gives us anonymous, convenient gratification with really hot strangers who have gigantic titties/peckers, something we can't generally get. Kinky porn gives us gratification of specific sexual desires that may be hard to get with a partner at hand who was chosen for other reasons. Etc. So maybe voyeurs, whether teenaged boys or middle-aged deviants, like looking at naked ladies in the shower because they haven't got and can't readily get any naked ladies of their own. In other words, 81. Sorta.
2) For people with a real voyeurism fetish, maybe it's about using that looking-at-what-you-can't-have thing to enhance sexual tension, a la, you look and look and look, and you can't have, can't have, can't have, and then finally you run away and beat off, yay. Kind of like a variation on hornily watching your sweetie undress without jumping on him/her immediately.
3) Maybe it's simply verisimilitude that's the turn-on. Some people think cute real people are hotter than cute porn people just by virtue of being real. I am told there's a whole segment of porn that specializes in non-porny-looking models. How much better to have them real and live and moving around in the next room to make the untouchable objects of your lust more realistic. I mean, they have sex dolls made to be more realistic, right?
Are blog lurkers the equilivent to shower voyeurs?
93: Clearly so. All exerting their power over the commenters and such.
Hmm... I knew a girl who set up a camera in her shower, and connected it to the internet.
Anybody remember JenniCam?
92: The problem I have with the less damning theories is that they require one to overlook the fact that the person being watched hasn't consented, and likely wouldn't consent.
I mean, sex feels great; but you can't explain rape by saying that a rapist wants to have sex but can't, or whatever. The fact of the victim's lack of consent is an important one; I don't think anyone who isn't actually turned on by that lack of consent would really find vouyerism exciting.
I don't think anyone who isn't actually turned on by that lack of consent would really find vouyerism exciting.
What if they imagine the person would consent?
How is that different from a rape or rape fantasy where you imagine that the bitch really wants it?
I don't think anyone who isn't actually turned on by that lack of consent would really find vouyerism exciting
I think that's too blanket of a statement.
Except that there seem to be a lot of voyeuristic situations where the voyé(e) has already consented. A lot of the early, arty webcam set-ups and reality shows inhabited the space between voyeurism and exhibitionism, where the setup was consentual but the lives being lived weren't (yet) usually conscious and spectacular.
90: Mostly because I've been reading too much Nietzsche, but I think enjoying the power itself (as opposed to the results of it) requires some acknowledgement from the person being dominated. I'm not really all that wedded to this theory, it just seemed to me that voyeurism seemed to be different from stalking and that was one way of cashing out the difference.
I don't think anyone who isn't actually turned on by that lack of consent would really find vouyerism exciting
I don't think that's right. If it's true that part of the thrill of voyeurism is to see someone in a genuinely unguarded moment, then the thrilling not-knowing isn't the same as a thrilling not-consenting.
Really? I can't imagine being able to just ignore the fact that I was spying on someone. I *can* imagine being turned on by knowing I was spying on someone, but not recognizing that that's what's happening and either being bothered or excited by it? No.
I'm not talking here about the accidental omg-I-can-see-my-neighbor-in-the-shower! kind of thing, where I think part of what's exciting about it is the shock of it, so that the forbidden part *is* central to the fact that it's a big deal--and where I think after the shock wore off, it would be either boring or bothersome. I'm talking about people who actively seek out opportunities to spy on others.
96: Right, but the rationalization is simple - what they don't know won't hurt them. I'm not arguing that voyeuristic acts are a-okay, just that their motivation isn't necessarily sinister; the harm may be one of negligence rather than malevolence.
I really don't think that being turned on by a lack of consent is always and everywhere what makes voyeurism exciting; the importance of consent may simply be ignored or forgotten in the face of the other titillating aspects of looking at people naked or unguarded, or cast aside where the desire is great but obtaining consent impossible/unlikely.
What about webcam people who both imply consent and create a spectacle for voyeurs by putting the camera in their shower? Does the consent make the spectacle unsatisfying for the voyeurs?
101: I'd say that that's a staged performance of vouyerism, not the real thing.
the importance of consent may simply be ignored or forgotten in the face of the other titillating aspects of looking at people naked or unguarded, or cast aside where the desire is great but obtaining consent impossible/unlikely.
I see what you're saying, and Ogged too with the distinction between not-knowing and not-consenting. But I would think that it would be impossible to ignore or forget for long that the other person would be upset if they found out, and that that feeling would offset the pleasure of watching--unless it actually was part of the pleasure.
Maybe there's a distinction between accidental vouyerism and vouyerism as actual fetish or active interest, but I just can't really believe that someone could find X situation hot knowing that the other person in the situation would be horrified.
B, are you talking about voyeurism as fantasy or as real-life action? Because I think the distinction is important.
I just can't really believe
Try harder. If you could steal from somebody's IRA, say, without their knowing about it, the theft doesn't lose its appeal by their not knowing.
109: Real life action. If it's a fantasy, obviously there's no other party who isn't consenting, right? So the fact of that ignorance or non-consent wouldn't bother one.
I'm perfectly willing to accept that, just like rape fantasies, vouyerism as practice or fantasy is common as mud: sex *is* inflected with power a lot of the time. I'm just saying I think anyone who didn't think one way or the other about the other person's consent or lack thereof would be sociopathic.
Or, in a less inflammatory phrase, I think it would be impossible for a normal person not to have the other person's consent or lack thereof matter, one way or another.
"I would think that it would be impossible to ignore or forget for long that the other person would be upset if they found out, and that that feeling would offset the pleasure of watching"
This would imply that voyeurism is a qualitatively different phenomenon than what Jackmormon describes, which I don't think is necessarily the case. Catching someone in an unguarded, personal moment is a thrill whether or not that person would mind you doing it.
On the other hand, yeah, if you act as a voyeur with full awareness that consent has not been offered, that's a wholly different thrill, albeit a complementary one if you're a pervy asshole.
Thinking about consent can be part of it without being intrinsic to the thrill; it might be the guilty part that the voyeur tries to ignore. Then again, it might be part of the thrill. See apo's different strokes comment above.
110: What you want in that case is the *money*, which isn't a sentient being.
116: That's assuming the voyeur thinks of his target as a sentient being; seems iffy to me.
What the voyeur wants is the sight of a person, not the actual person.
I think, B, that you're trying very hard to fit a complicated and varied phenomenon into a nice, neat matrix of power relationships and it just isn't that simple.
117: If not, then the rape comparison is perfectly alid.
118: Problem is that the sight of a person involves a person. Why would the vouyer not be satisfied with, say, porn, or watching people on the street, if that were all there were to it? Surely part of the difference between vouyerism and sitting in a sidewalk cafe is *precisely* the fact that the vouyer him/herself is hidden.
Problem is that the sight of a person involves a person.
So does stealing from a person.
Why would the vouyer not be satisfied with [...] watching people on the street
Are you asking this seriously? Also, e-u-r.
Apparently, voyeurs and exhibitionists sometimes work out a pretense that the E "doesn't know" that the V is watching, which is apparently satisfying to all involved. [Example: People who undress/have sex in front of uncurtained windows facing the street or the house next door.]
The psych explanation for voyeurs is that they became fixated on the practice through some childhood experience; that what appeals is not power, but danger - the possibility of getting caught being "naughty". [Imagine a boy walking in on mommy in her undies, only to be thrown over her half-naked lap and paddled, bringing on his first orgasm...]
Re: Foot fetishists - it is the feet, not the shoes. Shoe fetishists are something else entirely [check out eBay for "well-worn shoes"]. I highly recommend having a pet foot fetishist if you have to walk long distances at work or are dragged around a conference hotel by a friend who believes that there is a better party somewhere else.
Surely part of the difference between vouyerism and sitting in a sidewalk cafe is *precisely* the fact that the vouyer him/herself is hidden.
I think the difference isn't actually as great as you're implying, at least from the voyeur's point of view.
122: Come on, this is silly. Money and moveable goods are, by definition, transferable.
And yes, I am asking seriously. If the thrill really obtains only from watching people in unguarded moments, then why wouldn't one simply enjoy, say, watching one's neighbor mowing the back lawn across the fence? And if the neighbor looks up and notices you, they wave and say hi. No big deal. Why would it be more thrilling to watch what the neighbor is doing in his living room with the curtains drawn if not because in his living room, the neighbor implicitly expects *not to be watched*.
Surely part of the difference between vouyerism and sitting in a sidewalk cafe is *precisely* the fact that the vouyer him/herself is hidden
Only insofar as being hidden allows the voyeur to avoid bringing anything to the "interaction" - a friendly glance, a not wholly repellent aspect.
I think the rape comparison fails for other reasons, e.g. 86.
And yes, I am asking seriously.
The difference is the clothing, naturally.
Why would it be more thrilling to watch what the neighbor is doing in his living room with the curtains drawn if not because in his living room, the neighbor implicitly expects *not to be watched*.
Because he's likely to be doing more interesting things in his living room, for a variety of reasons not all of them involving an expectation of privacy. But I think the main point is what ogged said in 115, at least for some people: consent is an issue, but only insofar as it causes guilt which the voyeur tries to ignore.
I mean that knowledge of the lack of consent causes guilt, not consent itself, obviously.
127: I thought the argument was that voyeurism didn't necessarily have to involve nudity.
I think the problem here is obviously that we lack a definition of voyeurism--which is why upthread I tried to distinguish between accidentally catching one's neighbor naked in a window and being what to my mind would constitute "a voyeur." I suspect most of you think of the two as being along a continuum; if so, I think that's a mistake.
And on that note, I am going out to dinner.
I kind of like watching people move the lawn. Back and forth! Oops, the engine died. How are you going to deal with that, eh? Are you mad or patient when you think nobody's watching? Hey! you cheated on that corner!
I bet it's more fun to watch a hott person mowing the lawn than, say, my mother.
Except for this last bit:
likely to be doing more interesting things in his living room,
Really? Like what? Sitting and watching tv? Clipping his nails? Reading a book? Websurfing? None of these are great spectator sports.
Come on, this is silly.
Yes, but not for the reason you think. The basic argument so far is that you have said "voyeurism is X." I have said "voyeurism is many things to different people, including X."
120: I don't get the distinction you draw between the case of voyeurism and stealing money. Say I had a bunch of money I was never going to spend. Someone steals it, I don't notice, I die in the end never knowing. No *actual* harm done to me. Somebody peeps at me in the shower, I don't notice, I die in the end never knowing. No actual harm done to me. In both cases, I'd feel violated *if I found out*, but if I don't, no actual harm is done to me. In one case, the crook wants my money, in the other, he wants my naked self in his brain. In both cases, I am harmed only so far as his getting what he wants deprives me of something I want.
Surely part of the difference between vouyerism and sitting in a sidewalk cafe is *precisely* the fact that the vouyer him/herself is hidden.
It is, but that doesn't mean that consent is the critical difference. What you get when hidden is an object of observation that behaves differently than when you're not hidden. Consent is only one of the differing behaviors you might care about.
I thought the argument was that voyeurism didn't necessarily have to involve nudity.
I don't remember this argument being made.
I suspect most of you think of the two as being along a continuum
I would certainly say they're along a continuum which also includes things like sneaking a peak at someone's cleavage. Not sure where each falls, though.
What you get when hidden is an object of observation that behaves differently than when you're not hidden.
This is basically what I meant by "doing more interesting things" upthread.
I don't remember this argument being made.
I made it, somewhere up there.
130: of course there's a difference between an accident and intentional behavior. But if you accidentally catch your neighbor naked, and kinda dig it, then it's of the same species as seeking out unknowing subjects for observation - because you kinda dig it.
I don't agree at all that voyeurism is necessarily about sex and so the peep-ee has to be naked. It's about watching people without having their behavior change as a result. Sex is just a special, and always compelling, case.
What I don't get about voyeurism is that people aren't pretty when they don't think they're being watched.
Yeah, all that talk about unguarded moments and stuff is crap. (The italicized bit is a joke, right?)
Like what? Sitting and watching tv? Clipping his nails? Reading a book? Websurfing?
Clearly somebody doesn't remember Jennicam.
9. I once met an olfactory sexual assailant.
--How did he smell?
-Terrible!
Sigh. That could have been so funny.
I don't agree at all that voyeurism is necessarily about sex and so the peep-ee has to be naked.
Strong work being done by that hyphen.
The best thing about the case Ideal is talking about (and we're sworn to secrecy, but what I'm going to say won't tip anyone off) is that the dirtbag voyeur is really famous. The sort of famous where no one particularly cares about the guy, but you've all heard of him. And the thought of him looking at you through a two-way mirror is really unpleasant.
I feel kind of bad that Idealist thought I was being so mean to him. I feel like apologizing.
I probably shouldn't even guess. Ignore that!
Somebody peeps at me in the shower, I don't notice, I die in the end never knowing. No actual harm done to me.
Surely the Bush Administration will adopt this argument in their next brief on warrantless surveillance.
I'm surprised no one has made the connection between voyeurism-as-power and exhibitionism-as-power. They're really two aspects of the same thing. When some guy exposes himself to an unwilling woman walking down the street, he's surely getting off on the transgression of that woman's ability to control whether or not he gets naked in front of her. Similarly, the voyeur is violating the woman's ability to control whether she is seen, in that case whether naked or not.
Ogged, it sounds like you want a more complex explanation, but it really just comes down to: Power is hot. People can roleplay power games in a consensual, healthy way, so it makes the use of power ethical, but it's still about one party getting the feeling of power (and usually another party getting a feeling of powerlessness, which is hot for them.)
152: Seems like exhibitionism works the other way too; for instance, a woman going out in a skirt and no underwear, thrilled by the idea of others geeting peeps at her. (I think the same would apply to men, but there's no similar style of clothing that would work. Oh, remember that judge that made a habit of jerking off under his robe?) It's about being powerless to stop others getting a peep, rather than forcing them to.
The problem with thinking of voyeurism as necessarily requiring power, or the absence of consent on the part of the voyée is the phenomenon of permissive voyeurism. Webcams, that sort of thing. It can't be the powerlesssness alone that's hot; no doubt it is in some cases, but I don't think it's intrinsic to peeping.
I'd think that, at least sometimes, the voyeur is motivated by a pure desire to see a *particular* person naked, that they can't fulfill using other means. In this case, having to violate the other's trust would be a negative, and could interefere with their enjoyment. But if their desire is strong enough, they will still plant the camera or whatever.
Do you think this works, B?
Surely the Bush Administration will adopt this argument in their next brief on warrantless surveillance.
If the NSA were just tapping peoples phones so they could listen while beating off, I wouldn't find it nearly so alarming.
While I agree that power is hot, I'm also in firm solidarity with that portion of this thread that's been arguing against the "it really just comes down to" part of your assertion.
I'm also in firm solidarity with that portion of this thread that's been arguing against the "it really just comes down to" part of your assertion.
Maybe I am being too reductionist. But I think it's more likely that people don't want to cop to the power thing, for a variety of reasons.
159: Substitute "have sex with a *particular* person" for "see a *particular* person naked" and "rape the person" for "plant the camera". I know, I know, they're not exact equivalents if the voyee is unaware and remains unaware. But I just can't agree that the voyeur who does so is actually bothered by violating the person's privacy, just as I can't believe someone would rape someone while being bothered by the fact that it was rape.
I don't believe anybody is denying that the power attraction exists. Just that it won't explain all of the cases.
155 seems oddly exculpatory to me. X is just *so* attracted to Y that . . . X wants to plant a camera in Y's bathroom??? That's a little too close to "I stalk because I love" for me.
I'm with bitchphd and mithras. the fact that there are consensual voyeuristic situations/pornographic representations is just like the fact that there are people who consensually role-play rape fantasies, or that there is rape porn. it would be idiotic to say about the latter things, 'oh look, he's getting turned on even though the actress in the porno isn't being violated against her will. it must, in some important sense, not be about violation.' especially when you're spying on someone you know, and you know very well they would be horrified. whether that's about power in an adult, 'I'm doing this to her and she can't stop me' way or, as DE suggests, in a naughty, childish 'even from my subservient position I can exercise this power; they can't deny me even though I and they know it's wrong' seems a bit beside the point.
160: I would say that, in the rape case, people do exist who would get over their guilt for committing rape because of an overwhelming desire to have sex with a particular person, and that such rape would have a different quality to it. This might be more common with intramarital rape. In Gone With the Wind, Rhett forces himself on Scarlett at one point, and that would be an example of that sort of rape.
Of course, people have to have even less self-control to be able to commit that sort of rape than they do to commit that sort of voyeurism, so we'd that sort of voyeurism would be more common than that sort of rape. (Rhett is presumed to have enough self control, and just overwhelmed by Scarlett's beauty, but I think that's misogynistic presentation by the author.)
149: I love being given absolutely no clues and making a guess anyway. I'm going to assume that it's Morton Kondracke.
162: The only thing I'm trying to say is that in these cases the power aspects aren't being sought out by the perpetrators.
To be clear, I'm totally convinced that there's some power play here, but, as people have said, that doesn't seem to explain all that's distinctive about voyeurism.
167: You're just playing favorites now. Not that I blame you. But still.
Usually, before having sex, and during sex, one sees a naked body. Ergo, naked bodies cause people to think about sex, and blood rushes to the privates. There's something about this in Clueless.
164: Huh . . . ? Rhett's being "overcome" by Scarlett's beauty so that he rapes her is misogynistic, but the argument that "an overwhelming desire to have sex with a particular person" might cause someone to rape them, absent some fucked-up power fetish, is not?
This one:
"Sometimes you have to show a little skin. This reminds boys of being naked, and then they think of sex."
170: Are you really going to make me say that I'm not trying to make excuses for people that do these things? Of course they're both misogynistic. (Or, at least, antisocial and wrong. Not all rapists are misogynists; some are sociopaths.) I wasn't trying to compare the misogyny, just making a little aside about my thoughts about the novel.
There's also a power thing going on, if you know the naked person wouldn't want you to see him or her naked. But not if not. Thread over.
172: Misogyny = power issues. At least in part.
163: But that doesn't explain either Jackmormon's pleasure at watching her S.O. privately engaged in some activity, nor does it explain why otherwise non-shithead folk are titillated by accidental voyeurism, at least until the consent issues gain cognitive focus. I think the power aspect is there, in the case of e.g. Mr. Porky's Jr. discussed by ogged, but I don't think it's the whole story.
176: Why can't non-shitheads be titillated by a sense of power?
170,175: You persist in insisting that the person doing the sexual assault (whether voyerism or rape) is necessarily pursuing the power aspect of it. This amounts to saying that no assailant that finds the power aspect of the assault to be a negative part of it will actually commit the assault. But the power isn't the only draw. If a person has little enough empathy for others and a strong enough desire to rape/peep, then the power aspect doesn't matter.
I think, for sexual assailants, you can pick any two of lack of empathy, strong libido, power fetish.
But that doesn't explain either Jackmormon's pleasure at watching her S.O. privately engaged in some activity
I don't think that's voyeurism so much as love. It doesn't sound genital so much as emotional.
nor does it explain why otherwise non-shithead folk are titillated by accidental voyeurism
There's the problem: People equate finding power hot with being a shithead. That's just incorrect. Unethical, harmful uses of power make one a shithead.
176: contextually, of course they can. Being titillated by the power conferred by the absence of consent is a different story, I'd think.
178: not on it.
181 cont.: But that's not to say that those three are the whole story.
er, to clarify 183, the ACTUAL absence of consent, as opposed to the fantasy of the absence of consent.
181: I am not saying that power is the only possible draw. I am saying that power is a necessary part; if one didn't find the power issue exciting, one would be grossed out by the idea of raping someone, or of spying on them.
183: I think the only difference is the person who likes power but doesn't abuse it has more empathy. Consensual BDSM sadist – empathy = potential rapist. Or something like that.
186: yup.
187: seems like a valid point. Which of course brings up Coprophiliac - Empathy = ???
186: And I'm saying that people without enough empathy won't be grossed out by the acts even if they aren't actively attracted by the power aspects. And empathy levels go all over the spectrum. There's not just two groups of sociopaths and others. Low empathy levels for outgroup members is part of xenophobia, and is part of what enables rape in warfare.
I'm beginning to lose track of what, exactly, we're arguing about here. I *think* that:
B, Mithras, and Alameida (whose comment I do not actually understand, but I'll take her at her word) are arguing that what's essential to the appeal of voyeurism is the exercise of power inherent in acting without consent.
I, Ogged, Apo, and... uh... some other other people (it's getting late. please don't make be go back through the whole thread) are arguing that while this exercise of power is one appeal of voyeurism, it is not essential, and a number of other factors may contribute.
Teo and I are arguing that what may be essential in some instances is the observation of behavior that's not influenced by social interaction, which always applies when the observed is conscious of the observation. But, denial of consent is only one of many possible behaviors that the hidden observer may be trying to obviate by being hidden. Additionally, I would argue that this appeal IS essential to case 3 in 92 (voyeurism as a form of hyperrealistic pornography).
If that's all correct, then, uh... I'm right.
Great, then, all settled. I'm going to bed.
PS. I'm not down with the casual equation of voyeurism and rape that keeps coming up.
A new housemate just replied to my "omg that's creepy!" massmail by jokingly promising to move his camera asap; I am struck by the realization that I must have been subconsciously lusting after him all this time b/c I am weirdly pleased by his message. He's mindboggling cute if waaaaay too young for me.
I think people don't realize just how important it is to believe (sometimes falsely) that people are not looking at you until suddenly you become aware that everyone *is* looking at you, all the time. This has always been one of the things that has hit me when I've been living in Zimbabwe over a long period of time. When I've done that, I've been living in a sizeable city, not a small village. If it were a village, eventually everyone would get used to the murungu (white guy) and stop looking. In the city, though, you're always someone to look at.
Not with hostility, mind you: just with curiosity. But the upshot is that you become intensely aware that if you pick your nose or go a Blair toilet (kind of like a cross between a huge termite mound and an outhouse) in a rural area, about 45 people are going to be watching with interest. After a while, that awareness always makes me feel very weary and a little anxious somehow, as if I'd been on a stage every time I'd been out in public. I like to think this is vaguely like what a person of color in an all-white community feels, or what women often routinely experience. But if somehow you've been able to not think, "Everyone's watching me" and then suddenly you have to think, "People ARE watching me", that could really have long-term consequences, especially if it's something like "through a shampoo-cam in the shower". Goes way beyond, "Well, that's a little creepy".
LB says Tim Burke doesn't wash behind his ears.
I say he makes a good point. I think this is one of the reasons that celebrities slowly go crazy: having everyone watch you wherever you go can really fuck with your sense of self.
Once, while I was living in Samoa, I hiked for about 45 minutes across a lava field (no vegetation, broken, crumbling surface) to sit by the water and play harmonica by myself (very badly. I don't actually play the harmonica, but I can fake a couple of bars of something that sounds bluesish.) Two minutes after I started playing, there were a dozen kids who appeared out of nowhere to watch me.
Samoa was particularly intense, though -- not only were palagi weird and interesting, but it's a no-privacy at all culture for everyone. If you hang curtains to cover the floor to ceiling windows in your bedroom, you're a social deviant -- what are you doing in there that you wouldn't want everyone to see?
Many years ago my two female roommates and I lived across the lawn from an exhibitionist in the next apartment building. He lived there with two of his frat brothers and he was just smokin' hott. We learned of his nature when the three of us were sitting out on the porch and all glanced over at him - just the natural reaction to motion in one's peripheral vision - when he moved into view in his bedroom window. A glance was more than enough to notice that he was, well, presenting and eventually our pervy natures took over when it became obvious - from quick glances - that he was waiting around for someone to notice. Eventually one of my roommates said, "My mom got me binoculars for Christmas!" and then she shot back inside and emerged momentarily. He made it apparent to us that he liked the attention. That was an odd Spring. Eventually he'd throw open his window and chat with us. I was surprised to learn that this was how voyeurism worked until I realized it was exhibitionism. Once, when walking from the parking lot, I caught sight of him and the aspiring bassist from the apartment upstairs standing in their respective windows staring at one another while the bassist wore only said instrument. It was all very fascinating and by "fascinating" I mean "wicked hott."
By the summer he'd gotten a new girlfriend and stopped putting on shows. My roommates were actually much more disappointed than I was. The one with the binoculars took to leaving them out on the coffee table in our living room (visible from his bedroom via our sliding glass door) in hopes they'd get him in the mood for a show. Finally, right before moving out, I saw him in the parking lot. It was the only time I'd ever interacted with him when he wasn't in his window and his girlfriend was standing there. He recognized me, of course, and smiled and waved. I cocked a finger at him, pistol style, and said, "Hey man, haven't seen much of you lately!" He blushed a deep crimson and I felt guilty almost immediately. Still, it was funny.
I once dated a girl who was quite keen on undressing with her curtains open. It wasn't blatant but there was definitely an element there that didn't find the notion that others might catch a glimpse unwelcoming.
It's my experience that that's not entirely uncommon (none of which justifies sneaky voyeuristic pervs, obviously).
This place needs a psychologist amongst its regular commenters.
Whenever topics like this come up people start making very broad pronouncements about how simply some very complex behavioral phenomenon can be explained.
There's typically actual data on these things, and though the full answer usually isn't clear, there's at least enough known to rule out the really simple answers.
This seems to be the best place to note that Larry 'Bud' Melman died yesterday.
I cocked a finger at him, pistol style, and said, "Hey man, haven't seen much of you lately!"
So great.
I can't believe how insensitive you are. The man had friends and family.
Actually, he didn't.
At his request, there will be no funeral service for DeForest, who left no survivors.
Now let's talk about panties.
200: He was a serious man deserving of the respect of this thread.
I always enjoyed his role. Seemed like a good guy.
This seems to be the best place to note that Larry 'Bud' Melman died yesterday.
I didn't see that. Wasn't his name Forrester?
Is it true he was wearing them when he died?
there's at least enough known to rule out the really simple answers which takes all the fun out of bonsai-ing data to make it fit into a pot that doesn't clash with one's interior decorating scheme.
201: Man, I'm not big on funerals and wakes and stuff, but that just sounds so sad.
I loved his Letterman bits.
Crap, now he's generated more "genuine" posts than that other lady. We're all in big trouble.
192: A visiting professor from Brazil once told me that it bugged him the way everyone (in Portland OR) was always looking at everyone else. Sort of the critical gaze from everyone all the time. I got the feeling that in Brazil people go about their lives and sometimes put on their own little shows, and that you don't have crowds made up of detached observers looking at each other. (I've also read that in Holland and Germany you often find people just looking at you that way).
My brother used to know lots of strippers and said that while the money was the big thing, and gold-digging was part of it, and rebellion was sometimes part of it, a lot of them just liked attention and enjoyed being looked at.
Note that DeForest was not murdered. No friends + no family = safety.
This place needs a psychologist amongst its regular commenters.
Hey, I kind of qualify. A little.
And yeah, there is sometimes a lot of blind hypothesizing here where constraining data is available. But blind hypothesizing is good fun. I don't get to do it at work.
208: Interesting, this is in direct conflict with what I've heard about Brazil. Very appearance-oriented, judging gazes all over the place. I've been told. Never been there, though.
direct conflict with what I've heard about Brazil
Yeah, ditto. Maybe another of Emerson's inventions. Or his friends are crazier than he is.
His friend may have been the only person in Brazil whom nobody had any interest in looking at. But in Portland the bar is set lower.
The thread goes from talking about Bud to discussing a Brazilian? Such disrespect.
The guy was homely. But what I think he was saying was that people there were so busy trying to get people to look at themselves that they didn't look at anyone else, whereas in Portland everyone was sitting trying to be invisible and examining everyone else (possibly looking for someone less boring than themself).
210: I didn't want to rain on the parade of blind hypothesizing, which is indeed fun.
But sometimes people come across as trying to speak from authority based on more "humanities"-ish ideas on human behavior, and those can grate a little on anyone who's more data oriented.
Someone should have mentioned Goffman and Presentation of Self
ShampooCam is the inverse converse reverse obverse other side of the common dream where one is engaged in a public performance (lecture, speech, etc) and discovers one is naked; doing something naked (showering) only to discover that one is engaged in a public performance. Boundary issues, and all that.
I'm pretty sure "Very Special Shampoo" was an episode of Blossom.
But sometimes people come across as trying to speak from authority based on more "humanities"-ish ideas on human behavior,
You know, it's a little-known fact that even in the dreaded Humanities, the discourse isn't just about a bunch of people sitting around chewing the fat in a data-free environment. Really.
216: Agreed. Nice to find I'm not the only one grated.
re: 216 and 220
It does, of course, cut both ways.
[And is there some kind of assumption involved that the 'humanities' don't have any kind of authority when it comes to human behaviour ...?]
I knew that would happen.
I don't dread the Humanities, or put scarequotes around the word, because I think they have quite a lot of authority on the subject of human behavior, and because before I was a scientist my own background was in the Humanities.
What's grating is simply that these conversations often proceed as if the notion that there may be data on the subject has been completely forgotten, and the argument-from-humanities may be voiced with an authority not justified in light of conflicting data which has not entered the conversation. Also grating is simply that I personally am more comfortable starting out my wild speculating from an anchorpoint of some empirical finding or other. So what I'm complaining about is a discomfort with the flavor of the conversation more than a grievance with other commenters.
And as long as we're on the subject, what's ALSO grating is when the science-types I'm surrounded by dismiss the insights of not only the Humanities but even "softer" sciences like psychology, which happens with teeth-grinding frequency where I presently work.
re: 222
Yeah, I agree with all of that, tbh.
For what it's worth, I've sat through more than a few talks by philosophers who really should know better than to confidently put forward some view or other without checking the basic science first -- colour perception seems a particular favourite for this one. Stuff surrounding medicine and biology also tends to be bad for this. Actual philosophers of biology really tend to know their shit, but people from other areas whose work impinges on the biological sciences often ... don't so much.
But, I've also seen scientists confidently discussing some 'new' theory or other where the 'new' theory is a standard position in the philosophical literature on that topic and has been since the 13th century and then they proceed to iterate through a bunch of hackneyed undergraduate level arguments on the topic.
scientists confidently discussing some 'new' theory
listening to bench scientists discuss theoretical or "big-picture" issues when they haven't done their homework can be excruciating. I moved from a psychology dept to a neuroscience dept, and what the neuro people don't know about behavior, and the psych people don't know about basic brain science, can be appalling.
Also painful is listening to learning/behavioral neuroscientists behave as if they've discovered something groundbreaking, when the basic finding was present in 50 yr old animal learning studies, just without a protein or gene or whatever attached.
The trick is always remembering that you may know stuff other people don't know, but other people know stuff that you don't know.
Statistical physics, of course, has the answer to everything.
189: Okay, this makes sense. Personally, I'd rather cop to being turned on by a sense of power than to lacking a sense of empathy. But now that I understand what you're saying, I'll concede that someone might not be turned on by the power thing; they just might not give a shit about the fact that the other person doesn't know what's going on.
To me, thinking more as probable spied-on than as spy-er (b/c voyeurism really does creep me out),* I'd actually more bothered by the idea that someone would be indifferent to the fact that I'm a person than by the idea that someone would find my personhood (and consequentially lack of consent) a turnon.
*Also because, a little like the girl in 196, I just do not care if the curtains are open. I like natural light, and Mr. B. never opens them in the morning if they're closed the night before because he's a lazy sod. I'm not an exhibitionist, though; just in touch with my inner hippie.
No, to a certain extent, you're an exhibitionist by definition. You prefer to experience sunlight than privacy.
Nah, there's a huge psychological difference between "I don't care who sees me" and "I get a kick out of being observed." The former makes you a hippie, the latter somewhere on the spectrum of exhibitionism.
(Where 'hippie' is a word meaning pretty much nothing.)
No, I think that being an "exhibitionist" means you have to actually derive sexual gratification from the thing.
Okay, I didn't think "exhibitionist" necessarily implied anything sexual, but I guess it does.
225: But are they presenting the behavioral phenomenon as novel, or its linkage with a particular protein? In my experience, behavioral neuroscientists don't try to sell, say, the learning of associations through classical conditioning as something new; their goal is to uncover the biology behind CC. I clearly haven't been to the same seminars as you, so maybe your talking about something more stupid, but I've long felt that psych and neuro shouldn't be viewed as competing because their goals are often so different: laws of behavior vs. biological substrates of those laws.
Now, those people who act like studying one protein at a time will be enough to build a complete model of the biology of learning, they get on my nerves. But IME, most people know the limits of what they are doing.
228: Bitch, we all know you are turned on by a sense of power.
But really, this is something everyone should cop to. I'm not even sure there is anything intrinsically wrong with the desire for power, even power *over* other people. The problems come up with how the desire is expressed.
The data I found in a quick search:
Grant, J. E. (2005). Clinical characteristics and psychiatric comorbidity in males with exhibitionism. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 66(11), 1367-1371.
Background: This study was constructed to detail the demographic and phenomenological features of males with exhibitionism. Method: Male subjects with DSM-IV exhibitionism were administered a semistructured interview to elicit demographic data and information on the phenomenology, age at onset, and associated features of the disorder. Subjects also underwent structured clinical interviews to assess both Axis I and Axis II comorbidities. Data were collected from September 2003 to March 2005. Results: Twenty-five males with exhibitionism (mean ± SD age = 35.0 ± 13.1 years [range, 14-68 years]) were studied. The majority of subjects were single (60% [N = 15]) and heterosexual (80% [N = 20]). The mean ± SD age at onset for exhibitionism was 23.4 ± 13.1 years. All subjects reported urges to expose themselves with little control over these urges. Exposing oneself while driving was the most common expression of the disorder. Twenty-three (92%) suffered from a current comorbid Axis I disorder (major depressive disorder, compulsive sexual behavior, and substance use disorders were most common), and 40% (N = 10) suffered from a personality disorder. Suicidal thoughts were common (52% [N = 13]), and many (36% [N = 9]) had been arrested for exhibitionism. Conclusion: Exhibitionism appears to be associated with high rates of psychiatric comorbidity and impairment. Research is needed to optimize patient care for men with this disorder. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved) (journal abstract)
So it's not very illuminating.
Interestingly, though, boredom is the reason for exposing themselves most commonly given by their subjects (44% of responses).
228: When do you become a Suicide Matron?
Shh, John, I think they're under the impression that I fit their 20-35 demographic.
235: It's the linkage with the protein that's the new finding, but the behavior that gives it the sex appeal required to get into a top journal. And simply knowing that gene x is upregulated when rats do behavior y is not necessarily very useful information - nice to check off one more fact-box maybe, but not very revealing. It's kind of like the endless parade of fmri studies in recent years, where brain region x "lights up" [cringe] when subjects see pictures of y. Great: so what? Does it tell you anything new about how thinking works? About how nervous tissue works? No? Then could you try harder to justify the 5 millions dollars we spent on that fucking magnet? Etc.
I don't think psych and neuro are competing; the problem is that they're often proceeding in parallel without being aware of what's going on in the other camp, when there should be a lot more collaboration between the fields and more overlap in the training. If you want to understand the biological basis of behavior, you have to know something about the behavior. If you want to know the rules of behavior, it helps to understand the biology that constrains them. Having been on both sides of the fence, I often feel like I'm hearing things presented as new which aren't really that new, they're just new to some subdiscipline.
Having been on both sides of the fence, I often feel like I'm hearing things presented as new which aren't really that new, they're just new to some subdiscipline.
I realize the thread is dead at this point, but I wanted to second this anyway. I don't work in either of those fields, but I have seen exactly this phenomenon, and I puzzle a lot about how to minimize it.
Yes, it's useful to have trade journals and sub-sub-specialties in every field...but isn't there some kind of duty to get outside the boundaries of your own field in some kind of systematic, regular way? Like lawyers being required to take continuing ed courses in something other than law?
I've nothing against clowns or even voyeurs
Whew! I'm in the clear then.
242: isn't there some kind of duty to get outside the boundaries of your own field in some kind of systematic, regular way?
The publish or perish system pushes against that. You're looking for something, anything, with p
You're looking for something, anything, with p
Uhoh. Did Biohazard just perish? Right in the middle of publishing?
Shit, another thread where we can't talk about anything fun.
We advise everyone masturbating to Biohazard to suspend your wickedness pending confirmation.
I see someone else is on the masturbation beat.
246: ...the hell? voyeurism? masturbation? behavioral neuroscience? you don't find these FUN?
Now I know not to write "p less than .05" in symbols. The rest of the sentence was clever. Take my word for it.
You can always type in < for a < sign.
re: 228 and 230
I am pretty sure that this person was from the 'I get a kick out of being observed' school.
I do get the difference, though.
I know, and have dated, a few people who are of the 'just don't care'/'hippy' persuasion but, I'm pretty sure based on other facts about this person, that she kind of got off on the idea that people might see her naked.
That said, like any sane person, I'm sure 'shower-cam' would have freaked her the fuck out.
Shorter 255: We used to fuck in public places.
228: You seem to be a very high-empathy person, so I guess it makes sense you'd have trouble imagining how shower-cam guy could just be low-empathy. I, on the other hand, am a pretty mean fucker (not really), and so I actually have a somewhat easier time imagining the low-empathy motivation, though I can certainly see the power fetish version.
