> "One night in Seoul last year, Ha went to a motel alone after an evening of drinking with friends. In the middle of her sleep, she felt something on her legs. She woke up, opened her eyes, and in the dark, saw a man who looked to be in his twenties. His hands were on her legs, trying to part them. His face was illuminated by a glowing white light — emitted by a phone. Ha remembers her mind going blank. She was only able to stutter, “Who are you?” "
Without going into the idea that if it's just genitals it's fine (which I also disagree with), it's not just genitals:
> It’s not just footages of sexual intercourse. There are spycam footages of women relieving themselves in toilets; photos of women in bikinis, at home, walking on the street.
> I’ve seen cases where women quit their jobs, consider getting plastic surgery, change their names and even commit suicide
> Ha went to a motel alone after an evening of drinking with friends. In the middle of her sleep, she felt something on her legs. She woke up, opened her eyes, and in the dark, saw a man who looked to be in his twenties. His hands were on her legs, trying to part them.
Are there any devices that can detect the presence of another electrical device? So that it could scan places. This is scary, imagine renting a place only to know the owner has put cams all over. Stuff of nightmares.
A more plausible solution is putting all that NSA deep packet inspection infrastructure to use tracing uploads of the banned videos, and even that isn't very plausible.
As long as there is a fairly safe market for the videos, people will keep being violated on a large scale.
In theory yes¹, but in practice I would expect it to be a tricky time-consuming process. How would you differentiate between a legitimate electronic device on the other of the wall, and an illegitimate electronic device embedded inside the wall? The difference between those may only be a few inches.
I don't think this is one of those problems looking for a technical solution. What's needed is a legal/social solution: an aggressive campaign for publicly identifying and shaming perpetrators, with very harsh punishments handed out.
¹ From what I know traditional "bug detectors" work by trying to induce the bug to broadcast and then detecting that broadcast signal. But "metal detector" style bug detectors that instead simply look for circuits seem like they should be possible.
Isn't porn banned in south korea? If you ban legal ways of getting porn that you identify with culturally, people will make it illegally, not surprised this happens without consent.
It's like marijuana in the U.S. all over again, if you ban it, people with less morals will make it available in a worse way.
Just allow porn and regulate it, like every other country does.
How is breaking into someone's motel room to film them in secrecy in any way a rational response give that there is plenty of other countries nearby that make porn? Are you really saying that making non-consensual porn just such a deep biological need that nothing can be done?
I mean, there is certainly no great lack of porn available online, so simply reuploading some chinese or japanese flicks seems a far more sane response than hiding cameras in public restrooms.
This comment seems to hit all the bad rhetoric hot points. You've misrepresented parent's point, attacked a straw man, and also somehow made a slightly racist argument that Koreans are interchangeable with Chinese and Japanese.
The point is that banning pornography might be creating a niche market that bad actors are happy to exploit.
I have no idea if it's true. But the argument isn't saying the behavior is rational and there was no claim made about the deep biological needs for porn.
If you don't have anything to add to the discussion, use upvotes/downvotes. Responding with comments like this just makes you look like you're just a sock puppet, which you probably don't want.
I thought he turned a traditional policy position ("prohibition fuels bad underground activity of worse variety") into a toy, overly emotional argument ("how is it reasonable to discuss legalization in response to sexual film spying?"). After you resolve the rhetorical difficulties, it just collapses back to the old argument still unaddressed (does prohibition fuel bad underground activity? can legalization reduce this phenomena in scope or impact?).
That's what makes it a bad point in my mind. It really is taking someone's position and turning it into a strawman, in a way that takes about 2 or 3 back and forth responses to resolve. I think it's totally worth hopping past this branch in discourse.
> Are you really saying that making non-consensual porn just such a deep biological need that nothing can be done?
No, I mean that by banning porn creates an illegal market for it. Supply and demand.
> I mean, there is certainly no great lack of porn available online, so simply reuploading some chinese or japanese flicks seems a far more sane response than hiding cameras in public restrooms.
There's a great lack of _korean_ porn. I know the world is very america centric in terms of media, but if you're from another culture, you're more likely to identify with culturally relevant media, including porn. But this is besides the point, the internet in korea is censored and bans, among other things, porn. You need to use a VPN service if you want to access porn websites.
Look I'm not saying these women are wrong. Of course people breaking into other peoples houses/rooms and filming them is not right. But the same happens everywhere. I remember reading a story some years ago about an american man that owned a motel and he setup hidden cameras to watch other people getting it on. America is as fucked up in that sense too. But these are not the cases we're trying to combat, there's nothing much we can do about them since it's a complex scenario. What we're trying to get rid of is the casual creeps that have no idea what a VPN is and want to whack off to something they can identify with. Having them be creeps on their computer/phones in their private space is better than having them look for excitement by abusing other people's privacy.
It's not as if it created an illegal market for it either. Unless everything in the world is permitted, there will aways be an illegal market for something even if only because people want to dodge regulations.
The total ban does mean that only criminals can produce pornography, and criminals by their nature don't have the moral qualms with committing further crimes.
Careful leaning on criminality; it isn't a thing. Remember that sitting in certain areas of a bus, voting as a woman or a person of colour, etc. was encoded into law and legislation. Violating those laws becomes criminality.
I understand the basic premise, but I wish your examples were more pertinent to the situation we are discussing so I could better see how this relates.
> The total ban does mean that only criminals can produce pornography, and criminals by their nature don't have the moral qualms with committing further crimes.
There are two parts here.
First is the tautological nature of your first sentence; if it is banned, then by definition the creation of such makes one a "criminal", where it would seem that you infer a class of person in the first sentence.
Given a potential misreading of the first portion, the second is clearer:
> and criminals by their nature don't have the moral qualms with committing further crimes.
Again, you assign "nature" to a "class" by definition. It may be legal to murder / sentence to death someone over gender, race, selling alcohol or marijuana, or otherwise. Even sitting in a bus in the wrong spot could result in being labeled a criminal.
I am reasonably certain you didn't intend to paint the above examples of criminality as somehow correlating to a lack of morality. "Further crimes" is a slippery slope trope, where no such predicate exists without examining the contexts of the initial crime. Again, think about sitting on a bus in the wrong spot. “Serial offenders” here might be celebrated later.
Hence the caution against using the term. There are a good number of laws currently that, after some duration of time, may seem anywhere from dated to outright bigoted / horrible. "Criminality" is a social construct, and as such, we should be skeptical and careful about the erroneous connective tissue between criminality and some sort of Humanist trait attachment.
> Are you really saying that making non-consensual porn just such a deep biological need that nothing can be done?
I think what he is saying is that if you ban pornography, the only people who can make it will be criminals---and criminals will commit further crimes as (a) there is no psychological barrier to them doing so and (b) their 'consumers'/'customers' are already consuming illegal material, so can unsurprisingly further fetishize criminal behavior.
It would be better/easier to allow for pornography but strictly regulate it to a degree that incentivizes the moral production of it.
I find fourth-wave feminist articles like this to be a complete sham, because they completely stop short of asking a far more constructive question:
'Why is this happening?'
Is there something unique about South Korea that motivates the use of spycams and sexually explicit non-consensual recordings? Imo that would be a far more useful place to start.
Lax laws/enforcement do not motivate people to do things. That is, unless we start from the assumption that all men are basically barbaric (Which I have to reject on face value alone), then there's no way to blame this on the legal system or the police.
Not far off from South Korea is a phenomenon in Japan called "grass-eating men": Men who give up on pursuing women and careers, and instead live online in subpar apartments and out of internet cafes to live out their lives. Perhaps there's something in common between what motivates that, and what we're seeing here?
How happy are men (as a class) in South Korea? How beneficial are their 'good' alternatives here?
> I find fourth-wave feminist articles like this to be a complete sham, because they completely stop short of asking a far more constructive question:
> 'Why is this happening?'
> How happy are men (as a class) in South Korea? How beneficial are their 'good' alternatives here?
Who the fuck cares if these men are happy?! This isn't a peer reviewed journal, this is an article highlighting the fact that thousands of South Korean women are so sick and tired of being mistreated by the police and by their fellow human beings that they had to stage a protest just get some attention on the situation.
If you want some deep philosophical understanding of the scenario, then you do it. "Sham"? Get off your pedestal.
29 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 72.8 ms ] threadYou fucking degenerate.
> It’s not just footages of sexual intercourse. There are spycam footages of women relieving themselves in toilets; photos of women in bikinis, at home, walking on the street.
> I’ve seen cases where women quit their jobs, consider getting plastic surgery, change their names and even commit suicide
That sounds grave to me.
As long as there is a fairly safe market for the videos, people will keep being violated on a large scale.
I don't think this is one of those problems looking for a technical solution. What's needed is a legal/social solution: an aggressive campaign for publicly identifying and shaming perpetrators, with very harsh punishments handed out.
¹ From what I know traditional "bug detectors" work by trying to induce the bug to broadcast and then detecting that broadcast signal. But "metal detector" style bug detectors that instead simply look for circuits seem like they should be possible.
It's like marijuana in the U.S. all over again, if you ban it, people with less morals will make it available in a worse way.
Just allow porn and regulate it, like every other country does.
I mean, there is certainly no great lack of porn available online, so simply reuploading some chinese or japanese flicks seems a far more sane response than hiding cameras in public restrooms.
This comment seems to hit all the bad rhetoric hot points. You've misrepresented parent's point, attacked a straw man, and also somehow made a slightly racist argument that Koreans are interchangeable with Chinese and Japanese.
The point is that banning pornography might be creating a niche market that bad actors are happy to exploit.
I have no idea if it's true. But the argument isn't saying the behavior is rational and there was no claim made about the deep biological needs for porn.
Please engage with good faith and measured tone.
That's what makes it a bad point in my mind. It really is taking someone's position and turning it into a strawman, in a way that takes about 2 or 3 back and forth responses to resolve. I think it's totally worth hopping past this branch in discourse.
No, I mean that by banning porn creates an illegal market for it. Supply and demand.
> I mean, there is certainly no great lack of porn available online, so simply reuploading some chinese or japanese flicks seems a far more sane response than hiding cameras in public restrooms.
There's a great lack of _korean_ porn. I know the world is very america centric in terms of media, but if you're from another culture, you're more likely to identify with culturally relevant media, including porn. But this is besides the point, the internet in korea is censored and bans, among other things, porn. You need to use a VPN service if you want to access porn websites.
Look I'm not saying these women are wrong. Of course people breaking into other peoples houses/rooms and filming them is not right. But the same happens everywhere. I remember reading a story some years ago about an american man that owned a motel and he setup hidden cameras to watch other people getting it on. America is as fucked up in that sense too. But these are not the cases we're trying to combat, there's nothing much we can do about them since it's a complex scenario. What we're trying to get rid of is the casual creeps that have no idea what a VPN is and want to whack off to something they can identify with. Having them be creeps on their computer/phones in their private space is better than having them look for excitement by abusing other people's privacy.
Not all things in one's culture should be viewed as a market transaction, nor is it appropriate to overfit them as such.
The total ban does mean that only criminals can produce pornography, and criminals by their nature don't have the moral qualms with committing further crimes.
There are two parts here.
First is the tautological nature of your first sentence; if it is banned, then by definition the creation of such makes one a "criminal", where it would seem that you infer a class of person in the first sentence.
Given a potential misreading of the first portion, the second is clearer:
> and criminals by their nature don't have the moral qualms with committing further crimes.
Again, you assign "nature" to a "class" by definition. It may be legal to murder / sentence to death someone over gender, race, selling alcohol or marijuana, or otherwise. Even sitting in a bus in the wrong spot could result in being labeled a criminal.
I am reasonably certain you didn't intend to paint the above examples of criminality as somehow correlating to a lack of morality. "Further crimes" is a slippery slope trope, where no such predicate exists without examining the contexts of the initial crime. Again, think about sitting on a bus in the wrong spot. “Serial offenders” here might be celebrated later.
Hence the caution against using the term. There are a good number of laws currently that, after some duration of time, may seem anywhere from dated to outright bigoted / horrible. "Criminality" is a social construct, and as such, we should be skeptical and careful about the erroneous connective tissue between criminality and some sort of Humanist trait attachment.
I think what he is saying is that if you ban pornography, the only people who can make it will be criminals---and criminals will commit further crimes as (a) there is no psychological barrier to them doing so and (b) their 'consumers'/'customers' are already consuming illegal material, so can unsurprisingly further fetishize criminal behavior.
It would be better/easier to allow for pornography but strictly regulate it to a degree that incentivizes the moral production of it.
'Why is this happening?'
Is there something unique about South Korea that motivates the use of spycams and sexually explicit non-consensual recordings? Imo that would be a far more useful place to start.
Lax laws/enforcement do not motivate people to do things. That is, unless we start from the assumption that all men are basically barbaric (Which I have to reject on face value alone), then there's no way to blame this on the legal system or the police.
Not far off from South Korea is a phenomenon in Japan called "grass-eating men": Men who give up on pursuing women and careers, and instead live online in subpar apartments and out of internet cafes to live out their lives. Perhaps there's something in common between what motivates that, and what we're seeing here?
How happy are men (as a class) in South Korea? How beneficial are their 'good' alternatives here?
> 'Why is this happening?'
> How happy are men (as a class) in South Korea? How beneficial are their 'good' alternatives here?
Who the fuck cares if these men are happy?! This isn't a peer reviewed journal, this is an article highlighting the fact that thousands of South Korean women are so sick and tired of being mistreated by the police and by their fellow human beings that they had to stage a protest just get some attention on the situation.
If you want some deep philosophical understanding of the scenario, then you do it. "Sham"? Get off your pedestal.