Join 3,514 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Everyone is crossing a line
September 25, 2007 6:45 PM   Subscribe

"What is so striking about the work is that EVERYONE is crossing a line: The couples who are engaged in sex in public, the Peeping Toms who trespass on that intimacy, the photographer who has betrayed his acquaintance's trust, and of course US -- so willing to look at what was not meant for us to see." See also: NYTimes slideshow Layers of Voyeurism (Via boingboing) SFW, IMHO
posted by spock (20 comments total) 6 users marked this as a favorite

 
Link to NYTimes slideshow
posted by spock at 6:49 PM on September 25, 2007


Wow, interesting. Reminds me of the whole gay-Republican brouhaha.
posted by nasreddin at 6:53 PM on September 25, 2007


Wow, those are really striking images. They make me feel dirty just looking at them, like I'm one of they voyeurs. Incredible that the couples rarely knew the voyeurs were there -- imagine looking up and seeing yourself surrounded by Peeping Toms!
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 6:53 PM on September 25, 2007


He noticed a couple on the ground, with a small but growing ring of men crawling towards them.

Then the couple covers the eggs in sand and creeps back into to the sea, never to see their offspring hatch.
posted by DU at 6:57 PM on September 25, 2007 [9 favorites]


Get a room. All of 'em.
posted by jonmc at 7:04 PM on September 25, 2007


It's like watching a morphing animation, with Dian Fossey as the first keyframe, and Bob Fosse as the last.
posted by rob511 at 7:15 PM on September 25, 2007


this looks like the couples were exhibitionists and expecting the toms... they aren't exactly subtle!

maybe it's like that thing that hit the UK media a while back, "dogging" where some watch but some join in and the couples expect this if they go to these particular spots and invite the toms to join in if they want to "play"?
posted by Maias at 8:01 PM on September 25, 2007


oh, give me a break.

"and of course US -- so willing to look at what was not meant for us to see."

if it's presented as a "work", of course we're expected to - and will - look at it.
posted by setanor at 8:03 PM on September 25, 2007


Well, that means the photographer wanted others to see it. Those farther up the chain? Not so sure about that.
posted by spock at 8:11 PM on September 25, 2007


Were we discussing their "reasonable expectation of privacy" in the U.S., certainly the Open Fields Doctrine would apply here, eh? It is interesting/disturbing how technology is bringing the question of what constitutes a "reasonable expectation of privacy" out into the public: For example as it applies upskirt and other voyeuristic photography.
posted by spock at 8:28 PM on September 25, 2007


Michael Warner's "Sex in Public" is a relevant essay in this context (purely coincidentally happened to be reading it..)
posted by nasreddin at 8:50 PM on September 25, 2007


I was quite comfortable checking it out, being an Australian - until I realised that US didn't mean United States.

Now I feel dirty.
posted by strawberryviagra at 9:19 PM on September 25, 2007


Exhibitionists vs. Peeping Toms is the new Pirates vs. Ninjas.



And I say this as an exhibitionist ninja. It's a problem. I'm working on it.
posted by quin at 9:43 PM on September 25, 2007 [1 favorite]


Where doggers unite! (NSFW!)
posted by PeterMcDermott at 2:02 AM on September 26, 2007


OK, I looked, but I didn't inhale.
posted by Mike D at 4:31 AM on September 26, 2007


Fascinating. Thanks for the post.

if it's presented as a "work", of course we're expected to - and will - look at it.

Methinks you're missing the point.
posted by languagehat at 6:09 AM on September 26, 2007


Mise en abyme, anyone?
posted by kimota at 6:27 AM on September 26, 2007


Thanks. Excellent post.
posted by philfromhavelock at 8:44 AM on September 26, 2007


Methinks you're missing the point.

No, I don't think so. The couple, photographer and the peeping toms are clearly crossing the line, but "US"? I know it's nice to be comprehensive, but that's not valid.
posted by setanor at 10:18 AM on September 26, 2007


I wonder if you'd feel the same way if you were in one of those photos.
posted by languagehat at 5:34 PM on September 26, 2007


« Older This anonymous rightie could be the nastiest wiffl...  |  Bush and Aznar pre-Iraq Invasi... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments