>> ^artful_codger:

i'd say this is a publicity stunt for some porn webpage.
1) they both look way more pretty than your average tenant, what's the chances of a voyeur getting those kind of tenants ?
2) they're both wearing white t-shirts - to accentuate their bodies.
3) if you've just been spied on, you don't wanna let the world know there's videos of you out there by going to a news station.
now you have a bunch of horney blokes out there googling for these ladies names - the videos will be found soon enough on some webpage and people will pay to see them.


Good points but they have made a complaint to the police. If it is a stunt that could backfire.

>> ^artful_codger:

i'd say this is a publicity stunt for some porn webpage.
1) they both look way more pretty than your average tenant, what's the chances of a voyeur getting those kind of tenants ?
2) they're both wearing white t-shirts - to accentuate their bodies.
3) if you've just been spied on, you don't wanna let the world know there's videos of you out there by going to a news station.
now you have a bunch of horney blokes out there googling for these ladies names - the videos will be found soon enough on some webpage and people will pay to see them.


actually, i think these are good points. i guess you're right.

i'd say this is a publicity stunt for some porn webpage.

1) they both look way more pretty than your average tenant, what's the chances of a voyeur getting those kind of tenants ?

2) they're both wearing white t-shirts - to accentuate their bodies.

3) if you've just been spied on, you don't wanna let the world know there's videos of you out there by going to a news station.

now you have a bunch of horney blokes out there googling for these ladies names - the videos will be found soon enough on some webpage and people will pay to see them.

Honestly I don't know the first thing about celebrity gossip but I imagine it's actually quite the opposite; the dedicated tabloids would probably be much more interested in some truly trashy piece of gossip to report, and like it or not, a piece about celebrity yeast infections would probably sell way better than one covering hairstyles.

Remember the whole Gizmodo iPhone debacle? Same thing. Sure Gizmodo were to blame for being completely unprofessional, but they were simply the manifestation of the Apple fanboy hoards. We can't expect the media to practice professionalism and work ethic when we don't demand it as consumers but simply frown when they go 'over the line' (and even when they do, and we frown, we still manage to make it worth their while).

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^NinjaInHeat:
I must say I sympathize with the so called "journalist". He is doing a very poor job of defending himself and I in no way support the point he's trying to make, but he does touch on something I agree with; this whole voyeurism industry is filth by definition, what's incredible here isn't the lengths that these reporters would go to to push out more trash news, it's that there's such an overwhelming demand for this garbage.
I would much rather hear actors directing heat on these issues straight at the audiences (which of course they won't). It's much easier blaming the celebrity media, but they are simply a manifestation of the mindless consumer horde.

In a way, sure, but i don't think the public would be happy with them hacking people's private shit to get that gossip. Well, they're clearly not because i haven't heard a single person standing up for them yet, though i'm sure there's reprehensible people who would somewhere in britain.
I don't think i've ever heard someone say "i get the paper for the celebrity gossip". And whilst i know there are celebrity gossip magazines out there that sell, i'd venture a guess that it's "cheryl cole's got a new hairstyle" that they're interested in rather than "cheryl cole's booked in for a yeast infection at local clinic, phone transcript inside".

>> ^NinjaInHeat:

I must say I sympathize with the so called "journalist". He is doing a very poor job of defending himself and I in no way support the point he's trying to make, but he does touch on something I agree with; this whole voyeurism industry is filth by definition, what's incredible here isn't the lengths that these reporters would go to to push out more trash news, it's that there's such an overwhelming demand for this garbage.
I would much rather hear actors directing heat on these issues straight at the audiences (which of course they won't). It's much easier blaming the celebrity media, but they are simply a manifestation of the mindless consumer horde.


In a way, sure, but i don't think the public would be happy with them hacking people's private shit to get that gossip. Well, they're clearly not because i haven't heard a single person standing up for them yet, though i'm sure there's reprehensible people who would somewhere in britain.

I don't think i've ever heard someone say "i get the paper for the celebrity gossip". And whilst i know there are celebrity gossip magazines out there that sell, i'd venture a guess that it's "cheryl cole's got a new hairstyle" that they're interested in rather than "cheryl cole's booked in for a yeast infection at local clinic, phone transcript inside".

I must say I sympathize with the so called "journalist". He is doing a very poor job of defending himself and I in no way support the point he's trying to make, but he does touch on something I agree with; this whole voyeurism industry is filth by definition, what's incredible here isn't the lengths that these reporters would go to to push out more trash news, it's that there's such an overwhelming demand for this garbage.

I would much rather hear actors directing heat on these issues straight at the audiences (which of course they won't). It's much easier blaming the celebrity media, but they are simply a manifestation of the mindless consumer horde.

You could start by reading the original poem Heroes by Suzi Q Smith.

Although there is some truth in Enoch's claim that poetry is subjective, it is also true that (er, most) poems do have themes that almost everybody will agree on and the degree of subjectivity varies somewhat. In some cases though, you can say definitely what the poem is about and be quite sure that people will only disagree to be ornery. This one probably isn't quite that clear cut...

To me, the main theme is the obvious and overt one of our culture of idolising celebrities, movie stars, pop stars, and then hounding them every minute of every day not forgiving them even the slightest indiscretion or giving them any privacy or room to be themselves in their time off.

Since the poem in question is dedicated to Michael Jackson, "slightest indiscretion" doesn't really apply... but if you forget the dedication for a minute and read it more about the public obsession with celebrity and the associated voyeurism of the paparazzi, then the point stands.

Now, as Enoch also asked, is that anything like what you got from it? What did you think? Back to subjectivity, there are no absolute wrong answers here, and even if there were there is no videosift exam at the end of term, but I'd really love to hear your take on it.
>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^enoch:
>> ^dannym3141:
Can someone please explain to me what the idea is that's trying to be conveyed? From what i took from it, i thought the "meaning" behind the words was a poor one. And that could be because i'm coming from the wrong angle.

might help if you defined the "meaning" that you got from this in order to better help.
poetry is a subjective medium where words are more an emotive than a definitive.

I'd rather someone explain the to me what the idea is that's trying to be conveyed.

What do you mean, when the voyeurs show up? @blankfist was already here!>> ^Porksandwich:

A picture of anything, this could get NSFW pretty fast when the voyeurs show up.

A picture of anything, this could get NSFW pretty fast when the voyeurs show up.

I don't want to badmouth Logan's suffering but I have an overwhelming feeling that this is nothing but exploitation of the worst kind of voyeurism.

>> ^Trancecoach:

For anyone who's interested, the mental disorder that he's exhibiting is part of a subsection of paraphilias called frotteurism.


The healthiest thing this man can do is use Sublimation and become a part of some sort of sex show. Until then he's going to keep running into problems with the law.

Some other Paraphilias:
Pedophilia - sexual urges towards children
Exhibitionism - recurrent desire to expose genitals to a stranger
Voyeurism - sexual pleasure from watching other who are naked, grooming, or having sex.
Sadism - sexual pleasure derived from others' pain
Masochism - sexual pleasure derived from being abused or dominated
Fetishism - sexual focus on objects (transvestite falls in here)
Frotteurism - male rubbing of genitals against fully clothed woman to achieve orgasm, subways/buses (what is apparent in this video)
Zoophilia - animals preferred in sexual fantasies or practices
Coprophilia - combining sex and defecation
Urophilia - combining sex and urination
Necrophilia - preferred sex with cadavers
Hypoxyphilia - altered state of consciousness secondary to hypoxia while experiencing orgasm. (Autoerotic asphyxiation, etc.)

>> ^NordlichReiter:

>> ^Gallowflak:
Their actions didn't cause his suicide, he did. What they did was a disgusting violation of privacy and completely immoral and irresponsible. They definitely deserve a punishment appropriate to the situation, but I don't think he would've killed himself if he felt as though he had the support of those who mattered to him.
There's something odd about our society when someone can be so distressed, when the truth of their sexuality becomes apparent, that their first reaction is to end their life. I can't imagine anyone would do this if they were straight and caught having sex... So yes, punish the voyeurs. But they're not the only problem here.

There's something strange when a society will destroy a person based on their sexuality. Loose women, libertine men, gay, and lesbians alike can all suffer from their private lives being broadcast on the internet without consent.
The only possible way for anyone to punish the defendants for the suicide would be Wrongful Death Claim. Which is a civil matter, and the preponderance of doubt is all that is needed. Could they prove that the persons who did the taping had a hand in the suicide, quiet possibly but that is up to the courts. Given this statement from Wikipedia, I think that it would be very possible to successfully sue for wrongful death.

Wrongful death is also the only recourse available when a company, not an individual, causes the death of a person; for example, historically, families have tried (both successfully and unsuccessfully) to sue tobacco companies for wrongful deaths of their customers.

>> ^Gallowflak:

Their actions didn't cause his suicide, he did. What they did was a disgusting violation of privacy and completely immoral and irresponsible. They definitely deserve a punishment appropriate to the situation, but I don't think he would've killed himself if he felt as though he had the support of those who mattered to him.
There's something odd about our society when someone can be so distressed, when the truth of their sexuality becomes apparent, that their first reaction is to end their life. I can't imagine anyone would do this if they were straight and caught having sex... So yes, punish the voyeurs. But they're not the only problem here.


There's something strange when a society will destroy a person based on their sexuality. Loose women, libertine men, gay, and lesbians alike can all suffer from their private lives being broadcast on the internet without consent.

The only possible way for anyone to punish the defendants for the suicide would be Wrongful Death Claim. Which is a civil matter, and the preponderance of doubt is all that is needed. Could they prove that the persons who did the taping had a hand in the suicide, quiet possibly but that is up to the courts. Given this statement from Wikipedia, I think that it would be very possible to successfully sue for wrongful death.

Wrongful death is also the only recourse available when a company, not an individual, causes the death of a person; for example, historically, families have tried (both successfully and unsuccessfully) to sue tobacco companies for wrongful deaths of their customers.

Their actions didn't cause his suicide, he did. What they did was a disgusting violation of privacy and completely immoral and irresponsible. They definitely deserve a punishment appropriate to the situation, but I don't think he would've killed himself if he felt as though he had the support of those who mattered to him.

There's something odd about our society when someone can be so distressed, when the truth of their sexuality becomes apparent, that their first reaction is to end their life. I can't imagine anyone would do this if they were straight and caught having sex... So yes, punish the voyeurs. But they're not the only problem here.

After watching this clip, I get a better sense of what the top video could be about. While I'm no expert on performance art, by any means, there seems to be themes of domesticity, sexuality, and consumption being explored in both pieces... and how some people keep their expressiveness wrapped up in a house, giving it life only through perverted voyeurism or prepackaged pop music.

Or not... It's interesting to me, anyway.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Bouncy boobs and a masturbating peeping tom.