Monday, November 13, 2006

Compelling attraction of sexy thighs?

It seems that Penang CM Dr Koh Tsu Koon has finally discovered he had twin … (something), which allowed him to slam the president of the Penang Island Municipal Council, Abu Bakar Hassan, for his sexist remarks. Well, good for Koh, my compliments!

Abu Bakar had blamed NST reporter Melissa Darylne Chow for showing too much of her thighs because of her 'sexy' dress. According to Abu Bakar the ultra-exposed thighs were what had made the security person neglect his duties and misuse the council's security CCTV to zoom spot on Melissa's lower appendages, and for a solid whole 15 minutes. In Abu Bakar's value-system it was neither the lust nor voyeuristic misconduct of the security personnel; no, it was naughty Melissa’s ‘sexy’ dress that caused the misconduct.

Koh TK said of Abu Bakar’s comments: "It was improper of the council president to make a statement which implied it was the victim's fault. He should be focusing on the investigation instead of blaming others."

Good on Koh for identifying Melissa as the victim, and not the provocateur as Abu Bakar had insensibly accused her. Unfortunately, Koh then spoilt it by leaving it to the council (headed by none other misogynist Abu Bakar) to carry out their investigations, even though he (Koh) said action would be taken against the person found to have misused the CCTV equipment. Koh should have given the investigation to a impartial body.


Anonymous to my earlier posting He's sexist, we're sexy! commented: “This only some sort of ‘Cause and Effect’. The statement stress that this incident should not happen if she dress decently(???). I believe it just a preventive opinion to avoid this kind of incident again. Of course punitive action along not resolve any issue as it will happen again. He react[ed] accordingly about the ‘cause’. also he need to punish his guard as well.”

The way I read it, Anon agreed with Abu Bakar that Melissa’s ‘sexy’ dress was the ‘cause’. He averred that Abu Bakar brought it out [issue of the ‘sexy’ dress] to prevent further voyeurism [meaning that women should stop dressing so ‘sexily’, or face the threat of being ogled through enlarged images ion CCTV], and that the punishment per se of the guard (which Anon agreed should be done) won’t solve future such occurrences.


Do you agree with Anon?

Do you believe that Melissa’s ‘sexy’ dress was the cause of the security personnel neglecting his duty and misusing public property to obtain an enlarged view of Melissa’s thighs for his private scrutiny?

Do you reckon that the guard had no choice in such matters, that no one could resist the temptation to ‘play’ with the CCTV’s lens?

Let's take it further - is it alright for the person manning the CCTV to re-position the camera, at some later stages, in front of and in line with seated women so that he could zoom in between their legs for a viewing?


OK, one more step - would such a person be then justified (hey, not his fault,afterall the women wore those 'sexy' dresses!) to position mirrors on the floor so that he may survey 'what's above' when a woman stands over it, unaware of the peeping device?

Do we have a right to use telescopes to intrude into the bedroom of someone (hey, their fault, they didn't draw the curtains!)?

Would there be a difference between KTemoc admiring Melissa’s thighs as a normal sight/conmponent of her complete physical self and the guard’s use of the CCTV to zoom in particularly on her attractive lower appendages? Wouldn't the next step be for people like Abu Bakar to argue that, given the exposed thighs, it's only natural for the guard to want to physically check the texture of Melissa's thighs after viewing them with such magnified intensity?

Would there be a difference between KTemoc or any males in public admiring her thighs as magnificent versus a sneaky viewing via a CCTV in magnified malignance?

I invite (particularly) ladies to comment, because your views are important.

I also invite Melissa Darylne Chow to post her comments here if she happens to read this blog.

After this, as a bonus, I’ll relate the story of my friend, Olivia and her thighs !

Postscript:

I read that in Australia there is an audit of police monitored public security CCTV to see whether such focussing a la the Penang Municipal Council case has been mischievously conducted, with severe penalties for the offenders including sacking.

In most Western countries there are audits to check that personal details of public members, such as names, addresses, age, etc held in government agencies like Immigration, Police, etc or even banks (accounts) are not even viewed by Departmental officers who have no cause (in their course of duty) to see them. Any viewing would be automatically and electronically logged for subsequent audits.

Such details and personal images are protected under a legislation known as the Privacy Act.

22 comments:

  1. The issue is about abuse/wrongful use.

    The idea that somehow that the behaviour is OK if its personal equipment and time and wrong with a public equipment and time shows a distinct misunderstanding of personal duties, responsibiliite and rights. Its no different than say you wife having consensual sex and duties as a wife. Its not straightforward and require maturity and no simple hard and fast rules but rather upholding concepts and principles.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I believe a woman can wear whatever she wants. She wasn't going for the naked effect or to provocate, was she now? I'm surprised we take these narrow-minded individuals seriously, though considering that certain parts of society are ruled by a cadre of ancient, angry virgins.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Those people who criticise women for dressing provocatively and want to impose their own strict religious ideas on others are actually very frightened people. They recognise that they unfortunately have very little self control and therefore the mere sight of a beautiful woman in so-called sexy attire has the potential of instantly bringing out the wild beast within them causing them to ravage and molest the hapless lady. These type of men need help desperately. They need to be shown how to discharge their pent up sexual energy in a socially non-disruptive way. Otherwise they face the very real risk of completely losing whatever little control they have over themselves and committing a violent criminal sexual act.

    ReplyDelete
  4. During my school days I know of a group of pubescent/teenage boys who used to gather behind the school toilet during recess and after school to indulge in group masturbation. They were constantly obsessed about their genitalias and girls. This voyeur incident suggests to me that the men involved probably graduated from such adolescent pursuits and that sadly despite being middle-aged they remain stuck at that psychosexual level and prone to such proclivities.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi everyone. if you are interested enough to read there is a rousing spirited discussion over at Jeff ooi' s blog re narrow, rigid, constipated religious thinking, under the topic Truly Malaysia.

    ReplyDelete
  6. what was melissa (or any other such girl for that matter) thinking when she bought the "sexy" dress she was wearing ? That she did not want anyone to see her thighs ? then she shd have bought a cheongsam (without slits). Having bought the short skirt, and sitting in front row with her thighs showing, she is now complaining that this lucky guy at the CCTV controls tried to take a closer look at her thighs. Many men would have liked to be at the controls that day. Dont get me wrong. But men will be boys, and all this poor chap did was look.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous, your comment is really uncalled for.

    By the way, my name is Melissa DARLYNE Chow.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Really, since you are here, Melissa Darlyne Chow, what were you thinking when you wore the skirt, and sat in front row exposing your thighs ? If you did not want anyone to see them, why expose them ? Or did you seriously expect those men catching sight of your thighs to turn away ? And did you expect this poor guy who had the controls of the CCTV zoom button to zoom to the Council Presidnets face , when there were more interesting things to look at (just for 15 minutes la, to break the monotony of the work)? I notice that girls want to look attractive, and dress with much skin exposed, but why do they want to do that ? And always they get worked up when people point this out. And one favorite response is that even small kids, grannys or people in purdah get raped or molested by the perverts. Sometimes i think this is due to a "surrogate" effect ie, after seeing all the provocative dressing, the "pervert" is all fired up, and goes for the next available victim, who could be a child or granny or purdah clad woman. So to me this argument doesnt hold water. Stop provoking the potential "perverts". Cover up.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anon, you're really something, trying to blame Melissa or women who dressed in manners perfectly normal but which may not be acceptable to conservative Muslims.

    So, in your worldview, chldren, grannies and women all clad up were raped because they became victims of perverts looking for 'surrogate targets'.

    But your argument serves to illustrate how it is possible to spin anything, though you gave it away by admitting that there are "potential perverts". Now, any theory on how Melissa and her sisters in society had affected normal men in ways which turned them into "potential perverts"?

    ReplyDelete
  10. well, KTEMOC, the guy at the CCTV controls (assuming he is "normal") zoomed in to her exposed thighs ! if that is perversion to you. But if that is normal, then there is no issue.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Looking at a woman's thighs in isolation from her whole is perversion! Same as men who were reputed to screw ducks and goats, imagining the vagina in isolation (transposed onto creatures).

    Additionally using public equipment to secretly spy on a person's appendages in magnified malignance is illegal and a misuse of public property - he should be either dismissed or counselled, but the person who excused him with an unmitigated sexist remark should be removed from the municipal council's post.

    ReplyDelete
  12. ok, next time i see a pretty woman in a short skirt, i will try my best to look at her thighs while trying hard to see her "whole". Of course i will first try to look at her "whole", while trying to avoid looking at her exposed thighs. KTEMOC, i wonder whther to you the exposed thighs or breast or whatever adds value to the "whole" ? does it help your "imagination" ? As to yr part abt the ducks and cattle, i think you are just trying to stretch things a little too far.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anon, next time when you look at a woman, in her 'total' self, there's no need to avoid seeing her exposed thighs, exposed belly button or even cleavage as those are part of her 'whole'. She expects males to see those, and you'd be nothing more than a red blooded male.

    What makes us different from ass-sniffing creatures in heat is our sense of ability to separate raw lust from refined admiration.

    As they say, 'staring' is rude (like 'ogling') whilst admiring appraisal is flattering to the lady. How do we distinguish between the two? Well, apart from your expression [bulging unblinking eyes and drooling mouth ;-)]that's dependent on your thoughts at that moment.

    The lady will know!

    ReplyDelete
  14. generally my thoughts when looking at a lady, and her thighs and cleavage or whatever are basically appraisal with a biological angle. i am sure your admiration and appraisal are purely non-sexual. just as you would appaisingly and admiringly look at a flower or a rock form, a creation of god.

    ReplyDelete
  15. i guess some of us are more evolved than others, who still may be quite basic in their animal-like tendencies. When an animal sees a female, the animal generally just wants to mate. that's its interest, its goal. so its not looking in admiration of gods creation or appraising the "whole", but more likely looking to get in the hole, if you pardon the crude reality . Similarly, accepting that man has evolved from these animal species, he too retains these tendencies, some men more than others (not to mention some women more than others too). So its a question of setting the limits (which could vary from time to time, place to place, society to society), to protect society as a whole. In this context, if we can accept this argument, can we also say that for their own protection, as well as for the protection of women in general, modest dressing is called for ? Of course what is modest is an open question again.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anon, KTemco didn't ask you to be celibate, so go ahead and be biological - you've been naughty attempting to put words (of extremity or at extremes) in my mouth ;-0

    MM, the Star Online reported that the Pg City Councillors assessed Melissa Darlyn Chow had on that day conformed to the dress code. ... which of course didn't deter the prying eyes and camera management of the bloke manning the CCTV - looking for "security breaches" or the Da Vinci code on Melissa's thighs?.

    ReplyDelete
  17. urghgh urghgh urghgh urghgh...monkey see thigh... monkey press zoom button...monkey get better look... monkey turned on...urghgh urghgh urghgh urghgh...
    Conclusion: dont show thigh to monkey ? Or blame monkey ?

    ReplyDelete
  18. sorry that shd have been cometk

    ReplyDelete
  19. It's the victim's fault? C'mon! What kind of ignorant shit is that?!

    ReplyDelete
  20. These arguments are always hilarious.

    Black and white ideas like "blaming the victim" and "perversion" are thrown back and forth as if doing so were intended as some sort of scholarly pursuit.

    The idea of a woman in a dress promotes one of the key ideas/idiosyncracies about femininity today. Women should be and deserve to be respected as equal beings on this planet. However within the modern idea of femininity there is often a clash between the modern independent female and the subordinated female of the past.

    Surely a dress or skirt can be merely written off as fashion. In many cases that is all that it is, but it can also represent that thrill of exposure or of weakness that excites many women. Thus the contradiction.

    We would all like to believe that we are refined, noble creatures separated from the animal world by our vastly superior brains. Perhaps that's true. But who here has the where-with-all to actually back that statement up unconditionally? In truth, we know our brains to be capable of complex thought, but we also know it to be capable of the most base.
    Is acting within that base realm therefore perversion? Or is it in actuality just as natural as postulating philisophy or physical theorems?

    I submit the question as to whether or not there is an issue here at all.

    Was what this man doing actually a crime or violation? 15 minutes of voyeuristic gawking at a woman's thighs seems excessive to me, but I find that notion far too personal to make judgement. Is staring at a woman's thighs perversion? How silly. Sexuality originates in our most basic of behaviours. How could something that is natural be a perversion?

    Conversely there is nothing wrong with a woman wearing what could be deemed as provocative attire. Skirts and dresses are part of female (and sometimes male) fashion. While females have been traditionally held as objects of sexual desire in human culture, they are first and foremost human beings who deserve the same respect as any man.

    If this incident had taken place in her presence, with her knowledge we could perhaps make a clearer case for violation of her privacy or perhaps even just to show the man's behavior as harassment.

    Indeed both parties are partially correct in this case. Excessive staring could be regarded as a sexually violent action and sexually provocative attire can be a source of 'distraction.' Any 'crime' committed here, like many crimes, is purely in the eye of the beholder and in my opinion makes the entire incident farcical.

    We must acknowledge and accept our sexuality in order to move forward as a species. If we cannot put the shoe on the other foot, as it were, for our at times diametrically opposed sexes we will continue to bicker like fools.

    ReplyDelete
  21. wow! But ... using a videocamera with telescopic zoom lens to do so??? ;-)

    ReplyDelete