Gender, Sexuality & What Attitudes to Peepholes Reveal
Peepholes in men's toilets too
(Razor TV)
"Peepholes in men's toilets" would be a reasonable headline. But "Peepholes in men's toilets too"? Do I sense the somewhat (or perhaps more than somewhat) sexist assumption that women attract sexual attention (objectification through a gaze) whereas there is nothing about men that attracts scopophilic exploits and hence it should come as a bit of a surprise ("too") that men's toilets have peepholes?
On top of that, do I detect some silent refusal to simply see the issue as it is? "While perverts and peeping toms have long been common in female toilets, RazorTV discovered that men are not immune." There is something strange here. Firstly, I have no idea how "common" perverts and peeping toms in the Ladies are. Do women bump into one every other day?
Secondly, there is the question of what the comparison is. Perverts and peeping toms are common in female toilets but they are less common in men's? Or peepholes are common in female toilets but less common in men's?
Obviously perverts and peeping toms do not need peepholes, and, holes need not be used by peeping toms (though I suspect some would argue that they are used by perverts nonetheless). Just because there are holes, it does not mean that they are used for peeping. Perhaps the voice-over in the Razor TV video is too abashed to say certain holes are what might be called glory holes, as one sealed hole seems featured in RazorTV seems to be. In this case, it may not be an issue of peeping toms taking delight in peeping at others perform tasks that most people do not want to watch. Instead, it is more likely going to involve a subculture of sorts with knowing, consensual participants.
Of course, there will be unknowing men who step into a toilet cubicle with peepholes or other sorts of holes in the partitions and it might indeed be disturbing for them to be exposed to unwanted attention.Their privacy should be safeguarded. But what's the point of interviewing one seemingly clueless man after another, only to have them to make remarks ranging from:
1) I don't care because I'm a man and there's nothing (for other men?) to see. [Only women are eligible scopophilic objects.]
to
2) It would be a more serious issue for women. [Why? If men can be watched by other men, can't women be watched by other women? Or is there an assumption that the "watchers" in both men's and women's toilets are invariably male? [Sexual predators are always male. And women make bigger victims because, for some strange reason, it's not as bad for a man to be peeped at as it is for a women to be peeped at.]
and
3) It's no big deal, actually. We are all men. (Peeping toms in the Ladies can be male, but there are no female peeping toms.) Only worry is that some men are, you know, "abnormal." (?)
I prefer cubicles with their partitions intact. But what a whole lot of assumptions we can infer from what people say about holes!
(Razor TV)
"Peepholes in men's toilets" would be a reasonable headline. But "Peepholes in men's toilets too"? Do I sense the somewhat (or perhaps more than somewhat) sexist assumption that women attract sexual attention (objectification through a gaze) whereas there is nothing about men that attracts scopophilic exploits and hence it should come as a bit of a surprise ("too") that men's toilets have peepholes?
On top of that, do I detect some silent refusal to simply see the issue as it is? "While perverts and peeping toms have long been common in female toilets, RazorTV discovered that men are not immune." There is something strange here. Firstly, I have no idea how "common" perverts and peeping toms in the Ladies are. Do women bump into one every other day?
Secondly, there is the question of what the comparison is. Perverts and peeping toms are common in female toilets but they are less common in men's? Or peepholes are common in female toilets but less common in men's?
Obviously perverts and peeping toms do not need peepholes, and, holes need not be used by peeping toms (though I suspect some would argue that they are used by perverts nonetheless). Just because there are holes, it does not mean that they are used for peeping. Perhaps the voice-over in the Razor TV video is too abashed to say certain holes are what might be called glory holes, as one sealed hole seems featured in RazorTV seems to be. In this case, it may not be an issue of peeping toms taking delight in peeping at others perform tasks that most people do not want to watch. Instead, it is more likely going to involve a subculture of sorts with knowing, consensual participants.
Of course, there will be unknowing men who step into a toilet cubicle with peepholes or other sorts of holes in the partitions and it might indeed be disturbing for them to be exposed to unwanted attention.Their privacy should be safeguarded. But what's the point of interviewing one seemingly clueless man after another, only to have them to make remarks ranging from:
1) I don't care because I'm a man and there's nothing (for other men?) to see. [Only women are eligible scopophilic objects.]
to
2) It would be a more serious issue for women. [Why? If men can be watched by other men, can't women be watched by other women? Or is there an assumption that the "watchers" in both men's and women's toilets are invariably male? [Sexual predators are always male. And women make bigger victims because, for some strange reason, it's not as bad for a man to be peeped at as it is for a women to be peeped at.]
and
3) It's no big deal, actually. We are all men. (Peeping toms in the Ladies can be male, but there are no female peeping toms.) Only worry is that some men are, you know, "abnormal." (?)
I prefer cubicles with their partitions intact. But what a whole lot of assumptions we can infer from what people say about holes!