Not just women that need to watch out
I was walking up the staircase in the an Apple store the other day, only for a woman on the floor below to point at me and cry in a shocked tone "That man has three legs!"
Apple’s flagship store in Hong Kong has been placed on a black list by the region’s biggest political party after fears were raised that its trademark glass staircase could provide Peeping Toms with a perfect vantage point for some sneaky up-skirt viewing. The Women’s Affairs Committee of the Democratic Alliance for the …
I will contact Apple forthwith and offer them my services to find out exactly what risk this poses. A 6 month contract should cover it, where I accumulate as much evidence as possible as to whether or not they should spend money enhancing the staircases, to prevent such filthy covert activities. I here by promise not to sell any of my evidence on to upskirt.com.
This post has been deleted by its author
The places you listed are CCP Officially Sanctioned Peeping Spots, and therefore totally legal and safe. Here is the official statement by the CCP, translated by Google:
"To give the peoples of the People's Republic of China free visual access to the Shining Peaches of Prosperity and the Glorious holes of Eternal But Time Limited Happiness the All Seeing Shining Allegedly Communist Party of the People's Republic of China provides the people of the People's Republic of China with this Sanctioned Glorious Peeping Holes of Happiness, to give happiness to the People and curb illegally accessing of dirty and ugly porn Internet sites by the Peoples of the People's Republic of China. Party Membership Card required for taking pictures. Scottish men in traditional costumes can not enter this areas under death penalty or worse."
The Women’s Affairs Committee of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong (DAB).
So you can make an acronym from any three words in the title, despite it not making sense?
The International Committee for the Licensing of Information Technology Protocols and Standards (CLIT)
The best one I ever saw (and this is from the dark ages) was machines all named starting with the initials for Computer Unit and then the OS of the servers, which at the time happened to be NT for quite a lot of them. And the best bit was no one seemed to notice (or were having a laugh).
Now; before I continue I am /not/ trying to justify people who desperately try to look up (short) skirts or kilts.
But I do think its a bit far stretched to fully put the blame on stores (or environments) which have simply been build in a specific way. Because you know; you can also turn this around...
If you wear clothes which could make people look (more) at you then best prepare yourself that people are going to look at you. If you then decide to walk on places where people might get a certain specific view, then who's "fault" (if any) is that? The people who decided themselves to dress in a somewhat specific manner or the people who build such structures?
Would Apple force their female employee's to wear mini skirts and then have them walk up and down such a semi-transparent staircase then I think you have more than enough ground to file a list of complaints. But as long as that didn't happen I don't see the problem here.
Of course they're aware of it. This is a secondary method of milking all the attention they can get out of their outfit. In reality, what they're saying is: "Just in case you missed it, BOOBS HERE FOR THE VIEWING! FREE!" -- and the squawking afterwards is just to make us guys feel more like filthy pirates. I consider the sensation of feeling like a filthy pirate a significant plus, meself. Arrr. Sexy clothes are an advertisement. If they cannot understand that more than they themselves are viewing the advertisement, then they've set themselves up for a lot of disappointment.
Streisand effect IRL.
Too bad that most of the ones complaining have absolutely nothing other than that to recommend themselves.
The same issue arose at the university I attended where an informal gathering area evolved beneath a gapped steel staircase. It was absolutely impossible to "see up skirts" as a simple understanding of 'line of sight' physics would demonstrate but that did not prevent serious accusations levelled against those using the area.
When challenged to put it to the proof, that was rejected in favour of shutting down the area and threatening repercussions against those who had used it. The worst part of it was that no one - making the accusations or involved in resolving the issue - was prepared to come and see the situation from the other perspective, had no interest in assessing the innocence of those accused, and so easily labelled them as perverts, which ironically included a number of female students.
While I agree with you, I have to say that the laws of physics are often suspended in court.
A friend of mine was involved in a car accident. The damage to the cars involved followed his version of events and physically impossible from the other drivers statement. However, as the other driver had a witness (a friend in their passenger seat) it went against my friend.
All it would take is one person to say they could see through the gaps in those stairs, for the whole physical proof thing to fall down in court.
China (Hong Hong) has a huge issue with voyers and sexual assault in public places, more so in crowded, busy places such as trains and shops, so I do think this is potentially a serious topic for discussion, it's a little disappointing to see so many people say variations on "dress like that what do you expect", and I don't think the way that DAB are going about it is the best way, but if China is going to address this escallating problem rather than just victim blame, then anything that raises the profile has got to be a good thing.
I would never blame a woman for instigating an assault on her person -- but I have to wonder about the sanity of a woman that advertises "the goods" and then has problems dealing with a predictable aftermath. There's plenty of stylish, beautiful clothes out there a woman can wear that don't contribute to the issue.
In all fairness, to me it's risk-taking behavior like walking down dark alleys, counting cash. Yes, you have a perfect right to pass unmolested -- enforceable and everything. It still won't stop you from getting mugged eventually. Who would then tell a person that does this: "go ahead, you can go back to walking around the alleys again counting your cash once you get out of the hospital."
Maybe in a perfect world, women can walk around, genitalia exposed to the four winds, and pass unmolested other than the occasional sunburn on the taint. However, it is *not* a perfect world, and pretending it is so will never make it so. The acceptable amount of clothing women wear is cultural -- more in some psycho areas, less in others. Changing that norm is pushing a known boundary -- and if boundaries get pushed, they are being pushed because the wearers *like* the reaction. They cannot claim they are perceptive enough to be aware of increased attention, and then in the same breath say that they had no idea that some of it would be negative or unwanted.
Maybe the makers of Brazilian bikinis and their side-line of dental floss (which uses the heavy-gauge material) don't care what happens to the people that consume their fine products -- but the wearers of their fine (in every sense of the word) products have to be responsible for the risks proven inherent with their style choices -- if for no better reason than the observation of human behavior shows that their health and well-being are preserved better that way.
While you seem rational in your last post, may I remind you of your previous one;
>>what they're saying is: "Just in case you missed it, BOOBS HERE FOR THE VIEWING! FREE!"
>>Sexy clothes are an advertisement.
>>the wearers *like* the reaction
>>wearers of their fine (in every sense of the word) products have to be responsible for the risks
What? sexy clothes are an advertisment? and yet you say "I would never blame a woman for instigating an assault on her person" - you just did blame her!
>>Maybe in a perfect world, women can walk around, genitalia exposed to the four winds,
You sir are an idiot, jumping from one comment about a low neckline to "genitalia exposed to the four winds".
This is how it works, leave a window unlocked and go out, the burglar is completely to blame if you get burgled, leave a window unlocked while you're at home and the burglar is still completely to blame if you get burgled, yes if you leave the house unlocked and go out then your insurance won't be eager to pay out, but it's not your fault you got burgled, it's the burglar, you have a responsibility to protect your house but you're not to blame, leaving a window unlocked does not excuse the burglar, they are still 100% responsible, you might be an idiot, but it's still their fault.
A woman with a low cut top may expect a glance at her cleavage, but it's not an "advertisment" for more, she may appreciate a smile (while looking at her face), she might even appreciate catching you staring (this will either be humourous, or bad form depending how often you get caught), act like a schoolchild who's never seen breasts "for real" and she might think you're an idiot, however this doesn't excuse you from making her feel uncomfortable, if you assume that she any responsibility for being assaulted just because she's wearing a low cut top, or if you, as the abuser somehow thinks it takes your responsibility away - "she knew the risks" then are perpetuating victim blaming.
Yes, a lone woman going out drinking with no safe plan for getting home, walking through known dangerous areas is probably an idiot (and may end up being a victim of crime) it's still the attackers fault, being an easy target does not excuse him in any way whatsover, this is called rape culture.
Depending on the exact spacing and depth of the steps this problem can just as easily happen with wooden or metal slatted stairs, I knew of such staircases at secondary school and college and heard joking suggestions about looking up through the gaps though never knew of anyone who did. In the school it woud have been damned obvious anyway because under the stairs was visible through a large outside window. What can I say, teenage humour.
I wouldn't of course condone anyone actually looking up through the stairs in these cases, and perhaps extra steps to make certain line of sight doesn't work would be good, but ideally I don't feel the architectural principle should be sacrificed simply for something like this. There are times when short skirts aren't practical, windy days for example, this is just another one. If someone gets caught peeping by all means throw the book at them but don't blame the building design, blame the pervert, and if it's a big enough problem wear either a longer skirt or trousers if you're going into a location where upskirt peeping is a risk. I wouldn't expect a woman to cross a raised bridge prone to gusting winds in a short skirt either.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020