Voyeurism: A Debate...
Hello September 18, 2018, 07:37:46 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
 
   Home   Help Arcade Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Voyeurism: A Debate...  (Read 10976 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
(Hidden)

« Reply #20 on: March 09, 2011, 05:21:45 am »

Just to explain  - I never said I got off on watching people piss at a trough - at the time, I was quite young and in school and it was the only way to get a glimpse at another guy's equipment.  Trying to have a look in the shower was way too risky because guys would instantly pick up that you were looking.  Perhaps it is just easier to notice since you are not concentrating on trying to piss or whatever, but again, it is just not worth what can happen if you're caught.  On the other hand, peeking using peripheral vision at the piss trough is much less risky.

And for those who enjoy watching guys piss, I am in no way passing negative judgement on you.  Enjoy to your heart's content - after all variety is the spice of life.....
Logged


(Hidden)

« Reply #21 on: March 09, 2011, 11:11:57 am »

Voyeurism has been played out in the movies, though typically portrayed in a sinister way (Sliver). but it's no secret that people have at least fantasized about it for ages, if not acted on it.  I have often fantasized about voyeurism and have tried on occasion to sneak a peak (although i'm usually too scared to get a real glimpse) at guys in the HS shower or at the urinals and i love those types of porns. But for my part, technology actually becomes a problem. I have a problem with when the fantasy becomes reality. If you take part in George McFly type of voyeurism,  by all means, my advice is just don't get caught. i find the "spying" version different from the peeking or sexual fantasy porno and i feel that filming someone is just wrong. Maybe it's the idea that someone is creating a hard copy of a moment of someone else without their consent. Just like how celebrity sex tapes "are never supposed to get out" but they always do, i don't feel it's right to copy that act of voyeurism as a savable, transferable piece of data. At a minimum, keep the experience your own, keep it in the moment, and for shit's sake, don't get caught!

So, are you saying that you're okay with the act of voyeurism in principal, but believe it should not be practiced?  Or should just not be recorded?  Interesting take. 
Logged


(Hidden)

« Reply #22 on: March 09, 2011, 08:04:41 pm »

I see no problem with the whole subject at hand as so long as nobody is physically harmed by it.
Logged



The only difference between martyrdom and suicide is press coverage!

"Education is all we have left when we have forgotten everything we learned in school." -- Albert Einstein
(Hidden)

« Reply #23 on: March 13, 2011, 03:40:52 am »

Wow.  Not a single reply, comment or death threat.  I think apathy is probably worse than anger or repulsion.  It's hard to believe no one has a single thought to share.  C'mon men, show me your balls!

It's easy to settle. Societies rear boys and girls as THE pair to merge. That is mainly because of the male female organs which look mergeable. But nowhere can we make sense that only the opposite sex can love another opposite sex; so men (in spite of risk) have fallen in love with other men). Now imagine of societies raised kids to love whoever they wished, merge with any sex. We would then see perhaps 30-40% homo while hetero remains the most desirable for a majority of people. The rule is indelibly placed to merge with the other sex and, when we get caught with our own sex, all hell breaks loose. When I was a kid a gay did not have to DO anything gay. If someone reported to the cops that so and so was gay, he was taken either to the hospital or to jail! Iran hangs them.
Logged


(Hidden)

« Reply #24 on: March 17, 2011, 03:41:03 pm »

I'm not sure about the accuracy of your numbers, but I get your point.  Homosexuality is taboo in many, if not most countries of the world.  Even here in the U.S. discrimination against homosexuals is still openly accepted.   (Though, I'm not sure what this has to do with the specific topic of voyeurism.)
Logged


(Hidden)

« Reply #25 on: March 19, 2011, 04:28:16 am »

I always thought that the Americans are (for a western society) pretty prude. I'm from Germany and I play football (soccer) and after training or a match we shower together in one big group shower and noone seems to mind that they are naked because everyone is.
When we have someone in the team from an islamic country (many turks in Germany) some of them (even when born and raised in Germany) shower with their boxershorts on. That is off course accapted, too, although theyy might be the target of some jokes or jests.
I once played against another team whose field was at former US barracks and they had indvidual showers there instead of a group shower, I found that pretty strange.

To get to the actual topic. As this is the forum to a gay torrent site we naturally talked about male on male voyerism here, what do you guys think of men who spy on women? Do the same rules apply there? Is it sort of OKish if noone can be recognized or it is just used for personal joy or is it a despicable act?
Logged


(Hidden)

« Reply #26 on: March 22, 2011, 03:09:26 am »

To get to the actual topic. As this is the forum to a gay torrent site we naturally talked about male on male voyerism here, what do you guys think of men who spy on women? Do the same rules apply there? Is it sort of OKish if noone can be recognized or it is just used for personal joy or is it a despicable act?

That's a powerful question. For some reason, I find men spying on women to be more offensive, although there probably isn't a moral difference. Maybe it's because I feel like--- implicit in the separation of lockers and such on the basis of gender--- men already have a lower expectation of privacy around other men, whereas women have a heightened one around men? Or maybe it's social conditioning to be sensitive to the group not holding the power (so to speak), in the same way that I find it more offensive to call a black person a n* than to call a white person a cracker. Or (and most likely)... maybe it's just too alien to me, since I'm not straight, and don't even peripherally feel the attraction. It's always easier to pass judgment on temptations that you're not subject to yourself.

Now that you've raised the question, I'm wondering what the average straight guy would say in answer. I suspect he'd find male on male spying more prurient than male on female spying.
Logged


(Hidden)

« Reply #27 on: March 23, 2011, 08:27:51 am »

To get to the actual topic. As this is the forum to a gay torrent site we naturally talked about male on male voyerism here, what do you guys think of men who spy on women? Do the same rules apply there? Is it sort of OKish if noone can be recognized or it is just used for personal joy or is it a despicable act?

The most distinct difference between female/male vs male/male is that the all male voyeurism (being talked about here) can be done without breaking any laws. It is perfectly legal to join a gym and linger on occasion in the men's locker room. Granted you definitely want to do this type of viewing (spying) with discretion. This same can be said for certain restrooms. There's still plenty of piss troughs in older (or gay/fetish/leather) restrooms that allow for men to stand side by side with an easy view of each others cocks. For more explicit and outright sexual displays there are bathhouses. I've been to bathhouses a few times in my travels and it was never to actually get laid. It was specifically to walk around and check out all the horny dudes doing what comes naturally.

On the other hand, if a straight man wants to "peep" on women it has to be done in a way that is certainly frowned upon with the exception being mainly nude beaches/resorts. It's certainly been played for comedic in many films like Porky's. But I think most women would be horrified to find a man hiding in their locker room because it is clearly illegal for him to be there. The imbalance of "power" cannot be overlooked either. However, straight men have not hesitated to create websites that cater to their voyeuristic desires. Whenever I'm on the hunt for male voyeurism films outside of gay/male themed sites I am typically bombarded with female locker room/restroom/spy sex/upskirt offerings (that I ignore). I am not a straight man -- I do not play by straight rules so my perception of this aspect of voyeurism has been conditioned by my society. (Straight) Peeping toms are generally believed to be socially inept perverts taking advantage of women.

Men who spy on men are almost NEVER talked about with the exception of cases like Dan Franco's. The reason Franco got in trouble was NOT because he was spying on guys in locker rooms but because he video taped his adventures (then sold them on the internet). Video taping is a different can of worms. (Some get off on it some find it offensive.)

I think the presumption is that most men in a private space are there for non-sexual reasons. And really...unless a guy is standing there jacking off while looking at you there's just no way of knowing he's visually molesting you. If somebody makes a veiled or outright accusation you can simply deny it and go about your business. Besides, straight men check each other out too.

Of course I'm biased in believing that men who get spied upon can handle being objectified. Mainly because I benefit from it happening. Be it in person or somebody captured in video form. There are probably better ways of expressing this point of view but ultimately I feel that same sex voyeurism is just different. There's no way it couldn't be.
Logged


(Hidden)

« Reply #28 on: March 27, 2011, 10:05:46 pm »

Is Sliver the movie with one of the Baldwin brothers?  The premise was interesting but the movie was not well done.  It failed to portray the emotion involved in the act.  It merely showed the activity, in an unbelievable way. 
Logged


(Hidden)

« Reply #29 on: March 31, 2011, 05:31:05 am »

I do get turned on by looking at men, clothed or naked and was talking to my boyfriend about something similar just yesterday. We were shopping in town and there was this handsome beautiful guy standing outside a shop smoking. He appeared to be on a break from renovating the shop. He had overalls on, rolled down to the waist and a long sleeved shirt on top with white paint everywhere ... even in his hair which looked nice with a nice big manly man pair of black boots. The first thing I did after admiring his nice face was look at crotch for bulge and then his ass, then I quickly looked away in case he seen me. I really, really wanted to stare look for longer but didn't and was a little cross with myself for not doing so.

A little later, another handsome beautiful guy walked out of a shop right in front of us. He had on short shorts and a tight grey T-shirt which showed his nice, muscular  body. Now I stared at this guys ass and legs until he was completely out of view, trying not to get a boner.

I turned to my bf and said that is a bit weiiiiird, that I could stare look at that guy in shorts ass, in a packed out street, but I myself felt that I couldn't/shouldn't be looking at the guy in overalls ass? We both agreed the nice guy in shorts basicly had it on display and perhaps that is why I felt I couldn't look at overalls guy. But is that really the case? Overalls guys ass was just as nice, perhaps even nicer!


On topic of toilets and locker rooms, I have looked at other mens parts and find nothing wrong with it. Perhaps it's because it is on display. I get a boner if I look for too long though, especially in a locker room so I mostly go to cubicles. Also, about filming, I see nothing wrong with this and have even done it myself more than once to satisfy my curiosity. No one knew they were being filmed. I didn't know any of the men and have never seen them again either so I doubt any harm was done. I don't have the film any more after the camera eventually got soaked and broke on holiday. Didn't get to making a DvD, boo heheh. I'm not sure if I'd do it again either though, as thrilling as it is  Smiley

Logged


(Hidden)

« Reply #30 on: April 02, 2011, 04:33:30 pm »

I just love watching guys naked in the changing room, peek them at urinals and maybe take peek when they are in a shower if they are really hot.

I don't look if I am not interested on the guy lol.

Some of the guys are pretty exhibitionist. They just take off their shirt and watch themselves in the mirror and look how nice their chest and abs is. I really like watching that too. Pretty hot.
Logged


(Hidden)

« Reply #31 on: April 03, 2011, 12:22:01 am »

Voyeurism has been played out in the movies, though typically portrayed in a sinister way (Sliver). but it's no secret that people have at least fantasized about it for ages, if not acted on it.  I have often fantasized about voyeurism and have tried on occasion to sneak a peak (although i'm usually too scared to get a real glimpse) at guys in the HS shower or at the urinals and i love those types of porns. But for my part, technology actually becomes a problem. I have a problem with when the fantasy becomes reality. If you take part in George McFly type of voyeurism,  by all means, my advice is just don't get caught. i find the "spying" version different from the peeking or sexual fantasy porno and i feel that filming someone is just wrong. Maybe it's the idea that someone is creating a hard copy of a moment of someone else without their consent. Just like how celebrity sex tapes "are never supposed to get out" but they always do, i don't feel it's right to copy that act of voyeurism as a savable, transferable piece of data. At a minimum, keep the experience your own, keep it in the moment, and for shit's sake, don't get caught!

Everyone is welcome to their opinion.  You're not alone in your concern about the invasion of someone's privacy.  Even if in agreement, there are still shades of gray as to what does and does not constitute such an invasion.  Undoubtedly, to some, the act of invasion is part of the "thrill."  To each his own.  The one thing that can be said of this "vice," is that no physical contact takes place and so, at least in the physical sense, the act is harmless. 

I got plenty of peeks in while in the military showers.  Your head doesn't stay still while you're scrubbing away.  Just get your peeks in while going about your business!   And if you do get caught, what's the worst that can happen in that safe environment?  Probably a dirty look. 

I think the advise of not getting caught is stating the obvious.  Although, here too, there are some for which the danger of being caught ads to the overall "thrill." 

Logged


(Hidden)

« Reply #32 on: April 03, 2011, 01:45:47 am »


This problem of privacy and consent is one that the people of Cameroon, the Fang, having strong opinions on privacy, dealt with shortly after the day a group of anthroplogists arrived carrying a tall and slender wooden studio camera to use in their documentation and research activities. The picture taking was inturrupted soonafter, and villagers soon strongly prohibited and discouraged such things from happening--because, as they understood it, they believed such a thing would not impress their local spirits, the only ones permitted to make magic, and being upset--disaster would ensue.

It was said that the local spirits, worshiped as gods by the village, and quite powerful, had spoken-- and let it be known that only bad things would come from the use of the white mans wooden box, a box which harnessed the light of a person....taken after being placed infront of the person..this would surely darken and destroy their souls before their journey to the place of their ancestors. to record them and their image, they would have felt deeply and personally "violated" .."Please do not bring this shame upon us" the Fang village elders said. The white anthropologists took the pictures anyways, thinking nothing wrong in doing so.

Now, this early form of voyeurism wasn't a plague or a problem, or even an issue, until one day a very well-intentioned and well-meaning research assistent somewhere inside the group had the bright idea to try and explain to the Fang what a camera was......a monumental mistake of course because explaining the mechanics of light-processed image reproduction to individuals who had no place, patience, or time for such a concept is like explaining Socialist Realism to Lady Gaga...so of course the Fang said "no way" ....because hello!! eternal exile from the spirit world of the ancestors was NOT a sufficient reason enough to help the white man and his dangerous use of these "WoodBoxes of Person & Animal-kept-Light." The village now contained 2 other boxes, to join the original one that, as every villager whispered, was for weeks now known to be carefully collecting its grouping of souls inside.

At this point you might wonder, how much harm could come to that Fang village with their "violated" sense of dignity now soiled by the white mans flashpowder and shoeprints, stamped upon them forever.... and all the way in england, people  "looking" at pictures taken of them without their consent.... this was a cruel and indignant way to hurt people, right? and by bad i mean it did what to the Fang again?? Hurt their feelings? feelings that were created not by the white man and his magic but by the idea of the unknown and the uncontrollable? whos responsible for that feeling?

Not them, thought the white men. Hiding the picture taking was probably easier in the long run they reasoned..(even though "hiding" isnt the right word, since "hiding behind the tree" to a people raised to live and survive with attention to every single aspect of movement or noise in the wild soon makes "hiding" an exercise in futility). so they did what any moral, upstanding member of the community would do--they lied. They had that same assistant who had started all the trouble, a nervous woman named Eleanor, go back and explain to them that they should no longer worry.... it suddenly "wasnt" a camera... better yet,  all three of the hideous boxes were now, according to Eleanor, "something else that is not a camera, or camera-like in any way."

Ultimately, what the pictures taken were used for apparently didnt bring armageddon down upon the Fang village. How? Because the well-kept Village had its own set of important problems to tackle, just as serious as the nosy white men and their field studies: there was rain to pray for; witches to find and their spells to counter; crop-giving and water-bearing spirits to summon; fish to catch; and newborn babies to feed. Life goes on.

So, is voyuerism wrong? who does it really hurt? And why?

Logged



The speed of light (3×108 m/s) from Earth to the Moon, in real time
(Hidden)

« Reply #33 on: April 20, 2011, 05:46:32 am »

for the most part, us Americans, are uptight about nudity.  a lot of folk confuse modesty with shame - unintentionally and sometimes intentionally.  i saw a local soccer (football) game with the L.A. Galaxy.  after the game, David Beckham took off his shirt and ran the field front and back.  i think it's a European tradition.  he ran alone.  his contemporaries seemed only confused by the gesture.  an example of American fear of the most modest display of exhibitionism. 
Logged


(Hidden)

« Reply #34 on: April 20, 2011, 05:56:47 am »

fear of ones dick size is really pretty stupid.  it's a self created fear.  the great percentage of men in the locker room are straight and even if they take a peak to see how they themselves measure up, they really don't give a damn about any other dude's cock.  reality is that most of us are average both in size and build.  we know that those in porn with the huge schlongs are the rare exception, just condensed in that particular field.  it would be silly to compare ourselves to them as it would be to compare ourselves to an Armani model. 

i've seen small wienered guys walk around every bit as cocky as their bigger brothers.  i've also noticed more than one "hung" dude who's a little more than embarrassed about the attention his wang is creating.  it's more about confidence and attitude than size.  there is definitely something exciting about a huge, well proportioned cock.  that said, i've never turned away a smaller one because of size.  it's all about the man it's attached to. 
Logged


(Hidden)

« Reply #35 on: December 11, 2017, 10:54:11 pm »

Bump.

People like to look. Kids are curious. Hell, adults are curious. We like to know whether we're normal, for one thing. This is a way of gathering data about other men's habits and rituals relating to their penis. How they release it, shield it, hold it, let it fly, shake it, and stroke it. The size and shape, cut and uncut, straight or curved, venous or smoothish, these are things to be discovered by observation, and if you happen to have yr dick in yr hand pissing along with other members of the male tribe, there can be... responses.

There's another thread where a dude confessed his "GUILTY SECRET..." (in all caps) that he likes to look.  https://forum.gaytorrent.ru/index.php?topic=52429.0

stealfire: "I believe that part of the excitement experienced is due to the surreptitious nature of the act."

Being secretly "wicked" and playing Guilty, is somewhat akin to just getting a shiver because it is forbidden. The element of danger also ups the adrenaline.

You want some primo perving? Hit the Fourth of July fireworks celebration at the nearest military base you can get to when they invite the public in for the show. Very possibly, a lot of sex-starved young military studs have spent the day on the grass with their gals getting sun and getting drunk. By the time the exploding sky fires come to a stop, the public restrooms will be full of staggering studs.

It may be that I was filtering irrelevant data, but the one time I got to be surrounded by these men pissing like race horses they did all seem to be hung like horses as well. I just stood there, enjoying quietly and unnoticed.

Now if you want to get into a real brawl about proper behavior, have you seen anyone objecting to the unauthorized molesting in many videos involving someone passed out drunk?



Logged


Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
  Print  

* Permissions
You can't post new topics.
You can't post replies.
You can't post attachments.
You can't modify your posts.
BBCode Enabled
Smilies Enabled
[img] Enabled
HTML Disabled

 
Jump to:  

Related Topics
Subject Started by Replies Views Last post
Homosexuality debate rages in Barbados Gay News avalonmoore 2 1435 Last post December 15, 2010, 02:07:40 pm
by MrMazda
Anti-gay remark in Suriname sparks debate Gay News avalonmoore 2 1239 Last post July 31, 2011, 12:06:42 am
by Spintendo
A cultural debate Jokes & Funny Stuff pornofan 3 2532 Last post October 17, 2016, 04:56:38 am
by cupofass
DEBATE: Obama's Birth Certificate is FAKE. You won't debate cuz you know it. Politics & Debate mhorndisk 0 167 Last post September 06, 2017, 01:34:53 pm
by mhorndisk