Right or wrong or grey area

[Guest 2000]

1 hour ago, benedict5856 said:

of course i won't allow the person to peep at me, unlike u. So u don't compare with yr moral values with mine. We are chinese asian, not Ang mo. Our cultural is already very different, our upbringing is also different.

 

So what makes peeing to be more acceptable to be peeped at compared to pooping? What kinda of analogy are u trying to say again. But before u said it, u are Ang Mo, we are chinese. Read the first paragraph again. So before u wanna make a statement, remember, u are Ang Mo. We are different. Most of the members here are asians.

 

The one thing I would caution is that Steve does not represent the viewpoint of every Ang Mo, so your comment is bordering on racism, because I am sure the vast majority of Ang Mos would not want to be peeped at in a public toilet (nor think such peepers should be excused). I am confident that Steve is in a clear minority on this issue, regardless of race, and there are also lots of presumably Asians commenting in this thread saying it's not a big deal.

 

My opinion is that many of the people who think what happened to you is okay either have exhibitionistic tendencies, or else they have watched too many toilet peeping videos online, and become perverted into thinking such behavior is okay. I disagree with all of them. At some point there have to be rules and laws, and certain behaviors can't be tolerated under any circumstances, and protecting people's privacy in pubic toilets is a principle to stand on.

[Steve5380]

9 hours ago, Guest 2000 said:

 

My opinion is that many of the people who think what happened to you is okay either have exhibitionistic tendencies, or else they have watched too many toilet peeping videos online, and become perverted into thinking such behavior is okay. I disagree with all of them. At some point there have to be rules and laws, and certain behaviors can't be tolerated under any circumstances, and protecting people's privacy in pubic toilets is a principle to stand on.

 

Sorry, but your opinion is wrong.

 

One notices from the comments here that we people don't think that voyeurism is OK but that immediately running to find an authority that should punish the peeper is an overreaction.  Like your opinion is an overreaction. Don't confuse "it's not a big deal" with "it is OK". There is no evidence whatsoever that we are exhibitionists or that we have watched too many peeping videos online and are perverted.  How you dare to make up this insulting stuff ???  There is no perversion here that would even come close to the perversion of your "opinion".

 

We not only are not "perverted" but we have some understanding of the consequences of the rush judgments made by people who erroneously think they have such a superior morality that they should look down and bash those who have moderation and forgiveness.   Many of us remember the case of Nicholas LIm and how he barely escaped draconian punishment that an alleged "victim" wanted to inflict on him.

 

Hopefully you understand with some shame that your position is not different from those who judge homosexuals as sinners that pervert society, and are encouraged by the false idea that they are defending morality by pushing "rules and laws" like 377A to protect from evil behaviors like gay sex that can't be tolerated under any circumstances.  

.

Edited June 25, 2019 by Steve5380

[Guest Sigh]

On 6/22/2019 at 9:55 AM, Guest Guest said:

 

 

 

That's the ENTIRE POINT here! YOU think that this is not like littering, or spitting or jaywalking, but WE THINK SO; YOU think that your case is like that of the gay doctor, but WE THINK NOT! 

 

If YOU want to make such a fuss out of another guy seeing your tiny prick, then perhaps you should not even go into any sauna or even walk into Japanese STRAIGHT bathhouse where all the men walk around in NUDE, otherwise you will be screaming about public indecency! In fact, you shouldn't even be showering at all in ANY public bathrooms because there is this possibility that you might have your COCK seen by another MAN! Do you know why we couldn't care about people seeing our pricks? Because we are GUYS, and we really couldn't care less about what people SEE of our body ever since we were young! When we were young, we even ran around NAKED and we couldn't even be bothered about what you call decency! We had been completely open about our bodes, unlike little princesses like you.

 

And in fact, It is little princess like you whom people call CHAO AH GUA, and now that the little princesses have grown up, the terms has degenerated into LAO AH GUA. So, you tell me if this is true or not?

Who the heck do you think you are referring to when you use "WE"? Please, you do not represent all of us. 

 

 

On 6/22/2019 at 9:55 AM, Guest Guest said:

If YOU want to make such a fuss out of another guy seeing your tiny prick, then perhaps you should not even go into any sauna or even walk into Japanese STRAIGHT bathhouse where all the men walk around in NUDE, otherwise you will be screaming about public indecency! In fact, you shouldn't even be showering at all in ANY public bathrooms because there is this possibility that you might have your COCK seen by another MAN!

 

It is true that there is a chance you may get exposed to others/others may get exposed to you in a place like a public bathroom. 

 

But you are making a false equivalence when you imply accidental exposure = intentional peeping by someone over a CUBICLE WALL, and cubicles are supposed to be private spaces (yes, even in public bathrooms). Can't believe this has to be said to you.  Such a lack of compassion in your comments. Hopefully people would be more sympathetic to you if you ever get sexually harassed. 

 

It is people like you that make me lose faith in humanity. Indeed the only thing common among gay men is their sexual orientation - this forum reminds me every day. 

 

[benedict5856]

3 hours ago, Steve5380 said:

 

Sorry, but your opinion is wrong.

 

One notices from the comments here that we people don't think that voyeurism is OK but that immediately running to find an authority that should punish the peeper is an overreaction.  Like your opinion is an overreaction. Don't confuse "it's not a big deal" with "it is OK". There is no evidence whatsoever that we are exhibitionists or that we have watched too many peeping videos online and are perverted.  How you dare to make up this insulting stuff ???  There is no perversion here that would even come close to the perversion of your "opinion".

 

We not only are not "perverted" but we have some understanding of the consequences of the rush judgments made by people who erroneously think they have such a superior morality that they should look down and bash those who have moderation and forgiveness.   Many of us remember the case of Nicholas LIm and how he barely escaped draconian punishment that an alleged "victim" wanted to inflict on him.

 

Hopefully you understand with some shame that your position is not different from those who judge homosexuals as sinners that pervert society, and are encouraged by the false idea that they are defending morality by pushing "rules and laws" like 377A to protect from evil behaviors like gay sex that can't be tolerated under any circumstances.  

.

 

At the end of the day, u are trying to tell others, u are a forgiving person, indirectly tell him its ok for him continue to peep at others, over and over again.

 

Sorry, i am not a forgiving person and i still stand on the point i have not gone too far in reporting. He deserved it.

If what i have done is wrong in reporting him, let the judge decide is he guilty or not.

Sadly, that pervert managed to escape. But bet now he dares not climb and peep again. How many men would have been saved.

 

and u like to talk about 377A.

Do know that gay sex is between 2 consenting adults, be it poke backside full of smelly shit or a manly man kneeling down to suck a sissy cock, its different from peeping.

Bcas peeping is never having the agreement of the other party (victim).

And our Former Prime Minister LKY has said, homosexual is the genetic issues. its in-born. And Asians are still conservative in their thinkings. Thus Singapore law don't go punish gays nor they will also legalise it. So stop relating it to 377A.

 

But peeping is different. its not a grey area. Its a chargeable offence. I have mentioned before in one of my post where my gay friend is caught masturbating with another person in the toilet. He goes to jail not bcas of his actions but bcas the other party is only 15 years old. I attended the court hearings. The judge mentioned that 2 consenting men do at closed door, they won't go and penalise it. So stop talking about 377A. 

 

U are not even Singaporeans, to understand what its like living here.

 

I saw youtube, Pranks on woman with the breast exposed. THese woman would laugh at it at times.

If the same thing will happen here, the police will charge the man if the video is upload. And u will see is this a prank jokes or not.

Many times when ppl upload on facebook, the police will take actions. Especially the story of the lorry and the cyclist at pasir ris.

 

Its good to comment, sharing. But in Rome, do what the Romans do. Comments what the Romans comment.

[Guest nothing wrong]

17 hours ago, Guest 2000 said:

 

The one thing I would caution is that Steve does not represent the viewpoint of every Ang Mo, so your comment is bordering on racism, because I am sure the vast majority of Ang Mos would not want to be peeped at in a public toilet (nor think such peepers should be excused). I am confident that Steve is in a clear minority on this issue, regardless of race, and there are also lots of presumably Asians commenting in this thread saying it's not a big deal.

 

My opinion is that many of the people who think what happened to you is okay either have exhibitionistic tendencies, or else they have watched too many toilet peeping videos online, and become perverted into thinking such behavior is okay. I disagree with all of them. At some point there have to be rules and laws, and certain behaviors can't be tolerated under any circumstances, and protecting people's privacy in pubic toilets is a principle to stand on.

 

I don't see at any point that Steve5380's post was even bordering on racism. It is unfair to bring up the word 'racism" here where it is not justified at all. The words seems to be used like a "protective shield" or a tool to criticise someone on unfair terms.

It is like some people will always bring up and claim someone is racist (unfriendly guy at a hotel reception or restaurant waiter), only because someone is pointing to something he can't do (give in to a request, which is usually charged, or maybe even a rude comment / reaction in a restaurant).

Please let's just use racism, when it is appropriate.

 

Maybe both you 2000 and Benedict didn't really get the point from Steve, but he is just opining that there is not much big violation of privacy, when someone male peeps over a cubicle in a male toilet. for him it is just nothing "serious" or a big deal for which he would waste his time, resources, energy to report the incident to cleaners, security, police and he would just move on.

That is his point of view.

Someone earlier took his efforts to explain to him (to Steve) that the Asian society is less liberal.

And Benedict is right to say: not all white guys would have this "tolerant" view of some guy peeping in a male toilet cubicle.

We might not all run to the police, but I m quite sure I would have shouted back to the guy and banged his door too. Maybe would have even waited for him to confront him.

 

And let's put another point straight:

On a stint at a French university in more Central France, there were plenty of peeping holes at the toilets (actually at all cubicles) and I am very sure that not all guys who peeped over were gays but plenty of straight guys too. Some guys did not bother to cover up the holes and weren't "annoyed" by other people watching them, whereas others (probably the vast majority) covered up the holes instantly once they were inside the cubicle.

 

And to sum up:

I don't even allow Benedict to say something about "Asian values". Yes, some things might be more conservative. I m very sure people would call the police if a couple would be doing a nude sun bath at Sentosa (they must not even be Ang Mohs). But I don;t think in the same time that all Singaporean Asian would be offended or see it as a problem. In the context of today I m quite sure, some people would not have issues.

However, peeping over toilet cubicles is crossing a line and I personally think, there was no wrong to call the cleaners for help. You should respect the privacy of others and don't let your own sexual urges overcome you to cross a line, if the other has not given his consent to be peeped on.

And by all means, such guys who lost the touch on what is right and wrong might need a warning or reminder to bring him back to his senses. If not, the will lose the touch on when they cross a line. Sure, I don't wish him to end up in jail or court. But a stern warning should be adequate, either by the cleaners or the mall security personnel.

But please let's leave ugly words like "Racist" out of the discussion here.

[Guest nothing wrong]

4 hours ago, benedict5856 said:

 

 

But peeping is different. its not a grey area. Its a chargeable offence. I have mentioned before in one of my post where my gay friend is caught masturbating with another person in the toilet. He goes to jail not bcas of his actions but bcas the other party is only 15 years old. I attended the court hearings. The judge mentioned that 2 consenting men do at closed door, they won't go and penalise it. So stop talking about 377A. 

 

You example with the 15 year old is not good. Adults should not do with any under age at all. Fullstop. You friend took the risk. There is no excuse for this and it doesn't bring anything into the discussion about the cubicle peeping Joe in your initial post.

 

Most countries have laws to protect minors from sexual advances by adults.

In Europe most country laws will state that any sexual thing between someone below 16 with someone above 18 is an offence. Some countries have certain rules, that allow sexual encounters between someone <Banned Words> with someone below 16 if it is consenting. Same rules for gays. I think for girls the age limit is somewhere lower.

 

I m not sure if the peeping is a chargeable offence in Singapore since that one judgment were the judges concluded that men do not have any "modesty" to protect.

(as long no filming or taking pictures is involved). Outrage of modesty in Singapore seems currently not to apply to men to men peepers.

 

Sex acts in public would be something different.

[Guest nothing wrong]

*Most countries have laws to protect minors from sexual advances by adults.

In Europe most country laws will state that any sexual thing between someone below 16 with someone above 18 is an offence. Some countries have certain rules, that allow sexual encounters between someone above eighteen years with someone below 16 if it is consenting. Same rules for gays. I think for girls the age limit is somewhere lower.

[Steve5380]

2 hours ago, Guest nothing wrong said:

 

I don't see at any point that Steve5380's post was even bordering on racism. It is unfair to bring up the word 'racism" here where it is not justified at all. The words

 

Thank you for being rational.  Our moral values are not tied to a race but to an education system, if at all.  Benedict probably had more "American" in mind than "Ang moh".

 

Benedict's case was one of simple voyeurism,  without the harmful recording often associated with it, which often leads to cyber bullying.  This makes his case different from Nicholas Lim's case.  In this one, many of us have criticized Monica Baey not for reporting the case, but for her vengeful insistence that Nicholas be punished stronger than he was, and the way she exploited the case for her own promotion.

 

I am all in favor of reporting non consenting filming or photography that violates the privacy of persons,  and the punishment for it should be proportional to the potential victimization.  To be seen is not much of a victimization, while to be humiliated, outed in front of a cyber audience is serious.  I always have in mind the case of the violin student Tayler Clementi, who committed suicide after being outed by his room mate who filmed him having gay sex in the privacy of his room. I see the picture of this innocent guy and cry.

 

I wish someone invents a technological solution to detect improper recording.  I would propose a law that would force manufacturers of recording devices to include a beacon in each of them that emits a wireless signal while recording,  and receivers who can detect the signals and take action, like sounding an alarm or calling security.  These receivers would be installed in places that need protection, like bathrooms, locker rooms,  GAY SAUNAS,  etc. or... one's own private room.

 

 

 

[benedict5856]

15 hours ago, Guest nothing wrong said:

 

You example with the 15 year old is not good. Adults should not do with any under age at all. Fullstop. You friend took the risk. There is no excuse for this and it doesn't bring anything into the discussion about the cubicle peeping Joe in your initial post.

 

Most countries have laws to protect minors from sexual advances by adults.

In Europe most country laws will state that any sexual thing between someone below 16 with someone above 18 is an offence. Some countries have certain rules, that allow sexual encounters between someone <Banned Words> with someone below 16 if it is consenting. Same rules for gays. I think for girls the age limit is somewhere lower.

 

I m not sure if the peeping is a chargeable offence in Singapore since that one judgment were the judges concluded that men do not have any "modesty" to protect.

(as long no filming or taking pictures is involved). Outrage of modesty in Singapore seems currently not to apply to men to men peepers.

 

Sex acts in public would be something different.

 

Steve is saying if peeping is an offence, then gay acts are also an offence under the act 377A. So whats the difference then since both is still an offence. 

Which is why i mention what my friend has done. 

He is punished not for the gay acts, but for doing it with a minor.

So the law is not so strict about gay acts, as long they do it in their privacy.

 

And to steve5380, u are correct to say i am not being racist, which i have never intended to.

Ang Mo is not a degrading term anyway.

 

After chatting almost 3 pages, i have not seen anyone who have similar incident to share, where u innocently do nothing and some gays come and harass u.

I been harassed in the bus before too, almost 20 years ago. The bus is so empty, many places dont wanna sit, purposely come and sit beside me and squeeze near me, and bodily contact. Opposite passenger also stare at him in shock. i tried to move away, he tried to squeeze nearer to me instead. Should i shout - u bian tai?!?!

[Guest Guest]

5 hours ago, benedict5856 said:

After chatting almost 3 pages, i have not seen anyone who have similar incident to share, where u innocently do nothing and some gays come and harass u

 

You sure? 

 

On 6/20/2019 at 8:34 AM, Guest Guest said:

 

At least you know that you would change your opinion on reporting such an infringer to the cleaners if it had been Brunei and the guy would have been stoned to death. In the case of the TS, I won't be surprised if the only reasons why he didn't go down to the police to make a police report himself to catch the guy via CCTV cameras and so on or the police in undercover plainclothes standing around waiting for another incident is simply because he may have found it too big a hassle for his own time. It's all about HIMSELF and HIMSELF ALONE. If not for the additional trouble that he would have to go through, his BLOODLUST would have compelled him further to maybe even stone the perpetrator himself in the event that the perpetrator had been caught. 

 

If I had been peeped at (and I had), the most I will do is to quickly cover up myself and scold the peeping tom through the cubicle walls and tell him off to stop it and to get lost. Even if I see the cleaner outside later, I will just walk past the cleaner without saying anything. Firstly, I don't have such bloodlust like the TS, and I also see no point in disturbing the TOILET CLEANER who may not even be paid enough to deal with such trouble! I think such a scare to the perpetrator would have been sufficient to me as a form of punishment for him. But noooooo... the TS wanted to go hunt the perpetrator down and even dragged the toilet cleaner into this with him.  

 

[Guest nothing wrong]

6 hours ago, -Ignored- said:

this is Just for Info:

in sg, there is NO privacy law @ all

but there is harassment law - so LONG u can prove that the person intended to be (more than once) gonna taped/record u , u felt harrassed, then u can tap on this Law

not for an one-off event: someone were complaining that they saw a drone at their windows , but it is just random passing by , nt that the user always choose to "passby" his unit/window.

Similarly, so long u can prove that the person constantly is visiting that toilet (kept going back) to record people's toileting actions, then it is indeed a harassment
 

 

Maybe you still live in the past century but with amendments to the PDPA the privacy laws have increased in SGP.

 

See the last post of the thread by Moderators:

 

There is another interesting article on the net covering the new situation as the above article in the thread is sort of outdated again, but don't have time to search for it again now.

 

Otherwise unwanted pictures / posts would not be removed by social apps in the US if you enter the residency location as Singapore but it is done.

 

Any publishing without consent is a violation of privacy laws in Singapore it must not amount to "harassment". The only excuse you can have is when you make a random picture let's say of Orchard Road and there are other people on it and it is for your private "collection". But you cannot make a photo/ video / voice recording of just one single person.

Guess why the one Gojek or Grab driver was in trouble when he filmed the one lady passenger...

 

If any picture/ video recording covers nudity , then even more aspects are involved. It is difficult to give info, as the area is quite wide and probably even IP/ Data protection lawyer would give different responses. And as many area new, don't have many court cases so far.

 

The protection in Europe might be extremely higher, but there is nowadays at least some basic privacy law in Singapore.

[feedersmiracle]

Okay hot or not so hot, take.

 

I've read 3/4 of the thread. Most of it is like arguments and I don't think it's necessary just respect each other's opinion.

 

Yes. Victim is right in persuing action, albeit the action might be wrong. Should've called police and alerted surrounding passers-by.

 

Perpetrator is wrong. Peeping is not right. Molesting is not right. Anyone who think this is ok is just justifying it without acting upon intent.

 

But ok I guess a lot of have been peeped at or peeping at others before. So yes I think I am wrong, maybe the once or twice I've peeped. 

 

I see some special points like gays not accepted or ruining crusing spots.

 

Okay. If gays are more accepted by society, there will be lesser need to cruise or do sexual related activities in public. This is highly likely a fact. This is besides the fact that outdoor sex is a kink (or not).

 

Cruising is okay if both parties are okay AND if it's done within limits. Like obviously don't pull out your dick and flex it at the swimming pool male toilet. Nuh uh uh.

 

Relating to this thread I would like to share a similar discussion on r/sg and hopefully you have something else to read. 

 

I definitely feel bad for thread starter. And I also feel that it's too late to do anything now. But next time you can call the police. No point blaming thread starter.

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/singapore/comments/c4n53m

[Guest 2000]

On June 25, 2019 at 7:05 AM, Guest nothing wrong said:

I don't see at any point that Steve5380's post was even bordering on racism. It is unfair to bring up the word 'racism" here where it is not justified at all. The words seems to be used like a "protective shield" or a tool to criticise someone on unfair terms.

 

I never said Steve's post was bordering on racism. My comment was addressed to Benedict for all of his "You are Ang Moh" and "We are Asian Chinese" verbiage (not everyone from Singapore is Chinese either). If you had actually read and comprehended my comment properly, rather than looking for an excuse to attack me due to the mathematical inability to distinguish between the two different numbers (years) of 2000 and 2001, you wouldn't be feeling owned right now.

 

On June 25, 2019 at 10:22 AM, Steve5380 said:

Thank you for being rational. Our moral values are not tied to a race but to an education system, if at all. Benedict probably had more "American" in mind than "Ang moh". Benedict's case was one of simple voyeurism, without the harmful recording often associated with it, which often leads to cyber bullying. This makes his case different from Nicholas Lim's case. In this one, many of us have criticized Monica Baey not for reporting the case, but for her vengeful insistence that Nicholas be punished stronger than he was, and the way she exploited the case for her own promotion.

 

Why did you go along with such a false premise? Your comprehension of English should be good enough to realize I was saying it was Benedict's comments that bordered on racism, not yours, and just because we have different opinions over whether Benedict's reaction was justified is no reason to go along with a clearly incorrect attack against me. I will also add that we don't know for sure if Benedict was recorded or not. The phone could have been out of his line of sight.

[Steve5380]

1 hour ago, Guest 2000 said:

 

Why did you go along with such a false premise? Your comprehension of English should be good enough to realize I was saying it was Benedict's comments that bordered on racism, not yours, and just because we have different opinions over whether Benedict's reaction was justified is no reason to go along with a clearly incorrect attack against me. I will also add that we don't know for sure if Benedict was recorded or not. The phone could have been out of his line of sight.

 

I am sorry you got the wrong impression.  I thanked you for being RATIONAL.  And I wanted to find some good in Benedict by assuming that he bashed me for being American, not Ang Moh.  As American, one is used to get a lot of heat here  (  )  that is not necessarily racism 

[Guest Tyler]

On 7/4/2019 at 4:20 AM, Steve5380 said:

 

I am sorry you got the wrong impression.  I thanked you for being RATIONAL.  And I wanted to find some good in Benedict by assuming that he bashed me for being American, not Ang Moh.  As American, one is used to get a lot of heat here  (  )  that is not necessarily racism 

 

Why people are racist?

[Steve5380]

4 hours ago, Guest Tyler said:

 

Why people are racist?

 

There can be many reasons.  Fear of people of a certain race,  hate for having been maligned by persons of a certain race,  general mental trauma that looks for races to blame for things, feelings of supremacy of their own race,  etc. etc.