Wetlook World Forum

When a need arises to set a policy, the easiest policies to set are those which reference some objective, factual measure. The problem is, boundaries set around objective criteria, while easy to measure, are almost always too restrictive or too lenient for most people to accept. The policies we can all live with as fair compromises are usually based on nebulous criteria, with no convenient objective measure to anchor them. Inevitably this gives rise to varying interpretations of where the line either is drawn or "should" be drawn, which creates an often-escalating conflict.

Where am I going with all this?

Obviously, Nigel's proposed stand is very restrictive, but it does have the advantage of being based on objective criteria. Conversely, the present "open" policy is very lenient - almost anything goes, and it has invited a fair amount of abuse as a result.

I think most of us have a pretty good idea of what is "reasonable" when it comes to public "candid" photography, posting webshots links, etc., even those who elect to push the limits (you know you are crossing the "line", but you do it anyway).

But where is "the line", anyway?

If you see a pretty woman on street, or at the beach, and decide to "undress her with your eyes", is that sexual harrassment? Perhaps she sees you smile at her... is it reasonable for her to call the cops because of what you are thinking? How does she (or anyone else) know what you are thinking? And what business is it of anyone what you are thinking or what you choose to fantasize about? What if it's a girl sunning herself in the park and you decide to wank off to her from behind the closed shutters of your bedroom?

If you later tell someone else about the anonymous, unidentifiable woman you saw, and what you'd enjoy doing with her, does that become sexual harrassment? How could it? She would have no way of knowing she is being talked about or in what way.

If instead of simply seeing this woman, you take a picture of her, without her awareness, is that voyeurism? Does it depend on what she is wearing or what she is doing (we assume this is all in a public setting). Does it depend on whether the picture is kept private to you or shared with others? Is she harmed because you took the picture? Is she harmed because you shared it with someone else? Is she harmed because of what you think about when you look at the picture (whether you took the picture yourself or obtained it from someone else)? I believe the answer to all those questions is: "not if she was in a public place at the time".

What if she later becomes aware of the existence of the picture, and the context of its appearance? Is she harmed then? I would have to say that she would have valid reason to declare herself harmed, so the answer would be "if she says so".

Depending on where or how you post pictures, links, and stories, the unwitting subjects of those materials may encounter them. If those individuals can identify themselves in said materials, I think they would have a legitimate case against you, should they wish to pursue the matter.

As you can see, I've drawn my line in a rather fuzzy way; some of you will agree with me, others will take up a variety of different positions. There will be no "one size fits all" policy which will satisfy everyone AND can be objectively enforced.

Regarding the forum... Ultimately, this is Nigel's forum to do as he pleases. What puzzles me about the proposed change is that this was intended to be a public, no-membership-required forum with a minimum of intervention/moderation i.e. self-policing (ideally). This would represent quite a change.

Perhaps, Nigel, this is just a bit of rhetoric... your way of saying "if you can't play nicely, I'm going to take away your toys"?