March 17, 2008

WTF of the Day

Posted in patriarchy, privacy, sexual politics, WTF at 8:31 pm by LB

The Feminist Daily News (Feminist Majority) reported this story (via the f-word):

“Oklahoma Man Not Charged for Violating Privacy of 16 Year Old Girl”.

Oklahoma’s Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that taking pictures up someone’s skirt in a public place is not a crime. The court voted 4-1 in favor of 34-year-old Riccardo Ferrante who was arrested for putting his camera up an unsuspecting 16-year-old girl’s skirt in a department store, reports the Associated Press…Ferrante was charged under Oklahoma’s “Peeping Tom” statute, which makes such offenses felonies punishable of up to 5 years in prison. Tulsa World reports that the court ruled that the statute only applies in situations where the victims are in a reasonably private place such as their own homes, a restroom, or a locker room.

Quick thoughts:

  • Clearly, sexual privacy doesn’t seem to apply to when women are in public.
  • What can of worms does this open up? Spycams in changing rooms? Can someone pull down your shirt as you’re waiting for the bus? The implications of this ruling are absurd!
  • She’s 16-years old…WTF?!
  • And this is all because she dared to wear a skirt in public that was short enough that a camera could be placed under that. Hear that ladies? If you’re gonna leave the house, you’d better be wearing full-body armor! Enter the public sphere, and your sexual privacy belongs to everyone. But stay at home (ya know, where women belong), and you’re fully protected.

I have been thinking a lot about women’s right to privacy in public spaces, due to some recent stories and discoveries I’ve made, and I plan to write about it more extensively soon (keep an eye out!)…but in the meantime, puke on this.

(Cross-posted at The Reaction)



  1. […] post has been a long time coming, but this recent news put me over the edge: Remember back in March when I wrote about the Oklahoma Peeping Tom? He took cel phone photos up a minor’s skirt while shopping at Target; the charges were […]

  2. […] he was arraigned is surely excellent news, since in many other jurisdictions, women bodies are public property, with no expectation of personal privacy in […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: