The new legislation introduced by Mr. Vallone to the City Council is absurd and sexist, besides being " a license for abuse" as Donna Lieberman from the Civil Liberty Union maintains. In the first place, it does not take into account the complexity of sexual pleasure: some people derive their pleasure from showing themselves barely clad in public; this condition, affecting above all women and known to mental health experts and psychologist as "paraphilia," is more common than Mr. Vallone shows to know. It is to women what "flashing" is to the perverted man, and is widespread in big cities. Then, it is sexist, since it is a law directed against men, solely and exclusively. As for Donna Lieberman's charge, the question remains about how is woman to prove that she was the victim of a "peeping"? What would be her evidence, her word only? And who can guaranty that there won't be women out there more than willing to abuse this law simply because she has some grievance or other against men in general, should she be a lesbian or radical feminist?
Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.
Other reader comments on this article
Comment
By
Date
As someone who has been a victim of "peeping" I applaud this small measure to ban such practices. The fact... [MORE]
July07
Aug 23, 2007 14:14
The new legislation introduced by Mr. Vallone to the City Council is absurd and sexist, besides being " a license...
Sergis
Aug 22, 2007 21:58
If you don't want someone to look in put up blinds or pull down the shades. Another case of the... [MORE]
Sid
Aug 22, 2007 16:41
The law, as presently drafted, invites an invidious enforcement conforming to the Constable's prejudices, cultured and uncouth. For example, viewing... [MORE]