News24

JugCam changes the way we view the snappers

2012-01-06 08:47

The magnifying glass of life hovers over all of us; its proximity sometimes bringing into harsh focus things that change ever so slightly how we see our loved ones.

If we’re lucky, this will never be more than a subtle shift – catching your partner out in a white lie or seeing your best friend agreeing with someone’s distasteful opinions when you know (or think you know) that she feels differently. But sometimes, the new knowledge can be a game-changer. It can erode the fundamental building blocks of how you perceive the other person.

Perception is a two-way channel – it’s transmitted and received with a combination of real and imagined characteristics and actions. So, in the case of the boyfriend telling a white lie – which may not be a big deal in itself – if the girlfriend has had a previous relationship in which she was cheated on, she might find that even that small dishonesty is enough to change the faith she has in the new man in her life.

Enough amateur philosophising. The point I’m making in a roundabout fashion is that there are things that people do that have the potential to irretrievably change how others view them. One such thing, for me, would be the participation in JugCam by any male that I cared about who was over the age of 14.

JugCam is the new controversy that has blown up around the girls at the cricket. You know the ones – they’re young and gorgeous and they go to the events in their bikinis, ostensibly to soak up a bit of summer sun while checking out the action, and occasionally to grab their ten seconds of glory as their radiant good looks are broadcast to the rest of the cricketing audience.

What’s been happening is that the amateur broadcasters of the Twittersphere have been taking phone snapshots of these girls and posting them to Twitter under the hashtag #JugCam. For the complete Twitter luddites, this means that anyone can search for #JugCam to view all the cricket babes that have been snapped. As the name implies, the focus is predominantly on the chest area.

Now, while this may seem like it’s a small step beyond what those girls are actually there to do – show off their assets and wave enthusiastically if the cameramen happen to single them out – there’s a sneaky kind of invasiveness that makes JugCam into something distasteful in the extreme.

It’s the permanence of the frozen image – the fact that something transient is now frozen in a way that people can possess it. But most importantly, it’s taking an unspoken contract of intended use: “I’m going to enjoy myself and I might get on camera,” and turning it into an unpleasant game for nasty people to participate in.

Which is the point I’m coming to. I don’t equate JugCam with rape as some have, but I do feel that participation in the meme labels the players as immature and slightly perverted. If I were to find out that my life partner was taking part in either snapping or viewing the images, it would fundamentally shift how I feel about him, because one of the cornerstones of our relationship is the utmost respect with which my husband treats women.

This is not to say that he doesn’t look at or appreciate the “fairer sex”. We frequently have discussions about what makes other people beautiful or sexy, and these often turn to how a physical attribute can project something about the underlying personality, which then either enhances or diminishes the attractiveness of the person – but (and I’m fairly confident I’m not deluding myself here), he wouldn’t participate in JugCam because it’s simply beneath him.

That’s what it boils down to for me. JugCam is silly, it’s distasteful and it’s invasive. Someone at home with a recording device freeze-framing the girls on the television and then distributing them on the internet would be creepy. The ease of the process on smart phones and Twitter doesn’t make it any less disturbing.

It’s the kind of behaviour I’d expect from teenage guys who sleep with girls just to brag about it to their friends or who have more than a passing interest in pornography or who get girls to climb a ladder so that they can look up their skirts. Perhaps not outright abuse, not rape for sure, but still insidiously creepy sexual behaviour that would make me give the perpetrator a wide berth should it be revealed.
 

- Georgina Guedes is a freelance writer and corporate communicator. You can follow @georginaguedes on Twitter.

Send your comments to Georgina

Disclaimer: News24 encourages freedom of speech and the expression of diverse views. The views of columnists published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24.


Comments
  • Blade - 2012-01-06 09:41

    Georgina are you jealous of young pretty girls? Need some attention?

      notlilyallen - 2012-01-06 13:16

      What a disgusting thing to say.

  • Vaaldonkie - 2012-01-06 09:43

    No one is forcing these girls to strip down to the bare minimum. If they don't want infamy on the internet, they can simply put their shirts back on. Actions have consequences and the sooner you learn this, the better the rest of your life will be.

  • richard.buhr - 2012-01-06 09:52

    If one goes into public, one's appearance is public. Thus, if one chooses to wear revealing clothes (or not), its your own responsibility. If you don't want to be seen in a bikini or whatever, don't go into public dressed like that. Simple really. Same goes for fancy dress, if one cannot take laughter/ridicule/etc., simply don't do it. That said, there must be a way to take down pictures if they are of yourself and you aren't happy about it. I'm no legal expert, but I vaguely recall something about needing permission to reproduce images of someone or something like that. In any event, it boils down to this: whatever you put into the public space, is by definition, public. Use judgement and act accordingly.

  • Donovan - 2012-01-06 09:55

    Oh good lord you'd have to be a sad and useless pervert to resort to #jugcam when there is youporn, redtube and goodness knows how many other alternatives to getting your kicks. And if you got it and you flaunt it, in this electronic age, it should be no surprise that you may get a few more eyes than you hoped for. Facebook shows that we are all exhibitionists to some extent and as Andrew so rightly states, voyeurs to some extent too.

      Ian - 2012-01-06 10:08

      Donovan have you been /b/rowsing a bit late at night? :p hahahaha jokes aside, good point!!

      Donovan - 2012-01-06 10:45

      Why wait 'til late at night :P

  • kozikan - 2012-01-06 10:15

    mmmm, brings up a whole new hashtag idea for all them hot daddies in shopping centres!!! "chickencam"

  • Rory - 2012-01-06 11:42

    Oh come on Georgina...A guy is a guy and I think I speak for the majority of men's men here when I say - get off it! A guy will always take a look, take a peek and check it out. Whether it be on the internet or at a shopping mall. It may be slightly perverted, but whatever, we're guys and that's how we are wired. #Jugcam here I come....

  • konfab - 2012-01-06 11:47

    And this is different from Googling "Boobs"?

  • qhuggett - 2012-01-06 12:01

    Ooh good grief. Anther attack on male behaviour by a so called superior woman. We like boobs and beautiful woman, that's the way we are. We not out to demean woman(well most of us), we just like to look. If you feel this strongly about this and its ethical implications.. Well then where is your article about Soap Opera's. These provide woman with legalized porn. They provide woman with unrealistic expectations of what mean should be doing. They promote the expectation that men should talk act and do certain things to be considered romantic and sexy by a woman. In real terms its is just as pervasive and exploitive. What's good for the goose isn't good for the gander hey? I think you should actually take a look at your feelings about the subject. Why are you so offended by jugcam, and those you participate in it? Is it them? Or is it in fact your own subjective, close minded opinion that has not taken into account the fact that you are in no position to judge the opposite sex as you are not one of them. I am actually a bit shocked by this. I have read many of your articles and always found you to be an even minded considered writer. This is just sloppy, opinionated uninstantiated attack an males as a whole. I would be interested to see you write something to discuss the points i have made.

  • rosiegracebrooks - 2012-01-06 12:06

    Hmmm. Sorry, but if you go watch the cricket with a heap of cleavage hanging out - people are going to look. And what is wrong with looking? Yes distributing pics of it is a bit invasive but if my bf looked at the pics, I would probably look with him.

  • rosiegracebrooks - 2012-01-06 12:20

    And I think if someone who had been sexually abused heard that images of women sitting at a cricket ground (with their boobs on display, KNOWING that there are cameras everywhere) were being called "abusive sexual behaviour," they would probably want to hit the person calling it that in the face. Hard.

  • pjbredenkamp - 2012-01-06 12:21

    Is it not logical that If I don't want to be remembered, recorded or published in a certain way, I should not expose my self in that state of undress. I have not heard of JugCam before, but it seems to be related to Slutwalks and the logic of that thinking!

  • dnaude1 - 2012-01-06 12:29

    Are anyone surprised!!! The way young girls(some very young) are dressing and walking around in public places these days is mind-blowing. No wonder there is so many rape cases. I also have never heard of JugCam???

      notlilyallen - 2012-01-06 13:19

      Congratulations, you've just fed the moronic argument that a woman's dress dictates whether or not she is eligible for rape. Freak.

  • Eugene - 2012-01-06 12:52

    The internet has changed a lot of things. E.g. copyright law has become ineffectual. So have all attempts at curbing free speech. Another thing that seems to be going is privacy, at least as we knew it. Once your embarrassing pic is out there, there is no way to put it back in the box again. But the good news is that if there are thousands upon thousands of jugs on jugcam, no single pair will really be noticed anymore. It's a new kind of anonymity - simply blending into the huge crowd. So let the silly perverts take their pictures. It will probably make little difference.

  • Daryn - 2012-01-06 13:26

    Goal achieved, you have probably now just made another couple tens of thousands aware of this and in so doing, helped raise awareness of #jugcam and have people frantically clamoring to view what all the hype is about.

  • ludlowdj - 2012-01-06 13:30

    To even try put this in the same class as rape is ludicrous at best and simply highlights peoples total loss of intelligence. No one will ever be able to enforce a law or regulation preventing picture from being taken in any public place. If these woman didn't want to be considered sex objects they shouldn't have dressed in that manner in the first place. They knew full well the consequences and possible outcomes of doing so. This is just another misguided slut walk initiative.

  • Mary - 2012-01-06 13:32

    Oh come on, don't take it so seriously. Some time ago at a big cricket match I remember the girls guessing what kind of underpants the players were wearing (they tend to show through the trousers), would that also be regarded as an invasion of privacy and a violation of their human rights?

  • Retha - 2012-01-06 13:35

    Hmmm, how very interesting. Let me start by saying that yes, if the girls don't want to attract attention, then they should perhaps come to the cricket in a long t-shirt and long jeans (although some girls look hot even in that!)and a cap and dark glasses and ---- get real!. The guys seem to be missing the main point though - or more likely those who have commented are exactly those who would take picuture and leer at them, or use them for/during some sexual gratification... So yes, if I found out that my guy was participating in this sort of behaviour (either by activly snapping or by viewing) it certainly would change my view of him - and not for the better!!! Because the girls did not consent to be made into what basically amounts to a pron star!! It is the use to which the pictures are put and the intent of the person taking and viewing the pics that is the issue.

  • Dakey - 2012-01-06 13:52

    Georgina I agree with you, however there is little that can be done about it. At every cricket & rugby game instead of being able to watch rugby, we're shown a variety of half clad 18 year olds as official entertainment. 1. That Cricket SA or SARFU actually feel we need scantily 18 year old busty woman jumping around half naked. Why on Earth has this become institutionalised in South Africa? 2. That any parent would actually allow their 18 year old daughter to parade around selling sex infront of a large crowd of men. It seems woman are still in the dark with regards to how men are sexually stimulated. Any girl deliberately exposing her breasts is pretty much the equivalent of a handsome italian dude, smelling of Paco Robane (or something similary) giving every woman going to watch rugby a sensual back run... and then treating them like perverts if they want more! More appropriately, imagine you're a 3 foot tall lady dwarf and every man at the next Tri-Nations is wearing a thong trying to engage you in serious conversation... No, if you don't want your cans on the internet, wear something a little more appropriate.

  • Vaal-Donkie - 2012-01-11 19:47

    Shame, everyone is a victim in a democracy.

  • wooshie72 - 2012-01-12 18:47

    I think we're missing the initial issue... the cameramen (camerawomen?) at the stadium and their employers, the broadcasters. Can't really point fingers at gents at home snapping pics of their telly until you've got to the 'Jug'ular vein of this "issue".

  • pages:
  • 1