5 ms·

Did you read the entire article? It's certainly illegal and distasteful, but the writings contain a lot of poignant commentary on modern life in general, not ju

Did you read the entire article? It's certainly illegal and distasteful, but the writings contain a lot of poignant commentary on modern life in general, not just sex; about war, eating habits, racial issues, and so on. I found this particularly interesting: > My voyeurism has contributed immensely to my becoming a futilitarian, and I hate this conditioning of my soul. . . . What is so distasteful is that the majority of subjects are in concert with these individuals in both design and plan. Many different approaches to life would be immediately implemented, if our society would have the opportunity to be Voyeur for a Day. Also this: > These experiences prodded Foos to concoct an “honesty test.” He would leave a suitcase, secured with a cheap padlock, in the closet of a motel room. When a guest checked in, he would say to Donna, in the guest’s hearing, that someone had just called to report leaving behind a suitcase with a thousand dollars inside. Foos then watched from the attic as the new guest found the suitcase and deliberated over whether to break the lock and look inside or return the suitcase to the motel office. > Out of fifteen guests who were subjected to the honesty test, including a minister, a lawyer, and an Army lieutenant colonel, only two returned the suitcase to the office with the padlock intact. The others all opened the suitcase and then tried to dispose of it in different ways. The minister pushed the suitcase out the bathroom window into the bushes.

russnewcomer 11y ago
I did read the entire article. I was very disturbed. The first of your quotes is actually part of what clearly disturbed me and made me think even more that Foos is clearly a sexual offender. The second of your quotes I found to be just a secularized and romanticized restating of basic Christian doctrine (or just the 'Golden Rule'), which makes me further disturbed that someone would have to wade through years of voyeurism to reach that conclusion.
- daveguy 11y ago
  Just FYI -- the "golden rule" was around for thousands of years before Christianity. It is an essential human rule of empathy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule (Antiquity section)
codingdave 11y ago
I just want to make sure I understand your comment... are you saying that illegal and distasteful acts are OK as long as they have interesting / poignant documentation?
- 5ilv3r 11y ago
  Interesting regardless of morality.
- axlprose 11y ago
  How or why does something being "interesting" automatically imply that it's "OK"? Interest is nothing more than a human behavioral response to a stimulus, it typically has little to do with what people think is "moral" (which itself is usually vague and hard to define). Just think of how many people find watching documentaries about serial killers, crimes, or atrocities like the holocaust or the jonestown massacre, entertaining. Not to mention your typical news channels in the US, which tend to disproportionately showcase negative events as opposed to positive/neutral ones. Does having an interest in that kind of media somehow imply a moral approval of it? If the documentation is there, people are going to read it, and the more out of the ordinary it is, the more likely it will be that people find it interesting. Uniformly condemning people for having interest in deviant topics is a slippery slope to justifying censorship or thought policing. Accepting that it's natural does have the consequence of possibly giving some people the idea that it's "OK" to do questionable things on the basis that it will grant them some kind of fame/notoriety, but that would arguably only happen with a small minority of people (since the barrier to entry to conduct these sort of depraved acts isn't exactly low), and thus would probably have a smaller negative impact on society than just flat-out condemning everybody for having questionable interests.
  - codingdave 11y ago
    The fact that it was interesting is not the part of the comment that implied it was OK. It was the question asked of "Did your read the entire article?", which normally implies disagreement, and the word "but", which sounds to me like a justification. That is also why I asked what was meant... I didn't want to jump to conclusions in case it was just a miscommunication due to wording.
rootlocus 11y ago
I think this sums up pretty well how important sex was for Mr. Foos: But more often Foos found observing his guests depressing. They argued. They watched too much television. (This was especially irksome when the guests were attractive and could have spent their time having sex instead.)
- jandrese 11y ago
  I'm sorry my life isn't spicy enough for your liking Mr. Voyeur...

russnewcomer 11y ago

I did read the entire article. I was very disturbed. The first of your quotes is actually part of what clearly disturbed me and made me think even more that Foos is clearly a sexual offender. The second of your quotes I found to be just a secularized and romanticized restating of basic Christian doctrine (or just the 'Golden Rule'), which makes me further disturbed that someone would have to wade through years of voyeurism to reach that conclusion.

daveguy 11y ago
Just FYI -- the "golden rule" was around for thousands of years before Christianity. It is an essential human rule of empathy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule (Antiquity section)

codingdave 11y ago

I just want to make sure I understand your comment... are you saying that illegal and distasteful acts are OK as long as they have interesting / poignant documentation?

5ilv3r 11y ago
Interesting regardless of morality.
axlprose 11y ago
How or why does something being "interesting" automatically imply that it's "OK"? Interest is nothing more than a human behavioral response to a stimulus, it typically has little to do with what people think is "moral" (which itself is usually vague and hard to define). Just think of how many people find watching documentaries about serial killers, crimes, or atrocities like the holocaust or the jonestown massacre, entertaining. Not to mention your typical news channels in the US, which tend to disproportionately showcase negative events as opposed to positive/neutral ones. Does having an interest in that kind of media somehow imply a moral approval of it? If the documentation is there, people are going to read it, and the more out of the ordinary it is, the more likely it will be that people find it interesting. Uniformly condemning people for having interest in deviant topics is a slippery slope to justifying censorship or thought policing. Accepting that it's natural does have the consequence of possibly giving some people the idea that it's "OK" to do questionable things on the basis that it will grant them some kind of fame/notoriety, but that would arguably only happen with a small minority of people (since the barrier to entry to conduct these sort of depraved acts isn't exactly low), and thus would probably have a smaller negative impact on society than just flat-out condemning everybody for having questionable interests.
- codingdave 11y ago
  The fact that it was interesting is not the part of the comment that implied it was OK. It was the question asked of "Did your read the entire article?", which normally implies disagreement, and the word "but", which sounds to me like a justification. That is also why I asked what was meant... I didn't want to jump to conclusions in case it was just a miscommunication due to wording.

rootlocus 11y ago

I think this sums up pretty well how important sex was for Mr. Foos: But more often Foos found observing his guests depressing. They argued. They watched too much television. (This was especially irksome when the guests were attractive and could have spent their time having sex instead.)

jandrese 11y ago
I'm sorry my life isn't spicy enough for your liking Mr. Voyeur...