Voyeurism

=**Voyeurism **=  Voyeurism, for many, is an unfamiliar word, though it represents a common concept surrounding us every day: spectacle. We gawk at highway accidents and gape at global tragedies on the news; we stare at lovers quarreling and scrutinize the person sleeping on the street corner. Our eyes are overworked investigators of the human world around us, and few people would be excited to offer them a day off. Voyeurism—the seeking of stimulation by visual means—seems almost natural, even instinctual, in its most generic form, but truthfully, this concept can be far more complex (Blazer, 2006). Today, it holds many more detailed definitions, and one such definition relates specifically to sex. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders describes voyeurism as “the practice of looking specifically at ‘unsuspecting individuals, usually strangers, who are naked, in the process of disrobing, or engaging in sexual activity’” (Metzl, 2004, p. 127). Utilizing this viewpoint, we will now explore the age-old concept of voyeurism and how it relates to sex ual communication, an ever-important aspect of human life, through examination of its history and current place in modern society. **Peeking In: The Origins of Voyeurism **  John Draeger (2011), Associate Professor at Buffalo State College, believes that, “Voyeurism may be the oldest pastime” (p. 41). In his opinion, the undeniably delightful feeling one gains from the secret surveillance of others dates back to the beginning of time. For Draeger (2011), its legacy begins with a legend—the well-known tale of Peeping Tom and Lady Godiva. Supposedly, in the eleventh century, Lady Godiva consented to ride naked through town in exchange for the lowering of harsh taxes on the peasantry (Draeger, 2011). Recognizing her own modesty, she requested that her fellow citizens ‘keep within, door shut, and window barr’d,’ but one man, an inquisitive tailor named Tom, could not help but peep (Draeger, 2011, p. 42). Consequently, he was instantaneously blinded “with his eyes ‘shrivell’d into darkness in his  head’” (Draeger, 2011, p. 42). There are two main points to take away from this legend that open the door to our discussion of voyeurism: the innate curiosity of mankind and the negativity associated with caving into our impulses. Draeger (2011), in response to the end of the story asks, “But what…did Tom do wrong?” (p. 42). One cannot deny the inquiring nature of humans, but one can question the deconstructive connotation attached to voyeurism. Why do some people condemn the covert watching of others? To answer this question, let us turn to the other key origin story, as summarized by psychiatrist Jonathan M. Metzl (2004).  According to Metzl (2004), in 1945, psychoanalyst Otto Fenichel detailed the case study of an adult male who rented a room in a brothel. This man, instead of engaging in sexual activity himself, “‘obtained gratification’ by looking through a peephole into an adjoining room where another man and a woman had intercourse” (Metzl, 2004, p. 415). Observing their embraces, however, caused him to cry, as he experienced anxiety over his own desire to possess the woman himself; not until after masturbation was he ever relaxed and satisfied (Metzl, 2004). When considering both this peephole story and the legend of peeping Tom, one can see the potential for voyeurism to hurt both the observer and the observed. In the eyes of Fenichel, voyeurism may uncover the underlying sexual tensions of the observer (Metzl, 2004), or in the eyes of Draeger (2011), voyeurism may harm the observed through its deception. In either case, a lack of sexual communication appears to reside at the root of the problematic aspects of voyeurism. Do the supposed evils of voyeurism result from too much watching and not enough talking? Personally, I see no better explanation. Voyeurs whose dependence on the activity causes them “clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning” likely experienced sexual shortcomings prior to their obsession (Långström, 2010, p. 320). For example, a homosexual woman hesitant to reveal her sexual orientation due to unreceptive family members might be apt to engage in the secret observation of other females in a locker room in an effort to fill a sexual void. In such scenarios, the ability to openly discuss sexual preferences with others may avert a harmful voyeuristic addiction. By effectively communicating about sex, we can avoid destructive acts that result from individuals’ attempts to compensate for whatever is apparently missing. More obviously, a lack of sexual communication directly affects the voyeur’s object of view. Unlike in pornography, the observed does not give consent in voyeuristic moments. This absence of sexual communication leaves the observed manipulated and deceived, a reality that can cause embarrassment or devastation if discovered. Both parties in sexual encounters should always be willingly involved. Thus, it is the lack of agreement in voyeuristic moments that often condemns it for many individuals. Nevertheless, despite such harmful consequences, voyeurism continues to surround us each day; its evolving definition has perhaps permanently placed this concept in our lives. **A Never-Ending Gaze: The Continual Presence of Voyeurism in Modern Society ** Today, outside of the realm of psychiatry, voyeurism is often considered the same as scopophilia, which “essentially means to derive pleasure from looking,” (Blazer, 2006, p. 379). According to Metzl (2004), “having a narrow category of pathological voyeurism and a relatively expansive category of acceptable voyeurism is a late-twentieth- century phenomenon” (p. 127). How do we participate in this acceptable voyeurism? We engage in it almost, if not, daily as we excitedly watch and obsess over reality television shows and media coverage of celebrities. Interestingly, a recent study found that “people who score higher on voyeurism reported higher [exposure to] reality TV programs” (Bagdasarov et al., 2010, p. 312). Thus, as articulated by Lemi Baruh (2010) of the Department of Media and Visual Arts at Koc University in Turkey, “To the extent that voyeurism can be considered as a common tendency that exists among all individuals to different degrees, it is reasonable to expect that individuals will use various mediated and unmediated activities, including watching reality programs, to satisfy this need” (p. 216). Acceptable voyeurism is a healthy way to deal with any instinctual urges to be a sexual observer. In this way, sexual communication is valuable once again. By providing an appropriate outlet for the private observation of sexual behavior, reality television shows such as //The Bachelor// or //Tila Tequila// simultaneously promote social order and personal satisfaction. Voyeurism—the seeking of stimulation by visual means—will not likely fade from human existence (Blazer, 2006). Therefore, our evolution of the concept through more effective sexual communication will prove extremely beneficial to future generations. **References ** Author Unknown. (2011, April 10). Weaving and Magic: Lady Godiva and The Old Religion [Online Image]. Retrieved from @http://weavingandmagic.blogspot.com/2011/01/lady-godiva-and-her-priest-king.html. Bagdasarov, Z., Greene, K., Banjeree, S. C., Krcmar, M., Yanovitzky, I., & Ruginyte, D. (2010). I am what I watch: Voyeurism, sensation seeking, and television viewing patterns. //Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media,// 54, p. 299-315. Baruh, L. (2010). Mediated voyeurism and the guilty pleasure of consuming reality television. //Media Psychology,// 13, 201-221. <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">Blazer, S. M. (2006). Rear window ethics: Domestic privacy versus public responsibility in the evolution of voyeurism. //Midwest Quarterly,// 47, 379-392. <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">Draeger, J. (2011). What peeping Tom did wrong. //Ethical Theory and Moral Practice,// 14, 41-49. <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">Långström, N. (2010). The DSM diagnostic criteria for exhibitionism, voyeurism, and frotteurism. //Archives of Sexual Behavior,// 39, 317-324. <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">Metzl, J. M. (2004). From scopophilia to Survivor, a brief history of voyeurism. //Textual Practice,// 18, 415-434. <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">Metzl, J. M. (2004). Voyeur nation? Changing definitions of voyeurism, 1950–2004. //Harvard Review of Psychiatry,// 12, 127-131.