Posts Tagged ‘sexism’

Message to TV3 execs – Is this really acceptable?

25 July 2014 5 comments




If there is one thing that Tania Billingsley has raised in this country, it is focusing the glare of public scrutiny  on New Zealand’s casually sexist and demeaning attitude toward women. Some refer to it as a “rape culture”, where men (and generally speaking, they are men) hold the most repulsive attitudes imaginable toward  women.

I’m not even referring to rapists, molesters, and men who beat (and often kill) their partners senseless.

I’m referring to the casual acceptance of views toward women that are more suited to less enlightened societies, than a supposedly advanced, well-educated nation like ours. It is views of some men who – whilst not abusers and rapists themselves – are enablers of attitudes that empower the abusers and rapists by creating an ingrained belief that they are entitled to abuse and rape. Somewhere in the back of what passes for the minds of abusers and rapists are the comments they’ve read and heard elsewhere in society; that it is ok to mistreat and violate women. (Though they have to be over 16 to be abused and violated. Anyone under that, and the abuser/rapist is labelled a paedophile – which is evidently still ‘not ok” for misogynists. Yet. But working on it.)

The vileness of such attitudes is not just found on rabid social media pages where  poorly-educated,  and often insecure males (predominantly),  click “Like” to show their solidarity  with several hundred (a minority) other poorly-educated and often insecure males.

The mainstream media also has a culture of sexism, ranging from crass innuendo and exploitation of women,  to outright violence.

Case in point is the media personality-cum-village-idiot, Paul Henry.

Henry has a track record in boorish behaviour, more befitting an immature, adolescent male, rather than a mature man who should know better.

As Mike Kilpatrick wrote for Fairfax media on 16 July, Henry’s obnoxiousness reached a nadir when he interviewed Dr Michelle Dickinson, a scientist working at Auckland University;


Auckland University - Michelle Dickinson - Paul Henry - TV3


To quote the Auckland university directory, Dr Dickinson’s  areas of expertise are;

Nanotechnology, Nanomechanical testing, Fracture Mechanics, Materials Engineering, Biomimetics, Calcified Biological Structures.


Dr Michelle Dickinson obtained her PhD from Rutgers University (USA) and her MEng from Manchester University (UK) in Biomedical Materials Engineering. She has previously held positions in industry which brings an applied focus to her academic research.

Her research is involved in measuring the mechanical properties of materials from the nanoscale through to the macro scale, specifically using indentation techniques.

She has a special interest in biological material behaviour and adapting traditional engineering measurement techniques and models to suit realistic biological testing conditions.

Dr Dickinson is a scientist with serious credentials*.

Which makes what followed next all the more jaw-droppingly unbelievable.

After a cursory interview with Dr Dickinson, Henry then asked a  question of mind-blowing, crass sexism, as Kilpatrick  explained in his Fairfax piece,



Just when you thought Paul Henry couldn't sink lower


Henry then shows a photograph of Branson hugging Dickinson and then asks the question “Did you have sex with Richard Branson?”.

Note the question; “Did you have sex with Richard Branson?”.

For those with kevlar-lined stomachs, they can see the interview here. The offensive remarks are 5:21 into the interview.

To illustrate the sadly-all-too-predictable consequences of Henry’s  comment, read the public comments – 425 as at this blogpost – which followed Kilpatrick’s story. Note the attitude of  those who think that Henry’s comments are acceptable. Note the casualness of acceptance of a remark that, in other circumstance, would be utterly unacceptable in normal social circles, and result in oppobrium.

Is this to  be the new benchmark standard for female guests for TV3?

What do female staff and management think of Henry’s remarks? Would they be comfortable if comments like that were directed at them? Or their daughters?

What does Sussan Turner, Group CEO of MediaWorks think of being asked – in public – who she’s recently had sex with?

Perhaps Clare Bradley, Legal Counsel/Company Secretary; Siobhan McKenna, Chief Executive Officer (Interactive); Wendy Palmer, Chief Executive Officer (Radio); Liz Fraser, Director of Sales & Marketing; Katie Mills,  Group Marketing Director (Radio); and Jana Rangooni, General Manager  (Talk Brands), et al, might like to offer answers  to Paul Henry’s questioning of their own sex lives?

If not, why do TV3 executives think that such comments directed at Dr Dickinson were remotely acceptable?

Allow me to remind TV3 executives, producers, staff, and presenters;

  • It is not ok to treat women like that.
  • It is not ok to have it beamed into our homes.
  • It is not ok to give voice to a culture of sexist denigration.
  • And it is not ok to dismiss it as just “humour”. There is nothing remotely funny about sexist denigration.

After all, this is precisely why 99% of New Zealanders were so horrified at the degrading  behaviour of a group of young men calling themselves “Roastbusters”.

At least the “Roastbusters” had the excuse of youthful stupidity (a crime I was guilty of, in my own youth).

Paul Henry has no such excuse.  He is a supposedly mature, responsible, 54 year old man.

I agree with Mike Kilpatrick. Henry’s comment was beyond the pale. He must resign, or be sacked. Unless New Zealanders are comfortable with more and more abhorrent, gutter-level attitudes being expressed by “media personalities” and broadcast into our homes, this kind of behaviour cannot be allowed to become a new norm.

Changing channels is not a practical option. Not if this kind of behaviour is to be normalised throughout the electronic media.

No wonder Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris were able to inflict their decades-long reign of predatory-terror on hundreds of children and women. It had become acceptable and normalised. No one thought to speak out. And if they did, the new normality meant their cries for help fell on deaf ears.

Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris were also funny men.

Their behaviour was anything but.

Well, Mike Kilpatrick has spoken out. And I add my voice to his. I refuse to give assent by silence. I refuse to turn my back on behaviour that, to fair-minded people, is just plain unacceptable.

TV3 – Paul Henry has no place in broadcasting.

He must go.


* Though all women, regardless of education achievements, professional status,  etc, should be treated with respect and not with degrading sexist attitudes that are demeaning and promote a culture of casual misogyny.




Addendum 1

Email sent to TV3;

from: Frank Macskasy <>
to: Producers <>
cc: Mark Jennings <>
date: Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 12:10 AM
subject: Paul Henry Show – Asking a female guest if she’s had sex with a businessman – is this OK?

Kia ora,

Please refer below to a draft of a story which I intend to publish regarding remarks made by Paul Henry on his show, on 15 July and directed at his guest, Dr Michelle Dickinson.

I would appreciate your response to the issues I have raised and what remedies, if any, Mediaworks intends to make before I proceed further.

Your comment s would be appreciated.

-Frank Macskasy

[Draft copy of this blogpost included as in-text]

I received a response the same day;

from: Paul Henry Show <>
to: Frank Macskasy <>
date: Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 5:26 PM
subject: RE: Paul Henry Show – Asking a female guest if she’s had sex with a businessman – is this OK?

Dear Mr Macskasy

TV3’s company culture is one that highly values equality and equal opportunity. Our news and current affairs division has often led the debate on how women are treated in New Zealand culture, including two of the instances you mention – a 3 News investigation uncovered the Roast Busters group and led the subsequent coverage, and Tania Billingsley recently told her story on 3rd Degree.

The question line taken by Paul in Tuesday night’s interview with Dr Michelle Dickinson was checked with her before the interview, and Dr Dickinson has confirmed she was not offended at the time, and is not offended now. The question was not asked without Dr Dickinson’s okay. She is an intelligent and articulate person who has appeared on the show many times and can hold her own with Paul (and anyone else). Dr Dickinson has since made her views on the interview clear and it is worth paying her the respect of reading her blog at

For the record we completely reject the comparisons your email makes between Paul Henry, and the actions of the Roast Busters group and of renowned paedophiles Jimmy Saville and Rolf Harris. Such comparisons are irresponsible, lacking in fairness and balance, and verging on defamatory.

I’m afraid it’s just not possible to take your blog or questions about TV3 seriously when they are written from a position of such ignorance.


Rachel Lorimer
Group Head of Corporate Communications

Fiona MacMillan
Executive Producer, Paul Henry Show

For the record, I did read Ms Dickinson’s sciblog post, and have several points to make;

  1. My criticism of TV3 and Paul Henry in no way reflects on Ms Dickinson or her professional career. Dr Dickinson can in no way be held responsible or associated with things that Paul Henry said.
  2. This issue is wider than Dr Dickinson herself, and if muppets like Henry can get away with asking obnoxious questions from a highly respected; well-educated; professional woman – then no one else is safe from his prurient “humour”. It was not too long ago that Willie Jackson and John Tamihere were suspended as radio-hosts from RadioLive, after  comments were directed to a woman about her sex life, after she disclosed on-air that  she had been raped as a 14-year-old.
  3. I sympathise with Ms Dickinson’s remark in her blogpost; “I feel passionately about providing our daughters with a positive role model for an educated female who is successful in a very male dominated field“. The question is – how does being questioned about one’s sex-life help our daughters to be successful in male dominated fields?
  4. Dr Dickinson further writes; “Yes, I’m not naive to the reputation that Paul has and I go on to his show prepared for a question that may be slightly off topic or controversial, but I’m an intelligent female who works in a very male dominated field, and I’m used to inappropriate and sexist comments and questions, it goes with the territory of being a female engineer!  Perhaps my past experience of being the only woman in a meeting (and asked to make the tea), or being told that if I want to be taken seriously I need to wear shoes with less of a heel as they could distract the men in the room has made me a little immune to sexism and a little more tolerant of comments that I should be offended by.” Should we not be offended by such remarks? And should we not do more than just being offended?
  5. Should boofheads like Paul Henry not be challenged when they make disparaging sexist comments to women they would never dream of making to male guests? Just as scientists once challenged authority on much-cherished beliefs that the world was flat and the sun orbited the Earth or that disease was caused by  ‘humors’ of the body?
  6. Ms Lorimer and Ms MacMillan seem more keen to label me as “ignorant” rather than addressing the issues I raised in my blogpost. Does this mean they have no answers to the criticisms I have levelled? They certainly have studiously avoided the questions I put to them;
  • Is this to  be the new benchmark standard for female guests for TV3?
  • What do female staff and management think of Henry’s remarks? Would they be comfortable if comments like that were directed at them? Or their daughters?
  • What does Sussan Turner, Group CEO of MediaWorks think of being asked – in public – who she’s recently had sex with?
  • Perhaps Clare Bradley, Legal Counsel/Company Secretary; Siobhan McKenna, Chief Executive Officer (Interactive); Wendy Palmer, Chief Executive Officer (Radio); Liz Fraser, Director of Sales & Marketing; Katie Mills,  Group Marketing Director (Radio); and Jana Rangooni, General Manager  (Talk Brands), et al, might like to offer answers  to Paul Henry’s questioning of their own sex lives?
  • If not, why do TV3 executives think that such comments directed at Dr Dickinson were remotely acceptable?

Fairly simple, straight-forward questions I would have thought?

Or perhaps they would prefer to discuss their sex-lives, if it’s easier?

Addendum 2

A list of  companies advertising during the Paul Henry Show on 16 July;

Ford (Kia)





NIB Health Cover

Harvey Norman

Caredirect (

Whiskas (catfood)

Southern Cross Health


Early Settlers (furniture)

Centrum (vitamins)

Future Finance (



Bridgestone Tyres


Dependent on TV3’s actions to follow, this blogger will be contacting the above advertisers next and posing three very simple questions; do they want to be associated with a TV show that promotes sexist denigration of women? Do they want to risk having their reputations tarnished when this story goes ‘viral’ in the blogosphere and social media? And is this what they are paying their expensive ad-slot times for?




NZ Herald: Bryce Edwards – Does New Zealand have a ‘rape culture’?

Fairfax media: Just when you thought Paul Henry couldn’t sink lower…

Auckland University:  Dr Michelle Emma Dickinson

TV3:  Organic foods study finds significant benefits

Fairfax media:  Just when you thought Paul Henry couldn’t sink lower

NZ Herald: Roast Busters: RadioLive hosts taken off air


Sciblogs: Science, sexism and the media




david cunliffe stood up on the issue of domestic violence

Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 19 July 2014.



= fs =

People power trumps vile sexism any day!

22 July 2014 1 comment




Sydney school teacher, Paula Orbea,  started a petition on against Wicked Campers whose campervans were often daubed with sexist, racist, and homophobic slogans. The same camper-vans are present in New Zealand, as well as Australia;


camper 1


Ms Orbea began the campaign when her  11 year old daughter read the slogan;

‘In every princess, there’s a little slut who wants to try it just once’ 

– on the back of one of the campervans. (See above)

On the petition page, Ms Orbea said,

“This is the only way I can explain how offensive it is. 

When one reads such a slogan, the same thing happens to every person who understands it – which my 11 yr old did – we picture it. This business, makes us picture that and many other degrading things.

You can either gain pleasure from this image or disgust.  Those who gain pleasure are the problem – yet they have a platform to spread their vile perspectives.

My daughter was upset by this because she felt, as a girl, that the slogan was refering to her and it made her fear being perceived that way – especially by someone she may cross paths with who may agree with that perspective. 

This particular phrase promotes paedophilia and resonates very badly with everyone who thinks it’s abhorrent to sexually assault a girl, especially by groomed males who think ‘she wants it’. 

Slogans such as this ring too familiar to real life atrocities, such as the recent discovery of Rolf Harris’s sexual assaults; enacting on a girl as young as eight.”



camper 2



She said,

“It is inconceivable that Wicked Campers choose to not only write the misogynistic ‘joke’ but also then publicise it through their moving, billboard vans.

Disgustingly they have also promoted that, ‘Fat girls are harder to kidnap.’

Shame on them.

Adult females are also degraded into sexual objectification and disrespect – with slogans on show for people of all ages to indiscriminately see and absorb.”



camper 3


This business (amongst many others) thrives on pleasing a small demographic of people, who find it funny to mock those who may be living the horrible realities perspectives such as these manifest. 

But we are the majority, not them. Enough.

It is time to say enough – with calm, intelligent but firm resolve. 

We must become Actionists – by looking at the action that is being performed, (regardless of gender), deciding whether it’s good for us as a species and calling it out if it isn’t; demand change. 

This is not good. I’m calling it out.”



camper 4


In February last year (2013), columnist Clem Bastow wrote in the Australian Daily Life, calling for a boycott on what she kindly referred to as “misogyny-’n’-racism on wheels“. Ms Bastow wrote,

Look, I’m sorry, I thought it was 2013? Does nobody else have a problem with these bombs dragging their Wake In Fright-era sexual politics around the country (and, indeed, the world)?

This probably all sounds like shouting into a drain – after all, judging by the tone that appears to be Wicked’s company policy, they’d probably just tell me I need a good root; here’s one such example of an official response to one woman who dared to raise some concerns. (Sorry to rain on your comeback parade dudes, but I’m probably getting more action than anyone who rocks up in one of your grody vans.)

And yes, in some ways, there’s likely no point in making a complaint the next time you see a braindead sexist Wicked slogan in your rearview mirror. Instead, vote with your wallet: go to another hire company, because cheap rates or not, supporting a company that degrades women just so a few dropkicks can have a laugh with their tinnies on a camping trip isn’t worth saving a few measly dollars.





Earlier this year, here in New Zealand, Wicked Campers attracted the attention of Lyttelton  sailing instructor, Dudley Jackson, after one of their  vans was spotted with the message, “Go fuck yourself”;


camper 13



The Press reported,

“Mr  Jackson said he emailed the company to ask whether they thought it was a “suitable” message to be presented to the public, but he had not had a response.  “


camper 6


In 2010, after the slogan “If you love me, you would swallow it” appeared on the back of a van, a complaint was laid with the New Zealand Advertising Standards Authority. Consequently, the ASA unanimously ruled that “the advert was likely to cause serious and widespread offence“.



camper 7


The same Press story reported,

“In April last year, Queenstown police began an investigation into a sexually suggestive picture on a Wicked van featuring Gangnam Style singer Psy next to the message “Up the bum no babies”.

The company defended the picture and writing on the campervan, saying it depicted people who were “just dancing”. Police decided the artwork was not offensive enough to warrant further action. “

You have to wonder how sexually explicit an image, in full public view of minors, has to be before the police decide to to take action?


camper 8


This van (below) most likely is not geared for the Japanese tourist market;


camper 9


Nor is this one (below) designed to attract the married women demographic;


camper 10


But as Clem Bastow wrote (in the Australian Daily Life), Wicked Camper’s clients are generally of a  young, unaware,  “blokey” persuasion;

“It’s easy to assume that the only people who’d hire a Wicked Camper would be either desperate German tourists or dreadlocked “dudes” who like to play the same four bars of a Jack Johnson song for five hours every night (or bros like this), but evidently plenty of women think the company’s misogyny-’n’-racism on wheels shtick is “awesome” – at least according to a casual perusal of Wicked’s Facebook page.”

So why not alienate 51% of your potential client-base, huh?

Like this one, obviously geared toward satisfying the market for up-and-coming rapists and abusers of women;


camper 11


The rape-culture on wheels…

But people were not prepared to take Wicked Campers’ grubby messages lying down.

One artist, Stef Burgon, used her own artistic skills to paint over one of Wicked Camper’s juvenile slogans, and replaced it with something a whole lot more thoughtful;



camper 14



Meanwhile, Ms Orbea  announced that her on-line petition had succeeded in attracting over 120,000 signatures and forced Wicked Campers into a massive back-down;

We’ve just won! Wicked Campers have apologised, and committed to removing all misogynistic slogans from their vans within six months.

Nothing has shifted them in the past. Complaints. Fines.

But after initially responding to the petition saying they “didn’t care about the uproar” – after your massive support for my petition, they’ve apologised and will re-spray the offensive, sexist vans.

This was a people power win. Starting my petition worked just as it intended, with more than 120,000 of you signing within just four days! We were featured everywhere – ABC News, The Project,, Daily Mail, Huffington Post, Mamamia, Buzzfeed, and heaps, heaps more.

The kind of sexism and misogyny on those Wicked Campers vans isn’t trivial – it’s degrading to women, harmful for our children to consume, and condones a rape culture that sees one-in-three Australian women sexually assaulted in their lifetimes.

I’m so proud and pleased my daughter said something, and that together we stood up against it.

It’s important that we call out sexism wherever it exists – and my petition enabled me to actually make a difference and win change.”

Good on you, Ms Orbea.

Because here is the thing that I would point out to Wicked Camper founder, Brisbane mechanic John Webb, and other proponants of what they think is “free speech”;

  1. Free speech is fine and dandy – but just because you can say a thing, doesn’t always mean you should. With freedom comes responsibility and self-discipline (or at least, that’s the theory.)
  2. This is not about attacking freedom of speech. This is about rejecting what is being said with that free speech. In other words, Mr Webb, you can say it – but we don’t have to accept it. And we’ll tell you that. Because free speech cuts both ways.
  3. People who want to be vile and obnoxious can do so. But the corollary is we don’t have to see it. Keep it in your own home. Or garage. Or better still, your own head.

Ms Orbea and 120,000 others showed that we don’t have to put up with the smug, arrogant half-wits for whom sexism, racism, and homophobia is a schoolyard joke.  We don’t have to be dragged down to their lowest common denominator.

Sexism and it’s progeny, the rape culture, are just not funny.


Next: Message to TV3 execs – Is this really acceptable?




Change.Org:  Eliminate misogynistic and degrading slogans and imagery

Daily Life: Why women should boycott Wicked Campervans

The Press: Wicked Campers graffiti offends Artist Stef Burgon takes on Wicked Campers, paints her own slogan People-power win after Sydney teacher Paula Orbea launches petition against ‘misogynistic and degrading slogans’ on Wicked Campers vans





david cunliffe stood up on the issue of domestic violence

Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 18 July 2014.



= fs =

Guest Author: So John Key, a man can’t be a feminist?

Bennett Morgan



Comedian Louis C.K. John Key, David Cunliffe. 

The hillbilly minority in this country has entered another week in wasted anger over David Cunliffe’s “sorry for being a man” quote. A new Facebook page has risen from the depths of hate as “Labour’s war on men” – attracting close to 700 lost rednecks to join up in a matter of days. It includes, from the observation of the naked eye, truckers expressing their distaste in Cunliffe’s use of words.

Those who know me will know; this is something I just can’t stand. Men, insisting they are an oppressed minority.

OK, for goodness sakes – you are a WHITE MAN! Let me use Louis C.K’s scenario; if you had a time machine, you, as a white man could go anywhere, at any point in time, and be welcomed with open arms and rights. If you are a woman – that’s not the case. Anywhere before 1970 and you’ll get Women saying – “No thanks, don’t feel like being patted on the backside in the workplace” or “I have better things to do than staying at home all day, doing the ironing”.

Men have it great. I know this. And every man knows this. What no man understands is the despicable discrimination and hatred which still exists against Women in our modern, supposedly liberal society. Women are still underrepresented in boardrooms, council rooms and offices of high power. We still have existing stereotypes that Men do one thing and Women do the other. We still use phrases like ‘are you man enough?’ as if Women are lesser when it comes to bravery.

So, Men aren’t discriminated against in our society. Men are incredibly focused on in popular culture; for example, why are we so interested in the All Blacks and not the Blackferns? Do you even know who the Blackferns are?

Then there’s violence. Violence against women. Whenever someone tries to raise the point of this completely ignored and horrifyingly common violence, you’ll always get someone saying “It’s not OK to hit a man too!”. Oh poop. Are you man enough?

We are discussing Women’s violence. You know, the one we ignore but counts for 85% of all violence at home? Yeah, that’s the violence we are trying to discuss here. This is the violence the media has ignored every time a politician has tried to address this serious problem. Then there’s the audacity from our manliest beast of a man John Key, who laughs off Cunliffe’s comments.

This is not a joke. One woman calling a helpline or the police every nine minutes because she is being beaten by a man she loves is not a joke. It could hardly be interpreted as such, and I’m sorry men, but for once – this isn’t all about you. This is about saving lives, relationships and families. This is about saving young women from being scarred for life – this is about being defenders of the vulnerable  and a voice for the voiceless.

What the media should have focused on is what Cunliffe said after “I’m sorry for being a man”. But we didn’t hear a word. Had we heard a word, and had New Zealanders been willing to listen and willing to care, David Cunliffe would not only be respected, but would be labeled a hero for speaking out.

The fact the media was up to it’s old tricks, trying to spot a gaffe, the fact our Prime Minister and various other politicians used his comments for their gain is disgusting. They used it without even checking nor accepting the crisis which exists within the country they govern. The country they could fix.

Key laughed offed the comments and gained reputation for being the voice of ‘oppressed men’  – all the while, he watched as the Christchurch Rape Crisis Centre closed it’s doors, leaving dozens in a broken city without hope.

$30,000 to leave that open. The next day he spent $80,000 on re-designing bank notes.

That is how our government values women. That is how our government values abuse.  That is how our government values rape. A joke, and less important than a banknote. $50,000 less important than a banknote. Keep going Mr. Key, you’re doing Abbott proud…

So if men can’t be feminists, I guess there never should have been whites speaking out against apartheid. I guess there shouldn’t be Jewish people right now fighting the actions of a Zionist government in Palestine. And I guess no straight person should celebrate a gay couple being happy.

And if men never act on issues which help Women; then there would never be the right for Women to vote.

So in that respect, laughing off Cunliffe’s comments as ‘feminist bullshit’ is un-Kiwi. It goes against who we are and why we are all here; to fight for the equality of all our people.

B. Morgan, 2014. 

Re-printed by kind permission from Bennett’s blog, InsightNZ


Vote and be the change

Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes



= fs =

Babes and boofheads…

20 June 2013 6 comments

It seems that the sexualisation and exploitation of our daughters continues unabated,


Facebook 'Babe' page taken down

Acknowledgement: Radio NZ – Facebook ‘Babe’ page taken down


A bunch of anonymous kids say  “they don’t see much wrong”  with  taking images of  girls from various  Facebook pages, and reposting it on a sleazy ‘Babe of the Day’ page.

‘I and the other two admins of the page are aware that the page may look a bit creepy but as all three of us are high school students and under 18 ourselves, we don’t think we are doing too much harm.”‘

Acknowledgement: ODT – Concern at pupils ‘babe’ web page

These kids did not ask for permission to use the girls’ pics – there is no consent implied or given. And the kids responsible for the page seem utterly oblivious to a practice which objectifies these girls.

If I were a father with a daughter, and her pic had been lifted and exploited in this way,   I would take a dim view of a bunch of adolescent  boofheads portraying my daughter(s) as objects for someone elses’ gratification.

Our society is sex mad already enough already, without Gen X (or Y or whatever) adding their bit to it.

And the irony of this entire sleazy affair?

One of the administrators of the site, who wished to remain anonymous, defended the page when contacted yesterday.

Acknowledgement: IBID

The administrators of the site, who wished to remain anonymous…”

So they value their anonymity, do they?

I wonder why? If their little past-time is as inoffensive as they believe, why don’t they come forward?

And put their own pics up for people to gawk at?

It appears they value their own privacy.



= fs =