| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kepler
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 6:00 am Post subject: New Fines For Overexposing Yourself and Stalking |
 |
|
| Quote: |
Lee Mi-young, 24, an account coordinator at Google Korea, is in a dilemma over an outfit she bought for a special dinner late this month.
The cause is the �overexposure� decree that will go into effect on March 21. She has to brave a fine of 50,000 won ($44.85) for a night of roaming the hip district of Gangnam in her little black dress.
The chance is that Lee is not alone.
Seoul is packed with women sporting tops and, apparently, little more. These women varnish their legs with stockings or leggings, and their sweaters barely conceal their backsides.
This trend, namely the �bottoms gone missing� look, is common in the entertainment profession. Celebrities appear at public venues wearing miniskirts or micro-shorts, showing off their legs....
Bare legs do not scream �sex,� unlike low-cut or cropped tops.
Celebrities known for their scanty attire criticized the decree. Lee Hyo-ri, a singer considered a sex symbol, posted on Twitter, �Is it true about the overexposure fine? I�m dead.� Kwak Hyun-hwa, 32 and notorious for her sex appeal, asked, �What am I going to do?�
There is an interesting comparison being made between President Park Geun-hye and her late father, former President Park Chung-hee.
In her first Cabinet meeting on March 11, the new government led by President Park endorsed the regulation designed to impose fines on those caught �overexposing.� It also called for a fine of 80,000 won for the crime of stalking.
Late President Park Chung-hee banned women from wearing miniskirts that reached less than 10 centimeters above the knee. The senior Park�s 18-year reign ended in 1979 when he was assassinated by his aide. |
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2013/03/116_132327.html
So if a guy stalks a girl who is showing too much skin they could both end up being busted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
optik404
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 6:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Police will not enforce this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
javis
Joined: 28 Feb 2013
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 8:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| This is what happens when you elect a dictator's daughter as President. What public interest does this law possibly serve? It's just the boss's whim encoded as law. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
javis
Joined: 28 Feb 2013
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 9:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| This is what happens when you elect a dictator's daughter as President. What public interest does this law possibly serve? It's just the boss's whim encoded as law. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Otherside
Joined: 06 Sep 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The article tries to explain what overexposure/stalking is (as defined by that law) but I think it's a pretty grey area.
That being said, the article is just sensationalising things, I strongly doubt that many girls wearing skimpy clothing in places like Gangnam will be fined. On the other hand, if a guy were to try and pull off the "hot pants" look, I can easily see the book being thrown at him.
| Quote: |
In the face of public outcry, the police said in a statement that the decree has been in place since 1963. They said the amendment is aimed at simplifying the legal procedure and making the penalty lighter.
The police tried to reassure the public that the revision does not apply to miniskirts and tank tops, but concern is still growing over excessive governmental control on people�s private lives. |
On the other hand, a 50,000 won penalty for the local Burberry Man flashing middle school girls seems a bit light, and I don't think will provide much deterrent at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm guessing this was aimed at flashers and stalkers and the like, but the wording has normal ppl scratching their heads.
Why not simply say "exposing of genitals in public is an offence"?
It's seems far to ambiguous right now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ghostrider
Joined: 27 Jun 2011
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So a woman president is trying to protect women from pervs but the penalties are pretty light.
| Quote: |
If the decree was designed to mitigate punishment and simplify procedures, then, as a netizen asks, �Did the government just announce we can dress anyway we want for 50,000 won and stalk anyone we want for 80,000 won?�
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lucas
Joined: 11 Sep 2012
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And what if you're stalking someone with your pants down?
Do you get a double fine? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mix1
Joined: 08 May 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From the article:
"Bare legs do not scream �sex,� unlike low-cut or cropped tops. "
Says who? Not if you're a leg man!
It's so funny here how even a hint of cleavage is seen as slutty, but wearing a mini that barely covers the arse cheeks is seemingly no problem at all.
NOT that there's anything wrong with that! But it is funny. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nicwr2002
Joined: 17 Aug 2011
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 2:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
I heard that this law was already in place and that the president just gave a better break down of the penalties. I don't really see what this has to do with anything or why the government thought it was important now though.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ajuma
Joined: 18 Feb 2003
Location: Anywere but Seoul!!
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 6:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
I had my uni students write about this for their last homework assignment and the answers were quite interesting.
Most of them felt that the reason for the law was because the penalty for sexual assault was so low that something had to be done to prevent sexual assault. (scratches head)
Others felt that it would be a good law if the guidelines were clearer.
My favorite one was the guy who said that he liked excessive exposure because when he was tired of studying, he could look at girls with exposed skin and wake up his eyes!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rkc76sf
Joined: 02 Nov 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Otherside wrote: |
That being said, the article is just sensationalising things, I strongly doubt that many girls wearing skimpy clothing in places like Gangnam will be fined. On the other hand, if a guy were to try and pull off the "hot pants" look, I can easily see the book being thrown at him.
|
As well he should, maybe even some prison time  Or maybe he would like that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swampfox10mm
Joined: 24 Mar 2011
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 4:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gee, I wonder if this would have kept the two drunk ajoshis from playing with themselves in broad daylight outside of our 400 million won little 2 bedroom apartment we're renting? Doesn't seem to matter how much we spend on a place, there are still an abundance of pervs around.
Korea still has a problem with flashers and the like. I assume this law is attempting to address it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
