skip to content rich footer

subscibe to the rss feed

The Amateur Erotic Voyeurism of Monsieur X

Published on July 18th, 2016

The intriguing Frenchman who has come to be known as Monsieur X captures a romantic ideal of the amateur photographer. Monsieur X spent a decade creating his private collection of erotic pictures for personal pleasure and for the pure love of the captured images. His motivations were obviously voyeuristic. His interests erotic. His subjects were among prostitutes at 75 Rue Jean Baptiste Pigalle.

The story of Monsieur X really begins in 1975 when an old man presented his archive of private images to a Paris book seller. At the end of one’s life there are choices – he might destroy such a body of erotic work; he might sell that body of work and increase his personal means; he might seek discovery as a photographer among photographers; or, he could sell the entire archive of his work on the provision that a name will be withheld to save family embarrassment.

The last choice, if you’re curious, was the one for Monsieur X – the work became public and his identity remained private.

The book seller contacted a collector named Alexandre Dupouy, owner of a shop named Tears of Eros, and the works have been attributed to this Monsieur X ever since. Dupouy has kept the secret, as promised.

Read the rest of this entry »

Alexander Pearce was not a Tasmanian

Published on June 19th, 2016

Peter Whish-Wilson (a Tasmanian Greens Senator) and Scott Stringer (a West-Coast Councillor) want to bring the skull of the infamous Irish cannibal convict Alexander Pearce back to Tasmania. Apparently they believe this is his home. The skull was sold by a surgeon to the American Natural Scientist Samuel George Morton after Pearce’s execution at Hobart Gaol in July, 1824.

There are a number of problems that I can see with this endeavour. And all of them stagger belief that they weren’t already identified within the political backdrop of the Greens Party or the relevant West Coast Council.

The Irishman was a Convict

First and foremost there is the question of Alexander Pearce’s posthumous right to be buried in his native soil. That native soil would not be Tasmania.

Pearce was sentenced to seven years at Armagh, Ireland in the year 1819. He escaped in Van Diemen’s Land (present Tasmania) in 1822 and was sent to the notoriously hard penal colony of Sarah Island in Macquarie Harbour on Tasmania’s West Coast. Pearce’s escape from that colony involved the cannibalisation of other prisoners and this infamous convict story has become part of our penal history.

Read the rest of this entry »

Discussing the Ethics of Driverless Cars

Published on May 21st, 2016

This morning we got into a discussion about the complexity of designing ethical driverless cars that meet social expectations. That’s a hard subject to articulate. Mostly because there isn’t just one ethical framework; but also because there is probably no way to produce an ethical car that passengers would step inside for a journey. We can’t even produce a safe car. Imagine if the car could insist, for the greater good, that you die.

When I see discussion about the design of an ethical driverless car the question, at least for me, becomes “Which ethical framework are we talking about?” Utiliarianism? Kant’s Categorical Imperative? Ethical Rights analysis? There is no hard and fast ethical regimen that would hold true in all cases.

In Utilitarian analysis, for the greater good, the car might be designed to sacrifice one driver so the family of five in another car survives. But what if the other car was at fault? Is it ethical to sacrifice the single driver so an oncoming carload who made an error would be spared? Do we count five lives against the one life; or, do we count each life as being of equal value to the individuals involved? Are younger lives more valuable than older lives? Would your gender, weight, health, criminal record or race be taken into account? Who makes that judgement? In the real World the Utilitarian perspective is a very cold calculation.

And if we run with Kant’s Categorical Imperative then the maxim might be something like: “All cars will kill all drivers all the time.” Or, “No cars will kill any drivers any of the time.” I’d take a punt that the second is the maxim that makes sense. Ethical driverless cars should never kill drivers.

Read the rest of this entry »

More Articles on

  1. Alexander Pearce was not a Tasmanian
  2. Discussing the Ethics of Driverless Cars
  3. Prisons are full of Naughty People
  4. Starting on Next Year’s Scrumpy
  5. Our Australian Faux-Mamajuana is Lovely

Social Networking

Keep an eye out for me on Twitter

About the Author

Steven Clark Steven Clark - the stand up guy on this site

My name is Steven Clark (aka nortypig) and I live in Southern Tasmania. I have an MBA (Specialisation) and a Bachelor of Computing from the University of Tasmania. I'm a photographer making pictures with film. A web developer for money. A business consultant for fun. A journalist on paper. Dreams of owning the World. Idea champion. Paradox. Life partner to Megan.

skip to top of page