This post documents a KakaoTalk open-chat exchange circulating on DC Inside (Dongguk Gallery → link post into the Film School minor gallery). It shows sexual violence in a digital context—explicit sexual insults and doxxing threats—within a university‑adjacent community. All offensive language is retained for evidentiary integrity.

Reference (as shown in screenshot):

  • DC Inside Film School minor gallery link: https://m.dcinside.com/board/artoffilmschool/1518
  • DC Inside Dongguk Gallery intro post (links out to the Film School minor): see screenshots/dc-inside-dongguk-intro-post.png — title on the index reads roughly “동국대생의 성희롱 정당화” ("Justification for sexual harassment by a Dongguk student"), which itself frames the incident in a way that normalizes/argues over “justification,” signaling a problematic community posture.

KWDI’s 2020 study identified a 61.5% sexual violence rate among women in arts/culture faculties. This transcript provides a concrete example of the hostile online climate surrounding arts education communities.

Content warning: contains explicit sexual language and threats of identification/doxxing.

Screenshots (DC Inside → Kakao Open Chat)

Figure 1 — Dongguk Gallery intro post linking to Film‑School minor

Dongguk intro index

Figure 2 — Kakao doxxing screenshot 1 (chat 5:25–5:26 PM)

Kakao doxxing screenshot 1

Figure 3 — Kakao doxxing screenshot 2 (chat 5:28–5:29 PM)

Kakao doxxing screenshot 2

Figure 4 — Kakao doxxing screenshot 3 (thread comments under DC Inside post)

Kakao doxxing screenshot 3 (thread comments)

Line-by-Line Transcript (Korean → English)

Participants:

  • [Yellow] = the user in yellow speech bubbles
  • [Ryan] = nickname “베개를 부비적대는 라이언”

Times are as displayed in the UI (오후 = PM).

Screenshot 1 (5:25–5:26 PM)

  • [Yellow | 5:25] 니가 뭘 말할까 궁금해서
    → I was curious what you would say.
  • [Ryan | 5:26] 그래
    → Okay.
  • [Ryan | 5:26] 대화해보니 어떠니
    → How is it, talking now?
  • [Yellow | 5:26] 병ㅅ같음
    → You’re acting pathetic. (ableist slur in Korean)
  • [Ryan | 5:26] 나는 네가 그냥 사이비에 빠진 신도같다
    → You seem like a follower who fell into a cult.
  • [Ryan | 5:26] 너는 욕하면서 왜 나보고는 욕하지말라해
    → You swear, but you tell me not to swear at you?
  • [Yellow | 5:26] 넌 저급하니까
    → Because you’re vulgar.
  • [Yellow | 5:26] 똑같이 대해도 됨
    → I can respond in kind.
  • [Ryan | 5:26] 애미창녀구녕에서 / 보지구녕에서 / 구렁내날것같은년아
    → “You [expletive], born from your prostitute mother’s *** hole / from a p    *y hole / like a snake would crawl out.” (extremely obscene, misogynistic insult)

Screenshot 2 (5:28–5:29 PM)

  • [Ryan | 5:28] 나도 중대 수소문해서 / 너 이지랄하는거 / 연출 제작 미술 파트 / 얘기할거니까
    → I’ll ask around at Chung-Ang (University) and talk to the directing/production/art people about the way you’re acting. (implies doxxing/identification)
  • [Ryan | 5:29] ㅋㅋ
    → lol.
  • [Yellow | 5:29] 통매음이랑 내가 너 병ㅅ이랑 한 거랑 죄가 같냐 ㅋㅋㅋㅋ 사태파악 안 되나보네
    → Do you think mass-defamation and what I did with you—an idiot—are the same offense? lol. You don’t seem to grasp the situation.
  • [Ryan | 5:29] 고딩 쓰는 현장 특정 안될거라 생각하는거노
    → You think what you wrote won’t let me identify your site/context?
  • [Ryan | 5:29] 니가 먼저 시비를 걸었잖음
    → You picked a fight first.
  • [Ryan | 5:29] 저급하다느니
    → Saying I’m low-class, etc.
  • [Yellow | 5:29] 말 많네 난 기회도 줬고
    → You talk a lot; I even gave you a chance.
  • [Yellow | 5:29] 니가 찬거야
    → You blew it.

Poster’s note (visible below the chat in the capture) — paraphrased

  • They went into the open chat for a one-on-one talk. The aggressor repeatedly asked sexualized questions, referenced “19,” and made sexual remarks. When asked to apologize, the aggressor refused and instead said they would “ask around” in film/production circles (incl. Chung-Ang University) to identify the target and “check the scene.” The note describes specific sexual violence in a digital context (sexualized abuse), implied threats, and no remorse.

Screenshot 3 (DC Inside index capture)

  • Dongguk Gallery listing shows the linked Film School minor post with a title implying “justification for sexual harassment.” See Figure 1.

Screenshot 4 (DC Inside comment thread under the Film School post)

  • See Figure 4.
  • Comments directly below the linked post reflect mixed but revealing reactions. Without quoting users verbatim, observable themes include:
    • Warnings about a specific user being associated with sexual harassment rhetoric (cautionary tone).
    • Dismissive/bantering replies that minimize the severity, or pivot to unrelated celebrity/entertainment chatter.
    • Meta‑comments about whether the issue “belongs” in the gallery and light engagement signals (upvotes/views) inconsistent with the seriousness of described conduct.
  • These reactions, taken with the screenshots, show a community environment that often trivializes or sidelines sexual‑violence reports even when doxxing threats are visible in the evidence.

Analysis: What This Shows

  • Sexual violence (digital context): The aggressor uses explicit sexual insults targeting the other participant. This is sexual violence, not “banter.”
  • Doxxing/identification threats: References to “수소문해서… 현장 특정” (asking around to pinpoint who/where) escalate risk from online to offline harm.
  • Minimization and reversal: The aggressor reframes the exchange as mutual and blames the target for “starting it,” which mirrors patterns we see when survivors report sexual violence.
  • Relevance to arts/film faculties: The post circulates through Dongguk Gallery and a film-school minor gallery, aligning with documented high‑risk environments for arts programs identified by KWDI (61.5% of women in arts/culture faculties experienced sexual violence).
  • Comment‑thread signals: The comment thread captured in Figure 4 shows a split between cautionary notes and minimization/deflection. This supports our broader finding that online bystander communities frequently normalize or divert from sexual‑violence content, undermining accountability.

This conversation is consistent with a broader harassment ecosystem tied to Korean university arts circles, where online abuse and offline intimidation intersect.

Why It Matters for International & Vietnamese/Japanese Students

  • International students (and especially women) face additional vulnerabilities: language barriers, visa status, dependence on faculty/industry gatekeepers.
  • Racialized sexual violence: Foreign women are targeted within hierarchies where reporting can trigger retaliation or legal exposure under Korea’s defamation/insult regime, which is frequently weaponized to criminalize truthful testimony (truth is not an absolute defense; “public interest” is narrowly construed). Entertainment companies operating around campuses have used legal threats to chill reporting—for example, Sidus’s threat at Dongguk; see: Sidus Legal Threat Backfires.
  • Hostile climate undermines safety claims made in recruitment materials and certification frameworks.

See our deepfakes/digital sex crimes analysis mapping campus overlap and institutional impunity:
https://blog.genderwatchdog.org/deepfakes-consent-law-gaps-drugging-defamation-silencing-arts-risk-businessentertainment-pipeline/

Policy and Platform Demands

1) Kakao Open Chat: Enforce sexual violence/harassment rules; remove abusers; prevent repeat participation; support evidence retention for victims.
2) Universities (Dongguk + film schools): Treat online sexual violence and doxxing tied to academic/industry networks as conduct subject to sanctions; publish independent reporting channels; protect complainants from retaliation.
3) Certification bodies (IEQAS): Include online sexual violence metrics and enforcement in audits for high‑risk faculties (arts/film); require transparent annual reporting.
4) Legal reform discussion: Prevent weaponization of defamation/insult laws against victims and advocates documenting sexual violence.

Safety Guidance (Quick)

  • Preserve evidence (original files + hashes, screenshots with timestamps).
  • Avoid direct escalation; log threats of identification/doxxing.
  • Report to platform and, where safe, to university channels; seek NGO/legal support.
  • If at risk, adjust account privacy, and coordinate with trusted peers for documentation.

Sources & Further Reading