Big "outrage" on Tulsa TV about "upskirting"

[mike1963]

Apparently there's a big stink about people taking pictures of women's upper legs & skirts using mini-dig cameras. In public. I guess I'm missing something here...if a woman wants to walk down the sidewalk wearing a short skirt, what is the rationale for complaining (I really wanted to say 'bitching') about the fact that somebody would take a picture of her (minus identifying details such as face)?

ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[Djinn]

1. the "upskirting"

suggests that it is UP the skirt - big story here a while back - get on an escalator and with a mobile with pixt it's easy to get a shot UP someone's skirt without looking like your doing anything pervy.

I guess the best way to understand why some people might have a problem is to ask yourself if you'd mind at all if your daughter/sister/mother/wife/girlfriend was being photographed (even ABOVE her skirt) without her consent or even knowledge by some inadequate fetishist.

In short YES I think you ARE missing something

[mike1963]

7. But they never suggested the shots were compromising in any way.

They are complaining about pictures showing exactly what one would see from eye or waist level IN PUBLIC. Like walking down Boston Avenue.
These were not surreptitious peep-shots taken in a bathroom they were simply what anyone with functional eyes would see on the public street.

If I decided to walk through town naked, I don't think I'd have much room to bitch if somebody were to take a snapshot.

Gimme a fucking break.
:grr:

[Djinn]

15. why do you think it's called UPskirting - that's not a suggestion

that's telling anyone with half a brain exactly what the deal is - although even if it DIDN'T seeing something is not the same as PHOTOGRAPHING it - go into a designer store and try taking a photo of a dress that's on PUBLIC display.

Or how about kids playing in a playground - would you be perfectly comfortable with someone taking snapshots of them without the consent and knowledge of their parents - after all they're on "public display"

Can't beleive this even needs to explaining

[corriger]

8. exactly Djinn

[lolly]

2. Are you serious?

While I suppose I would agree this isn't front page news, are you really trying to suggest that any woman who wears a short skirt gives up her right to conceal whatever is underneath that skirt?

[mike1963]

9. Nobody has been accused of revealing anything UNDER the skirt.

kill the thread. I just find it to be much ado about nothing.

Sorry I started it, you would have to have seen the 'report' to appreciate how goddamn stupid it was. Sorry.

[lolly]

13. Um, can you?

Think for a second . . .

"Up" skirt does not mean the same as "at" skirt.

Perhaps the show you watched only showed tamer pictures, but the problem with "up"skirting is that, as several other posters mentioned, it surreptitiously films from a lower position up to a woman's skirt. The point is to get shots of her underwear and whatever else isn't revealed by her skirt.

And yes, it's been around since the 90s and yes, it is revived every year or two for local sweeps coverage.

[bluestateguy]

3. Not relevant

With everything going on in the world, this is not a priority for me. This is a 90's issue, and the 90's are over.

[corriger]

10. merely nineties?

my friend you have much more to read about.

[havocmom]

4. A short skirt is not an invitation to peek at panties

unless the skrit is short enough where no special equipment and/or positioning is necessary to afford such a view.

If a woman has lovely legs and is proud of them she is not flashing you.

Get a clue.

[No2W2004]

5. Smells like a "sweeps report"

BTW..."upskirting" really means walking next to a woman in a short skirt & holding the camera low enough to take a picture to see up her skirt. That is a big deal as it is an invasion of privacy & generally creepy thing to do.

BTW2, Notice that digital cameras didn't become evil until they were used to take pictures that got shrub in trouble.

[Old and In the Way]

24. Bingo

"BTW2, Notice that digital cameras didn't become evil until they were used to take pictures that got shrub in trouble."

Upskirting is dispicable, no arguing. But taking pics of atrocities and being able to transmit them electronically within seconds of the event is the real threat that is driving this outrage. Upskirting is merely the cover for the justification to try and ban them.

Sort of the 'ban words and images from the TV because the children might be offended' varient that masks the real intent to censor the information people see.

[Newsjock]

6. It's sweeps month

Time to manufacture outrage. At least they're not doing those other old standbys: Men having sex in the park! Germs lurk in motel rooms! Watch our reporter get hit with a Taser! And on and on and on.

[corriger]

12. the taser

has been one of the americans best stock purchase of late.

[lolly]

18. Germs lurk in motel rooms?

Damn! Cancel my travel plans NOW.

[No2W2004]

22. The sperm light!

that's always a good one for sweeps! "Holy crap! How'd THAT get on the ceiling?"

[petronius]

25. Do I get to choose the reporter?

'Cause there're plenty that I'd like to see tasered - twice in some cases!

[AP]

11. If someone took your picture to masturbate to, would you be upset?

Also, celeberities are allowed to control the use of their images, even if they're from pictures taken in public.

I think people should be able to at least be outraged (even if they have no legal claim) about people who take their pictures and use them for whatever they use them.

[Columbia]

16. I'd be flattered

But that's just me. :)

[mike1963]

17. Yikes! If someone wanted MY picture to jerkoff to, I'd be ecstatic!

:D

It's been years since I had that sort of compliment. ;-)

But hope springs eternal. Wish I hadn't brought it up. :eyes:

[Djinn]

21. would you say that if

everyone who replied AGREED with you?

or did you just want to post and no replies?

[DemBones DemBones]

14. Oh, come on. This new juvenile behavior is just as

perverse and wrong as an old-time pervert gluing mirrors on the top of his shoes so he can look up women's skirts. The immature creeps who do this are first cousins to the perves who set up cameras in women's restrooms or dressing rooms to do their peeping. . . You seem to be suggesting that a woman wearing a short skirt is asking for some jerk to stick his camera-phone under her skirt and photograph her underwear. You in favor of date rape, too?

[mike1963]

23. My last post on this, I promise. There was NO suggestion that any

pictures were taken from a direction that would have revealed the "female details", as it were. The TV report showed the "questionable images" which were all exactly what would have been seen by the naked
(oops) eye from ...well, 'eye level' (although perhaps the eye level of a six year old, or maybe a randy Doberman.)

And all from very public city streets. Not in a bathroom or a boudoire.

[Djinn]

26. sigh

like the TV news would show you the undie shots - they don't want to get sued and they remember the outrage over a certain wardrobe malfunction

[LizW]

19. How pathetic would a person have to be

to do this, anyway?

It's sort of like announcing to the world, "Hey, I'm a doofus! I couldn't get a woman if my life depended on it! The only panties I'm ever going to see are those I surreptitiously photograph with my geek camera phone!"

:D

[seabeyond]

20. somewhere along the way our males have really walked

away from simple respect of female. i feel for our youth. both the male and the female.