Upskirting - how one victim is fighting back

[Deleted]

There are degrees of sexual assault; not every single degree is rape, nor are they equivalent.

So I mean... I get to decide I'm sexually assaulted every time I have to look at a woman in a skimpy dress, right? Because, I mean, it gives me a boner, and I don't want that. A boner is very sexual. So that is sexual assault. Right?

[Charge me Doctor]

this is absolutely false when it comes to parts covered by clothing. If I managed to pants you completely without touching you and take a picture it'd still be considered sexual assault.

Picture was taken of "parts" that weren't covered by clothing deliberately

[Freighter]

So I mean... I get to decide I'm sexually assaulted every time I have to look at a woman in a skimpy dress, right? Because, I mean, it gives me a boner, and I don't want that. A boner is very sexual. So that is sexual assault. Right?

What kind of logic is that?

[Vanyali]

So I mean... I get to decide I'm sexually assaulted every time I have to look at a woman in a skimpy dress, right? Because, I mean, it gives me a boner, and I don't want that. A boner is very sexual. So that is sexual assault. Right?

...generally it has to do with unwanted contact with another person's genitals or a sexual action (kissing, non-consensual sex, groping, and so on). You being unable to control yourself is on you. And yes, pictures are considered unwanted contact, except in the case of paparazzi where the line fuzzes insanely because $$$$$.

[Deleted]

...generally it has to do with unwanted contact with another person's genitals or a sexual action (kissing, non-consensual sex, groping, and so on). You being unable to control yourself is on you. And yes, pictures are considered unwanted contact, except in the case of paparazzi where the line fuzzes insanely because $$$$$.

Showing your body off is sexual action.

[Grapemask]

Christ, about 3/4 of the responses to this thread are a demonstration that no amount of banning certain topics will fix the problem of GenOT's larger-than-average population of sub-human trash heaps. I say that as nicely as I can.

[Derah]

Why would I? I don't know people who take pictures of crotch shots on strangers

Not only is this a thing, it got so out of control in Japan, that they passed a law there, making it mandatory for cellphone cameras to emit a loud noise when taking a picture, because creepos taking upskirt pics in public transportation systems like subways and buses was getting completely out of control.

[Wildtree]

Picture was taken of "parts" that weren't covered by clothing deliberately

She didn't wear panties? Where is that information?

By my understanding she wore panties and a skirt. Both are considered clothes that cover body parts. Maybe not in Putinland.. idk..

[Katsutomai]

...generally it has to do with unwanted contact with another person's genitals or a sexual action (kissing, non-consensual sex, groping, and so on). You being unable to control yourself is on you. And yes, pictures are considered unwanted contact, except in the case of paparazzi where the line fuzzes insanely because $$$$$.

... When did taking a picture of someone begin to involve contact? Pretty sure you need to physically touch someone for it to be considered contact.

[Vanyali]

Showing your body off is sexual action.

It's really not, unless you fall into the ultra-religious idea that "ERMGH. THEY ONLY DRESS LIKE THAT TO PROVOKE ME"

- - - Updated - - -

... When did taking a picture of someone begin to involve contact? Pretty sure you need to physically touch someone for it to be considered contact.

You don't, legally. Fuzzy legal words.

[Deleted]

Showing your body off is sexual action.

No, its what you make of it. If you crack an erection seeing nudity then thats on you, shit like this is why certain immigrants are getting into so much trouble.

[Vanyali]

Although if I went outside in a speedo and walked around, I'd probably get accused - at the least - of somehow being a sexual pervert or something or other.

Eh, depends on the context. If you're just out in a neighborhood, possibly. At a beach or going to a pool? Nah. Though I'd equate that more to a woman showing camel toe since there's certain... visibility going on.

[Charge me Doctor]

She didn't wear panties? Where is that information?

By my understanding she wore panties and a skirt. Both are considered clothes that cover body parts. Maybe not in Putinland.. idk..

So, all the fuss is about someone taking a picture of her clothed?

[grexly75]

Perhaps its an urban thing

It has been around for ages, in the bad old days, creepy types would put mirrors on their shoes to get a look or even physically lift the woman's skirt up..

And the practice of Upskirting has been around for a very long time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upskirt ..

The interesting thing is that in the United Kingdom it is not illegal to take such photos, but they guilty party can be done under the common-law offence of Outraging Public Decency..

[Cerilis]

She didn't wear panties? Where is that information?

By my understanding she wore panties and a skirt. Both are considered clothes that cover body parts. Maybe not in Putinland.. idk..

What kind of logic is that anyway? "She wasnt wearing panties under her skirt, so it was totally legit to upskirt her, derp" ^^

But I see the victim blamer brigade is already out in full force anyway.

[Vanyali]

It's a weird area as you don't really have a right that protects you from having your picture taken in public.

You do still have the expectation of privacy of areas covered by clothing. You do not have the expectation of privacy of being caught in a shot, candid or not, that's not going beneath your clothing. Easy concept with zero gray area.

[Deleted]

Although if I went outside in a speedo and walked around, I'd probably get accused - at the least - of somehow being a sexual pervert or something or other.

Well it would be weird if you're nowhere near water

[Charge me Doctor]

You do still have the expectation of privacy of areas covered by clothing. You do not have the expectation of privacy of being caught in a shot, candid or not, that's not going beneath your clothing. Easy concept with zero gray area.

That's what boggles my mind - skirts are designed to be revealing, they don't cover your bottom and reveal whatever it is under it. I mean, regular skirt doesn't, but these mini-skirts definitely do. So expectation of "privacy of covered by clothing" while putting on clothing that expose certain parts of body is... unbelievable. There are also countermeasures for this exact case that you put under the skirt, which she decided to not use.

It's all dumbs down to creeps being creeps (which is not fine in my book) and women being dumb (a chain of her decisions aka, putting on a mini-skirt and expecting that no one will see what's under, aka keep communicating with creeps and allow them to get dangerously close, stealing creeps phone)

[Wildtree]

So, all the fuss is about someone taking a picture of her clothed?

The skirt is there for a reason. You aren't suppose to see anything that's underneath. If you try to see it anyway , then you're breaching the person's privacy.
In some countries that is considered sexual harassment.

[Vanyali]

That's what boggles my mind - skirts are designed to be revealing, they don't cover your bottom and reveal whatever it is under it. I mean, regular skirt doesn't, but these mini-skirts definitely do. So expectation of "privacy of covered by clothing" while putting on clothing that expose certain parts of body is... unbelievable

I feel you don't understand what "upskirt" means.