Upskirting - how one victim is fighting back

[Wildtree]

Just have to be lower than her and look up at something.

or hold a camera accordingly.
He however made it sound as if she exposed herself, or anything below the skirt anyway, and therefore she has no point.

[Deleted]

Wait, she wore string panties? Since normal panties would cover enough.

2. Punch the guys in the face and move on :O

[Charge me Doctor]

There's a pic with both sisters..
One has a short skirt, the other one a long one.
Both show what they suppose to show, some legs...
I accused you for not knowing, because your claims defy the facts.

Let me show you the facts
[/IMG]

This isn't even considered a high cut mini. It's a normal mini that goes about 5 inch below the butt cheek.
Where does that skirt expose what's underneath? You have to do a lot to get to see what she's got under it.

It literally takes one set of stairs, or her sitting down on a bench. But that's not the point - this skirt compared to other clothing choices (for argument sake - pants, shorts, longer types of skirt) is most revealing, and there is a precaution to take for such events which she didn't (hotpants). If she wanted to show legs but don't show her panties - she would go with shorts, or longer skirt, or fucking hotpants.

She either willingly ignored her chances of being exposed to creeps, or expected to be creeped upon. Anyways, my point still stands - creeps are creeps, and she was dumb enough to not take proper precautions against things she didn't wanted to happen

[Freighter]

Again: they put their camera in a position that's not a normal position for a picture specifically for an angle beneath skirts.

You can whinge all you want, but that isn't covered by expectation of privacy.

Obviously the women own fault for not being on lower ground than the men to prevent them from positioning the cameras to take pictures.

[Vanyali]

If they put it between someone's legs I agree. If they don't there is no such thing as a position for taking pictures that is abnormal.

How about if i crouch on the ground and put it just far enough out to get beneath a skirt? omg, not touching her, not touching her legs omg it's fair game!

Nope. Still not. Even in the hypothetical "she was above me on a glass ceiling!" looking wouldn't be sexual assault, taking pictures *would be* unless you had consent.

[Independent voter]

So that's why people buy selfie sticks. lol

No, that's rude, very rude.

[Wildtree]

She either willingly ignored her chances of being exposed to creeps, or expected to be creeped upon. Anyways, my point still stands - creeps are creeps, and she was dumb enough to not take proper precautions against things she didn't wanted to happen

Again... This is not Russia.
This is England. And in England, much as in all other developed nations the responsibility lies with the creep.
Women have the right to dress as they please. And if you think you can take advantage of it, you might be in for a bad surprise.

[ro9ue]

Obviously the women own fault for not being on lower ground than the men to prevent them from positioning the cameras to take pictures.

How do people not witness this and just beat the hell out of those guys? If I saw a dude doing that he'd be hospitalized.

[Wilfire]

Wow some people never grow out of their horny teen phase. I've said it before and I'll say it again: open carry friend. No one wants to mess with a dude or a chick with a HUGE gun.

[Charge me Doctor]

Wait, she wore string panties? Since normal panties would cover enough.

I don't know a single girl who would put on a short skirt without proper panties... i thought it was common knowledge for girls that you shouldn't use revealing panties when wearing skirts

[Charge me Doctor]

Again... This is not Russia.
This is England. And in England, much as in all other developed nations the responsibility lies with the creep.
Women have the right to dress as they please. And if you think you can take advantage of it, you might be in for a bad surprise.

yes they do, and they have to act accordingly, instead of flipping over and making herself a victim, even after taking away someones possession.

You are so triggered, i would advice you to calm down

[Wildtree]

So that's why people buy selfie sticks. lol

No, that's rude, very rude.

Since it's a rather new behavior, the laws aren't updated everywhere yet to reflect/address it specifically..
But things are moving..

Pennsylvania – Upskirting is considered a misdemeanor in Pennsylvania, as photos and videos cannot be taken of someone’s intimate parts without their consent, even in a public area.
New Jersey – Just last year, Governor Christie signed a law to criminalize upskirting as a fourth-degree crime. Violators could pay a fine up to $10,000 or face up to 18 months in prison. If the photos are published online, it becomes a third-degree fine with even higher penalties.
New York – In New York, upskirting is considered a Class E felony which is punishable by one to four years in prison. Second-time offenders face even more severe penalties.

[Wilfire]

If they walk around exposed in public it is perfectly legal to take a photo. Hell, the paparazzi can even profit from the photo.

How is she exposed in any way at all? Skirts don't expose anyone unless some hormone crazed pervert tries to look up them. But guess what? You can also pull down someone's pants or lift their top. THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR IS NOT ACCEPTABLE IN PUBLIC.

[Vanyali]

She's in public exposing herself. How is it assault to take someone's picture in public? By your logic I could run around naked and anyone who took a photo assaulted me.

Uh. She wasn't publically lifting her skirt and saying "TAKE MY PICTURES DADDY"

[zlygork]

wtf is wrong with you people. Of course taking a picture of someone's genitals/panties without permission is a violation of privacy. You are the reason we have so called feminazis becoming a satire of the feminist plight.

[Wildtree]

If they walk around exposed in public it is perfectly legal to take a photo. Hell, the paparazzi can even profit from the photo.

Let's not move the goal posts to have a different outcome.
Let's go with what we got at hand.

[Wildtree]

No goalposts being moved.

we're talking upskirting. if everything's exposed, you won't need to do it anymore. You'd see it.
The issue isn't about looking at something you can freely see. It's about trying to look at something that is covered otherwise.

[Vanyali]

Never said she was. Britney wasn't lifting hers either but she still exposed herself in public. As have many other celebs. The photographers weren't charged with assault.

Yeah, remember when I said paparazzi are fuzzy because $$$$ and their job? Doesn't really apply to non-celebs.

If you want to make your "big points" do remember the full conversation.

[Wilfire]

Or the woman is on a higher elevation and someone looks up at them with no expectation of seeing anything but they still get an eyeful.

- - - Updated - - -



No goalposts being moved.

- - - Updated - - -



Never said she was. Britney wasn't lifting hers either but she still exposed herself in public. As have many other celebs. The photographers weren't charged with assault.

There's a huge difference between somebody accidentally seeing someone's underwear and someone intentionally perving on other people in public. The only solution to public perving is when the good guys have big guns.

[Morssoe]

Uh. She wasn't publically lifting her skirt and saying "TAKE MY PICTURES DADDY"

That is excatly what they are doing.

Creepy guy -> sexual assault
Hot guy -> look at me

It is all natural.