Pastor under fire for pro-LGBTQ stance »« Massachusetts will no longer be a refuge for upskirters

Upskirt navigation

If there’s a thing too ridiculous and hostile and contemptuous to be said, you can be sure there will be people to say it. On Reddit. To be passed on by Manboobz.

Demonspawn [-1] 6 points 7 hours ago (26|20)  Wearing a skirt has consequences. If we use state violence to protect women from the consequences of her choice to wear a skirt, we remove her agency. This man didn't assault her, didn't touch her... all he did was take a picture of what her choice in clothing exposed to the public.  How is that criminal to the point of deserving of state violence upon him?  This is saying that protecting women from the consequences of their choices in clothing is more important than men's freedom.      permalink     save     source     save     give gold     hide child comments  [–]nigglereddit 5 points 6 hours ago (13|8)  You're absolutely correct.  If you wear clothing which exposes parts of your body from some angles, you have to expect that someone at that angle will see those parts of your body.  You can't tell everyone not to see you from those angles because you're not comfortable with that part of your body being seen; that's ridiculous. If you're uncomfortable it is your job to cover that part of your body.      permalink     save     source     save     parent     give gold  [–]DaNiceguy [-2] 4 points 4 hours ago (11|7)  Ah but you see the wrong man saw it. That makes him a criminal, right?

Her choice in clothing didn’t expose what he took a picture of to the public. He didn’t take a picture of her shins or her knees, he took a picture of the section of her that was under the skirt. It’s exposed to the sidewalk and the floor, but it’s not exposed to the public.

Comments

  1. Stacy says

    If you wear clothing which exposes parts of your body at some angles, you have to expect that someone at that angle will see those parts of your body..

    You can’t tell everyone not to see you from those angles because you’re not comfortable with that part of your body being seen; that’s ridiculous.

    It’s true. Men in kilts, who famously do not wear underclothing, would never object to somebody on the floor at their feet craning their neck for a look all up in there. Or a camera strategically placed for the photographic equivalent. Because FREEDOM and AGENCY and if they don’t want people looking at body parts being exposed “at some angles,” they should just COVER UP.

  2. MyaR says

    Also, the “wrong man saw it”. Because women don’t get to choose which men get to see what. Either none or all!

  3. Blanche Quizno says

    I’ve never been comfortable in skirts for exactly this reason. I almost exclusively wear pants. Oh, for a very fancy occasion, I might wear a dress – I have a few nice ones – but I rarely encounter such events. Maybe once every 10 years – I’m not kidding!

    One time, in my early 20s, I was marching in a parade where we were costumed as Revolutionary War girls – bonnets, short skirts with a crinoline, whatever. We also got something like a bikini bottom to wear under it. I remember, as we were marching along the parade route, boys around age 10 or 11 rushing over to the street, diving onto the curb and flipping onto their backs so they could look up our skirts. Not even discrete – they were completely shameless in their zeal.

    I guess they never outgrow that tendency…

  4. Zee Low Brown says

    Her choice in clothing didn’t expose what he took a picture of to the public. He didn’t take a picture of her shins or her knees, he took a picture of the section of her that was under the skirt. It’s exposed to the sidewalk and the floor, but it’s not exposed to the public.

    Doesn’t that imply it was OK for him to take pictures of her for his own enjoyment? Taking a picture of a stranger without their consent at all – upskirt or not – is not acceptable, unless you can demonstrate a public good. And titillation of a few perverts is not ‘public good’.

  5. ajb47 says

    Wearing a skirt has consequences.

    What? I… uh… what?

    Could there be more of a statement of rape culture than this? Perhaps it should be phrased as a clearer statement of rape culture. “If she is wearing a skirt, I can do whatever the fuck I want to do to her.”

  6. Stacy says

    @MyaR #2

    Also, the “wrong man saw it”. Because women don’t get to choose which men get to see what. Either none or all!

    S’true. Among Mens’ Rightsers there’s a common refrain: “If some handsome ALPHA dude”–they love to talk about human beings as if we were chimps living in troops, but of course they get the behavior all wrong because they don’t actually know shit about human psychology or ethology–“If some handsome ALPHA dude said/did that she wouldn’t call it ‘harassment!'”

  7. rq says

    IT’S ALL THE WAY OPEN ON THE BOTTOM.

    And sometimes that bottom is really high up. Just making it easier!

    It’s weird, though – when I wear a skirt, I do so under the assumption that most people’s eye-line is somewhere near mine – that is, well above the bottom of my skirt, leaving anything underneath *gasp* still covered. I must be doing it wrong.

  8. thetalkingstove says

    “The wrong man”

    Ugh, that whole trope is so depressing. Yes, some women will prefer traditionally good looking, affluent men. Others will prefer humour, kindness, artistry, intelligence or a myriad of other qualities.

    It clearly doesn’t make them happy to persist with this fantasy that all women want good looks and money. Is the anger that it provokes in them so very nourishing?

    MRA reddit guys, a tip- if women aren’t interested in you it’s probably not because you’re not a handsome, rich playboy. It’s probably because you’re a misogynist.

  9. says

    So I guess the USA doesn’t have this law?
    http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fde.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FRecht_am_eigenen_Bild&sandbox=1

    (tl;dr: In Germany, you generally have the rights to your own likeness, i.e. you can stop people from publishing (and creating) pictures of yourself. Exceptions apply for famous people, pictures of gatherings, art and when you’ve accidentally caught a person while photographing sights)

  10. iknklast says

    Dr. McCoy – I don’t know if it’s law or custom, but there is something in the US. I don’t see it followed much anymore, but when I was taking a photography class, we were given very clear instructions about permission for photos. I think if it’s a public figure, like a politician, you can use it without permission, but if you’re just out there snapping pictures of ordinary people, you’re supposed to get their permission. In the Internet age, no one bothers.

    Oh, wait, these women were in public, right? That makes them public figures, right? If they didn’t want someone to take pictures up their skirt, they’d stay home with the doors locked, the lights off, and the drapes drawn. Leave your home, women, and you’re fair game. This seems to be the mindset. A woman who dares to step out of her own front door is “asking for it”.

  11. screechymonkey says

    MyaR@2:

    Also, the “wrong man saw it”. Because women don’t get to choose which men get to see what. Either none or all!

    Well, sure. That’s why only virgins can be raped.

    Somehow I suspect many of these dudebros would change their tune in a hurry if we were talking about photos taken of them standing at a urinal. Look, if it’s visible from a certain angle….

  12. says

    When they speak of the differences between the sexes and like to point to women having a language advantage, and men having some sort of a “mental rotation” advantage, I think that this is an example of where men can get into trouble in terms of those men that are undeserved by our society in terms of language skill.

    The pattern I see looks like this.
    Every human tries to create rules to use to asses the world around them. Ideally our rules are as universally applicable as possible. But we all run into situations where we discover that an internal rule that we use is not as well constructed as we thought it was and we are forced to:
    *Abandon the rule (the easy way out).
    *Change the rule to better serve us.
    *Make a list of situations under which the rule does not apply, or identify when the context of the situation makes the rule inappropriate.

    I was struck by this in the recent situation involving people trying to draw equivalence between PZ and Radford.
    http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/03/03/oh-lord-the-stupid/
    Everyone trying to make PZ’s fake harassment situation seem like it was the same as the situation with Radford kept trying to apply these rules as if just because you can see some simple patterns between the situations, they must be identical. It seems to me that many of my fellow men have trouble seeing larger contexts when they use language, and hyperfocus on little patterns while avoiding the things that others are asking them to consider outside the rules they are trying to apply. The excuses used to avoid these things outside the rules seem to fall into the various lists of logical fallacies.

    These problems are so intertwined it insidious.

  13. says

    I forgot to mention that the example that Ms. Benson has here shows several people that are clearly trying to force some rule onto a situation where that rule just does not fit :P

  14. Tessa says

    Wearing a skirt has consequences. If we use state violence to protect women from the consequences of her choice to wear a skirt, we remove her agency.

    OK! Wow. So upskirt photos are a natural consequence of wearing a skirt. Simple cause and effect. Like holding a lightning rod in an open field during a thunder storm has consequences. Or jumping into a tank of hungry sharks has consequences. It’s just the way things are. You can’t blame lightning for striking, sharks for biting, or men from taking photos up skirts.

    Punishing the man removes the woman’s agency. What about the man’s agency? Pshhhh

  15. says

    “State violence”: libertarian dog-whistle if ever there was one. “Now we see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I’m being oppressed!”

  16. suttkus says

    I wonder if he’d have the same argument if I took pictures of him using technology similar to the infamous TSA scanners. Wearing cotton-polyester in public has consequences, after all. He could have chosen to wear lead foil or something, but he didn’t. So, if I take pictures of him through his non-lead-foil clothes, that’s his own fault, and punishing me would be removing his agency. This is the logic, right?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>