Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I feel bad for all the kilt wearers who are now vulnerable to having their privacy violated

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
I feel bad for all the kilt wearers who are now vulnerable to having their privacy violated

Then they can just prove to people what they wear under their kilts without having to tell people.

Relapse wrote:

 motyak wrote:
Right, I figure I'm just going to leave you thinking that it's a good idea. Since I can't see you understanding why it isn't self defence, and just plain old violence, which tends to be treated pretty harshly by the law.

Guess it's the attitude I was raised with. I am extremely protective of my family, and wouldn't take them being treated in that outrageoous fashion well.

Isnt one of the big things about religion is non-violence? Didnt Jesus preach non-violence?

The Great Wienie preaches a "he who gets the dog treat first, WINS!" approach to life.

just to play devils advocate here,

but what is the difference between someone taking a picture of someone in a skirt at an unflattering angle,

and taking pictures at the beach/pool ect of people in swim suits?

(as in the legal difference, as OBS one is slightly farther up on the kreeper scale, though both rate as creepy)

I mean, if everything you MEANT to cover, isnt totally covered, and you believe you have the right to not be photographed, then "upskirts" are just as illegal as taking pictures of someones "muffin top" that spills out,

heck I know people that feel any picture taken of them, even in public places and not from ..ahem.. paticular angles,while they are fully clothed is a violation of their rights.

 easysauce wrote:
just to play devils advocate here,

but what is the difference between someone taking a picture of someone in a skirt at an unflattering angle,

and taking pictures at the beach/pool ect of people in swim suits?

(as in the legal difference, as OBS one is slightly farther up on the kreeper scale, though both rate as creepy)

I mean, if everything you MEANT to cover, isnt totally covered, and you believe you have the right to not be photographed, then "upskirts" are just as illegal as taking pictures of someones "muffin top" that spills out,

heck I know people that feel any picture taken of them, even in public places and not from ..ahem.. paticular angles,while they are fully clothed is a violation of their rights.

If someone is dressed in bathing attire then it may be taken as implicit that they wish people to see them dressed in such a manner. If you are wearing underwear that is concealed or obscured by other articles of clothing then it is implicit that you do not consent to others viewing such articles of clothing, much less using underhand methods to view said items of clothing

It seems to me you should have a reasonable expectation of privicy as to what is under your clothes.

Indeed.

I think we all need to see these pictures and judge for ourselves.

So how far back can Massachusetts trace it's ancestral Japanese routes?

 gossipmeng wrote:
I think we all need to see these pictures and judge for ourselves.

This guy's right, we need... wait a minute...

People who do upskirt shots creep me out , how they think it is ok to do this I have no idea. In fact that we have as a society a term 'upskirt' referring specially to this action in general use also creeps me out.

Is there a law in the US that once a week there shall be an insane court ruling/law proposed in a US state...it certainly seems so atm.

Bullockist wrote:
People who do upskirt shots creep me out , how they think it is ok to do this I have no idea. In fact that we have as a society a term 'upskirt' referring specially to this action in general use also creeps me out.

Is there a law in the US that once a week there shall be an insane court ruling/law proposed in a US state...it certainly seems so atm.

When you have as much legal action going on as we do, there's bound to be a weird case pop up ever few weeks. Heck, even in my small town court, they can go through dozens a month for the county area.

 easysauce wrote:
just to play devils advocate here,

but what is the difference between someone taking a picture of someone in a skirt at an unflattering angle,

and taking pictures at the beach/pool ect of people in swim suits?

(as in the legal difference, as OBS one is slightly farther up on the kreeper scale, though both rate as creepy)

I mean, if everything you MEANT to cover, isnt totally covered, and you believe you have the right to not be photographed, then "upskirts" are just as illegal as taking pictures of someones "muffin top" that spills out,

heck I know people that feel any picture taken of them, even in public places and not from ..ahem.. paticular angles,while they are fully clothed is a violation of their rights.

Personally I think there is a dividing line. People who put on swimming suits and go into public places cannot have a reasonable expectation that they will not be seen in public wearing swimming suits. People wearing skirts do have a reasonable expectation that their panties will not be looked at, and this is widely recognised. At the last office I worked at there was a glass bridge between two buildings. The glass panes were frosted to avoid the upskirt view from the floor below.

That said, there are swimming pools in the UK that have rules against taking photos.

I think if someone did this to my girlfriend when I was nearby I'd probably lamp them. I wouldn't be thinking about the rights and wrongs of taking the law into my own hands or revenge or whatever concerns others.

The problem is that 'upskirts' started with magazines and sites online publishing photos of celebrities getting in and put of cars etc at various events. That's unpleasant enough, but it's morphed into this thing about putting your camera up the skirt of unsuspecting members of the public. It's probably a form of sexual assault, or harassment at the very least.

If they want to defeat up skirters women can always I dunno... maybe wear underwear?

 stanman wrote:
If they want to defeat up skirters women can always I dunno... maybe wear underwear?

Blaming the victiiiiim, oh yeah.

There it is! That has to be the best blame the victim moment in a while.

It has nothing to do with wearing or not wearing underwear. It doesn't even matter what the photo actually shows. The dude taking the photo is getting off on being naughty. That's it.

The problem is that it removes the choice and agency from the woman. That is a violation.

It is not her responsibility to cover up more. The root cause needs to be addressed, which is pervs like being naughty and get off on it. Its too bad the prosecution dropped the ball on the charges.

If I don't want my balls hanging out for the world to see I wear clothes over them, it's not a hard concept. If I decided to wear super short hot shorts and they were dangling out I don't exactly have the right to get mad if somebody takes gander at my boys.

Do the same women get upset if they get caught in a draft that lifts their dress?

It's not like it's hard to keep your parts covered with underwear.

Where's the Dakka misogyny brigade?

Or is there an unrealistic portrayal of a female in a video game keeping them busy?

 Monster Rain wrote:
Where's the Dakka misogyny brigade?

Or is there an unrealistic portrayal of a female in a video game keeping them busy?

Does this classify as misogyny? I mean the guy is a creeper and what not, but I don't know if he hates women, at least judging by his actions. Doesn't respect them or their rights as he should though, yeah, he ticks that box.

 stanman wrote:
If I don't want my balls hanging out for the world to see I wear clothes over them, it's not a hard concept. If I decided to wear super short hot shorts and they were dangling out I don't exactly have the right to get mad if somebody takes gander at my boys.

Do the same women get upset if they get caught in a draft that lifts their dress?

It's not like it's hard to keep your parts covered with underwear.

I think having someone take a photo and then post it on the web is beyond "having a gander" . Having a gander is fine, it's when people use mirrors , hang out under stairs that you know the individual has a problem. If someone chooses not to wear underwear i think they can have a reasonable expectation that they will not be photographed without permission nor have some freak trying to look up their dress.

It isn't what the individual wears it's societies expectation of reasonable behavior that is the issue.

On what monster rain said I am glad that the two evilist words on dakka (apart from guns and statistics) patriarchy and misogyny have not yet been really included in this thread (post two up excepted). I just realised miso soup is hatred of soup...that's awesome.

 Monster Rain wrote:
Where's the Dakka misogyny brigade?

Or is there an unrealistic portrayal of a female in a video game keeping them busy?

Maybe it's because disagreeing with the majority opinion established in this thread will get someone labeled as a misogynist?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 motyak wrote:
Right, I figure I'm just going to leave you thinking that it's a good idea. Since I can't see you understanding why it isn't self defence, and just plain old violence, which tends to be treated pretty harshly by the law.

Guess it's the attitude I was raised with. I am extremely protective of my family, and wouldn't take them being treated in that outrageoous fashion well.

Isnt one of the big things about religion is non-violence? Didnt Jesus preach non-violence?

My religion says it's acceptable to fight to protect your family, your life, or your liberty. As has been noted before, Jesus took a whip to the money changers who were cheating people in the temple. Another fact people often overlook is that at least one of his Apostles carried a sword and, in defense of Jesus, releaved a man of his ear.

 motyak wrote:

 stanman wrote:
If they want to defeat up skirters women can always I dunno... maybe wear underwear?

Blaming the victiiiiim, oh yeah.

BINGO!

Relapse wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 motyak wrote:
Right, I figure I'm just going to leave you thinking that it's a good idea. Since I can't see you understanding why it isn't self defence, and just plain old violence, which tends to be treated pretty harshly by the law.

Guess it's the attitude I was raised with. I am extremely protective of my family, and wouldn't take them being treated in that outrageoous fashion well.

Isnt one of the big things about religion is non-violence? Didnt Jesus preach non-violence?

My religion says it's acceptable to fight to protect your family, your life, or your liberty. As has been noted before, Jesus took a whip to the money changers who were cheating people in the temple. Another fact people often overlook is that at least one of his Apostles carried a sword and, in defense of Jesus, releaved a man of his ear.

Luke adds that Jesus healed the wound. John, Matthew, and Luke state that Jesus criticized the violent act, insisting that they do not resist Jesus' arrest. In Matthew, Jesus made the well known statement: all who live by the sword, shall die by the sword.

Relapse wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 motyak wrote:
Right, I figure I'm just going to leave you thinking that it's a good idea. Since I can't see you understanding why it isn't self defence, and just plain old violence, which tends to be treated pretty harshly by the law.

Guess it's the attitude I was raised with. I am extremely protective of my family, and wouldn't take them being treated in that outrageoous fashion well.

Isnt one of the big things about religion is non-violence? Didnt Jesus preach non-violence?

My religion says it's acceptable to fight to protect your family, your life, or your liberty. As has been noted before, Jesus took a whip to the money changers who were cheating people in the temple. Another fact people often overlook is that at least one of his Apostles carried a sword and, in defense of Jesus, releaved a man of his ear.

Are you a Muslim? If so i can understand as Mohammads' writings tops Jesus' , If you are Christian I'm not sure what to say.

As previously noted Jesus was not terribly chuffed at peters sword usage, then again Jesus probably knew what a jackass peter was (and what a jackass he was). Jesus also didn't support overthrowing the Roman overlords as noted by " give what is Caesars' to Caesar" so I'm also doubting the whole "liberty" angle.

who knew 'turn the other cheek' could be morphed into 'use the other fist'. I cannot see how that main point of Jesus' teaching has been missed , for me it is the most important part of his teaching.

Because, people use religion for their own gains, if they want to be violent, they will be violent.

 MrDwhitey wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 motyak wrote:
Right, I figure I'm just going to leave you thinking that it's a good idea. Since I can't see you understanding why it isn't self defence, and just plain old violence, which tends to be treated pretty harshly by the law.

Guess it's the attitude I was raised with. I am extremely protective of my family, and wouldn't take them being treated in that outrageoous fashion well.

Isnt one of the big things about religion is non-violence? Didnt Jesus preach non-violence?

My religion says it's acceptable to fight to protect your family, your life, or your liberty. As has been noted before, Jesus took a whip to the money changers who were cheating people in the temple. Another fact people often overlook is that at least one of his Apostles carried a sword and, in defense of Jesus, releaved a man of his ear.

Luke adds that Jesus healed the wound. John, Matthew, and Luke state that Jesus criticized the violent act, insisting that they do not resist Jesus' arrest. In Matthew, Jesus made the well known statement: all who live by the sword, shall die by the sword.

True, but the very fact that Jesus allowed his Apostle to carry a sword shows he wasn't worried about it being used as needed. True, he healed the man, and for all I know he healed random bandits that may have attacked them and ended up getting sliced. He wasn't living by the sword, though, it was being used in his defense in a rough part of the world.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Bullockist, Mormon.

Now you have piqued my interest enough to make me want to read the book of mormon , I'll be interested to see if it features a self defence clause. My next batch of white shirt wearing stair warmers will be having a good day.

Jesus could have been letting peter wear the sword to teach peter a lesson in 'how not to be a jackass version 1.AD' . From peters betrayal at the cross , Jesus seems to have liked lessons of a similar bent. Peter still ended up being a jackass though, not as gifted in the dill weed department as paul but.

Bullockist wrote:
Now you have piqued my interest enough to make me want to read the book of mormon , I'll be interested to see if it features a self defence clause.

I'll save you the time

On October 14th, 1838 Joseph Smith equated himself with Muhammad. As reported by another Mormon historian, in a speech given to “every able-bodied Mormon in Caldwell County” Missouri, the Prophet said,Joseph Smith with Sword

“If the people will let us alone we will preach the gospel in peace. But if they come on us to molest us, we will establish our religion by the sword. We will trample down our enemies and make it one gore of blood from the Rocky Mountains to the Atlantic Ocean. I will be to this generation a second Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was ‘Alcoran or the Sword.’ So shall it eventually be with us — ‘Joseph Smith or the Sword!’” (Fawn Brodie, No Man Knows My History, 230-231. See History of the Church 3:167)

Or if thats not enough

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre

Though I didn't see in the wiki (available by all to change) the cute little fact that after the murders, the Mormons left children under 7 alive, and took them into their fold. Several years later when the Federal Govt came to collect these orphans, the Church had the gall to try and charge the Feds for raising said children

It's the most American religion possible. Of course violence is allowed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you really want an interesting read on the foundation of the Mormon Church, read "Under the Banner of Heaven" by John Krakauer. Same guy that wrote "Into the Wild". Great author. Extremely thorough research, and if you get the 2009 version, it includes the official Mormon response to the book. And his response.

Truly a great book.