Ethical to photograph women in swim suits in public?

[Gumby]

I'm not sure that those are the complete set of possible definitions, Roger. I submit for your consideration:

"anything that involves deception in performance or intent"
"anything that is performed in a surreptitious manner, either in performance or intent"
"anything that involves decaffeination or reduction in alcohol content"

or as Nick says: Back to swimsuits... Carry-on.

 

[Gumby]

... and for some folks...

"anything that involves a Leica"
"anything that involves any non-RF camera"

Ha ha ha.

 

[aizan]

creepy as in "are you going to masturbate to these photos?" if the answer is yes, it's unethical because you weren't given permission. that's what porn is for. if the answer is no, then it's fine. i was looking at elliott erwitt's "sequentially yours" yesterday, and there are plenty of great photos of women in bathing suits in public.

 

[vonfilm]

I suppose I am naive. It is interesting to see the strong feelings that my question elicited.

I doubt if anyone would use pictures of women in swimwear in public for sexual gratification when there is such a huge amount of free HD porn available on the internet.

 

[Sparrow]

I suppose I am naive. It is interesting to see the strong feelings that my question elicited.

I doubt if anyone would use pictures of women in swimwear in public for sexual gratification when there is such a huge amount of free HD porn available on the internet.

I was wondering what was the reason for your original question?

 

[vonfilm]

I was wondering what was the reason for your original question?

I was wondering if I should take some pictures at Barton Springs pool. It is a beautiful natural spring fed pool here in Austin. Perhaps I should just give up that idea.

 

[micromontenegro]

creepy as in "are you going to masturbate to these photos?"

I frankly can't believe that in the 21st century, with the boatloads of porn available everywhere, we are entertaining such possibility.

 

[hausen]

I frankly can't believe that in the 21st century, with the boatloads of porn available everywhere, we are entertaining such possibility.

How else could it be creepy then? A normal person taking a normal photo of a person in a normal situation.

 

[seakayaker1]

I was wondering if I should take some pictures at Barton Springs pool. It is a beautiful natural spring fed pool here in Austin. Perhaps I should just give up that idea.

I would go ahead and visit Barton Springs and take some pictures. You can go to the government sponsored web site which points to a flickr web page with pictures of the pool. http://www.austintexas.gov/department/barton-springs-pool You may notice a few men, women, and children in swim wear in the posted images.

The list of prohibited items listed on the site:

Coolers, ice chests and thermal bags; Food; Smoking; Glass; Alcohol; Frisbees, footballs, soccer balls or other hard balls; and drinks are permitted but must be in a plastic re-sealable container with a twist-top lid.

Photography does not seem to be an excluded activity at the pool.

I love walking beaches and through parks year round and take photographs. Often they include people in them. Some of them on occasion may be wearing a bathing suit, usually season dependent here in the Pacific Northwest but may not be the case when visiting other parts of the country.

 

[Gumby]

How else could it be creepy then? A normal person taking a normal photo of a person in a normal situation.

BINGO .

 

[Darthfeeble]

How about: Leave it up to the person wearing the swimsuit. ??

 

[jsrockit]

How else could it be creepy then? A normal person taking a normal photo of a person in a normal situation.

Sure, you know you are normal... other's may not. The news scares people into thinking that everyone is out to get them.

Using a camera and you're not attractive to the opposite sex? You must be a perv!!

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Is it ethical to photograph or take video of women wearing swim suits at public pools or beaches? Does appearing in public wearing a swimsuit preclude any expectation of privacy?

Oh, Frank Frank Frank...

 

[fireblade]

Dear Roland,
Actually, intent is important in English law. The actus reus, the wrongful act, must be preceded by the mens rea, the wrongful thought.
But -- and this is the important bit -- there must be an actus reus which, as you say, normally needs to result in harm or likely harm (e.g. drunk driving). "Being creepy" is not an actus reus. Nor, in any civilized country, is insulting a religion.
Cheers,
R.

Insulting a religion is not a crime, but unfortunately there is a snake that does not like to be poked, this snake is nasty, it doesn't like being mocked and should have been killed off long long time ago, BUT the western world embraced this snake thinking it could charm it with a flute...Charlie Hebdo was mean't to be an intelligent/funny rag with educated people who knew the ramifications of poking a sleeping snake in their backyard...."Freedom of expression is a fundamental right"....YES...but the snake has no ears to hear...the snake struck...too bad...now go off and cry in the corner the stupid fools they are.

Now OP, whether to take images of women in swimsuits...W T F ...go do what YOUR conscience says.

 

[Michael Markey]

...go do what YOUR conscience says.

Well I guess that was what I was thinking and why I couldn`t understand the reason for the question in the first place.
However it would have been more helpful if we`d been given the context.

 

[Sparrow]

Oh, Frank Frank Frank...

I had not thought of frank, but yes frankly, that could be the answer

 

[raid]

I frankly can't believe that in the 21st century, with the boatloads of porn available everywhere, we are entertaining such possibility.

This "photography thread" is creepy indeed.

 

[hausen]

How about: Leave it up to the person wearing the swimsuit. ??

Walking a beach is not something I would do with a camera but what is the difference between beach photography or street photography? Is end of summer here and there are some very skimpy outfits being worn by by men and woman everyday in the street if you are that way inclined. This forum is dominated with street photographers so I really can''t see the difference between beach or street. As I mentioned in the homeless thread I don't take photos of people at all.

 

[peterm1]

I'm still trying to work out the exact meaning of "creepy".

"Anything to do with sex"?

"Anything I don't like to think about"?

"Anything I'm ashamed of thinking about"?

"Anything other than kittens and coffee cups"?

I assumed that the OP was asking an honest question that had been prompted either by living in a milieu governed by one or more of the above or (more likely) by an argument they'd had with someone who was overly under the influence of one or more of the above. Screaming "Ugh! Cooties!" and labelling the thread "creepy" strikes me as the odd part.

Cheers,

R.

Simple, it means anything that the radical feminist lobby does not like and wants to ban. Which in effect means pretty well anything done by a normal heterosexual male. Even when the same thing done by a gay man or woman or feminist would be regarded by them as normal and acceptable. Sorry if this sounds an extreme view but it is in response to extreme views by an oppressive and vocal minority to whom their "feelings" are more important than other peoples' rights. The right for example to make an innocent photo without being harassed in what has been described as "lawfare". In today's "politically correct" environment of public debate where weak politicians are unwilling to enter the debate for fear of "offending" someone, the debate is increasingly being controlled by extreme views. Which I feel obliged to call out.

Views which would regard the taking of a photo (by a man) of a woman in a bathing suit as an "act of male oppression." And I kid you not, as I stated in an earlier post on this thread I recall an instance a few years back of a man taking photos on Bondi Beach (the most photographed urban beach setting in the world) being arrested and carted off even though his acts were at the time both lawful and tasteful. All becasue someone complained. True he was released without charge but subsequently I think the taking of photos on that beach has now been banned by Bondi Council.

This is the world we live in. A world gone mad.

 

[fireblade]

Well I guess that was what I was thinking and why I couldn`t understand the reason for the question in the first place.
However it would have been more helpful if we`d been given the context.

Lets say the OP has good intentions, the very question he asks is HIS answer.....he has doubt, so where there is doubt in any decision in life...Don't.