Ethical to photograph women in swim suits in public?

[Keith]

Objectifying of women is the issue here for me ... lets see the same people who defend the right to photograph a female in a brief bathing suit point their cameras at a man wearing a pair of speedos.

I was raised in a household where gender boundaries were a little smeared because my mother was gay as were many of her friends. It taught me to think for myself because I was never presented with many sterotypical male/female attitudes.

 

[jsrockit]

Objectifying of women is the issue here for me ... lets see the same people who defend the right to photograph a female in a brief bathing suit point their cameras at a man wearing a pair of speedos.

I've done it... but then again my intentions are photography. Photography does objectification well though regardless of intent.

 

[gns]

I've done it... but then again my intentions are photography. Photography does objectification well though regardless of intent.

Right...That is kind of the camera's thing, isn't it?
(Kieth. I've done both, too).

The privacy in public question is kind of interesting, though.

It's a funny age we live in, where people are so concerned about privacy on the one hand, and so willing to share themselves through social media on the other.

 

[Daniel Teoli Jr.]

Objectifying of women is the issue here for me...


OK, you area entitled to your opinion.

But, your issue is not my issue.

Objectification is a notion of feminist theory. I don't run my life by feminist theory. If I did I'd be a woman and not a man. There is a faction of feminists called lesbian separatism. They envision a world without men. Should I subscribe to theory as well?

There is no 'head photo guru' that runs things. It is up to each of us alone to determine when to press the button and no one else.

Bottom line...if it is legal...shoot as you like.

 

[Gumby]

Right...That is kind of the camera's thing, isn't it?
(Kieth (sic). I've done both, too).

The privacy in public question is kind of interesting, though.

It's a funny age we live in, where people are so concerned about privacy on the one hand, and so willing to share themselves through social media on the other.

It often isn't really just a matter of privacy or exhibitionism.. but a matter of control. Many folks today seem to want to control everything and everyone. They want instant gratification -- theirs -- even if it comes at the expense of others. This is not always the case, but seems frequent enough to introduce the concept of politeness/rudeness and self-centerness into discussions of privacy and rights.

 

[Keith]

It often isn't really just a matter of privacy or exhibitionism.. but a matter of control. Many folks today seem to want to control everything and everyone. They want instant gratification -- theirs -- even if it comes at the expense of others. This is not always the case, but seems frequent enough to introduce the concept of politeness/rudeness and self-centerness into discussions of privacy and rights.

The disease of the modern world IMO.

 

[willie_901]

In the US privacy does not exist in public spaces. Even on private property (shops, malls, restaurants, etc.) one has no expectation of privacy from candid photography. At the same time, property owners and their agents can forbid photography and many do.

The situation is obviously completely different when a person violates law via acts of high-tech voyeurism. That is, we all enjoy a legally defined expectation of privacy in public spaces. But high-tech voyeurism is not relevant to the OP's question

 

[mani]

There's certainly no shortage on this forum whining that their inherent right to be racist or sexist, or as in this case, to (often surreptitiously) photograph young women in varying states of undress is being impeded by the 'politically correct'.

Incidentally, the reason creeps often take their own photographs of unwilling or unknowing women rather than turning to plentifully available online porn is precisely because they're not interested in images that are taken of willing participants. The process of capturing (say) an accidentally exposed breast or an up-skirt pair of knickers is a sublimated form of violation: that's where the perverted pleasure comes from.

 

[gns]

I'm thinking about the difference between looking and photographing.
Is it OK to look at people in public?
If some "creeps" look at people in public and then go home and think about them in a "dirty" way, should we suggest that it's not OK to look at people?

 

[noisycheese]

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?

You have answered your own question. When a person goes anywhere in the public environment, any and all normal and reasonable expectation of privacy goes out the window.

Only a moon-bat would go out in public and expect/demand privacy. That kind of nonsensical thinking is akin to jumping into a swimming pool and becoming outraged that your clothes and hair are suddenly soaking wet.

Speaking of moon-bats, here's one now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBUlxEz4ozU

And the result - http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregory...ating-drone-operator-assault-caught-on-video/

Gumby makes a valid and revealing point:

It often isn't really just a matter of privacy or exhibitionism.. but a matter of control. Many folks today seem to want to control everything and everyone. They want instant gratification -- theirs -- even if it comes at the expense of others.

People who exist in what we call "modern society" are obsessed with control - not of themselves, but of others.

Those at the top of the heap - politicians, judges, police, administrators, bureaucrats, and other authority figures - are pathologically obsessed with control of others; this pathology trickles down, creating the culture of control freaks that we have today.

 

[vonfilm]

What motivates women to wear revealing clothing in public ?

 

[noisycheese]

What motivates women to wear revealing clothing in public ?

Latent desires of exhibitionism, perhaps?

 

[skopar steve]

I always thought it is the way our species of animal attracts a mate. If we had feathers we would probably do some elaborate dance routine.

 

[Gumby]

Latent desires of exhibitionism, perhaps?

Probably. But that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be interested in protecting their dignity. Nor does it mean that folks are entitled to deprive them of their dignity no matter how legal it is to look or photograph in public. Who really wants to be leered at, or photographed with the concern that some guy will be spanking the monkey. I know that would creep me out.

 

[Gumby]

p.s. Sorry for being so graphic. I hope nobody is offended.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

When people are too lazy to fire up their neurons about or simply get too confused about "ethics", they need morality to be hard-written into (and imposed upon others via) laws, and you get this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMwPqH2RXTI


When in doubt: do unto others etc. etc.

 

[EdwardKaraa]

I personally think that taking candids of half naked women on the beach is a very bad idea because sand and salt will get into your expensive Leica cameras and lenses and ruin them 😀

 

[Sparrow]

Well I for one will be taking a selfie-stick on my summer holiday this year, just to be on the safe side ...

... in Corfu, in the summer it's tricky not to catch the odd woman in a swimsuit, or half a swimsuit ... or no swimsuit at all in some places (lots of naked Germans in July, thankfully August brings the more svelte, and more modest Italians) I wouldn't want to offend anyone by being normal ... by assuming that by going out in public, they were ... in fact, em, in public ...

... and by being in public they were in ... in fact ... errr, in public ... and if, god forbid .. I was inadvertently, taking pictures of people who had chosen to go out in public, in public while out taking photos in public wearing shorts and a rather fetching teeshirt ... I was in fact being in private

 

[Larry Cloetta]

I'm thinking about the difference between looking and photographing.
Is it OK to look at people in public?
If some "creeps" look at people in public and then go home and think about them in a "dirty" way, should we suggest that it's not OK to look at people?

Finally, after three days, a reasonable person who understands what lies at the true heart of all this heavy breathing. No surprise then that his comment has been ignored, and people who don't understand this seem to be willing to ride the PC horse to the ends of the earth, to the end of time. Or, at least for another couple of days.
People dress up in ways they specifically, and with malice aforethought, want to be seen, intend to be seen, whether to go shopping, or to the beach or whatever. They are either proud of how they look, or don't care how they look. There's nothing "creepy" about seeing how someone has chosen,of their own free will, to present themselves publicly, whether you see with your eyes or the camera's eyes, convoluted, absurdist arguments to the contrary notwithstanding. The act of taking photos in a public place of people dressed, by definition, as they want to be viewed, is value neutral. Any "creepiness" can only enter in after the fact (I'm not talking telephoto spy shots here, obviously), and these "creepy" thoughts emanate from the mind of the beholder, not the emulsion., which has only captured a very public, very voluntary, moment in time. So, for all who think taking photos on the beach which include strangers,"without their permission", is "creepy"-all I can say is "them that smelt it, dealt it."

 

[ChrisPlatt]

Remember these?

Chris