Roger Hicks
Veteran
Photographs of more than three thousand women's bottoms, in fact: link below. Here's one for the absolutists: should we support his right to do this? I suspect not.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7397426.stm
EDIT: As my wife said, it gives a whole new meaning to the old Italian sport of pinching bottoms -- and I shall be intrigued to see how many views (as apposed to replies) this thread generates.
Cheers,
Roger
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7397426.stm
EDIT: As my wife said, it gives a whole new meaning to the old Italian sport of pinching bottoms -- and I shall be intrigued to see how many views (as apposed to replies) this thread generates.
Cheers,
Roger
Last edited:
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
I guess if society doesn't condone a certain behavior there is a law somewhere to forbid it. When he gets home the punishment for his behavior might be worse than what criminal law may dish out.
Bob
Bob
shimo-kitasnap
everything is temporary..
Film dino
David Chong
Naive question: Do Italians really pinch bottoms?
David
David
Ronald M
Veteran
Pinching is ok, but a few snaps is not. I always thought the Italians somewhat off.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear David,
Women of my acquaintance assure me that it is a lot less common than it used to be.
It could simply be that these women are now older, and the pinchers have sought younger prey. But I have the impression it is no longer anything like as common as it was.
Cheers,
Roger
bmattock
Veteran
"Upskirt" photos have generally been held to be a violation of a person's privacy here in the US. While a person has no expectation to the right of privacy when they are in public, the view from underneath is generally not what a member of the general public would see of a person, barring, I suppose, strong winds or ventilation grates (Marilyn Monroe).
Certainly one can see more on a public beach, but there is the question of context. A person on a nude beach would expect to be seen by others in their altogether. A person on a public beach would expect to be seen by others in their bikini or whatever they might happen to be wearing. A woman walking down a city street in a short skirt would have no expectation that a creepy guy is taking photos of her panties from below.
The question gets a bit more blurry when considered in terms of hidden cameras and photographs of body parts, but not taken from angles unseen by the general public. One can certainly object to the nature of a person's desire to take photos only of clothed behinds as people walk down the street, but I am not sure there is any real reason to make such behavior illegal.
I suppose if one might argue that such behavior is illegal, one would have to argue that it is an affront to the morals of society, as opposed to being an illegal invasion of privacy. That's just a guess, though.
In Texas, there is an "Improper Photography" law that does make it a crime to take such photos, and it has been used. While it appears to me that this particular law is generally used to apprehend those who put hidden cameras in locker rooms and bathrooms and such, it has also been used to arrest people who go to public events and take photos of 'womens' butts' and so on - fully clothed butts, as seen by the general public.
There are two issues in play here, I think. One is the right to privacy - which more and more people seem to presume they have - or ought to have - whilst they are in public. The second is the broader and much more general societal laws that deal with affronts to decency, morals, and the public sense of acceptable behavior. The first deals with the woman's (or man's I guess) right not to have others photograph her clothed rear end in public, whilst the second is more concerned with whether or not society should allow sleazy guys to hide cameras in shopping bags and go around taking photos of butts in public.
I am entirely in favor of laws prohibiting 'upskirt' photography, but I do understand laws prohibiting weird photos of clothed butts that are not generally violations of privacy. I just think we must be careful not ban everything in our zeal to control perverts.
Certainly one can see more on a public beach, but there is the question of context. A person on a nude beach would expect to be seen by others in their altogether. A person on a public beach would expect to be seen by others in their bikini or whatever they might happen to be wearing. A woman walking down a city street in a short skirt would have no expectation that a creepy guy is taking photos of her panties from below.
The question gets a bit more blurry when considered in terms of hidden cameras and photographs of body parts, but not taken from angles unseen by the general public. One can certainly object to the nature of a person's desire to take photos only of clothed behinds as people walk down the street, but I am not sure there is any real reason to make such behavior illegal.
I suppose if one might argue that such behavior is illegal, one would have to argue that it is an affront to the morals of society, as opposed to being an illegal invasion of privacy. That's just a guess, though.
In Texas, there is an "Improper Photography" law that does make it a crime to take such photos, and it has been used. While it appears to me that this particular law is generally used to apprehend those who put hidden cameras in locker rooms and bathrooms and such, it has also been used to arrest people who go to public events and take photos of 'womens' butts' and so on - fully clothed butts, as seen by the general public.
There are two issues in play here, I think. One is the right to privacy - which more and more people seem to presume they have - or ought to have - whilst they are in public. The second is the broader and much more general societal laws that deal with affronts to decency, morals, and the public sense of acceptable behavior. The first deals with the woman's (or man's I guess) right not to have others photograph her clothed rear end in public, whilst the second is more concerned with whether or not society should allow sleazy guys to hide cameras in shopping bags and go around taking photos of butts in public.
I am entirely in favor of laws prohibiting 'upskirt' photography, but I do understand laws prohibiting weird photos of clothed butts that are not generally violations of privacy. I just think we must be careful not ban everything in our zeal to control perverts.
pesphoto
Veteran
arrest me.....
nico
Well-known
Tuolumne
Veteran
charjohncarter
Veteran
I think this guy is giving women a bum deal.
bmattock
Veteran
In the US, this would be less of a state or federal law and more of a 'community standards' law and thus more likely to be controlled at the local level (city, county).
So-called 'morals laws' have always been considered local in the USA. What is perfectly acceptable in one community may be considered offensive or obscene in another.
Classic example - in a northern California city (possibly San Francisco, I forget), a local law prohibiting nudity was written such that it only forbade nudity that was for the purpose of causing arousal. One college student took it to mean that if he had no intent to arouse anyone, he could parade around naked - and he did, the entire four years he was in college. He was originally arrested, I believe, but won his court case. In Peoria, Illinois, he'd have had a net dropped on him - local standards.
I believe the same would be true of your photo above - ok in some areas, not ok in others.
Paul T.
Veteran
What I found shocking about Roger's post is that he quite plainly, in the first line, informs us we only have to click the link to see 3,000 photos of bottoms.
I clicked the link and there was only a news story, and no photos of bottoms. This quite clearly is misleading advertising and I shall be contacting the relevant authorities.
Yours, disgusted of Tunbridge Wells.
I clicked the link and there was only a news story, and no photos of bottoms. This quite clearly is misleading advertising and I shall be contacting the relevant authorities.
Yours, disgusted of Tunbridge Wells.
Tuolumne
Veteran
It was in Berkeley, Ca., across the Bay from San Francisco. Berkeley, being the home of UC Berkeley, has quite liberal laws in many respects. They also declare the city to be a "Nuclear Free Zone". In any case, this student was known as "The Naked Guy", and he did go to classes naked. I believe the university or city powers that be finally required him to wear a loin cloth, which he did, and in which he was photographed for the local papers. The case did go to court but I can't remember the specifics of it. Ahhh...a more innocent day and age.
/T
bmattock
Veteran
On the opposite side of that coin, about the same time that was happening, in Cincinnati, Ohio, a manager of a Marriott hotel was convicted and given a prison sentence for obscenity - his hotel provided 'adult' movies in customer rooms via the local in-room cable TV system if they paid and requested such movies. This is true of almost all hotel chains in the US - but following the same standards of Marriott hotels nationwide got this manager sent to prison.
Local standards...
Ducky
Well-known
Considering the boob & butts found in most 'street photographer' galleries, I'm surprised anyone cares. This guy is just more honest about his obsession.
Ororaro
Well-known
Ah, the politically correct BS.
I like Butts and I was hoping to see 3000+ Pics of all kinds of Butts in action. I will, one day, make my own Butts collection. American fat Butts, mostly, for the fun of it.
I like Butts and I was hoping to see 3000+ Pics of all kinds of Butts in action. I will, one day, make my own Butts collection. American fat Butts, mostly, for the fun of it.
Ororaro
Well-known
bmattock
Veteran
I think you are misunderstanding my point. It's not the object photographed, per se, in situations such as these. It is the action being taken by the photographer that a given jurisdiction might find to fall within municipal laws.
Upskirts clearly violate privacy laws of the individual who is being photographed. Photos such as yours, most likely not an invasion of anyone's privacy, could still be considered a violation of public standards - not for the photos themselves, but for the behavior of the photographer. Does that make sense?
Imagine that a person has freedom of speech. They stand on the street corner and preach. No crime.
Now imagine a person who follows a random individual around, muttering loudly to themselves, but going wherever that person goes (in public). Freedom of speech? Yes, probably, but still a breach of the peace and he's likely to be stopped if not arrested. Not for what he says but for what he is doing while saying it.
Not sure what your game is today, but I'm describing things as clearly as I can.
bmattock
Veteran
NOT THE PIC. The action needed to take it. If no one saw you do it, no violation. If you were in public and people noted you wandering around with a camera and a zoom lens, crouching down to take crotch shot after crotch shot, no doubt some would be upset. Whether or not you'd be violating local standards of behavior would be up to the laws of that locality. Not the picture - the actions you take to get the picture.