• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Upskirt Photography - Legal or Illegal???

Taking an upskirt photo should


  • Total voters
    71
Status
Not open for further replies.
Apparently this just doesn't penetrate - there is no PRIVACY in a PUBLIC setting.

No nudity, no violation. Everything else is just indignant, whiny opinion and outrage.

And here we have a man who, though I am sure he will flippantly deny it, believes that a woman does not have the right to bodily privacy.

Let me explain something to you, Gipper. A woman's body is her own. Period, end of discussion. The physical safe space which she is legally entitled to does not end with her epidermis and clothing. It does not matter if her clothing is highly revealing. Or if she is wearing absolutely nothing at all. You do not get to get that close to her without permission. Now, are people who live in a society that is still rather sexually uptight going to gain interest in taking and looking at sensual photos? Sure, that's just human nature. This means that yes, there may exist a gray area if the photographer was at a reasonable distance away. But not if he's physically too close.

Jamesrage nailed it. Any photography of this nature should be legal ONLY if the woman consents to it. And as with any other sexual activity, one who wishes to engage in it must always err on the side of caution and assume that consent has not been given until it can be proven otherwise.
 
No - that's where unreasonably difficult people wish to take silly arguments and unfounded beliefs.

Submission to feel good group think is never reasonable.
 
Submission to feel good group think is never reasonable.

So you think, that just because a woman/lady/girl is wearing a skirt/dress, you have a RIGHT to not only see what she's wearing underneath, but you can also photograph it without her consent or knowledge of what you're doing?

Do you also have a RIGHT to yank her dress down so you can get a better shot? Afterall - it's not like she's naked or anything.
 
Are you kidding? It's a violation because a man is sticking a camera up a woman's skirt for perverted reasons.

It is a rude invasion of space and privacy, but not perverted. Most men would like a peak under some skirts.
 
(This is in reference to the possibility of a 13-year-old's getting upskirted. See post #132 if you think I'm misquoting him.)

Once again, I have to elaborate. Should it be "ok"? No. Should it be illegal? No.

I don't think smoking is "ok" either. Maybe we should make it to where if you light up, you get locked up.

...

....

wtf-did-i-just-read.jpg


Gipper. Listen to me carefully. Because if you seriously believe what you just wrote, you could be endangering your life.

Why? Because I know a LOT of parents that, if some creepo EVER tried to upskirt their underage daughter, the right to not just keep but bear arms would be swiftly and effectively used.

Furthermore, if said father dispatched said creepo, I would nominate the creepo's demise for a Darwin Award.
 
Why? Because I know a LOT of parents that, if some creepo EVER tried to upskirt their underage daughter, the right to not just keep but bear arms would be swiftly and effectively used.

Furthermore, if said father dispatched said creepo, I would nominate the creepo's demise for a Darwin Award.

You know a LOT of crazy people.
 
(This is in reference to the possibility of a 13-year-old's getting upskirted. See post #132 if you think I'm misquoting him.)



...

....

wtf-did-i-just-read.jpg


Gipper. Listen to me carefully. Because if you seriously believe what you just wrote, you could be endangering your life.

Why? Because I know a LOT of parents that, if some creepo EVER tried to upskirt their underage daughter, the right to not just keep but bear arms would be swiftly and effectively used.

Furthermore, if said father dispatched said creepo, I would nominate the creepo's demise for a Darwin Award.

A hidden look at panties justifying murder. Gee, you were SO close to not looking foolish too.

Also, my life wouldn't be in danger - since I don't and wouldn't do it.
 
You know a LOT of crazy people.

Surely you are not somehow suggesting that a parent's natural and normal reaction to a threat of their children is out of line? I feel that I know far too much about human behavior, particularly that of parents, to take this bait. What Gipper, and possibly you, do not understand is that in every single mammal species that is near or at the top of the food chain, you don't mess with the young ones. Period. Parents, and not just human parents, are evolutionarily hardwired to deal with any kind of threat to their children in the manner necessary.
 
It does not matter if her clothing is highly revealing. Or if she is wearing absolutely nothing at all.

Let me ask you something. Do you believe people should be allowed to walk around without any clothes on in public if they want to?
 
Surely you are not somehow suggesting that a parent's natural and normal reaction to a threat of their children is out of line? I feel that I know far too much about human behavior, particularly that of parents, to take this bait. What Gipper, and possibly you, do not understand is that in every single mammal species that is near or at the top of the food chain, you don't mess with the young ones. Period. Parents, and not just human parents, are evolutionarily hardwired to deal with any kind of threat to their children in the manner necessary.

Oh, no, I'm not saying a reaction to having one's child embarrassed isn't natural. I'm saying that shooting the person who did it is the act of a crazy person. Absolutely loony-tunes.
 
Oh, no, I'm not saying a reaction to having one's child embarrassed isn't natural. I'm saying that shooting the person who did it is the act of a crazy person. Absolutely loony-tunes.

Most of it is just talk. I wish I had a nickel for every parent who has said stuff like this. These things happen often yet you pretty much never hear of anybody actually taking said retailiation.
 
A hidden look at panties justifying murder. Gee, you were SO close to not looking foolish too.

Also, my life wouldn't be in danger - since I don't and wouldn't do it.

Hold it. You're gonna condone an act of pedophilia but not murder? I invite the legal experts around here to clarify--if a parent has clear reason to believe that his or her child's safety is in imminent danger, then he or she has the legal right to use force to protect the child. I offer "upshirting" as a prime qualifier of this--and remember, since I am offering a defense to a charge of homicide, my burden of proof is significantly lower than you might think.
 
Oh, no, I'm not saying a reaction to having one's child embarrassed isn't natural. I'm saying that shooting the person who did it is the act of a crazy person. Absolutely loony-tunes.

Not "embarrassed." VIOLATED. Sexual harassment or assault does not have to involve penetration or even physical contact.

Christ, Maggie. I'm shocked that you, of all people, would downplay this so much. I would have thought you would have been one of the first to side against a sexual act against a minor.
 
Let me ask you something. Do you believe people should be allowed to walk around without any clothes on in public if they want to?

Our society is too uptight for that to happen any time soon. Why does Europe not have nearly as much of a problem with social nudity as we Americans do?
 
Not "embarrassed." VIOLATED. Sexual harassment or assault does not have to involve penetration or even physical contact.

Christ, Maggie. I'm shocked that you, of all people, would downplay this so much. I would have thought you would have been one of the first to side against a sexual act against a minor.

Well, here we have a court saying it's not even against the LAW. And here we have you saying a parent is within his right to shoot the guy. No, it's just not that big a deal. Would I report him? Would I try to get him prosecuted if I could? Yes. And yes. I would downplay the incident with my daughter and not make the biggest issue in the world over it. And I certainly wouldn't even contemplate taking someone's life over such a ridiculous thing as that.

Hell, a Peeping Tom is worse, in my opinion. You might get away with shooting him right at the time claiming you were in fear of your daughter's life . . . but if you saw him the next day and blew him away? Well, you've just lost your daughter a father. 'Cause your ass is going to be in jail.

Lordy.
 
Our society is too uptight for that to happen any time soon.

So are you saying that people should have the right to go nude in pubic, but American society is not ready for it?

Why does Europe not have nearly as much of a problem with social nudity as we Americans do?

Off the top of my head, I honestly don't know. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on it though.
 
Well, here we have a court saying it's not even against the LAW. And here we have you saying a parent is within his right to shoot the guy. No, it's just not that big a deal. Would I report him? Would I try to get him prosecuted if I could? Yes. And yes. I would downplay the incident with my daughter and not make the biggest issue in the world over it. And I certainly wouldn't even contemplate taking someone's life over such a ridiculous thing as that.

Hell, a Peeping Tom is worse, in my opinion. You might get away with shooting him right at the time claiming you were in fear of your daughter's life . . . but if you saw him the next day and blew him away? Well, you've just lost your daughter a father. 'Cause your ass is going to be in jail.

Lordy.

I would take such instances on a case-by-case basis. One would have to consider exactly how the parental defense laws are written--they surely vary from state to state--and the particular circumstances of individual cases.

I will say steadfastly that, in extreme cases, I have absolutely no problem with a parent's pointing a loaded gun at a perpetrator and requiring him to immediately leave the child alone--and, should worst come to worst, pulling the trigger. Without getting long-winded, I would say that roughly the same rules should apply for self-defense and defense of one's child.

And we are going to have to agree to disagree that physical violence, even murder, is inherently worse than sexual violence.
 
Can we really have a problem, if women from the Show-Me State, just show us what they are all about in modern times?

I remember when I used to go to church, I listened to the preacher give a sermon. He started to tell the story of a man who took a woman home with the intention of having sex with her. He said she took off her bra and stuff flab was hanging. Then she took off her girdle on more flab was hanging. The man was then turned off and didn't want it anymore.

I don't remember what his point was, but he told that story.

The places I've been, the things I've heard.
 
So are you saying that people should have the right to go nude in pubic, but American society is not ready for it?

Yup. People would go ballistic and act like they had never seen boobs before. However, if we could just get over ourselves for awhile, I think that eventually, we would hardly even notice.

Off the top of my head, I honestly don't know. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on it though.

I'll have to condense my thoughts to a few sound bites so as not to derail this thread. However, I will say that it probably boils down to the fact that repeated exposure leads to destigmatization. That's why gynecologists can perform exams without there being the slightest hint of sexual arousal. After seeing genitalia for the 200th time, they're no more titillating than an elbow or an ear.
 
Yup. People would go ballistic and act like they had never seen boobs before. However, if we could just get over ourselves for awhile, I think that eventually, we would hardly even notice.

Ok. I don't agree with you. I don't think they should be allowed to go nude in public. And it's for the same reasons that I don't think people should be allowed to photograph under a woman's skirt.

That's just my opinion


I'll have to condense my thoughts to a few sound bites so as not to derail this thread. However, I will say that it probably boils down to the fact that repeated exposure leads to destigmatization. That's why gynecologists can perform exams without there being the slightest hint of sexual arousal. After seeing genitalia for the 200th time, they're no more titillating than an elbow or an ear.

My response is that it's a good thing that people are aroused by nudity, but it should be reserved for private use.
 
And we are going to have to agree to disagree that physical violence, even murder, is inherently worse than sexual violence.

I'm with you for most of your post. Where we will never agree is your idea that taking an up-skirt photo is sexual violence. Had to just add that; feel free to have the last post on the subject.
 
Ok. I don't agree with you. I don't think they should be allowed to go nude in public. And it's for the same reasons that I don't think people should be allowed to photograph under a woman's skirt.

That's just my opinion




My response is that it's a good thing that people are aroused by nudity, but it should be reserved for private use.

Fair enough; we can agree do disagree. Just remember, nudity does not have to be inherently sexual.
 
Hold it. You're gonna condone an act of pedophilia but not murder? I invite the legal experts around here to clarify--if a parent has clear reason to believe that his or her child's safety is in imminent danger, then he or she has the legal right to use force to protect the child. I offer "upshirting" as a prime qualifier of this--and remember, since I am offering a defense to a charge of homicide, my burden of proof is significantly lower than you might think.

An upskirt shot of a 13 year old girl's panties is pedophilia now? Wow, this just keeps getting better.

Know what happens if you're caught with thousands of photos of 13 year old girls in their panties on your computer? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
 
Fair enough; we can agree do disagree. Just remember, nudity does not have to be inherently sexual.

Fair enough. The debate would likely be a long thread which in which neither of our opinions would change. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom