- Joined
- Jul 24, 2011
- Messages
- 59,426
- Reaction score
- 51,277
- Location
- Georgia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
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.