I think you should just give up and stop reading the broadsheet articles all together...it's just going to make you an angry person...wait, too late.

try this then: comment in your head, or to your women who obviously needs to hear you.

It is innocent FUN, like when women see a strong, silent man slip and become vulnerable, letting something slip about himself, in front of her eyes.

Brightstar. Please read what you are saying. He held a camera under her clothing. That is not "male sexuality" -- this is someone who enjoys engaging in activities without the consent of the other party. How is that innocent?

In the interest of parity, if some woman chose to express her "sexuality" by sticking a camera down the pants of passing men (or boys) then she should also be tossed in the slammer.

It is innocent FUN, like when women see a strong, silent man slip and become vulnerable, letting something slip about himself, in front of her eyes.

Why is everything related to male sexuality couched in negativity? Like something to be whacked down. Women never have these burdens placed on their sexuality, not so universally at least.

How is peeking under a skirt perverted?

With a camera??? Brightstar, seriously? Come ON. You are capable of reason, I've seen it myself. The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend; you don't have to support every creep and sleazeball just because "feminists" don't like him.

seriously, who decides these things but enemies of men.

Maybe it ought to be perverted for women to look at men altogether.

I have to wonder: Would the Oklahoma court take the same attitude if someone shoved a camera under a man's kilt? I think they would--the attitude being, if you aren't dressed according to strict local convention, then you are "asking" for it. That, of course, is nonsense.

My own thought on the dividing line between public and private is, what I can casually view without any effort on my part is "public," but the moment I have to go out of my way--like shoving a camera under a skirt--I have invaded private space.

If I'm walking around naked in my house in front of an open window easily seen from the street, that's public, and I may be subject to arrest. On the other hand, if the only way to see me strutting my stuff is by climbing a tree and/or using a telephoto lens, I consider that an invasion of privacy.

Where is Buffy when you need her?

...sometimes there's just no substitute for a nice, burly father, brother or boyfriend who would take that perv's camera and put it where the sun doesn't shine.

The sexist nature of their Skyy Vodka ads would fry your sex toys. A typical Skyy ad is a man seated being handed a Martini from a woman who's mostly naked, or straddling him, or both.

If so, there'd be no vodka marketing in Russia. Marketing cares about market size and the number of women drinking vodka is, apparently, large enough. Damskaya is chasing the market, not creating it.

And control of advertising has a ways to go in Russia. Cigarette ads are off TV, but the vodka ads aren't.

Legal upskirt photos!

Ahm so prahd!!