Certain men choose not to take personal responsibility for their actions or the consequences of their actions and blame it on mother nature.

I say you do not see me as a person because you claim that your desires automatically trump mine when it is my body in question.

The assertion that women must cover up (burqua), stay indoors, smile or not smile ad infinitum and ad nauseam because otherwise men will be unhappy or not be able to control themselves is a lame excuse. If you are incapable of controlling yourself, that is not my fault. But it is my problem.

Those who defend upskirting and other impositions are asserting that every man has an absolute right to overrule any woman's decision about what part of her body to display or with whom she wants to interact. What about that says "you are a human like me, with equal and equivalent rights"? Does every person on the planet have an absolute right to impose themselves on every other person? Nope. Many men assume the right to impose themselves on any woman they run across. It is base stupidity or dehumanization. I am giving the benefit of the doubt. And, yeah, the marketers own you, if you are one of them. Put big breasts next to something and you will buy it. I would hate to be that big a mark.

"But I like it and want it and you're mean to keep it from me" is understandable from a toddler. From a grown up, not so much.

Pornography. It's as old as Lilith, at least. It always depicts what some would like to do with anyone, would do with/to someone or would consider their most deeply held secret or just a kinky part of their individuality. From depictions of the several Venus from 500,000 years ago to the latest pink plastic potatoe spud gun. It's all porno to the right beholder.

Pornography is neither good or bad, but it is often a thing that runs counter to the LAW..... Photographs being the most easiest depiction today. The western world has its "toad frog" photos that can get one arrested for and in the Islamic world one could lose his head for a well turned ankle.

Up Skirt photos? Well, consensual?..........Look if it's a violation of someones privacy it gets into the LAW thing. Period.

Back in the 1940s my mother had a story she often related of how she handled someone who had taken the opportunity on a city street to shoot her up the skirt. 1st his hands met my mother's heels. She danced on them. breaking bones. 2nd she took the camera. Dad developed the film. They both had a good laugh over it. She always smiled and stopped talking about it at that point.

BTW is there the slightest chance that women will find a way to drop this idiocy that insists on holding that because men are more sexual than women that men "don't see women as people".

Upskirting is not an expression of sexuality. It's a violation of the person whose private areas are being photographed. That's the whole point of upskirting -- the transgressive nature of it. People who simply want to see crotches can see the crotches of willing models. But no, these creeps want to see the crotches of unsuspecting and unwilling women. And why is that? Because the pathetic creeps don't see the women as being people who deserve privacy and dignity, but instead as a source for their sick kicks.

I say throw the book at them. And I can't believe all of the creepy guys on here who are defending this pathetic behavior(I'm looking at you Brightstar -- there's no way that you can claim to be "nice" if you think this is in any way shape or form OK).

That the gendarmes of the juicey gender wars

Are respectively speaking

Best self serving

With both sides gouging the others eyes out...

Mother Nature is the bitch here, not the advertising industry, and like I said, she is as much of a bitch to women as to men, the difference is that womens' behavior commonly isn't acknowledged as a problem. BTW is there the slightest chance that women will find a way to drop this idiocy that insists on holding that because men are more sexual than women that men "don't see women as people".

After scanning through the preceding ad hominem exchanges and way-off-topic digressions, I am reminded of that old saying:

"Never argue with an idiot - you will never win and onlookers won't be able to tell the difference."

Now I am going to watch "Blow Up" and "8mm."

As so many people here are advocating violence by a woman against a man taking a sneaky picture I would be interested to know - just for the sake of completeness - what they would consider to be possible actions taken by a woman in a public place which would humiliate a man and justify him punching her?

If I have covered something up (my underwear, my bust) in public and you chose to uncover it, you have interfered with my reasonable expectation of privacy. I expect if you walked up to an Hasid and removed his hat without his permission, you would be considered to have invaded his privacy. It would be considered assault, because you touched him without his permission. It would probably also be considered a hate based misdemeanor.

Just because you get sexual pleasure from something does not mean I am compelled to provide it. Whether that is sucking on my toes in the library without my permission, stealing my underclothing, making heavy-breathing phone calls, or taking photos under my clothes.

Most women (especially those who have been molested) know that it is very dangerous to confront a molester of any sort without taking precautions. And these men are molesters. They are forcing women to take part in non-consensual sexual activity. Just like rubbing up against in the subway, peeping through a window, ripping off a stranger's clothes.

I have two questions for the men who don't understand -- why is it so hard to see women as people? Wouldn't it feel better not to be so easily manipulated? The whole advertising industry seems to have you by the short hairs.