When I was a girl in the 1960s we weren't allowed to wear pants to school, so playing on any kind of playground equipment meant boys were going to stand underneath and look up your skirt. This continued into my first job at a sports store, where I was required to wear a skirt to work and climb up ladders to pull boxes with backpacks, etc., off shelves while the store manager and other men in the store stood underneath and looked up my dress. At least we didn't have cell phone cameras and the internet back then; the worst that happened was every boy in the school knew what color underpants you wore by the end of recess, or the people you worked with got to discuss your underwear in front of the customers. I'm gratified that today's version of this is sparking outrage.

I wholeheartedly agree that non-consensual upskirt photographry is creeppy. *Really* creepy. I mean, not just rude. But disrespectful of the basic humanness of the subject to the point of being uncivilized.

But I am not entirely comfortable with it being illegal.

A couple of times in the article, Ms. Clark-Flory throws in down-blousing as a partner to up-skirting. I think that there is an essential difference there. Women must know that people will see whatever cleavage their necklines reveal, and that the taller the other person the further s/he will see. Barring turtleneck tops, some degree of down-blousing views is inevitable.

So, what's the issue? Where's the line?

Many of the stairwell step's from NYC subway platforms are grates, through which the platform beneath can be seen. Should it be illegal to stand there and look up? Is that the line, merely looking? Is it the photograph? Or is it the attempt to capture the photograph? If a skirted women is sitting -- perhaps too casually? -- and someone across from her on the subway car looks up her skirt, does that cross the line? Or is it only a problem if s/he stares too obviously? Or the (attempted?) photograph?

Where's the line? And what does that line apply to down-blouse views/photographs?

Clearly, there is something about lack of consent here. Ms. Clark-Flory details that that is part of the reported appeal of up-skirtery, and that it is part of the offense. But she doesn't explain where that lack of consent becomes a problem.

There's a really interesting paragraph in the middle of her piece:

There's a vast difference, though, between slipping a camera between a woman's

>legs and taking a poignant photo of the homeless man sleeping in a doorway;

>the vast majority of candid shots on mainstream photo sites fall within the latter

>category. But, then, there are candid shots that don't actually cross a woman's

>hemline or neckline. A friend of mine had a man obviously take a photo of her

>ass while she wandered around an art museum in London; a colleague living in

> New York City has twice had guys whip out a cellphone and blatantly snap a

>photo of her rack (if it happens again, she swears she's "going to go Kanye

> West on his ass"). Plenty more common is for women to have a cellphone

>camera pointed toward them, perhaps at an odd angle, in public and wonder:

>Wait a sec, are they writing a text message -- or taking a photo of me?

All creepy, no question. None are consentual, right? Which cross the the line? Are her friend's sexualized body parts (i.e. "rack" and "ass") different than their other parts? Their ebows or shins? What about their faces or the backs of their heads?

And why is taking a picture up someone's skirt worse than taking a poigent picture of the homeless man sleeping in the doorway? Is it about class?

Isn't it still about power?

If this is going to be illegal, I want to know where the line is and *why* that's the line. Something more than how creepy it feels, of course. (Perhaps there is some expectation that people wil not be standing below a woman, or position a camera there. This would make up-skirt shots different than down-blouse shots. This would make standing under the stairwell different than taking a shot across the subway car.)

I wonder what Ms. Clark-Flory thinks.

that women have virtually ZERO interest in photographing men.

ZERO titillation.

ZERO excitement over getting a peek at some guy part.

ZERO interest in the erotic potential of the moment.

ZERO excitement at the risk of the look see.

So, as a result, we men must all constantly be on the defensive, acting like ashamed, defective females with penises.

Really, one can spin a world of hurt out of a relatively harmless habit or interest.

I mean, c'mon, explain what men ARE supposed to do with all that stray sexual energy that women seem to constantly seek to thwart and stop?

Women sure seem more than happy to show off their crotches when THEY choose, which may be almost as exciting, but offers none of the titillation of a furtive glance.

Isn't the whole premise of most clothes and underwear that there are occasional glances as the fabric moves? Isn't that really the core characteristic of a slit skirt?

I just adore the victorian prudery displayed on this site every day. It proves one thing, feminism has solved most of the problems it professed to want to solve and now it is trying to punish men merely for having a libido.

I betcha, were WOMEN the ones who played around like this, you would never hear the end on here about how women have a divine right to get a glimpse of the real man behind the clothes, or some other justification.

It really all comes down to control over sex, and women are ALWAYS first in line to try to grind down the opposite sex.

Is not the purpose of underwear to hide the 'ass'ets, for that matter?

Very well reasoned and thinking way too much like a lawyer for the general public. Great questions, however.