There you go again-- your presumptions are showing again.

Demonstrate where I have advocated "perv" behavior.

...re: "pettipants"--so they were basically like bike shorts? Interesting, though they would kind of negate the practicality of skirts (using the bathroom and not sweating on a hot day).

I remember wearing bike shorts under dresses at grade school in the 80s. I was basically nothing but limbs and ears until puberty, so I wore more dresses than pants because they were easier to get to fit right. A lot of other girls did the same thing so that we could play on the playground or run up and down the stairs (or slide down the banisters and jump off the 8 foot retaining wall in front of the school when the teachers weren't looking) without showing the boys our underwear.

Never wore uniforms to school, but cousins and friends who did told me that most of the girls would wear boys' boxers over their underwear but underneath their skirts. The wilder and crazier the print, the better.

No, I didn't have a specific point in my last post to you--I was trying to understand what exactly you were advocating. I think I understand it better now.

Now, another question (again not a "point in disguise", I'm really curious about your approach to morals and 'sex crimes'). You just said the woman ball-kicking would be a "sexual-power argument"--does that mean it would have been an overreaction, or an incorrect reaction in your interpretation? Less appropriate than 'punching in the nose'? (I guess this has to do with the kind of hierarchization that you personally would make--what place do upskirt photos have in the list of things you shouldn't do?)

Also--do you admit "sexual-power arguments", as you called that? It would seem that taking a photograph of a woman's undies without her consent is also a "sexual-power argument"--a metaphorical way of saying 'I got you! you're my prey!' or something like that. Would this make it more appropriate for the woman, or her possible male or female escort, to react with a "sexual-power argument" like ball-kicking?

I'm actually getting more and more curious about how people evaluate 'public morality crimes', or whatever you'd want to call the class of 'bad behaviors' to which upskirt photos belong.

That one's a real doosey..

Talk about a creep!

What a vainglorious conceit!

As a former victim advocate, I can tell you that it is impossible to predict with accuracy how any single person is going to react to a crime. However, I can tell you that there is always a reaction, even when the crime is fairly minor. I don't think I would ever argue that a reaction to a crime is an overreaction. What people feel when a crime is committed against them is a sense of violation. They are reacting to a loss of control over their lives.

Of course this control is illusory. That is why people get so upset. They need the illusion that they are safe in order to be able to function in life.

A quick glance at aroung 40-50 pictures on photobin shows most of the women/girls in photos showing undies or bikinis or less are fully aware of the photo op and are happily posing. I am not in favor of upskirt type shots of unknowing subjects, but they are a small minority of the risque photos out there. There is no shortage of women willing to show their goods for the camera, both pro and am.

Markus

On a scale? I'm not offended at all by swearing. That being said if I saw someone screaming obscenities at a waiter or waitress I'd say something. For some reason, I'm very nonthreatening and I have a "talent" for defusing situations.

I think physical assault is definitely the worst of all worlds. I even think that calling out obscenities at a person and shaming them publically is worse than an anon "upshot" pic. But that is like saying what is worse, kicking a dog, kicking a cat or kicking a child....none of them are good.

On the side, I think bigguns and AKA are arguing around the topic of fighting back. No one should start violence, but a woman should fight back if she is being assaulted. I couldn't win a street fight, would never try, but I damn well will go for the eyes, nose and balls if someone were to attack me and I would use my teeth, nails, keys and whatever I had handy to try and level the playing field. I think both would agree on this point.

In my haste, I didn't read the study well. It isn't that 37% of peepers become rapists: it's that 37% of peepers are rapists. I couldn't cut and paste it for you because it's a PDF file. So, there's no becoming dangerous "over time." If an upskirter is a peeper, nearly 2/5ths of them are also rapists.

As far as your gun, I can't recall ever reading a news story of a woman who shot a rapist. The only time I've seen that story is on Lifetime.

A dog seems an effective deterrent, but you are chained to that dog. I think I'm as old as you and I've negotiated life without chaining myself to a beast and that's on top of choosing to live and work in dangerous places.

You wrote, "However, since you argue that upskirters are likely to become rapists, don't you think the penalities for upskirting should be stronger?"

Yep. I wrote that in my first post. You must have missed that.

You need releases when you're taking photographs that you intend to publish or sell for profit.

Most of these "upskirt" pics are not of that nature, and wouldn't require releases.

Just like the snaps you take of your child unwrapping Xmas gifts--you don't get a "release" for those, right?

If I take a snapshot of my friend in the street, and publish it on the web, and someone else is visible in the shot, that person can ask me courteously to crop them out of the picture, but they don't have a good legal standing to force my website out of operation.

Taking pictures in public is *only* a big legal issue when it is being done commercially.