That's a good trick about the purse. It might buy you the seconds that save your life.

And "don't get in the car" is sage advice. Do you remember this recent story, about a woman with a dog and a martials arts background, who fought, but was killed and decapitated when she got into his van?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-03-23-hikers-last-days_N.htm

The car is a coffin. Better to die out in the light.

No, YOU must understand, completely and totally, that women are quite selective at who gets to see what, and where. Your idea that women love to have their privacy violated is quite the standard old perv notion that women somehow (in the mind of a perv they justify it this way) like this. Yes, some women let their boyfriends or husbands see their bodies, but understand that THEY choose who sees what, sir, not you.

If you gain some insight into someone, regardless of gender, is this good or is it bad?

If what you find out about that person turns you on, is this good? or bad?

Do men like it when women ascribe to the men certain traits of behaviors? Traits the women might not be privy to were they not already in a position to find them out?

The reason I say all this is that women say they choose who sees what. That is all fine. If this were truly the case, then it justifies either physically blinding all the men or making women wear burkas, or alternately, what they want, but with no criticism when a man rightly chooses to look her way and get turned on, even if what he sees is a glimpse of something normally covered.

I cannot help that women despise men and only use us and pretend they get turned on by us when it pleases them to be getting favors from men.

I just don't think, as evidenced by some of the posts on this board (I'm talking about you Mr.E and Brightstar despite all of the good sense you've evidenced since your resurrection) that men can really understand what it's like to be a woman walking down the street of a big city.

In all respect to you, they DO understand. They understand exactly. That is what they get off on. They don't care how women feel. What do you think that makes them?

give people a peek, but nobody wants to see them on me.

re: most men don't expect strangers to take a snapshot of their package when they wear shorts in public

That's because men generally wear fairly long and baggy shorts, not crotch huggers. Besides, from what I've heard, women are much more interested in checking out a man's ass. No?

re: 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

Perhaps you should ask the homeless man how "poignant" he thinks your snapshot is. He'd probably tell you to fuck off, then embark upon an incoherent rant about the space aliens that have taken over his brain.

re: While checking out the lizard exhibit...

Freud would have a field day with this one.

re: On the other side of this online trend are women who are also publishing photos of unwilling subjects -- only their subjects are the men who sexually harass them in public.

Or so they may claim. How many of these "harassers" might actually be ex-boyfriends, who previously took the pics of their formerly quite willing girlfriends? Or who are perhaps even completely innocent bystanders who, doing what men naturally do, merely scoped out the babe in question? That's why the burden of proof is always on the accuser.

I'm afraid that we live in a society where the government has us all under constant surveillance, and where technology has now advanced to the point where citizens themselves have joined in. Everybody is watching everybody. Walk down a street in most major cities, or walk into a shopping mall, bank, etc., and Big Brother is photographing your every move -- and everyone else has a digital camera at the ready.

I'm also reminded of the opening scene in Steven Segal's B-movie epic, Under Seige 2, where the camera from a high-tech space sattelite zooms in on a babe sunning herself topless on a beach, while the guys in the control room drool. In fact, aren't all movies and television shows innately voyeuristic? Particularly when we watch "love scenes"? I mean, not many of us would otherwise be watching a strange couple in bed. Or watching some babe that we don't know take a shower, for that matter. Etc.

Is there an answer to the loss of privacy we all suffer? Well, I guess we could go "Unabomber" and roll back technology, or perhaps women could adopt a Taliban-like dress code. Barring any of this, I do not see any practical way to stop sicko paparazzi from operating in public.

Martial arts lessons might be helpful, though.

"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?" -- Ashepe

This is why I said "if the truth could come out"-- if people (sitting in judgement for some reason) knew both sides, I doubt they would judge badly for the woman regardless of any "reasonable" action she took. Its pervy behavior (I agree with that) and "Social Stigma" is often measured out in a "punch in the nose" (or "kick in the nuts") analog. Doesn't make it "right" from the legal (or perhaps even "moral") sense, but it does "feel right", which is the general basis of "Social Justice".

Of course that puts us on a very slippery slope doesn't it. One woman's kick-in-the-nuts social reaction is another man's excuse for stoning.

I think its one of those "I'll know it when I see it" kind of things-- as a member of a particular society you have a general understanding of what is "inside" and "outside" the social norms.

I don't know how to answer your question about "what place upskirt takes..."-- I guess my answer would be "compared to what"?? Murder? I'd definitely rank that higher. Stealing a lollipop from a baby, I'd be more upset about that than an upskirt.

I think I put it pretty succinctly in one of my previous posts-- after consideration, I think that if someone can just "be" in public and without any special setup or contortions, see your panties (or whatever) YOU have no cause for upset-- you can be embarrassed, mortified, whatever, but you were in plain view and were not careful. If someone has to go out of their way to setup the shot, I think that very easily crosses the line. In the specific case that some poster talked about with the girls going up the escalator in too-short skirts to the point that he (or she) had to advert his gaze-- I'd say that was plain sight.

"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" -- Ashepe

Do I admit "sexual-power arguments"...?

Hmmmm.. yes and no-- sorry for wimping-- but this is what I mean-- I don't doubt there are sexual-power arguments that can be made-- for instance the one I made. But (and I'm not thinking of any specific instance when I say this) I think that _many_ (I'm not even saying "most") so-called sexual-power arguments are really about "power", rather just about "sex"-- and further, opportunity.

There are very definitely instances where someone intends to exert power over another for a sexual purpose. I do not dispute that. Rather I disagree that all sexually-related contact is necessarily about power. Sometimes its just about sex. (Note that I'm not advocating or condoning anything, just attempting to understand it from my own reference point).

I think (in the sense of consider), in the case of rape, for example, that there is already a good case for simply "assault", and that there doesn't need to be a specific category for rape. Assault is assault. What difference does it make what the attacker's intent was?

In the matter of "sexual harrassment", what difference does it make what TYPE of harassment it was? Harrassment itself should be the crime. (And, I note, that I have occasionally been in settings with women coworkers and bosses where I have felt quote-un-quote, sexually harassed). But I didn't do anything-- partly because there is a stigma associated with a man claiming to be sexually harassed. And mostly because I was able to dismiss it and let it roll off my back.

I consider "ball kicking" (especially by a woman) an issue of "sexual power" mainly because she knows its a sexual part and that kicking it will exert power over the recipient. But it is also primarily a matter of assault. I made the distinction in my previous post because I wanted to support the notion that a bump-on-the-nose might be an acceptable response.

So getting back to your sexual-power and photographs of undies-- if the pictures are taken in full-view (so to speak, based on the criteria previously posted)-- then "no", I do not think its an issue of sexual-power, just opportunity for a cheap thrill. If the situation is manipulated to obtain them-- hmmm... its definitely a matter of exploitation. And the perpetrator is definitely doing for the purpose of either a sexual thrill or else perhaps a monetary gain. I don't see it as a power issue because nobody is being coerced. In fact, the whole point is that the victim not even realize she's been photographed at all. So I don't think I could agree that it is a "sexual power" thing.

"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." -- Ashepe

I think there is a whole continuum of offenses that fall in the category of "public morality crimes", to use your term. Which range from taking candy to a baby to killing your spouse for cheating on you. But I think that, at least from a "generally-speaking" point of view, that the range of actual "offenses" is pretty much the same (with some differences of course) but the _punishment_ meted-out changes a lot.

And even though I hadn't ever thought about it in those specific terms before, I think that must be one of the measures of a "culturally enlightened" society. There are others of course, but how the society tolerates and punishes social transgressions says a lot about a society.