Men should be allowed to pursue their native interests but not women? Hypocrite.

Public webpages ARE considered a form of publishing--Salon.com can get sued for libel just like the National Enquirer.

A photo webpage which makes money off subscriptions could also be considered to be in the business of selling photography, just like a brick-and-mortar gallery.

If the victim of "upskirting" can be positively identified from the pictures, yeah, she could make a pretty good case for not only having her pictures removed from that site but for recovering monetary damages from the website owner.

B'star: men remain playful and creative and women become harsh and negative as they get older.

I suppose your sparkling prose is an example of the latter? Oops... :^)

I do model my rhetoric on how women approach the world. Does not mean I am miserable in life. To have the freedom to attack a gender/social situation in the ways men are normally prohibited from attacking, due to women's shaming tactics, opens up new venues of thought and thwarts female expectation, which strengthens the man's position.

It seems if women cannot control and commodify every aspect of their lives, monetize everything, they feel something is amiss.

But weren't you telling everybody in the Ashley Dupré thread that you aren't against the commodification of sex? Are you having second thoughts? :^)

Commodification is fine. Hopefully people still do not commodify ALL their interactions, though. The problem is when women seem to argue in favor of punishing men because men pursue their native interests. It only turns all male/female interactions into commodities. "If he is fine looking enough (or rich enough), he can get a peek" is pretty disturbing when it comes down to it.

Blunderdog, if _I_ take pictures of _my_ child opening xmas presents, _I_ am legally able to publish them if I choose. I am that child's Parent / guardian. If I take pictures of YOUR child in a non-public setting (some variances apply), I must obtain a release from you (i.e. the child's parent or legal guardian) before I can publish them in most contexts.

"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.