Didn't you just argue that upskirting is just another extension of the world of porn, that has been around since mesopotamia, and which women just need to finally accept. Now it's wrong, but it shouldn't be punished by law, instead we should become a healthier more connected society. That sounds great. I'm all in! But here in reality world where I live, and where new and more twisted ways of sexually exploiting people arrive with every technological advancement, I want it spelled out in plain, undeniable language: this is not allowed. Afterall, if I do manage to break such a pervert's phone or his nose, I have committed a crime, have I not?

When your page is titled simply "upskirt photography..." you are going to get people in trouble at work, where many places monitor URLs and page titles. Thanks for making me look like a pervert.

Seriously, this is assault - why are the police doing nothing about this? Guys who think this is cool should have it done to their girlfriend,sister,mother..

This could be a new revenue stream for the cops - $1,000 ticket for photographing women's underwear in public. They would be busy parked on street corners ready to pounce.

This issue has pretty much been beaten to death at this point but may I add that upskirting can be addressed by just loudly calling out the jerk. It sounds like something an adolescent or delayed adolescent might do and should be treated as such. Not much of a problem.

Re "Upskirting IS Bad"

Great letter!

Posted elsewhere in Salon today...

OMG, teens R "sexting":

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2008/11/25/sexting/index.html?source=newsletter

in the Oklahoma case at least. They picked a weak theory of invasion of privacy when the law in Oklahoma was not settled in that context. Surely they could have done better. A crotch-shot of this type involving a 16-year-old girl is certainly child pornography as defined under federal law, and would violate a host of federal crimes. Is Oklahoma's criminal code so backwards?

"We men must all constantly be on the defensive, acting like ashamed defective females with defective penises."

Really? All men? I know a few who do not fall into the "ashamed defective penis" category, I smell a little projection here. Keep your private issues about your privates to yourself. Don't need the flaccid visual so early in the morning.

I, Lilian Burgler, would argue that we are not just "reimagining" or revising our otherwise healthy expectations of public or private situations, simply because cameras suddenly make it so easy to distribute crotches, once strictly private, as public property. Instead, we are receding ever farther from a public realm at all, therefore forcing the con-fusion of the two.

If as a society we actually did understand the difference between public and private along the lines of what is or isn't a sex or poop part, why were explicit images of cigars inside Monica Lewinsky bits so unapologetically painted and consumed by the public? Because Lewinsky chose to expose herself, however imprudently, by talking about it to Linds? But if what cleaves private from public is voluntary exposure, then why is no one is complaining about these men shooting women's FACES, or hair, without their consent?

In a strange way, the Lewinsky scandal shows us that there has even been a reversal in priority in what constitutes human virtue, such that sex organs and what we do with them actually shapes our public face much more strongly than any kind of public action.

The internet, while it contains our deepest thoughts and sincerest expressions in the same space as vaginas and silly fantasies, is often augured to be what will save us from corporate media and its ensuing alienation, because it re-creates the public space that was lost sometime last century. But still the internet necessitates the same distance from our actions that the outstretched camera or the semi-automatic weapon can afford. We can rape and kill without even being there. We can rant and rave without paying the price, because our true selves are not there, so we can deny the agent as divested from the act.

Why have we lost our 'grip' on a common space; rather, existing as a bunch of disembodied naughty bits, floating around naked and unawares? And what, besides talking from somewhere behind the scenes, can bring us back together?

Can we have this conversation at work?

Or is work a restricted space, where you are barred from authenticity? Is Monica's punishment JUST, because we don't think she ought to have told any real world person (Linda Tripp) about her crotch? Maybe if she had spoken to internet aliases, the case would have more plausible deniability?

So who can Monica talk to?

And if the only person with whom you can safely be public is your lover, then no wonder we confuse naked bits with authentic expressions.

It's easy for any reasonably attractive guy who frequents the gym to be able to sympathize with women when it comes to the creepy feeling of being checked out. I feel like the gym locker room is a place where I should have an expectation of privacy, where I should be able to shower, towel off my balls and generally walk around stark nude flexing in the mirror without anyone looking for too long. (Ok, I'm exaggerating a bit).

So when I feeling the warm heat on the back of my ears that someone is looking at my naked body whom I have not auhthorized to do so, I feel like I must know what it's like to be a woman, constantly sized up like a piece of meat.

And you can bet if someone had a camera out and was snapping picks of me in the shower, that there would be a violent response, and I'm no violent person.

But the difference here is I don't think the homosexual man looking at me is necessarily a deviant, or a pervert. In fact I m sort of jealous. "Wow, it must be awesome to be able to go see hot naked dudes every day if you want to."

Like I said before though, the line is drawn at the length of the glance. If a dude sneaks a peak at me getting dressed...fine. Whatever. But if he stares for minutes at a time, then he's a creep.