Is that your argument, MR E?

Taking a picture is not the same as looking. And up my skirt IS a private place, so I've been told since I was a child. Are you trying to say that if a woman wears a skirt she is inviting people to look at her underwear? That is not true.

Making pornography is not the same as taking lewd pictures of unsuspecting strangers. You're comparing upskirting to hieroglyphics. I think you should re-read the article and take note of exactly what the author and the other posters are objecting to here.

And the tree falling in the woods argument? I'm not sure why this is even relevant. The tree falling is not in question, only whether or not it makes a sound if no one notices. The act was committed. Was any harm done if the woman doesn't notice? What does that matter? We still need to formally reprimand those who do get caught.

Anyway, the idea that laws wouldn't be created against this, in the United States of America, the land of Superbowl Nipplegate, is ludicrous. It will happen. The websites will be outlawed. The end.

Just to clear this up, the slit in a skirt was not created to make it more revealing. That is a byproduct. The slit allows a person to walk in the skirt. Try walking in a poorly designed pencil skirt sometime, with no slit.

Oh, please. I've been to enough parties and events in Manhattan to know what I am talking about.

You are one of the few men here at Salon to ever "get" the female objection to the male "gaze."

It's that men do not give a flip about it.

If mere looking upsets you women, I dare say the problem is YOU, not the men.

Women talk all the time to other women about specific men they know. THE MOST INTIMATE DETAILS are expressed.

These men do not want to be talked about. Their right to privacy is being SEVERELY violated, in a much more intimate manner than any anonymous crotch shots.

Should we outlaw all gossip? Should these women be punched and thrown in jail?

This sort of FEMALE behavior, which is nearly universal, is MUCH worse than anonymous male behavior where nobody even knows who the person behind the crotch in the camera is.

Like I say, if women were held to the same standards as men, the jails would be equally filled with men and women.

As to stopping men from getting turned on by females, good luck with that.

If upskirts are against the law and the guy does not want the risk, he can go to a beach or look at magazines. Heck, foot fetishists have it great with all the flip flops around.

Tbone99: if its really about "sexual power" and "one step away from rape"- and you KNOW it, then every time you venture outside in a skirt, you are CONTRIBUTING. If its about POWER... wear pants. Then YOU can choose who you want to reveal your parts to. If you wear PANTS and THEN somebody photographs your panties then I'd be right there with you wanting them to be prosecuted.

Lesson: If you wear clothing that is DESIGNED to CONCEAL, then you have an expectation of privacy.

Achilleselbow: I agree completely. It has become fashionable in this society for women to wear revealing clothing and then claim they are being "victimized" if anybody notices. "Women", in the guise of their feminist rhetoric, claim they want equality. Mostly I agree. Everyone should be free to speak their opinion, feel safe in their person and not be assaulted, abused or violated. Yet they also insist on doing things and engaging in behaviors which are KNOWN contributing factors to undesirable consequences. But at the same time, if you smear yourself with honey and run naked through the wilderness, I'm not likely to feel all that sympathetic when you get EATEN BY A BEAR. There is a measure of personal responsibility here as well.

So often I hear "women" complaining about "men" as if they had just discovered the concept. Men and women have been around for tens if not hundreds of thousands of years. It should come as no surprise to ANYBODY AT ALL that both women AND men are SEXUAL beings and that nature has designed women to be sexually attractive to men and men to be sexually attracted to women. Pornography goes back a very long time. Anybody interested can check out the pornographic pottery, statues, cornices, etc-- of most cultures that have ever graced the earth. It is plain to see that there is not much new on that front.

So for women to wear revealing clothing and THEN pretend like they don't understand when men attempt to take photos of the very parts they have ALWAYS been interested in and depicted in one form or another is simply LUDICROUS. And for women to pretend they don't understand when men look at them or desire them sexually-- regardless of the mood THEY are in-- is likewise ludicrous. Its just DOWNRIGHT STUPID.

A hypothetical conversation might progress along the lines of "dresses, skirts, and loose blouses are the traditional female attire" and thus are not supposed to be "revealing" from the normal cultural standpoint. That's where I think @AchillesElbow has made some very good points-- feminine attire (and previously male attire as well) _IS_ revealing and has been continuously shaped and refined specifically to show off as much as possible while retaining a modicum of modesty -- its that modicum which is getting photographed and put on the Internet).

Male clothing has evolved to meet the needs (work and otherwise) of the current society. It is only natural to assume female clothing has as well. If women want to complain about it, it is well within THEIR power to change it. On the other hand, if they DO assert that right and design FRUMPY CLOTHES, then they can't really go complaining that men won't look at them, or they can't get dates.

Women say men should be able to use the rational portions of their brains to go beyond nature and regulate their behavior. I quite agree-- but so too should women-- so stop being such "whiny-ass bitches". If you don't like it, wear pants!

Ceolaf: Your point is the best of all-- what is the difference between taking a picture of a homeless man and sticking a camera between a woman's legs and taking a picture of her panties?

Not much.

If a homeless man is sleeping in a CARDBOARD BOX, do you have the right to open the flap and look inside? How is that any different from you sitting comfortably in your home chatting with your social group and someone opening your front door to take a peek?

If that homeless man is sleeping on the park bench-- perhaps you have the legal right to look-- but do you have the MORAL right to look? (or for that matter, do you have the moral right to look away?) If the homeless man covers themselves from head-to-toe with a blanket (or yesterday's newspaper), isn't that an attempt at privacy (in addition to getting warm)? Haven't the courts ruled many times that the ATTEMPT of privacy is the important consideration? Thus, a simple sign saying "don't look at me" should be enough to assert the intent.

But even in situations where clear intent is not obvious, where is the line regarding a homeless man's privacy? Is it okay to peek just a little as long as nobody notices? Is it okay to look as long as you don't record the scene? Is it okay to record the scene as long as you don't share it with others? Is it okay to record the scene and share it with others as long as you get six figures and a Pulitzer prize?

People DO have a right to feel safe in their person-- that I fully agree with. And there _should_ be a SOCIAL compulsion for decency regarding the matter of "upskirting". However, I'm not sure I agree with making it illegal or even going down the road of trying to figure out which FEMALE PARTS are okay or not okay to photograph. (Further, I find it interesting that these arguments ALWAYS come down to PARTS, even when they're not supposed to)

BUT-- if we DO go down that road-- are we going to get to decide which MALE parts should and should not be photographed as well??? (I'm thinking of that overweight fat guy at the beach in speedos-- I think we can ALL agree on THAT at the very least!)