If peeping Tom crosses the electrical field

He's in for a whole world of hurt

make it illegal to take a picture while kneeling

To Mary Mother of God

What evidence do we have that there is a "troubling surge" in upskirt photography? What reason do we have to think that this is a trend on the rise? I understand Salon's desire to attract readership, but to portray this situation as some kind of pervert epidemic is disingenuous.

Epileptic proportions!

Panty shots!

Hose knots!

In twisted contortions!

Like a few other posters, I'm troubled by the on-the-fly assumption that taking photos of homeless people asleep on the street is okay. Why?

Having a stranger take a photo of you while you're asleep is pretty creepy, and I can think of a number of reasons why people would object to it. How is that not an invasion of privacy?

Is the difference one of intention? That snapping a homeless guy is 'poignant' but taking an upshirt photo is just pervy? Why does it make a jot of difference?

This article, with its talk of 'whale tails' and 'camel toe' is as pornographic at photos. Written to stir a bunch of blue-stockings into an uproar. Utterly manipulative.

Glancing time: Yes, about two seconds. If she glances back and smiles or is otherwise encouraging then glance again. It's called flirting.

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

Congratulations. You are enlightened.

When men level those hard stares at women, it isn't sexy; it's scary.

I've been homeless okay. Some homeless folks are just glad to get noticed, because most of the time people just turn away. Why not offer a sandwich or a piece of fruit if you are worried about that homelss person. How about a jacket or pay for a room in a motel?

No. I thought not.

Here's something you should know. Homeless women don't want photos taken up their skirts either.

Simply legalize feeding the guy his camera, on the spot. What makes this so appalling is not just the violation of privacy (and sorry, under a skirt is not a public place) but the way in which the perp's rights are protected and the right of the victim to punch him in the nuts is denied.

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.

I also wanted to point out that the article did mention that some of these sites do make a story out of the upskirt shot, with shots leading up to the actual upskirt. I'm sorry, but I'm not buying the victimless crime defense.

Anonymous or not, these guys are taking a piece of you, which you didn't intend to reveal, home with them. This is simple. Looking is one thing. Taking a picture and publishing it? Not harmless. Harm intended. Harm done. Is it just impossible for men to feel humiliated in this way? Is that why they don't get it?

I don't know if I've been upskirted, but I've been downbloused, and I've been leered at. Downblousing does actually feel like a step above leering. Like another poster said, it's like a leer, but preserved indefinitely, and with a crowd invited round to join in the leering. Yes, I know that if I wear a revealing top, I am volunteering to show people those parts of my body, but I've been leered at in non-revealing tops as well. Whenever I'm in public, some people will stare. Most people do not. Staring is rude. The person staring is responsible. Staring at a womans breasts will make her incredibly uncomfortable, for good reason.

You know what? This is something I really don't care if men don't understand rationally. We don't like it. It makes us feel creeped out and violated. It's not some retro-justification for man-hating. It is actually viscerally disgusting. Don't do it. Please.

The more I think about it, the angrier I get.

Some guy squeezed past me in a crowded concert and took a picture of my cleavage without my permission for his amusement. It gives a similar creepy feeling of any shocking perv crime (flashing, groping, etc.), except it lasts much longer, because of the duration of the image. I am the butt of his joke for an unknowable amount of time. It's harder to forget about than you think, and I can't think about it without getting baseball bat swinging mad.

this isn't going to be an issue for long, really it isn't most places now, (other than the fact that you have to catch them and prove it).

It's not about the panties being photographed. It's about being photographed. The consent issue.

Photography is a strange thing, since it seems to capture a fleeting moment for eternity. We just look like this pose for less than a second; but there, on the glossy photographic paper, that pose will be kept for eternity, as if it, in its unchangeability, had captured something of ourselves. (Didn't the Indians use to believe that photographing them was a way of capturing their souls?)

So my viewpoint: you should always have someone's consent before photographing them. Unlike Ms Clark-Flory, I really see no difference between the sleeping homeless and the upskirt lady here -- in both cases, what is "creepy" is that the photographer thought s/he had the right to 'immortalize', as it were, a single moment of that person's life without her consent. To me, it doesn't matter that the purpose may be 'high art' (for the photographer of homeless people) or a 'perverted fetish' (for the upskirt photographer). I am sure (as Ms Clark-Flory herself mentioned in passing) that it would be possible to see upskirt photography as some sort of art anyway--if you are good at playing with symbols, you could get them to tell an interesting tale. But the fact that you didn't ask--and, in my opinion, you always should--the person's consent makes it wrong. Go talk to that homeless after you took his picture; and if he doesn't like what you did, delete the photo. Go talk to the upskirt lady you photographed--and if she is revolted, as most would be, delete the photo. Your little fetish isn't worth it. (By the way, the same is true if you take pictures of people's faces, or any other OK body part--they should agree with you first. OK, you can't get the permission of every passerby that happened to be on the photo of your wife you took in that busy street; but if the person's bodypart in question is the very point of your photo, then the person must give consent, IMHO.)

I agree with mysticsmom half-in-jest claim: by making it unsafe for women to wear skirts, you upskirt photographers are simply making life a bit sadder for other men. Why do that? Believe me, there are women who would agree with an upskirt photo--why not ask them instead? Why the heck does it have to be stolen from them, without their consent? Is it just the little wickedness that makes it interesting? Frankly, I may think that AKA Smith's reaction is exaggerated--I don't think it's such a bad crime--but I do see where she's coming from, and I do understand her irritation. I wouldn't like to be photographed just like that--while I'm eating a sandwich, or reading the paper on the bus, or buying a book at a bookstore, or whatever--without being informed and giving my consent.

Upskirt may not be that much of a crime--nobody is physically hurt, the person photographed cannot usually be recognized, etc.--but it is truly non-consensual. As forms of sex go, this pretty much means the line has been crossed for me.