So we, as a society, have “peeping tom” laws to protect people who might unknowingly expose themselves to the creepy peepers of, well, creepy peepers who get their thrills from seeing and sometimes photographing strangers revealing more than they meant to.
It would seem reasonable enough to consider surreptitiously taken “upskirt” photographs as violations of peeping tom laws. But not in Massachusetts: On Wednesday, the Supreme Judicial Court in that state ruled that upskirt photographs are legally ok, as the laws there are written to apply only to protect victims who are “partially nude,” not those who are merely wearing short skirts.
In the wake of the ruling, legislators and women’s rights advocates are saying that the laws — written before cell phone camera were ubiquitous — need an update.
Naturally, this has some of the dedicated Human Rights activists in the Men’s Rights subreddit in an uproar. How dare anyone challenge their sacred right to take pictures of women’s panties on public transportation without their consent!
![Demonspawn [-1] 6 points 7 hours ago (26|20) Wearing a skirt has consequences. If we use state violence to protect women from the consequences of her choice to wear a skirt, we remove her agency. This man didn't assault her, didn't touch her... all he did was take a picture of what her choice in clothing exposed to the public. How is that criminal to the point of deserving of state violence upon him? This is saying that protecting women from the consequences of their choices in clothing is more important than men's freedom. permalink save source save give gold hide child comments [–]nigglereddit 5 points 6 hours ago (13|8) You're absolutely correct. If you wear clothing which exposes parts of your body from some angles, you have to expect that someone at that angle will see those parts of your body. You can't tell everyone not to see you from those angles because you're not comfortable with that part of your body being seen; that's ridiculous. If you're uncomfortable it is your job to cover that part of your body. permalink save source save parent give gold [–]DaNiceguy [-2] 4 points 4 hours ago (11|7) Ah but you see the wrong man saw it. That makes him a criminal, right?](https://i0.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/demonskirt.png?resize=575%2C448&ssl=1)
“Wearing a skirt has consequences!” What a perfect slogan for a “movement” that is about little more than tearing down half of humanity in the name of, what, a man’s right to be a peeping tom? Put it on a t-shirt, Demonspawn, and show the world the kind of creep you are.
NOTE: Thanks to Cloudiah for pointing me to this.
UPDATE: The Massachusetts State Legislature, moving surprisingly quickly, has passed a new law explicitly banning upskirt photos; it could be signed into law by tomorrow.
What I particularly love is the use of the phrase “remove her agency” as if it hurts women to criminalize upskirt photos.
Well, the judge did make the right decision it appears… as well as pointing out that the legislature needs to fix the law.
But that said; this is another example of our continued theme of “MRAs, what the fuck is wrong with you?” Women in slacks seem to offend them, but wearing skirts “comes with consequences”?
Don’t get me started on the Libertarian “state violence” idiocy.
I can’t wait to see the postersthey make about this.
ain’t these the same twits what think women shouldn’t wear pants? but wearing a skirt has consequences?
God forbid a woman wears something with the expectation that no one invasive stares at her body against her will. God forbid I have boundaries that don’t apply to everyone and there are certain people I don’t want staring at me. I mean, caring about boundaries just makes me a weak bitch. /s
Really, that’s what I consider to be an example of transmisogyny in my life. I cared a lot about my boundaries in my childhood, and I received misogynistic contempt as a result (and it all continues to happen today). I internalized that bigotry via the perspective of a girl as opposed to that of a boy. And even though I was perceived as a boy by everyone around me, at the same time I was perceived as “different” or too “girly.” I remember family members laughing at me for screaming (out of genuine fear) “like a girl.”
How dare women express a preference for who gets to see certain parts of their bodies!
And how dare women expect to ride on public transit without having some creep taking pictures of their underwear!
Well, shit. Even if we wore burquas, these creepy fucks would find a way to upskirt that.
I wish that just once they would shut the fuck up and think how the women in their lives would be affected by the shit they spew (they can’t all be alone or without mothers/sisters). The cognitive dissonance is astounding.
By their logic it would be perfectly okay for me to shove a cell phone up their baggy shorts and take photos of their dicks. Because it was possible under the laws of physics to see it from some angle, there’s no expectation of privacy.
(I’m beyond tired to explaining to people that the court didn’t actually say taking upskirt photos is okay or protected speech or in any way not shitty, they said the law as written is so specific it couldn’t be applied to this situation. And given that it’s Massachusetts there’s a strong likelihood the legislature will in fact pass a new law or an amendment to fix this and do it relatively fast.)
Oh, right, I forgot.
See = take covert photo(s) for private enjoyment, to share with friends, and/or upload onto the internet for any number of reasons
Not very much different from “wearing embroidered burkas has consequences!” (namely, rape) in Muslim countries: http://freethoughtblogs.com/taslima/2014/03/01/you-are-against-embroidered-burqas/
Except “what her choice exposed to the public” doesn’t come into it. Upskirt means he’s held a phone down, aimed up, presumably in the hope of photographing her genitals. That’s not part of her on view. It’s not like looking at someone’s shoes or shirt. It’s deliberately seeking part of her body that’s hidden, and not naturally visible at a glance, even if she was naked.
Also, don’t you like the way he says “the public” so as to exclude the victim from being a member of that public? Presumably “the public” for him means predatory voyeurs.
If someone happens to be sitting with her legs spread apart while wearing a skirt, maybe they would have a point. But lets not pretend that it’s perfectly natural for a man to happen to see a woman’s underwear because it’s totally normal behavior to get out your phone, turn on the camera and stick it between her legs. That behavior is not some natural consequence of wearing a skirt.
Also, just because you legally can do something, it doesn’t mean that you should. Taking upskirt photos is completely unethical and invasive.
Yes, somebody who crawls on the floor up to my legs and looks up, will see up between my legs. A camera placed at the same angle, same deal.
Obviously I should expect that. I am being coddled and my agency is being denied if I protest against men on the floor contorting themselves to get a peep up my skirt.
Wow. “You have to expect that someone at that angle will see that part of your body” …or [he fails to mention] someone who sneaks their phone ‘n hand into that angle. They act like upskirt photos are an accident. Not to mention that I suspect the people saying “wearing a skirt has consequences” are the same ones who write hate about “women who dress like men” [or wear pants].
wait, wait… so it only protects those who are partially nude? so if they are not wearing panties THEN it’s a criminal offense?
That can’t be right…
And if men want to rape said woman, he should be able to. After all, you aroused him with your choices.
Burkhas. only answer!
Well, I guess that was today’s ritual sacrifice to the blockquote monster.
“Women’s choice in clothing…Is more important than a man’s freedom” How about no? Not all men are creeps. You don’t deserve to be called men.
Maybe this isn’t the right analogy, but just because someone *can* see your underwear, which you’ve exposed accidentally, doesn’t mean that they have a right to take a picture of it, post it on the internet, whatever. If someone falls asleep on the train, you can steal their bag without them noticing, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be charged with theft.
Personally, I’m offended by the way our Big Daddy government coddles men with its unfair laws against theft. Owning a nice TV should have consequences, specifically the consequence of me breaking in and stealing it. If men choose not to install shatterproof windows and only have two or three bolts on their doors, that’s 100% on them.
I can’t believe how our society spoils men, protecting them from the consequences of their actions at the expense of my freedom. Also I want a new TV.
Xen – and never mind women’s freedom to move around safely, without the fear of predators. Can’t be having that, can we?
There was a particularly disturbing/insightful observation in the AMR thread about this post:
(I was being particularly careful about the blockquotes since the monster managed to get cassandrakitty.)
Vile fucking slime. I… I’m gonna be offline for a few days. Hopefully there will be movement in the various legislatures that might be affected by this ruling by then.
I’m actually so disgusted by this that I’m unable to snark about it at all.
Where does it end?