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.
UGH. That one. Yeah.
Oh, yeah, David, here’s another submission for you to post if you want: http://i.imgur.com/4mWRkXQ.png
TRIGGER WARNING: RAPE, VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN, SUPER ENTITLEMENT
Humans should take responsibility for their clothing choices. If they wear black, it’s not cats’ fault if it ends up with white fur all over it.
Oh, and in the False Equivalencies Department, we have this additional quote from Demonspawn:
Dude, if you have to contort yourself into an unnatural position to be able to see my panties, I am not the one exposing myself.
Also, do MRAs ever realize how misandric they are? I mean, they’ve basically said that they couldn’t help but to take creepy candid photos of women. Which means that they’ve basically said that men naturally are all creepy shitheads. Which means that they think that all men will do it if they had the chance.
How is this any different from the strawfeminist claim of “ALL MEN ARE RAPISTS?!?!?!”, MRAs?
These kinds of guys seem to feel deeply offended by the fact that society as a whole doesn’t entirely approve of their desire to violate women’s boundaries. Even though violating women’s boundaries in this sort of way (ie without physical contact and extreme violence) is rarely punished, that isn’t good enough for them, because the idea that women are allowed to have any boundaries pisses them off. Their sexuality is completely broken, basically – the only way they can get off is if they think they’re harming the object of their attention in some way.
A cookie to the first person who finds a Men’s Rights Redditor saying that women shouldn’t wear pants.
THIS. The MRM in a nutshell.
Now there needs to be a phone that’s so smart it knows when it’s being used this way and electrocutes the user …
Brilliant. Like face recognition except panty shot recognition.
Cloudiah, tha’s absolutely right about the “fetishization of nonconsent.” See also: Revenge porn.
Alice, that conversation is horrible. It’s from Omegle, right? Do you have any more info about it? Where did you find it? I’m working on a longer thing about “friend-zoning” and might want to include it.
katz – perfect name for it! And not an app, either. It’s got to be built in, something that can’t be overridden.
From criminal.altmanllp.com:
Next up – creep takes photo of woman naked through her window using telephoto lens, woman is charged with public indecency.
At least the legislature was quick off the SJC prompt with this one.
http://boston.com/politicalintelligence/2014/03/06/after-high-court-ruling-upskirting-legislative-leaders-pledge-quick-action/P1bp7k0AnT0UC6X8JsNjnJ/story.html
The ban sailed through both houses and is expected to be signed by Gov. Patrick tomorrow.
Yep, Alice. For people who complain that the feminists in their heads say that all men are rapists, they sure do think that all men are rapists.
David – it was linked to on /r/againstmensrights (I would know, I’m a moderator there), and then on /r/creepyPMs (on suggestion since it is, well, creepy). It’s from Omegle, yes. This is all I know about the image.
/r/againstmensrights thread, /r/creepyPMs thread.
Cthulhu’s Intern – yeppppp. I wonder whether they’re just projecting really, really hard.
SHIT, THE URL MONSTER GOT ME.
/r/creepyPMs thread: http://np.reddit.com/r/creepyPMs/comments/1zqbft/stranger_on_omegle_explains_why_the_friendzone/
Also, I am not the submitter of the images. Just to clarify. 😛
The blog monsters may have a feast on their hands.
“Kill a man’s heart without looking at him twice“?
Not even “without thinking twice”, which would make sense in his hyperbolic context. “Without looking twice” suggests that simply not looking at a man is enough to break his heart and bring rape and murder upon herself.
I’m amazed we’ve all lived this long if just not looking at random men is so dangeous.
Alice, what was going on with the person who got banned on that thread, d’you know? Sounds like they were half armchair analysing, half defending, the rape-and-murder-are-natural abhorrence.
Forgot to add, well done, Massachussets! Pity the photography itself is only a misdemeanour and not a felony, but at least they acted, and acted quickly.
It all fits together. Women should both wear skirts and spend their time twirling gracefully. That way they always look at every man, and their underwear is on show more often. Hence, men’s needs for attention and creepy voyeurism can be met in one easy go.
Did Demonspawn really just compare not being allowed to take up skirt photos to “State Violence”? Where does he live, the Ukraine?
Anybody else get the feeling that some of these MRAs live in a bizarre alternate universe, where perspective is completely turned around? I find I have to keep checking I haven’t fallen into an episode of Sliders.
kittehs – which comment thread? If it’s /r/creepyPMs, I’m not a moderator there, so I can’t really tell you.
@leatapp
Same. I can’t joke. This makes me feel threatened and dehumanized.
Listening to Beyoncé’s self-titled album on repeat seems to make it better, fwiw.