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.
That’s just stupid. There’s already law against shoving your eyeballs under people’s skirts, what changes when you do it via camera?
Vaiyt, is there such a law? I mean, until this thread, I’d have assumed there is but then I’d also have assumed upskirt shots were illegal, too. Or placing a mirror on the floor or any of the other “technologies” a creep might employ.
You mean you guys DON’T take all the people laying on the ground everywhere into consideration when you get dressed? It certainly dictates my wardrobe!
Funny how the use of the word “consequences” in misogynist vocabulary always excludes the recognition that a deliberate choice is being made and never seems to refer to actual cause and effect. It’s not like they’re saying, “Pshhh, women want to wear short skirts but have warm legs. They NEVER want to suffer the consequences of their actions!” It’s always, “Pshh women want to make decisions that only affect them but don’t want someone to use that decision as an excuse to hurt them. They NEVER want to suffer the consequences of their actions!” You have to go out of your way to not notice that upskirt photos are not inevitable and that it takes a person making a cognitive decision to violate your boundaries in order for such a photo to be taken.
Hooray for the Massachussets legislature for correcting this instantly! For the MRA’s, yechhh. Are you really defending the kind of creeps who take upskirt photos? Would it be OK if women took upkilt photos?
“Even if we wore burquas, these creepy fucks would find a way to upskirt that.”
I worked in a women’s college in the Middle East. The women I was teaching didn’t wear burqas, but the niqab, headscarfs, abbayas, and in some cases the students also wore black gloves and thick socks when outside so that not an inch of skin would be visible.
Guess what? Guys trying to take creepshots were a huge problem! Especially around cafes (lift up your veil to eat and someone’s going to try take a picture). I took the camera club on an outing to the sea front once and within minutes we were being buzzed by guys in big cars kerb crawling and trying to photo us. Really distressing to the students, who had worked hard to get their parents’ consent to go on the trip.
It’s illegal, but try getting enforcement. Unless the guy’s a foreigner – then he’s in trouble.
I’m relieved by that update. Good work Massachusetts.
Cue MRA whine-a-thon in 3… 2… what? They’ve already been whining about it? I’m, shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you.
…actually, I’d love to see the stats for men listed side by side with those for women, counted in the same way. The immediate, automatic response of the MRAs is that well, men are abused too, and sampling bias, and different definitions for particular actions based on physiognomy, and BENGHAZI!! IRS!! (oops, sorry, those are only for the US Tea Party flavored variety).
But I would like to have statistics side by side so that when the MRAs start spewing their bile all over it is easier to put everything in perspective. Not that intimate partner violence is okay, and we absolutely need to do something to reduce it all, but when there is one group of people being killed, raped, and beaten, and another group of people being pushed or bitten or slapped… well, I will choose to address the life-threatening abuse first, while supporting and promoting the message that all abuse needs to stop.
And, as promised
http://boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2014/03/07/patrick-signs-bill-ban-upspirting/xgqo6YXh64BZT6mdwrdiML/story.html
Somehow I can’t see them approving if all women suddenly started wearing painter’s pants.
I’m already seeing comments in articles about the new MA bill that the punishment is too severe and we shouldn’t pass laws this quickly. SMH.
Again, I am shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you, that misogynists are upset that their ability to infringe on the personal integrity of a woman’s body has been (fairly mildly) curtailed…
This is great news that they moved so quickly. Has California struck down the 1872 law that says if you are raped by a man who pretends to be your boyfriend (and not your husband) you are not raped? It’s happened twice with two different women in the past decade being raped without them closing the loop hole. Most damning, the second woman had been asleep, so even if her boyfriend had had implied consent, the rapist most definitely would not have had it.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/01/04/california_rape_law_from_1872_leads_to_overturning_of_rape_conviction_because.html
“the wrong man”
Others have already said how this ties directly into the “consent to one penis, consent to *all* penis” thinking that makes things like rape shield laws necessary, but it is also soooo… not even heteronormative? Male-centric? In that it is assumed that some man, at some time, will be the *right* man to get a look at those under-a-skirt bits the ladies insist on keeping under their skirts while on public transit. Because every pussy has at least one (1) designated Male Owner who gets regular access and viewing privileges. Yes, even *your* lady-bits, anonymous train-lady who was inadvertently involved in precipitating a minor change to the Massachusetts penal code, even *your* bits belong to Some Man Some Where. Gah.
Hollaback! used to post photos of harassers and creepers, but I don’t see as many photos now.
Especially since, like all forms of violence against women, this is unlikely to be prosecuted aggressively, and like all forms of public harassment, it’s extremely difficult to even catch the perp since they’ll have run off by the time you find a cop (if you even have time, since people riding public transit probably have to be somewhere). Yeah, it’s illegal now, but it’s not like there’s a real risk of getting in trouble.
Well, we need enough people to stop tolerating creepdom, but we also need to make sure creeps can’t wiggle around the law.
akestra – While I don’t doubt that they do believe those things, I think what we’re seeing with that quote is much simpler: self-pity. One of the most persistent MRA whines is that women don’t call it sexual harassment/assault if the perp is attractive. Had it been Brad Pitt who was taking upskirts (Brad Pitt is their go-to example guy for this, even though the man is fifty years old and starting transition from “hot” to “hot for his age”), instead of a poor, ordinary-looking schlub like themselves, the victim never would have complained.
Yeah, I’m familiar with the “You wouldn’t think it was harassment if he’s hot, you shallow bitch!” trope. I’ve had it flung in my face at bars by guys who didn’t consider themselves good-looking. But it still positions men and women’s supposed need for the “right man” as an implicit assumption of female existence. Just like the idea that “I’m not wearing this outfit AT YOU” goes completely over the heads of these guys. No woman can do *any*thing in public and not be doing AT a man or NOT at a man, in their construction of the world. Which is why complaints about street harassment being dehumanizing and threatening will never penetrate. They are so desperate for female attention that they legitimately can’t conceive that women might not want any male attention *at all*, not even ~*~BrAd PiTtS~*~*, and are in fact really doing what they appear to be doing while traveling in public: attempting to get from one place to another place.
Looks like Colbert is on it. Here. Apparently the guy is a repeat offender. Surprise.
I’ve been turned off by guys I previously found attractive when they’ve become too pushy and creepy. It’s not even true that we want to be harassed by attractive men. It also doesn’t seem to occur to them that some women are in a committed relationship, lesbian or asexual and wouldn’t be interested in any strange guy however physically attractive he might be. They also can’t grasp that public transportation isn’t generally the best place to meet guys and even single women open to dating or sex might not want to be hit on while on transit.
And in any case it works both ways. I’ve been blissfully happily married for over a decade, and consequently quite genuinely have no sexual interest in any other women. And the great thing about this is that because my female friends know this, they also know that they can talk about anything they like without even the tiniest risk that I’ll misinterpret it as some kind of come-on.
In other words, far from “hating women” (to invert the MRA argument), I’m treating them as intelligent and interesting people, not as sex objects and potential conquests. And this really shouldn’t be rocket science.
Random and mildly off topic:
When I lived in a college dorm my room mates and I noticed a video camera attached to a broom in our window one day. One of my more assertive room mates marched up stairs to confront our neighbors for video taping us in our apartment through the window. Their defensive; they heard a lot of noise and were concerned about our safety.
What a load of BS.
Cassandra: I know I keep saying it, but there doesn’t seem to be a single MRA “issue” that doesn’t boil down to feeling outraged about the fact that women are allowed to say no.
Too true. I spotted a conversation about, “Is feminism winning” on /pol/ (Politically Incorrect at 4plebs.org, and saw this gem:
fuck that, I’d rather have women that mudslimism cause we’ll all at least get laid cause of [it]
Elsewhere in the thread a guy is pleading for help because he’s getting his ass handed to him in a conversation about the wage gap (mythical, if you ask him).
::high fives Wetherby::
🙂
@ pecunium
I have no idea what that guy was trying to say, other than that it seems to be somehow to do with Muslims and he can’t spell.