Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Up-Skirts OKFollow

#1 Mar 06 2014 at 11:05 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,216 posts
Some guy on the Boston Subway was taking pics up the skirts of women, unbeknownst to the women of course. I suppose men too if they were wearing skirt. STORY

Anyways, a judge said that this activity did not violate state law.

I ask you if a young woman were to take an upskirt selfie and send it to, oh i dunno, anyone really - would it be considering sexting?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#2 Mar 06 2014 at 11:09 AM Rating: Good
******
44,275 posts
I'm hiring a camera crew and vacationing in Boston. I'll call it a traffic report war to liberate people an undercover fashion shoot.

Edited, Mar 6th 2014 12:10pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#3 Mar 06 2014 at 11:14 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Well, it may not violate state law there. There's other states where people have been convicted for it. We need one of those "age of consent" style sites where you can easily research which states will allow you to take secret hoo-hah photos on the bus.

Without reading the case in question, I assume that the judge does not condone the behavior but is simply noting that the state legislature hasn't kept up with technology in this regard and there's not a Mass state law that applies to the defendant's behavior. The solution there seems fairly obvious (big government!)

I hate the pseudo-word "sexting" and refuse to dignify your last question with an answer out of protest.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4 Mar 06 2014 at 11:20 AM Rating: Decent
Elinda wrote:
Some guy on the Boston Subway was taking pics up the skirts of women, unbeknownst to the women of course. I suppose men too if they were wearing skirt. STORY

Anyways, a judge said that this activity did not violate state law.

I ask you if a young woman were to take an upskirt selfie and send it to, oh i dunno, anyone really - would it be considering sexting?


That is ****** up, creepy and sad. But why are women wearing skirts this time of year? Isn't it cold in Boston?

____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#5 Mar 06 2014 at 11:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Looking at the Google links I provided, I see another case where an Indiana man was convicted on child exploitation charges for taking upskirts of minors at the mall and it was overturned in appeals. Since the law requires the images of the children to depict them acting "sexually" and the upskirt photos were just, you know, upskirt photos, there wasn't a basis for the sexual behavior component.

So, I dunno... tell your daughters to wear underwear, I guess. Clean underwear, too.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#6 Mar 06 2014 at 11:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,991 posts
Saw that, struck me as some overly literal interpenetration of a law that allowed for this to be suddenly okay. I got the feeling that any loophole would be quickly closed though, as the spirit of the law was to try and prevent things like this, but that it was perhaps just worded poorly.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#7 Mar 06 2014 at 11:24 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,216 posts
Stalker rdmcandie wrote:
But why are women wearing skirts this time of year? Isn't it cold in Boston?


They're sluts and are asking for it. Feel free to rape, pillage and photograph at will. Smiley: oyvey That's a seriously messed up question.


The police had set up a sting to catch the guy...only to be told the activity wasn't illegal. Smiley: lol Man, they must be *******






Edited, Mar 6th 2014 6:31pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#8 Mar 06 2014 at 11:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Inch for inch, are skirts significantly colder than legged garments covering the same area? Pants for full length skirts, shorts for minskirts, whatever.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#9 Mar 06 2014 at 11:29 AM Rating: Good
Jophiel wrote:
Looking at the Google links I provided, I see another case where an Indiana man was convicted on child exploitation charges for taking upskirts of minors at the mall and it was overturned in appeals. Since the law requires the images of the children to depict them acting "sexually" and the upskirt photos were just, you know, upskirt photos, there wasn't a basis for the sexual behavior component.

So, I dunno... tell your daughters to wear underwear, I guess. Clean underwear, too.

Punchline to an reeeeaaally olde joke wrote:
HAHA! I fooled them! I didn't wear underwear today!!
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#10 Mar 06 2014 at 11:33 AM Rating: Good
******
44,275 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Punchline to an reeeeaaally olde joke wrote:
HAHA! I fooled them! I didn't wear underwear today!!
Can't be that old, I remember it from Paul Reuban's stage act.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#11 Mar 06 2014 at 11:36 AM Rating: Decent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,516 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Inch for inch, are skirts significantly colder than legged garments covering the same area? Pants for full length skirts, shorts for minskirts, whatever.


Yes. They are quite drafty, until you start hitting floor length with 2-3 layers of petticoats and flounce ala the 19th century.

In the winter I always have on leggings underneath skirts of any length.

Pressure is now on MA legislature to amend the law to explicitly say that photographs of deliberately hidden clothing from unusual angles are also included, or some such.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#12 Mar 06 2014 at 11:50 AM Rating: Decent
Elinda wrote:
Stalker rdmcandie wrote:
But why are women wearing skirts this time of year? Isn't it cold in Boston?


They're sluts and are asking for it. Feel free to rape, pillage and photograph at will. Smiley: oyvey That's a seriously messed up question.


The police had set up a sting to catch the guy...only to be told the activity wasn't illegal. Smiley: lol Man, they must be *******


Oh come on. How could anyone take that question as serious.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#13 Mar 06 2014 at 12:02 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,216 posts
Stalker rdmcandie wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Stalker rdmcandie wrote:
But why are women wearing skirts this time of year? Isn't it cold in Boston?


They're sluts and are asking for it. Feel free to rape, pillage and photograph at will. Smiley: oyvey That's a seriously messed up question.


The police had set up a sting to catch the guy...only to be told the activity wasn't illegal. Smiley: lol Man, they must be *******


Oh come on. How could anyone take that question as serious.

This took place back in 2010. It may not have been wintertime when the photographer was collecting upskirts.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#14 Mar 06 2014 at 12:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,991 posts
Elinda wrote:
Stalker rdmcandie wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Stalker rdmcandie wrote:
But why are women wearing skirts this time of year? Isn't it cold in Boston?


They're sluts and are asking for it. Feel free to rape, pillage and photograph at will. Smiley: oyvey That's a seriously messed up question.


The police had set up a sting to catch the guy...only to be told the activity wasn't illegal. Smiley: lol Man, they must be *******


Oh come on. How could anyone take that question as serious.

This took place back in 2010. It may not have been wintertime when the photographer was collecting upskirts.
This took 4 years to come to trial? Smiley: confused
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#15 Mar 06 2014 at 12:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
This verdict was by the state supreme court so it must have gone through multiple trials.

Nothing like spending four years of your life on legal challenges just to see a grainy dark photo of some random woman's panties.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#16 Mar 06 2014 at 12:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,991 posts
No kidding, his internet must have been down or something.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#17 Mar 06 2014 at 1:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,301 posts
I think the "getting away with it" aspect is the larger part of that particular fetish, along with imagining how hurt/angry/humiliated she would be if only she knew.

Bet it loses some of its appeal now that it's legal.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#18 Mar 06 2014 at 1:30 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,480 posts
They're sluts and are asking for it. Feel free to rape, pillage and photograph at will.

Just so long as they weren't drunk, right?

Probably shouldn't be illegal. The wording of the law will have to be close to absurd because conceptually it's fairly absurd for this to be a crime. Someone photographs you weeping as you find out your child was killed: perfectly fine. Someone takes a photo of the magical forbidden clothing you're wearing, well that's jail time, buddy. Because: ***? I guess? Same forbidden clothing near the ocean in summer...perfectly fine. It's idiotic.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#19 Mar 06 2014 at 1:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,991 posts
Couldn't you at least make some kind of harassment claim, or disrupting the peace, or something? I mean public place and all, but still you'd think there'd be some kind of other options.

Well, assuming you caught the person doing it of course...
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#20 Mar 06 2014 at 1:45 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,480 posts
Couldn't you at least make some kind of harassment claim, or disrupting the peace, or something? I mean public place and all, but still you'd think there'd be some kind of other options.

Wear pants? Pass a law making any photo of a person without their consent in advance illegal? Or just use the current standard that you have no real expectation of privacy on a @#%^ing subway. The whole premise is bizarre to me. Criminalizing the taking of an image of a body part exposed in a public place? The ****? Yeah, it's creepy behavior, yes it breaks the social contact. So does marching around yelling that the Jews control everything or that Obama is going to send yer gunz to Kenya or whatever, but we protect those things, because erring on the side of allowing things that make us uncomfortable is preferable to criminalizing things based on perceived intent. Thoughtcrime is a foolish standard.

Edited, Mar 6th 2014 2:45pm by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#21 Mar 06 2014 at 1:47 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,216 posts
If you know they're doing it, I believe you can deny consent for the photo.

I'm thinking that if they called the place up inside a skirt, or even down inside the pants, a private place, then a person could reasonably be expected not to be photographed there.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#22 Mar 06 2014 at 1:51 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,480 posts
I'm thinking that if they called the place up inside a skirt, or even down inside the pants, a private place, then a person could reasonably be expected not to be photographed there.

So, if you wear a bikini on the subway, it's fine to take a picture of that. If you wear a dress, now it's illegal. Sure, that sounds reasonable and easily enforceable. Already a crime to reach into someone's pants or skirt, and reasonable and easy to enforce. This wouldn't be. Is it a crime if a woman lifts her skirt up and laughs to her friends and a stranger takes a picture, or only if he has to expend thought or effort to take the picture. Shoecam illegal, but google glass record of what his eyes could see anyway legal?

It's a ******* quagmire. "This makes me uncomfortable" shouldn't be the standard for criminalizing behaviour.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#23 Mar 06 2014 at 2:00 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,516 posts
A bikini is different fabric than granny panties. It's (in theory) a more opaque material, and was designed to be outer wear. Most women don't go around wearing bikinis underneath their clothes, at least not the sorts of women who would object to up-skirts in the first place.

You never know what else a woman has going on underneath the skirt besides panties, too. What if she has a colostomy bag? What if she is menstruating? Those are medical privacy violations, not just physical clothing ones. Some women are required by their religions to wear skirts and pants are not an option (oddly enough, most sects of Islam are totally okay with pants and it tends to be Christian sects that require skirts)
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#24 Mar 06 2014 at 2:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,991 posts
I never really got skirts anyway.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#25 Mar 06 2014 at 2:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,301 posts
It is squicky, but forbidding it is getting into serious diva behavior.

Edited to add:

Quote:
(oddly enough, most sects of Islam are totally okay with pants and it tends to be Christian sects that require skirts)


Not that odd. Modesty is what's required, and that is culturally defined.

What I like about Islam vis-a-vis Christianity is that modesty is equally required of men and women, on paper at least.


Edited, Mar 6th 2014 12:06pm by Samira
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#26 Mar 06 2014 at 2:04 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,480 posts
You never know what else a woman has going on underneath the skirt besides panties, too. What if she has a colostomy bag? What if she is menstruating? Those are medical privacy violations, not just physical clothing ones

No, they aren't. No more than taking a picture of a person in a wheelchair is.

There's just nothing magic about a ****** when it's ******* covered by clothes. It's stupid to pretend there should be.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#27 Mar 06 2014 at 2:05 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,216 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
I'm thinking that if they called the place up inside a skirt, or even down inside the pants, a private place, then a person could reasonably be expected not to be photographed there.

So, if you wear a bikini on the subway, it's fine to take a picture of that. If you wear a dress, now it's illegal. Sure, that sounds reasonable and easily enforceable. Already a crime to reach into someone's pants or skirt, and reasonable and easy to enforce. This wouldn't be. Is it a crime if a woman lifts her skirt up and laughs to her friends and a stranger takes a picture, or only if he has to expend thought or effort to take the picture. Shoecam illegal, but google glass record of what his eyes could see anyway legal?

It's a @#%^ing quagmire. "This makes me uncomfortable" shouldn't be the standard for criminalizing behaviour.
Add it to the current quagmire of pictures in private places.

If I walk by my picture window naked and my neighbor snaps a picture was s/he a peeping tom?

By defining underclothes as being in private places on a person it's simply a way that the legal system could disallow these types of photos - cuz I think the public will demand some sort of protection from upskirting (I love the word...Smiley: smile)




____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#28 Mar 06 2014 at 2:16 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,480 posts
If I walk by my picture window naked and my neighbor snaps a picture was s/he a peeping tom?

Depends on the state law, I imagine, but *importantly* the expectation of privacy in your home is dramatically higher than when you are on the subway.

By defining underclothes as being in private places on a person it's simply a way that the legal system could disallow these types of photos

How? Seriously. What are the criteria for 'underclothes' going to be? Do they require something covering them? Where do they end. Can someone take a picture of tights? It's idiotic. To accomplish, what, exactly? What's the damage that's been done to anyone? The "violation" of someone taking a picture of your magic underpants, because, presumably they're going to flog the dolphin to it at a later time? Again, thoughtcrime is stupid. What if Bob gets off ************ to pictures of dogs. Should we legislate against people taking dog photos?


____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#29 Mar 06 2014 at 2:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smasharoo wrote:
So, if you wear a bikini on the subway, it's fine to take a picture of that. If you wear a dress, now it's illegal.

I'm not sure that's so unreasonable since the primary purpose of the dress is to disallow seeing the "bikini" area. Foregoing that modesty and wearing your bikini in public would seem to be consent to be seen/photographed in that manner. I don't really equivocate wearing a bikini on the beach with someone going out of their way to defeat your blocking the view of your genitals by wearing a dress/skirt.

I get what you're saying, blah blah subjective standards; I'm not especially sure I'm convinced that disallowing sticking cameras up women's skirts is a bad thing.

Edited, Mar 6th 2014 2:21pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#30 Mar 06 2014 at 2:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,991 posts
Well if nothing else chances are if you're making a habit of running around trying to take pictures up people's skirts you're probably not on the fast track to success in life. Only a matter of time before you do something you can get arrested for.

Getting into a fistfight with someone or their boyfriend in the back of a subway for example. Smiley: rolleyes

Edited, Mar 6th 2014 12:20pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#31 Mar 06 2014 at 2:21 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,216 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
If I walk by my picture window naked and my neighbor snaps a picture was s/he a peeping tom?

Depends on the state law, I imagine, but *importantly* the expectation of privacy in your home is dramatically higher than when you are on the subway.

The expectation of underpant privacy is pretty high in most any locale.




____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#32 Mar 06 2014 at 2:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
someproteinguy wrote:
Well if nothing else chances are if you're making a habit of running around trying to take pictures up people's skirts you're probably not on the fast track to success in life.

My paycheck from GrainySubwayUpskirts.com says otherwise Smiley: twocents
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#33 Mar 06 2014 at 2:23 PM Rating: Excellent
******
30,643 posts
I consider it an invasion of privacy, and the argument against it being an invasion of privacy seems to boil down to, "If you wear a skirt you're asking for it...?"
#34 Mar 06 2014 at 2:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
I consider it an invasion of privacy, and the argument against it being an invasion of privacy seems to boil down to, "If you wear a skirt you're asking for it...?"

Doesn't count unless the camera leaves marks.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#35 Mar 06 2014 at 2:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,991 posts
Maybe it can get tossed into non-protected behavior, akin to that whole yelling fire in a theater thingy?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#36 Mar 06 2014 at 2:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
What if I shout "fire" up a woman's skirt?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#37 Mar 06 2014 at 2:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,216 posts
The Zam-Google filter holds the answer.

Someone post a picture of themselves in their undies and see if it gets censored.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#38 Mar 06 2014 at 2:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,991 posts
Jophiel wrote:
What if I shout "fire" up a woman's skirt?


Only illegal if she's in a theater it seems.

Edited, Mar 6th 2014 12:29pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#39 Mar 06 2014 at 2:28 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,216 posts
Jophiel wrote:
What if I shout "fire" up a woman's skirt?

If there is really a fire then it's ok.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#40 Mar 06 2014 at 2:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,991 posts
Elinda wrote:
The Zam-Google filter holds the answer.

Someone post a picture of themselves in their undies and see if it gets censored.

Best idea yet. Smiley: nod
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#41 Mar 06 2014 at 2:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Elinda wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
What if I shout "fire" up a woman's skirt?

If there is really a fire then it's ok.

The candle was to provide romantic lighting for my upskirt photos.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#42 Mar 06 2014 at 2:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,301 posts
Belkira wrote:
I consider it an invasion of privacy, and the argument against it being an invasion of privacy seems to boil down to, "If you wear a skirt you're asking for it...?"


More like, if you're wearing a skirt you don't mind people looking at your legs, generally. If you're out in public you know someone might take your picture.

It kinda makes me want to design skirts with camera-foiling underskirts just to **** off a few pervs, but I doubt the market is there, really.

Holy ****, this thread is moving.



Edited, Mar 6th 2014 12:48pm by Samira
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#43 Mar 06 2014 at 2:48 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,275 posts
Elinda wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
What if I shout "fire" up a woman's skirt?
If there is really a fire then it's ok.
what if she's a natural redhead?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#44 Mar 06 2014 at 2:52 PM Rating: Excellent
******
30,643 posts
Samira wrote:
More like, if you're wearing a skirt you don't mind people looking at your legs, generally. If you're out in public you know someone might take your picture.

It kinda makes me want to design skirts with camera-foiling underskirts just to **** off a few pervs, but I doubt the market is there, really.


Looking at your legs, no. But your upper thighs and groin area?

I don't care for skirts much, but when I wear them, it is not so that perverts can play peek-a-boo with my panties and their iphone. I don't really understand why that should be ok. Does that mean it's ok for someone to start snapping pictures under bathroom stalls because you're technically in a public place and you've chosen to disrobe? Or in dressing rooms? Or at the urinal in a men's room?
#45 Mar 06 2014 at 2:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Samira wrote:
It kinda makes me want to design skirts with camera-foiling underskirts just to **** off a few pervs, but I doubt the market is there, really.

Flesh colored panties with a dong silkscreened on them.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#46 Mar 06 2014 at 3:19 PM Rating: Decent
******
44,275 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Does that mean it's ok for someone to start snapping pictures under bathroom stalls because you're technically in a public place and you've chosen to disrobe? Or in dressing rooms? Or at the urinal in a men's room?
No because they're not technically public places?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#47 Mar 06 2014 at 3:23 PM Rating: Excellent
******
30,643 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Does that mean it's ok for someone to start snapping pictures under bathroom stalls because you're technically in a public place and you've chosen to disrobe? Or in dressing rooms? Or at the urinal in a men's room?
No because they're not technically public places?


A public rest room isn't a public place?

#48 Mar 06 2014 at 3:30 PM Rating: Default
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Samira wrote:
More like, if you're wearing a skirt you don't mind people looking at your legs, generally. If you're out in public you know someone might take your picture.

It kinda makes me want to design skirts with camera-foiling underskirts just to **** off a few pervs, but I doubt the market is there, really.


Looking at your legs, no. But your upper thighs and groin area?

I don't care for skirts much, but when I wear them, it is not so that perverts can play peek-a-boo with my panties and their iphone. I don't really understand why that should be ok. Does that mean it's ok for someone to start snapping pictures under bathroom stalls because you're technically in a public place and you've chosen to disrobe? Or in dressing rooms? Or at the urinal in a men's room?


Lets just make it so it is illegal to own and operate a camera without a licence. in order to qualify you must under go an intensive psyche exam to show that you aren't a creeper and won't take snap shots of anything that you might find sexually arousing, or other people could find as harassment. Furthermore carrying a concealed camera will result in much stiffer penalties including potential prison time, more over even licensed camera operators can not conceal a camera it must be on display to everyone at all times, so they know that you have a camera on your person and my take pictures near them.

Hyperbolic comparisons are also over rated.

Should have never let the flappers off so easy back in the 20's. Then this wouldn't be a problem.



Edited, Mar 6th 2014 4:37pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#49 Mar 06 2014 at 3:34 PM Rating: Decent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,301 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Does that mean it's ok for someone to start snapping pictures under bathroom stalls because you're technically in a public place and you've chosen to disrobe? Or in dressing rooms? Or at the urinal in a men's room?
No because they're not technically public places?


A public rest room isn't a public place?




Not when someone is using it, no.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#50 Mar 06 2014 at 3:40 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,480 posts
I don't care for skirts much, but when I wear them, it is not so that perverts can play peek-a-boo with my panties and their iphone. I don't really understand why that should be ok.

It's not "ok". It's just not "illegal". You can hold both of those ideas in your head at the same time, can't you? I don't like people taking picutres of my bald spot, but that probably shouldn't be illegal. It probably shouldn't be illegal even if I normally wear a hat and take it off for the pledge of aligence or whatever. I don't think it's "ok" to burn an American Flag because you're sad that gays can get married. That doesn't mean it should be illegal.

Contrary to what you've been told, the purpose of legislation isn't to enforce and inflict your personal fears and hang ups on the rest of the world. THERE ARE NO DAMAGES WHEN SOMEONE TAKES A PHOTO OF A FULLY CLOTHED PERSON IN PUBLIC. That's the point. It's not "ok" for paparazzi to expose famous cheating spouses. There are millions of things that aren't "ok" that we allow to be legal to avoid harm. Once this is illegal, then obviously "attempting" it will be made illegal. So to protect your ******* precious magic underpants, some poor sod is going to end up in prison because someone thinks he tried to take a picture of something.

It's not worth it. Not remotely.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#51 Mar 06 2014 at 3:46 PM Rating: Decent
******
44,275 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
A public rest room isn't a public place?
You have an expectation of privacy when in the restroom, whether it's the one in your house or a port-a-john in the middle of the desert.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 47 All times are in CST
Demea, ElneClare, Samira, Szabo, Anonymous Guests (43)