Didn't someone post a link not long ago to a website which was just pictures of men on the tube going about their normal business, with pages full of comments from women who were just objectifying them?
And there's a website with up skirt photos of innocent women, filled with comments from guys saying creepy comments. Neither one is right and anyone who takes part in the photography of a stranger is pervy and borderline stalker.
I think anyone who photographs someone and then makes those pictures public without their consent is a disgusting **** who deserves nothing but grief for their actions, especially when their goal is to shame and humiliate.
Men have testicles so it's not comfortable to sit with their legs pushed together and even so it's NOT acceptable to secretly take photos and put it on the internet. I tried to delete the other thread but seems I couldn't for some reason.
I think anyone who photographs someone and then makes those pictures public without their consent is a disgusting **** who deserves nothing but grief for their actions, especially when their goal is to shame and humiliate.
Some people are just nasty pieces of work.
well that's a bit over the top IMO
to me it depends on intent, the examples so far in this thread seem to be of people intent on humiliating others
that's just wrong, but not for reasons of privacy
if everyone where to have your attitude then many of the iconic photographs of the past would be deemed out of order
I'm afraid when you go out in public you just have to deal with the notion you're in public
tough
to me it depends on intent, the examples so far in this thread seem to be of people intent on humiliating others
that's just wrong, but not for reasons of privacy
if everyone where to have your attitude then many of the iconic photographs of the past would be deemed out of order
I'm afraid when you go out in public you just have to deal with the notion you're in public
tough
I don't think it's over the top. If I go out in public I am not giving anyone, male or female permission to take pictures of me, it shouldn't even be a concern. No one should have the threat of a stalker with a camera hanging over them.
If you go out in public there's also a chance of someone throwing water on you, it still doesn't mean it's right. Just because people CAN take pictures doesn't mean they should.
If a man or a woman, I didn't know took a picture of me, I'd feel violated and would probably feel a restraining order was needed. I don't condone celebrities flipping out but I can understand why they do.
If someone needs to ride the tube or wants to eat on the train they should be able to go around their business without some borderline stalker there.
If you go out in public there's also a chance of someone throwing water on you, it still doesn't mean it's right. Just because people CAN take pictures doesn't mean they should.
someone throwing water on you would technically be assault
I'm really laughing at the idea that Buzzfeed does feminist journalism. That's like describing Heat magazine as a shining example of investigative journalism.
Buzzfeed publishes around 300 articles per day. Unsurprisingly, there isn't much consistency across the Buzzfeed editorial spectrum. Some contributors are feminists and some aren't, but most are indifferent.
someone throwing water on you would technically be assault
Yeah it probably wasn't the best example I could have given but the general idea was that because someone can put you in an awkward position doesn't mean they should.
The victim of these photos are never to blame just because they ate on the train or sat across two seats. The photographer is always the creeper.
to me it depends on intent, the examples so far in this thread seem to be of people intent on humiliating others
that's just wrong, but not for reasons of privacy
if everyone where to have your attitude then many of the iconic photographs of the past would be deemed out of order
I'm afraid when you go out in public you just have to deal with the notion you're in public
tough
You make fair points when it comes to capturing iconic moments on camera but otherwise I do stand by it that photos posted with the intention to cause shame and humiliation are nothing but totally out of order and should be considered a serious infringement on the privacy rights of the people involved.
There's normal taking photos in public and then there's the creep who took pictures of women eating. Anyone who engages in the latter is a sick freak who should see a doctor urgently.
Didn't someone post a link not long ago to a website which was just pictures of men on the tube going about their normal business, with pages full of comments from women who were just objectifying them?
That's more than a little bit creepy, although the people behind "tube crush" seem to keen to point out that "it is not illegal to take photos of people on the London underground network or in a public place where you wouldn’t expect privacy."
My retort is to them is"just because you can, doesn't mean you should". I don't mind being in a picture with others, I do resent being the subject of the picture and blog commentary.
My retort is to them is"just because you can, doesn't mean you should". I don't mind being in a picture with others, I do resent being the subject of the picture and blog commentary.
I don't think it's over the top. If I go out in public I am not giving anyone, male or female permission to take pictures of me, it shouldn't even be a concern. No one should have the threat of a stalker with a camera hanging over them.
If you go out in public there's also a chance of someone throwing water on you, it still doesn't mean it's right. Just because people CAN take pictures doesn't mean they should.
If a man or a woman, I didn't know took a picture of me, I'd feel violated and would probably feel a restraining order was needed. I don't condone celebrities flipping out but I can understand why they do.
If someone needs to ride the tube or wants to eat on the train they should be able to go around their business without some borderline stalker there.
Why would you get a restraining order for an incident that is unlikely to happen more than once by the same person, as you are not likely to ever meet them again.
I don't think it's over the top. If I go out in public I am not giving anyone, male or female permission to take pictures of me, it shouldn't even be a concern. No one should have the threat of a stalker with a camera hanging over them.
If you go out in public there's also a chance of someone throwing water on you, it still doesn't mean it's right. Just because people CAN take pictures doesn't mean they should.
If a man or a woman, I didn't know took a picture of me, I'd feel violated and would probably feel a restraining order was needed. I don't condone celebrities flipping out but I can understand why they do.
If someone needs to ride the tube or wants to eat on the train they should be able to go around their business without some borderline stalker there.
They're not stalking you, as it's unlikely to be more than one repeated offence, by definition.
Why would you get a restraining order for an incident that is unlikely to happen more than once by the same person, as you are not likely to ever meet them again.
They're not stalking you, as it's unlikely to be more than one repeated offence, by definition.
Invasion of privacy yes, stalking no.
I meant I would assume they were the stalking/restraining order kind. If they snap pictures of random strangers then I wouldn't put it past them to go the next level and follow the person around the town.
Not the exact same but I'd put them a step below the people who would get off at the same train stop to find out where he person works.
...
If you go out in public there's also a chance of someone throwing water on you, it still doesn't mean it's right. Just because people CAN take pictures doesn't mean they should.
Just because something may be considered "socially unacceptable" doesn't mean you can't do it.
If a man or a woman, I didn't know took a picture of me, I'd feel violated and would probably feel a restraining order was needed. I don't condone celebrities flipping out but I can understand why they do.
..
Running to the courts to take action, against someone who is not breaking any law, sounds like the action of a bully.
... There's normal taking photos in public and then there's the creep who took pictures of women eating. Anyone who engages in the latter is a sick freak who should see a doctor urgently.
I find it scary anyone would need this explained to them.
Blame? What blame, they are pictures of people eating or sitting. They're not undressed, they're not sitting on the toilet, they're not having sex, they're not in private.
Just because something may be considered "socially unacceptable" doesn't mean you can't do it.
Running to the courts to take action, against someone who is not breaking any law, sounds like the action of a bully.
.
Not breaking any laws? I mentioned the photos taken up girls skirts without them knowing. How is that not breaking any laws?
Taking photos of strangers with the aim to use them for humiliation (eating on the tube girls), self gratification (the Upskirt photos) or to ogle (men on tubes) is far more bullying than reporting a creeper to the courts. As I replied to someone else, I didn't mean I'd automatically get a restraining order just that people who take pictures of strangers are stalkerish which in some cases does warrant it.
I think it stinks that people are allowed to invade the privacy rights (yes, I do think we should all have basic rights to privacy even in public) purely to shame and humiliate them, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Taking photos of strangers with the aim to use them for humiliation (eating on the tube girls), self gratification (the Upskirt photos) or to ogle (men on tubes) is far more bullying than reporting a creeper to the courts.
A photo is a single image. Unless one is covered in food, or doing something wierd with it, it's difficult to see what is humiliating about an act that is normal, and not viewed as indecent, for all of us.
Upskirts shots. Yes, that is now deemed as an offence.
Ogling men. Well, if women are now doing that, that's equality for you.
... As I replied to someone else, I didn't mean I'd automatically get a restraining order just that people who take pictures of strangers are stalkerish which in some cases does warrant it.
As happens on other threads people reply to a specific post, then read on.
Some people who take pictures of strangers may be stalkerish.
Others may simply have a fascination for their fellow human beings, something that I can't say I am inflicted with. Be it the way they look, they way they are dressed or even what they are doing like street entertainers, battle re-enacters etc, maybe even an innocent shot of a couple kissing or holding hands.
I think it stinks that people are allowed to invade the privacy rights (yes, I do think we should all have basic rights to privacy even in public) purely to shame and humiliate them, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Privacy should apply to private acts and private places, not public ones.
A photo is a single image. Unless one is covered in food, or doing something wierd with it, it's difficult to see what is humiliating about an act that is normal, and not viewed as indecent, for all of us.
Upskirts shots. Yes, that is now deemed as an offence.
Ogling men. Well, if women are now doing that, that's equality for you.
As happens on other threads people reply to a specific post, then read on.
Privacy applies to private acts and private places, not public ones.
I don't think the tube men or whatever it's called is right either. It's creepy to take a photo of a stranger. Legal but creepy. People should have every right to walk around without having randoms sneakily taking a picture. The up skirts one was mentioned in an earlier post.
I'd feel very violated and dirty if a man or woman took a picture of me and then commented on me either being fit or not.
I think it stinks that people are allowed to invade the privacy rights (yes, I do think we should all have basic rights to privacy even in public) purely to shame and humiliate them, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
This exactly. People should be free to go about their lives without wondering if some weirdo is going to jab a camera at them. It's human decency to give people some privacy.
I disagree. I think you shouldn't take someones photo without their permission or knowledge. TV producers have to block out people's faces if they don't agree to be on tv, so why do you think it's acceptable to put photos of other people online, without their knowledge or consent?
Comments
Except that she doesn't say it's fine to be a female sexist. The whole piece is about her questioning her own reaction.
And there's a website with up skirt photos of innocent women, filled with comments from guys saying creepy comments. Neither one is right and anyone who takes part in the photography of a stranger is pervy and borderline stalker.
Some people are just nasty pieces of work.
`Misconception`
There's a lot of guys that have no balls.:o
well that's a bit over the top IMO
to me it depends on intent, the examples so far in this thread seem to be of people intent on humiliating others
that's just wrong, but not for reasons of privacy
if everyone where to have your attitude then many of the iconic photographs of the past would be deemed out of order
I'm afraid when you go out in public you just have to deal with the notion you're in public
tough
I don't think it's over the top. If I go out in public I am not giving anyone, male or female permission to take pictures of me, it shouldn't even be a concern. No one should have the threat of a stalker with a camera hanging over them.
If you go out in public there's also a chance of someone throwing water on you, it still doesn't mean it's right. Just because people CAN take pictures doesn't mean they should.
If a man or a woman, I didn't know took a picture of me, I'd feel violated and would probably feel a restraining order was needed. I don't condone celebrities flipping out but I can understand why they do.
If someone needs to ride the tube or wants to eat on the train they should be able to go around their business without some borderline stalker there.
I guess women don't have so much form for upskirting, stalking, harassment etc...
someone throwing water on you would technically be assault
Buzzfeed publishes around 300 articles per day. Unsurprisingly, there isn't much consistency across the Buzzfeed editorial spectrum. Some contributors are feminists and some aren't, but most are indifferent.
Yeah it probably wasn't the best example I could have given but the general idea was that because someone can put you in an awkward position doesn't mean they should.
The victim of these photos are never to blame just because they ate on the train or sat across two seats. The photographer is always the creeper.
You make fair points when it comes to capturing iconic moments on camera but otherwise I do stand by it that photos posted with the intention to cause shame and humiliation are nothing but totally out of order and should be considered a serious infringement on the privacy rights of the people involved.
There's normal taking photos in public and then there's the creep who took pictures of women eating. Anyone who engages in the latter is a sick freak who should see a doctor urgently.
I find it scary anyone would need this explained to them.
here's a recent interview with the woman behind tube crush:
So we get the old 'it's different when it happens to a man' line
Nice to know someone who runs another creep site thinks she can speak for the very same men she pervs over
My retort is to them is"just because you can, doesn't mean you should". I don't mind being in a picture with others, I do resent being the subject of the picture and blog commentary.
Snap. Well said.
Why would you get a restraining order for an incident that is unlikely to happen more than once by the same person, as you are not likely to ever meet them again.
They're not stalking you, as it's unlikely to be more than one repeated offence, by definition.
Invasion of privacy yes, stalking no.
I meant I would assume they were the stalking/restraining order kind. If they snap pictures of random strangers then I wouldn't put it past them to go the next level and follow the person around the town.
Not the exact same but I'd put them a step below the people who would get off at the same train stop to find out where he person works.
Just because something may be considered "socially unacceptable" doesn't mean you can't do it.
Running to the courts to take action, against someone who is not breaking any law, sounds like the action of a bully.
Blame? What blame, they are pictures of people eating or sitting. They're not undressed, they're not sitting on the toilet, they're not having sex, they're not in private.
I think your attitudes stink.
Not breaking any laws? I mentioned the photos taken up girls skirts without them knowing. How is that not breaking any laws?
Taking photos of strangers with the aim to use them for humiliation (eating on the tube girls), self gratification (the Upskirt photos) or to ogle (men on tubes) is far more bullying than reporting a creeper to the courts. As I replied to someone else, I didn't mean I'd automatically get a restraining order just that people who take pictures of strangers are stalkerish which in some cases does warrant it.
I think it stinks that people are allowed to invade the privacy rights (yes, I do think we should all have basic rights to privacy even in public) purely to shame and humiliate them, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
That was not mentioned in the post I replied to.
A photo is a single image. Unless one is covered in food, or doing something wierd with it, it's difficult to see what is humiliating about an act that is normal, and not viewed as indecent, for all of us.
Upskirts shots. Yes, that is now deemed as an offence.
Ogling men. Well, if women are now doing that, that's equality for you.
As happens on other threads people reply to a specific post, then read on.
Some people who take pictures of strangers may be stalkerish.
Others may simply have a fascination for their fellow human beings, something that I can't say I am inflicted with. Be it the way they look, they way they are dressed or even what they are doing like street entertainers, battle re-enacters etc, maybe even an innocent shot of a couple kissing or holding hands.
Privacy should apply to private acts and private places, not public ones.
I don't think the tube men or whatever it's called is right either. It's creepy to take a photo of a stranger. Legal but creepy. People should have every right to walk around without having randoms sneakily taking a picture. The up skirts one was mentioned in an earlier post.
I'd feel very violated and dirty if a man or woman took a picture of me and then commented on me either being fit or not.
This exactly. People should be free to go about their lives without wondering if some weirdo is going to jab a camera at them. It's human decency to give people some privacy.
Similarly a photo, at the time it is taken, may not be humiliating but the use to which it is put afterwards might make it so.
Taking a photo of a slightly overweight person eating would not be humiliating but using it as a poster for a slimming club may well be.
Or, more recently, using a picture of a someone's hairstyle to advertise haircut discounts for a "Bad hair day".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-27038723
I disagree. I think you shouldn't take someones photo without their permission or knowledge. TV producers have to block out people's faces if they don't agree to be on tv, so why do you think it's acceptable to put photos of other people online, without their knowledge or consent?