I’m not going to reproduce the image here, but the post includes a heading, “Upskirt”, with a cellphone image of the legs of a woman on the bus. Her thighs are crossed, and as he is in a position to look up her skirt, the image includes bare skin nearly up to her buttocks.
This is an interesting reason to use the bus to go from work to home (Bucharest, the 300 bus line):
The photo is not that great, being made with my 2.5 years old phone (I didn’t had the guts to reach my backpack and take out the SLR with really big lenses), but think it was taken wile standing and with the phone at the height where you are normally using it for writing text (and imagine what could I do with just a bit of effort).
To the credit of the Planet Fedora community, many of the readers didn’t tolerate it either, though some of their arguments centre as much around how it makes the Linux community “look bad” as around the fact that it was wrong in the first place. A sampling of comments:
‘upskirt’? On the fedora planet? Bloody hell mate, that’s not cool.
This is the most distressingly bizzare thing I’ve yet seen in 2008. Christ.
Wow, no matter how interesting this post might have been, you lost me at the “upskirt” pic.
I agree with the previous posters – this is not cool. First, I don’t think a planet-syndicated blog is a place to be posting racy pictures to begin with — but I really think the “upskirt” thing is offensive on top of this. Did you ask this woman if was OK to take this? To post it to a Web site?
It’s not that it is so much a legal question as it is a moral one. Obviously you understand that she would not like it, so you used your camera phone. Should that not have been a clue that it wasn’t “right”? Can you imagine being her? How would you feel about this? Angry, I would suspect.
The objection that women are being objectified is clearly supported by the comments on this blog talking about the woman as a “pair of legs” and is rather disgusting. Knock it the heck off, m’kay?
it isn’t just the content of the picture that is the problem; the problem is that it was a covert photograph taken without the woman’s permission. Not only that, but it was a photograph taken by a man who was thinking about what was under the woman’s skirt, rather than just her legs, otherwise he would not have called it an “upskirt” photo. If he’d said “hey, look at those sexy legs”, it wouldn’t have been quite so offensive. There is a difference between taking artistic photographs of beautiful things (including beautiful people) and taking photographs with the intent of turning a woman into a sex object rather than a human being.
Taking a covert photo of a woman’s legs and posting it on the Internet to gawk over with other people is disrespectful to the woman in question. Posting said picture is disrespectful to all women as it implies that it’s acceptable behaviour to treat women in this way.
Special kudos to digimer, that last commenter, for not saying “Hey, how about if that was your daughter/wife/sister?” This is the usual way of casting sexual violations as crimes against men’s property; but instead digimer told him to put himself in the place of the actual woman herself. Digimer is, unsurprisingly, a woman, as are some of the other commenters approaching this from a “women are human” perspective rather than a “hey, you’re making us blokes look bad”.
Unfortunately, snerd (one of my hat-tips) did pull the mother/daughter/sister routine later in the thread, but you can’t win ’em all – I’m guessing that by then the assumption was that Nicu would refuse point blank to take part in a thought-experiment he would find so demeaning.
Aaaand, then the usual victim-blamers and frea speachers and no-YOU’RE-the-pervert!ers join the party.
Oh, come on guys. If she didn’t want her legs to be seen, she would have taken a long skirt.
Woop, woop. Here comes the Planet Police. Geez, everyone. It’s a pair of legs. Get over it.
You’ve discovered the fastest way to identify the leftest facists – congratulations. She has nice legs. Anybody that considers that “up skirt” is a overly sensitive twit.
First of all Nicu did nothing wrong neither from the legal point view or the moral point of view. He photographed in public a nice pair of legs and he added the photo onto he’s PERSONAL blog, keeping the girls face anonymous.
Oh, come on! That are just a pair of legs…What’s wrong with that? What kind of twisted morality thinks that a pair of legs are ugly?
It’s just a pair of legs and Nicu didn’t try to photograph anything that the girl wanted to keep hidden. So, just stop accusing Nicu of being a “pervert”. The real perversion here is trying to see “the devil” in every human action. It hurts enough living so near to the Vatican, I can’t stand all this moralism (read hypocrisy) on the net too. [..] the hypocrisy here is trying to make Nicu an horrible, immoral, dirty man and putting him on a cross just because he made an innocent picture, as if we all are absolutely perfect and pure creatures.
All I can say is, Lauredhel demands an explanation for this bullshit.
[hat-tips to redhead & snerd]