3 ms·

My familiarity with the terms is not from porn but from celebrities who, whoops, get caught flashing their panties inadvertently in public. So to my mind this w

by dotBen 15y ago

My familiarity with the terms is not from porn but from celebrities who, whoops, get caught flashing their panties inadvertently in public. So to my mind this was relatively innocent activity Famous female celebrity gets out of car, inadvertently flashes underwear due to short skirt, photographer snaps said inadvertent underwear flash and publishes results for titillation and ridicule. Innocent on the part of the celebrity, sure. But not innocent on the part of the photographer which I think squarely places this within Violet Blue's assertion of upskit/pantyshot being 'an attack on a female'.

pyre 15y ago
She also characterized it as 'illegal,' which may be the case for hidden cameras, but I doubt it is the case for celebrities in a public space.
- brigade 15y ago
  In the US, it's illegal in "circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that a private area of the individual would not be visible to the public, regardless of whether that person is in a public or private place."
  - pyre 15y ago
    I find that a bit debatable though. It seems like these laws are specifically targeting hidden cameras in public spaces. If I'm a celebrity wearing a skirt (or kilt) with no undergarments on, who has an army of photographers capturing everything I do, how can I reasonably think that my private area would remain 'not visible' when performing certain maneuvers.
barrkel 15y ago
I don't for a second believe it is "innocent" on the part of the celebrity, in the majority of cases. If you're not in the news, you're no longer a celebrity.
Mz 15y ago
Well, honestly, I consider that relatively innocent on the part of the photographer as well, at least compared to some of the harassing things the paparazzi do. If you are a celebrity and in public, you know they are taking pictures. It's not unexpected, surprising, "gee I had no idea the paparazzi would be at the award ceremony". I consider it to be a lot more obnoxious when celebrities are harassed at home, their trash is gone through and so on. Taking a picture of a celebrity at a public event where they know they will be photographed and lucking out and capitalizing on it really doesn't strike me as evil behavior. Though I realize that Arabs found it very offensive when American publications showed some middle-eastern public figure in his t-shirt -- which I imagine is kind of like a "pantyshot" to their minds: it's his underclothes, it's too intimate and it's disrespectful. It wasn't intended that way by the Americans who published it. It never crossed anyone's mind here that a man in a t-shirt was risque.
cheez 15y ago
If I was going somewhere and I didn't want people to see my elbow, I'd wear a long sleeved shirt. Edit: This is specifically for celebrities/public people. I do agree that taking pictures of random girls in this manner is an invasion of privacy however the same common sense rule applies.

by dotBen 15y ago

pyre 15y ago

She also characterized it as 'illegal,' which may be the case for hidden cameras, but I doubt it is the case for celebrities in a public space.

brigade 15y ago
In the US, it's illegal in "circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that a private area of the individual would not be visible to the public, regardless of whether that person is in a public or private place."
- pyre 15y ago
  I find that a bit debatable though. It seems like these laws are specifically targeting hidden cameras in public spaces. If I'm a celebrity wearing a skirt (or kilt) with no undergarments on, who has an army of photographers capturing everything I do, how can I reasonably think that my private area would remain 'not visible' when performing certain maneuvers.

barrkel 15y ago

I don't for a second believe it is "innocent" on the part of the celebrity, in the majority of cases. If you're not in the news, you're no longer a celebrity.

Mz 15y ago

Well, honestly, I consider that relatively innocent on the part of the photographer as well, at least compared to some of the harassing things the paparazzi do. If you are a celebrity and in public, you know they are taking pictures. It's not unexpected, surprising, "gee I had no idea the paparazzi would be at the award ceremony". I consider it to be a lot more obnoxious when celebrities are harassed at home, their trash is gone through and so on. Taking a picture of a celebrity at a public event where they know they will be photographed and lucking out and capitalizing on it really doesn't strike me as evil behavior. Though I realize that Arabs found it very offensive when American publications showed some middle-eastern public figure in his t-shirt -- which I imagine is kind of like a "pantyshot" to their minds: it's his underclothes, it's too intimate and it's disrespectful. It wasn't intended that way by the Americans who published it. It never crossed anyone's mind here that a man in a t-shirt was risque.

cheez 15y ago

If I was going somewhere and I didn't want people to see my elbow, I'd wear a long sleeved shirt. Edit: This is specifically for celebrities/public people. I do agree that taking pictures of random girls in this manner is an invasion of privacy however the same common sense rule applies.