Over a year ago, I wrote about creep shots – photos taken in surreptitious admiration, usually of women, usually by men. There was a time in my life when I took them. The discussion that ensued after my post on the subject led me to stop taking them, too replace them with the “paeans” I post from time to time.
Notably, it didn’t convince me that it was wrong (for me) to take them. It did convince me that if I took them, some people might feel violated and, without reference to whether they “had a right” to feel violated, I didn’t particularly want or need to go there. And more, people I liked and respected felt strongly that, well, that I was a creep for taking them and, while I didn’t exactly agree (there’s a thin line, in my mind, between doing something creepy and being a creep), I cared more about those people’s respect for me than I did about my “right” to take creep shots.
(I should say, here, that I honestly can’t see a difference between a verbal paean, a snapped photo, or a furtive sketch. All seem to me slightly awkward, creepy, in that one can imagine being caught, and in any of the three cases, being caught would be uncomfortable. But I don’t see, can’t see, any fundamental difference among them. No matter: readers did, and I’ve gone along with them.)
A friend recently called this guy to my attention. He followed women, and snapped photos, often up their skirts, as they walked up stairs, using a hidden camera.
For the record, this is a whole different thing: invasive, intrusive, violating. It is taking an image that wasn’t intended to be available (as opposed to recording one freely available to all, without permission required).
I don’t, however, believe it’s any worse morally (though again, it certainly feels creepier) than simply looking up a woman’s skirt: to me, the preservation of the stolen image in one technology (film, or digits) versus another (memory) seems inconsequential. It certainly feels creepier, but what’s the difference?
At the risk of reopening an old can of worms… what do you think?
for such a smart guy you are amazingly lost here. i guess you can’t have it all.
look, if a man decided to wear a sock on his dick and take a stroll outside, would he expect to get some attention? of course!, could he complain to the cops if someone photographed him? no! they would tell him to put clothes on. women want equality when it suits them but not if they are benefiting from chivalry. If its wrong for a man to do, Its wrong for a woman to do, but women get away with it. They want to get attention but they are not beautiful enough to get it, so they show more flesh. as though being female gives them the right to expose my children to intimate portions of their anatomy in public. If a man wore the same attire women wear on the beach, he would get arrested because its wrong to dress in scraps. women talk about consent blah, blah blah, but do they ask your consent to expose you in public to their camel toes, buttock wedgies and lingerie aka swimwear? NO! if a man wore yoga pants tights and exposed people to his bulge, people would complain. women dress like perverts because they ARE perverts trying to arouse men by wearing disgusting clothing, and a bunch of beta boys defend them. they want equality but push the limits of indecency in public. You are heterosexual and are supposed to get excited when you see female sex parts, the question is why are you seeing them in public? women need to control their perverted exhibitionism. women are not victims when they dress like villains. no one ever takes a creep shot of a person who doesn’t dress like a creep.
Yeah. This is bullshit. I’m capable of some serious self-justifying rationalization. But this is bullshit.