Gay Perverts

Yeah, they likely would be upset but it doesn't make the photographs illegal in and of themselves. What might be illegal is promoting the images for commercial purposes which is not the case here.

okay maybe we need another scenario. a man is videotaping a pre-teen girl practicing soccer. he tries to remain obscure and unnoticed, and only intends to masturbate to this video, there's no web distribution involved. this is acceptable?? should the pre-teen practice with her hands covering her chest and in a full-body sweatsuit?? this is acceptable right??

Again, test your theory. Take your camera and walk around the beach taking pictures of the women wearing their bikini tops and see whether or not you can be charged with anything.

First, your original post had nothing to do with exposed genitalia. It was about crotch shots on a public street, so stop trying to redefine the issue.

Second, if someone exposes themselves in public, THEY are the pervert, for doing so. So IF I had a daughter whose breasts were somehow photographed in PUBLIC, I'd be more angry with that daughter for being an exhibitionist than with the photographer who caught the shot.

And most digital cameras, unless they are above 8 megapixel, can't zoom that far without distortion, especially the phone cameras that a lot of these public pictures are take with.


So you have been out for 4 years. Get back to me in 30. For I too have been gay all my life, and came out at 17: 34 years ago. And even when I "came up" we weren't as uptight as you seem to be. For someone who is 99% Gay, you are one of the most prudish people I have ever seen. 30 years ago, you would have been run out of town on a rail as a "queer" in North Carolina. 10 years ago, you would have gone to jail for having consensual gay sex in North Carolina. The people of your state sent Jesse Helms to the U.S. Senate FIVE times, now there was a REAL pervert.

You seem to think that all those groping videos on YouTube or where-ever are real. Grow Up! They're not! Anyone doing that in real life could probably be convicted of sexual assault. Of course, a lot of people fantasize about doing or receiving it. That doesn't make it real.

Of course, at your age, I too had a stick up the butt. One day, hopefully, you'll get over it.

hulk its obvious that they're only interested in looking at the aspects that prove me wrong. not a single fucking one of these people would continue mowing the lawn when they realize a man across the street is filming their mom's bosom while she's just sitting on the porch reading a book, doing nothing to be provocative other than existing. they know what i'm talking about even if my wording leave loopholes for these things to be technically legal.

In this country, no you can't. I can't speak for Australia.

seems like most members of this thread wouldn't mind, though they're not at liberty to speak for everyone else at the beach

No, we don't need another scenario. I've tried very hard to help you understand why the laws and the common public believe this is a non-issue, but you continually redirect the argument to examples which have nothing to do with the original premise as if they were somehow related. Somewhere there's a disconnect that doesn't understand that it is an action which is a crime, not an intention. Intentions can be considered in adjudicating a crime, but without the action of the crime itself, the intention alone isn't criminal. You are essentially outraged that thought isn't policed. Do you really think it's credible for police to ask everyone brining a camcorder to a kids' soccer game if they're filming the game for sexual interest? Do you think they'd get a straight answer? Maybe we should ban all cameras from juvenile sporting events, or maybe we should ban spectators altogether because one of them just might be a pedophile. As has been mentioned, you need to prove that harm was done to the person being photographed for a civil or criminal action to be valid. If this guy takes his video and goes home and masturbates to it then he'll do just that and there's nothing we can do about it. You can't live your life in fear of being the object of unwanted sexual attraction.

Sally Mann is famous photographer whose second book, Immediate Family, contained nude photographs of her children. She's well aware that pedophiles may be buying her book even though her work is not considered to be pornographic. Try reading her interview in the New York Times and then view some of her work which is all over the internet. See what you think.

I liked the case in Maryland, where the girl gave the guy head and wanted to fuck him silly, then after a few minutes changed her mind and told him no. It took him 5 seconds to process this info and he pulled out. He was charged and convicted of rape, thus the 5 second rule. what say ye>

You sir, would be wrong. Read this story where a teacher was charged for filming the crotches of female wrestlers:

Teacher's Videos Spark Criminal Charge, Accused Of Close-Ups, Without Girls' Consent, For Illegal Purpose - CBS News

So this comes down to what state you live in, what laws are on the books and what your intent is.

It will be interesting to see what happens to this case. A man in Texas who was charged with photographing up the skirt of a 16 year old girl in a changing room had his case dismissed earlier this year because the judge ruled that there was not enough expectation of privacy in the store's changing room. If that's the case, then I expect Ware's case will be similarly dismissed. If Texas's peeping tom law can't protect a 16 year old girl in a changing room, then it has no hope of protecting girls playing on an open sports field. Sounds like the cops were reaching really far on this one. As the defendant's lawyer pointed out, what happens when fans videotape the Dallas Cheerleaders, who wear substantially less?

once again, people are spending more time finding loopholes in my argument when i'm almost SURE they understand what type of behavior i'm speaking against. i'm completely comfortable with nudity, when my boyfriend isn't home i'm almost always naked (i don't do so when he's here because eating chocolate everyday will make you sick of it). i'm in no way shape or form prudish this is simply an issue of respecting other people's space and privacy. ONCE AGAIN, no one who is arguing against me has said that they wouldn't mind if it was their loved one being taped sitting on the porch or their child being filmed at soccer practice. any one who's arguing AGAINST what i'm saying, go to the beach and start filming, zero in on men's crotches and women's breasts and see if everyone says "it's okay, i'm in public so i expect this. i may not have worded my initial post perfectly and without flaw, but more people are focusing on THAT than the real issue at hand, one that they readily defend until i suggest bringing a family member into the mix.

Marley, I don't people are saying that such behaviour is laudable, merely that in many jurisdictions it's simply not illegal, nor merits undue concern and that the alternative is to hold oneself hostage to a misplaced paranoia.

I can't understand why you seem to having such a hard time grasping that distinction.

you obviously haven't read the threads about this kind of behavior, i KNOW most of the stories on this site about this behavior are fake, but not all of them.

second, i'm not redefining the issue, i'm realizing that more people are concentrating on legal loopholes and megapixels than they are on the issue. again, i urge you, PLEASE tell me how you'd respond to a pervert filming your daughter practicing soccer for his own sexual purposes. you KNOW exactly what i'm talking about, but are more focused on the aspects that are escapable than the bigger issue at hand. the ARTICLE was about someone with megapixels, that's the only part you're responding to.

because i'm trying to talk about abusive and possibly damaging behavior but everybody else is concerned with legal loopholes and mega-pixels. again, i can't think of a single fucking person who wouldn't react if a pervert was filming their daughter while she practiced soccer. if i focus ONLY on the germans who weren't involved in the holocaust i could say it never happened because everybody i'm focusing on wasn't involved. this is less a discussion about perversion which some seem to believe doesn't exist or are defending it because i'm speaking about gay men and they're taking offense. but the conversation is explicitly about how someone can escape being labeled a pervert because their camera doesn't have enough mega-pixels.

i feel COMPLETELY fucking vindicated and justified because everybody shuts the fuck up as soon as it becomes personal and applies to family members. it's deserved when its a stranger or a hypothetical person and nothing's wrong with it, but as soon as you bring loved ones into the fray noone has a goddamn thing to say.

i tell you what if my daughters at a soccer field practicing for school and some pervert is filming her, i'm not going to say "she's in public she asked for it, it's okay cuz his camera doesn't have enough mega-pixels to zoom in and get a GOOD shot of her bosom" i'm going to send that camera somewhere it'll get a great shot of the perverts insides.

there ARE perverts in this world who violate other people otherwise there wouldn't be sex-crime laws and there are people who are simply sexual. many members of this thread are trying to prove my wrong by focusing on the latter but again, if i focus only on the germans who weren't involved in the holocaust, i could argue that it didn't happen.