For those who are unfamiliar with the term, a creep shot is a photograph taken of an unsuspecting woman, or girl, which is then posted onto social media, blogs and websites with the hashtag #creepshot. They focus on her body – particularly her boobs, bum, legs and any visible underwear. Most of these unsolicited pictures are taken in public – whether at the gym, yoga classes (there’s a whole website dedicated to ‘girls in yoga pants’), or just walking down the street.The hilarious thing about this is the blithe solipsism. These are the same women that devour magazines devoted to nothing but creepshots of celebrities. These are the same women who enthusiastically support the Panopticon in the name of public safety. These are the same women who take hundreds of photographs of themselves in their underwear - or less - and voluntarily upload them to the Internet.
It’s vile. But not as vile as the feed of photographs next to it, which I can’t reproduce here. Not because they’re too graphic – most zoom in on a woman’s clothed body, although some are quite explicit and others appear to show young teenage girls – or even because they’re illegal, because they’re not. It's just that they're incredibly unethical....
It is, without question, revolting. These photographs sexually objectify women and turn them into pornography without their consent, or even their knowledge. 'Creepy' doesn't even begin to cover what these people - predominantly men - are doing.
If I ever chanced across a photograph of one of my body parts with a #creepshot hashtag on it, I'd feel completely sick. Not only would it mean that someone had sneakily photographed me in public, but it would show that an online community of creeps were, well, perving on me. It's a horrific thought. But the worst thing is there's not much I could do about it. They aren't committing a crime and unless they photograph someone underage, do an upskirt shot or take it in a private place, this is totally legal.
So, it's obvious that they don't mind at all being photographed in public. It's obvious that they don't have a philosophical objection to photos of people in public spaces. What really bothers them? The idea that some bottom-feeding male they deems unworthy of their attention might be deriving a modicum of sexual pleasure from their image nevertheless.
That's how much girls hate omegas.
31 comments:
It's only going to get worse when google glass (or something like it) catches on. Everyone and everything will be photographed all the time. Will women respond by covering up more, or less?
I cannot imagine even the most foolish of men wanting to codify their feelings into law.
@Crowhill
That's easy. There used to be a program on TV called "blind date" where a couple goes on a blind date followed by some guy carrying a huge ass video camera. Usually the girl would be on her good behavior for about the first 30 minutes, but inevitably she'd forget the camera was there and let her true self out (sometimes good, sometimes bad).
People will get used to it and ignore it.
The only people I see complaining about unwanted attention are unattractive people who don’t get it. That's my general philosophy on all female complaining about creepy men
Goes to article-> looks at picture -> still batting 1.000
Hmmph. There is nearly unlimited supply of nude selfies on the Internet. Camwhore recordings and homemade porn are flooding it as the matter of fact.
Tempest in a teacup.
Looks like these women need to wear burqas.
Something changed Vox, with culture and the internet. Teen agers took over the world I suppose, because it's now all about being seen, look at me, here I am. Older women don't have that same attitude, we're rather horrified by security cameras in grocery stories and seeing ourselves on close circuit TV. We tend to value privacy in ways the younger generation can't even comprehend.
It has chilling implications that go far beyond interpersonal relationships. Consider the struggle Snowden faces trying to convince an entire generation busy publically posting half naked pictures of themselves, that privacy may be a thing of value.
Do we actually know that Sanghani and Burrowes peruse celebrity photos, upload risque selfies, and vote for CCTV surveillance?
I actually don't doubt that Vox's conclusion is applicable to many, many western women. But I do question whether there is sufficient evidence for his conclusion to be applied to the specific women used to support his conclusion. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I’ve noticed for a long time the notion of “desexualized zones” in public life. Usually these are work, church, public transportation, and sidewalks. In these locations, women object to interacting with all but the most attractive men.
Note – I’m not talking about creepshots or getting hit on. In these spaces, women are insisting that men be confronted about, and deterred from, looking at them, speaking to them, or acknowledging their presence in any way.
There are reports of pastors confronting men in church for asking a cute girl to go get coffee or for turning around in a pew and looking at the girl behind him. And we all know about the work environment – a man can lose his job for doing or saying anything that some woman doesn’t like.
Look, ladies – if you’re in a public space, unattractive men are sometimes going to look at you, talk to you, approach you, and ask you out. We live in a society in which you can be photographed or videotaped in public at any time. You wanted this society -- you wanted smartphones with digital photo and video capability. Don't be surprised that men purchase them too. If you can’t handle that, then maybe you should stay home.
Everybodyhatesscott:
"The only people I see complaining about unwanted attention are unattractive people who don’t get it."
Yeah, pretty much. Women of middling SMV who complain that the men they're attracted to want only to fuck them and refuse to marry them; and then complain further that their assortative peers want to marry them and offer commitment to them.
It is to laugh.
As Heartiste puts it:
The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.
Yeah, that's pretty much where we're at in the modern west.
Related:
Zenpriest #34 -- When Desiring Women is Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Desire Women
Will women respond by covering up more, or less?
Well in Europe you apparently have the right to force ISP and Content Providers to delete you, so I would just expect those laws to get stronger because women can't ever be held accountable for their own actions.
Creepers could become sexual offenders
This logic warms the cockles of my authoritarian heart.
Trending on social media right now: A flowchart showing that women, including wives, don't owe men anything! Surely the converse must also be true...
It strikes me that if a woman does not wish to have her bosom, derriere, undergarments, and the like put on public display on the internet, then one possible way to go about eliminating this possibility is to not put her bosom, derriere, undergarments, and the like on public display in the first place.
OK, a little bit difficult given today's trends in clothing, but achievable for the motivated, no? I know that my wife and daughters achieve this, as do I and my sons. And for what it's worth, I've yet to have anyone, let alone anyone worth getting to know, come to me or my wife and comment that we were somehow less worthy because these were not prominently on display.
@ everybodyhatesscott
Yeah, seems that way. Reminds me of the episode of Married With Children in which the fat feminist tells Steve to stop undressing her with his eyes, and he tells her, "Madam, that would take years."
LOL. Radhika Sanghani? Did someone say Radhika Sanghani, the author of the linked article? Well, then:
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02739/selfie_2739526b.jpg
Sadly, no body is creep-shotting her.
Oh. Here she is on Twitter: https://twitter.com/radhikasanghani
Taking the picture so you can fap to it in private is one thing, it's the posting it on the Internet so that everybody in your creepshot "social" group can fap to it that would give me the heebs (assuming that I were a likely target for such picture taking, which, for various reasons, I am not.)
On the other hand, this practice may just be the new face of public shaming. We'll see if it has a useful effect or not.
Also, Everything that Bike Bubba said.
Yeah, seems that way. Reminds me of the episode of Married With Children in which the fat feminist tells Steve to stop undressing her with his eyes, and he tells her, "Madam, that would take years."
I need to go back and watch that show. There were some real zingers.
@ paul
That twitter pic/profile looks rather mannish, baby.
These are the same women who take hundreds of photographs of themselves in their underwear - or less - and voluntarily upload them to the Internet.
How do you know these are the same women? Isn't it possible--indeed, likely--that there are some women who happily expose themselves online and don't care who else exposes them, and others whose sense of privacy is better developed?
Also, the title of this post is misleading. Nowhere in the linked article is it suggested that creepshotting should be criminalized.
"...but she must be well-behaved and ladylike, and remember that a lady never did anything that could attract attention." By the Shores of Silver Lake by Laura Ingalls Wilder
Recently read this and thought it was very interesting.
How times have changed.
The men taking these photos are simultaneously guilty of two unforgivable crimes:
#1 violating rule one and two of being men: 1. be attractive 2. do not be unattractive
#2 existing
See the real violation is that hot men are not taking the photos and hot men are not fapping to them. And this is why women have to prove to me they have a seat at the discussion table instead of being let in just because they want to. This trait is also evidence of why women have no place deciding who it is they will marry or have a romantic relationship with -- without, of course, the go between of a father or other male authority figure who has a right to be in that position (blood, marriage). And certainly the man's right is not subject to the woman's decision.
Yes, I am saying all of Game's external effects (the dating dynamic outside of marriage) is due to women being given the choice in marriage. We desperately need to teach our daughters that their marriages will be arranged and they need not worry themselves with that choice. I swear that burden alone is probably what causes most of women's insane attributes these days.
Also, the title of this post is misleading. Nowhere in the linked article is it suggested that creepshotting should be criminalized.
Do you not think that the jealous-because-she-will-never-ever-a-subject-of-what-she's-complaining-about authorette would, if given the opportunity, wouldn't criminalize taking photographs of people without their explicit permission?
[Note, such a law would never survive judicial review. Every news agency in the country would challenge it for the simple reason that it would then be illegal to take news photographs of people rioting, etc.]
Do you not think that the jealous-because-she-will-never-ever-a-subject-of-what-she's-complaining-about authorette would, if given the opportunity, criminalize taking photographs of people without their explicit permission?
Based on general female tendencies, sure, I believe it's possible. But the article gives no evidence for that belief, and some for the opposite. It describes in detail how careful creepshotters are to stay within the limits of the law. After extensively quoting psychologist Nina Burrowes, it ends with a reference to Dr. Burrowes' statement that "that doesn't mean we should criminalise creeping."
To avoid any trouble just follow the rules outlined in that old SNL skit: "Be good looking. Be attractive. Don't be unattractive." Follow those rules and you'll do just fine.
"It strikes me that if a woman does not wish to have her bosom, derriere, undergarments, and the like put on public display on the internet, then one possible way to go about eliminating this possibility is to not put her bosom, derriere, undergarments, and the like on public display in the first place."
Are you fucking kidding me? Really, like, can't you see what you are actually typing? Ok, so there's some dude taking pictures of women's privates without their consent and posting them online, but the one to blame here is the woman for, what, not wearing a full body suit? Oh, yeah sure, that's probably because the creepy dude HAD to take a picture of her, right? He probably had no other choice, poor thing :(
Perhaps, someday men will learn that the world doesn't revolve around them, and that women might actually not be wearing "revealing" clothing to be a target for disrespect (this includes cat-calling). Shocker, right? I don't expect you to understand, you already seem to be single-minded misogynists with 19th century values. But oh well, one can only hope that at least one of you will see this comment and for a just second think that women are actual human beings who deserve respect.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.