*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Thursday, August 26th, 2010 6:54pm PDT - promote requested by original submitter bleedmegood.

Nice outfit, goober! Show me your sweet tits, freakin' goober!

GOOBOWNED.

>> ^quantumushroom:
GOOBOWNED.


Oh man, QuantumMushroom just came up with the perfect word/description of his whole videosift existence.

Confrontation starts @2:48, everything before that is literally you watching the camera man perv on the girl...you may or may not be in to that

Why can't these people believe that he's filming a half naked girl doing stretches in the middle of the road? Of course the 2 Slobba the huts have their say "ookie wookie why you filmy?" Because, you're too ugly to film, that's why...

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Concerned Citizens Interrupt Perv Videographer, photo shoot, nyc' to 'Concerned Citizens Interrupt Perv Videographer, photo, goober shoot, nyc' - edited by Fusionaut

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Concerned Citizens Interrupt Perv Videographer, photo, goober shoot, nyc' to 'Concerned Citizens Interrupt Perv Videographer, photo, shoot, goober, nyc' - edited by Fusionaut

She's posing in public for everyone to see... but filming it?? Oh my God, the fucking nerve! Fucking lunatic freaks. And the indignance of the girl for someone watching her spread her legs wearing short shorts in public... what the hell is wrong with people?

^ Agreed.

How the hell did this get off my camera, goobers?

Those "concerned citizens" are retarded busybodies who should mind their own business. The amateur photographer didn't respond well to criticism either. If the girl being filmed had actually objected it would have been different, but it looks like she only left because of the confrontation that the "concerned citizens" started. Plus, the commercial photographer is doing the same thing as the amateur photographer.

I actually thought the "perv" in the title was the photographer taking the low-angle shot at the beginning. I was keying on him.

>> ^jwray:

Those "concerned citizens" are retarded busybodies who should mind their own business. The amateur photographer didn't respond well to criticism either. If the girl being filmed had actually objected it would have been different, but it looks like she only left because of the confrontation that the "concerned citizens" started. Plus, the commercial photographer is doing the same thing as the amateur photographer.


No, the model was objecting to it, she asked him to go somewhere else. The girl may have been asking for it by posing but the guy shouldn't be surprised when people get uncomfortable with him walking around filming underage girls against their wishes (she said she was 17)

I find nothing to commend this video in any way on either side:
* She is posing in public, in the middle of the city, so to expect to not be photographed or videoed is ridiculous.
* She IS already being photographed in any case.
* The guy taking the video though is a combative dickwad, so he has zero high ground whatsoever

This whole thing is just unpleasant and shows how dicks on both sides can just make things uncomfortable for everyone.

In fact I'll downvote for that reason I'm afraid.

I'm willing to bet this was a dancer getting some type of head shots or promo shots done. If they had a permit, they could tell the guy to bugger off, but it looks like they were doing it pseudo guerilla style. Let this be a lesson to all photographers, find out the photo laws where you're shooting, and get permits, so you can boot dicks like that out!

No permits = the guy is a creepy goober, but has as much legal right to be there than you do.

Dude. This is harassment. Don't be a bunch of retards.

>> ^MycroftHomlz:

Dude. This is harassment. Don't be a bunch of retards.


Shut up, Goober!

>> ^eventualentropy:

>> ^jwray:
Those "concerned citizens" are retarded busybodies who should mind their own business. The amateur photographer didn't respond well to criticism either. If the girl being filmed had actually objected it would have been different, but it looks like she only left because of the confrontation that the "concerned citizens" started. Plus, the commercial photographer is doing the same thing as the amateur photographer.

No, the model was objecting to it, she asked him to go somewhere else. The girl may have been asking for it by posing but the guy shouldn't be surprised when people get uncomfortable with him walking around filming underage girls against their wishes (she said she was 17)



He sacrificed the high ground by being a total asshole when confronted, but at what point in the video did the model say anything except "I'm 17"? Besides, "I'm 17" isn't a definite statement against either party of the conflict, just something on which you can project your biases. 17 is above the age of consent in about half the states of the USA, including New York (it looks like they're in Manhattan). She doesn't even look younger than an average fashion model on an average fashion magazine in an average supermarket.

>> ^MycroftHomlz:

Dude. This is harassment. Don't be a bunch of retards.


I agree; they had no right to harass the videographer whatsoever.

I skipped to the "confrontation" - so I didn't see how the dude was perving out. Pretty creepy.

Frankly, if they were concerned about some guy recording a video of what they were doing, perhaps they shouldn't have been doing it in public. Doesn't reduce the creepiness of the perv man... But still - pretty dumb.

Should women really not have the right to be in public places without having their crotches filmed by cavemen? Strange that so many people side with the cavemen.

Yikes - people are defending the guy zooming in on the teenager's ass? Do you hand out medals to guys who put mirrors on their shoes or grab-ass on the trains?

I too am surprised by the amount of support for the cameraman. Just because you technically have the legal right to film underage girls crotches in public doesn't mean it's socially acceptable to do so.

>> ^residue:

I too am surprised by the amount of support for the cameraman. Just because you technically have the legal right to film underage girls crotches in public doesn't mean it's socially acceptable to do so.


Me? I only film overage girls crotches in public.

OK, yeah, but just because something is socially unacceptable doesn't mean people shouldn't be free to do it. These are the little inconveniences that are the cost of having so much freedom. You learn to live with them pretty quickly in NYC.

This is the middle of Times Square for fucks sake! She's lucky the guy wasn't actually jerking off while filming her.

HUR HUR! pedo...its the new nigger!

for fucks sake, people think he lost the highground because he was a dick... when you are verbally assaulted and accused of being a pervert for filming something thats happening in broad daylight in a VERY public place you have the right to be a dick..sorry, but you shouldn't have to be polite when basically being accused of being a sex criminal for filming something thats happening in public.

and I'm sorry but the white knight on the bike would have gotten knocked the fuck out...you do not get in my face with that shit when i'm doing nothing to you...best back the fuck off.

godamned false moral hypocrite suedo-puritan country is turning into a christ-mastabatory wasteland.

she is 17, 17 is not a child...she is a fully sexually mature woman, but OH NOES! HURHUR the law sais u cant tuch her so hurhur fuck of u PERV!!1!!

godamned ridiculous.

Now now, everyone calm down a second... all these points are NOT mutually exclusive.

The guy could be legally okay in what he is doing.
The guy could also be a douchebag for what he is doing.
The people taking the photos could also be kinda disingenuous for not liking his pervy behavior but excusing their own since they are taking pictures of the exact same subject.
The bystanders are also be crossing the line by getting physical.

All of the points people have made are valid.

It just kinda points to our need to see the world in black and white, good and bad, right and wrong.

Reality isn't like that, it is just shades of perviness evidently.

I want a t-shirt that says "I See The World In Shades of Perviness"

>> ^alizarin:

Yikes - people are defending the guy zooming in on the teenager's ass? Do you hand out medals to guys who put mirrors on their shoes or grab-ass on the trains?



if it was a 16 yr old boy with a 6 pack having photoes taken and women kept coming up and tuching his chest that would be 100% acceptable.

yet a 16 yr old girl waving her vagina around and sumone videoing it is not acceptable.

in the end it comes down to the person geting tuched/ filmed if they dont want it and they ask politely for the other person to stop then u wouldhope th eother person would stop , but on the other side of it if i was doing a porno shoot in the center of a city and exspected to make money out of people selling the shoot becuse they are gona get off on it , then u would have to exspect people to gawk and its weard to think it sok for them to gawk in 1 context but not another.


granted she is a dancer , so what in this video she is just posing and i can almost garetee that allot of ballet or dance in gneral has sexual aspects and motivatoins to the moves , thats not evan a good or bad thing peole are cretures that value sex so its bound to enter into most things.

>> ^KnivesOut:

I want a t-shirt that says "I See The World In Shades of Perviness"


Hehe, your avatar seems to have that going on... quite appropriate.

nevertheless, show of hands, who isn't happy this footage survived?

This video is awesome right up to the 2:48 mark. After that it pretty much sucks

>> ^jwray:

>> ^eventualentropy:
>> ^jwray:
Those "concerned citizens" are retarded busybodies who should mind their own business. The amateur photographer didn't respond well to criticism either. If the girl being filmed had actually objected it would have been different, but it looks like she only left because of the confrontation that the "concerned citizens" started. Plus, the commercial photographer is doing the same thing as the amateur photographer.

No, the model was objecting to it, she asked him to go somewhere else. The girl may have been asking for it by posing but the guy shouldn't be surprised when people get uncomfortable with him walking around filming underage girls against their wishes (she said she was 17)


He sacrificed the high ground by being a total asshole when confronted, but at what point in the video did the model say anything except "I'm 17"? Besides, "I'm 17" isn't a definite statement against either party of the conflict, just something on which you can project your biases. 17 is above the age of consent in about half the states of the USA, including New York (it looks like they're in Manhattan). She doesn't even look younger than an average fashion model on an average fashion magazine in an average supermarket.


Around the :57 mark she can be heard saying "Please, just go that way" (easy to miss), not to mention all the obvious disapproving looks she gives him. I do admit that the underage argument is pretty weak. But anyway, as other people have pointed out, neither party was in the right. This video makes me never want to go to New York if this is what the people are like to each other.

>> ^KnivesOut:

I want a t-shirt that says "I See The World In Shades of Perviness"


I have that tattoo.

I think one thing we can all agree on is that it was indeed a nice ass.

I found this in the comments on reddit, though:

The guy making this video is Joey Boots, known for being on the Howard Stern show. His site is full of videos of him trying to cause a disturbance to get laughs. He’s not focused on getting footage of the girl (in fact, he’s openly gay) but the reaction.

Something to consider... he seems to be one of those rare IRL trolls.

This one time in kindergarten, this "teacher" said that to me too... she was such a fapkill.
>> ^residue:

I too am surprised by the amount of support for the cameraman. Just because you technically have the legal right to film underage girls crotches in public doesn't mean it's socially acceptable to do so.

There was a confrontation?

Everyone one of you shouting "Hear hear," to those calling the guy filming a pervert, are wading around in a pool of hypocrisy.

If you saw this girl stretching out on a street corner in short shorts you know you'd look and "Her artistic abilities as a ballerina," would not be what you were thinking about.

Either it's not ok for him to be filming her crotch in public AND it's not ok for her to be spreading her legs for long periods of time on a street corner in public -=OR=- the opposite is true.

I would have knocked the camera man out cold. Something being legal doesn't make something acceptable.

I'm not a puritan, I'm not religious, and I enjoy the feminine form as much as anyone - but I would not have accepted him standing around zoomed in on her crotch.

There are those of you who defend him for it being a public thing. Would you defend men in trench coats hanging around playgrounds? How about men with video cameras zoomed in on the crotches of a girls high school swim team? How about defending the Phelps family demonstrating in front of the funerals of dead soldiers? All perfectly legal, and I guess all perfectly legit with folks on VS.

Urbandictionary defines a goober as...

"basically a goober is just a kindhearted, rather oblivious goofball. it's term of endearment really. it comes from the ancient scottish verb "to goub", which has to do with doing a dance and smiling sheepishly while doing so, exposing the goubs in one's teeth."

Actually, all the people defending the cameramen are hypocrites for different reasons. I guarantee that if some asshat started trying to film up your girlfriend's/wife's/daughter's dress you would not be defending his right to do so.

The argument of "well if she's going to wear that in public she deserves it" falls apart pretty quick when it turns personal. The people offended in this video are just good enough people that they have genuine concern over strangers.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

Everyone one of you shouting "Hear hear," to those calling the guy filming a pervert, are wading around in a pool of hypocrisy.
If you saw this girl stretching out on a street corner in short shorts you know you'd look and "Her artistic abilities as a ballerina," would not be what you were thinking about.
Either it's not ok for him to be filming her crotch in public AND it's not ok for her to be spreading her legs for long periods of time on a street corner in public -=OR=- the opposite is true.

and by the way if I saw her spreading her legs in public I would not take a gander until I had asked to see 2 forms of ID and a paid bill to verify her age.

I came here to type something, then I realized that I don't give a shit.

He's a guy from a radio show not a perv.
The person who said they'd punch him, you are either a liar and full of shit or asking for someone there to kick your ass for hitting a random guy. (that would be what I'd do, the second part)
Calling people defending him hypocrites is more retarded than downs.
Was it pervish? Sure. Go to a dance studio or a less public place to do it.

If you stand under 1000 birds expect to get shit on.

The camera mans voice adds to the creepiness. Sounds like the type of guy who lives in his moms basement.

>> ^Throbbin:

I would have knocked the camera man out cold. Something being legal doesn't make something acceptable.
I'm not a puritan, I'm not religious, and I enjoy the feminine form as much as anyone - but I would not have accepted him standing around zoomed in on her crotch.
There are those of you who defend him for it being a public thing. Would you defend men in trench coats hanging around playgrounds? How about men with video cameras zoomed in on the crotches of a girls high school swim team? How about defending the Phelps family demonstrating in front of the funerals of dead soldiers? All perfectly legal, and I guess all perfectly legit with folks on VS.


Correction, you'd get knocked out by a surprised (and probably weedy) cameraman.

There's a pretty big difference between someone filming a high school swimming team's camel toe surreptitiously with obligatory shakey-cam and filming what looks to me like an adult woman WHO IS LITERALLY DISPLAYING AND FRAMING HER VAGINA IN THE MIDDLE OF A CROWDED STREET. And why is a trench coat any more offensive than for example, a neo-matrix coat? Why should the attire of a private detective draw your concern? And what the fuck has anything got do with vietnam?!?!? (war protesting)

If i saw this woman in the street and got chatting with her, it wouldn't even cross my mind that she was anything other than an adult. People referring to this woman as a minor, it makes me want to cry. I wonder if the modern awareness of paedophilia has brought as many false positives as it has genuine positives.

Do you know what? If i was so concerned about people seeing my cock and balls tightly sillhouetted against my tight shorts, i think i'd fucking refrain from posing - LITERALLY POSING - with my foot above my head whilst families walk past.

If you whipped this situation on its head and imagined that a porn star was doing what she was doing with a big sign saying "porn shoot", you'd get fat mothers and fathers waddling over to complain that they didn't want their children seeing bits and pieces on display. But because we're pretending that this is a poor innocent young girl who was just practising ballet oh yes sir poor lil ole me, suddenly we have to protect her poor innocence.

I just LOVE how people like you can see a video - one with utter moral ambiguity - and then say "Oh so you'd also let people stab a baby in the kidney? You want to make it a law that every school has to have at least 5 paedophiles working as teachers?" No, you mong. No one said those things. This situation is not "other situations". Discuss this situation, don't raise unparallel parallels.

In an ideal world, this video would have been titled "stupid exhibitionist bint shows her vagoo in the street, pervert films it, no one interrupts, everyone feels ashamed of the human race"

As for the post above me, man, no one i associate with would do this in the street and i think i could raise my children better when the time comes.

Oh man, QuantumMushroom just came up with the perfect word/description of his whole videosift existence.

Just spell my name right, Goober.

My style is impetuous. My defense is impregnable, and I'm just ferocious. I want your heart. I want to eat his children. Praise be to Allah!

concur

>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^Throbbin:
I would have knocked the camera man out cold. Something being legal doesn't make something acceptable.
I'm not a puritan, I'm not religious, and I enjoy the feminine form as much as anyone - but I would not have accepted him standing around zoomed in on her crotch.
There are those of you who defend him for it being a public thing. Would you defend men in trench coats hanging around playgrounds? How about men with video cameras zoomed in on the crotches of a girls high school swim team? How about defending the Phelps family demonstrating in front of the funerals of dead soldiers? All perfectly legal, and I guess all perfectly legit with folks on VS.

Correction, you'd get knocked out by a surprised (and probably weedy) cameraman.
There's a pretty big difference between someone filming a high school swimming team's camel toe surreptitiously with obligatory shakey-cam and filming what looks to me like an adult woman WHO IS LITERALLY DISPLAYING AND FRAMING HER VAGINA IN THE MIDDLE OF A CROWDED STREET. And why is a trench coat any more offensive than for example, a neo-matrix coat? Why should the attire of a private detective draw your concern? And what the fuck has anything got do with vietnam?!?!? (war protesting)
If i saw this woman in the street and got chatting with her, it wouldn't even cross my mind that she was anything other than an adult. People referring to this woman as a minor, it makes me want to cry. I wonder if the modern awareness of paedophilia has brought as many false positives as it has genuine positives.
Do you know what? If i was so concerned about people seeing my cock and balls tightly sillhouetted against my tight shorts, i think i'd fucking refrain from posing - LITERALLY POSING - with my foot above my head whilst families walk past.
If you whipped this situation on its head and imagined that a porn star was doing what she was doing with a big sign saying "porn shoot", you'd get fat mothers and fathers waddling over to complain that they didn't want their children seeing bits and pieces on display. But because we're pretending that this is a poor innocent young girl who was just practising ballet oh yes sir poor lil ole me, suddenly we have to protect her poor innocence.
I just LOVE how people like you can see a video - one with utter moral ambiguity - and then say "Oh so you'd also let people stab a baby in the kidney? You want to make it a law that every school has to have at least 5 paedophiles working as teachers?" No, you mong. No one said those things. This situation is not "other situations". Discuss this situation, don't raise unparallel parallels.
In an ideal world, this video would have been titled "stupid exhibitionist bint shows her vagoo in the street, pervert films it, no one interrupts, everyone feels ashamed of the human race"
As for the post above me, man, no one i associate with would do this in the street and i think i could raise my children better when the time comes.

>> ^residue:

Actually, all the people defending the cameramen are hypocrites for different reasons. I guarantee that if some asshat started trying to film up your girlfriend's/wife's/daughter's dress you would not be defending his right to do so.
The argument of "well if she's going to wear that in public she deserves it" falls apart pretty quick when it turns personal. The people offended in this video are just good enough people that they have genuine concern over strangers.
>> ^JiggaJonson:
Everyone one of you shouting "Hear hear," to those calling the guy filming a pervert, are wading around in a pool of hypocrisy.
If you saw this girl stretching out on a street corner in short shorts you know you'd look and "Her artistic abilities as a ballerina," would not be what you were thinking about.
Either it's not ok for him to be filming her crotch in public AND it's not ok for her to be spreading her legs for long periods of time on a street corner in public -=OR=- the opposite is true.



Upskirt is completely different from filming what everyone else in times square can see.

Here's his youtube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/joeyboots

ok, how about the beach. some weirdo is filming your wife's crotch at the beach. I don't care how hard you try to defend it, she doesn't want her crotch filmed, she's not there to get her crotch filmed and it's rude

or to keep things simple what if that was your daughter doing the photo shoot and you were standing there. I really bet you would see that guy filming and think "yup, that's fine with me"

>> ^jwray:

>> ^residue:
Actually, all the people defending the cameramen are hypocrites for different reasons. I guarantee that if some asshat started trying to film up your girlfriend's/wife's/daughter's dress you would not be defending his right to do so.
The argument of "well if she's going to wear that in public she deserves it" falls apart pretty quick when it turns personal. The people offended in this video are just good enough people that they have genuine concern over strangers.
>> ^JiggaJonson:
Everyone one of you shouting "Hear hear," to those calling the guy filming a pervert, are wading around in a pool of hypocrisy.
If you saw this girl stretching out on a street corner in short shorts you know you'd look and "Her artistic abilities as a ballerina," would not be what you were thinking about.
Either it's not ok for him to be filming her crotch in public AND it's not ok for her to be spreading her legs for long periods of time on a street corner in public -=OR=- the opposite is true.


Upskirt is completely different from filming what everyone else in times square can see.

>> ^residue:

ok, how about the beach. some weirdo is filming your wife's crotch at the beach. I don't care how hard you try to defend it, she doesn't want her crotch filmed, she's not there to get her crotch filmed and it's rude
or to keep things simple what if that was your daughter doing the photo shoot and you were standing there. I really bet you would see that guy filming and think "yup, that's fine with me"
>> ^jwray:
>> ^residue:
Actually, all the people defending the cameramen are hypocrites for different reasons. I guarantee that if some asshat started trying to film up your girlfriend's/wife's/daughter's dress you would not be defending his right to do so.
The argument of "well if she's going to wear that in public she deserves it" falls apart pretty quick when it turns personal. The people offended in this video are just good enough people that they have genuine concern over strangers.
>> ^JiggaJonson:
Everyone one of you shouting "Hear hear," to those calling the guy filming a pervert, are wading around in a pool of hypocrisy.
If you saw this girl stretching out on a street corner in short shorts you know you'd look and "Her artistic abilities as a ballerina," would not be what you were thinking about.
Either it's not ok for him to be filming her crotch in public AND it's not ok for her to be spreading her legs for long periods of time on a street corner in public -=OR=- the opposite is true.


Upskirt is completely different from filming what everyone else in times square can see.



They've just gotta be more covert about it. It only causes harm if somebody realizes they're doing it and gets all distressed about it. If he was filming from 200M away with a telephoto lens I probably wouldn't notice.

lol. To me the most cavemen-like thing to do is to try to protect your wife/girlfriend/random girl from being filmed like she's your property. Me, protect, WOMAN ARRRRRRRRGHHH. Anyway, you don't even have the right to stop anyone from filming your actual property in a public place. And if she really doesn't like being filmed, let her do something about it (as long as it's lawful, i.e. no slapping/punching a guy filming in public).

I didn't say you have to do anything aggressive and helping someone doesn't imply ownership

>> ^Throbbin:

I would not have accepted him standing around zoomed in on her crotch.

Without seeing the footage, how would you know he was zoomed in? I doubt you'd even know for sure he was specifically pointing it at her ass. If he was framing her entire body, he'd be aiming about waist-high also.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Concerned Citizens Interrupt Perv Videographer, photo, shoot, goober, nyc' to 'troll, pervert, photo shoot, goober, nyc, joey boots, ballerina' - edited by xxovercastxx

I've looked up his pics online - I could take him.

There is a big difference between high school swim team camel toe and this? I don't see it. This young lady is engaged in photo shooting - showing off her gymnastic abilities in an iconic setting. She isn't intending to display and frame her snatch - that's just how you see it. Fucking perv.

I guess if you want to nitpick about the attire of a man lurking about a children's playground, you are purposely obfuscating the issue. When you live your life online, I guess real life issues changes your perspective on things.

Who said anything about vietnam? Do you know who the Phelps family is?

Too bad if you think she is an adult, she IS a minor - and if not legally, then practically. She says she's 17. How old are you? You fucking perv.

Regarding your cock and balls - there's a great deal difference between glancing at ass and filming a crotch in public. If you don't understand that I don't have the time nor inclination to explain it to you. And how would I even know that this perv was filming her crotch? How many handheld cameras still have an eye-piece for viewing? Most have a screen. Anyone who glanced over and saw his screen would see what he was doing. He's a fucking perv. Whether he did this to 'provoke' as an aspect of his professional persona, or if he's just a perv normally is irrelevant. It was inappropriate.

Porn shoot? In public? Surely you know this would be illegal (and for a good reason). "Discuss this situation, don't raise unparallel parallels."

Pretending that this is a poor innocent young girl? She visibly IS a poor, innocent young girl. She's there with what looks like her family and a professional photographer. This is not a sexual display, this is an artistic endeavour meant to focus on her artistic ability, not her snatch you perv.

I've studied the polarizing effect of the internet - where anonymity and the digital interface leads to people upholding stringent, abstract principles with little regard for real-world practicality and social norms. This seems to be a textbook case of this trend. "She is wearing tight pants and is raising her leg" does not equal "She wants people to look at her snatch - you can tell because she is wearing tight pants and is raising her leg".

Remind me to never leave DannyM with my kids.

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^Throbbin:
I would have knocked the camera man out cold. Something being legal doesn't make something acceptable.
I'm not a puritan, I'm not religious, and I enjoy the feminine form as much as anyone - but I would not have accepted him standing around zoomed in on her crotch.
There are those of you who defend him for it being a public thing. Would you defend men in trench coats hanging around playgrounds? How about men with video cameras zoomed in on the crotches of a girls high school swim team? How about defending the Phelps family demonstrating in front of the funerals of dead soldiers? All perfectly legal, and I guess all perfectly legit with folks on VS.

Correction, you'd get knocked out by a surprised (and probably weedy) cameraman.
There's a pretty big difference between someone filming a high school swimming team's camel toe surreptitiously with obligatory shakey-cam and filming what looks to me like an adult woman WHO IS LITERALLY DISPLAYING AND FRAMING HER VAGINA IN THE MIDDLE OF A CROWDED STREET. And why is a trench coat any more offensive than for example, a neo-matrix coat? Why should the attire of a private detective draw your concern? And what the fuck has anything got do with vietnam?!?!? (war protesting)
If i saw this woman in the street and got chatting with her, it wouldn't even cross my mind that she was anything other than an adult. People referring to this woman as a minor, it makes me want to cry. I wonder if the modern awareness of paedophilia has brought as many false positives as it has genuine positives.
Do you know what? If i was so concerned about people seeing my cock and balls tightly sillhouetted against my tight shorts, i think i'd fucking refrain from posing - LITERALLY POSING - with my foot above my head whilst families walk past.
If you whipped this situation on its head and imagined that a porn star was doing what she was doing with a big sign saying "porn shoot", you'd get fat mothers and fathers waddling over to complain that they didn't want their children seeing bits and pieces on display. But because we're pretending that this is a poor innocent young girl who was just practising ballet oh yes sir poor lil ole me, suddenly we have to protect her poor innocence.
I just LOVE how people like you can see a video - one with utter moral ambiguity - and then say "Oh so you'd also let people stab a baby in the kidney? You want to make it a law that every school has to have at least 5 paedophiles working as teachers?" No, you mong. No one said those things. This situation is not "other situations". Discuss this situation, don't raise unparallel parallels.
In an ideal world, this video would have been titled "stupid exhibitionist bint shows her vagoo in the street, pervert films it, no one interrupts, everyone feels ashamed of the human race"
As for the post above me, man, no one i associate with would do this in the street and i think i could raise my children better when the time comes.

Newsflash for the blind guy who seems to think this dim exhibitionist is innocently conducting ballet; the one posting above me - the legal age for consensual sex in britain is 16.

Are you really insinuating that i'm a child molester? You read my post and what you gleaned from the contents therein was "This person is a child molester?"

I don't think we can take this conversation any further, if so. It's like the point where you realise that the person you're debating religion with is supplying fiction as fact and doesn't realise the error in what they're doing in a debate context.

Sad day on the sift when this cunt gets to go around accusing people of being child molesters.

If she doesn't want her crotch filmed, she shouldn't wave it around in public. She's free to do it and the cameraman is free to that pictures. These people who run in and fuck with the cameraman remind me of scientologist "why are you enturbulating here?"

@Throbbin I think you're really out of line insinuating that @dannym3141 is a child molester over this. You guys both need to take a chill pill.

its this sickening trend in america now where the line was apparently crossed by him using a camera. ((hint, now the police are jumping on the bandwagon, arresting people filming arrests from their own private property))

"He is filming her! HERPA DERP CHILD PRON!"

gimme a fucking break. so assuming he is shady and was going to take the footage back home and masturbate furiously to it...he could do the same with just his memory of the girl...better just burn him at the stake to be sure he isn't getting away with anything pervy.

oh, the dude on the ground taking pictures? we paid him so its cool that he is snapping pictures, but god help him he happens to drop the shutter when she turns the wrong way....oh wait, we wont do anything even then because we are hypocrites.

The ultimate irony would be the pro photographer taking the shots home and masturbating furiously to them.

het numbnuts, I'm pretty sure the cameraman isn't zooming in on her fucking underpants. you can't honestly tell me you don't see a difference between the two

>> ^CyberViperDriver:

its this sickening trend in america now where the line was apparently crossed by him using a camera. ((hint, now the police are jumping on the bandwagon, arresting people filming arrests from their own private property))
"He is filming her! HERPA DERP CHILD PRON!"
gimme a fucking break. so assuming he is shady and was going to take the footage back home and masturbate furiously to it...he could do the same with just his memory of the girl...better just burn him at the stake to be sure he isn't getting away with anything pervy.
oh, the dude on the ground taking pictures? we paid him so its cool that he is snapping pictures, but god help him he happens to drop the shutter when she turns the wrong way....oh wait, we wont do anything even then because we are hypocrites.
The ultimate irony would be the pro photographer taking the shots home and masturbating furiously to them.

Hey numbnuts, I didn't see the girls underpants...maybe I wasn't looking as hard as you were.

what if he was zooming in on her armpits rather than her crotch (which was covered by two layers of clothing. maybe he has a wicked underarm fetish...still objectionable?

fact is he did zoom for a few moments on her ass, he also spent alot of the video filming her from different angles that wouldnt be considered "pervy" as well as turning around and filming the skyline behind him.

and what about all the people standing by and watching from his general direction reletive to her? are they pervs because they were having a crotch pointed at them? nope...but if you film it, its naughty time.

>> ^residue:

het numbnuts, I'm pretty sure the cameraman isn't zooming in on her fucking underpants. you can't honestly tell me you don't see a difference between the two
>> ^CyberViperDriver:
its this sickening trend in america now where the line was apparently crossed by him using a camera. ((hint, now the police are jumping on the bandwagon, arresting people filming arrests from their own private property))
"He is filming her! HERPA DERP CHILD PRON!"
gimme a fucking break. so assuming he is shady and was going to take the footage back home and masturbate furiously to it...he could do the same with just his memory of the girl...better just burn him at the stake to be sure he isn't getting away with anything pervy.
oh, the dude on the ground taking pictures? we paid him so its cool that he is snapping pictures, but god help him he happens to drop the shutter when she turns the wrong way....oh wait, we wont do anything even then because we are hypocrites.
The ultimate irony would be the pro photographer taking the shots home and masturbating furiously to them.

I question the judgement of all the people involved in deciding to do this photo shoot of a 17 y/o in one the most public places in the world and while she is wearing those tiny shorts.

In defense of the lady who confronted Joey; It seems to me that she did not just randomly confront him for filming the girl. I think that she is her mother or grandmother and she looked over his shoulder and saw him zooming in on her crotch. He was also walking back and forth trying to get a good angle on the girl. I would be pissed off also, but I think it was still a very bad idea to have that girl (child) out on a street in NYC flashing her crotch.

I have a friend that has been good friends with Joey since high school. I'm gonna get him to ask him why in the hell he was filming her ass to begin with. He is flaming gay. I would assume that since he is part of the whole Howard Stern Wack Pack, that he was probably trying to stir up crap to bring attention to himself so he could have something to talk about on the radio show or maybe trying to get footage for the show.

>> ^EndAll:

I think one thing we can all agree on is that it was indeed a nice ass.
I found this in the comments on reddit, though:
The guy making this video is Joey Boots, known for being on the Howard Stern show. His site is full of videos of him trying to cause a disturbance to get laughs. He’s not focused on getting footage of the girl (in fact, he’s openly gay) but the reaction.
Something to consider... he seems to be one of those rare IRL trolls.



The video freak was interrupting people who were clearly trying to do their job. Note that the second lady to complain was the photographer's assistant, holding the lighting reflector. Surprised no one's noticed that.

The photo team was no doubt trying to finish their shoot despite the obvious idiocy around them, until it got out of hand and they had to bolt.

Hahahahha, I was like. Where is this pervert? I cant see him.

And only when the confrontation started I realised the pervert was me.

Here's a little spreadsheet like the reward matrix in a game:
(Let A be the observer, and B the observed)

Scenario 1: No video taken
Scenario 2: Video taken, covertly, and kept secret
Scenario 3: Video taken, covertly, but later redistributed and coming back to haunt B
Scenario 4: Video taken, overtly, causing distress in B.

S A B
1 0 1
2 1 1
3 1 -1
4 1 -1

As you can see, in scenario 2, everybody wins.

I'm not sure if anyone else has said this but, I'm pretty sure the guy videotaping is Mr. Mackey from South Park... you know the guy that says "M'kay".

7 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.