>> ^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.

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:

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.

I'm not sure I understand why people are taking up for the principal and condemning the kid and not the other way around? This was reasonably and observably a violent abuse of power. This principal is a civil servant. His duties are to serve the public interests in education. His duties are NOT to act as police officer and give kids concussions.

If this kid was in fact taking upskirt photos on his cell, that doesn't automatically award the civil servant a right to bash the kids head on the floor. Let's be reasonable. Kids do stupid shit. I understand they need to be punished, but it should be something according to their bad doings. I hate it when adults take an opportunity to exact some street justice on a kid because the kid is smaller than they are, and then when the kid gets all jacked up the adults say "he had it coming."

Tough call. If he really thought the kid had just taken an upskirt pic or something like that, he had to get the cellphone before the punk could send out the pics.

Depends on the evidence, I guess, which we don't get to see in the video.

Rofl. I'm pretty sure that even some of the ones that aren't headlines (computers give you cancer etc.) ARE smaller stories that come later in the paper under smaller headings. However the shoes/pen tops are probably along the lines of the bears shitting in the woods one, to ridicule.

Other than that - the odd one or two clearly made up - perhaps a few are re-arranged for rhyming?

Regardless this was absolutely fantastic. Best bit: problem paedophiles followed by school girl upskirt facade. I just hope those two headlines/topics were genuine.

Fuck she took that like a champ. Would it be wrong to say *upskirt? Of course it would, so don't.

>> ^nibiyabi:
I'm not sure which side to take on this, but regardless, this post is disingenuous.

"Increasing the probability that you will harm someone by an outrageously insane degree" is virtually equivalent to "harming someone" as far as the law is concerned.


And as far as the law is concerned if you disturb the peace, you go to jail.

No one would know about Chester's naughty little habbits if the law wasn't looking for people like him. His actions have no effect on what happened to little kids, direct or indirect. I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure it's on a level a little more subtle than "industry." Upskirt guy? If no one knew, then no harm done, right?

In this moron's argument, the drunk guy or the speeder haven't harmed anyone, so they're good peaceful people.

Imagine the upskirt possibilities!

>> ^flechette:
NO ONE has commented that we get a double-shot of an upskirt? What's wrong with you guys?


Double shot of an upskirt on a cow is still just a cow.

NO ONE has commented that we get a double-shot of an upskirt? What's wrong with you guys?

ah man where are the 19th century upskirt shots?

This scene was borrowed from What Do You Say to a Naked Lady, and the orginal was less exploitative (you don't get to see the upskirt) and far more revelatory about the human condition. Plus it lacked the caddish announcer who apparently narrates EVERY show on Fox Reality.

Eguilibrionist, just out of curiousity how do you evaluate future sexual partners, purely physically speaking? Are you really confused about why people look at asses? It's a sign of physical virility, it's an evolutionary indication of fertility and for some it's a source of sexual pleasure. To each their own, but it's not like we're talking about foot fetishism here.

Your're welcome! I actually saw that episode on TV not too long ago.

In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
I see you fixed my dead post of "Upskirt" - thanks!
I couldn't find a replacement anywhere on the usual hosts!

I see you fixed my dead post of "Upskirt" - thanks!
I couldn't find a replacement anywhere on the usual hosts!