>> ^daxgaz:

i find most art and stage shows incredibly dull. this was not. Call me perv if you like, but the nude female form is beautiful to watch. They had some interesting dance stuff going on and interesting concepts.


I won't call you a perv, but I will point out that there used to be these things called strip clubs. Where you'd go, and watch all the naked dancing female forms you'd like, without the defecation, drinking of urine, and hissy-fits on stage, and has the basic premise of what you just watched.

i find most art and stage shows incredibly dull. this was not. Call me perv if you like, but the nude female form is beautiful to watch. They had some interesting dance stuff going on and interesting concepts.

>> ^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.

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.

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.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

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.

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

>> ^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.

ok so this woman starts of telling pervs to go away , when she uploaded it 100% relying on the fact that it was about sex to get views. so she can fuck off

allso , there is nothing informative in this video at all , its narrow minded simple and just useless.

>> ^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.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 5 Badge!

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

>> ^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.