Serious Topic - What Is Ok And What Isn't

[freestyle75]

Hi,

 

I was searching for a picture of the building that I am working in a few days ago on the internet. I just entered the name of the company and did a picture search on google, clicking on a few pics I considered nice. When I hit a page that was called similar to "streetpictures", I found a row of pictures of the building, and just below pictures of women sitting at the parking benches at the entrance of the building, taking a break -- being photographed by some guy WITHOUT their consent. Two of my female colleagues were also on the pictures.

 

I mailed the link to one of these colleagues, an email saying something like "whoa - did you know you are on the net?".

She researched the pics, found the guy's flickr and Facebook page and mailed me back that he has a shoe fetish and shoots pictures of women from his car, during conferences, seminars, ... well, basically whereever he can catch a "good" picture.

 

I discussed this with my colleague at work, and she was (understandably) quite uneasy about someone taking pics in front of our building. First he takes pictures, then he rapes her - it could be a small step, depending on how the personality of the guy is.

She told me that this was a freak because he loved women's shoes. I told her that I don't care what someone does in his personal life as long as he doesn't hurt others, but that I do wholeheartedly agree that taking pics IS hurting someone by not abiding to the personal rights of the person on the pic. I also would freak out if someone took pictures of me without my consent.

 

Still... I started to feel uneasy as she clearly said that this guy is a perv because of his love for women's shoes.

/irony on/ ... well... I *could* have replied to her that she shouldn't worry, as I possess over 50 pairs of women's shoes with an additional 2 pairs that I just ordered, that I wear them regularly and that I do NOT take pics of her or anybody else. And that I am definitely not feeling that I am a perv. /irony off/

 

Well - honestly, if she knew I am wearing women's shoes, she would probably think that I am just like this guy. And that's something I definitely don't want to be. If she thinks that, others might as well.

 

So... where do you draw the line? And how do you deal with people who you are friends with and suddenly (when they meet you first time with women's shoes) change their attitude towards you? (please don't tell me that they aren't real friends if they are hostile towards you, I think it's just that many suddenly open the "perv" drawer and put you in it...)

 

Sorry for opening up such a serious topic, but it kept bugging me the last couple of days.

[Chorlini]

We have the NSA literally eavesdropping on the entire internet. There's one scandal after the other coming out of the NSA also and the British GCHQ wiretapping foreign telephone networks and even government leaders. There are criminal gangs phishing for our personal data so they can steal every cent we have. We need like six kinds of anti-spy and anti malware just to log on the internet to safeguard us from snooping companies alone, let alone the hackers. It's literally safer to enjoy a streethooker bareback then to go online without anti-virus and a firewall. Just visiting a web shop will probably have at least three kinds of ad services (if not more) trying to track you, trying to see what you're interested in (if you got firefox, install ghostery to see who's tracking you). Supermarkets give you discount cards, just so they can track your shopping behavior as well . And then we have a gazillion kinds of social media were people throw all caution to the wind and post whatever last bit of privacy they still had for the world to see. 

 

And I'm supposed to get worked up of a guy shooting pics of nice looking girls? I really, really don't want to come off as sounding harsh but we live in a world where privacy is a non-existing concept. Privacy is like that quiet guy who was nice to everybody but whom nobody noticed when he started to go missing, only to be found three months dead rotting in his own appartment with his face half eaten off by his cat. Not even George Orwell could have imagined the world we live in and the general disregard for personal privacy that everyone has. Least of all we ourselves.

 

In the grand scheme of things we should all be so lucky that when a perv start taking pictures of us to fap off too is the biggest privacy issue we will ever face. As it stands it's probably the least of our privacy problems.

 

Again, sorry if I sounded harsh. 

[kneehighs]

With regards to photography, I think it's impossible to make a sweeping moral judgment about what is acceptable public photography.  It really boils down to intent.  Some photographers dignify their subjects because of their photo skills.  Others devalue their photo subjects, because of their intent.  In this case, the intent was sexual self pleasure.  But to punish those who dignify their subjects alongside those who devalue them is to do creative cultural advancement a disservice, with repercussions that could retard cultural advancement for many generations.

 

Hundreds of hours of constructive discourse has centered around this topic in the states, with each state coming to it's own conclusion.  Those laws as such must be respected, even with those who dignify their subjects.  In the specific case at hand, I'd question possible legal action based on trespassing and rights of privacy in your governmental territory.

 

With regards to "guilt by association" I would use just that catchphrase with someone like your professional colleague.  The shoe fetishist is a socially constructed stereotype based on media sensationalism.  What about Louboutin or Kirkwood?  These guys have surely poured through sureptitiously taken street photos of women in heels.  

[Bubba136]

Just ask Jeff about having his picture taken and posted on the net without his knowledge. Everyone has a camera these days and if you are engaged in anything offbeat, chances of your image winding up on utube are almost 100%.

[ilikekicks]

Some thoughts off the top of my head.

 

When in ' public ', there is no assumption of privacy. The Paparazzi in the US ( and Europe ) do as they please and make money off of it.

 

The ONLY time you are not allowed to film in public is when ' Law Enforcement ' is involved. They will tell you to turn off your cameras. Its being disputed in several districts/courts presently under what they claim is ' wiretapping '. If you dont turn off your equipment, they will arrest you.

 

If you arent inside a private facility, be wise and be aware, someone can film you and there isnt much you can do about it.

 

to the original poster :

 

"So... where do you draw the line? And how do you deal with people who you are friends with and suddenly (when they meet you first time with women's shoes) change their attitude towards you? (please don't tell me that they aren't real friends if they are hostile towards you, I think it's just that many suddenly open the "perv" drawer and put you in it...)"

 

If they become Hostile, what is there to say? If you enjoy the company of people whom become hostile like that, keep them around. Myself? Kick them to the curb. Not even worth the effort/association anymore. It would be one thing if they laughed or asked ' WTF? Why? ' and let you explain yourself.. 

 

You can easily find out whos a real ' friend ' and who is just an ' associate ' in the instance you mention.

[Gudulitooo]

Well I suggest you have a tour on the subforum "heels4men.net" advertised on the main page of hhplace.

I don't know whether all women on the "street shots" were asked for an agreement on being published on the net. Yet all pics are taken from behind, not showing their face.

 

If you have a tour on flickr, you will find numerous groups dedicated to street shots of every sorts.

[Rockpup]

Secretly photographic people in public may be legal, and may be all over, but including someone in your fetish without their knowledge can be considered creepy, as Freestyle75's co-worker points out. Too many stories of stalkers photographing their victims before they do something worse are out there to easily defend your actions if you get caught doing so by the person you are photographing.  

[Foxyheels]

I agree with Jeff the lady clearly found the male's behaviour creepy and unfortunately has now associated a male liking women's shoes with being creepy. It may be hard to convince her otherwise now but it is nothing more than a misfortune occurrence. This is not the general view of a woman it would have been the same if he exclusively photographed women in mini skirts. My point is it's the person she despises really and not his like of ladies shoes. You may wish to try and educate her but personally I would be cautious with that. 

[Guest]

Its not the perv drawer its the gay drawer. There really is nothing you can do about what people think when they find out you wear heels. I have been letting more people see my heels and nothing. What ever they think I still wear my heels to work so I am happy

[HappyinHeels]

ALL,  Fascinating topic indeed. While the Libertarian in me says this is pure freedom of expression (in public spaces where the photographer has a right to be) the social conscience part of me says that the act of photographng people in ways that would probably not agree with them nor flatter them probably says volumes about the moral compass of the photographer than anything else. When engaging different sales associates in shoe stores over the topic of men wearing or shopping for heels a consistent theme of appreciation has emerged. I have always used the comparison that it is NOT the man who wear heels and buys them for himself that anyone need fear rather the person who photographs those who wear heels behind their back that the world needs to fear. It is true that the intent of the photographer should be known to make an accurate judgment but I would say, from an investigative standpoint, follow the trail of photos and the intent is revealed.  HappyinHeels