Dopers are supposed to be dispelling ignorance, not disseminating it.
You mean “vulva” not “vagina,” do you not?
Do vulvas come with those automatic windshield wipers?
Sorry, couldn’t help myself…as you were.
originally posted by Even Sven
Independent filmmaker here. There already are restrictions on shooting in public. For one thing you should be getting signed release forms from anyone who is captured in frame. High, Lo/No budget, the professional thing to do.
It’s the professional thing to do and cuts down on the fistfights, but certainly not legally required. If I am doing an expose on people who claim to hate seafood but visit seafood restaurants, for example, I can camp out in front of any seafood restraunt that lets me and tape away. If I’m doing a low helicopter shot of the streets of Santa Cruz, I don’t require permission from the thousands of people who might show up.
I have two thoughts on the topic:
(1) What’s the big turnon with upskirt photos in the first place? As long as the woman is wearing underwear, you can see more at any beach, exersize room, or swimming pool. Why do these guys go to such lengths to see legs? I’m a red-blooded male with a great appreciation for the female form, but I’d just as soon see women that are showing their bodies on purpose.
(2) Being of Scottish heritage, I wear kilts from time to time. If anybody took a peek under my kilt, there’s nothing they’d see that would embarrass me. I wear appropriate undergarments. Why can’t women do the same?
Appropriate tradition-wise, or socially? And is your lack of embarassment due to your being covered up, or due to your measurements? 
I’m a practical man. The tradition/social ramifications of what I wear under my kilt really don’t concern me much. Anyone who is crass enough to be sneaking peeks under a kilt doesn’t have any basis to complain about tradition!
As for the second question, there are about four hundred wonderful rejoinders (at least half of which involve the phrase “tilt of the kilt”), but since this is GD, I’ll behave!
:d
These upskirt pervs should rent Roger Dodger, where the main character, Roger Swanson, teaches his nephew how to get a peek with a modicum of style. 
They’re looking at something they’re Not Supposed to See.
They’re peeping toms. Would it be any different if somebody had invented a camera that could take pictures through solid walls, and people were using them to photograph others in their bedrooms?
It doesn’t matter what you think women should do. The only way to find out if a woman is okay with it is to ask her. Let’s pause for a moment while we consider that.
These guys want to take what they can’t get by consent. I kind of wonder if the taking isn’t the part they like. Anybody who tries to do something to me without my consent will find that I will take that as an invitation to do something to them.
Either you misread my post, or I’m misreading yours. What I said is that if I’m going to look at a woman’s body, I’m going to look at what she’s showing intentionally. In other words, if I want to see bare legs, I’ll look at a woman in a swimsuit rather than trying to peek up someone’s skirt.
How, exactly, does that relate to what you said?
“Why can’t women do the same?”
In other words, just wear underwear, ladies, and if somebody takes a peek, no big deal. But it’s a big deal to some women–and some men, not being asked. Underwear isn’t the problem. Lack of consent is. What you’re comfortable with only applies to you.
Hear, hear. I remember when skirts were so short you could still see a woman’s butt when she was sitting down at a desk. And that was in SCHOOL!!!
As for the upskirts thing, I think it’s creepy because part of the thrill is the violation of consensuality that’s involved. You’re looking up a woman’s dress and focussing on ehr genitals as a way of violationg her, in a sense. If for example you had a cadre of women who were exhibitionists and loved for guys to camera ujp their skirts, I don’t think anyone would be very exercised about it. It’s the nonconsensuality of the whole thing that’s creepy.
On the other hand, every summer huge numbers of women routinely put their private parts on on display that they’ve kept concealed for months, much to the delight of … foot fetishists. I’m sure foot fetishists get off big time at the sight of a woman walking or lounging around in open-toled sandals, but I don’t think many women give a shit one way or the other about it because they’re not eroticized to it and most men aren’t either. I imagine it may eventually become the same for upskirts stuff.
Y’know, i’ve happened across some of these sites, and upon preview…meh. Nothing. The whole upskirting thing (like most fads) will go away on its’ own, due, IMO, primarily to the fickle nature of the purveyors. This isn’t something that’s going to last, unless the media perpetuates it.
Several people have said that women should just wear appropriate undergarments. But you know what? We shouldn’t have to. If people didn’t peek, then this woulnd’t be an issue. Women are not the ones who should have to be doing something here.
I think a lot of this has to do with the technology itself. People figure out they can do this with their cell phones or their new video cameras and so they do. Simplicity and availability make upskirting attractive. No need to go to a website and no need to ask permission or make any compensation.
I’m sure different areas have different laws. For example, there’s a place in France…
From a rational perspective, I can’t really see the actual harm inflicted on the upskirted person. Anonymous people on the internet are seeing photos of anonymous panties/vaginas whose owners can’t realistically be identified by that feature alone.
Is it creepy? Yes. But it doesn’t inflict the same level of embaressment that a locker room spycam would that showed entire naked bodies instead of just the naughty bits.
I don’t know that you can have it both ways, though.
To put it another way, you can be angry at the guy that breaks into your home and steals your television, but a certain onus of responsibility fell to you to make sure the doors were locked when you left to go to work. That’s not to say that leaving your doors unlocked was against the law, but it certainly was ill-advised given that you knew people could break in and steal your television much more easily.
You don’t fault the guy for leaving his doors unlocked and having his TV stolen any more than you fault the woman for not wearing panties and being upskirted. But it does raise the question if personal preparedness for a situation might eliminate a lot of the concerns.
Personal preparedness is a dodge. If there’s no burglar around, your TV and stereo are still there when you get home from work, no matter what you did. IT takes that thief to commit the act. There has to be the desire to commit the act and the preparation to do so. What the victim did is utterly irrelevant.