Even if those of us who are genuinely camera-shy, for whatever reasons (I have a different set of reasons than Siege) ARE being irrational, so what? You can’t explain somebody’s irrationality away by being super-rational.
Lord only knows what somebody could do with a picture these days, especially with digital cameras. I do not want some stranger putting a picture of me up on the web with some sort of “funny” commentary, for example. I know that sort of thing happens, I’ve known people it’s happened to.
It is a failing on your part. It was despicable of you to do that. You’re sensitive enough to what pushes your buttons, and completely and wholly insensitive to what pushes other peoples buttons. Not only insensitive, but you appear to revel in pushing them. That’s not a good character trait.
Why not be nice, then? What is so fucking difficult about being nice?
Dio, what you described, with the cotton balls and cotton candy, is not what “any” guy would do. Just the immature ones. As for the rest of your comments, who died and made you god?
Diogenes, out of curiosity, what would be your reaction to a scuzzy-looking middle-aged guy taking pictures of your young daughter, in public, as she bent over or was wearing a swimsuit?
Good question. It would bother me. I would probably wrap a towel around my daughter or obstruct the view or remove her from the area. I would give the guy nasty looks. I would not physically try to stop him.
Nor did Siege physically try to stop the woman who took her picture. And no, putting her arm up over her face does not count; it’s analgous to your puting a towel around your daughter.
And all you’d do to a guy ogling your daughter is give him “nasty looks”?
Or do you use the words “hurt” and “harm” to refer only to physical damage? Unlike, I would guess, almost every other poster in this thread? Do you deny Seige stated she was harmed by the other person?
Quite honestly? That was a horrible thing to do. She wouldn’t explain where the phobia came from because it was none of your damned business. (Perhaps it was something like being molested as a child and having cotton balls stuffed in her mouth so she wouldn’t scream).
That’s not a “petty slight of etiquette”. That’s being a bully. You purposely tormented this woman for your own amusement, just because she had a strange phobia. Yes, being freaked out of cotton balls is weird, but you don’t know her reasons (and I don’t blame her for telling you, seeing how you act!), and it’s not YOUR place to decide if it’s a “proper phobia.” And even if you don’t think it is, it sure as HELL is disturbing that you see people with “weird” problems fair game. That’s incredibly messed up.
Hey, I’m afraid of snakes-to the point of not being able to look at pictures of them. So would you shove pictures of snakes under my nose? Or is a fear of snakes “legit” in your view, and therefore, you can then treat me with respect.
Maybe it was OCD, and if it was, do you have any idea how much damage you may have caused her? Was it worth the little amount of joy you got, tormenting someone?
That’s a really cruel, hateful, disgusting thing, and I can’t believe you’re actually BRAGGING about it, almost.
I never said she did. I was just answering the question about wha I would do (or not do).
I agree, and I said so way upthread. I explicitly stated that there was nothing wrong with covering your face and that it did not constutute an attempt to stop the photographer. have you even read all my posts?
I’d also cover up my daughter and get her out of there. As long as the guy didn’t do anything else like try to follow us, there would be no reason for me to do anything else.
I also think the comparison is a little unfair since your talking about a potential sexual predator as opposed to an overzealous shutterbug at a sci-fi convention.
I guess I missed that. I disagree that she was harmed. Being annoyed does not amount to genuine personal injury.
I knew I should have kept the cotton candy story to myself. That was a really, really uncharacteristic bit of behavior on my part. For some reason I found her responses so absurd and overcooked that it just irritated me and made me want to push her buttons. She did once say “you don’t know what happened to me when I was a kid,” but she didn’t elaborate. Maybe it was something like what Guin said. I won’t try to excuse it. To be honest, until the cotton candy night, I always kind of thought she was half-way faking it or exaggerating. I didn’t really appreciate how serious she was until she got so pissed at me about the candy. Like I said, I apologized to her after that and didn’t harass her anymore and she didn’t seem to hold any grudges. I didn’t tell the story to brag about it or excuse it but to show that I have a pretty thick skull sometimes and don’t really get it all the time. I didn’t get that I was traumatizing her, I just thought it was some harmless teasing. I wouldn’t do it again.
Diogenes, would you say that Seige’s interpretation of her emotional state is less valid, equally valid or more valid than your interpretation of her emotional state? Please explain your choice. I’m not trying to sound snarky, I honestly have no idea what you think. I could guess but I’d rather not do that.
Also, I don’t think I’ve seen you address the issue of the practical difference between staring and photography. I’ve seen you dismiss it, but I don’t understand what seems to be your failure to understand that a photograph can be used in a significantly different manner than a memory.
Let’s go back to the creepy poolside guy. You seemed to clearly indicate that you did not want him taking pictures of your daughter. Had he just been leering at her and you covered her with a towel and led her away, then the worst he most likely could have done is describe to someone else what she looked like and/or used the mental image for sexual self gratification. Neither of which would be likely to cause harm to your daughter.
Now I could posit what I think the worst case scenario would be for the damage he could cause with photographs of your daughter and then you could refute them and I could think of something else, etc.
Instead I’m going to ask for you to post what you think the worst case scenario could be, with regards to actual harm occurring to your daughter from use of the phototgraphs. Assuming that he did get clear, quality shots before you managed to cover her and that her face is clearly visible.
Actually if you just think about what the worst case scenario could be and that allows you to see a clear difference between staring and photography, of course you could just state that, I’m not interested in being voyeuristic or lurid.
Actually, I’m glad you shared it. Now we know just how insensitive you are, and it’s clear that your opinion on this subject means nothing.
This woman was a co-worker. She should have told HR, or whoever there was to take grievances to, that you were harassing her. Which you were, whether you think you were or not.
How about giving him a verbal warning? How about reporting him to security, if there was any such person around? How about addressing the problem—the inappropriate photographer—instead of taking steps to protect only your daughter, one of many potential targets?
Seige was not merely annoyed. The incident brought up deep-seated negative feelings that didn’t need to be brought up. That is harm, whether you think it is or not.
Again I say, no means no means no. What is so. fucking. difficult. about stopping when someone says NO?
I have no opinion on Siege’s interpretation of her mental state. If she really feels like having her picture taken is harmful to her then she should avoid going to public events where lots of people have cameras. Choosing to go into an environment where there is a high likelihood of this emotional trigger being pushed and then becoming upset about it is like going to a swimming pool and complaining if someobe splashes water on you.
No one has yet shown me that any such difference exists.
I can’t think of a single way he could cause harm to my daughter with the photograph. You’ll have to help me out. I’m coming up empty.
I Since I can’t think of any way in which that photograph could conceivably be used in a manner which would harm my daughter, you’ll have to give me some assistance in getting me to see your point. What is this “worst case scenario” you speak of?
I wouldn’t want my daughter to know there was anything weird going on or to risk any kind of confrontation with the freako. I just just get her out of the area on some other pretext.
Good idea.
If there was any kind of security around I’d tell them. I might even call the police. But I’d get my daughter out there first.
I don’t believe that the photographer was the cause of the distress but only an unwitting trigger for it.
We’re not talking about rape here, we’re talking about a petty issue of ettiquette. Let’s not overdramatize it. It was mildly rude. That’s it. I don’t even think it was malicious but just sort of clueless on the part of the photographer.
Well Diogenes, most people understand what “worst case scenario” means. In this case I was simply asking what you thought that would be. I quite frankly don’t believe that you can’t think of anything.
It seems to me that all you really have to do is picture what you would most fear happening to your daughter and then wonder how that could come about. Such things as kidnapping or sexual abuse.
If indeed you really can’t do this then there is no point in trying to argue with you since you would have to have such a literal viewpoint that I would wonder how you are capable of actually surviving in this world.
And Rilchiams second point of using the photograph to identify her to someone else who then abducts her using that image is what my personal “worst case scenario” would be. Happy days in literal land.
No means no in all situations. Snapping the picture after three verbal refusals and covering of the face, then crowing, “I got your face!” moves beyond mildly rude into obnoxious.
And I don’t think cluelessness is an excuse. There are just too many people who don’t even try to interpret the signals other people send. I don’t see any valid reason why that should be.
when I go into a public place where there are lots of cameras, I either don’t expect to have my picture taken or I prepare myself beforehand, depending on the situation. For example, when I go to a local amusement park with a friend I see often, he won’t take my picture and, although there are lot of people with cameras, I don’t expect any of them to photograph me. on the other hand, if I go on a trip and meet a friend out of town, I fully expect that there will be pictures and can prepare myself.
If I were going to a convention with a friend who knew I didn’t like having my picture taken, I wouldn’t expect anyone to take my picture unless I was wearing a really awesome costume (which I don’t know if siege was or not.)