Filming in public places

[Void]

http://gothamist.com/2010/08/27/video_pervert_films_17_year_old_gir.php

From here (http://gothamist.com/2010/08/27/video_pervert_films_17_year_old_gir.php) and and here. (http://gizmodo.com/5624213/worlds-most-annoying-videographer-defends-right-to-tape-girls-ass)

(There's nothing explicit in this particularly just an attractive girl performing some ballet moves in time square.)

What do you think as INTPs about the nature of what is going on in this video (other than it's fairly humorous)?

My main thoughts about this is not so much the events of the video but the nature of some of the comments. Some people seem to think their personal sense of 'ethical codes', of 'good manners' are in anyway relevant when IMO all of relevance is whether a law is being broken.

Perhaps I'm revealing some inner nihilistic or 'Joker-esque' desire to highlight hypocrisy, to metaphorically see the 'world burn', but I feel in some way I want to applaud the guy in this film for pissing off people I see as public-exhibitionists.

[mancroft]

What is the fuss about?

[foodeater]

The guy's gay and from the Howard Stern show, apparently, so it was all in good fun. But the girl is hot and was in a very public place, so they should have known it would happen. If no laws were broken, then it's fine (not that a decent person would do such a thing.. as visibly as he did, anyway). The people left after he started making a scene, I'm sure they knew that was all they could do, and that's all they should have done.

[avolkiteshvara]

"the girl next door" goes to the city to a do photo shoot in public and doesn't like the reaction she gets by the public.

Its a little weird to be video taping it. Its even more weird to get upset that someone is videotaping when you are the one putting yourself out there for public consumption.

Strikes me along the same lines as women that wear low cut tops and get mad when guys ogle them.

[starla]

Putting on a show in Times Square and getting upset when it attracts weirdos is like going to see Shamu at Sea World and then getting upset when you get splashed.

Edit: Okay, finished the video and the vigilante cyclist was hiliarious. "Yeah, you wish you could work as fuckin' hard as I can." Where the fuck did that come from?

[cripple]

It's really weird that some of them have a problem with her ass being videotaped, when that is what they are doing. I doubt she is stretching her legs for a portrait shot. I find the attitudes to be inconsistent. It's like they don't know what they are doing themselves. Truly weird.

[avolkiteshvara]

Mom is saying

"The only person that can film my girl's vag and ass is the one who will make her famous and rich"

[Neville]

I should enroll in ballet.

[Void]

(not that a decent person would do such a thing.. as visibly as he did, anyway)

'decent'? Perhaps rather 'well (over) socialised'.

Again, because I have these nihlistic leanings, I just see 'decency' as pragmatic action from a time when we lived in little communities where a 'you scratch my back i'll scratch yours' mentality would pay off but now we live among thousands of strangers it's a behavioural relic.

Men obviously like nubile young women, it's gratifying (psychologically) to look at them, so they do. Repressing this presumably so as to not to appear threatening is peculiarly selfless. Maybe elements of sympathy, self-hate from being 'over socialised' to believe it's 'evil', likely fear of being labelled a 'pervert' and the social consequences. I consider this mixture far from what is idealised as 'decency'.

It reminds me of a comment from a comedian I once heard on TV: "the Olympics: the only time it's acceptable to stare at a 16 year-old girl in a leotard perform gymnastics".

Still, if someone wanted explicit images the internet provides greater for much less effort. This 'decency' thing is a red-herring. He wanted to be noticed, he wanted the confrontation.

If a law had been broken then deal him his deserts but lets not be distracted by the silliness of 'decency'.

[synagogue]

'decent'? Perhaps rather 'well (over) socialised'.

...

Men obviously like nubile young women, it's gratifying (psychologically) to look at them, so they do. Repressing this presumably so as to not to appear threatening is peculiarly selfless. Maybe elements of sympathy, self-hate from being 'over socialised' to believe it's 'evil', likely fear of being labelled a 'pervert' and the social consequences. I consider this mixture far from what is idealised as 'decency'.

...

If a law had been broken then deal him his deserts but lets not be distracted by the silliness of 'decency'.



I saw this earlier today and L'edMAO, just at the embarassing nature of the situation for everyone involved (and also the guy's voice & attitude).

I think most guys would take a tactful peek or three in such a situation, but the dude with the camera is in clear violation. Like it or not, part of living in polite society is an implied agreement to restrain a certain amount of animal urges. Leering is one of these things, and leering with a camera is another. So it makes sense, and is fair in my opinion, that those who can't meet this agreement would be subject to ostracization.

Presumably the guy filming finds the girl attractive. Well I don't think anyone ever picked up a girl on the street while filming up her ass crack. So that's why I think actions like his carry such a loser-ish connotation; instead of having the balls to strike up a conversation or try to get to know a person, he's resorted to carrying around a camera to document all of the opportunites he missed throughout the day so he can beat off later. It's a desperate move that places private gratification above the obviously preferable possibility of a real-life experience.

To me, it's not so much about social standards of decency as it is about personal dignity. No one in the crowd is told that the guy is from the Stern show. For me personally, it would be undignified to whip out a camera and start filming a situation like this to masturbate to later. That's not how I like to carry myself, & it wouldn't fit well into my day.

[starla]

I agree that what the guy was doing was loserish. But I think he was also making a point, one that the girl's mom didn't get until he made it.

[Skyphon Pox]

It's really weird that some of them have a problem with her ass being videotaped, when that is what they are doing. I doubt she is stretching her legs for a portrait shot. I find the attitudes to be inconsistent. It's like they don't know what they are doing themselves. Truly weird.

That would suck if she was fishing for a lawsuit opportunity all along.I'm sure she wasn't, but the self-videotaping aspect made me think of that, waiting to capture a lawsuit on tape. Is there a word for that?

[Will2009]

This video is relevant to my interests. If that makes me a perv, then I guess I'm a perv. More likely is that I'm a grown, hetero man.

Some of the comments are a sad reflection on how out of touch with reality and lacking in common sense and perspective some people are. I'm clearly in the camp of those who find the comments expressing outrage at the videographer to be hypocritical, foolish, ignorant, stupid, prudish or some combination of the above. Particularly stupid are the comments that try to link the videotaping with upskirt videos, pornography, or worse, child pornography. Some idiot even mentioned the word "pedophile," obviously not having a clue what it actually means. Those persons are projecting and/or displaying their foolish ignorance. Fuck 'em.

Yeah, 17-years-old is old enough to know what she's doing, and she's flaunting it. I'm not saying she's "asking for it," but she knows what she's doing and she forfeits any claims to being outraged or offended by onlookers. She's in fucking Times Square, the most public place in the US. She's making a spectacle of herself. People are going to look. Deal with it or go somewhere else.

The cyclist's douchebaggery is the highlight of the whole thing. What a tool.

[Will2009]

I agree that what the guy was doing was loserish. But I think he was also making a point, one that the girl's mom didn't get until he made it.

I'm pretty sure the "old bag" was the girl's grandmother, and the blonde lady holding the diffuser is the girl's mother. The grandmother apparently hired the photographer to take pictures of her granddaughter all over NYC to get some cool modeling photos for her senior (high school) photos and to add to a portfolio as a birthday gift.

Here's a link to the finished product on the photographer's website (from the comments on the link in the OP): Scroll right.

Oddly enough, the ballet photos turned out to be pretty artsy and cool. I especially like the B&W one with the girl en pointe and her head down.

http://johnpylephotography.com/blog/index.php?page=3

(Totally safe for work)

[starla]

She's making a spectacle of herself.

And this is the point that her mom/grandma didn't get until the camera guy came along.

So yeah, if you don't want some creepy guy ogling your daughter's crotch, don't have her splay it in the middle of Times Square.

I still can't stop laughing at the cyclist.

[gardnerj]

i just saw this a couple days ago. What the fuck. How degrading.


yeah, she was asking for it, but it doesn't make it any less gross. I wouldn't do that in times square. I also wouldn't look if I passed by.


Like it or not, part of living in polite society is an implied agreement to restrain a certain amount of animal urges. Leering is one of these things, and leering with a camera is another. So it makes sense, and is fair in my opinion, that those who can't meet this agreement would be subject to ostracization.

instead of having the balls to strike up a conversation or try to get to know a person, he's resorted to carrying around a camera to document all of the opportunites he missed throughout the day so he can beat off later. It's a desperate move that places private gratification above the obviously preferable possibility of a real-life experience.

To me, it's not so much about social standards of decency as it is about personal dignity. No one in the crowd is told that the guy is from the Stern show. For me personally, it would be undignified to whip out a camera and start filming a situation like this to masturbate to later. That's not how I like to carry myself, & it wouldn't fit well into my day.

I think this is on point.

In this thread so far, we've reduced (1) the girl was asking for it (2) the cyclist was a douche (3) whether the guy should or shouldn't have done that (4) that no laws were broken

all down to "right" or "wrong". Big stretch.

And what systembust was touching on is that it's all about what the person is going through. None of the 4 above mentioned things have to do with what the camera guy was going through. Whether he was gay or not, meant it or not, he still violated that girl by videotaping her ass crack.

[teleforce]

oh c'mon, the guy was totally inviting people to mess with him by being a tasteless douche.

[stopharian]

oh c'mon, the guy was totally inviting people to mess with him by being a tasteless douche.

I guess thats the problem with making a point in that manner, it becomes meaningless. Bringing everyone low and making them look like fools has to be a waste of time cosmically even if you are legally right. You can hardly blame a mother or grandmother for asking you not to film their daughters ass, even if they are displaying it publicly.

I would like to see the biker get beaten senseless though. That might be the catharsis that the situation demanded.

[Will2009]

Whether he was gay or not, meant it or not, he still violated that girl by videotaping her ass crack.

Nope. She wore the very tight shorts. That you could see her ass well defined through her clothing is her fault, not anyone who happened to look.

Was the videographer a major asshole? Yep. Not the point.

She forfeited any right to object to anyone leering at her by making a spectacle of herself in the most public place in the US. She was on display, intentionally. This was no violation of her by any definition.

The videographer violated her? Give me a fucking break. No one violated her. The guy did the equivalent of staring. Is that rude? Yep. Does it violate her? Fuck no.

Was the grandmother within her rights to ask or suggest that the guy not videotape her butt? Sure. He was also within his rights to say he would continue to do so. He was an asshole by insulting the grandmother. That was uncalled for.

The family and the photographer did the right thing but getting up and leaving. The videographer did nothing wrong except be an asshole once the grandma confronted him.

The girl, her mother, the grandmother, and the photographer they hired have no right to complain about anyone staring. They invited that by making such a scene in the middle of fucking Times Square. Who the hell couldn't foresee that people would gather and look? If you've ever been to Times Square before, how the hell could you not foresee that someone would videotape the scene? Jesus.

There is no cause for outrage on anyone's part.

All of the leering could have been avoided by conducting the photo shoot in a less public spot, or by getting the proper permits and screening off the set. They didn't do that and they paid the price for it -- others watching and someone videotaping it. No harm, no foul. Just a bit of rudeness.

No one was violated. That's way too strong a word.

[Will2009]

oh c'mon, the guy was totally inviting people to mess with him by being a tasteless douche.

Yeah. That's what he does. He is a regular on Howard Stern. He meant to provoke them and expose how foolish they were being.

Was he tasteless? Sure. Did he have a point? Yep. Who comes out looking stupid and foolish here?

The girl, the mother, the grandmother, the photographer they hired, and most of all, the douchebag cyclist.

The videographer knew exactly what he was doing and why. Yeah, he's tasteless and rude and crude. He's no fool, however.

I have no sympathy for the girl or her mom or grandmother. The girl is not an innocent flower here. She knew she was being provocative in a very public place. She does not get to play the outrage or offended card, or the "I'm only 17" card either. Sorry.

[teleforce]

Yeah. That's what he does. He is a regular on Howard Stern. He meant to provoke them and expose how foolish they were being.

Was he tasteless? Sure. Did he have a point? Yep. Who comes out looking stupid and foolish here?

The girl, the mother, the grandmother, the photographer they hired, and most of all, the douchbag cyclist.

The videographer knew exactly what he was doing and why. Yeah, he's tasteless and rude and crude. He's no fool, however.

I have no sympathy for the girl or her mom or grandmother. The girl is not an innocent flower here. She knew she was being provocative in a very public place. She does not get to play the outrage or offended card, or the "I'm only 17" card either. Sorry.
i don't think the girl, the mother, the grandmother and photographer look any more foolish than the regular on howard stern. it's just a funny situation and good publicity.

"that's what the photographer does. he's a photographer. he meant to take some artsy photos of a girl doing ballet in the middle of times square" and "the mother's a mother. that's what she does" etc. nobody's in the wrong here. if the guy wants to make a point, then fine. let him do it so thousands of men don't have to. (edit: i don't mean for this statement to apply to anything other than the situation here)

you're sounding a bit "outraged" yourself.

[oxyjen]

If she were ten years younger, this thread would be very different. I know people would probably agree and say "no shit, because then it's a kid and leering at kids is gross," like that is any sort of explanation. If anyone could enlighten me on how that one fact changes the whole dynamic 180 degrees, spell it out for me.

Being put in a situation where someone is blatantly leering at you is creepy. Having them ignore your requests to stop being a creeper is worse.

[cripple]

I wonder what the IQ of the grandmother is. It's a pretty decent trick to create some free publicity. The biker was in on it. And the pervert too. The whole thing is nicely set up. Well done Granny!

[Will2009]

If she were ten years younger, this thread would be very different. I know people would probably agree and say "no shit, because then it's a kid and leering at kids is gross," like that is any sort of explanation. If anyone could enlighten me on how that one fact changes the whole dynamic 180 degrees, spell it out for me.

Being put in a situation where someone is blatantly leering at you is creepy. Having them ignore your requests to stop being a creeper is worse.

She (and her grandmother and mother -- the grandmother bought the photo sessions all over NYC as a birthday gift to the girl) put herself in the situation. She went to Time Square as a young woman wearing tight, short shorts and started doing poses that are attention drawing in that setting. It's not like she's doing ballet on stage during a performance.

The grandmother asked the videographer once not to film her butt. He refused. Yeah, he's a creep. They responded appropriately by leaving the scene. I have no beef with that.

My objection is with them (including the photographer they hired) not foreseeing that people would stare. She goes to the most public place not only in NY, but probably in the whole US, and starts doing provocative poses in short shorts. Then she has the gall to get upset when someone looks?

Don't get me wrong. The videographer isn't innocent. He is being creepy. He's being rude and crude. I have no sympathy for him, but I don't really have any sympathy for any of the players here. None.

This was a spectacle they created and the only one who looks like he gets it is the videographer. Too bad he had to be such an ass about it.

[Will2009]

I wonder what the IQ of the grandmother is. It's a pretty decent trick to create some free publicity. The biker was in on it. And the pervert too. The whole thing is nicely set up. Well done Granny!

Free publicity for what? This was a birthday present from Granny to the high school senior to have her senior photos done in NYC. I don't see what they gain from the thing becoming an internet story.

1. Make a spectacle of your granddaughter in Times Square.
2. ????
3. Profit?

I don't get it.

[Will2009]

you're sounding a bit "outraged" yourself.

I'm not outraged. I'm bemused. I find the persons who are outraged to be hypocrites and/or naive fools and/or prudes. There's nothing pornographic about any of it, as many of the comments in the link suggest. It's creepy for the dude to video her as he did, yes. His behavior toward the grandmother and the mother was rude as hell. The cyclist was a douchebag.

What the videographer did doesn't warrant the ridiculously inane comments some folks are making on that site though.

[teleforce]

I'm not outraged. I'm bemused. I find the persons who are outraged to be hypocrites and/or naive fools and/or prudes. There's nothing pornographic about any of it, as many of the comments in the link suggest. It's creepy for the dude to video her as he did, yes. His behavior toward the grandmother and the mother was rude as hell. The cyclist was a douchebag.

What the videographer did doesn't warrant the ridiculously inane comments some folks are making on that site though.
why are you reading the comments? you know lots of them are gonna be nothing but stupid.

[Will2009]

If she were ten years younger, this thread would be very different. I know people would probably agree and say "no shit, because then it's a kid and leering at kids is gross," like that is any sort of explanation. If anyone could enlighten me on how that one fact changes the whole dynamic 180 degrees, spell it out for me.

I think her being 17 is much more like her being 27 than her being 7. Seven-year-olds are not sexual to any normal, mentally healthy person, but a physically mature 17-year-old girl is post-pubescent and this one is clearly physically a young woman, not a "child" as some of the posters in the link suggest. She would have to be pretty naive and stupid not to understand that she is a visually sexual creature, even if she is not sexually active. Surely you're not suggesting that high school seniors who wear bikinis at the beach don't understand that men might look at them as sexual creatures?

I have a hard time believing that she was unaware that straight men might find her posing in the middle of Times Square to be eye-catching.

If she were 27 years old and did the same thing, would this even be a story? It wouldn't make the videotaping any less creepy or rude, in my opinion, but it wouldn't be a story.

[oxyjen]

My objection is with them (including the photographer they hired) not foreseeing that people would stare. She goes to the most public place not only in NY, but probably in the whole US, and starts doing provocative poses in short shorts. Then she has the gall to get upset when someone looks?


I agree with most of what you posted, but the above paragraph is where we part ways a bit.

I don't think she was protesting at any type of staring. I'm sure she got plenty of looks from people--it's Times Square. You'll notice though, that even among the busy thrall that is Times Square, he is the only male to have gone in and planted himself as a stranger inside a private party. This behavior is a deviation from staring. You can't lump that behavior in with normal male ogling.


I think her being 17 is much more like her being 27 than her being 7. Seven-year-olds are not sexual to any normal, mentally healthy person, but a physically mature 17-year-old girl is post-pubescent and this one is clearly physically a young woman, not a "child" as some of the posters in the link suggest. She would have to be pretty naive and stupid not to understand that she is a visually sexual creature, even if she is not sexually active. Surely you're not suggesting that high school seniors who wear bikinis at the beach don't understand that men might look at them as sexual creatures?
.

I never said the person in the video is a child. I'm saying our reaction would be very different if she were a child. Sadly, seven year olds are sexually attractive to a group of people, and their desire is beyond their control. We put the label of "abnormal and unhealthy" on them (and rightly so; I'm not a pedophile apologist here), but part of the reason we do so is because kids are not mature in any way to give consent.

Yeah, this girl is physically mature, sexually attractive to most heterosexual men, is of legal age to give sexual consent, but still no consent has been given. And if you don't need to give consent to look this way at a stranger, then I guess pedos can tape kids in the pool.

Oh wait, they're actually expected to fucking control themselves.

[bass_n_treble]

There's only one First Amendment issue in the past ten years that I even give a shit about, and that's the Verizon-Google takeover of net neutrality.

This whole thing looks completely staged anyway. Just my take.

http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/0/5768/553462-redherring_large.jpg

[Limey]

I got into a disagreement like this at Philadelphia airport. I was taking pictures out of the windows and some airline busybody decided to tell me to put my camera away because I wasn't allowed to take pictures out of the windows. I asked her if she was citing a law, or an FAA guideline, or the policy of her airline and she just threatened to call the cops.
It's amazing how many people think they have a right to privacy in public.

I was with my brother when I took this pic of the war memorial in my home city, the guy on the right there, seamus o'paddy decided he didn't like having his picture taken (I can understand, with his people having not provided any noble assistance).
We had to tell him to fuck off when he started running his mouth about having his picture taken in his pikey dialect. Stupid fucker is under constant surveillance on CCTV in the city and he was griping about a photo that I didn't really want anyway.

http://writtenpolicy.com/paddy.jpg

[foodeater]

http://johnpylephotography.com/blog/content/images/upimage_1279155593_1279.jpg

God, you just can't avoid it (if you're an attractive woman wearing tight clothes doing ballet in public in New York City)! People these days.

[Will2009]

I was with my brother when I took this pic of the war memorial in my home city, the guy on the right there, seamus o'paddy decided he didn't like having his picture taken (I can understand, with his people having not provided any noble assistance).
We had to tell him to fuck off when he started running his mouth about having his picture taken in his pikey dialect. Stupid fucker is under constant surveillance on CCTV in the city and he was griping about a photo that I didn't really want anyway.

Good point about the CCTVs in the UK. Besides that, it looks like the guy walked right into your shot while looking right at your camera. He kind of forfeits the right to complain about your shooting him by doing so. He could have walked around, paused, or hurried up and said, "Pardon me," or something. No, he just ambles right into your frame and looks right at you. Dumbass.

[Will2009]

I agree with most of what you posted, but the above paragraph is where we part ways a bit.

I don't think she was protesting at any type of staring. I'm sure she got plenty of looks from people--it's Times Square. You'll notice though, that even among the busy thrall that is Times Square, he is the only male to have gone in and planted himself as a stranger inside a private party. This behavior is a deviation from staring. You can't lump that behavior in with normal male ogling.


I don't disagree with that in general, except for the part referring to what they are doing as a "private party." I think I know what you mean, but they could have taken measures to actually segregate themselves from everyone else and make it private but didn't. I read a comment from a professional photographer at one of those links who said it was easy to obtain a permit from the City to photograph which would allow cordoning off a section and putting up privacy screens. He said he routinely does that in order to protect his models and make them feel safe and comfortable. If they wanted a private party, they should have taken measures to make it actually private.

I agree that the guy videotaping is going a step beyond normal male ogling. Again, it's rude, but I would argue so is creating a spectacle in the middle of the sidewalk and expecting others to ignore you. Fuck that. Don't create a spectacle in such a busy, public place. Either don't do it, or forget about complaining about gawkers and even videographers if you do. Get in, get out, and don't dawdle while doing it. Minimize or limit by time and place your exposure, if you will, if you feel you have to expose yourself to gawking in public.

I will note that the videographer is mostly keeping to himself until he steps off to the side to get a better view and to zoom in. Had he remained where he was and not drawn attention to himself, I suspect the grandmother might not have asked him to stop. Given who he is, and that he appears to have a history and goal of confronting persons in order to give a rise out of them, he seems to have done it on purpose and with the specific goal of provoking some reaction.



I never said the person in the video is a child. I'm saying our reaction would be very different if she were a child. Sadly, seven year olds are sexually attractive to a group of people, and their desire is beyond their control. We put the label of "abnormal and unhealthy" on them (and rightly so; I'm not a pedophile apologist here), but part of the reason we do so is because kids are not mature in any way to give consent.


I know you didn't. I was referring to some comments at one of the links. At least one indignant poster there did refer to her specifically as a child who needed protection from pedophiles. Yeah, she actually used both those terms. I find such indiscriminate throwing around of such loaded terms to be reckless and irresponsible, not to mention ignorant. Sorry if I implied you used them or were sympathetic to her view. I didn't mean that you were.



Yeah, this girl is physically mature, sexually attractive to most heterosexual men, is of legal age to give sexual consent, but still no consent has been given. And if you don't need to give consent to look this way at a stranger, then I guess pedos can tape kids in the pool.


Well, the videographer is not trying to have sex with her. He's videotaping what she's doing. Yeah, he's doing it in a creepy and rude way, but he's not violating her as someone else said in this thread. He's just being rude.

She doesn't need to consent to the videotaping in order for the guy to videotape her. She's in public and doing something public -- posing for photographs -- without any expectation of privacy from private eyes or other cameras around her.

Change the facts, like put her in her own home and have the guy videotape her through a window, and you have a very different situation with very different results. Do stuff in Times Square in full view of everyone else and you forfeit any claim to privacy (other than what's hidden in your pockets, bags, purse, wallet, or under your clothes).

[stigmatica]

The videographer purposefully set out to ruin their photo shoot without breaking a law. He purposefully set out to make the girl and her family uncomfortable.

There are laws everywhere that only exist because of shit bags like that. The kind of laws that prevent everyone from doing something they should be able to do, but because some shit like that would abuse it otherwise, the law must exist.

It's not an abstract culturally derived form of decency that the videographer isn't adhering to. It's much simpler. He's knowingly making someone's life less pleasant for the simple fun of it. Sure, the girl wanted ballet photos in time square, and common sense should dictate that enough people suck that doing a photo shoot in time square would attract a few assholes. You can see in her expressions and mannerism throughout the entire video that she's incredibly self conscious and uncomfortable, but trying to get the shoot over with.

The point is that it's a shame that people can't respect each other without a few billion laws telling them to do so. The cyclist see's that, and he had the balls to help the family rather than validate or ignore an asshole making the world a worse place to live in.

[cripple]

The videographer purposefully set out to ruin their photo shoot without breaking a law. He purposefully set out to make the girl and her family uncomfortable.

There are laws everywhere that only exist because of shit bags like that. The kind of laws that prevent everyone from doing something they should be able to do, but because some shit like that would abuse it otherwise, the law must exist.

It's not an abstract culturally derived form of decency that the videographer isn't adhering to. It's much simpler. He's knowingly making someone's life less pleasant for the simple fun of it. Sure, the girl wanted ballet photos in time square, and common sense should dictate that enough people suck that doing a photo shoot in time square would attract a few assholes. You can see in her expressions and mannerism throughout the entire video that she's incredibly self conscious and uncomfortable, but trying to get the shoot over with.

The point is that it's a shame that people can't respect each other without a few billion laws telling them to do so. The cyclist see's that, and he had the balls to help the family rather than validate or ignore an asshole making the world a worse place to live in.
If ballet dancer should be able to do what she wants in public, why should not video guy be able to do the same?

In my opinion the ballet dancer should be flattered that people even bother to show interest.


Free publicity for what? This was a birthday present from Granny to the high school senior to have her senior photos done in NYC. I don't see what they gain from the thing becoming an internet story.

1. Make a spectacle of your granddaughter in Times Square.
2. ????
3. Profit?

I don't get it.
She is a ballet dancer. I'm sure she is looking for well paid assignments. Media exposure is often the key. I'm very impressed, looks to be talented.

[stigmatica]

Really Cripple?

You think we should all just do what we want, regardless of our affect on other people?

So, the next time I'm walking down the sidewalk, and I see some hot chick wearing a miniskirt, I should completely forgo anyone else's feelings and just start following her ass around with a camera? If her grandma walks up to me and asks me not to film her granddaughters ass, I should start spouting off childish bs about it not being against the law... it's a public sidewalk?

Rise up MEN!! You know we all "want" to get a closer look at all those awesome asses out there. To hell with how the girls feel about it, it's OUR needs that matter. ME ME ME! What a wonderful world we can create.

Had the girl and her family walked into the middle of a wedding ceremony being held in Times Square and started doing ballet photos in the isle, then you might could compare the two "wants". Her want did not include infringing on anyone else. His did. In fact, his entire intent was to infringe in a negative manner.

[cripple]

Really Cripple?

You think we should all just do what we want, regardless of our affect on other people?

So, the next time I'm walking down the sidewalk, and I see some hot chick wearing a miniskirt, I should completely forgo anyone else's feelings and just start following her ass around with a camera?
I thought about this. And I admit it's a dilemma. Where to draw the line. I have had people want to take my picture. Depending on their motive, there is a high chance that I won't like this. But on the same time I think it is their right, and if they want to, they can do it. If I brought on a crew and started making a show. I find it difficult to judge if a crowd would gather and taking pictures, throwing insults/compliments etc. This guy keeps his distance. Except for the slight zooming of the camera, I can't see that he is acting anything different then the other onlookers, not saying anything either, until spoken too.



If her grandma walks up to me and asks me not to film her granddaughters ass, I should start spouting off childish bs about it not being against the law... it's a public sidewalk?
Would it not be less disturbing for the dancer if the grandmother didn't say anything? Maybe he wasn't consciously aware that he was filming her ass. It can be humiliating being accused for this in public, being a pervert, if all he did was like her performance. It's not that easy to say what is what here imo. But his language is not nice, but neither are the others.


Rise up MEN!! You know we all "want" to get a closer look at all those awesome asses out there. To hell with how the girls feel about it, it's OUR needs that matter. ME ME ME! What a wonderful world we can create.This is about the right to document what is going on. I think the looking at asses is in the minds of those that think these thoughts. When I saw the film the first time, I didn't even notice that was the theme of the film, even if the headline tried to make me focus on that.


Had the girl and her family walked into the middle of a wedding ceremony being held in Times Square and started doing ballet photos in the isle, then you might could compare the two "wants". Her want did not include infringing on anyone else. His did. In fact, his entire intent was to infringe in a negative manner. Sorry. I don't see his actions as negative(the filming-what follows it's unclear to me who to blame for the scene). I don't understand why you reach the conclusion that he had malisious intent by filming the event(ass). I can't see it. The only part that make me slightly worried is the slight zooming. But besides of those seconds the large part of the film does not focus on the ass. And the ass seems to be the whole issue here, not the filming either.

[stigmatica]

Watch the vid... the grandmother says "Excuse me, I don't really want you taking a picture of her butt... *nervous giggle*" in a calm private voice, not a public "LOOK AT THIS PERVERT!!!" voice. And he was, after all, focusing on the butt long before then.

His response?

"I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to film her butt, I'm just trying to film the event. Would you be more comfortable if I moved to a different angle?"

Nope... his response was..

"Excuse me Old Bag."

Her?

"Excuse me! Old bag! Who do you think you are!"

Nope.... She responded with...

"Are you video taping her butt?" in an almost meek and frightened voice.

He continues to respond like a 2 year old punk. How can you not see this? This guy was feeding off the Grandmothers displeasure. He was enjoying making her miserable. He was enjoying fucking with other peoples private lives. He's an ass.

[cripple]

He continues to respond like a 2 year old punk. How can you not see this? This guy was feeding off the Grandmothers displeasure. He was enjoying making her miserable.
2 year old punk?


He's an ass
Butt > Ass?

[stigmatica]

2 year old punk?


Butt > Ass?
I think you just like talking to me, cripple. ;)

Yes, 2 year old punk. You'll find many similarities between the voice inflections, tone, and juvenile retorts of Mr. Videographer and your standard 2 year old whose brain has yet to develop a sense outside of self.

Butt > Ass? I dunno. Butt has 4 letters, Ass only 3.. so sure.

[MacGuffin]

Who cares?

[hardkar]

Who cares?
Seconded

[gardnerj]

this is a moronic conversation

[stigmatica]

Yes yes... thirded, fourthed, and all that. What a dumb con.
http://animals.timduru.org/dirlist/sheep/DomesticSheep00-Herd-Full.jpg