The Texas Supreme Court threw out a ban on “creepshots” this week, saying that it’s “paternalistic” for the government to “regulate the defendant’s mind” in a case in which someone takes illicit photos of another person, in public, without the subject’s consent.
Jenny Kutner at Slate points out the very real fact of the matter, which is that thinking lascivious thoughts about someone and making them the unwitting subject of a pornographic photograph are two clearly distinct things. However — and I don’t know if this is an unpopular opinion or not — I personally agree with the ruling for reasons other than what the court put forth. The language of the proposed law stated that it would ban “improper photography or visual recording.” Considering we live in a culture in which some people clutch their pearls over spaghetti-strap tank tops and others believe that nothing is “improper,” it’d be hard to set a standard for what exactly “improper” would mean in this context that wouldn’t be too broad. Vague language kills laws with good intentions all the time. I’d love to see a law banning creepshots that would be specific enough not to put street photographers (ahem — *raises hand*) at risk of fines or incarceration. [Slate]
Kansas City, Missouri, is considering an ordinance that would provide fines and jail time for street harassers. So Iguess I’m movin’ to Kansas City! I have family there, it’ll be all good.
Various other cities in Missouri (of all places), including Columbia and St. Louis, have put together bans on public harassment similar to this ordinance. They point out that in the years since these anti-harassment laws have been in effect, they’ve never issued a citation for it, because it’s hard to enforce the laws without an officer witnessing the harassment. Kansas City’s solution to this problem is to find out where harassment happens the most, and increase police presence in those areas. Keep reading »
Dudes the world over (I feel like until people stop saying “but I’m not like that!” I have to keep amending statements like this by saying OK GUYS #NOTALLMEN, WE GET IT, MOVING ON) claim that no, they’re not harassing women, they’re just flirting! Can’t they flirt? Is flirting illegal now? Why can’t we flirt anymore? FEMINAZIS, AMIRITE?
Yes, guys, you can flirt. But you might want to consider the fact that some women feel actively threatened by what you call “flirting” constructive feedback and improve your technique so that when you’re expressing romantic or possibly sexual interest in someone, you don’t end up making them feel hounded, harassed and/or worried for their safety.
Here’s some tips for not being predatory while you’re flirting. Keep reading »
This week, “The Daily Show” continued its crusade against political bullshittery by delving into the rampant sexism in Congress. After a bunch of creepy dudes weigh in how to properly “compliment” a lady, correspondent Jessica Williams (in a second video after the jump) shuts down catcalling like a boss. [The Mary Sue] Keep reading »
I wouldn’t have expected Playboy, of all brands, to take such a righteous stand against catcalling with this handy flowchart (made by the talented Shea Strauss), but goddamn if I do appreciate it. See the full flowchart after the jump! [Playboy] Keep reading »
Look, Doree Lewak, I’m not going to tell you not to court male attention or that you’re wrong for enjoying compliments — within reason — from strangers. I’m not going to condescend to you over the fact that it gives you an ego boost, not least of all because hey, to each their own. I wouldn’t want anyone to condescend to me for the ways I choose to interact with male and female gazes.
What I am going to say is this: Please don’t tell me what I ought to consider flattering, and then tell me to “deal with it” (in an admittedly clickbait-y article for The New York Post) because you’re on the wrong side of 25 to be talking to other people as if you’re in the seventh grade. Keep reading »