Guy films young girls ass during photo-shoot and gets mad when asked to stop.

[Mikazukinoyaiba]

I'm going to stop you in your tracks by stating it was a photoshoot, in which there was a reason for her to be there, aka her photographer liked the setting!



In a situation like this? gender matters.

And what is the situation?

That everyone else who disagrees with you is male? Or that the subject of the discussion is a girl being victimized by a male?

Problem is, while everyone else can be blind to gender (as opposed to blind to race) you can only see everyone's gender and credit their behavior or opinion to just that.

If I wore revealing clothing and also did the same thing, I should expect attention.

 

[Mekkah]

The vid was removed, but it's okay, there's back-ups!

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4d6_1282768022

Note how different the title is: "Concerned Citizens Interrupt Perv Videographer"

I'm agreeing with whoever is saying nearly everyone is at fault for this situation. The daughter, the mom and the photographers for the terrible shooting location. I presume there's a reason they chose to do it on Times Square (perhaps the idea was to shoot her in the middle of a lot of people?), but then don't complain if a "pervert" with a video camera goes by and starts filming. The white knight cyclist goober for trying to be a tough guy and even getting physical about it. The cameraman is morally at fault as well for continuing while being asked to stop, but it about ends there - everyone watching the girl's features is just as perverted as he is. And really, as rude as he was, he's also hilarious, so he's the person I sympathize the most in this video. Everyone else involved is a hypocrite.

 

[Mikazukinoyaiba]

Clearly that guy was a sexist because he knocked her off the stage. It couldn't possibly be that it was an accident.

 

[Deck Knight]

I'm going to stop you in your tracks by stating it was a photoshoot, in which there was a reason for her to be there, aka her photographer liked the setting!

In a situation like this? gender matters.

The photog doesn't have a studio with better lighting than Times Square mid-day?

On the other note, some of our best friends are female. That surely counts for something!

Though in all seriousness, a public venue for stretches like that is almost asking for some douche with a camera to show up. It's Times Square in New York City. A million people or more have to pass by that location on a daily basis. A huge number have cell phone cam-corders.

So if the photog wanted to go there for the shoot he's pretty damn dense. Gender has nothing to do with the fact the venue almost guaranteed something like this, and whoever chose that venue clearly didn't think it through.

 

[pkmn-taicho321]

Clearly that guy was a sexist because he knocked her off the stage. It couldn't possibly be that it was an accident.

That was actually a mis-post and has nothing to do with anything. I just don't want to remove it now.

So if the photog wanted to go there for the shoot he's pretty damn dense. Gender has nothing to do with the fact the venue almost guaranteed something like this, and whoever chose that venue clearly didn't think it through.

yeah but it's not really the subjects fault then is it?

 

[Firestorm]

I don't know how many more times we need to explain this to you. Mekkah already explained it was everyone in the area's fault. You even had a female confirm the same thing earlier as you seem to think the gender of the person who's making the statement is oh so important.

If you are performing anything in public, you will be videotaped. It is legal to do so and should be expected. If you're wearing shorts, a tank top, and bending over a chair, then I really can't think of much else happening than someone taping your ass or cleavage as that's what's accented by that action. You should not perform those actions if you don't want that to happen.

We've established that:
- the cameraman is a douche
- the mother is crazy for letting her daughter do that
- the daughter should not be bending over a chair in public if she doesn't want to be looked at
- the photographer really needs to explain why a 17 year old was being photographed doing that

 

[Zacchaeus]

- the cameraman is a douche

Yes

- the mother is crazy for letting her daughter do that

Yes

- the daughter should not be bending over a chair in public if she doesn't want to be looked at

Yes

- the photographer really needs to explain why a 17 year old was being photographed doing that

This is kind of debatable, as maybe they never intended for it to look the way it did, maybe they had only considered these modeling poses in a ballet setting where everyone was doing it, or it had only been hypothetical to that point. If she was wearing a ballet outfit, and resting on something other than a flimsy collapsible plastic chair, I think it would have been much more appropriate, but still out of place

 

[Curtains]

I wonder if the situation would be different if two guys were wrestling at a contest and someone saw a female zooming into the crotch area of the guy.Just throwing that out there.I think the female and mom are in the right (or less wrong) because they are just doing flex poses in nyc. We have to remember that what they were doing was legal as well. We as the viewers don't know why she was there. It could be getting a city scape pic of her doing what she loves to do(maybe a portfolio ?). And unfortunately that requires minimal clothing which is not her fault.

 

[tape]

I'm merely stating how appalled I am at people's reaction. [Nothingness]

Then kindly shut up. You have been going on about it for 2 pages already, and if your intention is only informing thoughtless nerds about how ultimately shocked you are, you don't have anything else to do in here.

I'm going to stop you in your tracks by stating it was a photoshoot, in which there was a reason for her to be there, aka her photographer liked the setting!

I'm going to stop you in your tracks by stating that regardless or not of it being a photoshoot, it doesn't make it more or less of a public place.

No one gives a flying fuck about who likes a public place or not, there's no way in all hell you could make it yours for any reason at all.

Please stop posting.

edit: oh man it's the four page already. That makes it 3 pages of you being shocked! What a shock.

 

[Lakers]

I'm going to stop you in your tracks by stating it was a photoshoot, in which there was a reason for her to be there, aka her photographer liked the setting!



In a situation like this? gender matters.

then that goes back to the argument of a green screen in which he couldve had time square in the background and it would've been in a private session...

By he way im surprised no one has pointed out why is she even bent over on the chair for that long? Im not trying to justify the guy vide taping but I mean comeon, I doubt the photographer was snapping pictures at that time which means she had to at least expect something if she was gonna do that

 

[Zacchaeus]

then that goes back to the argument of a green screen in which he couldve had time square in the background and it would've been in a private session...

By he way im surprised no one has pointed out why is she even bent over on the chair for that long? Im not trying to justify the guy vide taping but I mean comeon, I doubt the photographer was snapping pictures at that time which means she had to at least expect something if she was gonna do that

I think a green screen of Time(s) Square would have been the best option, unless it wasn't really required, then just a ballet studio would have been appropriate. You know, the place where people do ballet? And you are definitely right in that second paragraph. Like if you're smiling for a photographer in a portrait, you don't hold your smile for 30 seconds, you smile right before the picture is taken. With my minimal knowledge of photography, I know that most photographers actually prefer you to smile as late as possible if you are going to smile, because it gives the best end result. I don't see why the same rule wouldn't apply to posing, where it would require the least amount of exertion to do it for as short of a time as possible. And she could have easily sat down in the chair while the photographer was transitioning from one shot to another, or she could've at least stood straight up.

I wonder if the situation would be different if two guys were wrestling at a contest and someone saw a female zooming into the crotch area of the guy.Just throwing that out there.

No, because society is sexist. That's as simple as it gets.

 

[Lakers]

Yeh, its something I actually just realized when I watched it earlier. Its obvious the photogropher wasnt taking pictures at that time, and she was just bending over as if she was tired and was stretching for 30 seconds plus. Maybe she saw some young studs walkin by and wanted to impress, although im probably gonna get flamed for that idea

 

[Polis4rule]

yeah but it's not really the subjects fault then is it?

She obviously had some say into deciding to do suggestive poses in the middle of Times Square. And don't attempt to claim that she had no say in picking the location, because that is blatantly not true.

 

[Sy123]

Ok, so are people saying 'She didnt ask for it' that is blatantly not true, she was hlf naked, in public, in new york, in the USA. For god sake the girl should of opened her eyes, not that the perve was to blame. That pervert was an idiot, Im sure everyone knows that

Who is the guilty party?
Everyone, every damn one. But most of all, is the mother
No freaking mother would let there (possibly oldest) daughter pose in public like that. No freaking mother would, and I am sure everyone knows that, no matter how damn arrogant you can get
Faults
Girl: For posing in public, like that
Mother: For letting her daughter do it
Photographer: For picking the location
Perve: For perving
Biker: Not minding his own buisness, he should step in when more rape comes on board

What a stupid case, its the teenagers suing McDonalds all over again

 

[Fishy]

all right, christ.

First of all, I'm really annoyed by anyone and everyone saying shit like "well look at what she's wearing, of course she was asking for this kind of attention/shouldn't be surprised that she's being oggled," well YEAH, certainly, but it's not like her director/photographer told her they were doing a ballet-esque shoot in time square and she has freedom to select her wardrobe. Modeling is about showing off your body and figure, and especially in an "elegant" ballet shoot like this where the main point is to show off her legs and the angles she can achieve with her body, she wore as little clothing as decently possible to achieve their goal. Plus, the girl knew that she would probably be gawked at spreading her legs toward the sky wearing what she was wearing, she obviously just decided to get into a fit about it when one of many "perverts" actually made himself known and got in everyone's face.

As for the "well the camera man was at a much more lewd angle," like, really. I'm sure the point of the photo shoot wasn't to sell "sex," but to just get the best angle to really excentuate the extent of her legs in whatever positions they were in, and probably to get the best contrast/lighting onto her figure against the backdrop of Time Square and all the people. And to those of you who keep saying stupid shit like "Couldn't they have done this in a studio/gotten better lighting elsewhere??" Obviously they were using Time Square as a specific backdrop, perhaps to contrast the elegance and poise of ballet against the chaos of all the people milling about?

Anyway, everyone is definitely in the wrong. Camera creeper is being a creeper and not respecting the wishes of others, which he is within the law to do so as he pleases, it just makes him kind of an ass. Biker guy is self-righteous and feels strongth, fuck him. Mother is just being a dumb mother about her daughter's ass, which she shouldn't be surprised is getting attention as it's being "flaunted" in the photo shoot (and i don't even want to use the word flaunted like that, but it's what everyone in the public would use). Daughter, like I mentioned before, is wrong for reacting so "shocked" as she probably very well knew she'd be getting some attention, even if she wasn't directly aware of it.

Also lol@Sy123, I just noticed your comment about no mother ever letting their daughter pose like that. I'd just like to say that awww, maybe you're just a little too naive? There are plenty of mothers who would gladly flaunt their daughter's body to the world in the hopes of them gaining success, just for their own satisfaction that they've created a "model" or "sports hero" or anything else that they can feel directly proud of, and take some of the glory for themselves personally. Mothers and fathers alike do that with their children, "living their own dreams" through them when they've already lost their chance.

ramble ramble ramble

 

[Sy123]

Maybe I should rephrase, 'No mother would do that'
How about, 'No proper, caring, real, good mother would do that'
And I am sure you knew what you meant, but just wanted to see if you could prove someone wrong

 

[Aeroblacktyl]

oh dromice what time was that shoot again? and whats was the photog's name?

im asking cause apparently you know exactly everything going on with all parties involved there. you must know their schedule as well rightttt?

 

[Zacchaeus]

Modeling is about showing off your body and figure, and especially in an "elegant" ballet shoot like this where the main point is to show off her legs and the angles she can achieve with her body,

IT'S SO ELEGANT

she wore as little clothing as decently possible to achieve their goal.

That's wrong for two reasons:
1) There are shorter shorts than those.
2) She could've worn something that people were actually meant to do ballet in, like a tutu...

Maybe I should rephrase, 'No mother would do that'
How about, 'No proper, caring, real, good mother would do that'
And I am sure you knew what you meant, but just wanted to see if you could prove someone wrong

I second that post

 

[DM]

nude =/= lewd

do you need me to define lewd?

Lewd; Crewd and offense in a sexual way

1. Nude doesn't necessarily mean lewd, but I'm pretty sure an under-aged (aka illegal) girl without any clothes on (save a sheet) looking salaciously at the camera is lewd.

2. Thank you very much, but I'll take my definitions from someone who can actually spell properly.

It's like leaving your care door unlocked in a high crime area! Sure you should know it's going to get ransacked, but that doesn't mean the criminal should get away with it, and that you should be ridiculed.

I yell at my girlfriend for leaving valuables in her LOCKED car when it's in my neighborhood, especially if it's something that can be seen by looking in the window. If you invite thievery, how do you not share a portion of the blame?

 

[umbarsc]

From today's CFR Daily Brief:

- U.S. Announces New N. Korea Sanctions
- Biden Visits Iraq before Combat Ops End
- Ozawa to Stick with Kan Challenge
- Al-Shabaab Attacks Shake Mogadishu

But no, instead of all of that stuff, let's keep on arguing about a guy that videotaped a girl! This is extremely productive discussion -- a bunch of laypeople offering their legal opinion on an event that none of us witnessed (aside from a 3 minute deleted YouTube video).

 

[JabbaTheGriffin]

1. Nude doesn't necessarily mean lewd, but I'm pretty sure an under-aged (aka illegal) girl without any clothes on (save a sheet) looking salaciously at the camera is lewd.

Not if it's done for the sake of art. I don't see how you could classify anything done with clearly no prurient interests as lewd. Simply because she's underage does not change the fact that it's clearly an artistic piece. It's not like they even made her look good. I could imagine if she was all caked in makeup and had "come fuck me" eyes on then maybe you could go "oh well that's just a little too far." But as the picture is it is nowhere near lewd.

Also besides this line of conversation the rest of the topic is retarded. Who cares who was right/who was wrong it was a bunch of idiots acting like idiots case closed. There's no real "discussion" in that.

 

[iDunno]

It doesn't matter. Lets all just agree that the guy who was taping was obviously a basement dweller fat guy who stalks hot girls, and that the girl should have expected someone like him to show up.

Shes hot. Deal with it. Its not that big a deal.

 

[skarm]

I think we've achieved all we're going to achieve with this discussion. Thanks for playing!