up my skirt? up yours!

Tracy Clark-Flory wrote an eh article on upskirting for salon.com a few weeks back. downblousing self portraitUpskirting is the tech-enabled 'art' of sticking your cell phone up a oblivious woman's skirt so you can catch a snap. You can figure out the definition of downblousing for yourself.

Clark-Flory's article was a rather surface glossing of the subject that had about.com's editor (and NSRC friend) Cory Silverberg lamenting the death of sex reporting. And I agree--Clark-Flory's article could have gone more in depth about how the distinctions between public and private are being erased by technology-- and by the big brother eyes of the homeland security folks-- and how sexual rights (and citizenship) are shifting.

But I was deeply disappointed by the extra-short shrift given to the topic by another NSRC ally, Dr. Marty Klein--who calls the 'controversy' a big yawn:

"Ask any of these American women which they prefer—the freedom to go out and dress as they choose, “risking” an upskirt photo, or the safety that comes with imposed limitation. Calling women whose body parts are surreptitiously photographed “victims” demeans victims of actual violence. And it trivializes women as delicate creatures who must be protected from interfacing with the adult world. Laws that would punish men taking these pictures sound right at home in the Iran and Saudia Arabia that “respects” women so much it removes their choices."

In my mind, the problem with upskirting and downblousing is around power and consent: If I choose to go out with a lowcut blouse (I do, sometimes), I realize that someone might be looking down my shirt. If I choose to wear a short skirt, I realize someone might be checking out my legs. If I choose to flash someone on the bus or climb the glass stairs at the SF Apple Store pantiless, that's one thing. But if someone sticks a camera up my skirt and takes a photo, that's non-consensual.

And the websites that have sprung up everywhere (do a google search, there's too many to name) understand the distinction. Is this about wanting to look at boobs or butt and you can't do it any other way than by taking a surreptitious photo? Obviously not. Is this about female exhibitionism? Nope, because purposeful upskirting pics (ie posed photos from consenting models) are distinguished from 'candid' upskirting pics. What gets people--men, almost exclusively--off is that it is non-consensual. What makes women feel vulnerable is the act of taking the photo, not necessarily that a photo exists. Klein notes, rightly, that we have our privacy violated in a myriad of other ways--our photos are taken constantly without our consent.

However those privacy violations are (mostly) evenly applied across the board (though there are lots of righteously problematic profiling problems). Upskirting is an almost exclusively male-on-female phenomenon, and it is sexualized. I don't like being sexualized--by creepy-crawly eyes, by camera phones, by folks on the phone who think I have a sexy voice--when I am not choosing to be a part of it. And when I know that the other person enjoys it all the more because I don't--that goes down a road I simply don't want to be on. What do you think?