137 Comment

  • WTF? They should list this sketchy person’s address so that they can shame them out of this behavior!

  • I don’t understand. I know this is not the most ethical form of behavior, but how is it illegal to photograph people out on a public street?

    • It isn’t. If you are running on a public street, you have zero expectation of privacy. Is this really so much worse than when men on the street cat call women when they walk by or stare at their asses? It’s frustrating and frankly very animalistic if you ask me, but this happens on the daily everywhere I go in this city.

  • Is that illegal?

  • the whole block? the end? the middle? maybe they are staking out the sunoco to try to figure out what kind of deal the taxi drivers are getting on gas!

    I kid, that’s weird, but that’s also pretty vague and alarmist.

  • Super creepy and inappropriate no doubt, but I’m not sure if this is illegal? They’re in public…

    • That’s what I was thinking. This might be one of the few times when “Call 911!” is not the right answer. Definitely sketchy, though.

      • Maybe the signs are more for the photographer. If he’s doing something creepy, he now knows that someone’s on to him and maybe he’ll back off. If it’s a legitimate photographer doing something non-creepy he probably knows his rights and will ignore the signs.

  • I appreciate the concern over this individual, but judging from the facts on the poster it doesn’t sound like he is committing a crime.

    An individual has no expectation of privacy when in public. It’s perfectly legal to photograph or video record anyone or anything in public view. Whether it is done secretly is irrelevant.

  • If the person that posted this knows about the picture taking (as do the rest of us now) – then is he/she really taking them secretly?

  • I don’t think the legality about it is in question. Even if it is legal, I don’t have an issue with the police coming and speaking with this person if it is happening. It is creepy, and shouldn’t be happening.

    • What exactly do you expect the police to do or say? I’m guessing that conversation would go like this:

      Police: Hi. We’ve heard that you have been video recording people in a public space, which is perfectly legal. Can we talk to you about that?
      Law-abiding citizen: No, goodbye.

  • It’s creepy and weird, but it is not illegal. By that logic, any surveillance camera footage would be inadmissible in a court of law. Why not just call the person out on being a creep and keep going on your merry way?

  • austindc

    What about posting signs on public property with no tear-down date? (not being snarky, actually curious)

  • I’m waiting for someone to say this should be reported to 311.

  • +1000!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Photography itself may not be illegal, but the accompanying behavior might fall under DC’s stalking statutes.

    • There are a number of reasons why D.C. stalking laws would not apply here, but most notably because said laws specifically do not apply to constitutionally protected activity, like recording people in public view.

      • Actually, that’s not correct. The D.C. statute includes a catch all saying that it does not apply to constitutionally protected activity, but that is not intended and has not been construed as a blanket protection for taking pictures of people in public, all speech, etc. If you’re harrassing, stalking, etc. – then courts have ruled that your actions are not constitutionally protected activity. (That catch all was just intended to make sure the law is harder to challenge – at this point, the only situation that I can imagine it would imply would be organized labor activity.) You would violate the D.C. statute by doing something on two or more occassions, directed at a specific person (so, they’d have to take pictures of the same person at least twice), that you know would “distrub” the person, or that reasonably did “disturb” the person, or that would “disburb” a reasonable person. It is unbelievably broad – really so that the DV court is able to issue protective orders in basically any situation. In reality, the D.C. gov’t is not going to criminally prosecute this. The target(s) could potentially seek a civil protective order – but it would protect only the specific people who petitioned the court, and although the DV court hands out protective orders in relationship cases like candy, they take a much harder look at cases where the individuals are not in a relationship. Also, petitioner would have burden of proof.

  • pablo .raw

    Why is it creepy? Do we know the intentions of the photographer? Just curious

    A little different case but similar in a way that recently happened in NY http://petapixel.com/2013/05/16/new-yorkers-upset-over-photographers-secret-snaps-through-their-windows/

    • That case is somewhat different in that the individuals being photographed were in their homes, and individuals have at least some expectation of privacy in their homes.

      On the other hand, an individual should have no expectation of privacy when in a public place.

      • Honestly, I don’t think there’s anything wrong, morally or legally, with photographing women running in a public place. Even if the photographer is just taking pictures of their butts. It’s weird, but I don’t consider it violating. Whenever I go out in public my clothed butt is out there for the world to see, so who cares if someone takes a picture of it?

        • pablo .raw

          I agree that it could be weird if the photographer is only taking photos of the jogger’s butts, but we don’t know if that what he is doing, and I think it is a little bit too much to call this a “security alert”, “do not confront him” (it’s a camera not a gun!), “call the police to report him”… Why assume the worst of photographers?

        • It is creepy. I am a female runner and I do not want someone taking pics of me without telling me (if you are a man or a woman I don’t care). I especially do not want them up for display if they are going to be used for a project. It is my body. I get to decide if you can photography me for your project not you. I don’t go out an run to flaunt it.

          • pablo .raw

            Unfortunately you can’t decide this. If you are in a public space, you can be photographed, displayed in a gallery and even sold as art (the photography) because the laws allow it and there is precedent. If you don’t like it is another thing. What can’t be done is use your image for a commercial or associate it with a specific product.

          • justinbc

            Sorry lady, but GWB already claimed the title of “The Decider”.

          • Sigh… no. You don’t “get to decide” any such thing if the photography is taking place in a public setting.

    • I’m with you on this Pablo. Flaunt it if you’ve got it, knamean?

      • pablo .raw

        As someone who does street photography regularly, I don’t understand why people think that someone taking photos of people or buildings in public is either creepy or a terrorist. I have been threatened with calling the police several times for doing something completely legal. Now, I know that for some people it is uncomfortable to see someone taking their photo in public but that doesn’t make it creepy IMO.

        • It’s a double standard– no one ever suspects a female street photographer of being creepy or a terrorist.

          • Double standard? I don’t think that means what you think it means. Double standard would only apply if women committed acts of lechery and creepery in equal number as men. Or any number, for that matter.

            Find me ONE instance of a female exposing herself to strangers,or taking and selling upskirt (upshort?) photos of strangers, and I’ll find you 10,000 cases of men doing it. Sorry, dudes. You suffer for the sins of your brethren.

          • “Sorry, dudes. You suffer for the sins of your brethren.”

            Pretty much the definition of bigotry.

          • So because there are some sleazy men in the world, society should put up barriers to people like Pablo that are genuinely trying to create art or documentation?

          • Yep. How do YOU like it??

          • Emmaleigh504

            I’ve met Pablo and if he taking pictures of my tits or ass on the street, yes I would be pissed and would ask him to stop and probably tell him off. If it’s some rando on the street I don’t know, I would be have to think twice about even politely asking them to stop b/c men get all kinds of pissed when you ask them not to objectify women. That’s when threats of violence or actual violence start happening.

          • Double standard would only apply if white men committed acts of violence in equal number as men. Or any number, for that matter.
            Find me ONE instance of a white man shooting someone, and I’ll find you 10,000 cases of black men doing it. Sorry, black dudes. You suffer for the sins of your brethren.

          • We’re getting away from the point here. There is nothing in the original post that suggest the photographer was taking pictures of tits or ass.

        • I think it depends on the aggressiveness of the photographer, and how intimidating he or she is. If a photographer went up to a random person and started paparazzi-style snapping in their face or all around them, that is over the line, expectation of privacy or not. Likewise if someone is making unwanted advances on women, or making them feel targeted or threatened, it’s over the line.

          OTOH, if a photographer is in one place, snapping interesting things as they pass, and being reasonable about not following or getting in people’s way, I can’t see a huge issue with it.

          The “creep” factor also comes in when people wonder what the heck the photographer is going to do with that photo. If it’s people in front of a sunset, it’s less “creepy” than taking photos of kids in a park, because people can imagine more creepy uses for the latter. If a guy is photographing women and only women, it raises the specter of more unsavory uses for the photos than, say, Pablo’s street portraits.

  • Who cares about the legality? No one is suggesting hauling the photographer to court. But I appreciate the heads-up, in case I choose to use the information to jog elsewhere. Isn’t the #1 safety tip “be aware of your surroundings”? The poster is helping us be aware of our surroundings.

    • Well, the sign does say to call 911 if the person takes your photo, which suggests that the sign isn’t just about providing information in case women want to run elsewhere, but to affirmatively have women call the cops because of the suggestion that photographing them is illegal, which it isn’t.

  • There’s been an ongoing discussion on the newhilleast listserv about similar activity in Lincoln Park [original post from Aug 6 pasted below]. I wonder if it’s the same guy.

    “While walking my dog tonight I noticed a guy (mid 30’s heavy set African American, 5 ft 8-9 inches in a large oversized white t-shirt and black
    shorts) taking pictures of two women as they walked ahead of him on the
    sidewalk around Lincoln Park. The women were dressed in workout
    clothes, and appeared to be taking no notice of the man behind them. I
    could see on his screen that he had zoomed in and was taking pictures of their rear ends only.
    >As I was crossing the street to get
    closer, he abruptly turns around and whistles to someone saying, “let’s
    go”. I called out to him and said, “hey why are you taking pictures of
    those women’s back sides?” and he said, “shut up mind your own damn
    business” and then, “we’re in a racewalking club and we post pictures of
    each other to Facebook”. Which I could maybe believe except 1. He was
    not and did not appear to be “race walking” 2. He was not taking
    pictures or videos of their gait, so as to give feedback on how to
    maximize the walk, etc. 3. He had turned to leave after only taking
    pictures and 4. The women clearly had no idea what he was doing, and he
    didn’t say good bye to them or say, hey I got some great pics, I’ll
    post later or anything.
    >I tried to find the women after he left,
    but it seems that they might have turned down 13th or Mass. Anyway, I
    post this only to say that this guy’s picture taking gave me pause and I
    felt bad for the women, so if you see him again, maybe take notice of
    what he’s doing and try to warn women about him. I know I wouldn’t want
    someone taking pictures of my butt to post on FB whether I was in a
    racewalking club with him or not!”

    • Taking a picture of the photographer with your cell phone, even before confronting him, would have been ideal. What’s he going to say “Hey, stop taking my picture without permission”? LOL.

  • justinbc

    Well at least he’s not into rollerbladers!

  • While a little creepy, 15th street has come a long way if the most threatening thing to occur to women runners is photos being taken of them.

  • Doesn’t posting signs like this constitute littering?

    • I’ve been looking at the relevant laws, and the individual who posted this sign appears to be in violation of the law.

      All signs like this must list the date they were posted (24 DMCR 108.7) and 2 copies of this poster must be on file with the D.C. government, including the name, address, and telephone number of the individual who created the sign (24 DCMR 108.11).

      Personally I find it a horribly ironic that someone would violate the law in order to bring attention to someone else’s lawful activity.

      • [Judge Dredd] I AM, THE LAW!

      • Horribly ironic — hmm, I don’t really understand how you modify ironic with horribly. Those of us who specialize in irony insist that you just call hypocrites out directly.

        • “I don’t really understand how you modify ironic with horribly. ”

          You use horrible as an adjective.

          ‘Horrible – adj. 2. Very unpleasant, disagreeable.’

    • People caring more about the sign being up then showing empathy for women having to deal with some form of creepy behavior on a daily basis?… that attitude is part of why we live in a society where this man thinks it’s okay to creepshot on women. Perspective, please.

      • My perspective is that I’m an attorney. I’m also a photographer, a feminist, and a man.

        • Emmaleigh504

          Then most lost pet signs are illegal too, do you bring that up on those posts?

        • Even though this isn’t (without more) illegal, can you appreciate why this is somewhat disturbing (if not, you are not a “feminist” unless of the Schwyzer variety)?

          I have seen males tilt their phones down toward asses. The zoom function is only a pinch away. While their faces may not be there, it is still unsettling.

          Personally, I’d like to know what kind of people are in my n’hood.

          • I also like to know what kind of people are in my neighborhood, but this sign gives me absolutely positively no idea whatsoever.

          • Nor does this sign give enough information to tell me whether it’s disturbing or not. And regardless of what you say, I’m a feminist.

  • Even if it’s not illegal, how can people genuinely claim to not understand why this would bother the women? Women don’t exist merely to be objects of pleasure/use/art for some creep without any regard for how the women might feel about it. Women are street harassed in DC every day and this is just another form of some creepy man feeling his desires override the women’s desire to be left alone. If you can’t understand why someone would care, you’ve been sucked into the vortex of rape culture for far too long.

    • Emmaleigh504

      Exactly. People need to look up creepshots and see why it makes women uncomfortable for strangers to take their photograph in public even if it is legal.

      • That’s a small unfortunate segment of the street photography population. By your logic anyone who buys a pressure cooker should be arrested.

        • Not saying he should be arrested. But he’s a creep. And people should be empathetic to the fact that women are on the receiving end of undesired behavior on the regular and be understanding that they may not want to be on the other end of some random dude’s camera.

          • Agree. So many people have a really cavalier attitude about creep behavior, and where it can lead. I get that you don’t get a woman’s discomfort in these situations, but instead of telling her to “get over it” or “put on your big girl panties” or whatever other dismissive thing pops into your head including a careless shrug and “it’s not illegal, so…”, try a little empathy.

          • Maybe be emphatic towards the photographer as well and not assume the worst in people?

      • figby

        Only a man would shrug it off. But what if it was their wife or daughter?

    • Would it be better if the photographer was also taking picture of male joggers? Or if he were taking pictures of people engaged in other activities? Even the person who observed the photographer and posted these signs has no idea what he was really up to. I can’t speak for other women, but I’m extremely sensitive to street harassment and I don’t see anything wrong with this. If you see someone photographing you, and it makes you uncomfortable, just tell the photographer and he or she will probably stop doing it.

      • Hm. Well, I get what you’re saying, but the safety of “just tell the photographer to stop” really depends on who’s doing the photographing. As a woman, I’m sure you know what I’m talking about. There are certain dudes I’d tell to leave me alone if they were harassing me, and certain ones I’d be scared to engage with at all. Either way, it leaves me infuriated that I have to deal with this bullsh*t all the time.

    • Would it be better if the photographer was also taking picture of male joggers? Or if he was taking pictures of people engaged in other activities as well? Even the person who observed the photographer and posted these signs has no idea what he was really up to. I can’t speak for other women, but I’m extremely sensitive to street harassment and I don’t see anything wrong with this. If you see someone photographing you, and it makes you uncomfortable, just tell the photographer and he or she will probably stop doing it.

    • There is nothing on this notice that indicates the person taking the photo is a man.

    • Certainly, women don’t exist for anyone else’s pleasure, nor do they have any obligation to help this guy, stand still for his pictures, look good for him, any of that shit… But he is taking pictures in a public place. Plenty of times in public places people do things I don’t like: take pictures, smoke cigars right next to me, litter, and sure, wolf whistle/street harass. I don’t like it, but it’s not illegal. They have the right to take pictures and call me whatever name they want. I have the right to put on my big girl panties, ignore them, and move on with my life.

      • Right because those of us who voice displeasure with random dudes secretly taking our photos aren’t being “big girls.” ?? I think the woman who posted this was a “big girl” in showing that she cared for the welfare and potentially even the safety of other women in the area. And certain forms of street harassment are most certainly illegal, even if this guy’s actions may be legal. If more people didn’t simply “move on with their life” and actually stood up to these creeps, like the poster of the sign did, we’d be better off. Again, not arguing if it’s illegal or not, but that doesn’t make it right. And women have every right to think it’s creepy and look out for reach other.

        • One person saw something she interpreted as creepy, so the mature thing to do is plaster signs illegally all over the neighborhood telling people to call the police?

      • Let me get this straight. It makes me a big girl if I just sit there and take harassment? It’s pretty sad that this is what some women think. Just because something is legal does not mean it’s right, and it certainly doesn’t mean we should put up with it.

    • Well said, Anon. Take note Pablo– I am not here for your art. I do not exist to make your personal world more lively and photographable.

      As for Caroline, you say you’re “extremely sensitive to street harassment”… but I don’t believe you. If you can spout that facile “what if it was pictures of a man” line, I don’t think you know what it is to be harassed. If you can’t see how an “innocent” photo of my ass while I’m jogging could lead a sick person to think that *more* would be nice… and from there down darker paths… Well, it must be nice, that’s all I can say.

      • Please. I’ve been street harassed and worse. It’s terrifying and nowhere near as bad as someone sneaking around taking pictures of me while I’m out in public.

      • pablo .raw

        I am taking note! I want to understand this from the other point of view also believe it or not and I welcome this discussion 1000%. My point is that some people consider that the photographer is doing something creepy without really knowing his intentions.

        • Emmaleigh504

          But his intentions don’t really matter. It could be a completely harmless this is what people in my neighborhood do photo album, but if it makes people uncomfortable they can ask him to stop and alert the rest of the neighborhood. And if the photog were a descent human he would stop when he realized he was creeping people out.

          • Asking someone to stop or telling others of the incident is different than painting the photographer as a criminal, which is what these inflammatory signs are doing.

          • pablo .raw

            I totally agree with you Emmaleigh504, I have been asked to stop taking photos (mostly from men) and I do.
            Also Anonymous, I agree with you, it’s because of this kind of signs the idea the someone with a camera is some kind of creep or terrorist. There’s no time to tell how many times people have told me that I “may be up to no good” or even the time when I alone created a delay on the green line just because I wanted to take a photo! (public apology to all green line users) 😀

          • Emmaleigh504

            I don’t see them as painting the photographer as a criminal, creep yes, criminal no. To me it looks like someone didn’t like getting her photo taken and is telling the neighborhood in the typical alarmist fashion. Nobody is going to pay attention if the sign isn’t bright orange and there’s no mention of the cops.

          • Emmaleigh504, the poster is titled “Security Alert” and the last paragraph is instructing people to not talk to the photographer and call the police. They’re making him out to be a dangerous person.

          • Emmaleigh504

            True, I guess I was just taking it with a grain of salt. I know how people tend to exaggerate. It also doesn’t look like the police put it out, so I just think he’s a creepy photographer, not a criminal.

        • Pablo – sincere question – when you’re taking street photographs, do you ever talk to the folks you’ve shot (provided you can make your way to them)? Not that this would apply in the above situation since I wouldn’t imagine a street photographer running after someone who is jogging down the street. If you have or haven’t, any reason why?

          Second point – I would think of the photographer’s intentions differently based upon the camera and how the photo is shot. Is it a guy with a “real” camera that is paying attention to background, and trying to set up a shot, or is it a rando dude with an iPhone trying to hide what he’s doing? While both could be taking a photo of the same thing, the situations strike me differently.

          • pablo .raw

            I don’t talk to people all the time. When I do, it’s because I want them to pose for me. When I don’t, it’s because I want them to look natural and I like the scene. I have followed people down the street, people who look interesting to me and I want to take their photo like this guys: http://www.flickr.com/photos/benavente/9232581731/
            Here is an example of a time when I didn’t ask someone if I could take her photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/benavente/8955729994/
            About the “real” camera. I have a friend who does exactly what you are saying; he takes photos with his iphone on the metro, he doesn’t want people to know he is doing it and he posts the photos on a website http://dcmetropeople.com/
            He was even interviewed by NBC4 for doing this, and people were calling him “creepy” without even knowing him or knowing about his work. That is my whole point here, people assuming that the photograher is a creep withouth knowing his real intentions. Thanks for asking!

          • justinbc

            I can’t answer for Pablo, but as someone who does quite a lot of street photography I regularly go up to people who look particularly interesting and ask if I can take their photo. Almost all of them are receptive and you get some pretty cool conversations out of it as a bonus.

          • Emmaleigh504

            Pablo, one of my fears is having my photo taken on metro and having it wind up on the internet!!! Off to scan that website!

          • pablo .raw

            Enjoy! hahahaha I hope you are feeling better from your surgery btw!

          • Emmaleigh504

            I am and I feel better after going through a few pages of those metro pix, I”m not there 🙂

          • Pablo – performances cool. Solo people who are NOT ON DISPLAY, not so much. While I appreciate your technical expertise (my sis and her bf are photogs) there is something creepy about the girl shots.

            Your friend’s Metro shot close ups are not cool. I see those as different from bland masses.

            Nobody can stop you – unless they stop you – but do take a minute to understand how your unwitting subjects may perceive you.

          • pablo .raw

            @BitterElitist: I welcome and appreciate your opinion; I know that some people don’t like their photo taken, I’ve been asked to stop taking photos of them. I also know that there’s other people who like it, because they have told me so. Let me tell you a story: there’s a person who found out I took their photo in public (saw the photo on one of my websites), and I was hired to photograph their wedding because of that.
            Regarding the way they will perceive me, that is exactly the point. Signs like the one on the photo create an image of photographers as creeps or terrorists assuming that the photographer is taking the photos for some strange reason and even recommending to call the police.
            Finally allow me to mention a recent case. In Boston there were street photographers taking photos and video of runners including women. This photos were used to find and recognize who were the terrorists.
            Photographing people in public space is legal, is not a crime, some people like it some people don’t.
            Thanks again for your opinion and have a nice day.

    • This. Don’t tell women what they should or should not be comfortable with. They did not consent to having some rando snapping their pictures just because they stepped out of the house. It is intrusive behavior and they have every right to find it creepy and want to avoid the person doing it.

      • Just like every women has the right to step out of the house in a short skirt and not be harassed, photographers have a right to step out of the house with their camera and not be harassed. End of story.

        • Bad analogy, given that by photographing unwilling subjects, the photographers are the ones engaging in harassment.

        • you sound like the cop who told women to stop dressing like sluts in order not to be raped. that’s victim-blaming at its most outrageous. it doesn’t matter what women wear, it’s not an invitation to do things that would make them uncomfortable. you really need to look up “rape culture” and you’ll see that you are a prime example. *shudders*

          • Well Anon 4:02, since 1) women in short skirts are not by any definition harassing anyone by their choice of attire and 2) photographers who take pictures of unwilling subjects are (by the definition of many commenters here ) harassing people, I need to ask what YOUR point is. IMO, your analogy doesn’t hold water. The fact that being photographed by strangers doesn’t bother you doesn’t mean that no one else has any right to be bothered by it. And the fact that it’s legal doesn’t mean no one has the right to be upset that it’s happening or think ill of the person who is doing it to them.

            But I do appreciate your support for the right of miniskirt-wearing women to be free of harassment.

          • Umm, did you completely and totally misread what I wrote?

    • THIS. Thank you for writing this.

  • I agree that the poster’s a bit over the top, but I think most women can agree that they don’t mind knowing that there’s a creeper on the block – these things often escalate.

  • Henri Cartier-Bresson was a total sleazebag, then. Wish some vigilant neighbor had been around to stop him…

  • Here’s what the offended party should have done, if he/she were afraid to walk up to the photographer and ask what he was doing. He/she should have gotten on the neighborhood listserv and said something like, “Hey I’ve noticed a guy taking pictures of joggers on the 1900 block of 15th Street. Just wanted to let you guys know in case you’re uncomfortable with that and would change your route to minimize the possibility of being photographed.”

    • Not everyone in a given neighborhood reads the neighborhood listserv… and not everyone who runs along that stretch of 15th Street necessarily lives in that neighborhood anyway.
      The sign strikes me as slightly misleading — on first glance, I thought it was a sign FROM the police, not a sign put up encouraging people to CALL the police.
      The photography described sounds creepy, but legal. The sign is *almost* legal (ought to have a date, etc.), but as long as the behavior described is legal, I’m not sure what exactly the signposter is hoping to accomplish. He/she is raising awareness, which I would imagine is one goal, but I’m not sure it would be helpful to deluge the police station with calls if the activity being complained about is perfectly legal.

  • Regardless of “creepy” vs. “not creepy” or legal vs. illegal, everybody here seems to be accepting as fact that the claims on the sign are true and accurate. Either the person who created the flyer has additional pertinent information that they did not include on the flyer, or they are making some tenuous assumptions about what is going on in the first place.

    Unless the person who created the poster is either the photographer or somebody who has discussed this activity with the photographer, I do not have any idea how he or she knows whether the photographer is taking pictures only of female joggers as opposed to a.) all joggers irrespective of gender, b.) all females irrespective of whether they are jogging, c.) absolutely everybody that he or she sees, or d.) something else.

    • Exactly.

    • Right, if the person was only observing they probably made a lot of assumptions.
      I would love to go to a park with my SLR and take pictures of children playing. I have a lot of experience taking pictures of landscapes, weddings, food, plants, and animals, and would like to get some practice photographing kids in case someone asks me to photograph theirs. But nearby adults would jump to conclusions and perceive it as creepy, so I don’t do it.

  • It could have been a photographer for a respectable news outlet taking pictures to accompany an article on how fit DC is. Would that be a problem?

    • Emmaleigh504

      For me, yes.

    • Yeah like how the news gets all the stock footage of obese americans that they show walking down the street with faces blurred or something for their stories about sugary drinks and diabetes

    • Taking a pictures of hot chicks. Without their permission, yes.

      • How do you know if the ladies in question were hot or not? So beautiful people cannot be photographed but it’s ok if they ‘re ugly?
        Think we found the real sexist on this thread!

      • So you assume these ladies are hot because they work out? Ugh.

  • At least it is more discreet than the crew that sits out on GA and calls out at every female that passes by, often times with cops driving right by

  • I really dont see the problem with this situation. As a muscular and defined male, I have had a couple of girls take a picture of me (tourists) when I was jogging without my shirt wearing runners shorts. Maybe I should have posted a sign on the Washington monument about these teenage girls.

    • Your opinion doesn’t count b/c you’re a man.

    • Shan, is there a chance that the teenaged girls will develop an obsession with you, stalk you, perhaps kidnap/ imprison/ rape you? Has that happened to a lot of (any) men? Are there a lot of (any) female sexual predators out there who, when their lairs are infiltrated, are found to have thousands of surreptitiously-shot photos of their eventual victims? If yes, then yes. Definitely inform the community about those girls.

      And don’t you DARE imply that because I am attractive I should appreciate the attention of men, the way you clearly enjoy the attention you get from women while running in short shorts and no shirt.

      • Are you implying that women don’t stalk men? Are you implying that there is not female on male violence? Then, just… wow. It’s not all about you and your ovaries. Abra los ojos.

        • Female on male violence is minuscule compared to the reverse. The vast majority of it is partner violence. No, it is not acceptable.

          It’s disingenuous to ignore the power differential between buff gymrat (who likes the attention of younger women) and teenage girls who are from out of town. No sea baboso.

          When a woman stalks a man she doesn’t know and rapes him in his home, please let POP know!

          • Here’s an exercise to help you understand how your rant is bigoted.

            In the above text, please replace each occurence of “male” with “black”, and each occurence of “female” with white.

            Would you ever write or say that (in public or in private)? I kind of doubt it.

          • Well put, BitterElitist.

          • Dear Bitter…According to a study conducted by the CDC it was found that 40% of the victims of severe, physical domestic violence are men. I do not think that is “miniscule”.
            I also resent the statement you make about “shorty shorts and running without a shirt” impling I am dressing in a sexual manner to attract attention from women. It is interesting to note how you also assumed I was heterosexual. My point is that I should feel violated that some women took a photograph of me, but according to you I deserved it because I was running without a shirt in shorts.

          • I’m not sure that “replace ‘male’ with ‘black’ and replace ‘female’ with ‘white'” exercise really illuminates anything. Gender dynamics and racial dynamics have a *lot* of overlap and points of intersection, to be sure. But gender and race can’t really be neatly swapped as though they’re interchangeable; they are not.

  • Back in the spring I was assigned to photograph a 5k that my volunteer organization was doing. I’d never photographed a race before and was looking for ways to prepare, and a suggestion a lot of people gave me was to go to a park and photograph people running for practice. One of the primary goals of my volunteer organization, incidentally, is to empower women. Please don’t jump to conclusions when you see someone taking pictures!

Comments are closed.