Talk:Upskirt

getting out of a car or just sitting on a park bench?

In those situations I don't think "upskirt" is appropropriate because the photo is not taken up the skirt as specified in the lede but horizontally or even somewhat downwards from horizontal. Qemist (talk) 05:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Well almost 10 years later but I'll tell you an anecdote, when I was a student in Venezuela, seeing girls' panties when they were careless without taking photos was called "Buceo" which literally means Diving. I did it as revenge because I had 3 girls classmates who were bullies and I suffered from Pantsing, done by the 3 girls and 3 boys the day before for physical education uniform. I think that the Ministry of Education took measures a few years later against "Skirt Diving", because now the girls will wear the same daily uniform with the boys, that is, a polo shirt and navy blue pants in mixed schools. But I can't confirm the latter. Legarad (talk) 04:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Upskirt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141018084837/http://www.ncvc.org:80/ncvc/AGP.Net/Components/documentViewer/Download.aspxnz?DocumentID=40459 to http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/AGP.Net/Components/documentViewer/Download.aspxnz?DocumentID=40459

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The file Inna en un concert en France.jpg on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 21:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Going commando, Wardrobe malfunction

I've removed the Going commando see also again. Whether the person is wearing underwear of not has nothing to do with the subject of this article, any more than any of the other specific bits of lingerie that might be exposed (Panties, Pantyhose, Stockings, Thong (clothing), etc.) Meters (talk) 06:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the Wardrobe malfunction see also again too. Upskirt is generally not a wardrobe malfunction as much as a voyeuristic attack. As I said in a summary somewhere (don't know if it was this article) "sticking a camera up someone's skirt is not a wardrobe malfunction". Meters (talk) 07:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

image is she OK with it?

While the image copyright might be OK - I guess it is. Is the subject happy with the use of the photo in this way? She is clearly identified and yet no one seems to have asked her views? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.249.23.158 (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

If you are asking about File:Marcia_Imperator_legs.jpg, it's a relatively tame picture considering that Márcia Imperator was an "adult film" actress at the time. Wikipedia got it from Flickr in 2008, where it was available under a compatible license. I'm sure that any adult film actress would have been all too happy to have her legs in a Wikipedia article. If she's changed her mind since then she's free to contact Wikipedia and make a case for removing it. Meters (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

If the subject is 'happy with' the image, it isn't unauthorised, and therefore not an 'upskirt' image as defined in this article. Which makes it off-topic. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

If you have a proposal concerning the image then make it. The first IP raised the issue of whether the person in the photo was pleased to have her photo on Wikipedia, and I responded to that. We don't know if it was taken with her knowledge or approval, or if she approved of it being on Wikipedia. We do have the right to use the photo, and I surmise that, given her profession, she wouldn't have minded. As for the definition, while the lead may say "unauthorized" the body says that such pictures are sometimes the result of pictures taken "with the knowledge and lack of objection" of the subjects. Meters (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The fact that it is debatable as to whether authorised images count as "upskirting", I think it would be in the best interests of Wikipedia to remove this image. It does seem rather unnecessary. --Bangalamania (talk) 22:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Best interests how? Meters (talk) 22:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I've restored the image. There's no consensus here to remove it,. In fact, there isn't even a proposal to remove it. Meters (talk) 22:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Keep the image. Obviously it's not exactly an upskirt image if it's authorised, in the everyday meaning of the word. Meters is right insofar as authorisation is concerned. I think you're being overly difficult to request its removal. Matt 190417 (talk) 05:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Whether the object of the image is an adult actress or a nun is irrelevant. We have no more right to ogle one's body parts than the other's. One being an adult actress does not mean one is "available" or "easy" or "consenting by default" to anything sexual. The Wikipedia community should condemn such attitudes without hesitation. The fact that, moreover, this is the image of a known person renders the issue totally clear: If the object of the upskirt image has not provided explicit consent for the image's inclusion in the public domain of Wikipedia, the image should not be here. End of story.

If, of course, the object has given her consent, then the matter is settled. The image stays and it is a fully legitimate demonstration of what an "upskirt" is. The argument about the image not being truly an upskirt shot since it was taken with the object's consent is of course a load of half-clever old cobblers. Wikipedia routinely, and rightfully, features set up, demonstrative images. The user is supposed to learn what is, for example, a stabbing; not see an actual one. So, we have the image of a stabbing, where of course, ceci n'est pas une pipe. -The Gnome (talk) 04:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Strong agree on all matters raised by The Gnome, particularly in regards to the suggestion earlier in the thread that it is somehow OK to share unauthorised, sexual imagery of someone without their consent based upon which line of work they choose. It seems we never had an answer as to whether the model agreed to this image or not, but like The Gnome, I feel as though the image is simply not needed for the same reasons mentioned above. Curt ^内蒙 22:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Upskirting

I wanted to ask people's opinion about the grammar of the word "upskirt". It is, of course, an adjective, as in the expression "upskirt photo" which appears many times in the article. It is also a verb, so one person can "upskirt" another. And there's a note in the markup of the first paragraph:

Deviating from the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:MoS), the following quotation marks demonstrate this term is used as a regular noun. The term "upskirt" can also refer to a photograph, video, or illustration which incorporates an upskirt image.

This doesn't seem too surprising. It allows someone to take an "upskirt", and makes "upskirt" almost a synonym for "upskirt image". My query is that this uses "upskirt" as a common noun, whereas the definition ("Upskirt is the practice of making...") uses it as an abstract noun. This definition isn't followed in the rest if the article, where the abstract noun used is "upskirting". An analogy would be with photography – a photograph is an image (common noun), but you can't say "Photograph is the practice of making..." – that's photography (abstract noun). Surely we should say "Upskirting is the practice of making..."? I'd like to propose that for the definition in the first sentence.

Also, can we take out the line: "The term is also sometimes used to refer generically to any voyeur photography – that is, catching an image of somebody unaware in a private moment.". It's had a citation needed tag since February 2015. It's not a usage I've ever come across, and it would make, amongst other things, a downblouse into a type of upskirt. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 12:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Questionable claim unsourced three years... nuke it. If anyone wants it back in it is up to them to provide a reliable source to support it. Meters (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done as no objections received. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to split the article. Polly Tunnel (talk) 14:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

---

I propose that the section England and Wales (including the subsection Voyeurism (Offences) Act 2019) is split into a separate page called Voyeurism (Offences) Act 2019. It is conventional on WP for significant acts of the UK parliament to have their own articles, and this content appears rather large and unwieldily among the other comparatively short national sections here. Polly Tunnel (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• I agree, the length of this section is a problem as it gives undue weight to an ultimately unremarkable act of Parliament and its passage. Three things are interesting about the section: 1) the availability of the offence of outraging public decency and that it was inadequate; 2) the fact it originated as a Private Member's Bill, though ultimately adopted by the government; and 3) the controversy over it being blocked at second reading. Only the first is relevant in this article. Hairy Dude (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Upskirting in Japan is not prohibited!

Sie schreiben falsch! In Japan ist Upskirting niemals verboten! "Upskirting" verboten dort nur an gefährlichen Verkehrsknotenpunkten, wie Bushaltestelle, Bahnhaltestelle, Rolltreppen, Straßen-Fußgängerübergang usw. Das sind Gefahrenzonen. Aber nicht in Gefahrenzonen darf man unter die Rock fotografieren! --88.76.64.180 (talk) 14:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

In Japan geht es nicht um unter Röcke fotografieren, sondern um Gefahrenzonen! Dort ist verboten, auf allen Gefahrenzonen etwas zu unternehmen, auch fotografieren. In Gefahrenzonen müssen Menschen konzentriert sein, schweigen, ruhig stehen, nicht sprechen, sich nicht ablenken. Aber unter die Röcke fotografieren lenkt die Menschen von Gefahren ab, bringt sie in Gefahr. "Geh woanders hin und fotografiere dort unter die Röcken, aber nicht hier"! --88.76.64.180 (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

The above text was posted in response to this notice on the user's talk page:

“ Hello, I'm LuK3. I noticed that you recently removed content from Upskirt without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

”

Translation of the Geman-language text:

“ You are incorrect! Upskirting is never prohibited in Japan! "Upskirting" is only prohibited at dangerous traffic junctions, such as bus stops, railway stations, escalators, pedestrian road crossings, etc. These are dangerous locations. But outside of such dangerous locations you can take photographs under skirts!

In Japan, it's not about taking photographs under skirts, but about dangerous locations! It is forbidden to undertake any activity, including photography, in all dangerous locations. In dangerous locations, people need to concentrate, be quiet, stand still, not talk, and not be distracted. But taking photographs under skirts distracts people from danger, and puts them in danger. "Go somewhere else and take photographs under skirts, but not here"!

”

- Polly Tunnel (talk) 12:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Images

Please see Wikipedia:Image use policy, particularly the section on privacy. In an article about nonconsensual photographs, it's important to avoid using images that might violate the privacy of living people.

Also see MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE: "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative." I don't think the photos of women wearing leotards with gauzy overskirts contribute anything towards the reader's understanding of the topic. gnu57 03:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Image use policy#Privacy rights only relates to images taken in a private place: "When taking pictures of identifiable people, the subject's consent is not usually needed for straightforward photographs taken in a public place, but is often needed for photographs taken in a private place. This type of consent is sometimes called a model release, and it is unrelated to the photographer's copyright."

Of the "gauzy leotard" image: it is literally tagged as an upskirt photo and is obviously relevant. - 2603:8080:2C00:E3D2:2DE4:82E2:E5:18FB (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

It also says that images of street performers (which the lead is, a cosplayer) require no consent, nor does nudity if in a public place. - 2603:8080:2C00:E3D2:2DE4:82E2:E5:18FB (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Not all “Upskirt photography” is non-consensual.

The article defines “Upskirting” aka “upskirt photography” as the practice of taking non-consensual photographs under a persons skirt or kilt but not all upskirt photos are non-consensual. For example, there is a niche genre of porn that involves staged consensual upskirt photos or videos. They are still typically called upskirt photos/videos despite being consensual. The same applies to exhibitionist woman who allow a man to take upskirt photos/videos up their dress/skirt for later personal enjoyment/viewing. They may also take selfie upskirt photos/videos to send to their partner as a part of sexting. Thus, we should really changed the lead sentence to acknowledged that not all upskirt photos are non-consensual, even if some porn upskirt pics/vids are falsely portrayed as such for marketing purposes (much like fake amateur porn or fake incest porn may be). We should also expand the part about porn websites featuring upskirt pics/vids to mention that some of these are really staged photos/videos and thus not true non-consensual upskirt photos, even if the site misleads people into thinking otherwise (with maybe only a tiny disclaimer at the bottom of the page or elsewhere on the site clarifying otherwise). - Notcharliechaplin (talk) 03:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

"there is a niche genre of porn that involves staged consensual upskirt photos or videos" I have seen a couple of videos in this style, but I have noticed many painted images of upskirts in various sites covering fan art. Dimadick (talk) 10:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Ireland

now banned in Ireland but called downblousing 91.154.169.156 (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect - upskirting (which is the act of taking upskirt photos "without [...] consent with intention of obtaining sexual gratification, or to cause humiliation, distress or alarm") is now a crime in Northern Ireland, in addition to downblousing: https://www.psni.police.uk/safety-and-support/advice-and-information/upskirting-and-downblousing One cookie (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Pic in lede

Can we not have a non-consensual shocking picture in the lede y'all? 2603:6081:24F0:AD80:D4B1:763E:EBEC:D5B1 (talk) 00:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Concur, reverting, please don't re-add this picture without consensus here Nickelpro (talk) 16:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

How do we know it was non-consensual? Pauline Muley (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Image has been deleted per COM:CREEP, as I'm sure you discovered, so the discussion is irrelevant. Nickelpro (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Graphic in UK/England and Wales section removed

It's way too problematic to stay in its current form.

"Despite widespread voyeurism" - who says it is widespread?

"in the UK," - the graphic shows England & Wales, a subset of the UK with a different legal system and laws to the rest.

"few reports are made and fewer charges are brought" - the graphic is of reports between 2015-17, when per the text 'upskirting' was not a specific offence in England & Wales. Would we say 'in the UK, few reports of murder are made and fewer charges are brought'? It's true - there are always fewer charges than known murders, if only because of the time between report and charge.

The map has plenty of gray areas labelled "0 or no data" - those are two very different things that should not have been conflated.

Several areas of high population, and high number of reports, have a small area - it looks like every London borough is shown as being separate. London makes up the large majority of reports covered, but because of the mapping, this is not clearly shown. (It's quite possible that a campaign by Transport for London encouraged reporting of incidents on public transport.) Lovingboth (talk) 09:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Safety shorts image is in bad taste

I believe it is a WP:BLP violation to use a picture of a real person to illustrate a sensitive topic like this one without consent. I will be removing it if no one objects or finds a better replacement. Ca ^{talk to me!} 17:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)