And now you know why the Islamists cover their wives and daughters, because there is nothing that a hetro man won't look at if it is remotely female and accessible.
This is why men go to the beach, to the gym, and to the mall on hot days.
Nothing new here.

Well, it seems that this gentleman should apply to the TSA, his profile match.

It's not new Isab, no, we all look when the opportunity presents itself, and I'll admit to liking hot days at the mall or in the city. But this is a bit too creepy and planned for me. Photos/video? Ewww. At least I'm decent enough to go to strip clubs where it's a voluntary transaction (and where I'm very respectful, and photos are most definitely not allowed, thank you very much).

Covering up women to protect men from their urges is a cop-out that absolves men of their responsibility to restrain themselves. Most of us manage to. Islamists covering up their women is more about control (only I get to see this), not protecting them from anything.

I bet you a lot of filming goes on at strip clubs, just not by the customers as much as the managers and owners.
It has become incredibly easy to hide a camera and film anywhere you want to.
Filming is a double edged sword. People want the freedom to film the police. They just don't want anyone to film them.
The average person in the city probably passes in front of a camera a dozen times a day.

If they thought about it, and realized that any woman can be an object of sexual desire, we might be on our way to a society where looking is actually illegal to look (at least if you are a member of a protected class) I am sure white males would never be in a protected class of people you can't look at.
I say with WalMart employees turning in parents for pictures of their kids in the bathtub, we are already half way there.
You cover mid sections, and boobs, men will be looking at faces, and ankles. Cover those, he will still be imagining a female under a bed sheet and thinking about sex.

Filming by the owners most certainly does go on at strip clubs, with the full knowledge and usually approval of the girls working there. For safety and legal reasons (if a customer gets fresh, they have evidence, and if a stripper is breaking the rules and threatening their license - and the other girls' income, don't forget that! they have grounds to sack her). At least where I live, any owner/manager who exploited that and got a reputation for abusing access to the recordings would face wholesale desertion of his/her employees. Small business in a big town.

I'm having trouble understanding the rest of your comment. I think you're saying there's nothing wrong with this guy because every man does it. I still think you have to learn limits and that this particular guy is creepy. Unlikely to be threatening to anyone, but still creepy.

Yes, we all pass in front of cameras every day. That doesn't make intentionally filming someone in what he thinks is a provocative pose right or moral.

No, what I am saying is that we are treading dangerously close to thought crimes here with this whole line of reasoning.
And usually, what follows is an entire discussion of "this is so wrong, there otta be be a law" or the TSA should stop screening women, thus removing the temptation of voyeurs. (And my point was a voyeur may have fun sitting in the right place at the airport, but there are so many better places to look, it is hardly worth your while.)

If there ought to be a law you have two choices, make "looking" illegal or cover up the women, and if you cover the women, how much is enough?

Yes, some TSA employees are getting a charge out of groping women, some police officers probably get off on strip searches, and some doctors and nurses, emts, firemen, and professional photographers, probably occasionally get sexually excited by things that they see during the course of their jobs. We had a doctor in Wyoming who was raping his patients for years before they finally convicted him.

Since we can't read minds, we can assume every male is guilty until proven innocent, or we can make everyone cover up, (and make photography against the law)

And I don't really care what motivates Muslim men to keep their wife out of view. The reason they do it, is because they are men, and they know how men view women in their culture. If you aren't in a burka, you are sexually available, and a legitimate target for rape.
I don't condone it but they are winning the demographic war, so enlightened western values may be a truly moot point in a hundred years.

During the Victorian era, the sight of a woman's ankle was considered sexually exciting. Why? Because no decent woman would expose her ankles.
My husband had a room mate at West Point who found looking at pregnant woman sexually exciting, (yes even with all their clothes on) Why did he find this exciting? Probably because evolutionary biology attracts men to women who can have babies, but he thought it was because it was visible proof that they had had sex.

Anyone else, less horrified by men being sexually excited by looking at women being groped by TSA agents, see where I am going here?

And usually, what follows is an entire discussion of "this is so wrong, there otta be be a law" or the TSA should stop screening women, thus removing the temptation of voyeurs.

Thus putting words into my mouth. I never said either. This guy is free to be a perv if he wants, and I'm free to say it's a bit icky. I daresay there would be plenty of people lining up to condemn me for things I do too, and they can go whistle. And just for once, this really isn't the TSA's fault.

and if you cover the women, how much is enough?

As much as you, knowing that there are men out there with cameras, feel is necessary perhaps?

And I don't really care what motivates Muslim men to keep their wife out of view. The reason they do it, is because they are men, and they know how men view women in their culture.

So you do care (and know) why. Please try to be consistent, at least within two consecutive sentences.

During the Victorian era, the sight of a woman's ankle was considered sexually exciting. Why? Because no decent woman would expose her ankles.

It was the time of corsets (the original push up bra) and figure hugging bodices too. I'm guessing those inflamed a bit more passion than ankles.

I am not flying again until the TSA is disbanded, and now my girls are not going to be allowed to fly either. This SUCKS. I HATE the TSA. I hate the bastards that implemented it. I HATE the TALIBAN and AL-Qaeda. So shoot me. I am SICK to DEATH of this shit. Truly.

And this fucking perv? I hate him too. Asshat. I know guys are going to look, and for the record, I look at hot guys too. But at least I'm not pervy about it!

This isn't the woman putting on a show, y'know.

I don't care if men are more visually stimulated by nature, this is just plain creepy and weird. There are plenty of venues to go if you want to stare at women. Watching women being violated by TSA, and taping it is gross beyond words. I'm with Flynn, all of this just pisses me off and not just this perv the whole mess.

This is the kind of post where I go straight to the comments. First because it might not be real, but second because it probably is. So tell me if I missed anything.

What the people who complain, in emotional distraction, about this being eeewww, creepy need to understand is that it's what happens when you infantilize a population.

I believe that for nearly a century, the United States did less of that infantilizing than any other country. We were better at bringing timid young fellers into responsible adult sexuality and respect for women than anyone else in the world. Men were taught to do things, to use tools and learn math and get a job and face challenges wherever & whenever they appeared. Boys could see that carrying themselves like grown men would get them laid by the most exciting women in the world... The one thing they absolutely needed, the quintessential requirement, was courage. And for many years, even for the meek, it was easier to find courage than to become sexually distracted by peeping at cousins in the shower, or by juvenile daydreams of authority ('If I'm wearing the uniform, she can't say no when I want to search her!').

Well, this is what happens when you pretend that your government will protect you during airline flights. This is what you get. And these personas —the peeper, as well as the high-school dropout who wants to sink his fingers down your underwear– are not going to confine themselves to the airport.





Yeah, that Napolitano's a real feminist success story, ain't she?

Dude if you're reading this... ew.

This letter has a real "ick" factor to it. In a way it is no worse than a guy sitting on a bench outside a Victoria Secret or Fredrick's in a mall. Everyone has their fetish, whether they admit to it or not. Hell, some of Amy's letters make this guy look like a piker.

But I read it, went away and mulled it over before replying.

I'm guessing that this guy has a regular airport that he flies in and out of. I wonder if and how many times anybody has stopped and asked him about his surveillance on the TSA checkpoint. I'll bet it is somewhere between about 0.01% and never.

Part of professional security is you notice what else is going on around your security point. Such as if you have a manned security gate and a car pulls up across the street from 10-11AM every day and you never see anyone get in or out that is suspicious. Someone going to the store across the street isn't, or an employee regularly getting in is different.

So if this person shows up two hours early, goes through checkpoint A and his flight is on Pan Am which is at the other end of the terminal, after a while I'm going to start asking questions. It's called counter-surveillance. Especially if it is his "home" airport. If it has never happened someone isn't doing their job. That tells me the quality of the TSA and the rest of the security theater.

I'd like to know what airports this creep flies out of, because I NEVER see these women when I travel.

LW writes: I do feel a little guilty when it's a girl, maybe 16, and I'm still looking.

And he keeps on looking, despite his guilt. Which means that he will eventually no longer feel guilty about looking at underage girls getting fondled and photographed nude by the TSA.

Anyone else see where this is headed?

Patrick, I agree. I thought I was the only one who sees bad things in this pervert's future. He probably takes up skirt pics too, when he can. This kind of skeevy watching behavior can possibly escalate into more serious intrusions of privacy later. The looking is bad enough, but the taping is what really sets off alarm bells. I am not calling him a rapist. Just someone who has serious boundary issues.