Courts cannot make up their own law, they must stick to interpreting statute. Going by the description of the law above, "such locations provide a reasonable expectation of privacy," there would be no reasonable reading of the law that would protect a woman wearing a dress in public.

If such actions are to be blocked, a new law must be written up by the state or local legislature.

I always thought that "up my skirt" was a location where I could expect some privacy... Guess I'm just crazy, who knew that was public space!

This is utter bullshit and more along the meme that women who wear skirts are "asking for it." How the hell can it not be deemed even common fucking decency that looking up someone's skirt without their permission is the wrong thing to do? I want them to define what exactly constitutes a "resonable expectation of privacy?" or is it once you're outside the home it's open season?

Attention Target shoppers: here is more evidence demonstrating that what lies between a woman's legs is indeed public property.

Charming.

The length of the skirt would determine if it's "public" or not. Either way it's still child porn for the Oklahoma case and that man should be in jail.

Add this to the list of reasons why women are hesitant to wear skirts we were discussing about a month ago...

I take what Tori is saying and expand on it- what is defined as "public space"? A peeping tom could look in your windows at home at you while fully dressed in the living room- that would be illegal by the common definition of public vs private space. The same type of gaze in a "public" space is not illegal- you can stare all you want in public at anyone- it's not illegal. But these two instances of useing mirrors and/or cameras to look UP a woman's skirt I think, as Tori alludes to, IS violating a private space- most obviously the space under your skirt. If someone reached inside your blouse without touching you (somehow) and took a picture- I think that would be a violation as well. You are able to expect privacy of areas that are covered by your clothing, why else would you bother to wear it? I have to believe 1) these cases were poorly argued or 2) the judges were off their rockers. Maybe LawFairy or other lawyerly types on here could chime in, I would be interested in what your opinions are on how else these cases could have been argued.

Also, I live in Cali- is it safe to wear a skirt out here??!?

I for one am going to sink my inconsiderable fortune into Amalgamated Capri Pants With Elastic Leg-Holes, LLC stock immediately.

Pure sexism....since when is it okay to intrude upon a private citizens bodily space for the sole purpose of sexual investigation without the persons permission? This quack is basically saying sexual assault ISN'T sexual assault. Now I guess I can take a little hand mirror and angle it just right to see a guys ball sack when he wears shorts. Why not create a web site and make money off of it?

" The law under which Presken was charged states, 'It is illegal to secretly observe someone with lewd, lascivious and indecent intent in a dwelling, structure or conveyance, and when such locations provide a reasonable expectation of privacy. "

If thats the case, how can his case by dropped. It fits the law ideally.

The length of the skirt would determine if it's "public" or not.

I guess we haven't debunked the "short skirt means she was asking for it" myth yet.

" The law under which Presken was charged states, 'It is illegal to secretly observe someone with lewd, lascivious and indecent intent in a dwelling, structure or conveyance, and when such locations provide a reasonable expectation of privacy. "

If thats the case, how can his case by dropped. It fits the law ideally.

Note to self: If you ever catch anyone taking pictures up your skirt, just go for the nuts, knees and nose. In that order.

"there would be no reasonable reading of the law that would protect a woman wearing a dress in public."

WTF?!??! So you're saying that a store is not a "Structure or conveyance" where a woman can expect not to have creeps with mirrors looking up her skirt? Obviously the reasonable expectation of privacy changes based on where someone is.

Unfortunately it is a stupidly vague law.

Gross me out.

that is a bizarre interpetation of "reasonable expectation of privacy" this case should be thrown out if he, say, took a picture of her face because, she probably isn't covering her face and it's not expected that when you leave your house, your face won't be seen but, it is expected that when you leave your house and you're wearing clothes, that your undergarments or naked body will not be seen essentially, isn't that why we wear clothes?

that is a bizarre interpetation of "reasonable expectation of privacy" this case should be thrown out if he, say, took a picture of her face because, she probably isn't covering her face and it's not expected that when you leave your house, your face won't be seen but, it is expected that when you leave your house and you're wearing clothes, that your undergarments or naked body will not be seen essentially, isn't that why we wear clothes?

"there would be no reasonable reading of the law that would protect a woman wearing a dress in public."

WTF?!??! So you're saying that a store is not a "Structure or conveyance" where a woman can expect not to have creeps with mirrors looking up her skirt? Obviously the reasonable expectation of privacy changes based on where someone is.

Unfortunately it is a stupidly vague law.

Gross me out.

that is a bizarre interpetation of "reasonable expectation of privacy" this case should be thrown out if he, say, took a picture of her face because, she probably isn't covering her face and it's not expected that when you leave your house, your face won't be seen but, it is expected that when you leave your house and you're wearing clothes, that your undergarments or naked body will not be seen essentially, isn't that why we wear clothes?

unfortunately, with judges and lawyers like these, we are forced to create a new law instead of properly enforcing the ones we already have.

I love the part about how he used to be a teacher. And by "love" I mean, it makes me want to vomit.

..in a dwelling, structure or conveyance, and when such locations provide a reasonable expectation of privacy.

In these public peeping tom cases the judges judges dismissed the cases based on the fact that the act occurred in a public place (target, shopping malls, etc) where one would not normally have an expectation of privacy. I would say that the prosecuter should have argued that the private space in question was the space under the woman's clothing, not the space where the woman was standing at the time the man took photos/positioned a mirror/etc. While it is not reasonable to expect privacy in a mall, it IS reasonable to expect privacy under clothing.

I wonder if women taking pictures of men standing at a urinals would be considered ok? I mean, how could you have an expectation of privacy in an open setting? It is a public bathroom, after all and if you wanted privacy you could use a stall instead of the urinal.

" Note to self: If you ever catch anyone taking pictures up your skirt, just go for the nuts, knees and nose. "

No,... because then you'd be tried for physically assaulting a person who was simply doing NOTHING wrong. Didn't you know youre just supposed to let him do it? Objecting is against the laws.

GopherII, if that's what happens, that's what happens. I've been in physical altercations with men in public before, and maybe I've just been lucky, but I've always walked away. I wouldn't do it in a back alley, but a book store or mall? Hell yeah.

Ayla,
I agree! I was being completetly sarcastic. I fully support kicking his ass - even if that meant going to jail. I believe justice is justice.

I was trying to highlight the injustice of acting appropriately (i.e. giving him a DIY vasectomy)and getting sent to court for it, while the perpetrator is protected rather than punished.

Nazrafel & GopherII:
"Public space" is mentioned in the defense attorney's argument referring to the part of the statute that says "such locations provide a reasonable expectation of privacy." The "locations" mentioned here are along the lines of a city square, a house, a building, a subway, and not a "location" as in up a skirt, down a blouse, or other locations on a body/clothing. This is exemplified earlier in the law when it specifically names other locations as "dwelling, structure or conveyance." A store is a public place that one would not otherwise expect privacy, and is therefore not covered by this law. The attorney is taking advantage of the way the peeping tom law is worded. It is written to address traditional peeping toms looking in windows and not those people looking up clothing. It is neither poorly argued nor are the judges off their rockers as you suggest, Nazrafel, nor does the law fit this situation, GopherII; it's just a situation where the plaintiff is trying to apply an ill-fitting law to their case.

Instead of blaming the courts for doing their job, a new law really needs to be made to address the onset of new technology that makes these kinds of personal space violations possible.

Who the hell are these lawyers? I feel like Feministing commenters could have prosecuted this better. Honestly, how does a decent lawyer not poke holes in this bullshit until it looks like Swiss cheese?

The idea that the girl had no "reasonable expectation of privacy" would be correct if she were strolling around a Target butt naked, and someone photographed her. It's not morally right, but that does conincide with the law as written. The fact that, as others have pointed out, the real violation occurred not in a mall, but under her fucking clothing entitles her to privacy, dunnitt?

Jesus Christ, her crotch wasn't out in public.

And regarding skirts...aren't anti-feminist conservatives the ones who think that women wearing pants are "unnatural" and masculine? And aren't these also the same type of people who defend the actions of rapists by blaming the victim for wearing ultra-feminine and sexy clothing, like, say, SKIRTS? So I guess we really can't win.

Okay, wait. If I would get arrested for public indecency if I walked around nude. Possibly even if I were just in my underwear. If I can't show it off in public, why can someone secretly look at it in public?

Wait, wait, I get it. Women are inherently unreasonable, so if we expect privacy, it can't be a reasonable expectation? Is that it?

Okay, wait. If I would get arrested for public indecency if I walked around nude. Possibly even if I were just in my underwear. If I can't show it off in public, why can someone secretly look at it in public?

Holy shit, that point was so good it gave me shivers. Well done!

"I guess we haven't debunked the short skirt means she was asking for it myth yet."
Sorry you can't comprehend the difference between exhibitionism and invasion of privacy. Google Britney Spears if you need to be spoon fed.

Destra, mirrors aren't exactly new technology. I find it hard to believe that in the entire history of United States law that there has never before been a successful prosecution of a "public" peeping tom. Perhaps a different statute should have been used, sexual harrasment, etc.
Destra, I still maintain that it is NOT stupid to blame the courts as I think any woman at any point in time in US history would find it reasonable to expect people to respect personal space/privacy in areas protected by clothing.

iqonefiftynine, what exactly do you suggest women do? Never wear skirts in public because obviously we are all just asking for a camera to be shoved up our cooters and have pictures posted on TMZ?!? If we decide to bring charges in these cases, would we have to submit our skirts for measuring to see if it is "too short"? (we could apply the high school rule of fingertip length or longer, right?) This is, as exelizabeth pointed out, a perfect example of how women can't win. Maybe we should all hide in purdah so we can be "safe". I have to say, if I caught some guy with a mirror or camera up my skirt, he better pray that the cops get him before I do. I'll shove that camera where the sun don't shine. Feel free to post again if you want another spoonful.

Nazrafel, it's true that mirrors are not new technology. I was, of course, referring to smaller cameras and phones that make taking pictures up gal's dresses easier. With this new technology the rate of up-skirts has only risen. It's this trend of increasing amounts of technology linked up-skirts that I was addressing in that statement.

I was only making my observations based on this single statute, and not other instances in the US, nor other laws that might've been applicable.

It IS stupid to blame courts. What you, I, or the judge feels is reasonable is NOT what a court actually decides on. It is bound purely to the law at hand. A judge cannot say, "well, I don't think what this man did was right, so who cares what the law actually says I'll just rule in favor of the girl!" While I agree heartily with you and others who say that a woman should have an expectation to privacy in areas that she covers with clothing, those people professing baseless scorn of the court's decision in this case are not aware of how the law actually reads. I'll say it again, a court cannot make up new law, it can only interpret laws that are in place.

Perhaps the law is worded poorly. I would at least charge for disturbing public order.

About the use of martial skills in such a situation: they do not call them "stiletto heels" for nothing. Accessories can do to, and face is probably the best target. (Target?) "Nuts" are perhaps more satisfying, but hard to reach (and a skirt is not a kimono).

Courts cannot make up their own law, they must stick to interpreting statute. Going by the description of the law above, "such locations provide a reasonable expectation of privacy," there would be no reasonable reading of the law that would protect a woman wearing a dress in public.

Traditionally, in determining whether a reasonable expectation of privacy exists, courts will take into account the efforts made by the person asserting the presence of such an expectation to conceal or otherwise block from view whatever it is that was intruded upon, and the amount of effort involved on the part of the intruder.

Here, this woman was fully clothed, such that it took substantial effort to see what the voyeur saw. A normal observer would not be able to see what was up her dress.

Normally, something like that does figure into whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

It IS stupid to blame courts. What you, I, or the judge feels is reasonable is NOT what a court actually decides on. It is bound purely to the law at hand.

This is a rather naive conception of how courts operate. The fact is that all rules of law contain some degree of indeterminacy. They are virtually never capable of mere mechanical application; instead, they require interpretation.

The act of construing a statute involves weighing various factors (and what factors are weighed will vary to some extent from judge to judge), ranging from the "plain meaning" of the statute to any evidence available as to the intent of the legislature in enacting it, and the underlying policies (as evidenced by the statute itself, the legislature's own view of the matter, and other existing enactments). For example, a court, looking at the whole of pertinent Florida law, might find that there is a strong public policy in favour of protecting people from unjustified invasions of privacy, and look to that in construing the notion of "privacy" as used in the statute.

Or, one can - as this judge did - make an extremely restrictive construction of the statute that defines the legal interest it protects as narrowly as possible.

Rules of law almost never apply trivially to real-world situations. It is up to the judge to find the best possible interpretation of a rule.

Elise,

Such tests are applied to expectation of privacy cases, but I do not think that it fits here. This statute already defined the types of locations that are protected as "dwelling, structure or conveyance." The ad-on of "such locations provide a reasonable expectation of privacy" would then apply to locations such as those previously mentioned, but might have been left out. Physical locations that one stands on or in. It would not be a reasonable reading of this law to apply "such locations" to places in clothing.

Such tests are applied to expectation of privacy cases, but I do not think that it fits here.

How is this not an expectation of privacy case? The court's decision was specifically based on its view of whether this woman had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Nothing in the statute prescribes the factors to be considered in determining the presence of a reasonable expectation of privacy, nor does it forbid looking at the totality of the circumstances.

The courts have a certain amount of lattitude in interpretation. Also, it is not entirely true to say that they cannot enact law. Brown vs Board of education brought a change in law and required desegregation. (I know that the Supreme Court is a special case, but still- they are judges, it is a court and they essentially interpret law and in some cases, overturn old (Plessey vs. Furgeson) and enact new law that is then used as a rule for other similar cases) I think here the expectation by the original authors of the legislation is that it would go UNSAID that OF COURSE people (aparently this does not include women according to the judge) would be able to expect a certain amount of privacy, even in public. It is physically impossible to enact laws that specifically address ALL the things that would EVER be possible. What we have to do is view each case in light of applicable laws and what we believe the intent of the legistlators writing the laws was/were. I think that the idea of what location is "reasonable" is key here. A man would expect that he would be entitled to privacy, even at a public urinal. I have to assume that if someone took pictures of a man while he was utilizing the open facilities instead of a stall, this would not be taken to mean that he had abrogated his right to privacy (despite his apparent willingness to whip it out in view of others). Women, on the other hand, LOSE in court when argueing that body parts that they COVER with clothing are not to be considered open and accessible to the general public. While it isn't fabulously specific, women have been wearing skirts and dresses for thousands of years- I can't help but believe, as I said earlier, that this has happened in the past and at some point MUST have been successfully prosectued. This would provide precedence the prosecuting attorney could bring to the court's attention. /ramble

I don't think it applies here because the statute already gives a definition of the types of places that the statute can be applied to.
"Locations" very obviously is referring to types of buildings and not angles up or down peoples clothing. You therefore cannot do an expectation of privacy test on a place that is not covered (like up a gal's skirt). How a person is dressed, or how they are sitting/standing, then, becomes irrelevant under this law.

That last comment starting with "I don't think it apples" was addressed to Elise.

I don't think it applies here because the statute already gives a definition of the types of places that the statute can be applied to.

Even that is debatable. If one applies the maxim of ejusdem generis ("others" mentioned at the end of a list must be considered to be limited to things "of the same kind"), then that is certainly a permissible interpretation, though it is still left to the judge to determine what factors to consider in assessing whether a particular location is in fact "of the same kind".

However, there is another possible interpretation, namely, that those specific locations were listed ex abundanti cautela, out of an abundance of caution, in order to ensure that there could be no doubt that the listed places were within the scope of the statute. This is also supported by the use of the words "reasonable expectation of privacy" to characterise the places to which the statute is applicable.

I am not arguing in favour of the inclusion of "up a woman's skirt/dress" as a "location", though I see no reason such an interpretation could be dismissed out of hand.

My point is that nothing in the statute prohibits courts applying the traditional "totality of the circumstances" analysis in determining whether a person had a reasonable expectation of privacy in a particular place.

In determining whether a location offers a "reasonable expectation of privacy", one could, for example, start the analysis by asking:

"Is this a place in which, by definition, it is reasonable to expect members of the general public to see the area in question as a matter of course"

applied to this case:

"Is a mall a location in which, by definition, a reasonable woman should expect members of the general public, as a matter of course to see up her skirt?"

Nazrafel,

Courts only have wriggle room in their interpretation of statute that would be reasonably applied. An unreasonable application is easily overturned by a higher court.

Also, it is not entirely true to say that they cannot enact law.
Not in the sense that you are supposing. Courts create the common law, which is only to say that the common law is the means and ways that that court interpreted statute or the constitution. So the court can 1. make it's way of interpreting statue/constitution law. 2. A court can overturn a statute if it is deemed unconstitutional. 3. It can also overturn previous lower court rulings if the court deems them to be incorrect interpretations. A court cannot, however, make up new law off the top of its head with no basis in the statute.

As to Brown, the Supreme Court made a ruling on certain practices', i.e. segregation, constitutional status. They ruled it unconstitutional, not really making a law that said all schools must segregate, per say.

...I think at this point we're only arguing over the definition of the term "law," and really we have the same views on it.

As for looking to the intent of the writers of the legislation: always a good thing, if you can manage that. It's a tricky thing as many legislators who vote one way on a bill might not have the same intent as those who wrote it. Or intent may not be expressed at all. In this situation, I don't think a law on peeping toms was intended to prosecute those who look up gals' skirts. It would seem the more likely intent was those looking through windows and into buildings or land where people expected no one to be looking.

"Up a woman's skirt" is not so much a "location" as it is "a reasonable expectation of privacy." In what location is there a reasonable expectation to look under a woman's clothing against her will? Is there any? I can't think of one. Even in a strip bar, only the performers would be granting permission. A female patron would still have a reasonable expectation of security in her person (i.e, privacy in her clothing).

Seems to me the reasonable expectation of privacy is portable with the clothing, and has nothing to do with the specific location. Thus all locations in which a woman chooses to be clothed imply a reasonable expectation of privacy.

"I don't think a law on peeping toms was intended to prosecute those who look up gals' skirts. It would seem the more likely intent was those looking through windows and into buildings or land where people expected no one to be looking."

Destra, women expect no one to be looking up their skirts pretty much wherever they are at the moment.

The exception lies, of course, in the amount of clothing in use. If you are wearing something that causes private areas to become exposed, even inadvertently, then you are exposing yourself. It is not the fault of the onlooker when this happens.

This is miles away from peepers using mirrors, cameras, or other equipment, or actively positioning themselves to get a better angle to view what remains effectively covered under normal conditions.

The difference lies in who is the agent in creating the exposure: the exposee or the onlooker. (Not that that has anything to do with the law as written, but it is common sense.)

Nazrafel - You obviously can't grasp the concept of plain view. If someone has to shove a camera anywhere then it's not plain view. Plumbers crack, whale tails, beaver shots, and cleavage across the room are all fair game. I live in a college town where girls pee outside and change in cars. If someone can see it and they aren't crawling around on the floor in a mall then it's you with the problem, not them.

As long as we are discussing strict interpretations, look at the way the law is worded (I hope that's a quote):

"'It is illegal to secretly observe someone with lewd, lascivious and indecent intent..."

Does a strict interpretation mean that it is perfectly okay to openly observe someone with lewd, lascivious and indecent intent"...?

No, don't you people see? Women who wear skirts in public can not reasonably expect that men won't look up them. Don't you read the tags that come on skirts/dresses? "Warning: wearing of this item entitles others to view under this article of clothing in public areas." Heck, I'd take it a step further, why not let men take women's shirts/bra's off in public? She can't possibly expect privacy in a PUBLIC AREA!!!
Sorry if my sarcasm is too high on the gross-out scale, my brain's been rendered numb by the INSANITY of this court decision.

Fascinating discussion. Great analysis. I wish more of that was done with these judicial rulings so I could understand them better. Overall it just reminds me yet again that law does not equal justice.

I agree that it's a poorly written law, which should be changed.

When considering the judge's analysis, it's important to remember the criminal law context: criminal laws need to be precise, and are, generally speaking, given fairly narrow interpretation. I don't really think the judge could have done much else here.

So I guess the judge in this case is saying that us women should just wear burkas and be done with it because other wise we can't expect privacy of our persons.

Destra, in the Pensacola case, the issue wasn't public space (according to the article) but that "reasonable expectation of privacy" wasn't defined. Frankly I don't see anything unreasonable in not expecting someone to photograph up a woman's skirt.

Unsurprisingly, one of the commenters is explaining this case as a reason virtuous women should wear long dresses (no suggestion of trousers, of course).

Lou, what the judge is saying is more like this:

"I can only enforce the law as written--doing otherwise is unconstitutional.* And the legislature hasn't written a law which will permit successful prosecution of this guy's actions."

If you want something to be illegal, you need to make it clearly illegal. And the law needs to exist BEFORE the behavior is committed--you can't make something illegal after the fact.

It's the legislature who dropped the ball here, not the judge.

*this is confusing for a lot of non lawyers. yes, judges "rewrite" laws all the time, or so it seems. But they don't do that when it expands the limits of what is illegal, because that is not permitted under a variety of constitutional law and jurisprudence.

Sailorman, putting it that way helps. I can see how it would not work to expand the definition of what is illegal. Thanks for the explaination. Though I am STILL curious about what consitutes "reasonable expectation" of privacy in public. I mean, SERIOUSLY has this NEVER come up in court before this last year or two??? What about 30 years ago when wearing pants was still relatively uncommon for women? It just boggles my mind that this seems to either be the first time this has come up. I would REALLY like to know 1) if this has come up in the past 2) if the outcome was similar/how it was dealt with.

Just one thing to put out there is that you can talk to places you regularly frequent about enacting policies prohibiting picture taking. I agree with Desra that the problem is not these judges but rather the lack of legislative protections for these things. People should call their legislators and see if their state has or is wroking on better protections. After reading about creepy guys taking pictures with their cameraphones at gyms, I talked to the people at my gym and they immediatley prohibited the use of camera phones (I recognize that my gym may be unusually cool in this regard). It is not enough, certainly, but it makes life a little more comftorable in the meantime.

I was under the impression that "reasonable" was a legitimate legal concept. Juries are asked to determine whether a "reasonable observer" would come to the same conclusion or do the same thing. If Sailorman or somebody has further clarification on that, I'd love to hear it.

But seriously, what parsing gymnastics allow the judge to come to the conclusion that a woman's expectation that nobody is allowed to shove a camera up under her clothes is not "reasonable?" WTF?

By the way, I did not hear anybody say anything about "virtuous women." It's merely a matter of practicality. If you don't want it seen, then cover it. It's pretty difficult to credibly claim you want it covered when it's hanging out in plain view. Plain view means an onlooker doesn't have to do anything overt to create a clear view.

By the same token, if it is covered, it should be obvious that the owner doesn't want it seen, so it is wrong to attempt to defeat the covering. That applies even to partial coverings. The fact that a skirt is short is not an invitation to make it even shorter by lifting it or by jockeying for a more advantageous viewing angle.

Let us not forget, too, that politeness dictates that you look away when something like that happens. But there is a difference between impolite and prosecutable. The guy with a mirror clearly is (or should be) the latter.

Not to be insensitive, I can see why this is horribly wrong, and hope that the written law is fixed quickly, but I'd LOVE For a judge to tell me that I can't reasonably expect privacy of my nude body. Cause that sounds like a free ticket for blanket public nudity to me, which would rock. Ability to shed my pants whenever? Yes please.

CoasttoCoast I second that! Although having the courage to do so is another thing... it's legal to go topless here yet despite my desire to do on occasion so far I haven't had the guts to actually do it. (Well ok I have, but only in very private settings)

honeybee - it's legal here (Canada, BC) as well, though that hasn't stopped people from harrassing women who choose to do it. Just this week a female friend of mine was approached by a police officer who told her that she had to put on her top, or she'd be arrested for creating a public disturbance. She asked if what she was doing was illegal, and the officer replied that he had spent 20 minutes on the radio with his supervisor, trying to figure that out.

You'd think a police officer, with a cruiser full of communications tools, could figure out what is and isn't illegal.

I'm reminded of the line attributed to Maurice Chevalier when filming in bed with a starlet: "Pardon me if I get an erection and pardon me if I don't."

Listen, very few men are into this kind of thing and probably few of those are interested in doing it to you. In addition, as pointed out, it's all about "choice": Lots of women choose to show off their body parts.

So this appears to be a case of two parties getting a kick out of each other: The pervert getting a thrill sneaking a peek at some girl's knickers and women, who will never encounter such a person, getting the thrill out of the power of maybe throwing someone into jail and the attention of being a possible victim.

This whole discussion makes you look less like empowered women and more like housewives standing up on a table shrieking about a mouse (looking up her skirt.)

Wow, way to miss the point, polishknight.

Let me try to put this into language you might understand.

If you were walking around a shopping mall butt-naked and someone took a picture of you from a few meters away, you couldn't legitimately complain. After all, you chose to be showing off your entire body in a public space.

Now, say you're wearing loose shorts, because it's hot out, and browsing in a shop. A larger man sneaks up behind you, places his hand between your legs, and tries to get pictures of your junk.

Would you not feel creeped out? Would you not feel preyed upon? Would you not feel that your close personal space was invaded, by this person who is large enough to be a threat?

And then someone sneeringly tells you that inside your shorts can't be considered a private area, that you should have been flattered by the attention, and really, you chose to show off your junk by wearing those shorts anyway, so you have no right to complain.

Sorry you can't comprehend the difference between exhibitionism and invasion of privacy.

Looks like the "if you've done it in the past, voluntarily or not, you lose the expectation of controlling whether, how, and where it happens again" myth is also alive and well.

"Now, say you're wearing loose shorts, because it's hot out, and browsing in a shop. A larger man sneaks up behind you, places his hand between your legs, and tries to get pictures of your junk."

This is an invalid comparison. The POI (Pervert Of Interest) used a passive means of observation while you're talking about something close to molestation.

Let's put this into perspective: Offensive as his behavior was, it wasn't violent or even intrusive. Anya and Piotrek have more in common with a violent rapist than this poor, pathetic man. These women's reasoning was that the guy "asked for it", right? Where have you heard that before...

In answer to your question, as close as I can make it (say, the man using a mirror to look up my shorts), I would be offended but unharmed. I've been in bathrooms before where it was clear men were hanging out and looking at my penis in a urinal stall in a place that, in theory, has "expectations of privacy". In the past, men beat up gays doing this but now we're more tolerant.

"Sorry you can't comprehend the difference between exhibitionism and invasion of privacy."

The very phrase "invasion of privacy" is loaded with the understanding of someone physically infringing upon a person's private area (such as putting one's hands between my legs).

If you leave your curtains open, for example, and some pervert uses a telescope and camera to view you, he hasn't invaded our privacy even as you consider your home private. You OPENED your "private" space TO THE WORLD! Get it?

"Looks like the "if you've done it in the past, voluntarily or not, you lose the expectation of controlling whether, how, and where it happens again" myth is also alive and well."

There is the "reasonable woman" standard in sexual harassment legislation that allows women to demand more sensitivity for their feelings than men based upon previous behavior. I have seen men fight off allegations of sexual harassment when women complained that they were offended by sexist jokes or remarks and it was later revealed that they had regularly engaged in and welcomed such behavior in the past. If you're not part of the solution, then don't complain when others are part of the problem.

Here's another great one on the same lines. http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/article/20080521/NEWS/805210303

(Short version: Creeep filmed his minor stepdaughter through the windows of her bedroom. Child porn charges thrown out because he didn't incite her to pose, just took naked pictures.)