Have you ever secretly photgraphed or video a hot guy?

[rareboy]

Not if they don't get caught. Plus this would honestly be a once-off.

Whoa buddy.

If you actually do this, you are a stalker and a creep of the first order.

It won't be a one off, either.

This is a slippery slope you're on.

If you try it and he has you charged or expelled from the gym, or slugs you, don't expect much sympathy.

 

[AlmondMilk]

Well, I took a picture of my friend's hot cousin at a party. I acted as if I was just taking random pictures...which I was. It was when we were all singing karaoke So I guess no one thought twice. We talked a few times after that party. Nice guy

 

[Under-taken]

Whoa buddy.

If you actually do this, you are a stalker and a creep of the first order.

It won't be a one off, either.

This is a slippery slope you're on.

If you try it and he has you charged or expelled from the gym, or slugs you, don't expect much sympathy.

I agree, tis creepy

 

[Slips01]

I took a photo of a random couple while I was on a camping trip last year. The guy had an awesome bulge in his bathers and I just couldn't resist taking a sneaky snap with my camera. I made sure their faces weren't visible, as I fully intended to post it on JUB. When I did, it was viewed, commented on and appreciated by many Jubbers. Here it is again in case you missed it the first time ....

Does this make me a stalker and a creep?

It makes you a dick lover

 

[Shepherd 2]

Jerod,
You are a nineteen year old man, and I would propose that you ask the adult if you may video him working out, and if he is freaked out about it don't do it. If you are meaning you are stalking him, then please, get some help. I had a stalker, and I turned it over to the police. He agreed to stop and has.

Good luck to you young man, and please do not be too wounded by the reactions you have gotten to what may have been a more innocent question.

Shep+

 

[swerve]

Hahahaha -- what a FUN thread!!!

Nineofclubs and I did this last summer on his rooftop...

There was this REALLY HOT GUY -- and so we decided that Nineofclubs would give a video tour of Portland from the roof (as a guise) and then get video footage of the guy...

The problem is -- he chickened out when he got closer to the guy -- and you can only see him for a few seconds (2:14 - 2:16 of the video)...



And -- YES -- he was THAT GOOD LOOKING to where you might become a little NERVOUS...

 

[Lukeee]

Not secretly. I've taken pics/videos of guys I know that are hot. I don't know what they thought I would do with them. A lot of my friends take pictures of each other all the time. It isn't creepy or anything.

 

[G-Lexington]

Never felt the need. If I see a guy I like, I just add him to my mental file of hot guys. A photo is only good for sparking my imagination. If I've already seen the guy, the imagination is sparked, and I don't need the photo.

That said, I HAVE surreptitiously photographed someone. But that was because I thought her shirt was hilarious, and I wanted to try to remember what it was.

Lex

 

[JarodA]

Thanks for everyone's responses.

I think stalking is totally the wrong word .

Following him into the gym changing rooms, secretly filming as he strips off all his clothes. Now THAT would be stalking.

In my case he would be clothed, and in a public place.

 

[NVRMOR]

I did. My friend and I would cam2cam. We did it for about two years. It was some of the hottest shit I ever saw in my life. When we finished I told him I made some recordings. He told me he was unhappy with it. I destroyed the recordings.
We all lived happily ever after.
Damn I miss those recordings, but it was wrong to record and right to destroy.

 

[GoodbyeSobriety]

In my opinion, taking a picture of someone you think is hot is not stalking or creepy... It's physical admiration without consent.

I'm sorry, but big fucking deal?

 

[bounder]

You told me there was no film in that camera

Ahem, I said ugly. Any pic of you would be well guarded in my personal stash. My eyes ONLY.

 

[StlKj]

So you're sitting at a stoplight. A hot shirtless guy walks by you on the sidewalk. You snap his picture to send to a friend to show her the hottie. Does that make you a pervert and a stalker?

Then I guess I'm a pervert and a stalker.

 

[BeMused]

I haven't no.

 

[leoleo36]

I have tried to take picture of hot looking guys but it seems weird not to tell the person and just take a picture of them. So I usually go up to the person and ask if I could take their picture or tell them that I took a picture of them.

 

[blackbeltninja]

Only if you publish it without their consent? Otherwise nobody would be allowed to take pics on holiday.

The difference is, in my view, in holiday snaps, you're not intentionally taking a photo of a specific person without their knowledge. You're taking a photo of a scene, a friend, family...etc., and another person happens to be in the frame. Most people tend to dodge this, when they know they're in the frame.

It's different when you're intentionally, and without someone's knowledge, taking a photo of them for your own purposes, whatever they may be.

I belonged to a photography group on Yahoo where this issue was brought up and someone offered a professional US legal opinion:

Apparently (under US law) it is perfectly legal to film/photograph anyone in a setting which has no "reasonable expectation of privacy" ie pretty much anywhere public. Apparently this is the reason the paparazzi can shove cameras into people's faces as soon as they're off their property with no real recourse for the person being photographed.

As far as it pertains to public buildings and streets, if there is any hint of CCTV/security cameras, the privacy notion is completely out of the window and you're effectively free to snap away, as long as you're permitted to be on the premises. I suppose the subject you're photographing might ask you to stop but you're not obliged to do so at all.

I presume a locker room is different, of course, since even though it is public there is a reasonable expectation of at least some level of privacy. Since the photography group never got into voyeurism, nobody ever asked that question.

-d-

 

[JarodA]

^ Wow thanks for that info.

 

[RationalLunacy]

I have a hidden camera mounted under my wildebeest's fur, and I take forbidden pictures of the Amish.

 

[bankside]

I belonged to a photography group on Yahoo where this issue was brought up and someone offered a professional US legal opinion:

Apparently (under US law) it is perfectly legal to film/photograph anyone in a setting which has no "reasonable expectation of privacy" ie pretty much anywhere public. Apparently this is the reason the paparazzi can shove cameras into people's faces as soon as they're off their property with no real recourse for the person being photographed.

As far as it pertains to public buildings and streets, if there is any hint of CCTV/security cameras, the privacy notion is completely out of the window and you're effectively free to snap away, as long as you're permitted to be on the premises. I suppose the subject you're photographing might ask you to stop but you're not obliged to do so at all.

I presume a locker room is different, of course, since even though it is public there is a reasonable expectation of at least some level of privacy. Since the photography group never got into voyeurism, nobody ever asked that question.

-d-

The only other wrinkle is that a private establishment has some ability to set its own standard of conduct. They're free to enforce a no photography rule for the comfort of their patrons. It is different on a street or a public square.

 

[blackbeltninja]

^From what I could gather, if the establishment had CCTV then they couldn't enforce that.

Doesn't this vary by local jurisdiction?

Sorry, I have no idea. We don't have that many local by-laws here in .za; it's pretty much just national ones applying across the board.

-d-