Sadly needed

You’ve always needed permission to take someone’s picture, especially in public places like London.

http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-street-shooting.html

There’s nothing stopping you taking pictures of people in public places within reason, but if you start shoving your zoom lens up their nostrils or taking action shots of their every step, there’s a chance you might get a clip around the ear from your aggrieved subject or possibly face a legal charge of harassment or breach of the peace.

aka PUA videos must be fake or the subject would sue.

Harassment is defined as a ‘course of conduct’ (so it has to happen at least twice) that causes another person ‘alarm or distress’, but we have to say that the bullying and aggressive antics of the paparazzi would suggest that prosecutions are few and far between.

The press have police protection. Normies do not.

With some countries having stronger privacy laws, UK snappers looking to commercially exploit images of recognisable people snapped without their consent may find international clients unenthusiastic unless a model release has been obtained.

For porn, which it isn’t.

Especially bad since they target little girls. Even targeting an adult is weird and unconsenting.

There’s also a remote chance that photographs of people in public places may be subject to the Data Protection Act,

and legal right to privacy

right to the use of their likeness

reputation damages

but that’s pretty unlikely if there’s no other identifying information accompanying the image.

You can normally identify people, actually. Again, one law for them… another for everyone else.

That MP knows nothing.

http://www.photographers-resource.co.uk/photography/Legal/Access_Rights.htm

Some places that we think of as being public do have photo restrictions, and there are bylaws governing the requirement of getting written permission from the relevant authority/owner and paying a hefty fee and this includes Trafalgar Square, Parliament Square and the Royal Parks.

Photos of celebrites on the Tube weirds me out. Leave them alone. For a while Tom Hiddleston had some dedicated stalkers there.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jun/15/upskirting-to-become-a-criminal-offence-punishable-by-two-years-in-jail

We didn’t need this in the 20s or hell, the 19th Century, when women were nearly popping out of their tops with bare shoulders and arms.

People didn’t randomly try and rope strangers into making fetish porn.

Part of the fetish is the unconsenting part.

In the most serious cases, those convicted of secretly photographing underneath someone’s clothing without their consent in England and Wales will be placed on the sex offender register. 

Without their consent. Operative words.

You need a signed model release (signed after they’ve approved of the images) if it’s going to be spread from one device to another and especially published online.

Such invasive behaviour is currently prosecuted under either the offence of outraging public decency or as a crime of voyeurism under the Sexual Offences Act. 

That Emma Watson photo was sick.

The German Pedo Left rise again

It was often said on the slippery slope of Sex “Ed”: “Next they’ll be showing the kids porn and doing demonstrations.”

Here’s part 1

https://www.rt.com/news/429257-feminist-porn-germany-spd/

the 70s cults weren’t the end

Why and how would children consent, exactly?

Forcing the viewing of any explicit material is part of the grooming process of pedophiles.

Really it’s state grooming and child sexualisation/harassment.

Porn ruins real sex lives

http://bigthink.com/philip-perry/how-internet-porn-is-changing-how-men-and-women-are-having-sex
That’s the point, then you consume more.
And not just porn.
This used to be called corruption of the young. Their brains are plastic. Socrates deserved it.
Porn, as a supernormal stimulus, affects adults too.
To clarify a previous comment, there is no such thing as a boyfriend or girlfriend and the connection is a nonsense claim. It’s friends with benefits, the clue is in the name. Legally it means nothing. It isn’t traditional either, more like a prostitute in an apartment arrangement, where you pay via utilities and groceries. Those are historical and just another form of hooker. The 19th century in London saw many, an invisible kind of prostitution, as people were forced to cram houses anyway.
Hook-up culture has been designed to alienate men with subpar experiences and in turn put off women since the men don’t want them, so you might as well work overtime.
Porn actors are actors, it isn’t real at all. It’s like basing your knowledge of language on the bursting into song part of
musical numbers. People should be embarrassed to watch it as a puppet show because that’s essentially what it is, a fuck-puppet show.
Without masturbation, how many societal ills would disappear?
In the case of women, would menarche and visible sexualisation of puberty occur later, as it always did in the past? Would men evolve past pajama boy phases with the incentive of more testosterone in their system on a daily basis?
Frigidity, which I mentioned before, is simply an attempt to pathologise a natural female disinterest in sex. There is no such thing as female impotence, because a woman’s completion of the response cycle isn’t required for conception. From this study, we are not shocked to find married women (with the most security and emotional connection, female desires) have the best sex life and as known previously, married people have more sex overall, but it’s surprising to some that men don’t like this free-for-all too. The buffet doesn’t satisfy, it feels cheap because they don’t breed, that is the original fulfillment of the process – the fruit of their loins. Sterile sex appears to be disenchanting men with the whole practice and putting them off the investment for other, deeper kinds. Have you seen a Muslim man unhappy with his sex life? How about a Catholic, the real kind with no contraception?
TLDR: pair bonding is necessary for good sex. Like I said before, if you can’t enjoy vanilla, well, you don’t like ice cream.
The boring people are the ones constantly chasing new things like a dog at a car. That isn’t appreciation, novelty-seeking is too shallow, if anything it’s a form of gluttony, that doesn’t sense the things it takes in.
The Pill probably doesn’t help the female psyche either. Pregnant women are too grumpy to appreciate sex.
An all-male study on male appreciation that they can’t fake would be useful. Sexual satisfaction studies already exist but controls are needed. What are you afraid of finding?
The references in this are interesting. Description bar.

e.g. Endocrine response to masturbation-induced orgasm in healthy men following a 3-week sexual abstinence.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11760788
In the UK, PornHub was the 35th most visited website for children ages 6 to 14 in 2013.
Children and Parents: Media Use and Attitudes Report (2014, October) (p. 232). http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/media-literacy/media-use- attitudes-14/Childrens_2014_Report.pdf.

We wuz warned.

http://biblehub.com/mark/9-43.htm

jesus lust porn lechery

And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, line 47.

http://biblehub.com/mark/9-50.htm

“Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? Have salt among yourselves, and be at peace with each other.”

Ah, men.

Is any of this extreme? No, it used to be common sense. As in, most common book in existence?

http://biblehub.com/matthew/10-34.htm

Can’t stop logic, it always breaks in eventually.

http://biblehub.com/matthew/10-26.htm

Stefan’s right, sunlight is the best disinfectant.

http://biblehub.com/matthew/13-12.htm

For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.

^ also applies to faith, it’s a cycle of being good, receiving good

http://biblehub.com/matthew/12-33.htm

Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit.

You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. [virtue signalling is false piety]

The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil.

I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak,

for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

http://biblehub.com/psalms/58-10.htm

The righteous will rejoice when he sees the vengeance; he will bathe his feet in the blood of the wicked.

Read Candide.
It blew the whistle on moral decay precipitating the decline.
Long before Galt, cultivate your garden, folks.

You know it’s bad when the Guardian calls you degenerate

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/28/hugh-hefner-pimp-sue-playboy-mansion

Burn in Hell, scumbag.

The sheer volume of rumours I’ve heard about him and his Pleasure Island palace.

Apparently, his son was induced to try or saw things no child should.

The objective fact alone is bad enough.

He’d lend out women like you’d lend out tupperware. We now must live in the sexualised culture, including of teens, that he made. Oh, what an icon. And even if you don’t participate in the degeneracy, you’ll be held to this postmodern sexual revolution culture’s standards and objectification, where a woman dressed nicely (AKA as a woman, not androgynous or manly) is considered fair game to harass. Cunture, surely.

And they wonder why women en masse made less effort with their appearance in direct proportion to the objectification in media that any woman looking womanly = hooker, and can, nay, should be solicited!

Women used to dress like ladies, yes, when men weren’t allowed to shout at them in the street for it.
Maybe men can switch on the rational part of their brains and think that maybe, just maybe, this negative reinforcement, this demeaning punishment, has something to do with it?

The thought process goes as such

I could wear this nice dress, but it’s likelier I’ll be harassed, stalked and possibly attacked. Feminine clothing attracts sexual predators. Guess I’ll wear trousers again, on second thoughts.

[However, sexual signalling is not a thing, it does not exist academically or otherwise.]
I’ve seen men try to blame women whatever we were wearing. and use that nonsense term to intellectualize it. No, it’s because they have a vagina, can’t help that. Can’t help having secondary sexual characteristics either i.e. a figure. Any clothing will show that up.

Porn-addled lewdness has caused this so-called androgyny problem. It isn’t a problem, it’s self-protection in an era where men don’t punish their own; when we do risk it to try and express God-given femininity, ask female friends what happens. We even have special PC terms for what was formerly only a way ghetto people spoke to one another “the wrong sort of attention” – not from women, though, was it? Yet another great thing white people adopted from black culture. White men are, as the old saying goes, ‘acting black’, so white women dress like the men. Common sense.

Reduce crime and women will feel safe enough to look like women again.

Pornography as weaponized degeneracy

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2017/02/23/pornography-weaponized-degeneration-population/

It’s at least a supernormal stimuli, deeply unhealthy.

comment

“Porno is basically Behavior Modification and Control 101. Control people’s sex drive (through porno) and you control their lives.”

Meanwhile, men who fornicate lie.

52% of men say they don’t benefit from women having access to free contraception

Okay, ban all of it. Including abortion, The Pill, implants and the patch.