Opinions on creepshot photography. Is it legal? Should it

Equivalent of snapshits and its in public area, perfectly legal and ethical

people getting mad over "creepshots" which are in reality just shots of people in open public view is a great shibboleth of societal justice warriors

>>2919008
Haters will say it's photoshop

>>2919008
>Is it legal?
Not strictly speaking but it can probably be skewed into sexual assault if you're being particularly overt.
>Should it be?
Yeah. It's a public space. Plus, people who live in cities are usually filmed literally everywhere when they're out in public.
Toilet peeping and the like is not okay though.
>Is it ethical?
It's shitty and desperate and I don't understand how anybody gets off on it. I would say that it's unethical for the one taking the creepshots since even shitposting on 4chan would be a better use of his time than taking creepshots.

>>2919041
I could totally get off on that

>>2919042
Why? What's hot about some fat sweaty neckbeard with a camera in his trench coat taking shots of women in tights in public?

>>2919041
this.

It's honestly quite ridiculous what women get away with wearing while in public these days. They're practically naked. In fact, I would say some of these tight clothing are more sexually arousing than if they were just plain naked (most women are usually hotter clothed).

I'm not saying women deserved to be harassed or raped for what they wear, but their ass hanging out in public certainly doesn't have any expectation of privacy.

To me, creepshooting is like next level street. Shooting strangers on the street is already stressful enough without the specter of being branded a creeper looming over you. We just need a good photographer that will turn it into art and he or she will be the next big thing in street photography.

>>2919008
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qcgEnC3bLY

You will never be this good at it.

>>2919083
holy shit, this guy. i wonder if you could still get away with it these days

>>2919018
>ethical

>>2919087
some do

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejlIgyYhlJ8

seems like a good way to get into fights

>>2919008
Reasonable expectation of privacy is the line in the sand in my country.

If a female walks around with her jugs out and I like it, I will photograph it.

Her boyfriend might not like it but that's another story.

File: 1459188903098.png (2MB, 999x1855px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 999x1855px

>>2919041
>I don't understand how anybody gets off on it
this doesn't give you an erection?

>>2919113
wake me up when there's someone shooting creep with medium format

>>2919115
>wake me up when there's someone shooting creep with medium format

got you senpai. i love challenges so i will deliver some of this in the near future.

>>2919115
Get me an X1D, and I will take you up on that. Heck, I'd even try shooting creepshots with a Pentax 645 Z.

Why do people not like being photographed?

Because they lose control over their appearance.
Once you have taken their picture they can't remove themselves from the public eye by walking somewhere private/covering themselves. Their image is now in your camera and you have the power to publish it. Now it's not them, it's you who can decide which angle of them, which facial expression, in which context, other people will experience.

If you're doing it flash-in-your-face style like Gilden or Cohen you are probably invading their personal space, too. Suddenly going near someone (and maybe blasting them with flash) is startling and no one likes being startled.
Also the photogs immediate reaction will probably be to back off/run away. This makes him look guilty of doing something shifty and reinforces the subject's suspicion that they have been violated in some way. Naturally any conversation with them will likely start off with them being hostile.
But if you stay and talk to them politely there's at least a chance that you can convince them that what you did was necessary for the photo and that the value of the photo is higher than that moment of them in control. I guess this is the harder way so not many people do it like this.

From what I've read here Eggy seems to have found a serviceable middleground. Notice that he doesn't suddenly go right next to people and take pictures from surprising angles. His camera sees only things that a person with good eyes standing there upright could see, too. Also he identifies himself if people approach him. This gives them a bit of control over their image back because now they have the option of suing him if he publishes them unlawfully.

>>2919197 contd.

Of course all this is thrown out the window if you want the lawbreaking/anticonventional part of your photos be part of your art concept (just like illegal graffiti is different from "proper" painting). With that justification you can always do what you want (but don't expect your contemporaries to agree with you).

File: Q6ztxIn.jpg (54KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 1920x1080px

One roastie's "creepshot" is another's Patrician celebration of the aesthetics of anatomy

File: ba983105cb314c7b99c41b13aa3c2dea.jpg (501KB, 1152x1536px) Image search: [Google]

501KB, 1152x1536px

YikYak users are often easily triggered by the suggestion that you took candid photos of qt girls.

I think people don't want to be held accountable for their appearance.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1152
Image Height	1536

>>2919008
my heart says no but my dick says yes.

>>2919041
>it can probably be skewed into sexual assault if you're being particularly overt.
Interestingly, there was a recent case in Georgia where the Georgia Supreme Court actually ruled that even upskirt photos are legal if done in public.

Now, they ruled that way because, technically, there was no law against it, but for the time being it's legal in GA.

http://time.com/4422772/upskirt-photos-harassment/

>>2919113
No. Grow up.

>>2919340
>shitty proximal interpolation
That's the worst up-scaling I've ever seen.

>>2919008

Picrelated is just as creep as reality was at the moment of recording.

You probably should not get underskirt and inside the bra and whatever but this grill is dressed in an offensive way.

>>2919113

Just the same. No did nothing to exxagerate the reality, it is already exaggerated.

>>2919083
thanks for posting this. I was looking for it over two years. Forgot his name. Epic.

>>2919041
This. I think it's disgusting but I'd way rather have it be legal.

If there ever is an outrage against creepshooting I hope they just do like in Japan and Korea, where you can't disable the shutter click from phones so it's harder for creepshooters to hide. New laws that make street photography still harder would be a very shitty fallout.

>>2919466
my phone's "shutter" sound is impossible to disable. i always thought it was a weird that i couldn't disable it, but now it makes sense.

its an appreciation for a girls everyday sexual attraction in moments she doesn't intended to be. Maybe she doesnt know her bra sticks out that much under her shirt, maybe she knows how good her ass looks in yoga pants but doesnt realize just how much others are looking at her

I say her because most shots are of girls but people take ones of guys as well

>>2919008
>is it legal?
No
>Should it be legal?
No
>is it ethical
No
assuming you're not some white trash incestuous redneck, just imagine some autistic fuck taking creep shots of your sister, mother, daughter.
You're a fucking weak beta coward if you take creepshots

File: image.jpg (61KB, 670x531px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 670x531px

"I'm such an undesirable frail faggot that I need to take creepshots of girls because if any woman knew I took photos of them, they could crush my tiny osteoporosis bones"

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	670
Image Height	531
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2919919
In Australia it's illegal - actually, really, illegal - to take photos specifically of someones genitals or breasts, or photos for sexual gratification, without the owners permission.
Upskirts and downblouses are easy to prove on the spot, but sexual gratification is a lot more fuzzy. Until you upload them in that context, which you cunts always do.

Also: It's creepy as fuck. And precisely why the public feel the irrational need to be paranoid assholes to almost all male photographers.

>>2919924
I'm disgusted in general, by people who want others to stop liking what they don't like. DON'T USE FLASH! DON'T GET CLOSE! DON'T DO THIS! DON'T DO THAT! ONLY MY DEFINITION OF PHOTOGRAPHY IS TRUE!

I personally wouldn't do it, but at the end of the day I recognize that it's just a person getting the shot in a public place.

>>2919954
It's no so much 'stop doing what I don't like' as it is 'stop doing one of the main things that causes a stigma and ruins it for everybody else'. Pardon the run on sentence

File: ca675360dafe4f70946ea45f52240b75.jpg (95KB, 750x750px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 750x750px

Creepshots are to footsexuals what gloryholes are to the gays.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	750
Image Height	750

File: xynUk4v.jpg (792KB, 1836x3264px) Image search: [Google]

792KB, 1836x3264px

It was recently discovered Michaelangelo painted creepshots on the Sistine Chapel.

>>2919954
>Stop doing what is seriously fucked up and actually confirms that you are as depraved and creepy as people increasingly misinterpret all photographers to be.... due to this ridiculously childish sperglord-tier genital "fetish" that a few dangerously rapey douchebags find somehow arousing.
...Is what all the sane people in this thread mean.

>>2919992

Pictures of people can't be creepy, judgelord, unless the subject him/her/xirself is actually literally creepy.

>>2919087
eric kim does this sort of thing often

>>2919861
girls now exactly when their ass looks sexy in yoga pants. generally most girls know very well how they look. if a girl says 'I dont have a very good XYZ feature' then trust her, she doesn't indeed. and vice versa.

>>2919008
but this does not mean one may intemidate the private space of a girl in puplic by isolating her or parts of her on a picture.
let me elaborate why: as often in law this a question of conflicting rights and which of these are to valuable as more important than the other.
1.) every person has the right to express artistic creation in puplic space.
2.) every person has the right to decide if a picture of him/her may be made or not.

now there is a quite simple and logical principle: if the useage of one of the conflicting rights does not completely contradict the other, the conflicting right is the more important.
which means: in case somebody uses right 1.), is there a way 2.) can still be applicaple? ... No, of course not. The moment you shot the pic the right of deciding about it is void.

but in case somebody insist on right 2.), is there a way 1.) can still be applicable? ... Yes, absolutely. actually there are many ways. the artist can ask for permission beforehand. the artist can choose not to isolate one person. if needed the artist can engage a model and place her in public. etc. etc. ...

therefore the right to decide about being pictured or not is as to be valued higher.

case closed

>>2920014
Fuck off eurofag
This stockholm-syndrome that some of you have with portrait rights is ridiculous, and needs to die.

>>2919083
Damn.. Str8 sociopath, but it's impressive

>>2920014

the right to tell creeps to fuck off should be above the masturbatory urges of any creep. but how can one make an eurocuck understand that?

>>2920129
>>2920143
I'm not sure that you understood the statement correctly ..

>>2919113
i hope her male friends caught you an knock you in and out

>>2920304
When in Rome.

File: cometogetkingkong.jpg (27KB, 460x282px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 460x282px

>>2919008

godamn that ass shouldn't be legal

>>2920143
Fuck off, our rights to take pictures of whatever we want are way more protected than they are in Europe and they are certainly more protected than your delicate feelings of what is or isn't creepy. If you don't like it, gtfo of America.

>>2919080
>We just need a good photographer that will turn it into art and he or she will be the next big thing in street photography
hmmmmm

>>2919349
/thread

>>2921872

I'm a shit photographer, but I'll give it a whirl. I'll publish an ebook on Amazon or some shit and link it back to you guys.

>>2921872
Daniel Arnold has some good stuff regarding sexuality in public. I'm sure if you pour through his stuff you'll see some merit in it.

https://www.instagram.com/arnold_daniel/

What's the best camera you think you could use for this?

Does it have to be mobile? Could you claim youre just testing your DSLR?

>>2923565
Something very small and quiet. I would use a x100t or Ricoh GR. Although if you don't want to be seen it might be good using a phone; it would be easier to play off.

File: 6088CROP.jpg (479KB, 704x1000px) Image search: [Google]

479KB, 704x1000px

>>2923565
Build one from shit you found in your backyard.
Then dress like an unkempt, but seemingly harmless eccentric.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D700
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	898
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	55 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1839
Image Height	2614
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2013:03:21 01:25:41
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/13.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/13.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	0.01 m
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash, Compulsory, Return Not Detected
Focal Length	55.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	704
Image Height	1000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2919008
It's not a nice thing to do, but if you make it illegal anyone with a camera anywhere near a woman is going to get cops called on them and be a huge waste of police time.

>>2923792
It's pretty cool that he made his own camera but honestly; his photos are shite.

File: DSC_5636.jpg (255KB, 1001x663px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 1001x663px

It's art because it really makes you think.

>>2919113
That doesn't give me an erection, it just makes me stare for a while. What's wrong with you? Are you some sort of wild animal that can't control his own urges?

>>2924193
what did she mean by this?

>>2919990
>>2919991
I have a lot of consensual feet photos, but I don't jerk off to them. Maybe I should start.

>>2919924
>photos for sexual gratification
That could, literally, be anything. How is such law even constitutional in a democratic society that has any sort of free speech laws?

>>2920014
>does not mean one may intemidate the private space of a girl in puplic

There is no such thing as "private space" when you're in public, I could have the camera to my face and frame a picture of you in public and you could be wearing a burkini or a bikini, there isn't shit you can do about it, because you're in public.

>1.) every person has the right to express artistic creation in puplic space.
>2.) every person has the right to decide if a picture of him/her may be made or not.
Not when they're in public they don't.

>pass camera to girlfriend or female friends
>"That's a great shot right over there. Here, give it a try"
>B-roll full of creep shots, easy

>>2919851
Another camera app should solve it, or you could install a custom ROM

File: That floor looks dirty. Why would she lie down there No sane person should lay down on a public floor that's been stepped on by many different shoes that have been all over the place.jpg (376KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

376KB, 960x960px

>>2919029
>people getting mad over "creepshots" which are in reality just shots of people in open public view is a great shibboleth of societal justice warriors

thoughts?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3daDb2uY3OE

>>2925670
Seen that video before and in all pretty good example of the problems one would face.

The dude filming did nothing illegal/wrong.

People are weird about shit like this for some damn reason, it's ok to see it with your own eyes and drool over a young girls pussy but it's not ok to film it? It's not his fault she's basically in underwear in the middle of the street what his eyes can see his camera can also see.

Don't like being watched by randoms on the street, then either don't go to the street or don't attract attention to yourself.

>>2925670
I don't know why they get called social justice warriors when what they do had nothing to do with social justice and everything to do with being nosey, interfering, busybodies, trying to get one over a complete stranger for no other reason than that they think they can.

Oh and they're usually Americans, I don't recall seeing or hearing of this sort of thing anywhere else.

>>2919008
It's creepy, but that girl's looking for attention dressing like that. I don't think it unethical or that it should be illegal, but I don't really like it either.

>>2919008
>Is it legal?
With few exceptions, yes (at least in civilized countries).
>Should it be?
With the exception of extremely invasive versions (which are more "stalker" than "creepshot"), yes. Not for the value of creepshot photography, but for the value of other photography.
>Is it ethical?
If someone is doing it for their own enjoyment and isn't invading someone's privacy, ethics don't normally come into it. No reasonable person would call jerking it thinking of some chick as unethical, so taking photos to assist that isn't much different. If you're invading someone's privacy or sharing on 4chan, though, that gets into unethical territory.

>>2926108
Can you really have a discussion on ethics of something that causes no harm to anyone?

>person didn't consent therefor has been harmed

That's a hard argument to make, it comes in the territory of thought crime.

>>2925670
>get out of here, goober
KEK

>>2926152
>You wish you could make this much money xd

>>2925670
>pic related
I would argue that stretching like that in public space is equally creepy as taking a pic of it.

File: the city of usa.jpg (73KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 720x960px

>>2926248
>stretching like that in public space is equally creepy

>>2919008
I think it's retarded and spineless. That said, I do think of it in much the same terms as copyright: You have to take steps to protect your "privacy"in public if you want others to respect it. If you don't want people looking, cover your shit up. It's a pretty simple concept.

>>2919083
wow, that dude is a real predator

no shots of people's backs :)

>>2919008
her ass is shoop'd you idiots

you can shoot pics and video of anything in public.

if people decide to dress a certain way in public, they have made that decision themselves, and it should not have an impact on your right to capture images in public.

rationale and logic say it should be legal. let people be responsible for their own actions. They can decide to have sex in public, and I can decide to record them. if they don't want to be seen having sex, they shouldn't do it in public.

>>2927127
Actually, you can't. There are laws against up skirt/down blouse shots in a lot of places, plus how you use said shots might require documentation that you won't have.

>>2927140
only in certain cuck'd countries where they have laws based on emotion instead of logic and reason

>>2919198

Zerx ?

File: 1449461226516.jpg (443KB, 1379x1034px) Image search: [Google]

443KB, 1379x1034px

>>2927140
>>2927145
Curious. Where do both of you live? Tell about your varying photography laws

>>2925902Do you realize how pathetic and thirsty you would have to be for this behaviour to seem acceptable?

>>2919008
We are presuming the photographer was aiming for the butt. Perhaps he shot from the hip and was aiming for her hair (trichophilia).

Reasonable expectation of privacy is the key in my opinion. There's a big difference between a sneaky snapshit of a bird in a short skirt on a windy day and setting up hidden cameras in a gym shower room.

If you like taking photos of people in the public check out the laws in your country. Also this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyeurism

>hey goober, took some photos yesterday, wanna look?
>nice, it looks like a cat with its' throat cut.

>>2927393
>privacy
>in public

>>2927386
>some girl doing whatever the fuck artsy shit in fucking times square of all places
>somehow has magical right not to be filmed just like any other tosser
Fuck that. I wouldn't have filmed it myself because there's nothing worth filming, but what exactly is so immoral about this?
I'm not talking about upskirt shots and sneaky booty close-ups. That girl was being very deliberate in her choice of clothing and poses.

>>2927396
That's what I said diddleaye.

>>2927396
Taking pictures of people is generally fine. If they made a choice to wear revealing clothes, that's on them and not on you. But when you're sneaking your camera or selfie stick or whatever under skirts, you're crossing the line. Public space does not mean that everyone becomes public property and loses their rights, and you have no business in people's private parts.

>>2927405
>pubic property
>private pants

>>2927407
what are you saying anon

>>2927409
It was a play on words, never mind.

>>2927414
I thought it was clever.

>>2928101
I think you're clever, Anon.

>>2919113
t. underage

I've gotten about 50 pictures or so for the photo book and quite a few more that still need processing. I should probably write something for an introduction. Something about the beauty of the shape of the female form to make a pretense of art, at least. What do you guys think?

>>2927386
As far as I know, being pathetic thirsty and unacceptable behaviors are not illegal.

>>2927356

If i were this chick I would love the attention

Creepshots arent inhertly illegal here how-
Wait a second
Did you take this picture in a shop?

Do you have explicit written permission?

I'm calling the cops, no you can't leave I am playing you under citizens arrest

>>2928953
Where is here?

>>2928953
That would require the property owner to file a complaint of you trespassing for taking pictures, even so, the pictures themselves were not an illegal act they were simply the act that took your presence in private property from welcome to unwelcome, and even then, police would laugh at you when you call them to file a complaint.

Its okay, OP. That ass isn't real. If it were, then damn, lay off the squats.

File: Screenshot_20160921-150112.png (2MB, 1536x2048px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1536x2048px

What I do is art. I will fight for my legal right to shoot my style.

>>2925670
>>2927081

Women who sit like this probably like the attention or something. It's hardly appropriate to sit on top of a desk or on a fucking dirty floor in an airport with your ass cheeks spread.

File: Moot goes shopping.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

Which one of you jokers did this? Was catching yourself in the mirror part of your "genius" plan?

File: img_3209.jpg (336KB, 1000x562px) Image search: [Google]

336KB, 1000x562px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:22 06:19:22
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1000
Image Height	562

>looking when you see a chick like this
>especially when she is whoring for your attention specifically

Always ignore. They hate it.

>>2930816
She is just asking for it

>>2930789

Wow. And I thought I was obvious when taking creep shots.

>>2930846
>They hate it.
They hate it so much they usually flash a bit more skin while the non psychopathic attractive females are noticing you not noticing/ignoring them. It can backfire though and they all think you are gay.

Girls dress up, wear makeup and flash their assets not for us guys but to outdo other girls. Females are incredibly competative, we just don't see it because it appears they all get along so well.

I think you've figured this out though.

>>2930902

You pretty much nailed it, as far as I'm concerned.

>>2930903
I'd like to take the credit but it was a bisexual ex girlfriend that explained it to me.

File: anon went to the mall.jpg (114KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 720x960px

>creeping on your own wife

>>2933040

>not utilizing based sphere

Dumb bitch.

>>2933040
When you have to bring your safespace with you

>>2933038
>>2933039
>>2933040
Fucking retard special snowflake bitch. Would slap her with a crowbar.

>>2933040
Bump into her box, which would send her flying into the doorway

>>2919083
Thanks, just ordered 2 of his books and the miroslav tichy book p/ keeps me a dirty old man

pointing cameras up skirts etc = creepshot

retardedly stretching out that pussay for everyone to see, and then someone takes a photo = not creepshot

>>2930902
>Girls dress up, wear makeup and flash their assets not for us guys but to outdo other girls.
this guy gets it. it's about social status among females themselves.

>>2919008
Is it legal?
Depends on your countries laws. Like in Scotland that would be illegal. (Photo of a person on private property without consent.)

Should it be?
Personally I think that no it shouldn't be, you fucking creep.

Is it ethical?
No. Just think of the person who has their image uploaded to the internet and shared around. The publics perception (even if the subject was totally unaware.) of those people is that they are sluts and can be very damaging.

>>2933804
jesus fuck, thats what i dreamed of every day for lectures but it never happened

>>2933038
she is invading everyone elses space in this pic

File: Untitled-1.jpg (295KB, 820x618px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 820x618px

>>2930789
she knows

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:28 18:07:04
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	820
Image Height	618

>>2935285
>it's about social status among females
This is an oft repeated slogan. I'm not female so I can't tell if it's true or just a meme but if it is true then it seems rather tribal, extremely trivial and dumb. Thinking you can out-tart one half of society without attracting the attention of the other half

>>2935660
>t. betafag virgin
many women admit to this (if they know you well enough and are actually honest to you instead of bullshitting you)

>>2935488
dude thats me. you shot a pic from me? i m the guy in the yellow shirt

>>2935782
holy fuck i just realised that was the dude in the video you reffered to. sry im high but i look excatly the same as this dude in the vid

>>2935664
>stamps feet, pouts and asserts truth of stated position

What is it about flaunting sexual attributes that defines social status among females? What are they competing for?

>>2935879
>What is it about flaunting sexual attributes that defines social status among females? What are they competing for?
It's the exact same thing for males, just go on /fit/.

>>2935912
So they are competing for a mate then.

>>2933418
>>2935485
>>2933046
>>2933438
>>2933416
Didn't this turn out to be a part of some sculpture?

File: LUL.png (84KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 256x256px

>>2920737
haha

>>2935879
they're competing for mates, just like every other sexual being on this planet

>>2936162
yes. typical 4chan assuming everybody is the archetypal SJW

>>2920737
Ugly as fuck. Looks like two basketballs in a sock. An since they are clearly implants they probably feel like two basketballs in a sock.

>>2919045
The women in tights part.
Duh.

Not that I get off to creepshots, but it's pretty obvious imo.

File: file.png (778KB, 500x789px) Image search: [Google]

778KB, 500x789px

>>2919042
>I could totally get off on that

>>2919029
>societal justice warriors

>>2919999
Wrong.

>>2925902
>it's ok to see it with your own eyes and drool over a young girls pussy
No. Staring is wrong. Drooling is wrong.

>>2927145
>logic and reason

>>2928875
kys

>>2935285
>females

>>2935660
>without attracting the attention of the other half
No one said anything about that retard.

>>2934663
THIS. /thread.

>>2936319

>typical
>assuming

Hypocrisy much?

>>2919115
kek

File: art and likes.jpg (213KB, 853x941px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 853x941px

>>2934663
>retardedly stretching out that pussay for everyone to see, and then someone takes a photo = not creepshot

THIS

>>2927081
Yoga pants + Uggs...

So fucking basic...