“Upskirting” is the action or practice of surreptitiously taking photographs or videos up a female’s skirt or dress. In the United Kingdom, it is an offense. However, internationally, laws are uneven. Understanding how perpetrators account for their actions becomes an important question. Here, we present the findings of our thematic analysis of posts on the “upskirting” website, The Candid Zone. Our analysis shows that posters and respondents frame this activity as artistic and technical, providing each other with advice and guidance on where and how to get the “best” shots. We conceptualize this form of abuse as homosociality and craftsmanship.
AttwoodF. (ed.). (2009). Mainstreaming sex: The sexualization of western sex. Tauris.
4.
BalkmarD. (2012). On men and cars: An ethnographic study of gendered, risky and dangerous relations. Linköping University Electronic Press.
5.
BennettJ. (2005). Empathic vision: Affect, trauma, and contemporary art. Stanford University Press.
6.
Bennett MosesL. (2013). How to think about law, regulation and technology: Problems with “technology” as a regulatory target. Law, Innovation and Technology, 5(1), 1–20.
7.
BerkowitzaR.CornellD. (2005). Parables of revenge and masculinity in Clint Eastwood’s Mystic River. Law, Culture and the Humanities, 1(3), 316–332.
8.
BirdS. R. (1996). Welcome to the men’s club: Homosociality and the maintenance of hegemonic masculinity. Gender & Society, 10(2), 120–132.
DeKeseredyW. S. (1990). Male peer support and woman abuse: The current state of knowledge. Sociological Focus, 23(2), 129–139.
14.
DeKeseredyW. S.SchwartzM. D. (2016). Thinking sociologically about image-based sexual abuse: The contribution of male peer support theory. Sexualization, Media, & Society, 2(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/2374623816684692
15.
DinesG. (2010). Pornland: How porn has hijacked our sexuality. Beacon.
16.
EmmonsR. A. (2004). Gratitude. In SeligmanM. E. P.PetersonC. (Eds.), The VIA taxonomy of human strengths and virtues (pp. 553–568). Oxford University Press.
EpsteinS. (1995). Expertise: AIDS activism and the forging of credibility in the reform of clinical trials. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 20(4), 408–437.
19.
FloodM. (2008). Men, sex, and homosociality: How bonds between men shape their sexual relations with women. Men and Masculinities, 10(3), 339–359.
20.
GingD. (2019). Alphas, betas, and incels: Theorizing the masculinities of the manosphere. Men and Masculinities, 22(4), 638–657.
GuignardF. (2018). Envy in Western society: Today and tomorrow. In RothR.LemmaA. (Eds.), Envy and gratitude revisited (2nd ed., pp. 109–123). Karnac Books.
23.
HallM.HearnJ. (2017). Revenge pornography: Gender, sexuality and motivations. Routledge.
24.
HammarénN.JohanssonT. (2014). Homosociality in between power and intimacy. Sage Open, 4(1), 1–11.
25.
HarrisF. (2010). College men’s meanings of masculinities and contextual influences: Toward a conceptual model. Journal of College Student Development, 51(3), 297–318.
26.
HearnJ. (1992). Men in the public eye. Routledge.
27.
HearnJ. (1998). The violences of men. Sage.
28.
HearnJ.MelechiA. (1992). The transatlantic gaze: Masculinities, youth, and the American imaginary. In CraigS. (Ed.), Men, masculinity and the media (pp. 215–232). Sage.
29.
HenryN.FlynnA. (2019). Image-based sexual abuse: Online distribution channels and illicit communities of support. Violence Against Women, 25(16), 1932–1955.
30.
HenryN.PowellA.FlynnA. (2017). Not just “revenge pornography”: Australians’ experiences of image-based abuse. A summary report. RMIT University.
31.
HoltzP.KronbergerN.WagnerW. (2012). Analyzing internet forums: A practical guide. Journal of Media Psychology, 24(2), 55–66.
32.
HookwayN. (2008). Entering the blogosphere: Some strategies for using blogs in social research. Qualitative Research, 8(1), 91–113.
33.
HuntG. P.MackenzieK.Joe-LaiderK. (2005). Alcohol and masculinity: The case of ethnic youth gangs. In WilsonT. M. (Ed.), Drinking cultures (pp. 225–254). Berg.
34.
JacobsK. (2004). Pornography in small places and other spaces. Cultural Studies, 18(1), 67–83.
35.
JeffersonG. (1991). List construction as a task and a resource. In PsathasG. (Ed.), Interactional competence (pp. 63–92). Irvington Publishers.
36.
KaiteB. (1988). The pornographer’s body double: Transgression is the law. In KrokerA. M. (Eds.), Body invaders: Sexuality and the postmodern condition (pp. 150–168). Macmillan.
37.
KashdanT. B.MishraA.BreenW. E.FrohJ. J. (2009). Gender differences in gratitude: Examining appraisals, narratives, the willingness to express emotions, and changes in psychological needs. Journal of Personality, 77(3), 691–730.
38.
KendallL. (2002). Hanging out in the virtual pub: Masculinities and relationships online. University of California Press.
39.
KimmelM. (2004). The gendered society: Sociological perspective on sex and gender. Oxford University Press.
40.
KittlerF. A. (2010). Optical media. Polity.
41.
KumarS.CavallaroL. (2018). Researcher self-care in emotionally demanding research: A proposed conceptual framework. Qualitative Health Research, 28(4), 648–658.
42.
LawJ. (2001). Machinic pleasures and interpellations. Centre for Science Studies, Lancaster University.
Lipman-BlumenJ. (1976). Toward a homosocial theory of sex roles: An explanation of the sex segregation of social institutions. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 1(3), 15–31.
46.
MagrathR.ScoatsR. (2019). Young men’s friendships: Inclusive masculinities in a post-university setting. Journal of Gender Studies, 28(1), 45–56.
47.
McCannW.PedneaultA.StohrM. K.HemmensC. (2018). Upskirting: A statutory analysis of legislative responses to video voyeurism 10 years down the road. Criminal Justice Review, 43(4), 399–418.
48.
McCormackM. (2011). Hierarchy without hegemony: Locating boys in an inclusive school setting. Sociological Perspectives, 54(1), 83–101.
MellströmU. (1999). Technology and masculinity: Men and their machines. In ErvøS.JohanssonT. (Eds.), Moulding masculinities (pp. 118–135). Ashgate.
51.
MellströmU. (2004). Machines and masculine subjectivity: Technology as an integral part of men’s life experiences. Men and Masculinities, 6(4), 368–382.
52.
MikorskiR.SzymanskiD. M. (2017). Masculine norms, peer group, pornography, Facebook, and men’s sexual objectification of women. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 18(4), 257–267.
53.
MogensenC.Helding RandS. (2019). Vrede Unge Maend [Peace Young Men]. Center for Digital Pædagogik.
54.
MulveyL. (1975). Visual pleasure and narrative cinema. Screen, 16(3), 6–18.
NowellL. S.NorrisJ. M.WhiteD. E.MoulesN. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
57.
OliverK. (2016). Rape as spectator sport and creepshot entertainment: Social media and the valorization of lack of consent. American Studies Journal, 61, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.18422/61-02
OyewumiO. (1997). The invention of women: Making an African sense of western gender discourses. University of Minnesota Press.
61.
PooleS. (2013). Who touched base in my thought shower? A treasury of unbearable office jargon. Sceptre.
62.
RobinsonS.AndersonE.WhiteA. (2018). The bromance: Undergraduate male friendships and the expansion of contemporary homosocial boundaries. Sex Roles, 78(1–2),94–106.
63.
RodhamK.GavinJ. (2006). The ethics of using the internet to collect qualitative research data. Research Ethics, 2(3), 92–97.
64.
RosenR. (2010). Beaver street: A history of modern pornography: From the birth of phone sex to the skin mag in cyberspace: An investigative memoir. Headpress.
65.
SacksH. (1992). Lectures on conversation. Blackwell.
66.
Scheper-HughesN.BourgoisP. I. (2013). Violence in war and peace. John Wiley.
67.
SedgwickE. K. (2015). Between men: English literature and male homosocial desire. Columbia University Press.
68.
SennettR. (2009). The craftsman. Yale University Press.
69.
SmilerA. P. (2006). Conforming to masculine norms: Evidence for validity among adult men and women. Sex Roles, 54(11–12), 767–775.
70.
SweeneyB. N. (2014). Sorting women sexually: Masculine status, sexual performance, and the sexual stigmatization of women. Symbolic Interaction, 37(3), 369–390.
71.
ThompsonC. (2019a). Everyday misogyny: On “upskirting” as image-based sexual abuse [PhD thesis, University of Melbourne].
72.
ThompsonC. (2019b). Skirting around the issue: Misdirection and linguistic avoidance in parliamentary discourses on upskirting. Violence Against Women, 26, 1403–1422.
73.
ThompsonC.WoodM. A. (2018). A media archaeology of the creepshot. Feminist Media Studies, 18(4), 560–574.
74.
WaltherJ. B.BoydS. (2002). Attraction to computer-mediated social support. In LinC.AtkinD. (Eds.), Communication technology and society. Audience adoption and uses (pp. 153–188). Hampton Press.
75.
WheatonB. (2000). “New lads?” Masculinities and the “new sport” participant. Men and Masculinities, 2(4), 436–458.
76.
WhisnantR. (2010). From Jekyll to Hyde: The grooming of male pornography consumers. In BoyleK. (Ed.), Everyday pornography (pp. 114–133). Routledge.
77.
WhitemanM. (2019). Upskirting, bitcoin, and crime, oh my: Judicial resistance to applying old laws to new crimes—What is a legislature to do?Indiana Law Journal, 95, 66–78.
78.
WillisP. (1990). Common culture: Symbolic work at play in the everyday cultures of the young. Open University Press.
79.
ZimmermanP. R. (1988). Hollywood, home movies, and common sense: Amateur film as aesthetic dissemination and social control, 1950–1962. Cinema Journal, 27(4), 23–44.
