Jump to content
© © 2014 John Crosley/Crosley Trust, All rights reserved, No reproduction or other use without express prior written permission fromn copyright holder

"HE GRABBED MY TIT!"


johncrosley

Software: Adobe Photoshop CC (Windows)

Copyright

© © 2014 John Crosley/Crosley Trust, All rights reserved, No reproduction or other use without express prior written permission fromn copyright holder

From the category:

Street

· 124,943 images
  • 124,943 images
  • 442,913 image comments




Recommended Comments

Following a daily senior luncheon, a man who describes himself to

others as somewhat of a lothario, invites himself to be photographed

with this long-time Czech immigrant woman, then, all of a sudden,

during a social hug with her for the camera, she jerks and utters the

words 'He Grabbed My Tit!' while I snapped the shutter as she was

turning, shoving and twisting away from him and all the while he

continues grinning for the camera. Your ratings, critiques and

observations are invited and most welcome. If you rate harshly, very

critically, or wish to make a remark, please submit a helpful and

constructive comment; please share your photographic knowledge to

help improve my photography. Thanks! Enjoy! (at least my quick

reflexes if nothing else). john

Link to comment

Each week day these two people eat lunch among a large group and so know each other.

 

The woman, blessed with a vey intelligent, interesting, and blunt spoken personality, says the man is married to another; she says she has no relationship at all with him and never has had.

 

The man has bragged about his 'exploits' to others outside this group, such that on viewing this photo some of the others felt that this photo's depiction was 'in character' with what he had told them about himself -- a self-described 'woman's man'.

 

Other than that, this is my first encounter with these two, and I can add nothing more.  But I do my research, limited as it is.

 

john

 

John (Crosley)

Link to comment

This is where the saying "Dirty old man" takes its full measure.What is great(photowise) with this capture is the understandably totally opposite expression on the faces of these two to what must have started out as a playful encounter.Your timing was right on and,I suspect,the sight of camera might have just given him that extra insentive  to demonstrate his womanizer reputation.Excellent image!

Meilleures salutations-Laurent

Link to comment

Laurent, I would confess to being a 'dirty old man' but would never touch a person of any sex in a sexual or way that could be construed as sexual in an unwilling way, because it would mortify me.

 

In my way of thinking, 'dirty old men' are just young men with normal desires that grow older and retain those desires instead of having the popular idea that they disappear as they age -- just as Masters and Johnson (at least Masters) supposed, but was proved wrong.

 

There is a great difference between propriety and thoughts, or permission to act and lack of permission to act, and the perception of what one is permitted to do without asking (as we see in his eyes) and the lack of permission given others (as we see in her eyes).

 

I think that's really the crux.

 

Dirty old man has an old time feel to it, and certainly hits a mark.  I would never touch any woman without consent and probably an express invitation, probably with her touching me first or expressing at least a desire to be touched.

 

He apparently doesn't see it that way.  Although he was permitted (reluctantly) a 'social hug' from the rear' it developed into far more than that - to wit: this.

 

Thank you for the compliment.

 

I felt this was quite on the mark.  I appreciate the endorsement - one lives with some flaws when one shoots with about 1/15th of a second, literally lighting fast, and I'm glad to see you have permitted me those.

 

Don't be a stranger.  I have all sorts of 'different' stuff ready to post when my viewership climbs to former levels.  (It dropped off two weeks ago.)

 

john

 

John (Crosley)

Link to comment

That's why it's posted.

 

When I practiced law, I got what may be the nation's first settlement for equal pay for non-equal jobs that required roughly equivalent work and education.

 

I also got the first (and maybe only) judgment under California's Marvin v. Marvin, law which treated non-married spouses as having property rights based on quasi-contractual or contractual obligations that were implied by living together as husband and wife.

 

I call it like it is, and have always tried to treat women with dignity and equality . . . .

 

If you feel she is dehumanized, that's precisely why this photo was posted.

 

And why I as a photographer felt it important to post it.

 

While making no real comment of my own except by the choice of posting/not posting.

 

Thanks for giving your impression -- I am sure it is heart felt and probably quite personal.

 

john

 

John (Crosley)

Link to comment

"Dehumanized" is a Crosley Style and  is opposite of what photography should be doing. Portraits should be respectful and humane. This one is junk. Sorry John but you are asking for my critique.

Link to comment

Meir, I note that you have set forth a standard you claim I transgressed of what photography 'should be'.

 

That apparently sets forth you as the arbiter of what 'should be', and that is a standard I reject.

 

This is a documentary photography and depicts what IS, not some glossy version of what might be pretty or prettified, but what actually occurred before me.

 

It also relates to a recurrent social issue of the battle of the sexes, male dominance, predation, consent (and lack thereof), and a host of other issues that have become much more pertinent since you were a boy who might have worn short pants (if you did).

 

These are real and present issues which people wrestle with everyday, as well as just this poor Czech immigrant, and how to handle them in America and worldwide is a pressing issue.  In India it's the issue of gang rape, in other countries of Africa it's kidnapping a bride, in some countries it's a dowry for a bride, in some countries it's killing women who bring 'shame' on their families by BEING ATTACKED SEXUALLY, and so forth.

 

In America, it's still the issue of a woman having to fend off something that went from a consented to hug for a photo to touching of sexual parts here.

 

I think that's pertinent, and it's why I'm proud to put my name to this documentary photo.  It's no portrait. 


It's a documentary about social trends.

 

Perhaps you're mixed up about what 'should be' or belong to some 'old school' that permits such things to happen?

 

If so, shame.

 

john


John (Crosley)

Link to comment

A universal standard of decent art, not mine.

You might note that 2/3s of the comments thus far and written "dehumanized"., 

 

This photo is not documentary. Given the title it is like a vulgar  "dirty joke" with the punch line "he touched my tit". 

 

 

Link to comment

If it's a dehumanized instant, then that's what I recorded.

 

It doesn't mean the photo is dehumanized or a dirty joke, or far from it.

 

Perhaps you simply lack the sensitivity to understand that this photo stands for a change in cultural mores that has occurred much during your long lifetime and have not come to terms with that change.

 

There is no punch line.  This is no joke.

 

Far from it.

 

It is a documentary.

 

Your attempt to paint it as a portrait is simply wrongheaded and backward, but perhaps you relish living in the past.

 

In my world, women have rights, and one is their bodily integrity -- to touch only when and how they wish to be touched, an integrity which I documented being violated here, as my woman subject noted with some outrage.

 

You can live in your world, but don't pretend to speak for others . . . . . Meir, the world, and especially the world of sexual politics probably has passed you by if you think any part of this resembles a joke.

 

And in so writing, you become the joke. 

 

john


John  (Crosley)

member, Photo.net

 

 

Link to comment

No name calling.

 

Your thoughts are a joke, not you.

 

What you have written is a joke, not you.

 

You accuse me of posting a joke; not so, but in doing so you have denigrated me and my judgment, but I contend that is a judgment call that is wrongheaded and justified only by an outdated view of what is depicted in this documentary (not portrait as you attempt to justify).

 

You have much to impart technically, and I am a willing student of that technical knowledge, but here you have stepped off the reservation in your remarks in my view . . . and certainly in the view of this woman whose attitudes toward this incident I know well, having spoken with her at length about this afterward.  I do my research and write and speak from knowledge and care.

 

john

 

John (Crosley)

Link to comment

She's seated, has legs on ground bracing her.

 

She can't fall.  Also, he's now holding her and she's somewhat off balance as she spins and turns, so falling is a possibility, but she recovered.

 

He's standing over her, and she's raised slightly but braced.

 

That's the answer to your question.

 

Interesting question . . . . of all the possible questions that might be asked . . . .

 

john

 

John (Crosley)

Link to comment

Dear John,

I go with Meir and Starvey. Technical the photo is okay. What's wrong is the title. It brings the photo at the level of a cheap tabloid. I don't see a 'dirty old man'. Probably a man who has misjugded the situation. It is not clear if he realy grabbed her 'tits' I think he is grabbing her waist. But that are all details. You never see the dirty old (or young) men in public. The real dirty men are the well estimated men with good positions in society. From whom we say in the Netherlands: 'they pinch the cat in the dark'.

Kind regards,

Herman

 

Link to comment

Brad Pitt is not in this photo and no celebrity is.

 

I have a 'no celebrity' policy and will put down my lenses if I become aware a subject is a celebrity with two exceptions (1) I'm invited and (2) it's part of a public event where it's expected.

 

In other words, you are creating a fictitious and contrafactual circumstance, attacking it, by inference attacking me, when it runs counter to my express philosophy in photographing and my actions.  Your argument fails because of that.

 

I make celebrities of my own subjects who up to the time I photograph them in terms of celebrity are 'nobodies'.

 

It's the photo, stupid, as Clinton would have said, not the celebrity, that makes the photo.

 

Tabloid is the size of a newspaper and is not what I shoot for; I shoot all genres and never shot for tabloids when I was a photojournalist.

 

john


John (Crosley)

Link to comment

Trying to explain away the words I have written when I was across the table from this woman who yelled 'He grabbed my tit' suggests that it didn't happen.

 

That's simply wrong.  Let me explain.

 

The man himself did not deny it. 

 

In US law in the face of an accusation, failure to deny an accusation (here sexual harassment including assault), is an admission.  The man did not suggest it did not happen when he had every opportunity and every motive to say 'it didn't happen that way.' given her outcry and accusation.

 

It is a poor excuse to say 'well the photo (taken moments after the grabbing) no longer shows the hand on the breast, [and therefore it] didn't happen', especially in light of such damning evidence not only of the photo itself but of my recount as a witness.  As a former reporter, my word as a witness is entitled to more than casual acknowledgement; and as a former attorney, my knowledge of the significance of what happened legally (and socially) is also more substantial than that of the casual observer, I wager.

 

Your claimed exculpatory explanation simply fails.

 

I was a reporter for an international wire service organization for several years as well as a photojournalist, and I had an excellent reputation there for reporting worldwide only the truth.  My word there was highly respected with my employer, the Associated Press, with subscriber newspapers, and with readers as well.

 

If as an AP employee I had done anything else than tell unslanted truth, I would have quickly been out a job.

 

Instead I was being encouraged by the AP General Manager himself to be successor AP general manager (CEO, worldwide), but I simply refused to undergo the series of promotions that would have put me in line to run the AP worldwide. 

 

That doesn't sound like a person whose word was ever doubted in that employment.  My word there was my bond and it was Gospel.  I was never taken to task there for writing anything that was false or even biased, let alone catering to 'tabloid tastes', and now this at age 68 is the first time someone has every written such words regarding my written or photographic output.  I've been put to the test, and my legacy will not rest on one viewer from Holland, judging me based on a biased view of one photo after a lifetime establishing a reputation for journalistic truthtelling and unedited an independent documentary photography.

 

If you want to exculpate, it's your right as an individual to focus only on the photo, but then you have to disregard my written word, which I swear is the truth, and if you dispute my word, then you are on very thin ice and entirely on your own.  We would have nothing more to discuss.

 

Incidentaly with regard to exploitation, your country has a very poor record on the issue of 'sexual harassment' and 'sexual exploitation' it seems, particularly of minors, and perhaps you simply cannot see that it is possible your remarks above may be shaped by that history, which stretches from long ago to very recent times and is well documented but not well known since in your country it's institutionalized.

 

Case in point, your country is the world's largest exporter of 'teenie porn' and long as been that; teenie porn long has been a major export product or your nation.  

 

[i don't mention legal prostitution as a negative because I am not so sure it is a negative -- I have more European views in that regard so long as there's no human trafficking, and your country took big steps when trafficking was revealed, to help put a stop to trafficking, and I keep in mind that neighbor countries long have legalized prostitution - e.g brothels are spread throughout Germany, Austria, Denmark, prostitution is 'legal' or disregarded mainly in France, etc., so I don't dispute the issue of prostitution in your country.  I also note I have lived in your country so this is not a mere academic discussion.]

 

In fact, your country is right along with Denmark in regard to production of pornography of minors among first world countries, but Denmark has more liberal laws about legal age of sex than your country, and Denmark is unique among first world countries. 

 

I think you should think about that your country's sexually exploitative publications for which it is famous before you attack a documentary photo of mine for being exploitative.

 

Also, consider whether you wish to cast aspersions on me and what I have written, as I am an eyewitness, and to dispute what I have written is a direct attack on my veracity.  If you dispute my word, we will have no further basis for discussion, ever.

 

I can tell you that I am 100% certain the breast grabbing occurred directly in front of me, it was intentional, and the man was accused of having done it in my presence, but he not only did not deny it, and instead he smirked.

 

If you do disregard this evidence then we have nothing in common, but perhaps you may wish to reconsider in view of such overwhelming evidence.

 

As to the 'tabloid' accusation, that suggests that it's just best to avert eyes, when something of social significance takes place -- here sexual harassment - he smiling -- she outraged and pushing him away.

 

I think that's socially significant (sexual harassment and assault), and regardless of how you regard this photo, nearly half the US population (female) would agree with me, plus a substantial portion of the men in the US as well (some substantial portion of the second half).

 

If you don't see that, you have let a significant social trend pass you by while my eyes have been wide open to see the social significance of this, and I will NOT allow you to dismiss it as 'tabloid journalism' without vigorous opposition.  You would be well advised to reconsider your point of view in light of this comment.

 

[An aside:  The comment about Brad Pitt, below, is ill placed. Mr. Pitt leads a life of almost utmost propriety given that he is almost like a bug pinned under a tabloid microscope.  It is not any bad behavior of his that leads to his being photographed so much, but mostly his huge paycheck, his wonderful acting ability, his marriage to Angelina Jolie, and his 'fatherhood' of so many children, plus good works for post-Katrina New Orleans as part of some substantial good works --  no bar fights, no cocaine overdoses, no reputation for throwing pianos -- or eggs -- out of hotel windows, etc.) 

 

So, I think Mr. Pitt only dwells in the tabloids mainly because he's highly paid, a great actor and married interesting to a beautiful, talented, and highly paid actress who is equally or more celebrated.  He's a very poor example of 'tabloid fodder' yet I wouldn't under my credo even consider taking his photo, since I don't take photos of celebrities; I try to make celebrities of 'ordinary people' in my photos.

 

This photo is genuine documentary evidence of something most only hear about, and such scenes are recounted by seldom seen photographed in later courtroom battles.  It's a genuine social document that one hears about and almost never witnesses; here one can see it, minus the actual touching, because it was taken a fraction of a second later and real personal reporting of the action plus the immediate words of accusation from the victim, plus lack of denial from the man/perpetrator.

 

I'm proud of this photo for all of that.

 

And if you cannot see its documentary worth and only see 'tabloid grist,', I am sorry.  I don't even sell, let alone to tabloids.  Never have. I have sold and been published however in the New York Times, Time, Time/Life syndication, etc.

 

If you would reconsider, I would be quite pleased.

 

By the way I love your country and its citizens with their wry humor.

 

It's best to be very wry when your history is developing next to the pugnacious and populous Germans.  I have spent much time there, and enjoyed the Dutch sense of humor and forthrightness very, very much . . . so much that the Dutch as a whole are some of my favorite people.

 

And, I found, the Dutch seemed to like me, very much.  (I was not photographing at the time.)

 

 

john

 

John (Crosley)

Link to comment

Dear John,

My comment triggered an enormous amount of sentiment in you. I didn’t talk about Mr. Pit, I wasn’t talking about prostitution and child trafficking or pornography whatever sort or color.
You see how difficult talking between two countries can be because of the differences in moral and religion and whatever.
I think it is not very wise to put religion, politics and moral standards into discussion on this forum.

But:
I won’t change my vision on this image. I will shed some light on it.

In the first place I believe what you say, and I am for 100% convinced of your integrity. I therefore believe what you write. But I don’t see it happen. If, without any knowledge of the background of this image I considered it as is. It can be anything what is happening there. Family party? Uncle John is doing his funny (?) thing like every year.  There is a strange thing in the image. The man is smiling and he thinks it is totally okay what he is doing? I don’t know. Without any text one does not understands what’s going on.
My teachers always hammered on the fact that an image must tell a story. I didn’t see that story until you gave some explanation.
The title was for me the braking trigger. The picture is good, as I said already. But the text is bringing the picture down. Using the word Tit (that is a slang word in Dutch) instead of breast. So it is not your picture that's belongs to the tabloid level, it is the use of language. Hard to understand???

Nice that you talk friendly about the Dutch people, but al this talking about so called sexual freedom is an urban myth. Man and women never have gained one step ahead on the ladder of development to mature people.  Emancipation has done nothing to bring men and women together at a higher level. And to all those who claim that women need to be honored I tell you that men need to be honored as well and as much for all the effort they give to society and their families.

Here outside our little village lays the only WWII American military cemetery in the Netherlands. 8000 thousand young men are buried here. After 70 years we still remember them. All families in our village have adopted a grave. I did as well, more than 15 years ago; every year we bring flowers to their graves. Call out their names so we won’t forget the effort those young men gave for our freedom.  So we keep gratefulness alive. Memorial day is a very important day here.
They are/were real MEN. And America has still many of them. But who cares about an old tit grabbing sucker. He is just someone who has lost the meaning of his life.

Have a good week,
Kind regards, Herman



Link to comment

John, you wrote above somewhere that you make "nobodies" into celebrities. Well you sure did it here!

 

He went from nice-enough-to-pose old guy to a dirty old (Laurent), tit grabbing sucker (Herman).  The more that is written the lower his character sinks. Congratulations John. When you photograph people they should know in advance the risks they are taking.

 

And since you have no signed release to post and disparage this guy you should be up to your fucking eye balls in a  law suit. Imagine how he would feel.

 

When Sandra wrote "dehumanized" I'm not sure to whom she was referring. 

Link to comment

Meir,

I think I owe the old men an excuse. And just may be the whole story is one misunderstanding and is he just a friendly old men who became the victim of an ordinary misunderstanding. Time to think about my lack of wisdom.

Regards

Herman

 

Link to comment

This man is caught an instant after he performed an illegal act.

 

He was NOT invited to post.  He 'horned in' on the pose with the woman, and she not so willingly consented, and I had no horse in that race, so I went ahead and began to set up my shot. 

 

I heard her shout in what qualifies as excited utterance as she pushed his arm away, spun and whirled 'he grabbed my tit', and in law that is Admissible hearsay to prove the truth of the matter asserted -- namely that he indeed did grab her breast.

 

So, what's the deal, anyway, you may ask, he's just a friendly guy?

 

 

Well she objected and did not assent at any time or signal assent before or at any time afterward, so that amounts to an unconsented to touching of 'genitalia' or 'sexual parts' and that amounts not only to an 'assult' in the criminal sense but a 'sexual assault' if proved.

 

Now, he had a chance and probably an obligation to defend himself in the face of her accusation by saying 'no it didn't happen' since he cannot claim he didn't hear her shout -- nobody is that hard of hearing.

 

In the face of an accusation, lack of a denial is an admission under the law of California and of every state and federal jurisdiction I can think of, unless it's a peace officer doing the accusing, which is not an exception that applies here.

 

So, he has admitted to touching her breast, and there is NO WAY IN HELL SHE CONSENTED, so we have photographic proof that he touched her, and the only thing missing is the photo of the hand on the breast which he has admitted.

 

It's an open and shut case, take it from this cum laude law graduate.

It may never be prosecuted, or course, and I am sure she will never complain, but she'll keep her distance and others will for sure too based on what she told me and what others who knew the man told me about how he brags about his behavior around women.

 

This is not just some smiling friendly old buy, but someone else 'caught in the act'.


As to the threat of lawsuit, anyone can sue anyone else. I once wrote as a reporter a story of a woman who sued San Francisco Mayor Joseph Alioto for climbing into her husband's brain and planting evil thoughts there.

 

Such law suits get thrown out, and most sane lawyers who are not too greedy for the feeds will not accept such suits at all.

 

And, I'm judgment proof, so there's little reason for anyone to go after my assets, they'll get nothing (and no insurance either).

 

And Meir, you are yourself guilty of atrocious behavior in calling one of my models a prostitute when I (the only person in the world who knew) a prostitute, and that is a slander (and a criminal slander in that country).  It was a horrible thing that you did for which you should have apologized but never did.

 

You seem to have a penchant for bad behavior and/or justifying bad behavior.

 

If that continues, I will have to take further steps about your contributions here.

 

I do not forget your wrongs in that prior instance of my poor model.

 

john

 

John (Crosley)

Link to comment

If I read your remark correctly, you have called what I wrote above a lie.

 

If you reassert or defend it in spite of the work I put in explaining what happened and my credentials, then you have no place in discourse here, and I would then not be interested in seeing your contributions here and would take appropriate steps to end them.

 

I have never done that before, but I value my word and expect others to value it also, especially in light of my credentials, explained above.  If you cannot, then you should excuse yourself, or I will for you.

 

john

Member, Photo.net

 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...