I've noticed compared to a couple other forums I visit, including:

- Curvage (on occasion)
- TitsInTops (most frequently)
- Preggophilia (very rarely - to search for content on specific girls while they happened to be gestating),

That BBW-Chan's userbase tends to be the most hostile to candid threads. I know there's something in the rules about it, but it's one of those rules that tends to get a pass when no one is making a fuss.

Maybe it has something to do with the simultaneous, frequent preference for content from "models" here, as opposed to content from more girl-next-door-type thicc/busty/BBW chicks from social media?

Maybe it's as simple as that candids being against the global rules draws in a regular user-base that has no interest in that content?

Maybe it's because the anonymity and resultant lack of humility in some regulars makes them feel above the idea of strangers/people on the streets, as opposed to "higher-worth" models?

I know some people just aren't into it, and I get that 100%. This isn't a complaint thread in the slightest, I'm more just wanting to hear thoughts on this since it struck me as interesting that TiT, Curvage, etc. absolutely embrace good candid material of busty or extra thicc/heavy women in public settings.

In the US at least, paparazzi "photojournalists" get free reign due to the general assumption that in public places you may be photographed or videoed at any time without consent (as long as it's not extended/harassing/seems to be targeted at children, and isn't invading assumed privacy -- like an upskirt). Non-harassing candid video of a large butt you happen to be strolling behind is no more illegal than if that same butt showed up in the background of a TV show, for instance.

The above doesn't mean that it's not skeevy and that there are not skeevier ways to do it/go about it than others. I think for me at least, living somewhere known in hip-hop for having good booty (guess where lol), I occasionally find myself taking small detours just to appreciate an attractiv person's figure and, arguably, the way they're choosing to present themselves.

I'm wondering if others have thoughts or opinions on why this attitude exists here on BBW-Chan, but not in other online spaces where usernames and lack of anonymity make moderation heavier in general.

Once again - not an argument for or against candid-posting here. Just curious in a "meta" way, about the general forum-goer's prevailing attitude toward candid photos/videos itself.

>>26241 (OP)
I can't speak for this site or others, but for me it's a moral/ethical issue. I won't say I've stopped enjoying candids but I don't seek them out. You're right that it's not a legal issue, at least in most of the US. People in the street are giving tacit consent to be photograhped, whether they like it or not. Public indoor spaces like stores, instutions, etc can impose their own rules, which may or may not stand up to legal challenge. That said, I personally wouldn't want to stand in front of a judge in the age of #meetoo in a progressive city like mine and claim my right to follow around and photograph fat chicks.

I won't judge however, as BITD I was way into candids. I even took a bunch myself that wound up making the rounds, which at the time was basically Yahoo groups and Dimensions. I stopped taking them because I was once caught by a subject's BF, who I hadn't seen behind me. He was a scary dude who was ready to pound me into dust. I talked my way out of it but decided the thrill wasn't worth the risk. I still liked seeking them out on the internet, however.

What changed was a conversation with an ex-GF. We weren't talking about candids specifically, but guys following women around. She was fat but shapely and attractive, and had experienced plenty of it herself. She told me women are almost always aware when a guy is following them but that they don't react, with hope they'll get bored and go away. Most even marginally attractive women are used to it and put up with it, but it can be scary when there are few people around, or at night. Even when they go away, the woman isn't sure he isn't still following in the shadows, and they're afraid to go home. That kind of thing.

At that point I realized I didn't want to make people frightened or scared, nor did I feel good about getting off to it. I decided there are enough women willing to show themselves off (presumably) with consent to satisfy my needs.

That said, the "small detours" like you describe can be harmless, though of course it's all in the details... How "small," at what distance are you observing, and are there other people around, that kind of thing. I'm no angel, I admit I'll quicken or slow my pace to check out a hot fat chick. Or sometimes buy a little time by stopping to "check my phone" as a woman walks past.

Another good point you make is the dreaded "asking for it" argument. I also live in a city where many women aren't afraid to display their assets. Modern guy that I am, I wonder how it's so terrible to give them what they want — attention. But I think it's pretty obvious when a woman is glammed up and looking to be seen, or just on her way to work or the supermarket, and I think guys should gauge their behavior accordingly.

TLDR: I'm black[spoiler]jk[spoiler]

>>26241 (OP)
Girls will think your are following even when you aren't, I've experienced this a couple of times with girls turning their heads and walking to other side of the sidewalk, or slowing down and letting me catch up while walking. Nowadays I speed walk past women if i'm close to them to avoid these awkward situations. I think women overestimate the amount of men willing to risk harsh consequences and do someting creepy to them and that the idea that they would be less afraid of men if there was les rape/assault in the world, etc is false. I believe it's a bit more hard-wired than that. I've got no past experiences with getting in fights with strangers but for some reason I feel more inhibited in my interactions with large gnarly dudes than small men, women and children.

>In the US at least, paparazzi "photojournalists" get free reign due to the general assumption that in public places you may be photographed or videoed at any time without consent (as long as it's not extended/harassing/seems to be targeted at children, and isn't invading assumed privacy -- like an upskirt). Non-harassing candid video of a large butt you happen to be strolling behind is no more illegal than if that same butt showed up in the background of a TV show, for instance.

That's an apples to orange comparison. Paparazzi 99.999% of the time there for the celebrity in the area. They're not going to take photos of some generic no name down the street.

Also for butts in the background of a TV show, they will always either

1. Announce within the area that they're recording a scene.

2. Hire/use background characters.

3. Get consent to blur/censor faces

It's no like Chuck Lorre or some other director is hiding their phone in the pocket while trying to film the scene.

Yeah, it seems like a straightforward ethical thing to me and always has. I'm a privacy-conscious person and would be horrified if it turned out somebody was photographing me without my consent and sharing it on the Internet, not that anybody is going out of their way to snap candid pics of a balding middle aged guy. That's basic Golden Rule stuff that doesn't change just because I find a woman attractive.

I'm definitely guilty of slow walking and pretending to check my phone when I cross paths with a cute SSBBW, and have been embarrassed once or twice when the woman noticed and made obvious moves to avoid me, but that's different from actually taking a photo.

>somewhere known in hip-hop for having good booty (guess where lol)
but are you also checking in front for the presence of LA faces?

Demographic factors, in two directions. Imageboards skew whiter and younger than traditional forums. I'll be charitable and say I don't know who's actually taking the pictures, but I just went on TitsInTops and clicked on a candid thread — 90%+ black women, most of them over 40, and one of the posters had 1961 in his username lol. And that tracks with my only extended experience with candids: being 11 years old, not knowing about porn sites, and instead clicking around through weird stuff on YouTube, including a channel that filmed behind almost exclusively black women. So if I was forced to bet, I'd say candid enjoyers are more likely to be older black men. So there just isn't much demand here — just like there aren't (presumably) threads of immobile anime girls on TitsInTops.

>>26250
I wasn't making an argument, I was stating a fact. It doesn't matter whether someone's a celebrity or if you're announcing that a scene is being recorded/using BG characters. It is legal in the US and people in public spaces are giving tacit consent to end up in recorded media.

It seems that you're arguing about whether it's legal or not, as opposed to ethical or not. Whether it's ethical or not is up for fair debate, but there's no argument that it is legal in the US at a baseline in a majority of public spaces to film or photograph adults in public, incidentally or otherwise.

>>26263
>I wasn't making an argument, I was stating a fact

Yet you're getting upset. Calm down ya bum.

>>26263

>It is legal in the US and people in public spaces are giving tacit consent to end up in recorded media.
Not only is this the most rediculous fucking stupid dickshit thing I have ever heard, it is literally impossible. There couldn't ever be a Federal law telling you that you have the right to record video. What stupid fucking asshole shit is that?

There are laws that prohibit recorded surveillance footage taken in private property to be distributed neither used (in court) unless there is a sign present alerting to the presence of a camera. These are security cameras and I'm pretty sure that business do whatever the hell they want anyway because they have very little fear of the FCC.

If you record somebody without their consent that's disturbing the peace. If you follow that person around, that's harassment.

If you film video then you are the owner, and no you can't publish a video with somebody in it without release forms. The publishing firm handles copyrights, and so on, and have all the lawyer experience necessary so that you don't get sued.

>>26267
I took photography before I became Kisame. Photojournalism used to be a very time consuming work because it requires using old model characters and adjusting shutters speed. There was pressure by the press to go into war torn counties and the Okies to film how bad it was. Poor people did not want pity from the press. The press were hated by the military for undermining and show weakness. The rivalry between the liberal leaning press and the military had existed since WWII and got worse in Vietnam when the press showed the Vietnamese getting massacred by American soldiers. It could be that war turns men into nihilistic husks who long for their girlfriends that the military control access.

>>26267
Sure there are no atheists in the foxholes, but only God can make us equal by ending the world in ice and fire.

The Chiefs won! I just watched Phillyniggers get owned by the white man on Black History month. Now Blacks can go back to their public housing off Market Street. Drexel sucks, Independence Hall sucks, Will Smith sucks, and Bill Cosby sucks, and the 76ers suck! Take Charles Barkley with you. Phillyniggers need to shut up and dribble!

>>26267
Rarely see someone so incorrect so confidently ... and rights don't work like that. There doesn't need to be a "Federal law telling you you have a right" to do something lmao.

It's literally based on the first amendment of the Constitution and the Supreme Court has taken cases regarding this and upheld it as a liberty.

Also, I never said anything about private spaces, and I didn't specify following or harassing someone. I'm talking about situations where for instance you happen to be on the same bus or in the same courtyard/street as someone in a PUBLIC space, and you have your phone in your hand/shirt pocket, etc. while anyone else could just assume you're texting or reading an article, etc. but you just happen to have the camera running in the background.

Whether you like it or not, in every state in the USA, you have the constitutional right to take photographs and videos of things that are plainly visible from public areas where you have a legal right to be present.

Using a bunch of toddler words isn't gonna make that any less true. And all the people publishing thousands of videos a day in public spaces on YouTube, TikTok etc. don't need release forms from every single John and John Doe in the background that happens to walk through their video.

And just to clear things up, In the premise of my first question I made little to no personal argument, But I agree 100% with the others who've said that making people uncomfortable, following them deliberately/too closely/threateningly, etc. are wrong, and it's unethical/just mentally ill to do that. That's criminal behavior and those videos are a huge turn-off

I'm talking about candid shots that are quick, uneventful and that the subject would never be the wiser was occurring.

The right to photograph and video in public spaces is part of freedom of speech and the press. Several Supreme Court cases have upheld this dude.

Look up these cases:

Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001): The Supreme Court ruled that the media's airing of an illegally intercepted cell phone conversation was protected by the First Amendment, even though the interception itself was illegal.

Knop v. Johnson (1998): The Supreme Court ruled that a news photographer's right to photograph law enforcement officers was protected by the First Amendment, even when the officers were working in a sensitive, nonpublic area.

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964): Established that the press has a constitutional right to publish information and opinions on matters of public interest, including photographs and videos, without fear of libel lawsuits (which means it's extremely unlikely that a completely non-confrontational candid photo of a fat person is going to land anyone in court just because that person found out somehow and didn't like it).

Houchins v. KQED, Inc. (1978): Involved a news photographer's right to take photographs of conditions inside a county jail (just as much a public space as street corner).

This is just a small sampling.

>>26241 (OP)
That doesn't apply to pornography, which is an obscenities under the law as you are filming a naked woman.

>>26277
That only applies to the news like Fox News Corp, MSNBC, which are owned by billionaires who have an agenda to sell. Private citizens like Alex Jones, Ben Shapiro, or Julian Assange and Tim Pool can be sued if their reporting is not accurate and they hurt the victims. It doesn't matter because the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and other metro papers are on the decline because nobody wants to watch billionaires pay people to talk about how cool Ron is. There's a very good reason Louella Parsons was more influential than William Randolph Hearst. She had more power to sabotage Orson Welles with her gossip.

>>26279
Who mentioned naked...?

>>26281
OMG, please stop being so stubborn-stupid. It's not just the news media that's protected. Just that the media is who gets sued for this stuff, and so those become the test cases that create the precedent.

Once again — and make sure you took your Adderal before proceeding: The right to photograph anyone in public applies to everyone. Just fucking google it if you don't believe us, and keep your faux-informed bullshit name dropping to yourself. Louella Parsons has literally nothing to do with what's being discussed here.

There are candid sites with CCBill billing, i'm not sure if they profile themselves as erotic sites or art cause the former category doesn't seem doesn't seem compatible with the 2257 compliance code (no minors, who can accidently be filmed).

>>26292
You don't have the right to film private property in Adams era NYC. It's the easy way to get the police to arrest you. Eric Adams won't let perverts to do as they please.

>>26298

>You don't have the right to film private property
In private property, or you can't for example take photos of the Chinese government's international bank in NYC?

New Yorks laws have tendency to dumbfounding. I've wondered in the past if due to a diminishing Republican majority or growing liberal political agendas was the cause. Some of the things I have heard can rival California's mess. How can a wealth capital of the world have problems policing criminals? Is the city hall run by corrupt criminals? What is the strongest crime? Murder, pitty theft, robbery, drugs? Intelligent young adults move there in groups everyday to start work, not to make babies. None of it makes sense to me. They should have enough money to lock everybody up and throw away the key, thereby making the whole country that much safer.

What could possibly be happening there for them to legislate a no recording in private property policy, and does it include property owners? Becausethat is 1 thing that I can see becoming an issue moving forward with the scare of a surveillance state and face recognition "biometrics" around the corner. Oh, but don't worry. AI will save the world, not start another war.

I'm all for a civil war. Domestic Terrorists need to be taught a lesson. A good spanking. Like the children they are.

>>26298
You don't have the right to film ON private property in Adams' NYC. Same with DeBlasio NYC, Bloomberg NYC, Giuliani NYC, etc.

>>26299
You can 100% take a photo of the Chinese govt's bank in NYC, and the facade of literally any building. NYC has always been liberal. The US is a violent country with massive inequality and too many guns, but NYC has one of the lowest urban crime rates in the US, and blue states are safer than red ones, so it has nothing to do with politics. I'd rather deal with crime than an authoritarian state you seem to both admire and fear, because you're a scatterbrained moron.

>>26302

>NYC has one of the lowest urban crime rates in the US
I don't know whether you want me to laugh or cry.

>and blue states are safer than red ones, so it has nothing to do with politics.
I see. HA! HAHA! HAHAHAHA!

I don't do fear, and I'm patiently waiting for the government to fuck up so that I can take the throne and lead us all towards victory and out of this dark shadow government/domestic terrorist eutopia. I've 1 who have seen these purps, and I'm also waiting for a good chance to catch them too out in public. Respecting a government. Ha! That was a good 1. Have you ever heard of California? Have you ever heard of the IRS and the JP Morgan bank? Have you taken notice of all the problems that we have somehow in 1 of the world's wealthiest nations hundreds of millions of workers working paycheck to paycheck, lowest birthrate in the world besides those aliens in Japan, most Americans can't afford a house unless they move from a big city to a low GDP state with their parents inheritance. Seriously dude if you honestly want to live here you're either a stupid whore, or you are a warrior for love who long ago stopped caring about his own life.

>>26304
Well when you put it like that it all makes so much sense. I stand corrected, carry on.

>>26299
Conservatives in New York like me live in the wealthy suburbs of Long Island, Westchester, Hudson Valley and cities like Rochester. Liberals tend to live out in the Hamptons, or near the Hudson River. New York's problem stem from socialists like AOC being inept and causing NYPD to not do their job.

>>26302
Buffalo, Rochester, Brentwood, Mastic-Shirley, and Wyandanch have more crime than NYC

>>26310

That's 1st time I think I've heard of any US politician being called a socialist. I can understand why, but can 1 tiny woman really cause so much problems? How can that be so? Sorry, NYC mot NYS.

>>26311
Socialism did exist in America, but they are outright despised for wanting to bring back the 1930s when workers were part of the dance hall or society. It doesn't help that Art Babbitt was seemingly compensated by Disney despite Americans struggling. AOC is despised by mainstream Democrats for losing Asians and Latinos who fled communist countries to Trump.

>>26312

She is despised by minorities for her mistakes, and they far outweigh any of the good she does. I can't remember who, but I was explained long ago how she basicly saved a portion of NY from Amazon who wanted to build without paying fair share of taxes. In my head I wasn't sure how 1 tiny woman managed to stop Amazon from coming in and enticing the rest of the politicians, but I knew it was a good thing. It's better to be broke than to be in debt.

>>26313
Not really. NYPD has more power than AOC. You can be fat, and turn your back on the mayor as a cop cause NYPD is union.

>>26314

Sorry. I don't really care. I said that because that is what was told to me about their opinions of AOC, but I don't live in NY.

>>26241 (OP)
I doubt those opinions are true. There's too much shadow fighting between the Proud Boys and drag queens in her district. I'd like to help, but I am not allowed to be Kisame17, so fetish artists have to fight their own battles. I am a normal person now.

>>26316

I could've sworn it was Kisame13?

>>26241 (OP)
It was Kisame 17, now I am a simple conservatives guy.

This place loves to turn everything political. How do you people go from candids in public to AOC? You people need to get a better hobby than being armchair politicians. Y'all niggaz don't even get paid to even do that.

Who is sam?

So yeah this is the first and last time I try to start. discussion in /gen/ I guess. What the flying fuck happened here and dafuq is wrong with y'all's brains?

There's no functional logic whatsoever here and every single post is like someone pressed the RNG button on a schizobot while in a fugue state.

Y'all are just stacking one less-than-half-baked fetus of an idea on top of another every couple minutes, then forgetting your name for a spell and repeating ad nauseam.

This thread now resembles a wailing Ragnarok-esque dumpster fire behind a Planned Parenthood in the "bad part" of Pripyat 10 months after Chernobyl shit the trench.

Fuck this
Fuck Ron
Fuck all y'all
I'll see you tomorrow.

>>26322
Fetish artists have been tweeting about politics because Scranton Joe wants wholesome conservatives and hates progressives. Really, we're back to 90s style culture wars and fetish artists are making comedy gold. I am too busy shrinking food as a cook to deal with inflation to care about being Kisame17.

>>26320
It's for people who are detached from reality, and use Facebook as a "news" service. That's the backbone of the right-wing going forward.

>>26323
Retard, you are addicted to power user drama.
>>26316
The bit was totally played out, to be fair.

>>26322
For some reason, /gen/ has reached critical mass with a group of posters who egg each other on to derail every thread with political schizoposting, either because they're too retarded not to take each other's bait or because they genuinely enjoy shitting up threads with it. Sorry your thread fell victim to the cancer, OP, it was a potentially interesting discussion.

>>26241 (OP)
It's just the golden rule. I'd be uncomfortable if someone was trying to stick a camera up my arse and wouldn't wish that on anyone else.

>>26322
I am just too straight laced to care about hyperpreg.

>>26247
>I wonder how it's so terrible to give them what they want — attention

Women 101: They don't want YOUR attention. They want the status/power conferred to attractive women and the chance that a hot rich guy might find them attractive. But the idea of the average frustrated chump is cheking them out is disgusting to them.

This site is hosted in NL IIRC. Can we please not discuss the intricacies of the law of the USA which has no impact here.

>>26534
See top of page:

/gen/ - General Discussion
"Talk about anything you like"

Plenty of stuff on this site doesn't interest me. It's so easy to just scroll on by.