Flasher confronted.

  • Thread starter zomgwtf
  • Start date

DaveC426913

Gold Member
18,326
1,917
But you agree flashing isn't inherently a malicious deed?
It most certainly is.

This demonstrates a profound ignorance of the behaviour.
 
Last edited:
36
2
You quoted something that I didn't say.
Scratch that last 'leroy responded' and just put someone responded. I did afterwards point out that you continued to say that what occured wasn't illegal which you did say.

I was just drawing out for Goku that people are defending what happened and that's why this is still ongoing. My bad for attributing it to you.

And yes you are a troll. I suppose you can call me a troll but my posts have been relatively on topic and filled ith something substantially more than just eliciting a response and spewing non-sense.
 

OmCheeto

Gold Member
2,073
2,434
Despite differing opinions, i consider nudism as bad as flashing. In my opinion they are both the same and they both qualify indecent public exposure.
We used to have a flasher at our local nude beach. He would put on a short skirt, with matching top, heels, and a big curly blond wig. He looked kind of like Harpo Marx in drag.
He would hid in the bushes until someone came along, then he'd jump out, and lift his skirt up, exposing himself.

Since it was a nude beach, most people just busted up laughing. Or after the second time, greet him with a "Good morning Eric. How are you today?" I think he hated that. Without reading the wiki entry on exhibitionists, it's my opinion that they get their jollies by shocking people. Probably the result of poor potty training or something.
 

DaveC426913

Gold Member
18,326
1,917
How am I dead wrong? If there was no law against nudity, then the sight of a penis wouldn't mortify anyone.
Please read the whole post. I'll say it again, it's not about the sight of a penis; it's about the sexual aggression.

Are you saying if nudity was legal, flashers would still show their penises to people?
In a nudist society, the problem would simply escalate. He who is currently a flasher would find a way to get strangers to see / think about / react to his sexuality. It is not society's rules that a make a flasher.


It's becuase your beliefs, if real, are very very bizarre. Almost the polar opposite of every other 'normal' person out there. And that means troll or weirdo.
I concur that leroy's beliefs are commonly off the reservation. I don't think he deliberately trolls, though I do think he knows his statements will tend to elicit a reaction. Fine line.

I gotta say, nothing astonishes me more in this thread than to find out that lerory is not alone in this idea that flashing is as innocent as nudity. I really did wake up in BizarroWorld.
 
2
0
Since it was a nude beach, most people just busted up laughing. Or after the second time, greet him with a "Good morning Eric. How are you today?" I think he hated that. Without reading the wiki entry on exhibitionists, it's my opinion that they get their jollies by shocking people. Probably the result of poor potty training or something.
well whats to stop a nudist from flashing around. Its kind of double standards if nudism is allowed but flashing is not ok.
 

DaveC426913

Gold Member
18,326
1,917
Without reading the wiki entry on exhibitionists, it's my opinion that they get their jollies by shocking people. Probably the result of poor potty training or something.
Those were surprising numbers for me.

I note that, in the same paragraph, they inlcude other forms of flashing, such as exposing bare breasts and mooning. A definition of flashing that includes these can certiantly change things. Mooning is more commonly done to the world at-large rather than a sepcific individual. Breat-exposing is normally done good-naturedly, in a forum where it will be more accepted.

Male genitalia is pretty much the most pernicious of them all.
 
Last edited:
2,662
20
I agree Dave, I'm finding it difficult to believe people can't distinguish between nudism and flashing.

The only reason people flash is to gain a reaction. It is done with intent. What the reaction they want happens to be is irrelevant.

Nudists simply want to be naked. They don't want to invoke shock and awe responses from people.
 
542
44
It most certainly is.

This demonstrates a profound ignorance of the behaviour.
How is it inherently malicious? Someone posted stats about why people do it and very few of them did it for a negative reason.
Scratch that last 'leroy responded' and just put someone responded. I did afterwards point out that you continued to say that what occured wasn't illegal which you did say.
And I later retracted it when I said that I didn't hear her say he touched her with it.
I was just drawing out for Goku that people are defending what happened and that's why this is still ongoing. My bad for attributing it to you.
And I'm not defending the guy touching her with it. I was just saying that her outrage, assuming it was just flashing, was only due to us being used to nudity being illegal.
And yes you are a troll. I suppose you can call me a troll but my posts have been relatively on topic and filled ith something substantially more than just eliciting a response and spewing non-sense.
How am I off topic? I'm talking about the same thing as you are.
And what did I say that was for the sole purpose of eliciting a response?
You know, you're free to say anything you want when you don't have to actually prove it.
 

DaveC426913

Gold Member
18,326
1,917
Guys - particularly zomgwtf and xChrisx (OK, and me) - that's enough bashing and name-calling of leroy. It really shouldn't be allowed at all.

You can disagree with his claims as vehemently as you wish, but the next leroy ad hominem is going to get reported and likely result in this thread being locked. With the high word count of 'troll' in this thread, it may be too late already.

Attrack the argument, not the arguer.
 
542
44
Please read the whole post. I'll say it again, it's not about the sight of a penis; it's about the sexual aggression.
In some cases it may be about sexual aggression, but I don't think flashing is inherently sexually aggressive. It could be that people get a thrill out of other people seeing them naked.
In a nudist society, the problem would simply escalate. He who is currently a flasher would find a way to get strangers to see / think about / react to his sexuality. It is not society's rules that a make a flasher.
What's the naked equivalent to flashing? Thrusting their genitals at people? Maybe they'll sit especially awkward so that their genitals are exposed more than they should be?
If nudity is legal, I see no reason to flash. The flashers could just walk around naked. How they would escalate that, I don't know.
I concur that leroy's beliefs are commonly off the reservation. I don't think he deliberately trolls, though I do think he knows his statements will tend to elicit a reaction. Fine line.
I expected people to agree with me that nudity should be legal. I don't say things just so people will react negatively towards me. If I say something that I know most people won't agree with, then I'll try to lessen the blow by explaining it a little more and letting them know I understand their side of the argument.
 

DaveC426913

Gold Member
18,326
1,917
It could be that people get a thrill out of other people seeing them naked.
That is the sexual aggression.


I expected people to agree with me that nudity should be legal.
Everyone agrees.

The objection is that it is not relevant. Nudity has nothing to do with flashing. The astonishment reaction is that this lack-of-connection is not known to everyone. So the jump from flashing to legal nudity is a left-field non sequitur.
 
2
0
I agree Dave, I'm finding it difficult to believe people can't distinguish between nudism and flashing.

The only reason people flash is to gain a reaction. It is done with intent. What the reaction they want happens to be is irrelevant.
Nudism in public places qualifies as indecent exposure (same as flashing). And it draws the same reaction as flashing.

Nudists simply want to be naked. They don't want to invoke shock and awe responses from people
nudists can be restricted to certain beaches or designated places.
 

OmCheeto

Gold Member
2,073
2,434
well whats to stop a nudist from flashing around. Its kind of double standards if nudism is allowed but flashing is not ok.
There's a time and place for everything. 99.9% of the nudist's I know do not expose themselves to the general public. Those that do, generally end up in jail.

We've two state sanctioned nudist beaches in my area. It keeps us off the streets. :wink:
 
542
44
That is the sexual aggression.
So if I get a thrill out of people seeing me naked while flashing, then it's sexual aggression.
But if I get a thrill out of people seeing me naked while I'm just being a naked, it's not sexual aggression? How is that possible?
The objection is that it is not relevant. Nudity has nothing to do with flashing. The astonishment reaction is that this lack-of-connection is not known to everyone. So the jump from flashing to legal nudity is a left-field non sequitur.
I think they're related because if nudity was legal, like it should be, then there either wouldn't be flashers, or flashing wouldn't be so shocking to everyone.
It's just like I explained with the bad words. If someone says the F word around their child, then people take offense. But the only reason they take offense is because society has deemed the F word offensive. It's not inherently offensive. And neither is nudity.
 
2
0
There's a time and place for everything. 99.9% of the nudist's I know do not expose themselves to the general public. Those that do, generally end up in jail.

We've two state sanctioned nudist beaches in my area. It keeps us off the streets. :wink:
Clearly line have to be drawn. Otherwise it is always going to be difficult to say what is and what is not alright.
 
2,662
20
Nudism in public places qualifies as indecent exposure (same as flashing). And it draws the same reaction as flashing.
A person sitting on a bench nude, minding their own business is different to a person going up to someone and deliberately forcing their [insert body part] on them. The latter is an agressive action.
nudists can be restricted to certain beaches or designated places.
And that has what to do with the text you quoted?
 

DaveC426913

Gold Member
18,326
1,917
So if I get a thrill out of people seeing me naked while flashing, then it's sexual aggression.
But if I get a thrill out of people seeing me naked while I'm just being a naked, it's not sexual aggression? How is that possible?
If you impose it upon someone in their space, it is different than if you are minding your own business.

I think they're related because if nudity was legal, like it should be, then there either wouldn't be flashers, or flashing wouldn't be so shocking to everyone.
The behaviour would not go away just because nudity is legalized. They would find a way of getting their jollies. Probably by provoking an erection and then poking it at someone. It simply escalates. The act of aggression is the need, not the nudity in-and-of-itself.

By analogy: a kleptomanic does not steal because he's poor; he steals for the thrill itself. If theft were made legal, or if you simply handed him some money, this would not make the problem go away. The klepto would have to find some other way to flout the law.

Likewise, removing the illegality of nudity will not make the desire for sexual inappropriateness go away; it will just have to find another outlet.
It's just like I explained with the bad words. If someone says the F word around their child, then people take offense. But the only reason they take offense is because society has deemed the F word offensive. It's not inherently offensive. And neither is nudity.
You describe a passive, unintentional act of swearing with no target. A proper analogy would be one child saying the F-word to another child. That is the kind of aggression I'm talking about.

If the F-word were not offensive that would not result in children not being awful to each other. The child would simply find the next whatever-it-is that will upset the victim.
 
2,662
20
Even if public nudity was legal, why would it make a difference to flashing?

People's reaction to seeing nudists wouldn't change immediately. Over time people may become used to seeing naked people in the streets.

However, the majority would still wear clothing.

Regardless, the act of flashing is to gain a response. People are missing this point. If nudism was legal, people could still flash. It is the act of going up to someone and 'flashing' your genitals at someone, usually by removing clothes or revealing by lifting/opening clothes. This could still happen and the response would be equally as shocking.

There is a difference between walking down a street with nude people and someone flashing you. You are expecting / used to the former, you aren't expecting the latter.
 

OmCheeto

Gold Member
2,073
2,434
Clearly line have to be drawn. Otherwise it is always going to be difficult to say what is and what is not alright.
The line is drawn at the sign.

endofnudebeach.jpg


It's ok to be naked on one side, but not on the other. I don't see the difficulty.

And before the thread gets locked for incivility, I thought I should post a picture of our former mayor:

Expose-Yourself-to-Art-Poster.jpg


Whoop! Whoop!

:smile:
 
2,662
20
He could be minding his own business, i still consider it flashing.
As it stands now, legally they are both considered indecent exposure.

However, if you were on a nude beach there would be a clear distinction between flashing and simply 'being nude'. A distinction which would carry over if you legalised nudism.
 

Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,987
14
If you impose it upon someone in their space, it is differnt than if you are minding your own business.
An exercise to try and gain some clarity. Consider the following situation:

Mr X leaves home on a sunny weekend day with (as jared so eloquently put it) his wang hanging out. He walks down the street to the train station. He climbs into a mostly empty car and sits down (wang still feeling the breeze) and reads the paper someone left on the seat next to him. He finishes reading, puts the paper down and, as many people do, switches to people-watching. When his stop arrives, he gets out, and heads for the beach. On the way, he sees a little girl selling lemonade (under her mother's supervision), and buys a cup of lemonade from her, drinking it as he walks to the beach. After spending some time watching the waves and the people at the beach, he heads home. When he gets in the train this time, the seats are all taken, so he must stand. During the ride, it gets pretty crowded with people occasionally bumping into each other, as commonly happens in a crowded train. The train gets to his stop, he disembarks and walks home.​

How many times during the day (and when) would you say Mr X was imposing his nakedness upon someone in their space, rather than just minding his own business?
 
2,662
20
Gokul, the key to your situation is that he didn't go out an try to get a reaction from anyone, which is what flashing is. He didn't direct his 'nudity' at anyone and want a reaction from them.
 

Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,987
14
Gokul, the key to your situation is that he didn't go out an try to get a reaction from anyone, which is what flashing is. He didn't direct his 'nudity' at anyone and want a reaction from them.
So, I believe you are saying that flashing should be considered an illegal offense only when it can be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was acting with the intent to elicit a reaction, and

Are you also saying it shouldn't matter what kind of reaction (fear, anger, disgust, excitement, admiration, amusement, arousal) the flasher hoped to elicit?
 

Related Threads for: Flasher confronted.

  • Last Post
2
Replies
43
Views
4K
Replies
21
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
386
Replies
20
Views
6K

Hot Threads

Top