Flasher confronted.

  • Thread starter zomgwtf
  • Start date
2,662
20
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?
I'd say I agree with that.

The problem you end up with is simple, and I'm sure it's the reason you included "demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt". You have to differentiate between a case of a person being nude and ending up in a compromising situation (sitting on a train reading a paper with your wang out, suddenly lowering that paper and another passenger interpreting this as flashing) and a person who is actively out trying to get a reaction (exactly the same example as the one above only this time there's intent). It's damn near impossible to judge unless there is a clear cut reaction from the accused flasher.

So you then have to ask yourself, do they allow nudity and this rather nasty grey area in the law? Or, do they ban it and simply state any public nudity (other than in assigned areas) is considered indecent exposure?
 
Last edited:

DaveC426913

Gold Member
18,326
1,918
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?
I would say for the entire day. Leniency might be given at the beach because there is reasonable grounds for why he might be nude there, but that is matter of practice, not principle.

If and when nudity ever is legalized, these kinds of issues will be hammered out so that other people's rights to decency can be respected. A man's home may be his castle, but public spaces are not the place where you may do what you please.

Even if all of us to-a-man think that nudity should be A-OK all the time, that does not mean it is. Until such time as that changes, every person, including the girl on the subway, has the right to expect that everyone else will conform to the law, and to currently-accepted standards of public decency.
 
408
1
I already explained that I didn't hear her say that, but you didn't read the entire thread, did you?
I did, Leroy. The fault I find in this argument was repeated in some arguments after such as here where it is explained in detail:

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.
I don't think nudism and flashing have the connection you're making here. Someone flashing their penis in this manner is more equivalent to someone making an unwanted sexual gesture, an unwanted sexual gesture could be done even in a nudist society and it would still be unacceptable.
 

lisab

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,832
616
I did, Leroy. The fault I find in this argument was repeated in some arguments after such as here where it is explained in detail:



I don't think nudism and flashing have the connection you're making here. Someone flashing their penis in this manner is more equivalent to someone making an unwanted sexual gesture, an unwanted sexual gesture could be done even in a nudist society and it would still be unacceptable.
True that. Nudists <> flashers. Like I mentioned before, each has completely different motivations and intents.
 

OmCheeto

Gold Member
2,073
2,434
I'd say I agree with that.
I'll second that.

There are only a few things that upset people on a nude beach.

1. people in underwear rubbing their privates. (Get a room!)
2. people walking around visibly aroused. (Get a room!)
3. people taking pictures. (Hey! We do not want to be on youtube!)
3.5 people having sex. (Get a room! (Only saw this once in 25 years. Don't know why people keep saying; "They're having sex on the sidewalk(out at that nekit beach)!". (Dorks. There aren't even any sidewalks within 3 miles of that beach.....)))
4. people who litter. (Hey! Do we look like your mother?!)

:grumpy:
 
15
1
Dying horse still breathing?
 
36
2
Dying horse still breathing?
Indeed W-T-F. I hope everyone that posted here watched the viedo though, worth the lolz
 
15
1
Now I'm wondering if she's legally the victim of a sexual assault, and thus if it was wrong to post the video on YouTube.
 
408
1
Happy cooking, and carving!
Thanks! :) I'm still cooking!

I understand what you said. I was curious if you too, like Dave, personally considered flashing to be a form of sexual assault (irrsepective of what your jurisdication or someone else's has to say about it)?
Ah ok, when you mentioned that "Most definitions I've read do not make such an assertion" I did not think you were asking my personal opinion of it. It is my understanding that assault is usually defined by being threatened with bodily harm, If someone flashed me and did not lunge after me, come extremely close to me or make me feel otherwise threatened, I would not not consider it assault.

I disagree. Let me illustrate with a simplistic example:
There's a thread about the morality of murder. Mr A says that murder is immoral, because violence is immoral. Ms B responds to Mr A, and questions the premise that all violence is immoral.​

Would you say that Ms B's post is out of place because the thread is specifically about murder and not about violence in general?

To further head of a possible line of response, let me add that I do not assert that all nudist arguments in this thread are legitimate - I haven't read them all carefully, don't remember most of them, and hold no such opinion. My assertion is merely that every nudist argument that does not address the specific situation described in the thread OP is not out of place.
No. Point taken, and I appreciate your example. Consider this example:

In a place where people do not have rights to guns, a thread is started by Mrs. Z about a murder that resulted from gun violence recently. Mr. P then responds that this is why people should have right to guns. Do you think Mr. P's argument is out of place given the topic of the thread?
 

mheslep

Gold Member
254
728
... For example, in the United States, you have section 8 of article 1 of the Constitution which defines precisely the powers of the legislative branch. The Congress can't just go left and right penalizing things like indecent exposure just because legislators are morally opposed to it.
Yes but the state and local governments do have that authority in the US, as long as it doesn't offend the rights protected in the US constitution, and the states use it. The public nudity laws lie with the states.
 

mheslep

Gold Member
254
728
As I understand it, flagrant adult nudity by strangers is commonly accepted as psychologically and emotionally harmful to children. I'm not inclined to run it down now, but I believe fairly clear and long settled statements on the topic are available from psychological associations. The issue inevitably comes up at gyms frequented by parents, who cross the line in locker rooms with children in tow. The limit is about four, maybe five years old. I have sympathy for the parent trying to exercise, but sorry dad it's not ok to have your six year old daughter in the men's locker room, or vice versa.
 

DaveC426913

Gold Member
18,326
1,918
As I understand it, flagrant adult nudity by strangers is commonly accepted as psychologically and emotionally harmful to children. I'm not inclined to run it down now, but I believe fairly clear and long settled statements on the topic are available from psychological associations. The issue inevitably comes up at gyms frequented by parents, who cross the line in locker rooms with children in tow. The limit is about four, maybe five years old. I have sympathy for the parent trying to exercise, but sorry dad it's not ok to have your six year old daughter in the men's locker room, or vice versa.
While I see your point, it does not weaken leroy et al's argument. His claim is that, if nudity were normalized, then (all other things being equal) there would be no trauma to children. I would have to agree.
 
While I see your point, it does not weaken leroy et al's argument. His claim is that, if nudity were normalized, then (all other things being equal) there would be no trauma to children. I would have to agree.
it is normalized for moms to be carrying their young sons in tow, yes?

fwiw, i believe they have what are termed "family changing rooms" at my university gym. which... i'm not sure really. sounds a bit like a private cubicle or something.
 

Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,987
14
No time right now to respond to all the posts addressed at me - will have to save that for later.

I really did wake up in BizarroWorld.
But I'd like to say this: I find it a good and refreshing exercise to walk through BizarroWorld every now and then. It sometime forces me to reason out things that I may have taken for granted without very much thought addressed at it. It's nicer still to find that I had been wrong about that thing all along.
 

DaveC426913

Gold Member
18,326
1,918
No time right now to respond to all the posts addressed at me - will have to save that for later.

But I'd like to say this: I find it a good and refreshing exercise to walk through BizarroWorld every now and then. It sometime forces me to reason out things that I may have taken for granted without very much thought addressed at it. It's nicer still to find that I had been wrong about that thing all along.
I confess, if I've taken nothing else away from this, I've learned that flashers have a spectrum of motives.
 
Yes. Why?
mheslep's argument starts off on a unisex note, then ends with the exact opposite of what has long been considered normal (in american society, at least). i want to know if the claim of the long-accepted normal is harmful or not. then you can consider the question of whether the reverse situation really is abnormal, or just social conditioning.

but in any case, there are societies on earth still where nudity is the norm (south american tribes, e.g.)
 

DaveC426913

Gold Member
18,326
1,918
mheslep's argument starts off on a unisex note, then ends with the exact opposite of what has long been considered normal (in american society, at least). i want to know if the claim of the long-accepted normal is harmful or not. then you can consider the question of whether the reverse situation really is abnormal, or just social conditioning.
Um, I'm not sure. All I'm sure of is that, if nudity were commonplace, children of either gender would not be traumatized upon seeing nudity* of either gender.

*innocent nudity, that is. They would still be traumatized by aggression and/or sexual intent
 

lisab

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,832
616
Um, I'm not sure. All I'm sure of is that, if nudity were commonplace, children of either gender would not be traumatized upon seeing nudity* of either gender.

*innocent nudity, that is. They would still be traumatized by aggression and/or sexual intent
Bolding mine: Exactly right, and that brings us full circle back to the beginning of this discussion. Flashing on a subway is aggressive and has sexual intent.

This thread somehow got derailed into nudism. I seriously doubt any PFer has an issue with nudism (well ok, I could be wrong). Flashing is a different animal.
 

Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,987
14
Bolding mine: Exactly right, and that brings us full circle back to the beginning of this discussion. Flashing on a subway is aggressive and has sexual intent.
How can you be certain about that? I posted a link (way back) describing a study that says that the intent of flashing is quite often unrelated to sex.

This thread somehow got derailed into nudism. I seriously doubt any PFer has an issue with nudism (well ok, I could be wrong). Flashing is a different animal.
I think the difference seems to be a little hard to pin down. "I'll know it when I see it", is not good enough for legal implementation, so a clear differentiation is needed. And from all I've read about this topic today, I have not come across a single place that says the only intent of flashing is sexual aggression.

What do you think Mr X in post #123 is engaging in: flashing or nudism (and why)?
 

Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,987
14
I'd say I agree with that.

The problem you end up with is simple, and I'm sure it's the reason you included "demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt". You have to differentiate between a case of a person being nude and ending up in a compromising situation (sitting on a train reading a paper with your wang out, suddenly lowering that paper and another passenger interpreting this as flashing) and a person who is actively out trying to get a reaction (exactly the same example as the one above only this time there's intent). It's damn near impossible to judge unless there is a clear cut reaction from the accused flasher.

So you then have to ask yourself, do they allow nudity and this rather nasty grey area in the law? Or, do they ban it and simply state any public nudity (other than in assigned areas) is considered indecent exposure?
Good to see a coherent argument. I'll get back to this in a bit (I hope).
 
2,662
20
How can you be certain about that? I posted a link (way back) describing a study that says that the intent of flashing is quite often unrelated to sex.

I think the difference seems to be a little hard to pin down. "I'll know it when I see it", is not good enough for legal implementation, so a clear differentiation is needed. And from all I've read about this topic today, I have not come across a single place that says the only intent of flashing is sexual aggression.
This is the reason I'm not defining flashing as only for "sexual agression". As I've said over and over, it is about gaining a reaction from the victim. It is only when you go for a reaction from another person by performing the act of uncovering yourself that I consider it flashing.
 

lisab

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,832
616
How can you be certain about that? I posted a link (way back) describing a study that says that the intent of flashing is quite often unrelated to sex.

I think the difference seems to be a little hard to pin down. "I'll know it when I see it", is not good enough for legal implementation, so a clear differentiation is needed. And from all I've read about this topic today, I have not come across a single place that says the only intent of flashing is sexual aggression.

What do you think Mr X in post #123 is engaging in: flashing or nudism (and why)?
Flashing is certainly *perceived* as sexually aggressive by women who are on the receiving end. Trust me on this.

"I"ll know it when I see it" - I used that term precisely because it was used in a famous Supreme Court decision (Justice Potter Stevens) describing obscenity. It may not be good enough for you, but it was good enough for the Supreme Court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

Seriously, I think it means these kind of issues are to be decided on on a local level, in accordance with local mores. And in what locality is it acceptable to flash on a subway?!

As far as Mr X, I'm going to have to get back to that. The turkey is taking its toll on me :biggrin:.
 

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