What are the consequences of flashing and how is it perceived by women?

[zomgwtf]

Wowwwww life sucked for this man during this subway trip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIlObKYwUyI&feature=related

The lady swears and yells the word penis a few times.

 

[waht]

Lol. Busted!

 

[zomgwtf]

Lol. Busted!

His face and body language is priceless.

 

[hamster143]

Waah waah waah. That lady is such a prude.

 

[MysticDude]

Wow, can't believe that something like this happened! The guy wanting to take a picture was so funny haha. That lady was so determined to get the guy arrested hahahahaha!

 

[zomgwtf]

Wow, can't believe that something like this happened! The guy wanting to take a picture was so funny haha. That lady was so determined to get the guy arrested hahahahaha!

Rofl, my favorite part was the camera man being like 'this ---- is going on youtube yo' hahahaha

 

[DaveC426913]

Why does the dude not do up his fly once he's busted?

 

[zomgwtf]

Why does the dude not do up his fly once he's busted?

I'm pretty sure his penis was outside of his fly and once she had seen it he just tried to cover it up with his laptop bag.

 

[leroyjenkens]

People should be allowed to be completely naked in public. But of course, America isn't a free country, and the constitution is regularly ignored.

 

[DaveC426913]

People should be allowed to be completely naked in public. But of course, America isn't a free country, and the constitution is regularly ignored.

Total straw man. Stay on topic.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Total straw man. Stay on topic.

A strawman towards who? Part of my response was on topic, which lead to the other things I said.
But your entire post is off topic.

 

[DaveC426913]

A strawman towards who? Part of my response was on topic, which lead to the other things I said.
But your entire post is off topic.

This thread is about indecent exposure. You want to talk about legalized public nudity. Apples and oranges.

 

[rootX]

This thread is about indecent exposure.

How so it is indecent ... from the video, seems like people in it lacked maturity. Taking pictures/videos of naked body parts is what an elementary kid would do, not an adult.

 

[hamster143]

This thread is about indecent exposure. You want to talk about legalized public nudity. Apples and oranges.

The two are incompatible with each other. In a truly free country, there can be no such thing as indecent exposure. There's nothing in the constitution that gives the government the right to ban people from showing their bodily parts to others.

 

[zomgwtf]

How so it is indecent ... from the video, seems like people in it lacked maturity. Taking pictures/videos of naked body parts is what an elementary kid would do, not an adult.

For evidence after the man had a condom on his penis and was rubbing himself against a female on the subway? Trueeeeeeee.

 

[DaveC426913]

How so it is indecent ... from the video, seems like people in it lacked maturity. Taking pictures/videos of naked body parts is what an elementary kid would do, not an adult.

Perhaps we are interpreting the video differently. The guy seems to have his fly open. The girl, and another guy seem to feel that his penis is hanging out or at least visible, and she claims he was pushing up against her.

Regardless of the outcome, this is an accusation of flashing - indecent exposure (and possibly even sexual assault).

I see them as acting in outrage to a crime in commission, with the tool they have at-hand - their cameras.

 

[Gokul43201]

There's nothing in the constitution that gives the government the right to ban people from showing their bodily parts to others.

That's not how things work. The Constitution endows the people with certain rights. What the government can't do is violate those rights. To show that the criminalization of public exposure is a violation of the Constitution, you must argue that a specific Constitutionally protected right is being denied to you.

 

[leroyjenkens]

This thread is about indecent exposure. You want to talk about legalized public nudity. Apples and oranges.

The woman was outraged at something that shouldn't be illegal. The way you're so ardently denouncing my comment makes it seem like you want to just immediately stifle that specific discussion.

That's not how things work. The Constitution endows the people with certain rights. What the government can't do is violate those rights. To show that the criminalization of public exposure is a violation of the Constitution, you must argue that a specific Constitutionally protected right is being denied to you.

In that case, what protects us from the government making us all wear identical uniforms?

 

[Proton Soup]

i'm not sure i saw anything. just what looks like a side pocket open?

 

[hamster143]

The Constitution endows the people with certain rights. What the government can't do is violate those rights. To show that the criminalization of public exposure is a violation of the Constitution, you must argue that a specific Constitutionally protected right is being denied to you.

That's how it works in totalitarian countries. Here in the free world, we're supposed to start from the opposite point. The Constitution defines certain narrow areas where the government is supposed to operate (e.g. collecting taxes and printing money), and it operates within those constraints, further subject to explicit protections of people's rights. 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.

 

[zomgwtf]

There are news articles if people want to go look for them, I'm not particularly interested I just found the video that went with it. For those rediculous individuals on this forum he wasn't just walking around naked (it's even clear from the video that he wasn't just doing that). Even if he was however it's still ****ing funny... he's not just naked he's walking with JUST HIS PENIS OUT with a condom on it.

 

[JaredJames]

The woman was outraged at something that shouldn't be illegal. The way you're so ardently denouncing my comment makes it seem like you want to just immediately stifle that specific discussion.

Firstly, whether you agree with the legality or not, it is illegal and she has every right to be outraged.

Secondly, the fact she says "he was pushing against me" and how he had is penis out whilst doing so is enough to make a potential sexual assault case - even more reason for her to be outraged.

 

[DaveC426913]

The woman was outraged at something that shouldn't be illegal.

Exposing your penis through your pants and pushing it against a bystander. You think that should be legal.

Got it.

 

[Pattonias]

It is a ridiculous argument to say that the government is somehow oppressing our rights by making this illegal. It isn't some made up moral stand that "legislatures" came up with. The law reflects the common morals of the people who elected the legislature.

If you don't agree with it, help elect a person who supports public nudity and the right to sexually assault people in public places. Until you jump on that band-wagon please quit defending the guy.

 

[Saladsamurai]

Exposing your penis through your pants and pushing it against a bystander. You think that should be legal.

Got it.

Dave, this thread is perfect example of how, for some reason, extremely stupid people gravitate towards websites that are centered around intelligence and education. But that's why they only hang out in GD.

 

[hamster143]

Exposing your penis through your pants and pushing it against a bystander. You think that should be legal.

Would you agree that simply exposing the penis does not result in any physical harm to any person present?

 

[DaveC426913]

Would you agree that simply exposing the penis does not result in any physical harm to any person present?

?


Physical harm? Agreed. This has not conceded anything though. Lawful boundaries betwen people regarding public behaviour go well beyond physical harm.

Would you agree that I have no right to stand over you on the subway holding you in your seat with my knee, spitting my mucus on your face, shaking a porn mag in your face and screaming racial epithets?

No physical harm...

 

[Gokul43201]

The Congress can't just go left and right penalizing things like indecent exposure just because legislators are morally opposed to it.

You will not win a lawsuit unless you can demonstrate that the government abridged your rights. On the other hand, the government will argue that through this law it is providing for the general welfare of its constituents, a responsibility that it derives directly from the Constitution.

 

[Gokul43201]

Lawful boundaries betwen people regarding public behaviour go well beyond physical harm.

How far beyond? Should public exposure be expected to cause any kind of harm to a normal human being?

 

[JaredJames]

How far beyond? Should public exposure be expected to cause any kind of harm to a normal human being?

Depends on whether or not you want to bring the whole "should children be exposed to public nudity" and people pressing their sexual organs against children?

 

[Gokul43201]

Depends on whether or not you want to bring the whole "should children be exposed to public nudity" and people pressing their sexual organs against children?

I don't think anyone is arguing for nonconsentual contact. I think the only thing being defended so far is the right to public nudity.

 

[JaredJames]

I don't think anyone is arguing for nonconsentual contact. I think the only thing being defended so far is the right to public nudity.

But that doesn't answer the first part of my post. Should children be exposed to it?

 

[DaveC426913]

How far beyond? Should public exposure be expected to cause any kind of harm to a normal human being?

Absolutely. In this case, it is tantamount to sexual assualt.

Assault does not require physical harm; that is battery.

That's not the same thing as sitting on a bench on a park, naked, minding your own business.

There is a place for public nudity, but society has ruled that the subway isn't it. The law merely obliges.

 

[hamster143]

You will not win a lawsuit unless you can demonstrate that the government abridged your rights.

You can argue that the government lacks the statutory authority to pass the law. One of the best-known recent laws that were overturned on those grounds was the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1990.

With public indecency, things are a bit murkier because the law against that is a state law.

 

[Gokul43201]

There is a place for public nudity, but society has ruled that the subway isn't it. The law merely obliges.

I think there is a good point here (crowded subway versus isolated park bench), but I don't see value in the line of reasoning that something is justified because society thinks so.

 

[JaredJames]

Should children be exposed to it?

I'm still looking for an answer on this one? No one wants to answer it for some reason.

You can argue whether or not public nudity should be allowed all you like, but this is a major factor and something that needs to be addressed if you're going to start claiming it should be legal.

 

[lisab]

Most people would have little to grumble about if someone wants to lay nekkid in the park, basking in the sun, burning his bum. It's wholesome.

Flashing your penis in a subway? That's not innocent public nudity and it's not wholesome; it's creepy.

 

[lisab]

I'm still looking for an answer on this one? No one wants to answer it for some reason.

You can argue whether or not public nudity should be allowed all you like, but this is a major factor and something that needs to be addressed if you're going to start claiming it should be legal.

Children exposed to nudes sunning in the park - sure.

Children exposed to a guy flashing on the subway - hell no, and I don't want to see it either.

The difference is the creep factor: it's hard to define, but I know it when I see it.

 

[Gokul43201]

You can argue that the government lacks the statutory authority to pass the law.

One of the best-known recent laws that were overturned on those grounds was the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1990.

With public indecency, things are a bit murkier because the law against that is a state law.

Agreed.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think there is a good point here (crowded subway versus isolated park bench), but I don't see value in the line of reasoning that something is justified because society thinks so.

If not the people, who in a democratic society does get to decide what - for the people - is within the bounds of common decency?

 

[JaredJames]

Children exposed to nudes sunning in the park - sure.

Children exposed to a guy flashing on the subway - hell no, and I don't want to see it either.

The difference is the creep factor: it's hard to define, but I know it when I see it.

Exactly, and this for me is the key here. There are far fewer situations where you can be nude and not considered creepy than where you are nude and creepy.

If you go somewhere that people sunbathe and there are nude bodies there, it's something you expect. But when walking down a high street you don't expect to be confronted with a bunch of nude figures.

 

[JaredJames]

If not the people, who in a democratic society does get to decide what - for the people - is within the bounds of common decency?

Would you believe it, it's the government voted in by the people.

The simple answer is if you don't like laws such as those against nudity, fight to get someone who will stand against them into office, or start a lawsuit against to fight against them.

 

[Newai]

I would like to point out that this wasn't just an exposure incident:

“I’m like why is this person pressing up against me? Then I realize you have all this (expletive) space here. Then I see his penis out! That’s it!”

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2010/11/23/tables-turned-on-alleged-nyc-subway-flasher/

Kinda sinks the whole "it's just nudity" argument.

 

[JaredJames]

Precisely. It's not just nudity here.

But even if it was just him standing with his wang out, why would that be considered acceptable?

 

[Gokul43201]

If not the people, who in a democratic society does get to decide what - for the people - is within the bounds of common decency?

That's a legal argument. I thought we were debating a moral/rational argument. After all, slavery, institutional racism, sexism, blahism ... can be legally justified in that they were all simply expressions of the will of the majority. That doesn't provide a rational justification for them.

 

[zomgwtf]

Precisely. It's not just nudity here.

But even if it was just him standing with his wang out, why would that be considered acceptable?

Perhaps some people do find it acceptable just as a majority society decided it's not acceptable and the law reflects that.

Cry about the constituition.

I don't talk to black people I see in a restaurant like:
"Boy fetch me a glass of wine."
for the same reason.
I mean no physical harm! Clearly I'm given this right being human!

 

[Gokul43201]

But even if it was just him standing with his wang out, why would that be considered acceptable?

I believe you've shifted the burden to the wrong side. For a citizen living in a free society, anything that is not unacceptable should be considered acceptable. The question, therefore, should be: why should that be considered unacceptable?

 

[Newai]

Precisely. It's not just nudity here.

But even if it was just him standing with his wang out, why would that be considered acceptable?

Not acceptable. A man hanging his penis out and about is about his penis. This goes a bit beyond simple nudity. Still, in itself not necessarily a problem. Heck, a man fully naked on a city bus or subway, keeping to himself, shouldn't be a problem any more than one walking down a street.

Flashing, however, usually involves directing that "nudity" at someone. But as I said, it's not just nudity.

 

[hamster143]

?


Physical harm? Agreed. This has not conceded anything though. Lawful boundaries betwen people regarding public behaviour go well beyond physical harm.

Would you agree that I have no right to stand over you on the subway holding you in your seat with my knee, spitting my mucus on your face, shaking a porn mag in your face and screaming racial epithets?

No physical harm...

Holding me and spitting at me is clearly harmful. I'm okay with having laws against that. The rest is free speech.

 

[hamster143]

But that doesn't answer the first part of my post. Should children be exposed to it?

In my book, you can have a law against exposure to children, as long as you can round up experts and prove beyond reasonable doubt that a child can be harmed (in any meaningful sense of the word) by mere sight of a part of a human body.