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

[Gokul43201]

Fine. Open carry a part of your body. Let it out. Just make sure you don't go up to a woman and stick it in her face. (so to speak)

I don't think there have been any arguments in this thread against protecting someone's right to not have a penis stuck at their face.

I think it is more general issues with garden variety public exposure, such as ...

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

... that are worth examining.

 

[Newai]

Okay. If a guy was walking down the street with just his penis sticking out, I'd think that to be inappropriate, but I wouldn't even call the police anymore than if a woman was walking around with her breasts hanging out. But the moment that guy directs it at me with clear sexual/erotic overtones, that's over the line.

Are you in agreement?

 

[leroyjenkens]

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

Got it.

I didn't hear the part where she said he did that.

So ignoring that, if he had just shown his penis, then that's what shouldn't be illegal.

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.

I'm extremely stupid? Please explain.

Sure, there are people who do that. But then there's the other extremely stupid people who try to distance themselves from the other stupid people by making fun of the other stupid people. It makes them feel like they're one of the smart ones.
Except the real smart ones don't do that, so you fail before you even get going.

You must have expected a response when you said that.
Maybe you never planned to back up what you say. You probably just came in here, said something derogatory to get your fix of flaming for the day, and then left with no plans to return.

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

What's wrong with a child being exposed to nudity? There's nothing inherently bad about a human body. The only thing that makes it bad is the people who say it's bad, then hide it from everyone.
Just like profanity, there's no bad words, just words people deem bad and keep people from saying them, so when they are said, everyone is shocked to hear such bad words. I'm scarred for life because I heard the F word, only because it was deemed bad. Otherwise it's just another word.

Did I wake up this morning in BizarroWorld? Are people here claiming flashing is perfectly all right? It's a about as close as you can get to rape without physically touching someone.

The only reason flashing is "bad" is because certain parts of the human body have been deemed unsuitable to be shown in public. If there was never anti-nudity laws, then flashing wouldn't even have its own word. It would just be someone who doesn't want to be completely nude, but wants his penis to hang out in the air.

When it's illegal, seeing a penis in public will scar you for life.
When it's legal, seeing a penis in public is not even worth remembering.

People don't like it when their kids hear bad words. Well those words are only bad because society says they're bad.

If the word "house" was deemed a bad word, would people not want their kids to hear people say "house"? Yes, just like they don't want their kids hearing the F word or other "bad" words now.
But the word "house" isn't considered bad, so it's perfectly alright for a child to hear it.
The way nudity is treated is exactly the same. It's only bad because society deems it bad. It's not inherently bad, just like words aren't inherently bad.

 

[DaveC426913]

The only reason flashing is "bad" is because certain parts of the human body have been deemed unsuitable to be shown in public. If there was never anti-nudity laws, then flashing wouldn't even have its own word.

Dead wrong.

What's wrong with a child being exposed to nudity? There's nothing inherently bad about a human body. The only thing that makes it bad is the people who say it's bad, then hide it from everyone.

Directed not at leroy, but to anyone who doesn't see the diff between innocent nudity and flashing:

Do you know why flashers flash?

The message is: "I have made a connection between you and my penis. You can't unsee it, and you can't not think about it. That mortifies you. And your mortification excites me. I get off on that."

This is not innocent, minding-my-own-business in a park, sunning myself nudity. Nobody here has a problem with that.

Flashing is a direct act of sexual aggression, targeted against an individual. (You don't passively flash to the whole world, you flash at a person. It requires forcing someone to see you.) The crime here is not the exposure of flesh, the crime is the targeted sexual aggression.

For Pete'e sake...

 

[JaredJames]

What DaveC said.

I'd also add that physically touching someone with your sexual organs is different again to simply flashing.

To flash is one thing, but to go up to someone and touch them with your penis is sexual assault. This is what happened in this video. He was pressing his penis against her.

Someone above commented on the train not being cramped and implied that is a reason it is simply a person nude in public and not that bad. Actually, this proves it was a deliberate sexual act. He was in an uncramped train and deliberately, with his penis out, pushed it against the woman.

Now, why are people here not able to understand the difference between simply being nude and flashing someone? Walking around with your wang out isn't flashing.

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

 

[xxChrisxx]

ell oh ell.

You are all falling into the trap of listening/responding to a word leroy types.

 

[JaredJames]

ell oh ell.

You are all falling into the trap of listening to a word leroy types.

Common troll ey?

 

[Newai]

Someone above commented on the train not being cramped and implied that is a reason it is simply a person nude in public and not that bad. Actually, this proves it was a deliberate sexual act. He was in an uncramped train and deliberately, with his penis out, pushed it against the woman.

How did I do that?

 

[JaredJames]

How did I do that?

It appeared you were responding to dave in a "it wasn't cramped therefore your argument is null" kind of way.

I've re-read it three times now and I can see what you were saying. You were reinforcing daves point.

I do apologise.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Do you know why flashers flash?

The message is: "I have made a connection between you and my penis. You can't unsee it, and you can't not think about it. That mortifies you. And your mortification excites me. I get off on that."

How am I dead wrong? If there was no law against nudity, then the sight of a penis wouldn't mortify anyone. The only reason you say it mortifies people is because it's not supposed to be seen in public due to a law that doesn't make sense.

This is not innocent, minding-my-own-business in a park, sunning myself nudity. Nobody here has a problem with that.

Flashing is a direct act of sexual aggression, targeted against an individual. (You don't passively flash to the whole world, you flash at a person. It requires forcing someone to see you.) The crime here is not the exposure of flesh, the crime is the targeted sexual aggression.

For Pete'e sake..

I know what you're saying in regards to flashing, but that only applies to the state of things as they are now. Nudity isn't legal. Penises can't be shown in public because they're evil, or whatever. That's why flashers get their jollies off showing them to people. They know they're not supposed to do it and that fact alone mortifies people when they see it.

Are you saying if nudity was legal, flashers would still show their penises to people?

Common troll ey?

He comes in every thread I'm in, tells people not to respond to me, but never gives a reason why. I must have committed the sin of disagreeing with him one time, so that automatically makes me a troll, and he's such a child that he can't let it go.

Okay. If a guy was walking down the street with just his penis sticking out, I'd think that to be inappropriate, but I wouldn't even call the police anymore than if a woman was walking around with her breasts hanging out.

Sexual organs I can kind of understand why you should keep them covered, but I see no reason why breasts are brought down with them. Women should be able to walk around topless just like a man does. There's no reason why they shouldn't be able to. It's a sexist law if there ever was one. I've seen men with breasts bigger than most women, but they're allowed to be topless.

 

[xxChrisxx]

He comes in every thread I'm in, tells people not to respond to me, but never gives a reason why. I must have committed the sin of disagreeing with him one time, so that automatically makes me a troll, and he's such a child that he can't let it go.

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.

 

[Newai]

Sexual organs I can kind of understand why you should keep them covered, but I see no reason why breasts are brought down with them. Women should be able to walk around topless just like a man does. There's no reason why they shouldn't be able to. It's a sexist law if there ever was one. I've seen men with breasts bigger than most women, but they're allowed to be topless.

Either I didn't word that very well, or you misinterpreted. Either way, I don't disagree with you on this statement. I was using topless women as an example of harmlessness.

 

[leroyjenkens]

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.

Can you give me an example? Those help.

Either I didn't word that very well, or you misinterpreted. Either way, I don't disagree with you on this statement. I was using topless women as an example of harmlessness.

You worded it just fine. I just used it as an excuse to say how stupid the law is that women can't be topless. And people even complain when they feed their babies in public. That's like a double whammy of stupidity.

 

[Gokul43201]

Do you know why flashers flash?

The message is: "I have made a connection between you and my penis. You can't unsee it, and you can't not think about it. That mortifies you. And your mortification excites me. I get off on that."

You know this how?

From the wiki on flashing (emphasis mine):

A research team asked a sample of 185 exhibitionists, “How would you have preferred a person to react if you were to expose your privates to him or her?” The most common response was “Would want to have sexual intercourse” (35.1%), followed by “No reaction necessary at all” (19.5%), “To show their privates also” (15.1%), “Admiration” (14.1%), and “Any reaction” (11.9%). Only very few exhibitionists chose “Anger and disgust” (3.8%) or “Fear” (0.5%).

Clearly, your mortification theory is not supported by the data.

Would you like to try a different one ... for Pete's sake?

 

[JaredJames]

Can we all at least agree there is a difference between simply being nude (and by extension having a 'private' part hanging out) and going up to someone and actively directing it at them / 'flashing' them?

You can't compare the two. People walking around nude would invoke a "well, that's odd" reaction from me. Someone coming up to me and flashing themselves would really shock me.

 

[Delzac]

Isn't there a difference between being completely naked and being fully clothed except with you penis hanging out to air? The signal being sent is completely different.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Can you give me an example? Those help.

Frankly I prefer to forget rather than catalogue threads you've posted annoying posts in.

 

[leroyjenkens]

You can't compare the two. People walking around nude would invoke a "well, that's odd" reaction from me. Someone coming up to me and flashing themselves would really shock me.

If I was screaming walking down the street and walked past you, you would think that's odd. But if I only scream when I walk past you, it will shock you.
So if someone flashes you, why are you shocked? Because it's unexpected? Or because it's a malicious deed?

Frankly I prefer to forget rather than catalogue threads you've posted annoying posts in.

So you say I have bizarre beliefs, but you can't name any of them?
Then why did you come in here? You must have thought my belief in this thread is bizarre, otherwise you wouldn't have compared it to beliefs I've expressed in the past. And since you failed to name the belief I have in this thread as one of the bizarre beliefs, that must mean my belief isn't bizarre and you just like to go around flaming me every chance you get.

 

[HeLiXe]

I think some of the nudist arguments posted here are really pretentious. There is a big difference between having the right to be naked whenever you want, and violating someone else by pressing your genitals against them. I think this is the misconception of nudism that true nudists try to avoid and this is the wrong place to talk about nudist rights. Flashing and sexual assault does not equal nudism.

 

[Gokul43201]

I think some of the nudist arguments posted here are really pretentious.

Which ones? It's difficult to know who should respond to your accusation when you do not specify who the accusation is aimed at.

There is a big difference between having the right to be naked whenever you want, and violating someone else by pressing your genitals against them.

Can you quote a post where someone defended the right to press your genitals against someone else? I'd like to know what posts you are specifically objecting to.

Flashing and sexual assault does not equal nudism.

But does flashing always equal assault? Most definitions I've read do not make such an assertion.

 

[JaredJames]

If I was screaming walking down the street and walked past you, you would think that's odd. But if I only scream when I walk past you, it will shock you.
So if someone flashes you, why are you shocked? Because it's unexpected? Or because it's a malicious deed?

The shock factor is because the event is unexpected.

However, is there a difference between me walking down the street with a knife and me making a stabbing motion with the knife randomly at someone passing me? What would the police see that as?

You can argue that all I did was shock the person, but the person and the police could judge it anything from threatening behaviour (anti-social), attempted assault through to attempted murder.

When you flash someone your penis (or whatever sexual organ you want to use), you are looking to invoke a reaction. It doesn't matter why you want it or what reaction you want. It's not the same as simply being nude.

 

[HeLiXe]

But does flashing necessarily equal assault? Most definitions I've read do not make such an assertion.

I did not say that flashing is sexual assault...that depends on the law in the particular jurisdiction. That is why I said flashing and sexual assault. I believe pressing your genitals against someone with a condom counts as sexual assault in my jurisdiction, because it can be perceived as a threat for bodily harm.

I think that all of the nudist arguments on this thread are out of place because of the sexual misconduct this thread is based on.

Getting the ones I think are specifically pretentious is something I can do, but I'll have to re-read the thread and right now I have to cook :) Thanksgiving and all, so I'll be back later.

 

[HeLiXe]

Here's one for now

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.

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

 

[zomgwtf]

@leroy, you are a trolling, simple. It's cool though I don't mind.

@Goku, I agree with what you are saying but the initial discussion which started this 'argument' was this:

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.

Which is obviously a response to the video. Now this man was not just walking around naked as the lady explicitly states in the video.
Dave told leroy that what he said has nothing to do with the video, dave pressed the point more. Which leroy responded:

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.

So he finds that what occurred in the video was not indecent and that it was the people on the subway acting indecent. I do not think anyone agrees with leroy on this point and that's the main point that has been argued back and forth. Leroy seems to be going saying 'well if he was just standing there with his penis out' and thinks if he defend s that point that defends what this man did in the video. (that's what it appears like anyways since he continues to go back to saying that what the man had done was not illegal etc. etc.)

So leroy is defending what this man has done on the subway, something which he has been convicted of a crime for and I believe by now found guilty. He believes it should not be illegal however in his defense he lowers the goalpost to a "It shouldn't be illegal to walk around naked ERGO, this man wasn't doing anything illegal" but raises the goalpost for those arguing against him by saying they have to prove that being naked should be illegal. It's rediculous.

 

[OmCheeto]

I think they should give the lady a job at the TSA:

Oh my god! I saw that man's penis!
Oh my god! I saw that man's penis!
Oh my god! I saw that man's penis!
Oh my god! I saw that man's penis!
Oh my god! I saw that man's penis!
Oh my god! I saw that man's penis!
Oh my god! I can't see that man's penis! He doesn't have a penis! Just two very large testicles! Search that guy! He's hiding his penis!
Oh my god! I saw that man's penis!
Oh my god! I saw that man's penis!
Oh my god! I saw that man's penis!
Oh my god! I saw that man's penis!

 

[zomgwtf]

I think they should give the lady a job at the TSA:

hahahahaha.

 

[schizoid]

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.

 

[Gokul43201]

I did not say that flashing is sexual assault...that depends on the law in the particular jurisdiction. That is why I said flashing and sexual assault.

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)?

I believe pressing your genitals against someone with a condom counts as sexual assault in my jurisdiction, because it can be perceived as a threat for bodily harm.

That sounds quite reasonable to me (at least in comparison to broader restrictions that are the norm in most places).

I think that all of the nudist arguments on this thread are out of place because of the sexual misconduct this thread is based on.

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.

Getting the ones I think are specifically pretentious is something I can do, but I'll have to re-read the thread and right now I have to cook :) Thanksgiving and all, so I'll be back later.

Happy cooking, and carving!

 

[zomgwtf]

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.

If you actually read what leroy has been saying your analogy would follow as this:
OP Is about a murder
Mr. A responds by saying murder is immoral
Mr. B responds to Mr. A by questioning the premise that violence isn't immoral and therefore OP article/whatever isn't immoral
Mr. A points that this isn't just simple violence.
Mr. B presses the point about how violence is ok sometimes but continues to defend that the original post is wrong. (murder is ok)

This isn't just a side track conversation brought up by leroy, it's an ongoing defense of the man on the subway was is demonstrable by reading his posts in order.

 

[leroyjenkens]

The shock factor is because the event is unexpected.

However, is there a difference between me walking down the street with a knife and me making a stabbing motion with the knife randomly at someone passing me? What would the police see that as?

A knife can make you fear for your safety. A penis can, but only because you don't know how crazy the person is who showed it to you. Since we're not allowed to show our penises in public, there's a good chance that anyone who does is a crazy person.
But you agree flashing isn't inherently a malicious deed?

Here's one for now

I already explained that I didn't hear her say that, but you didn't read the entire thread, did you?

@leroy, you are a trolling, simple. It's cool though I don't mind.

I'm a trolling?
You just called me a troll to elicit a response, which you knew was coming, and you provided no proof to back it up. That's the definition of a troll.

Dave told leroy that what he said has nothing to do with the video, dave pressed the point more. Which leroy responded:

You quoted something that I didn't say.

 

[DaveC426913]

But you agree flashing isn't inherently a malicious deed?

It most certainly is.

This demonstrates a profound ignorance of the behaviour.

 

[zomgwtf]

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 occurred 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]

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]

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 got to 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.

 

[schizoid]

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 what's to stop a nudist from flashing around. Its kind of double standards if nudism is allowed but flashing is not ok.