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

[DaveC426913]

it is normalized for moms to be carrying their young sons in tow, yes?

Yes. Why?

 

[DaveC426913]

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.

 

[Proton Soup]

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]

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]

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.

 

[DaveC426913]

This thread somehow got derailed into nudism.

Yyyyyeeeeaah, that was in post 9.

 

[Gokul43201]

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]

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).

 

[JaredJames]

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]

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 .

 

[DaveC426913]

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.

No, you posted a link to a study that showed it was quite often unrelated to a desire for fear.

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%).

Almost all look pretty directly or indirectly tied to sexuality, to my eyes anyway.

 

[Gokul43201]

No, you posted a link to a study that showed it was quite often unrelated to a desire for fear.

Make that 'almost entirely', and I'd agree.

Almost all look pretty directly or indirectly tied to sexuality, to my eyes anyway.

Anywhere from a third to half seem unrelated to sex, if you ask me. How, for instance, does hoping for "no reaction", or "any reaction" convey sexual intent?

 

[JaredJames]

Anywhere from a third to half seem unrelated to sex, if you ask me. How, for instance, does hoping for "no reaction", or "any reaction" convey sexual intent?

Why are we still hammering sexual intent?

Intent to gain a reaction. Period.

 

[Gokul43201]

Why are we still hammering sexual intent?

Because of this post, for instance:

Flashing on a subway is aggressive and has sexual intent.

But also because I think it is important to establish a harmful intent rather than just any intent.

Intent to gain a reaction. Period.

I don't see how that is useful. What if the desired reaction is amusement? Why would that be such a harmful thing to society, compared to not expecting any reaction?

 

[Proton Soup]

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)?

it's hard to judge intent there. it could be that he was brandishing a weapon. but not everyone gets alarmed at the sight of an open-carry sidearm. perhaps if females would also open-carry, they would not feel so threatened by this. some say that an armed society is a polite society, so maybe the answer is a balance of power.

 

[JaredJames]

Because of this post, for instance: But also because I think it is important to establish a harmful intent rather than just any intent.

I don't see how that is useful. What if the desired reaction is amusement? Why would that be such a harmful thing to society, compared to not expecting any reaction?

My definition is to separate nudism from flashing, hence the whole "intent of gaining any reaction" statement.

So once we have determined if they are going for a reaction or not, we can judge if it is simply a case of nudism or if they were flashing.

And that for me is where the law would be, once it has deemed the act to be flashing it is then considered indecent exposure.

The problem as I pointed out previously, is judging if the act was performed to gain a reaction. It is almost impossible in a society where nudism is legalised - for the reason I gave in my previous post which you commented on.

So far as harmful goes, I don't see why that is relevant. The moment you perform an action such as this with the intent to invoke a reaction from another person you have to invade their personal space and their right to not be harrassed in this manner.

 

[OmCheeto]

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%).

Anywhere from a third to half seem unrelated to sex, if you ask me. How, for instance, does hoping for "no reaction", or "any reaction" convey sexual intent?

I'm starting to get suspicious of the source of those numbers. And the question's kind of strange. Probably eliciting an "I don't know" answer to what they want, which the researchers convert to "no reaction".

The abstract of the article that is supposedly the origin says the following:

http://sax.sagepub.com/content/1/2/243.abstract"
The self-reports of exhibitionists provided information about the development of their pattern of erotic behavior. It was found that: (a) about one third to one half of the exhibitionists masturbated while exposing and during fantasies about exposing; (b) nearly two thirds of them admitted they had also masturbated in a public place though they knew nobody could see; (c) more than half experience the act of exposing as an invitation to intercourse and about one third as a substitute for intercourse with the target person; (d) the desired reaction from the target person was quite diverse although approximately one third wanted to sexually arouse her,

Sounds 100% sexual to me.

Lock 'em up!

 

[Gokul43201]

So far as harmful goes, I don't see why that is relevant. The moment you perform an action such as this with the intent to invoke a reaction from another person you have to invade their personal space and their right to not be harrassed in this manner.

Mr X stands on the sidewalk holding a banner that has something funny/thoughtful/hateful/stupid/incomprehensible written on it. His intent is clearly to invoke a reaction from passersby.

Mr X stands on the sidewalk, completely naked. His intent is to invoke a reaction, any reaction, from the passersby.

Do one, both, or neither of these actions betray the intent to invoke a reaction by invading people's personal space and their right not to be harassed?

 

[JaredJames]

Mr X stands on the sidewalk holding a banner that has something funny/thoughtful/hateful/stupid/incomprehensible written on it. His intent is clearly to invoke a reaction from passersby.

Mr X stands on the sidewalk, completely naked. His intent is to invoke a reaction, any reaction, from the passersby.

Do one, both, or neither of these actions betray the intent to invoke a reaction by invading people's personal space and their right not to be harassed?

I think now would be a good time for you to tell me whether you want to discuss this from a legal stance or some other viewpoint. My replies are strictly relating to a legal view.

There is a difference in the two scenarios. In the first, the persons intent "is clearly to invoke a reaction". In the second, it is impossible to judge if the intent is there without the person admitting to it (this is of course assuming nudism is legal).

Now this is where the previous definition you provided comes in. If nudism is legal then Mr X in the second scenario is doing nothing wrong. You can't prove "beyond doubt" there is intent to invoke a reaction and as such can't differentiate between nudism and flashing. Note this is independent of whether or not a reaction is gained from his actions.

In the first scenario, it depends what is on his banner. Without dragging on with too much detail it can be considered harrassment regardless of content, however unless there is a law against the content it really doesn't matter. That is unless you can prove it is definitely harrassment and then you can begin legal proceedings against the individual to stop them or move them on.

The reason I mentioned invading personal space is with regards to the act in the OP and flashing in general. It is targetted at a person / group of persons and there is no reason why they should be subject to such actions against their wishes.

 

[xxChrisxx]

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.
Attrack the argument, not the arguer.

cant be an ad hominem if I am not trying to attack the argument.

In fairness I am not trying to attack anyone, not even poor old leroy. Just pointing out that most threads in gd that he posts in quickly become thread vs him.

Fortunately I've learned not to tilt over it any more.

 

[Newai]

Flashing is certainly *perceived* as sexually aggressive by women who are on the receiving end. Trust me on this.

And regardless of motives, I think it safe to assume that flashers are cognizant enough of the effect on their victims (which is why so many people begin with the understandable idea that the purpose is to elicit a reaction of some sort). So I don't really care about their intentions. They know better.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Flashing is certainly *perceived* as sexually aggressive by women who are on the receiving end. Trust me on this.

My mum and her friend was flashed once, they pointed and laughed. Apparrently it was 'a very small and inoffensive willy'.

Then again both my mum and her friend are a couple of old battleaxes.

There really are some dirty perverts out there.