- #141
DaveC426913
Gold Member
- 22,497
- 6,168
Proton Soup said:it is normalized for moms to be carrying their young sons in tow, yes?
Yes. Why?
Proton Soup said:it is normalized for moms to be carrying their young sons in tow, yes?
I confess, if I've taken nothing else away from this, I've learned that flashers have a spectrum of motives.Gokul43201 said: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.
DaveC426913 said:Yes. Why?
Proton Soup said: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.
DaveC426913 said: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
Yyyyyeeeeaah, that was in post 9.lisab said:This thread somehow got derailed into nudism.
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.lisab said: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.
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 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.
Good to see a coherent argument. I'll get back to this in a bit (I hope).jarednjames said: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?
Gokul43201 said: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.
Gokul43201 said: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)?
Gokul43201 said: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.
Almost all look pretty directly or indirectly tied to sexuality, to my eyes anyway.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%).
Make that 'almost entirely', and I'd agree.DaveC426913 said:No, you posted a link to a study that showed it was quite often unrelated to a desire for fear.
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?Almost all look pretty directly or indirectly tied to sexuality, to my eyes anyway.
Gokul43201 said: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?
Because of this post, for instance:jarednjames said:Why are we still hammering sexual intent?
But also because I think it is important to establish a harmful intent rather than just any intent.lisab said:Flashing on a subway is aggressive and has sexual 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?Intent to gain a reaction. Period.
Gokul43201 said: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)?
Gokul43201 said: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?
Gokul43201 said:wiki et al said: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?
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,
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.jarednjames said: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.
Gokul43201 said: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?
DaveC426913 said: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.
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.lisab said:Flashing is certainly *perceived* as sexually aggressive by women who are on the receiving end. Trust me on this.
lisab said:Flashing is certainly *perceived* as sexually aggressive by women who are on the receiving end. Trust me on this.