hamster143 said: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.
Newai said:Well, in the cases of flashing, it's not just a sight. It's an erotic/sexual expression directed another. There's a world of difference between children seeing a naked adult and a naked adult pointing his pencil at them.
Nope. Neither will physically harm you, which was the criterion you asked me to accept.hamster143 said:Holding me and spitting at me is clearly harmful.
This is not the free speech. Free speech does not mean you can say whatever you want to whomever you want wherever you want. Why do people think this?hamster143 said:I'm okay with having laws against that. The rest is free speech.
How would you define free speech?DaveC426913 said:Free speech does not mean you can say whatever you want to whomever you want wherever you want. Why do people think this?
Gokul43201 said:How would you define free speech?
Gokul43201 said:DaveC is from Canada, I think hamster is from the US. So it's not clear that we are talking about what a specific country has codified as much as what (you or I think) any liberal democracy ought to protect.
DaveC426913 said:Nope. Neither will physically harm you, which was the criterion you asked me to accept.
This is not the free speech. Free speech does not mean you can say whatever you want to whomever you want wherever you want. Why do people think this?
Physical harm. There's lots of psychological and emotional harm.hamster143 said:By physical harm I did not mean bodily injury. "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. " John Stuart Mill, 1859. There's harm in preventing me from going about my own business. There's no harm in showing me a bodily part.
hamster143 said:That's precisely what free speech means. Once again, only if the speech results in harm to others (yelling "fire" in a crowded theater), can we criminalize that.
Why should there be psychological or emotional harm from looking at a human body?DaveC426913 said:There's lots of psychological and emotional harm.
Gokul43201 said:Why should there be psychological or emotional harm from looking at a human body?
Oh come on.Gokul43201 said:Why should there be psychological or emotional harm from looking at a human body?
DaveC426913 said:Oh come on.
Voluntarily looking, at a time and place and under circumstances of your choosing?
Or having it thrust upon you by a complete stranger in an cramped place when you are not expecting it, for the purpose of getting a reaction from you for his own pleasure?
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.
Not under US Law, I don't think. It might come down to how loud you are screaming, maybe, but in that case, the content of the creams wouldn't be relevant.DaveC426913 said:Screaming racial epithets in someone's face is grounds for assault under the law.
That's an appeal to emotion.DaveC426913 said: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.
zomgwtf said:For evidence after the man had a condom on his penis and was rubbing himself against a female on the subway? Trueeeeeeee.
But if you can open carry (a heavily regulated object like) a gun (which can kill you without the user having to physically approach you) in many states, that would help make the case that ought to be allowed to more easily (rather than less easily) open carry a part of your own body (which is about the last place you want the government to go - telling you what you may or may not do with your own body).Newai said:Well, sure. And brandishing a gun or knife is a crime in at least some jurisdictions.
I'm going to take this to my English class and have them diagram it.Gokul43201 said:But if you can open carry (a heavily regulated object like) a gun (which can kill you without the user having to physically approach you) in many states, that would help make the case that ought to be allowed to more easily (rather than less easily) open carry a part of your own body (which is about the last place you want the government to go - telling you what you may or may not do with your own body).
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)Clipped Gokul43201 said:But if you can open carry a gun in many states, that would help make the case that ought to be allowed to more easily open carry a part of your own body.
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.Newai said: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)
... that are worth examining.jarednjames said:But even if it was just him standing with his wang out, why would that be considered acceptable?
I didn't hear the part where she said he did that.DaveC426913 said:Exposing your penis through your pants and pushing it against a bystander. You think that should be legal.
Got it.
I'm extremely stupid? Please explain.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.
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.But that doesn't answer the first part of my post. Should children be exposed to it?
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.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.
Dead wrong.leroyjenkens said: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.
Directed not at leroy, but to anyone who doesn't see the diff between innocent nudity and flashing:leroyjenkens said: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.
xxChrisxx said:ell oh ell.
You are all falling into the trap of listening to a word leroy types.
jarednjames said: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.
Newai said:How did I do 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.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."
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.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..
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.Common troll ey?
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.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.
leroyjenkens said: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.
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 said: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 said: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.
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.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 know this how?DaveC426913 said: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."
Clearly, your mortification theory is not supported by the data.wiki 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%).
leroyjenkens said:Can you give me an example? Those help.
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.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.
So you say I have bizarre beliefs, but you can't name any of them?Frankly I prefer to forget rather than catalogue threads you've posted annoying posts in.
Which ones? It's difficult to know who should respond to your accusation when you do not specify who the accusation is aimed at.HeLiXe said:I think some of the nudist arguments posted here are really pretentious.
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.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.
But does flashing always equal assault? Most definitions I've read do not make such an assertion.Flashing and sexual assault does not equal nudism.
leroyjenkens said: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?
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.Gokul43201 said:But does flashing necessarily equal assault? Most definitions I've read do not make such an assertion.
leroyjenkens said: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?
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.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.
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.)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.
personinchargeofpointingoutpeoplespenis's said: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!
OmCheeto said:I think they should give the lady a job at the TSA:
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)?HeLiXe said: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.
That sounds quite reasonable to me (at least in comparison to broader restrictions that are the norm in most places).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 disagree. Let me illustrate with a simplistic example: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.
Happy cooking, and carving!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.
If you actually read what leroy has been saying your analogy would follow as this: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.
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.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?
I already explained that I didn't hear her say that, but you didn't read the entire thread, did you?Here's one for now
I'm a trolling?@leroy, you are a trolling, simple. It's cool though I don't mind.
You quoted something that I didn't say.Dave told leroy that what he said has nothing to do with the video, dave pressed the point more. Which leroy responded:
