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

[lisab]

Why should there be psychological or emotional harm from looking at a human body?

Looking at a nude person doing normal things? No harm, no foul.

Being flashed in a confined space, like a subway? Totally different. In fact, it could be pretty disturbing and threatening.

I don't understand why we haven't yet hammered out the difference between non-sexual public nudity and flashing. Really, they're totally different behaviors, with different motivations and intents.

 

[DaveC426913]

Why should there be psychological or emotional harm from looking at a human body?

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.

 

[JaredJames]

Exactly Dave, what this bloke did in particular was not a case of simple public nudity.

There is a clear cut difference between simply being nude and flashing someone.

 

[Newai]

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.

Pff. It wasn't even cramped in her case.

 

[Gokul43201]

Screaming racial epithets in someone's face is grounds for assault under the law.

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.

 

[Gokul43201]

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.

That's an appeal to emotion.

Brandishing a gun or knife is as close as you can get to murder without physically touching someone.

 

[Newai]

Well, sure. And brandishing a gun or knife is a crime in at least some jurisdictions.

 

[rootX]

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

I was not aware of those two things. I believed man did not know that he is exposing, maybe too tired or mentally unhealthy etc. On the other hand, putting videos on youtube are no less worse than flashing itself.

As one can flash; other can shout. It worked perfect in this case; everyone sympathized with the lady as the video suggests.

 

[Gokul43201]

Well, sure. And brandishing a gun or knife is a crime in at least some jurisdictions.

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]

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).

I'm going to take this to my English class and have them diagram it.

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.

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)

 

[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.