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

[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.