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

[JaredJames]

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?

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?

You can argue that all I did was shock the person, but the person and the police could judge it anything from threatening behaviour (anti-social), attempted assault through to attempted murder.

When you flash someone your penis (or whatever sexual organ you want to use), you are looking to invoke a reaction. It doesn't matter why you want it or what reaction you want. It's not the same as simply being nude.

 

[HeLiXe]

But does flashing necessarily equal assault? Most definitions I've read do not make such an assertion.

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.

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.

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.

 

[HeLiXe]

Here's one for now

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?

 

[zomgwtf]

@leroy, you are a trolling, simple. It's cool though I don't mind.

@Goku, I agree with what you are saying but the initial discussion which started this 'argument' was this:

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.

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.
Dave told leroy that what he said has nothing to do with the video, dave pressed the point more. Which leroy responded:

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.

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.)

So leroy is defending what this man has done on the subway, something which he has been convicted of a crime for and I believe by now found guilty. He believes it should not be illegal however in his defense he lowers the goalpost to a "It shouldn't be illegal to walk around naked ERGO, this man wasn't doing anything illegal" but raises the goalpost for those arguing against him by saying they have to prove that being naked should be illegal. It's rediculous.

 

[OmCheeto]

I think they should give the lady a job at the TSA:

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!

 

[zomgwtf]

I think they should give the lady a job at the TSA:

hahahahaha.

 

[schizoid]

Despite differing opinions, i consider nudism as bad as flashing. In my opinion they are both the same and they both qualify indecent public exposure.

 

[Gokul43201]

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 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)?

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.

That sounds quite reasonable to me (at least in comparison to broader restrictions that are the norm in most places).

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.

I disagree. Let me illustrate with a simplistic example:

There's a thread about the morality of murder. Mr A says that murder is immoral, because violence is immoral. Ms B responds to Mr A, and questions the premise that all violence is immoral.​

​

Would you say that Ms B's post is out of place because the thread is specifically about murder and not about violence in general?

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.

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.

Happy cooking, and carving!

 

[zomgwtf]

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.

If you actually read what leroy has been saying your analogy would follow as this:
OP Is about a murder
Mr. A responds by saying murder is immoral
Mr. B responds to Mr. A by questioning the premise that violence isn't immoral and therefore OP article/whatever isn't immoral
Mr. A points that this isn't just simple violence.
Mr. B presses the point about how violence is ok sometimes but continues to defend that the original post is wrong. (murder is ok)

This isn't just a side track conversation brought up by leroy, it's an ongoing defense of the man on the subway was is demonstrable by reading his posts in order.

 

[leroyjenkens]

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?

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.
But you agree flashing isn't inherently a malicious deed?

Here's one for now

I already explained that I didn't hear her say that, but you didn't read the entire thread, did you?

@leroy, you are a trolling, simple. It's cool though I don't mind.

I'm a trolling?
You just called me a troll to elicit a response, which you knew was coming, and you provided no proof to back it up. That's the definition of a troll.

Dave told leroy that what he said has nothing to do with the video, dave pressed the point more. Which leroy responded:

You quoted something that I didn't say.

 

[DaveC426913]

But you agree flashing isn't inherently a malicious deed?

It most certainly is.

This demonstrates a profound ignorance of the behaviour.

 

[zomgwtf]

You quoted something that I didn't say.

Scratch that last 'leroy responded' and just put someone responded. I did afterwards point out that you continued to say that what occurred wasn't illegal which you did say.

I was just drawing out for Goku that people are defending what happened and that's why this is still ongoing. My bad for attributing it to you.

And yes you are a troll. I suppose you can call me a troll but my posts have been relatively on topic and filled ith something substantially more than just eliciting a response and spewing non-sense.

 

[OmCheeto]

Despite differing opinions, i consider nudism as bad as flashing. In my opinion they are both the same and they both qualify indecent public exposure.

We used to have a flasher at our local nude beach. He would put on a short skirt, with matching top, heels, and a big curly blond wig. He looked kind of like Harpo Marx in drag.
He would hid in the bushes until someone came along, then he'd jump out, and lift his skirt up, exposing himself.

Since it was a nude beach, most people just busted up laughing. Or after the second time, greet him with a "Good morning Eric. How are you today?" I think he hated that. Without reading the wiki entry on exhibitionists, it's my opinion that they get their jollies by shocking people. Probably the result of poor potty training or something.

 

[DaveC426913]

How am I dead wrong? If there was no law against nudity, then the sight of a penis wouldn't mortify anyone.

Please read the whole post. I'll say it again, it's not about the sight of a penis; it's about the sexual aggression.

Are you saying if nudity was legal, flashers would still show their penises to people?

In a nudist society, the problem would simply escalate. He who is currently a flasher would find a way to get strangers to see / think about / react to his sexuality. It is not society's rules that a make a flasher.

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.

I concur that leroy's beliefs are commonly off the reservation. I don't think he deliberately trolls, though I do think he knows his statements will tend to elicit a reaction. Fine line.

I got to say, nothing astonishes me more in this thread than to find out that lerory is not alone in this idea that flashing is as innocent as nudity. I really did wake up in BizarroWorld.

 

[schizoid]

Since it was a nude beach, most people just busted up laughing. Or after the second time, greet him with a "Good morning Eric. How are you today?" I think he hated that. Without reading the wiki entry on exhibitionists, it's my opinion that they get their jollies by shocking people. Probably the result of poor potty training or something.

well what's to stop a nudist from flashing around. Its kind of double standards if nudism is allowed but flashing is not ok.

 

[DaveC426913]

Without reading the wiki entry on exhibitionists, it's my opinion that they get their jollies by shocking people. Probably the result of poor potty training or something.

Those were surprising numbers for me.

I note that, in the same paragraph, they inlcude other forms of flashing, such as exposing bare breasts and mooning. A definition of flashing that includes these can certiantly change things. Mooning is more commonly done to the world at-large rather than a sepcific individual. Breat-exposing is normally done good-naturedly, in a forum where it will be more accepted.

Male genitalia is pretty much the most pernicious of them all.

 

[JaredJames]

I agree Dave, I'm finding it difficult to believe people can't distinguish between nudism and flashing.

The only reason people flash is to gain a reaction. It is done with intent. What the reaction they want happens to be is irrelevant.

Nudists simply want to be naked. They don't want to invoke shock and awe responses from people.

 

[leroyjenkens]

It most certainly is.

This demonstrates a profound ignorance of the behaviour.

How is it inherently malicious? Someone posted stats about why people do it and very few of them did it for a negative reason.

Scratch that last 'leroy responded' and just put someone responded. I did afterwards point out that you continued to say that what occurred wasn't illegal which you did say.

And I later retracted it when I said that I didn't hear her say he touched her with it.

I was just drawing out for Goku that people are defending what happened and that's why this is still ongoing. My bad for attributing it to you.

And I'm not defending the guy touching her with it. I was just saying that her outrage, assuming it was just flashing, was only due to us being used to nudity being illegal.

And yes you are a troll. I suppose you can call me a troll but my posts have been relatively on topic and filled ith something substantially more than just eliciting a response and spewing non-sense.

How am I off topic? I'm talking about the same thing as you are.
And what did I say that was for the sole purpose of eliciting a response?
You know, you're free to say anything you want when you don't have to actually prove it.

 

[DaveC426913]

Guys - particularly zomgwtf and xChrisx (OK, and me) - that's enough bashing and name-calling of leroy. It really shouldn't be allowed at all.

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. With the high word count of 'troll' in this thread, it may be too late already.

Attrack the argument, not the arguer.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Please read the whole post. I'll say it again, it's not about the sight of a penis; it's about the sexual aggression.

In some cases it may be about sexual aggression, but I don't think flashing is inherently sexually aggressive. It could be that people get a thrill out of other people seeing them naked.

In a nudist society, the problem would simply escalate. He who is currently a flasher would find a way to get strangers to see / think about / react to his sexuality. It is not society's rules that a make a flasher.

What's the naked equivalent to flashing? Thrusting their genitals at people? Maybe they'll sit especially awkward so that their genitals are exposed more than they should be?
If nudity is legal, I see no reason to flash. The flashers could just walk around naked. How they would escalate that, I don't know.

I concur that leroy's beliefs are commonly off the reservation. I don't think he deliberately trolls, though I do think he knows his statements will tend to elicit a reaction. Fine line.

I expected people to agree with me that nudity should be legal. I don't say things just so people will react negatively towards me. If I say something that I know most people won't agree with, then I'll try to lessen the blow by explaining it a little more and letting them know I understand their side of the argument.

 

[DaveC426913]

It could be that people get a thrill out of other people seeing them naked.

That is the sexual aggression.

I expected people to agree with me that nudity should be legal.

Everyone agrees.

The objection is that it is not relevant. Nudity has nothing to do with flashing. The astonishment reaction is that this lack-of-connection is not known to everyone. So the jump from flashing to legal nudity is a left-field non sequitur.

 

[schizoid]

I agree Dave, I'm finding it difficult to believe people can't distinguish between nudism and flashing.

The only reason people flash is to gain a reaction. It is done with intent. What the reaction they want happens to be is irrelevant.

Nudism in public places qualifies as indecent exposure (same as flashing). And it draws the same reaction as flashing.

Nudists simply want to be naked. They don't want to invoke shock and awe responses from people

nudists can be restricted to certain beaches or designated places.

 

[OmCheeto]

well what's to stop a nudist from flashing around. Its kind of double standards if nudism is allowed but flashing is not ok.

There's a time and place for everything. 99.9% of the nudist's I know do not expose themselves to the general public. Those that do, generally end up in jail.

We've two state sanctioned nudist beaches in my area. It keeps us off the streets.

 

[leroyjenkens]

That is the sexual aggression.

So if I get a thrill out of people seeing me naked while flashing, then it's sexual aggression.
But if I get a thrill out of people seeing me naked while I'm just being a naked, it's not sexual aggression? How is that possible?

The objection is that it is not relevant. Nudity has nothing to do with flashing. The astonishment reaction is that this lack-of-connection is not known to everyone. So the jump from flashing to legal nudity is a left-field non sequitur.

I think they're related because if nudity was legal, like it should be, then there either wouldn't be flashers, or flashing wouldn't be so shocking to everyone.
It's just like I explained with the bad words. If someone says the F word around their child, then people take offense. But the only reason they take offense is because society has deemed the F word offensive. It's not inherently offensive. And neither is nudity.

 

[Gokul43201]

That is the sexual aggression.

Why?

 

[schizoid]

There's a time and place for everything. 99.9% of the nudist's I know do not expose themselves to the general public. Those that do, generally end up in jail.

We've two state sanctioned nudist beaches in my area. It keeps us off the streets.

Clearly line have to be drawn. Otherwise it is always going to be difficult to say what is and what is not alright.

 

[JaredJames]

Nudism in public places qualifies as indecent exposure (same as flashing). And it draws the same reaction as flashing.

A person sitting on a bench nude, minding their own business is different to a person going up to someone and deliberately forcing their [insert body part] on them. The latter is an aggressive action.

nudists can be restricted to certain beaches or designated places.

And that has what to do with the text you quoted?

 

[DaveC426913]

So if I get a thrill out of people seeing me naked while flashing, then it's sexual aggression.
But if I get a thrill out of people seeing me naked while I'm just being a naked, it's not sexual aggression? How is that possible?

If you impose it upon someone in their space, it is different than if you are minding your own business.

I think they're related because if nudity was legal, like it should be, then there either wouldn't be flashers, or flashing wouldn't be so shocking to everyone.

The behaviour would not go away just because nudity is legalized. They would find a way of getting their jollies. Probably by provoking an erection and then poking it at someone. It simply escalates. The act of aggression is the need, not the nudity in-and-of-itself.

By analogy: a kleptomanic does not steal because he's poor; he steals for the thrill itself. If theft were made legal, or if you simply handed him some money, this would not make the problem go away. The klepto would have to find some other way to flout the law.

Likewise, removing the illegality of nudity will not make the desire for sexual inappropriateness go away; it will just have to find another outlet.

It's just like I explained with the bad words. If someone says the F word around their child, then people take offense. But the only reason they take offense is because society has deemed the F word offensive. It's not inherently offensive. And neither is nudity.

You describe a passive, unintentional act of swearing with no target. A proper analogy would be one child saying the F-word to another child. That is the kind of aggression I'm talking about.

If the F-word were not offensive that would not result in children not being awful to each other. The child would simply find the next whatever-it-is that will upset the victim.

 

[JaredJames]

Even if public nudity was legal, why would it make a difference to flashing?

People's reaction to seeing nudists wouldn't change immediately. Over time people may become used to seeing naked people in the streets.

However, the majority would still wear clothing.

Regardless, the act of flashing is to gain a response. People are missing this point. If nudism was legal, people could still flash. It is the act of going up to someone and 'flashing' your genitals at someone, usually by removing clothes or revealing by lifting/opening clothes. This could still happen and the response would be equally as shocking.

There is a difference between walking down a street with nude people and someone flashing you. You are expecting / used to the former, you aren't expecting the latter.

 

[schizoid]

A person sitting on a bench nude, minding their own business

He could be minding his own business, i still consider it flashing.