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

[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.

 

[OmCheeto]

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

The line is drawn at the sign.

It's ok to be naked on one side, but not on the other. I don't see the difficulty.

And before the thread gets locked for incivility, I thought I should post a picture of our former mayor:

Whoop! Whoop!

 

[JaredJames]

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

As it stands now, legally they are both considered indecent exposure.

However, if you were on a nude beach there would be a clear distinction between flashing and simply 'being nude'. A distinction which would carry over if you legalised nudism.

 

[Gokul43201]

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

An exercise to try and gain some clarity. Consider the following situation:

Mr X leaves home on a sunny weekend day with (as jared so eloquently put it) his wang hanging out. He walks down the street to the train station. He climbs into a mostly empty car and sits down (wang still feeling the breeze) and reads the paper someone left on the seat next to him. He finishes reading, puts the paper down and, as many people do, switches to people-watching. When his stop arrives, he gets out, and heads for the beach. On the way, he sees a little girl selling lemonade (under her mother's supervision), and buys a cup of lemonade from her, drinking it as he walks to the beach. After spending some time watching the waves and the people at the beach, he heads home. When he gets in the train this time, the seats are all taken, so he must stand. During the ride, it gets pretty crowded with people occasionally bumping into each other, as commonly happens in a crowded train. The train gets to his stop, he disembarks and walks home.​

How many times during the day (and when) would you say Mr X was imposing his nakedness upon someone in their space, rather than just minding his own business?

 

[JaredJames]

Gokul, the key to your situation is that he didn't go out an try to get a reaction from anyone, which is what flashing is. He didn't direct his 'nudity' at anyone and want a reaction from them.

 

[Gokul43201]

Gokul, the key to your situation is that he didn't go out an try to get a reaction from anyone, which is what flashing is. He didn't direct his 'nudity' at anyone and want a reaction from them.

So, I believe you are saying that flashing should be considered an illegal offense only when it can be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was acting with the intent to elicit a reaction, and

Are you also saying it shouldn't matter what kind of reaction (fear, anger, disgust, excitement, admiration, amusement, arousal) the flasher hoped to elicit?

 

[JaredJames]

So, I believe you are saying that flashing should be considered an illegal offense only when it can be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was acting with the intent to elicit a reaction, and

Are you also saying it shouldn't matter what kind of reaction (fear, anger, disgust, excitement, admiration, amusement, arousal) the flasher hoped to elicit?

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?

 

[DaveC426913]

How many times during the day (and when) would you say Mr X was imposing his nakedness upon someone in their space, rather than just minding his own business?

I would say for the entire day. Leniency might be given at the beach because there is reasonable grounds for why he might be nude there, but that is matter of practice, not principle.

If and when nudity ever is legalized, these kinds of issues will be hammered out so that other people's rights to decency can be respected. A man's home may be his castle, but public spaces are not the place where you may do what you please.

Even if all of us to-a-man think that nudity should be A-OK all the time, that does not mean it is. Until such time as that changes, every person, including the girl on the subway, has the right to expect that everyone else will conform to the law, and to currently-accepted standards of public decency.

 

[HeLiXe]

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

I did, Leroy. The fault I find in this argument was repeated in some arguments after such as here where it is explained in detail:

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.

I don't think nudism and flashing have the connection you're making here. Someone flashing their penis in this manner is more equivalent to someone making an unwanted sexual gesture, an unwanted sexual gesture could be done even in a nudist society and it would still be unacceptable.

 

[lisab]

I did, Leroy. The fault I find in this argument was repeated in some arguments after such as here where it is explained in detail:



I don't think nudism and flashing have the connection you're making here. Someone flashing their penis in this manner is more equivalent to someone making an unwanted sexual gesture, an unwanted sexual gesture could be done even in a nudist society and it would still be unacceptable.

True that. Nudists <> flashers. Like I mentioned before, each has completely different motivations and intents.

 

[OmCheeto]

I'd say I agree with that.

I'll second that.

There are only a few things that upset people on a nude beach.

1. people in underwear rubbing their privates. (Get a room!)
2. people walking around visibly aroused. (Get a room!)
3. people taking pictures. (Hey! We do not want to be on youtube!)
3.5 people having sex. (Get a room! (Only saw this once in 25 years. Don't know why people keep saying; "They're having sex on the sidewalk(out at that nekit beach)!". (Dorks. There aren't even any sidewalks within 3 miles of that beach...)))
4. people who litter. (Hey! Do we look like your mother?!)

 

[Newai]

Dying horse still breathing?

 

[zomgwtf]

Dying horse still breathing?

Indeed W-T-F. I hope everyone that posted here watched the viedo though, worth the lolz

 

[Newai]

Now I'm wondering if she's legally the victim of a sexual assault, and thus if it was wrong to post the video on YouTube.

 

[HeLiXe]

Happy cooking, and carving!

Thanks! :) I'm still cooking!

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)?

Ah ok, when you mentioned that "Most definitions I've read do not make such an assertion" I did not think you were asking my personal opinion of it. It is my understanding that assault is usually defined by being threatened with bodily harm, If someone flashed me and did not lunge after me, come extremely close to me or make me feel otherwise threatened, I would not not consider it assault.

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.

No. Point taken, and I appreciate your example. Consider this example:

In a place where people do not have rights to guns, a thread is started by Mrs. Z about a murder that resulted from gun violence recently. Mr. P then responds that this is why people should have right to guns. Do you think Mr. P's argument is out of place given the topic of the thread?

 

[mheslep]

... For example, in the United States, you have section 8 of article 1 of the Constitution which defines precisely the powers of the legislative branch. The Congress can't just go left and right penalizing things like indecent exposure just because legislators are morally opposed to it.

Yes but the state and local governments do have that authority in the US, as long as it doesn't offend the rights protected in the US constitution, and the states use it. The public nudity laws lie with the states.

 

[HeLiXe]

Dying horse still breathing?

Sorry all >.<

 

[mheslep]

As I understand it, flagrant adult nudity by strangers is commonly accepted as psychologically and emotionally harmful to children. I'm not inclined to run it down now, but I believe fairly clear and long settled statements on the topic are available from psychological associations. The issue inevitably comes up at gyms frequented by parents, who cross the line in locker rooms with children in tow. The limit is about four, maybe five years old. I have sympathy for the parent trying to exercise, but sorry dad it's not ok to have your six year old daughter in the men's locker room, or vice versa.

 

[DaveC426913]

As I understand it, flagrant adult nudity by strangers is commonly accepted as psychologically and emotionally harmful to children. I'm not inclined to run it down now, but I believe fairly clear and long settled statements on the topic are available from psychological associations. The issue inevitably comes up at gyms frequented by parents, who cross the line in locker rooms with children in tow. The limit is about four, maybe five years old. I have sympathy for the parent trying to exercise, but sorry dad it's not ok to have your six year old daughter in the men's locker room, or vice versa.

While I see your point, it does not weaken leroy et al's argument. His claim is that, if nudity were normalized, then (all other things being equal) there would be no trauma to children. I would have to agree.

 

[Proton Soup]

While I see your point, it does not weaken leroy et al's argument. His claim is that, if nudity were normalized, then (all other things being equal) there would be no trauma to children. I would have to agree.

it is normalized for moms to be carrying their young sons in tow, yes?

fwiw, i believe they have what are termed "family changing rooms" at my university gym. which... I'm not sure really. sounds a bit like a private cubicle or something.

 

[Gokul43201]

No time right now to respond to all the posts addressed at me - will have to save that for later.

I really did wake up in BizarroWorld.

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.