bluenose 52 Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 Many years ago my ex wife had someone flash at her in Liverpool, she just laughed and asked him"is that the best you can do" he soon turned tale and buggered off, mind you she was a tough old bint. I bet if my ex was still about she would have an answer to all of the arguments going on with you lot. She seemed to know a lot about knobs and the like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lao Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 a couple of things to ponder: Escalation when questioned by research groups the vast majority of flashers claimed that the ideal reaction from a target was arousal to the point where consentual intercourse took place. as this is very unlikely there is a reality that some of the more frustated flashers may begin to escalate their behavior. Unintended harm someone who has previously been raped or sexually assaulted could find a flashing incident to be particularly harrowing. also unitentional viewers are a problem especially those at an impressionable age whose own sexual maturation may be misdirected by such an incident. plus its a bit pointless to argue about the rights to expose yourself as if it were some sort of freedom being infringed upon, most of the year it bloody feezing here! if you went around with your bits out, you outta be locked up for your own safety you could catch your death of a cold, unless the idea is to introduce a new pair of pants that keep your legs warm while still allowing you to have your twig and giggleberries on show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 Flashing your dick is not going to put the fear of being raped into someone's head. What, like someone waving a knife in front of your face would not make you fearful you might be stabbed? If a stranger takes out a knife then it might as well be taken for a certainty that there is intent to use it, as such an action serves no other purpose. To pull your cock out and briefly flash it isn't going to make someone think "Argh, gonna get raped". For starters, the first reaction is simply shock at seeing something you didn't expect, then the flasher has gone. I am surprised that a connection with rape is being brought up, as although I cannot know for an absolute fact I think I am making a good assumption to believe that the criminal designation of this behaviour originates from a rather antiquated perspective of seeing public displays of anything possibly related to sex being indecent. It's one thing being starkers on a nudist beach. Totally another to pulling your cock out in front of an old lady, alone walking her dog. I would suggest that the possibility of being raped might quite well enter her mind. He may well have flashed and "gone" but she may well be thinking "is he round the next corner" planning to something worse. Ok the incident has comic value but if that old lady was my mother I wouldn't be laughing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 a couple of things to ponder: Escalation when questioned by research groups the vast majority of flashers claimed that the ideal reaction from a target was arousal to the point where consentual intercourse took place. as this is very unlikely there is a reality that some of the more frustated flashers may begin to escalate their behavior. Interesting, is what I thought - some consequence of sexual repression. However, I don't see the connection with rape that you mention. You indicate that they wish to arouse the female - well it COULD be possible that this would cause frustration, but there is nothing to say either way what the result would be. It takes something different to then assume a position of power and use violence against the woman - who would not be aroused. Unintended harm someone who has previously been raped or sexually assaulted could find a flashing incident to be particularly harrowing. also unitentional viewers are a problem especially those at an impressionable age whose own sexual maturation may be misdirected by such an incident. I think the idea of it being harrowing has validity. It is still an irrational fear, i.e. there is nothing to indicate rape would occur. But it could be used as an argument in itself to claim that such behaviour is wrong. But I don't believe it is the commonly held reason for why it is considered to be wrongful. As for affecting people's sexual maturation, I think that is rubbish (to be plain), sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 So do you think it should be legal for a man to have a wank in a school playground? No Why? Sorry, in fact I don't think it should be illegal to do this. That doesn't mean I don't think it is wrong. For someone to start wanking in a playground demonstrates a worrying thing about that person's awareness of themself and their behaviour that doesn't accord well with what is acceptable by everyone else (I'd hope) in society. That person's doesn't need punishment but could do with help in understanding themselves and their behaviour. Of course, this also includes their sexual attraction to children. I don't see how punishment is constructive - they won't change their mindset and future behaviour by fines or gaol. But how and why would this "help" be administered if it wasn't illegal to "shock" children in this way? Do you think the same man would need help if he was wanking on a bus around adults? What about wanking in front of a dog walker in the road? How is it different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 If a stranger takes out a knife then it might as well be taken for a certainty that there is intent to use it, as such an action serves no other purpose. Pray tell, what purpose does whipping your dick out to shock an old lady serve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 I don't think it is funny, I think it is bizarre and the person doing it knows it is considered wrongful because of ideas of indecency. The criminality of it is something different though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 But how and why would this "help" be administered if it wasn't illegal to "shock" children in this way? Legality of things centres around punishment for doing wrong. We don't live in an enlightened society as yet that deals with problems by not punishing. If illegality meant that such people receive help alone then that is quite a different matter. Do you think the same man would need help if he was wanking on a bus around adults? What about wanking in front of a dog walker in the road? How is it different? There isn't a difference. But you're not making a distinction between the sexual and a body part that can be used for sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 I don't think it is funny, I think it is bizarre and the person doing it knows it is considered wrongful because of ideas of indecency. The criminality of it is something different though. No it has nothing to do with "ideas of indencecy". It's threatening behaviour and as such should be illegal. If it is becomes clear that the individual committing these illegal acts has pyschological problems, causing them to do that, then they should receive help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 But how and why would this "help" be administered if it wasn't illegal to "shock" children in this way? Legality of things centres around punishment for doing wrong. We don't live in an enlightened society as yet that deals with problems by not punishing. If illegality meant that such people receive help alone then that is quite a different matter. So you actually disagree with the way it's dealt with (i.e. punishment & help) rather than the legality of it? Do you think the same man would need help if he was wanking on a bus around adults? What about wanking in front of a dog walker in the road? How is it different? There isn't a difference. But you're not making a distinction between the sexual and a body part that can be used for sex. And you're assuming it wasn't sexual. Do you know how much blood there was in his penis? Do you know how close to ejaculation he was? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeky boy Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 So do you think it should be legal for a man to have a wank in a school playground? As long as he has filled out a risk assesment form Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 So you actually disagree with the way it's dealt with (i.e. punishment & help) rather than the legality of it? Well criminal law only exists to punish people, unless in exceptional circumstances where it is recognised that punishment doesn't do any good. And you're assuming it wasn't sexual. Do you know how much blood there was in his penis? Do you know how close to ejaculation he was? Hmm, well there are both sexually related acts, but here we are talking about a flasher briefly showing their cock and someone actually engaging in a sexual act in a social environment and people don't want to close to such an intimate and person act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 No it has nothing to do with "ideas of indencecy". It's threatening behaviour and as such should be illegal. If it is becomes clear that the individual committing these illegal acts has pyschological problems, causing them to do that, then they should receive help. Are you on the assumption that indecent exposure will always or mostly be of an erect penis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 No it has nothing to do with "ideas of indencecy". It's threatening behaviour and as such should be illegal. If it is becomes clear that the individual committing these illegal acts has pyschological problems, causing them to do that, then they should receive help. Are you on the assumption that indecent exposure will always or mostly be of an erect penis? Not at all. A flaccid one would may qualify as such, or indeed say a lady masturbating in a public place (I might enjoy the sight, but reluctantly would recognise that it is innappropriate) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 Not at all. A flaccid one would may qualify as such, or indeed say a lady masturbating in a public place (I might enjoy the sight, but reluctantly would recognise that it is innappropriate) I would be assuming that the flasher is flashing a flaccid cock, but that may not always be the case. In which case, how would a flaccid cock be threatening? Just commenting, but a woman masturbating sounds just as awful as a man masturbating in public (unless he/she was really fit). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.