Shower wank etiquette

[determinedtogrow]

There have been a few threads that brought up the topic of exposing oneself to not only in public, but while inside of ones own domicile. Even if it was totally accidental , you can be arrested and charged with a few different things. Yes Lewd and Lascivious, indecent exposure and gosh help you a minor sees you. It all comes down to where the offense takes place as it falls to the local D.A. or Judge to prosecute or throw the charges out. Still again the fun of being arrested, booked, possible expense of a lawyer and lets not forget the lovely title of a sex offender.

Exactly. I agree with you 100%.

The law is complex and so many factors come into consideration when someone is being prosecuted for the commission of a crime that it is not enough for a defendant to claim lack of intent as a defence. Lack of intent is not a defence usually.

These laws may not make sense to everyone on the surface, but if they did not exist we would live in an extremely chaotic and dangerous world.

Forgive me for what may appear like exaggeration for a second, but if lack of intent could be used as a defence, you would hear defences in court such as "I knew my dog was aggressive and attacked many people, but when I brought him to the childrens' park off his leech, my intent wasn't for him to attack and severely injure those children."

You still don't get it. Intent is absolutely necessary when intent is part of the definition of an offense. You can't negligently intentionally do something. If you injure someone by speeding or driving like a maniac it can be considered negligent or reckless and is a completely different offense from intentionally injuring someone. You would need a law defining negligent indecent exposure or something like second or third degree indecent exposure.

Instead of saying "read case law", how about you point me to an exact scenario where someone, completely obscured and not making any outward indication of their activities, was convicted of indecent exposure for masturbating in a gym shower. I'm guessing you won't be able to do that because the only time the scenario would exist is if someone was spying on the person in the shower, which was my original point.



If the specific lewd act statute requires intent or some level of knowledge, again, you would still need intent.

If the only way someone observes you masturbating in a gym shower is by opening the curtain to look at you, looking over a partition, etc., the person masturbating isn't going to be arrested or at the very least charged with anything. If the person inside the shower is moaning, grunting, making slapping sounds, leaving the curtain cracked, walking out while masturbating to make it more exciting, etc., it is a different story and its why this thread is so ridiculous to begin with because the OP is clearly looking to make it known that he is masturbating.

I would suggest that on Monday morning you consult with a lawyer, call your local police station or gym manager to see if you and others are within their legal rights to masturbate (engage in a sexual act) in a public gym shower behind a plastic curtain.

For what concerns intent, I don't think you understand the complexity of the term in a legal context.

Specific Intent is a planned and deliberate act.
Specific Intent is not required to find a defendant guilty of a crime.

Basic Intent is the reckless commission of an act where a defendant deliberately closed his/her mind to the risk (recklessness) that his action could result in the commission of an illegal act. The defendant does not have to have foreseen any consequence or harm (otherwise known as Specific Intent).
Basic intent is sufficient to find a defendant guilty of a crime such as Indecent Exposure.

In the United States, indecent exposure refers to conduct undertaken in a non-private or (in some jurisdictions) publicly viewable location, which is deemed indecent in nature, such as nudity, masturbation or sexual intercourse in public view.

Most judges on the bench in the interest of the public good, would, if the defendant was psychologically sound, agree that the conditions for proving Basic Intent were satisfied.

The conversation between the prosecutor and the defendant might go something like this:

Judge: Were the showers accessible to all members of the public who use the gym?
Defendant: Yes
Judge: So you clearly understood that they were public showers?
Defendant: Yes
Judge: Was there a locking mechanism on the shower curtain to prevent a child or adult from accidentally opening the curtain?
Defendant: No
Judge: So, you closed your mind to the risk that in a public gym shower, used by hundreds of people per day, where cleaning staff also routinely clean the stalls that someone could have accidentally opened the curtain?
Defendant: Yes

Basic Intent would have been established in four questions as the act was deliberately reckless resulting in indecent exposure.

After a lecture on his lewd behaviour, the judge would then decide hand down his/her decision factoring in whether a child was or not present in the shower room or gym, among many other factors.

 

[sangheili90]

Exactly. I agree with you 100%.

The law is complex and so many factors come into consideration when someone is being prosecuted for the commission of a crime that it is not enough for a defendant to claim lack of intent as a defence. Lack of intent is not a defence usually.

These laws may not make sense to everyone on the surface, but if they did not exist we would live in an extremely chaotic and dangerous world.

Forgive me for what may appear like exaggeration for a second, but if lack of intent could be used as a defence, you would hear defences in court such as "I knew my dog was aggressive and attacked many people, but when I brought him to the childrens' park off his leech, my intent wasn't for him to attack and severely injure those children."


I would suggest that on Monday morning you consult with a lawyer, call your local police station or gym manager to see if you and others are within their legal rights to masturbate (engage in a sexual act) in a public gym shower behind a plastic curtain.

For what concerns intent, I don't think you understand the complexity of the term in a legal context.

Specific Intent is a planned and deliberate act.
Specific Intent is not required to find a defendant guilty of a crime.

Basic Intent is the reckless commission of an act where a defendant deliberately closed his/her mind to the risk (recklessness) that his action could result in the commission of an illegal act. The defendant does not have to have foreseen any consequence or harm (otherwise known as Specific Intent).
Basic intent is sufficient to find a defendant guilty of a crime such as Indecent Exposure.

In the United States, indecent exposure refers to conduct undertaken in a non-private or (in some jurisdictions) publicly viewable location, which is deemed indecent in nature, such as nudity, masturbation or sexual intercourse in public view.

Most judges on the bench in the interest of the public good, would, if the defendant was psychologically sound, agree that the conditions for proving Basic Intent were satisfied.

The conversation between the prosecutor and the defendant might go something like this:

Judge: Were the showers accessible to all members of the public who use the gym?
Defendant: Yes
Judge: So you clearly understood that they were public showers?
Defendant: Yes
Judge: Was there a locking mechanism on the shower curtain to prevent a child or adult from accidentally opening the curtain?
Defendant: No
Judge: So, you closed your mind to the risk that in a public gym shower, used by hundreds of people per day, where cleaning staff also routinely clean the stalls that someone could have accidentally opened the curtain?
Defendant: Yes

Basic Intent would have been established in four questions as the act was deliberately reckless resulting in indecent exposure.

After a lecture on his lewd behaviour, the judge would then decide hand down his/her decision factoring in whether a child was or not present in the shower room or gym, among many other factors.

I have to be quite honest, if someone was accidentally caught jerking off in a shower stall wit a curtain or door I don't think he would get reported, as long as it wasn't made super obvious by "breathing heavily" like the OP described.

 

[sangheili90]

I think someone is pulling you bunch of nutters legs and you fell for it hook line and sinker. I have been going to public gyms for almost 40 years and the most I have ever seen is the beginning of a chubby.

No, there are a lot of retards on here who talk about doing this shit all the time and are combative whenever someone calls them out on their inconsiderate behavior.

 

[Jack10792]

Don't jerk off in the shower. Every college dorm I lived in had to shut a shared bathroom down and put up signs telling people not to after the drains got clogged. Semen is thicker than water, and it's hell on the pipes, so show some restraint.

 

[Snarky_succubus]

You still don't get it. Intent is absolutely necessary when intent is part of the definition of an offense. You can't negligently intentionally do something. If you injure someone by speeding or driving like a maniac it can be considered negligent or reckless and is a completely different offense from intentionally injuring someone. You would need a law defining negligent indecent exposure or something like second or third degree indecent exposure.

Instead of saying "read case law", how about you point me to an exact scenario where someone, completely obscured and not making any outward indication of their activities, was convicted of indecent exposure for masturbating in a gym shower. I'm guessing you won't be able to do that because the only time the scenario would exist is if someone was spying on the person in the shower, which was my original point.



If the specific lewd act statute requires intent or some level of knowledge, again, you would still need intent.

If the only way someone observes you masturbating in a gym shower is by opening the curtain to look at you, looking over a partition, etc., the person masturbating isn't going to be arrested or at the very least charged with anything. If the person inside the shower is moaning, grunting, making slapping sounds, leaving the curtain cracked, walking out while masturbating to make it more exciting, etc., it is a different story and its why this thread is so ridiculous to begin with because the OP is clearly looking to make it known that he is masturbating.

Which was really my point. There is no polite/acceptable way to jerk off in a gym shower while making enough noise to let people know you're doing it.

 

[socalfreak]

With all due respect, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're literally arguing that someone can be arrested for the crime of "potentially being exposed". "Intentionally make an obscene display or exposure of his person" means exactly that. Intentionally. There is nothing in there about maybe being exposed. If someone trips and rips down a curtain, you did not intentionally make an obscene display or intentionally expose yourself. Someone else exposed you. If someone is spying on you a judge/jury would find that there was a reasonable expectation of privacy in a private shower stall (that's why they exist), and thus would not fall under the definition of a public place or a place where others are present.

Again, I'm referring to someone who isn't looking to get caught. If someone is leaving a curtain partially open, intentionally leaving a door unlocked, or knows that for whatever reason they are in the view of others, they would fall under intentionally making an obscene display or exposure. Indecent exposure laws are not strict liability. They require intent. Someone seeing you naked and/or aroused is not de facto illegal. It's your intention for someone to see you that is illegal.

Here's a fun example: www.washingtonpost.com: Jury clears 'Naked Guy' at home of indecent exposure charge

Read the story, especially page two. A guy was arrested for being naked in his own home because people could allegedly see him through uncovered windows, including a child. A jury cleared him. A person completely obscured in a private shower would absolutely not be convicted. Here's the important quote from the story: "This isn't a case about being naked in your house. This is a case of intentional exposure, and that is a violation of law".

You need intentional exposure. If that can't be proven, which it wouldn't be in any of your examples, you aren't getting convicted of anything.

Completely 100% not true.
Seems your knowledge of criminal law is a bit narrow.
I can tell you, after many many hours of study, that you are incorrect.
You're only addressing specific intent.
There's also general, implied, transferred ..and, yes, neglect is in fact intent.

 

[sangheili90]

Did the OP get arrested and put on the sex offender's list? Haven't heard from him in a while.

 

[chadstallion]

Which was really my point. There is no polite/acceptable way to jerk off in a gym shower while making enough noise to let people know you're doing it.

i disagree. I've jacked off before and haven't made any noise that would let the person in the next shower even suspect anything.
and most of the married guys I blow rarely if ever make any sounds; either before cumming or during. That's a challenge; judging just how soon they are going to cum when they give no indication; maybe a little faster breathing but that's about it. no porn dvd sounds from these guys.

 

[Snarky_succubus]

i disagree. I've jacked off before and haven't made any noise that would let the person in the next shower even suspect anything.
and most of the married guys I blow rarely if ever make any sounds; either before cumming or during. That's a challenge; judging just how soon they are going to cum when they give no indication; maybe a little faster breathing but that's about it. no porn dvd sounds from these guys.

Pay attention to what I said. I never said it was impossible to cum without making noise, slick. As for your behavior… No comment.

 

[950483]

Did the OP get arrested and put on the sex offender's list? Haven't heard from him in a while.

I expect he's too busy having fun. (Having danger wanks in new and exciting places).

 

[328982]

I expect he's too busy having fun. (Having danger wanks in new and exciting places).

Take me now, I love a good danger wank

 

[str8budchgo]

Don't jerk off in the shower. Every college dorm I lived in had to shut a shared bathroom down and put up signs telling people not to after the drains got clogged. Semen is thicker than water, and it's hell on the pipes, so show some restraint.

wish i could have seen that sign, Jack10792... "Don't blast your load down the shower drain. Love, The Mgmt."

 

[Serpentlike]

I expect he's too busy having fun. (Having danger wanks in new and exciting places).

Or he is in jail.

 

[Otep]

Completely 100% not true.
Seems your knowledge of criminal law is a bit narrow.
I can tell you, after many many hours of study, that you are incorrect.
You're only addressing specific intent.
There's also general, implied, transferred ..and, yes, neglect is in fact intent.

I have a narrow view because I'm referring to a very specific type of incident.

Statutes that specifically use the word intent are generally referring to specific intent in the criminal context. That is why there are separate statutes for reckless behavior and negligent behavior. Sometimes they are entirely different offenses, sometimes they are varying degrees of the same crime. You cannot take a statute which references intentionally doing something and simply use negligence to establish criminal liability under that statute. This is why there is a difference between murder and manslaughter. If someone negligently causes the death of another individual, and you can only establish that they were negligent, you can't convict them of murder (as in murder in the first degree which requires intent) but you can convict them of a lesser crime which only requires negligence, like manslaughter (or in some places this would be called 2nd degree murder, 3rd degree murder, reckless homicide, etc.). This is precisely how plea deals happen because it's not easy to prove specific intent in all cases. If someone was arrested for the scenario I've mentioned previously they'd likely be offered a disorderly conduct plea in lieu of going to trial and trying to prove that they had specific intent for most indecent exposure statutes (assuming there isn't a separate statute to address lesser degrees of the crime).

Any criminal statute that uses the word intent in such a loose manner as to include actual intent, negligence, recklessness, etc., under a single term, is bordering on strict liability.

 

[Otep]

wish i could have seen that sign, Jack10792... "Don't blast your load down the shower drain. Love, The Mgmt."

It's a very common college dorm prank. It's not real and neither is the poster's story (or he isn't aware that it wasn't real)

www.huffingtonpost.com: 25 Fake Letters Warning Students Not To Masturbate In Dorm Showers

 

[Otep]

I have a narrow view because I'm referring to a very specific type of incident.

Statutes that specifically use the word intent are generally referring to specific intent in the criminal context. That is why there are separate statutes for reckless behavior and negligent behavior. Sometimes they are entirely different offenses, sometimes they are varying degrees of the same crime. You cannot take a statute which references intentionally doing something and simply use negligence to establish criminal liability under that statute. This is why there is a difference between murder and manslaughter. If someone negligently causes the death of another individual, and you can only establish that they were negligent, you can't convict them of murder (as in murder in the first degree which requires intent) but you can convict them of a lesser crime which only requires negligence, like manslaughter (or in some places this would be called 2nd degree murder, 3rd degree murder, reckless homicide, etc.). This is precisely how plea deals happen because it's not easy to prove specific intent in all cases. If someone was arrested for the scenario I've mentioned previously they'd likely be offered a disorderly conduct plea in lieu of going to trial and trying to prove that they had specific intent for most indecent exposure statutes (assuming there isn't a separate statute to address lesser degrees of the crime).

Any criminal statute that uses the word intent in such a loose manner as to include actual intent, negligence, recklessness, etc., under a single term, is bordering on strict liability.

To clarify, when I say that the statutes are generally referring to specific intent, I'm referring to the action, not necessarily the consequence. The crime being referred to is indecent exposure, which generally requires intent to indecently expose oneself. This means that the person must have some knowledge that they are indecently exposing themselves or set out with the intention to expose themselves. This is very different than if the crime was specifically masturbating in a private shower stall. If the crime was masturbating in a private shower stall all you would need to prove is that they intended to do so, i.e., that they had knowledge of what they were doing. The two are not the same thing.

I will concede that there is a chance, if caught, that some prosecutor may try for disorderly conduct because that is far easier to prove in this scenario than indecent exposure, so long as getting caught provokes a disturbance. If someone is looking over your shower stall to see that you're masturbating, and that's the only way they'd know, I'd still wager that it wouldn't be cut and dry.

 

[chadstallion]

Pay attention to what I said. I never said it was impossible to cum without making noise, slick. As for your behavior… No comment.

i see what you did here....slick
good one!

 

[mako shark]

Happened all the time in the military! Let me add that you never borrow any socks....

 

[keenobserver]

If only guns were subject to the interpretations I've seen here, i.e. what might happen, etc.

 

[Thickone]

Happened all the time in the military! Let me add that you never borrow any socks....

Mako shark, I figured you fellas held it until your tour was over.