What is considered indecent exposure?

[Goose_Eggs]

Always learning new things at LPSG. Some in our community claim indecent exposure if your cock outine appears through your clothing.

<----- makes note to self to stay the hell out of Wisconsin!

 

[jeff black]

So I am wondering about indecent exposure, specifically showing of the male genitalia. Here is the comparison: a women's breast is considered safe to show as long as the nipple is not exposed. Is the same comparatively true for a man's penis? E.g. as long as the head is not exposed.

This is primarily directed at the US audience, but it'd be interesting to know if there are subtle differences internationally.

First, I think it's important to note that while exposing the nipple is definitely indecent exposure, I can't imagine alot of people are supporting a well endowed woman who's got a top that consists of two suspenders covering his nipples. It's still indecent.

Any shot of cock, from the neck to the tip is indecent.

 

[pronatalist]

Always amazed me - butt showing on film, breasts OK too but no frontal made nudity - no sense at all.

Oh, sure it makes a little sense, as you have to draw a line as to what's socially acceptable somewhere. Although, they could be drawing the line in the wrong place. If they can show naked butts and breasts, why not the penis? Maybe they shouldn't be showing breasts either on TV, well except when breastfeeding a baby.

Also consider that men are supposedly more visually orientated, and most normal straight men, like to see breasts more so, than another guy's penis.

I wonder isn't it sort of crude, to show guys urinating in a public restroom urnal, from the back side showing nothing? Why do we really need a restroom scene in a movie or TV show anyway?

 

[AlteredEgo]

I don't know if it was here (LPSG) or somewhere else that I read spandex was created by a cyclist who wanted to show off his package without violating decency laws....basically a loophole to the law.

Doesn't that sound even just a little hoaky to you? You do realize, do you not, that spandex was invented in the 1950's? It was invented by a DuPont chemist named Joseph Shivers. His objective was to create a thread which was stronger than rubber, lighter than rubber, and also not susceptible to destruction by sweat and oil as rubber was. It's a synthetic rubber. And since rubber had already long-since been discovered, our imaginary cyclist could have just worn that.

I looked on the internet for evidence that Shivers was a cycling enthusiast, but by all appearances he was a runner, not a cyclist. Anyway, the first garments made from Lycra spandex were women's foundation garments. The first spandex swimsuits became popular right before ski suits made from spandex appeared at the Olympics. Other sports followed after that.

If you need verification (and you should always require some) start here:
spandex
Joseph Shivers
Polymer chemistry

Several patents for cycling shorts can be found online, but the ones I saw seemed to be made from a blend of fibers, such as polyester, nylon and Lycra spandex.

 

[BillyPilgrimOD]

A chum of mine was (recently) charged with indecent exposure for taking a pee on the outside wall of a bar. It was dark and winter in Northern Michigan. The charge was parlayed away, but dude was sure scared. It would have been a felony.

WWG?

Michigan is not the place to get an indecent exposure rap. Simple nudity in public is not only a felony, but an automatic branding as a sex offender. I've been to a nudist club in Michigan (Turtle Lake) and they warn everyone about the consequences of being seen on the public part of the lake.

<----- makes note to self to stay the hell out of Wisconsin!

In Wisconsin simple nudity is not a felony, or even a misdemeanor if your intention is not to disturb others. Example: If you find some nice secluded pond and decide to skinny-dip and sunbathe nude, and someone finds you, they ask you to cover up, and you do, there's no crime. It's only a crime (a simple misdemeanor) if you refuse to cover up, they go and get law enforcement, and the cops see that you are exposed.

For indecent exposure (lewd and lascivous) in Wisconsin, the cop has to be acting on a complaint. The cop himself cannot be the offended party. And if you cover up when asked, you're fine.

In Indiana, OTOH, it is a crime for your dick to be visible through your clothes "in a visibly turgid state." Which makes it dangerous for me to wear boxers, which are my preferred underwear.

 

[BillyPilgrimOD]

In Ontario the Crown has to prove that your exposure reasonably shocked and horrified the people around you. Therefore, if you pull your dick out in a mall you're going to get in trouble. Pull your dick out at a nude beach or Pride parade and you're okay. For instance, the nude bike run in Toronto doesn't get in trouble because there's a big group of naked people just riding their bikes in a downtown core. People tend to cheer them on.

Also, in Ontario, it's kosher for women to go topless in public places.

I've known about Ontario's liberal policies for a while. How many women actually go to the beach topless, or mow their lawn topless, or sunbathe in the park topless? If we ever move their, I can guarantee my wife will be one of those taking advantage. She's always been jealous of guys being able to take their shirts off.

... like a shopping mall??

I think it would fall under "no shirt, no shoes, no service," just like for men.

 

[midlifebear]

None of the previous posts seem to really take the bull by the horns.

Indecent Exposure: Walking completely naked into a Kindergarten class, squatting on the teacher's desk, and taking a dump while wildly masturbating.

That's indecent. Then again, maybe I'm just being too sensitive.:wink:

 

[BillyPilgrimOD]

None of the previous posts seem to really take the bull by the horns.

Indecent Exposure: Walking completely naked into a Kindergarten class, squatting on the teacher's desk, and taking a dump while wildly masturbating.

That's indecent. Then again, maybe I'm just being too sensitive.:wink:

Would the kiddies be truamatized, or just damned amused?

 

[dj30905]

Ok, I really can't understand simple nudity being indecent at all. I mean, if a man or woman wants to go walking nude down the street (but not with a boner or trying to be sexually suggestive), then that should be fine. I was born and raised in the South, where nudity is viewed as "sinful" and just plain wrong. I now believe that if nudity were really bad or sinful, then why the hell are we born without clothes. It is natural. I did get one hell of a culture shock when I visited Germany to find nude statues in Berlin and I looked over a guy's shoulder to see a bare woman's ass in the newspaper, but noone seems to be bothered by these things. As for breasts, well, they are not just for sex. The main reason for breasts is to feed a baby. I see absolutely nothing wrong with bare breasts. Pissing on a wall? Meh...I went to the beach last summer with a friend and we were walking by a hotel. I noticed about 20 feet from us was a guy our age, cock fulling showing, pissing on a wall. I didn't even take too much notice to it. I just moved on, but I wasn't bothered. For goodness sake, it's just a penis. My attitude towards nudity also changed when I started going to a nudist resort at the age of 20. It was awkward, being my age, to go to a place like this, but I became really comfortable with it within 30 minutes the first time. I'm now 24 and fully comfortable with my body. I see absolutely nothing wrong with nudity at all.

In the nudist environment, if a kid grows up around nudity (since nudist environments aren't sexually charged), they don't wonder about nudity when they get older. Since becoming part-time nudist, I can actually look at a woman fully nude and not get a stiffie or concentrate on her breasts. I see that person not as a sexual object, but as a human being. I will, however, if she is wearing really suggestive clothing. Going nude not only teaches body acceptance, but it also shows that nudity does not necessarily mean sex.

 

[gketwin73]

FLORIDA STATE STATUTE 800.03 Exposure of sexual organs.--
It is unlawful to expose or exhibit one's sexual organs in public or on the private premises of another, or so near thereto as to be seen from such private premises, in a vulgar or indecent manner, or to be naked in public except in any place provided or set apart for that purpose. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. A mother's breastfeeding of her baby does not under any circumstance violate this section.

 

[sdbg]

I love living in Southern California. Nipples? No big deal. Guys' dicks swinging in boardshorts? You see it 8 months of the year. People here are pretty much desensitized to it and most people don't give a shit. One of the funniest moments I remember from the '90s was 2 really hot young ladies walking down Ocean Front Walk by the beach in thong bikinis. Right behind them was a family of 4 that you could tell the parents were horrified that the girls' asses were totally in view. I LOVE IT! I grew up in ultra-prude Southern New Jersey, and am thrilled that I escaped before I turned 23. (No offense to those of you that still live there.)

 

[D_Clyde Crystalnutz]

exposing pubic hair in pics seems to ok where you don't see a penis and is it not a part of sexual maturing?

This fine line of what is right and wrong is very hard to distinguish.
Especially since we are all carry the same parts.

 

[BiItalianBro]

A chum of mine was (recently) charged with indecent exposure for taking a pee on the outside wall of a bar. It was dark and winter in Northern Michigan. The charge was parlayed away, but dude was sure scared. It would have been a felony.

WWG?

See...that pisses me off (pun intended). I have an acquaintance who is on the sex offender registry because nature called on a jog a few years ago. He went off the trail into a secluded area that, unknown to him (or so he says), was a big hook up area and under the watch of law enforcement.

Seems that if all the variables are true...there are bigger and more clear and present dangers to the public than a dude taking a leak in the shurbs.

 

[Rocky14441]

My State (Rhode Island) didn't have any public indecency laws until the eighties, when they were trying to close down the nude beaches (it worked!)

Most states have laws for men against showing genitalia or "gluteal fissure"; that 's butt crack for the euphemistically challenged.

That being said, most states also have their own laws against public disruption and sexual offenses, which can include behavoir with your covered genitals, just ask Jim Morrison about his Dade County experiences, just simulating masturbation onstage.

The fact is, you can do just about anything you want, until you run into a cop who cares. (and is probably jealous of your swingin' package!)

 

[pronatalist]

Breastfeeding is never indescent exposure, as a baby present explains for it.​

FLORIDA STATE STATUTE 800.03 Exposure of sexual organs.--
It is unlawful to expose or exhibit one's sexual organs in public or on the private premises of another, or so near thereto as to be seen from such private premises, in a vulgar or indecent manner, or to be naked in public except in any place provided or set apart for that purpose. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. A mother's breastfeeding of her baby does not under any circumstance violate this section.

I have heard that developing countries, more pronatalist still than ours, criticize the U.S. for thinking that the breasts are sexual. I agree that mothers should be allowed to breastfeed in most any public place, as is common in developing countries where families are commonly quite large. Perhaps in the U.S. breasts are sexual? I don't claim that they are not, however, in either case, it can be "overlooked" so that mothers may take their proper responsibility and feed their babies. Are breasts reproductive organs? I think quite possibly they are, as by feeding babies, they help to reproduce babies. However, some could say that eating in public, shouldn't be any big deal. But I have long been for the natural flow of human life, I do not believe that humans were meant to use any means of "birth control," so since families can naturally grow possibly quite large after marriage, society must allow the proper easy means for families to enjoy being quite large. For mothers supposedly having "baby after baby," I would expect they would get used to providing for their babies, and society wouldn't want every baby to be fussy and cranky, so by all means, feel free to breastfeed babies in public, as is common in the more pronatalist developing countries.

If some find it indeed "sexual," well then just simply "overlook" it, since there is a baby present to explain for it. Being visably pregnant in public could be similarly "sexual," but we can't just lock mothers up in some cave. We are all sexual beings, supposedly civilized, so deal with it.

Most people seem able to figure out why mothers have to be allowed to breastfeed in public, and I've seen a few examples of that, but for those prudes or liberal retards who can't seem to quite figure it out, it's good for the "law" to specify the exception for breastfeeding mothers. I also think it's quite okay for a pregnant woman to be in public, with her "great with child" belly poofed out of her shirt. As maternity clothes don't just drop from the sky for every mother. Some might question whether it's appropriate for a pregnant belly to be exposed like that, but I don't see any reason why I have to judge against it, as I believe human families should grow naturally, and not everybody's "made of money" to go clothing shopping every month. I've seen a couple of examples of that as well, one was some Hispanic, I don't recall how many other children she may have had with her.

I also believe that visibly pregnant teenagers should be welcome in high school classes, and especially college, especially if married, as many states allow people to marry as young as 13, so certainly age 16 or 17 or 18, is plenty old enough to suspect that they might actually be married and growing a family already. I do think some people could do well to marry and start their families younger, as an obvious alternative to babies outside of wedlock, like how our ancestors used to marry off their children young, to prevent such things.