Talk:Indecent exposure

Indecent exposure versus sexual assault

I think legally, indecent exposure is considered separate crime than sexual assault. Do you have a legal reference that supports your characterization? Chadloder 01:15 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)

I was using the term metaphorically, to show how it was regarded by the public, rather than in law. Please feel free to correct the article to make this clearer. The Anome

There is no evidence offered to support this "metaphor;" I don't think it makes sense, to say the least. KenThomas (talk) 23:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom indecent exposure as a precursor to more serious offences

Does committing an indecent exposure offence lead to more serious offences? This is a complex issue. The sources cited do not establish causality, or even a correlation. If there is a correlation then it may be that it is due to the psychology of the offender, common cause. Similarly, that one offence precedes another does not mean that the former causes the latter. Indeed it could be the opposite, that the second happened despite the first. This aspect of offending behaviour does need to be addressed, but it must be done properly. Great care to evaluate the claims of pressure groups is essential. I have deleted the statement of causality. MalcolmBoura (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Public masturbation in France

Public masturbation is common in France? Do you have any data or source to back that up? -- Kimiko 09:44 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)

I removed this... Interestingly, in France, masturbation in public, on the train for example, is not rare, and is rarely prosecuted.

I see not how it is interesting
I would like to see sources for this, in particular compared to similar assertions in other countries
It sounds like unnecessary attack on a country moral rules.User:anthere

I would also like to see some sources. While the assertion may not be without some basis in fact, for instance, Prague, amid negative population growth in the mid-90s, had an advertizing campaign on the Metro which said "be a little less careful," implicitly encouraging couples to come to the Metro to have sex at a time when private housing was rare-- such a bare assertion about "France" is far too overgeneral. KenThomas (talk) 23:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The fact that these laws exist is.. sickening. 219.79.115.72 16:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages are not the place for general discussion of the topic. KenThomas (talk) 23:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Puritanism

I removed this:

In other countries, common sense prevails, and puritan laws give way to human nature. This line of distinction follows not simply along class lines, but rather by the synergy between cultural sensitivities, and natural behaviour.

The first sentence is not NPOV, and the second does not appear to mean anything at all. - Montréalais

Exhibitionists pleasure

"About 20% of exhibitionists derive a sadistic pleasure out of shocking people, and those are the ones who are at risk of committing more serious crimes and being a danger to others."

Where did this come from? because it sounds like it was made up, honestly. It also sounds stupid to use the word "sadistic"....--Deglr6328 07:22, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Source citation needed

"Many people believe that those who expose themselves are harmless, but that is not necessarily the case. About 20% of exhibitionists derive a sadistic pleasure out of shocking people, and those are the ones who are at risk of committing more serious crimes and being a danger to others. Randy Woodfield, the I-5 Killer, had a history of exposing himself to others."

-Cite source of statistic, please. -The characteristics of personality, though in totality make the person, may have no function betwixt; Corrilation does not equate to causation. -Proof of correlation is done hapax legomenon.

I removed this. Surely that number is invented. Equalpants 04:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Following Edits of User:203.28.231.34 moved here

I'm moving this part here which is the POV of the user.--Calm 13:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

This concept is a bizarre element of society. The idea that simply seeing the parts of the human body (that everyone has) is indecent instils in people a feeling that their body is something to be ashamed of. If the act is sexual harrassing to another this is a different matter. Nudity, however, should in no situation be considered indecent. Clothing is to keep us warm - not to cover up certain parts of the body. No other animal in the world has these useless societal rules to make people feel ashamed of themselves. We need to get over our own garbage. We make taboos out of scientific realities. We need to GROW UP. If nudity was indecent we would be BORN FULLY DRESSED. User:203.28.231.34

User 203.28.231.34 : Sorry. When I made this comment I was new to this site and thought it was a forum of people's views. Please excuse my ignorance. I now know not to make NPOV violations.

Stupid laws/ It's human nature

Notice how in Western culture since 1900 up until today there is a trend to wear less and less clothing. Weren't humans born naked? I'm not saying lets all go naked but at least desert this old constriction. Think that in modern society there is already sexual tension leading to rape and other means which can harm one another.

Talk pages are not for general discussion of topic. Such references may be removed. KenThomas (talk) 23:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'd like to know what's indecent about being naked. I would think these gymnophobic laws are the REAL indecency.50.130.10.152 (talk) 17:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary Nudity

There is absolutely no reason that this page needs to have a nude picture depicting indecent exposure. I'm sure that a description or diagram would be quite fine. I'm pretty sure wikipedia has some sort of rule against nudity on its pages.

No, in fact it doesn't. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors (or anyone else). Yeltensic42.618 18:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a large difference between censorship for minors and posting nudity on a website where most people to not expect to come across it. Someone surfing a porn site has made a conscious decision about what he or she is doing. Someone surfing wikipedia or doing research likely has no idea that he or she will come across such a thing.

See nudity, breast, and sexual intercourse. Wikipedia obviously isn't a porn site, but it also isn't Censorpedia (I didn't make up that name). If the topic has to do with nudity, then it's reasonable to expect nudity. Yeltensic42.618 15:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Just to make it clearer, there's no rule against nudity on Wikipedia. Yeltensic42.618 23:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Given that, I'm now adding it back. Yeltensic42.618 16:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The picture has been taken away again, to my dismay and I'm sure to the dismay of quite a few other people. I'm about to revert the page back to the most recent edit that has the picture in it. The revert done most recently says the girl depicted is underage, but where does this user get his/her eyes from-- the female depicted is absolutely not "clearly underage." (It's impossible to tell most people's ages anyway, once they age past a certain point.) The idea that we shouldn't have a picture of a girl flashing her boobs in an article that is essentially more about flashing than it is about indecent exposure is ridiculous. The article is titled indecent exposure but it obviously goes into more depth than just the stereotypical trench-coat guy displaying his penis in a darkened movie theatre. Would the person taking the picture away prefer that we balance out the picture in the article with another picture of a trench coat guy showing his erect penis to the camera? As a heterosexual guy, I'm against that, but if it's a POV issue, I'm sure the rest of us could make accomodations to these Puritans that keep removing the boob shot. Kiko 06:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Tell you what. I'll go find a picture of a 450 lb fatty flashing, we'll use that instead. It shows the point, insisting on the picture just proves it isn't about displaying the image to get the point, it's about eye candy. -- Jbamb 14:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

But there's no point in doing that, the picture we have works well enough. What you're saying sounds like going out of our way to use a picture of a "fatty" just to please Puritan POV pushers. I think if we're going to change anything, it makes more sense to add a guy flasher but keep the current picture, so that both genders are represented (similar to what they did at the masturbation article). Yeltensic42.618 21:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, actually that sounds like a reasonable POV resolution. I'm not sure exactly where to find a guy flasher, though-- maybe a gay softcore site? Should we have the flashing guy be having an erection or not? (These are serious questions, not intended to be answered by pervs, though I'm expecting that given the language I'm using in this suggestion, it will be targeted by just that demographic..) Kiko 23:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

So that means while on a article on paedophile, you are going to put a picture of sexually abused child, wikipedia is been used by everyone from adult to children, i dont think there is anyone who wants to subject his children to nudity, if wikipedia doesn't want itself in the list of blocked website then it has to something about the nudity on the site, regarding your explaination that there are no rules regarding nudity, now suppose if you live in a place where there are no laws regarding murder, does that mean that you will go around killing people because there are no rules regarding murdering people.

Oh look, it's a "concerned parent". Look, jerk, there are pictures of people's heads getting blown off on Wikipedia. There is Nazi paraphenalia on Wikipedia. There are Klan insignias on Wikipedia. There are AMERICAN insignias on Wikipedia (and yes some people, especially African, Haitian and indigenous people, very often regard U.S. insignias on par with fascist ones, whether or not you agree with such a perception). The N word has a definition on Wikipedia, as does a whole host of other racial, ethnic, and sexual slurs. But if we started censoring those, soon we'd start censoring everything.

Actually, in this particular case I find myself echoing the liberals, who I find disgusting politically, that say the Klan and Nazis should have freedom of speech. And, I do not agree with such an assertion, plus I think anyone who says that is a weasel who doesn't want to stand up to racists and fascists. But this (indecent exposure) is not that (Nazism), and is, in fact, in this particular case, with this particular thing, the repeated reversions act much more in the capacity of Moral Police than in any kind of "reasonable balance" capacity. If we were talking about keeping out a vandal, or protecting children against pedophiles, or the world against the racists and fascists who would destroy it, that's one thing, and it's a very good point in that case. But for godsake man (or woman; sorry), it's a girl showing her boobs in an article about people showing their boobs', or butts or what have you for the sexual gratification of themselves and for other people. That is why it is called indecent exposure and flashing, and why there are different things included about it in the same article. And OK, sure, kids might stumble across it and ask, "what's that?" when they see the boobs. Just in the same way they might stumble across the N word, or a swastika, or a penis in the shower when they are little with their daddies, and ask "what's that"? And guess what. If you do not know how to answer those questions, the questions of life, the problem lies with YOU as a parent, NOT with the children and certainly not with Wikipedia.

I am putting the picture back. You do not have a right to take it away. If you want to help, find a picture of a guy flasher. That's what's been generally decided, at least so far, is needed to balance the article out and make it not-sexist. Kiko 06:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone added a new version with the boobs censored by one of those black things. The problem with that is that it isn't flashing (and therefore doesn't fit the article) if they're still covered. And you're right, Wikipedia has a responisbility not to avoid topics just to please Puritans and concerned parents. If it's an article about flashing, it makes sense that people should be ready to see such a thing. And btw, whether or not the picture is even offensive varies from place to place (there are quite a few countries where this wouldn't be a big deal at all, getting rid of it to please the "concerned Puritan parents" is an example of conforming to a U.S.-centric perspective (or Iran-centric, Singapore-centric etc). Yeltensic42.618 ambition makes you look pretty ugly 15:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to wait a little while to see if anyone responds here, then if no one says anything first I intend to add the old picture. Yeltensic42.618 ambition makes you look pretty ugly 15:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Nah, that's okay, I did it myself. I still think that the POV people have a point inasfar as having a girl flasher without a guy flasher is sexist (and it is, really, when you examine the issue). So, I'm still won to the idea, and am still in favor of, a guy flasher complementing the girl flasher. The trouble is where to find a trench-coat flasher or a Guys Gone Wild flasher that would fit the article. I tried going to some amateur-gay newsgroups, but those pics didn't fit too well, and I very quickly got tired of looking at guys. 71.255.209.50 20:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You know, the more I think about it, the more I'm somewhat bothered by the fact that anyone who doesn't drink from the wikipronia koolaid is a Puritan. I dunno, maybe some might thing the research quality of this encyclopedia might be hurt by, say, getting filtered by porn blocking software which becomes more likely, not necessarily because of this article, but the porn collections other users upload. There is a difference between censorship and choosing a level of appropriateness. Dare I ask if there is a brown shower article? -- Jbamb 22:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Funny you should mention. There are articles that correspond to both brown shower and golden shower when you type these terms into the search box. Neither contains pictures, thankfully, but I suppose that if a Puritan really wanted to make his or her point, s/he'd go find those pictures, and include them. Then this whole same ridiculous argument would get rehashed there in those Talk pages. I say, cross that bridge if/when we come to it. 71.255.209.50 23:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I tried to reach a compromise formula on the image , however it was not accepted, so the decision has been made, those images have no place here. It's FINAL.

Who are you and where do you get that authority? There's no such thing as finality on Wikipedia, unless (I guess) if you're an administrator in charge of the core software components, and even then, I bet you half the time (if not more) those very people have to defer to experts or collective decisionmaking amongst third-party editors such as ourselves. Besides which, those of us discussing the issue here have our own compromise measure, which hasn't been implemented quite yet, and until it is there's nothing wrong with the boobs. Therefore, I'm putting the picture back. Kiko 23:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

There are taken off again, and no discussion in this regard will be entertained.

Why the image in this article taken off again and reloaded again and again?.203.94.236.36

the anonymous authoritarian

You keep saying there will be no discussion, yet you 1) don't sign your name and 2) apparently, by not signing your name and not leaving any clue as to who you are, are no expert, no authority and have no basis upon which to say "end of discussion." In doing so, all you succed in is sounding like a parent who has sternly told their child, "no playing in the mud!" yet the next thing you know, the parent goes back inside and goes upstairs, and the child is back in the mud again.

My point is that if you want to have the authority to be definitive about this, you must first show that you are to be respected enough in your own right to warrant a command like that. Otherwise, any such commands ring hollow. 71.255.207.54 04:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you :-)

Indecency Awareness

There are many types of indecent things in our world today. Most of these indecencies lie within the media. Whether it be pornography on the internet, or an inappropriate sitcom on the television. To correct this problem, the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) have limited these talk shows and video programming to later hours in the day when they can not be viewed by younger kids. However, this does not stop these kids from seeing programs like this. It then ends up being the parents complaining about things like this and making a big uproar about having indecent things on television.

What parents need to understand is that there are many alternatives to maintain what there kids watch other than complaining. Today's technology has enabled us to use such things as channel blockers so kids are unable to access specific channels that might contain racy material. They also have a lot of alternative programming on televisions that are directed towards kids. Shows such as Sesame Street and Nick Jr. These programs are made for kids.

Again, I think it is ridiculous for people to want to ban all indecency from the media. Take the American Decency Association for instance. There is goal is to eradicate the showing of nudity and sex on television, sexually suggested magazine articles, the teaching of sex education in schools, and policies that promote homosexuality. From this I determined that if we want to get rid of inappropriate programs on television, then we must do so with all other sources. Seeing how we can not possibly do that, it seems foolish to try and stop the media from doing it.

In conclusion, I feel that trying to monitor what we see on television is a waste of time. If it is really important to a parent then they can use the parental control system that comes with their television. It just seems pointless to fight for something that we will not be able to change.

Talk pages are not for general discussion of topic. Such references may be removed. KenThomas (talk) 23:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

trench coat picture?

We need a much better picture for the male in this article. It is not good enough for him to be "naked outdoors" or "naked in public" -- he actually needs to be exposing himself in the way we describe in the article. That means that someone either has to take a picture of a willing naked man in a trench coat that flashes the camera, or some victim of indecent exposure needs to have a camera in her purse (not likely). Either way, we need a much better pic than is currently on there for the male. 71.255.198.89 06:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

What is the point?

I'm far from a Puritan, by any definition of the word, but even I was a bit startled by Mr Naked Dude on opening this page. I just want someone to explain to me what exactly he and his friends lower down the page are bringing to the article. Having pictures for the sake thereof is ridiculous - it's one thing to illustrate a complicated concept that can best be represented visually - which, I would argue, even includes articles like list of sex positions - but does the concept of "sometimes people take their clothes off when they shouldn't" really qualify? The fact that you've got a three-paragraph section literally surrounded by topless girls makes it really pretty hard to argue this is all just for science or whatever.

There is not, and should not be, a law universally barring nudity on Wikipedia. There is, however, a policy that says to use common sense. The rules are there to be interpreted - don't cling to the lack of a rule specifically banning something stupid as a justification for doing something stupid.

Adding possibly objectionable pictures to an article is fine if it improves the encyclopedia enough to compensate for the disadvantages. And claiming that there are no disadvantages is just silly. It's become abundantly clear that people are being upset by this. Puritans have a right to use Wikipedia too, even if you don't like them, and the last thing Wikipedia needs is for people to start avoiding us because we jam three tangential pictures that are clearly offensive to some into an article 750 words long without even justifying them. The picture of the man is irrelevant - he's outside, and he's naked, but that hardly gets at the spirit of "indecent exposure". By the admission of the caption, he's merely "tanning himself outdoors". The two pictures of the girls are redundant, and as I say, having one on each side of the article like that just makes it look like we're trying to cram in as many boobies as possible with no justification. A model, in my opinion, would be the article on the clothes free movement. There are three pictures in a much longer (and arguably better) article. Two of them (including the one that greets you when you first enter the article) are from far enough away, and are sized small enough, that they're essentially inoffensive. The other is directly relevant to the article, and positioned so that you can read the introductory paragraphs without seeing it. In this article, in contrast, it's completely impossible to avoid having at least one of the pictures on my screen at a given time. Indeed, much of the time when I was trying to read this article, I was trying to do so with four breasts and a penis on the screen simultaneously! That sort of thing is pretty hard to explain to your boss. People should never be in a situation where they're afraid to use Wikipedia. That defeats the entire purpose of the project.

Additionally, Kiko claims that "the female depicted [in the department store shot, I presume] is absolutely not 'clearly underage,'" and I suppose I would have to agree with that - but she's not clearly of age either. She could be twenty... or she could be fifteen. We don't know; past a certain point, it gets really hard to tell these things. The picture comes from Flickr - maybe there's more information there on her age, but damned if I'm creating an account just to find out, and in any case it can't be verified. If you gentlemen feel like doing a bit of research on porn sites, you'll see that they generally have, somewhere on the page, a statement to the effect that they have documentation showing all the models to be of legal age. Sure, as Kiko says, we don't have documentation proving she's not of age, but that's hardly the point. We don't have any kind of model releases available, not even the sorts any professional photographer would obtain before displaying a fully clothed portrait of an adult online. Wikipedia is not immune to controversy, and the last thing it needs is to be sued by some irate parent with a teenage daughter whose boyfriend illegally put a picture of her in a Wikipedia article. That's clearly an extreme circumstance, and probably quite unlikely. But the point is, this article is festooned with naked pictures, at least one of which could very well be of an underage model. The other girl looks a bit older... but of course we don't know for sure about her, either. We don't even know their names.

In short - if you want to put naked pictures on Wikipedia, fine. They're often quite useful, as I say. However, they should be relevant to the article, should be used tastefully, shouldn't give the impression that they're only there for the sake of being there, shouldn't be crammed into every corner of the page, and should follow the same standards that one would expect any serious reference guide to follow in documenting the meaningful consent of nude models. This article doesn't do any of that. So stop whining about how the Puritans are censoring you and get some useful pictures up!

I won't take the pictures out of the article now. I'll come back in about a week, to give time for discussion of this. Convince me that the pictures are relevant and improve the encyclopedia, and I'll gladly retract my criticisms. 69.140.12.199 07:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess this isn't on anyone's watchlist, despite all the earlier controversy... very well. I'm removing the pictures. Please respond to my above objections (and, preferably, improve the article!) before reinstating them. 69.140.12.199 23:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, 69.140.12.199, the picture adds nothing and is not really related to the specific topic of this page. Maybe it belongs on a page dedicated to exhibitionism, or activities to overcome boredom, but not this one. --PL, 28 Sep 2006

Necessity...?

I realize that Wikipedia is not censored for minors (see WP:ISNOT), but I don't believe that we need graphical evidence of this. I also see that there was previous discussion on removing the images. Any thoughts? > Iridescence < ^( talk )_{( contrib )} 18:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

If you understand the rule why are you questioning it here? Is indecent exposure a special case of some kind? Obviously I find the very idea stupid. Shall we next remove images of breasts from the Breast article, since we hardly need graphical evidence of them? Janizary 04:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I do not find the idea stupid. (You might want to read WP:NPA before calling another idea stupid. It is not very becoming.) I just do not believe in the idea that there should be pornography in a non-pornography related article. In fact, the pornography article has fewer images that this article. I invite you to read this article. Your argument on Breast is not valid because that article illustrates various concepts and ideas that need illustration. I also invite you to read Wikipedia:Choosing appropriate illustrations. This article does not relate to pornography or images of nudity in any form, and therefore should not be flooded with images of it. I'm sure that people can understand and visualize the concept of indecent exposure without pornography to assist them; therefore, the images in this article do not effectively illustrate a concept and therefore do not belong here. For these reasons, I am reverting the images. If you wish to return them, please explain why, on this talk page, and help reach a verdict before replacing them; this will allow the community to possibly reach a consensus. > Iridescence < ^( talk )_{( contrib )} 01:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't give two shits what you say, I didn't call you stupid, I called your stupid idea stupid. Now I am calling you stupid, since I was not asking your opinion on if you thought it was stupid, I was informing you of my opinion, there was nothing to say no to. You are truly deluded to believe these are pornographic, if you want to have a big pissing contest, that's fine. The end result will be the images stay because you're not giving any valid reason to remove them - one does not censor and one does not remove content without a reason to do so. Feel free to move on to artcles like body paint and remove that evil pornography, people will just revert you there too. Janizary 03:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me. My edits are not vandalism. I am an active and very serious contributor to this project, and I am not about to throw that away because somebody wants to call me stupid. Body paint's images illustrate a concept. Having too many images in an article, equivalent to too many external links in an article, causes the article to be dwarfed by them. I am happy to discuss and reach a compromise over this disagreement, such as having only one image. If you wish to contest my arguments, please, by all means, go ahead. But do not make personal attacks. We are all wikipedians. I ask that you please refresh yourself on the Wikipedia etiquette standards before making another comment or reverting the article again. I am happy to resolve this conflict with a compromise, if necessary, but for that to happen you must be willing to discuss the issue and reach a consensus. Again, think about what you write before you write it. I'm here to talk; images reverted. > Iridescence < ^( talk )_{( contrib )} 03:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

why would a compromise be one picture? this article is long enough to easily include two (or even three..), plus various pictures here would also illustrate a concept as you so put it. Mathmo 13:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

RESPOND to the criticism or lose the images.

Honestly, people, this is insane. The removal of the images was discussed immediately above this. No one protested; the images were removed. No one has given any response to those points, and now poor Iridescence here is being called "stupid" for having the temerity to point out the obvious - which has already been pointed out, and which no one has responded to! All of this makes it pretty hard for those of us who believe the images are detracting from the article to assume good faith on the part of their supporters, though believe me I am trying my damndest. I am removing the images. If you want to restore them, you had better have actual reasons for doing so; we'll discuss them, reach consensus, and then, if there's a general agreement in favor, the pictures can go up. Note that "OMG CENSORSHIP IS TEH BAD" is not a reason. I would certainly agree - and it sounds like Iridescence would too - that censorship is, indeed, teh bad. At this point, I think it's entirely fair to expect a serious and considered response to the earlier criticisms if the pictures are to be restored yet again. This is not an outlandish request, this is how Wikipedia works, and if you're incapable of working within that framework, the MediaWiki software is open-source and freely downloadable, and then you can make a page on indecent exposure with any genital/word ratio you like. But this is a Wikipedia article, and no consensus has been reached or even attempted on the part of the image-backers. If no one bothers to respond and the contested pictures get put up again without a consensus reached, at that point I'm afraid it has to be called vandalism and dealt with accordingly. 70.17.9.57 02:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely. I was not trying to censor anything; in fact, you're right in the fact that I believe censorship is wrong. However, I also believe that shoving things in the faces of people is wrong. Janizary, please discuss this topic before moving on. Thanks. > Iridescence < ^( talk )_{( contrib )} 20:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

History of flashing

This sentence:

It is uncertain exactly when or how flashing became more socially acceptable, but it likely has at least partially to do with the advent of the Sexual Revolution.

Is utter BS. The kids of the Sexual Revolution thought they invented sex too. The fist flasher was probably the caveman/woman who invented clothes. The sentence about flashing @ Mardi Gras is interesting, but kind of orphaned here. That info is probably in the Mardi Gras article, so I deleted it here.

Before reverting images again: copyedits

Before reverting the images again (which will most likely happen, considering that no one here is actually discussing anything), would you please consider not also reverting the copyedits by H Bruthzoo and 152.16.229.44? Thanks. > Iridescence < ^( talk )_{( contrib )} 04:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

>>>EXPLANATION OF IMAGE REMOVAL HERE!!<<<

I hope that this is obvious enough for you to find. Not that my others weren't, but hey.

Ahem. Anyways, I have removed the first image of this article. I can understand the other image on flashing as it directly pertains to the article and section. It actually makes sense now without the other image so blatantly shoving the idea in your face.

However, my argument on the first image is that that image more directly pertains to nudity or public nudity instead of indecent exposure. And that man most certainly is not "tanning himself outdoors," as the article suggests. He is just standing there. The image illustrates nothing.

Don't get me wrong, here. I am not trying to vandalize or censor this article. I only think that we should think about the images we put on articles before just plastering them everywhere. And I certainly think that we can obtain a better picture to illustrate the concept here than just some naked guy "tanning himself outdoors."

Any attempt to return the image without posting a reason or counterargument will be treated as vandalism. Please discuss this. Thanks. > Iridescence < ^( talk )_{( contrib )} 04:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

Why are these pictures necessary? I don't really understand why there need to be pictures at all - is anyone unclear on what it looks like when you lift up your shirt? The second picture in particular strikes me as gratuitous. This isn't "Girls Gone Wild" (and those ads censor the nudity). I personally don't see the need for flashing illustrations at all, but less gratuitous pictures would be preferable. There are plenty of pictures of people flashing others in which you don't get a Mardi-Gras esqe breast-shot.

I'm surprised there aren't pictures of men, personally. Mooning is one of the most common forms of indecent exposure.

yup, an example of mooning and breast flashing would be excellent. being that they are the two most common forms of it. Mathmo 13:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Why not give people a choice?

I happened to come across this page as I followed links from "Victorian Morals" and was surprised by the picture that was there. I've read through the arguments of those who want to keep the picture/remove the picture, and I tend to agree that no one has come up with good arguments to keep the picture. What's clear is that some people want to look at the picture while reading the article, and others don't. Is it possible to add the picture as a link, so it doesn't automatically appear on the page? If the reader thinks he/she needs an illustration, then a brief explanation of the image next to a link for it could make it pop up in a new window. I'm not sure how complicated it'd be to do that, but it seems plausible. Perhaps all articles dealing with nudity or sex could operate this way, so that the reader isn't forced to look at the images, but has the option to.

I agree whole-heartedly. Topless pictures have caused problems for lots of sites/search engines, because they're very easily seen by children (and a topless scene in a movie would very likely warrant it a PG-13 or higher). - Fluffyemu

EDIT: I just realized that the most gratuitous picture was removed. Whoever did so, I applaud you. The other picture does pertain to flashing, since she's in a department store. In addition, I think a mooning picture would be an appropriate addition too. The one on the "mooning" article is a bit organized/artificial. Whatever happened to high school jocks mooning the Burger King window?

Proposed de-inlining of pictures containing nudity

{{linkimage|Flashergrl.jpg|A woman flashing her breasts in a department store}} I suggest that the photographs of nudity be de-inlined, so that they will be displayed on the article page as shown in the example here. We would still preserve access to the photographs for readers who wished to view them, but they would not be obtrusively displayed to readers who do not want to view photographs of explicit nudity. John254 05:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Please direct any further discussion on this proposal(s) to Talk:Vulva#Proposed_de-inlining_of_pictures_containing_graphic_nudity --Clawed 11:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Does this article have any value?

Sweeping generalizations regarding that which does or does not constitute "indecent exposure" under the laws of the United States has little or no basis in fact unless someone has actually checked the statutes in every municipality in the country, because every state, county, city and town government in the United States can write their own law and impose their own criminal penalties. In the State of New York, the state statute does not even use the phrase "indecent exposure" and you can read the relevant sections of the state penal law here: http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi?COMMONQUERY=LAWS. And while I may not be a legal expert, I do not believe that any branch of the federal government of the U.S. has the explicit power to regulate public nudity of any variety, except in regard to such areas as interstate transportation (such as airline travel) or federal property (such as national parks). I don't want to offend any one, but I really don't see that this article in its current state is doing very much other than lending a false credibility to a phrase in the vernacular that may have no legal standing. Cryptonymius 21:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Upon further investigation I've discovered the phrase indecent exposure actually does have some standing beyond the vernacular because it is actually used in many of the US statutes prohibiting the public exposure of the genitals. And thanks Robotman1974 for adding the multi-column code to the list of links (because I might have gone out of my mind trying to figure out how to do that). Cryptonymius 06:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

However, even if a male exposes his flaccid penis (i.e., without an erection) to an unsuspecting and/or unwilling observer, such an action still differs from mere public nudity in that the intent of indecent exposure is to shock or harass. I removed this sentence from the article because at least several of the state statutes on exposure in the US require only that the actor expose the applicable body part in public, and intent is not an issue. Cryptonymius 07:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that an article defining the term is of value, but the current article is simply low quality and needs some improvement KenThomas (talk)

TfD nomination of Template:Linkimage

Template:Linkimage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

United Kingdom

I have edited the law in the UK section to correct a number of errors. I was personally heavily involved with the process that lead to the current law and as an officer for British Naturism I have responsibility for this area. I have references available and I will add them in due course. It does not help that some of the standard legal texts misquote the Act.

There is no difficulty in the law of England and Wales about underage photographs provided that they are not sexual or erotic. Naturist photographs are perfectly legal.

Malcolm Boura, British Naturism. Rlo.bn (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Brainwashing

I think this article is written fairly well, but all it really delivers is that humans are brainwashed and believe things for no logical, scientific or moral reasons. They believe it is indecent only because of brainwashing opinions. What kind of reason is that? It is ridiculous and shames me to live in a world where laws are made based on "ew cooties" type thinking. There is nothing wrong with the human body, it is as it should be and is not indecent at all. Further more, I believe it to be a form of discrimination and hate crime. 71.112.193.110 (talk) 23:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. "Keep your clothes on or I'll lock you in a cage." It's argumentum ad baculum. The REAL indecency is writing and enforcing gymnophobic laws.50.130.10.152 (talk) 17:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Europe?

There's no information at all on indecent exposure laws in Europe besides Great Britain. I copied a tidbit from public nudity article, the section in question leads to this article, so this one would presumably need have more, not less info. I'll google a bit to see if I can find something, but some general info on how legal it is to be nude in public in Europe really should IMO be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryah (talk • contribs) 18:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Tradition

There are many sources speaking about how the Adam and Eve tradition about them hiding their genitals after eating from the tree has influenced modern-day indecent exposure laws and other prudish worldviews. Would such a note be notable enough to include in this article? Pass a Method talk 10:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I would have to say that I don't see anything in the above comment which really helps anyone make this decision. It would be useful if the editor proposing these changes provided some sort of indication, either by a quotation from a source or by a link to such a source, to help determine that answer. As we all know, WP:BURDEN applies here, and I do not see that those requirements have been met here. So I urge parties involved to actually produce the required source material, without which basic requirements of verifiability are not met. Highbeam Research doesn't show much if any reference material related to the topic, so it really doesn't help much, so I think it would be useful if the editor proposing the change also produced some of the required sources to verify the proposed changes. John Carter (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I checked Westlaw for law review articles and although 36 had the search terms "(religious) AND (indecent exposure)", only one was on point, and it just mentioned it in passing, referring to a judge's religious preference perhaps being involved. If there are WP:RS, then bring them forward, but I'm not seeing it right now. GregJackP Boomer! 23:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Psychological Reasons

.

Shouldn't there be a section in this article for the psychological / sexual reasons people would expose their genitalia to strangers? 2604:2000:7FC0:1:FD92:EA42:D60D:45BF (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indecent exposure. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012081745/http://213.10.84.49/Home/Content/The_Law.html to http://213.10.84.49/Home/Content/The_Law.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indecent exposure. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121112123921/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_act/cc94/notes.html to http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_act/cc94/notes.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

UK Law

I believe that the quote from the Vagrancy Act 1824 was fully repealed by the Sexual Offences Act 2003 - see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo4/5/83/section/4 and specifically the F7 annotation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8B0:CA2C:DEAD:D52C:3327:A0B3:F140 (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Re-write  Done to incorporate this. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 16:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

It was not repealed by s.66. s.66 was the replacement but the repeal was done by Schedule 7, s.140. I will correct it. MalcolmBoura (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

"burqua"

This should read "burqa" - the Arabic and Persian letter normally transcribed as "q" (ق) is never followed by "u" plus another vowel, and sounds like "k", not "kw" (the rule that "q" should be followed by "u" is purely English). I would correct this myself, but it's a link, so I can't click on it without either activating or damaging it. And the article the link goes to is entitled "Burqa".89.212.50.177 (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done - Polly Tunnel (talk) 10:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)