Talk:Indecent exposure

message: 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)
thread_title: Indecent exposure versus sexual assault

message: 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)
thread_title: United Kingdom indecent exposure as a precursor to more serious offences

message: 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)
replies: text: Talk pages are not the place for general discussion of the topic.  KenThomas (talk) 23:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Public masturbation in France

message: "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)
thread_title: Exhibitionists pleasure

message: "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)
thread_title:  Source citation needed 

message: I'm moving this part here which is the POV of the user.--Calm 13:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Following Edits of [[User:203.28.231.34]] moved here

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Stupid laws/ It's human nature

message: 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)
thread_title:  the anonymous authoritarian 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Indecency Awareness  

message: 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)
thread_title:  trench coat picture? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What is the point? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Necessity...? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  RESPOND to the criticism or lose the images. 

message: 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.
--204.184.214.8 (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: History of flashing

message: 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)
thread_title:  >>>EXPLANATION OF IMAGE REMOVAL HERE!!<<< 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Proposed de-inlining of pictures containing nudity

message: Template: 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)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:Linkimage}} 

message: 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)
thread_title: United Kingdom

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Brainwashing 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Europe? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Tradition 

message: .
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)
thread_title:  Psychological Reasons 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: Re-write  to incorporate this. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 16:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: UK Law

message: 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)
replies: text: - Polly Tunnel (talk) 10:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "burqua"