Naked bike ride

[Chocbuttonsandredwine]

Was in London yesterday: naked bike ride. Fine.. not my thing (or many other women). They finished the ride/protest/whatvever and then conjugated near B palace.. and just seemed to be happy wafting their micro penis’s about for kicks and giggles/

A lot of horrid middle aged naked men kicking about just felt unnecessary.

and 🤮

You just like seeing naked men , don't you? 😂

Rape is ONLY DONE BY THOSE WITH A PENIS

Using rape statistics is meaningless because of that fact

Men can and are sexually assaulted by women. As are other women

Maybe they don't, but they aren't the ones screaming about it. And according to this thread, it's only men who like to be out naked anyway

Oh come on. It’s utterly grim. What normal man would do such a thing?

Not particularly, I think penises are odd little things

Which is why I don't stare at them if they happen to be there

But it seems most people don't understand the concept of not staring

Because currently as the law is written, there is no way of knowing whether the naked man riding his bike towards you is doing it because he simply enjoys the breeze, or whether he's doing it to get a sexual thrill from exposing himself.

A simple solution is to make it so that either way he is breaking the law and entirely remove the risk of it being the latter. This approach would protect potential victims. The current approach protects the potential perpetrators.

Are the women who did equally grim? All the those replant saggy tits and flapping bingo wings.🤮

Okay, what does it matter if he is getting a sexual thrill ?

Having a sexual thrill does not a victim make.

there is no way of knowing whether the naked man riding his bike towards you is doing it because he simply enjoys the breeze, or whether he's doing it to get a sexual thrill from exposing himself.

If he was getting a sexual thrill it would be pretty obvious. In the absence of an erection what difference does his motivation make? The impact is exactly the same.

Yes, it is grim for women to do it too, it just doesn't come with a side order of sexual threat.

Aw, I think my DH's is quite cute. Infact it was the first thing I saw when I got home earlier as he'd just got out of the shower.

Real or perceived?

Real or perceived both puts it in the camp of totally unsuitable.

That's a strange way of looking at things.

Someone is standing outside a house. They may be waiting to meet up with a mate. Or they may be considering burglarising it.

As we don't know which, let's lock them up to be sure in the name of "protecting victims".

Genuinely....

Unless his is knocking one out or waving his erect penis at you, how does it affect you if he is doing it for a sexual thrill?

He isn't actively making you aware of his sexual thrill

Some women wear love eggs to do normal, day to day things. They are getting a sexual thrill from it and you'd never know

Some people are aroused by famous buildings. Unless they are rubbing themselves in front of you, you'd not know

There are ways people can be getting sexual thrills in their day to day life you'd never be aware of...

Why?
Anyway the OP was making a point about men's bodies not threat.

It does. That's what indecent exposure is.

My point is that it is grim for both men and women to be riding around naked. To add the the situation can also be read through another lens of threat is just by the by. But yes, I just think it's indecent for both sexes and they should rack it in.

Laws aren't really made though on the basis of what you or I think though.

They are made on what the public as a whole thinks in general.

My total guess is that the public fall into three groups. Two small groups, one of which finds it indecent and the other that actually like doing it want to partake and think its fine.

I will guess there is a third group, (the majority) who don't really care, so long as there are limits as to how far it is taken (for example organised events or specific places, which they can choose to avoid if they so wish).

The fact that there is no great public movement against this sort of stuff kind of tells you any revision to the law regarding it is unlikely.

But none of those examples rely on co-opting non-consenting participants.

If the sexual thrill is motivated and reinforced by exposing yourself to unwilling participants, that is a violation of consent. That's why indecent exposure is a crime.

I'm proposing that the requirement to prove intent is removed and it becomes statutory instead. Because in practice, intent is too difficult to prove or disprove.

What's the material difference between a man opening his coat and showing his penis to a child, and a naked man on a bike showing his penis to a child? There is none. Either both are criminal acts or neither are. Surely it's better for victims that they both are.

This is an event that's been going on for 21 years and it's well publicized where it's going to be held. If you choose to be in the area where it's going to be held how can you argue that you didn't consent?

I live in London and I had no idea it was happening. Well publicised where? Not everyone reads the Guardian.

What's the material difference between a man opening his coat and showing his penis to a child, and a naked man on a bike showing his penis to a child? There is none.

Of course there is. It’s very concerning that you think it’s the same.

But how will you know someone is getting a sexual thrill ?

Right, because one is civilised with a bike and an eco-crusade sanitising forcefield.

There should be a statutory presumption that anyone who is naked in a public place is doing it for the purpose of getting a sexual thrill or to deliberately cause distress.