The indecent exposure epidemic

[RoyalCorgi]

Guardian article asks:

‘How are they not taking this seriously after Sarah Everard?’

www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/07/indecent-exposure-flashing-sarah-everard-police-response

I don't know, but could it be to do with papers like, er, the Guardian, who have ridiculed and cast doubt on women reporting indecent exposure?

"The unsubstantiated allegations about Wi Spa in LA’s Koreatown neighborhood quickly spread from social media to rightwing forums to far-right news sites to Fox News, and were distorted by anti-transgender groups across multiple countries."

www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/28/anti-trans-video-los-angeles-protest-wi-spa

God. The hypocrisy. Matched only by David Lammy MP virtue-signalling about (other people's) misogyny, after he himself had complained of women 'hoarding' our rights.

So is indecent exposure bad if done in unisex public spaces, but not a problem if done in female only spaces? I thought the message from the Guardian was to not be so rude as to look at a stranger's dick in the jacuzzi, so why all the hand wringing about indecent exposure now?

But but... the Guardian thinks women and girls lie about indecent exposure?? They've published articles about it?

But how do they know it's men exposing their penises, it could just as easily be a transwoman, couldn't it? And a transwoman's penis is a thing of womanly beauty, that shouldn't be looked at without permission, because that's rude.

Make trousers without flies. That'd sort it out!

A good article ruined by twaddle about pronouns and gender id. Why does an article about men sexually abusing women need an entire paragraph about 1 victims gender id and pronouns?😡

Is it because so many men send unsolicited dick pics etc. that there would be no support for making it a criminal offence?

I'm downhearted at the number of apologists on the Noel Clarke and John Barrowman MN threads who defended this sort of harassment as 'banter'.

I don't know, but could it be to do with papers like, er, the Guardian, who have ridiculed and cast doubt on women reporting indecent exposure?

Yes, the Guardian has definitely fuelled the idea that women who complain about flashers are just Pearl clutching Karen’s who should be ignored.

Why does an article about men sexually abusing women need an entire paragraph about 1 victims gender id and pronouns?

I assume so that the paper can use the preferred pronouns without confusing readers.

However the article really does (perhaps unintentionally) demonstrate that the victim’s perception of their own identity is irrelevant to the abuser.

Stark hypocrisy.

Oh yeah maybe the "gender-fluid" person might have a ponder on the idea that they's sex might actually have mattered a little when the flasher was deciding who to flash.

"Excuse me love but can I just make sure that you identify as a woman before I whip me todger out?"

I don't mean to be flippant about flashing. Just am so goddam tired of the rank stupidity and the mangling of language needed to describe things clearly and properly.

@MrsOvertonsWindow

But but... the Guardian thinks women and girls lie about indecent exposure?? They've published articles about it?

'believe her'.

Unless, of course, you think she should 'be kind' and 'get over it', instead.

But but

Flashing has been around forever.

It's never been taken seriously by society at all. In fact it was on comedy progs in the 80s as a super funny thing.

It's been known for donkeys years that is escalates.

And that they are often prolific so will have stacks of victims.

And it's always been the case that the police see it as so trivial so as to be a waste of their time.

Now the guardian is hand wringing?

FGS

But I thought it was a criminal offence? Has been for many years?

Schrodinger's woman.

As far as the Guardian is concerned, she might be being sexually assaulted, or she might be brutally oppressing some poor penis wagger with her eyes.

She might be a which means they feel allowed to sneer at her and indulge themselves in flat out fashionably revolting misogyny, (let LOJ out of the paperclips drawer somebody) or she might be someone they can make a buck out of by hand wringing and sobbing about how much they care about equally fashionable VAWG and their total confusion with the whole madonna/whore thing.

Until they've asked the male person exposing their penis to her, they just won't know. But whichever way they go, they'll make money out of using her experience to sell papers. So that's all right.

And that they are often prolific so will have stacks of victims.

And is often the first gateway offenses to escalating sexual assaults as confidence grows.

It's fair enough that different writers at a paper take a different perspective. It's not like they all represent one way of thinking, even staff reporters.

However, it might be nice for them to make a real effort to connect dots.

Typically, they aren't treating the question as one to really try and answer, it's just a stick to beat the police.

But why are there so many indecent exposures now? This might be a story to dig into, get some good numbers and do some analysis, suggest some hypotheses.

Yes indecent exposure has been s crime I'm sure for as long as I can remember.

Then as now it was not seen as something to even consider worrying about.

Is the Guardian's view that women get flashed but somehow if it's lady dick it's magically not upsetting? I just don't understand why that would make it less upsetting? Or indeed, less dangerous.

Yes the latest popular view on Twitter is that

It's cis men who commit sex offences.

TW and vagina bodies are usually the victims.

Therefore those who want single sex spaces don't really care about sex offenders it's just an excuse to attack TW.

by definition anyone who ID as TW and commits a sex offence is a cis man.

Simples!

Brilliant logic. Just ignore the disproportionately high sexual offending by the trans identifying male in prisons. Never let facts get in the way of a good story hey.

@NiceGerbil

Yes the latest popular view on Twitter is that

It's cis men who commit sex offences.

TW and vagina bodies are usually the victims.

Therefore those who want single sex spaces don't really care about sex offenders it's just an excuse to attack TW.

by definition anyone who ID as TW and commits a sex offence is a cis man.

Simples!

So then there's the admission that sex offenders do use the narrative in order to help them offend (Twitter says so)

So is the logic here supposed to be no longer This Never Happens, but ok yes it DOES happen but women just need to suck up assaults and worse from the offenders impersonating TW so 'actual' TW can freely use women's spaces? And in the meantime women also need to not be apprehensive or show anxiety about sharing mixed sex spaces because hey, they might not get assaulted?

And when Karen White for example has committed an assault and by this logic is no longer a TW - are they removed on the spot from women's prisons? How is their access to women's spaces going to be prevented?

Frankly at this point it makes no difference which males commit sexual offences and which don't; the point is that there is no way to gatekeep anyway, there is no Vulcan mind meld to know whether or not this male is safe or not in a space where women are vulnerable until after a quite possibly life changing or life ending assault has happened, and there is no way to prevent an offender carrying on presenting and naming themselves as a TW because obviously, and rightly, there is no gatekeeping to that choice of identity.

How little respect do you have to have for women, how subhuman do you have to view them as to expect them to just accept this?

And it still ignores that even if every TW is proven beyond all doubt to be no risk of any kind whatever of intimidating, harassing, harming, hurting or worse during their access to women's spaces, even if they are absolutely sincere in their intent and wonderful people - they are still male, and this still excludes some women from the women's space. Those women have no other alternative spaces.

This is not ok.

What are we going to do about this?

Isn't it funny how male people always believe that the negative consequences of male violence and male behaviour choices should only ever fall upon female people?