Why is flashing still not taken seriously?

[DomesticatedZombie]

Article in the Telegraph.

'women are demanding to know why perverts are still free to act with potentially lethal consequences'

www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/sarah-everard-one-year-flashing-still-not-taken-seriously/

And one in the Guardian from last year:

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

We need to acknowledge that indecent exposure is a paraphilia, that paraphilias are quite common, and that they can escalate and men indulging in paraphilias are potentially dangerous. These are men specifically interested in non consensual sex acts.

Any man who does not respect a woman's boundaries, autonomy and consent is crossing a line. I've come to think we should be far more wary of anyone who does this (ignores or disrespects boundaries).

As far as I recall, around 1 in 20 males have paraphiliac tendencies.

If it primarily affected men and made them feel unsafe something would be done about it.

Because it only happens to women

Because men do it & they usually do it to real women & children.

A lot of men don't seem to like stopping other men doing anything they want to do if it's only harming or upsetting women & children.

Depressingly, I expect you're all correct.

It drives me mad that it's called 'flashing' as this seems to diminish it to something that is funny (old man in a raincoat, hilarious). It should be called indecent exposure every time.

It happened to me when I was 12 (many many years ago) and I was told then by the policewoman that it should always be reported as many of these men go on to commit more serious sexual crimes.

It just isn't taken seriously and it's so depressing.

Along with not taking it seriously, the emergence of the "lady penis" is an attempt to establish flashing as acceptable behaviour. Remember all our drive by trans activists who arrive on here lecture us that single sex spaces are akin to racism? They're normalising flashing.

It happened to me when I was 12 (many many years ago) and I was told then by the policewoman that it should always be reported as many of these men go on to commit more serious sexual crimes.

When it happened to me in the 1990s aged 15, I too got a serious response from the police, with similar comments from both the male officer to whom we initially reported the offence and the female specialist sexual crimes officer who was summoned from her station some distance away to take my statement.

Was I just lucky, or have things changed for the worse? Some police today seem to see indecent exposure as a low-priority matter in which the law does not need to be enforced.

I also came to say that it's because it happens to women and is done by men. The majority of people who deal with crimes and complaints are men.

Doesn't take a huge brain to join up the dots...

As I understand it, the original rationale behind hate crimes like Marion Millar's and Ceri Black's was the need to identify 'wrong thinking' individuals before they escalate to more serious offences. How is tweeting about child safeguarding or sharing pictures of ribbons considered more potentially dangerous than exposing your penis to children?

It’s a resource issue. Police are struggling to investigate, and in some cases even attend, serious offences, like burglary and assault. While I’d like police to deal with flashing offences, I completely accept that violent physical crime must come first. I don’t think the nature of the victim really comes into it.

@CompleteGinasaur

As I understand it, the original rationale behind hate crimes like Marion Millar's and Ceri Black's was the need to identify 'wrong thinking' individuals before they escalate to more serious offences. How is tweeting about child safeguarding or sharing pictures of ribbons considered more potentially dangerous than exposing your penis to children?

Because one is damaging to women and children and the other hurts men's feelings...

Of course, completely understandable. What was I thinking, silly ladybrain?

silly ladybrain

That'll be it

@Goatsaregreat

Along with not taking it seriously, the emergence of the "lady penis" is an attempt to establish flashing as acceptable behaviour. Remember all our drive by trans activists who arrive on here lecture us that single sex spaces are akin to racism? They're normalising flashing.

The Wi Spa incident and subsequent riots demonstrate very well that we are dealing with a movement that will use violence to suppress women and children who speak up about indecent exposure. Which is ... almost beyond belief.

Because it is something that is done by men to women and girls so as usual it is not taken seriously.

The rational I assume is that 'no one really gets hurt' and we are expected to see this as almost funny...

I wonder how many of these creepy men who expose themselves then go on to commit more violent sexual offences because they get bolder when they see that they are getting away with flashing.

This happened to me fairly recently. I called 999 and multiple (Met) police vans were on the scene within minutes. I was treated respectfully by officers on the day, and another officer spent a long time taking a statement from me. I got the impression that they very much wanted to be seen to be taking it very seriously (certainly in the light of the behaviour of poor Sarah Everard’s killer) and felt that there was a recognition that it is a serious crime in itself, and can also be a precursor to more dangerous and violent behaviour.

I’m not for one moment disagreeing with the rest of you- it definitely isn’t treated seriously enough by both the police and society more widely. I would hope that attitudes are slowly changing though.

This happened to me fairly recently. I called 999 and multiple (Met) police vans were on the scene within minutes. I was treated respectfully by officers on the day, and another officer spent a long time taking a statement from me.

Wow. That is good. Police took it seriously in the 1970s, when there was a man exposing himself at women near the student housing I was in. He lurked in an alley which a lot of us used as a shortcut. I think one proactive woman put in the complaint, then an officer was sent to interview several of us who had encountered him.

Given that we are ordered to accept males exposing themselves in our changing rooms, I didn't think police would bother now. There's no logic in it. So, while I'm glad LetTheBirdsSing had a good experience, I suspect that's a result of orders given after Sarah's murder, which will quietly be forgotten as soon as possible.

@wingscrow

Because it is something that is done by men to women and girls so as usual it is not taken seriously.

The rational I assume is that 'no one really gets hurt' and we are expected to see this as almost funny...

I wonder how many of these creepy men who expose themselves then go on to commit more violent sexual offences because they get bolder when they see that they are getting away with flashing.

' One 2014 evidence review found that 5 to 10% of flashers escalated their behaviour to more serious sexual offences. '

(from the Guardian article in the OP)

I'm glad to hear it, letthebirdssing. Hope you are/were okay.

Sadly overall, the stats were showing that while incidences of flashing went up (perhaps partly due to more reporting) police investigations dropped.

• sorry, missing the crucial line - 'in the past couple of years'.

Call it Pre-Rape.

Refuse ever to use the 'f' word.

Chopping off women's external genitals is female castration.
Not 'circumcision' (and the 'we mustn't annoy them' fudge of FGM is giving in to compromise and confusion)

Chopping off the hands of thieves is not 'manicure'. Chopping off a heads is not a 'haircut'. Call things what they are.

Brandishing what is intended as an offensive weapon is a threat and a declaration of intent. A knife, a rape-weapon or a gun or bomb. No joking is intended and no joking is involved.

By the way, there's a glaring fault in any purported statistics on the proportion of detected pre-rapists who are later detected to be rapists.

The men perpetuating either of these two stages of the crime are virtually never detected, let alone firmly identified.

What proportion of those convicted of the offence of jay-walking later become convicted of the related offence of causing a motorist to swerve dangerously? Silly question because although in theory both offences are defined in various legislations, and both in theory could be detected, and in theory the culprit could be identified and in theory pursued through courts, it will virtually never happen

Once lived with a family member with these tendencies...always waited until just two of us awake in the house...then the parading around started..f*king grim. ...so glad to leave home.

I await the posters coming to lecture us not to conflate 'indecent exposure' with a 'female penis being exposed in a legitimate space'.

Will it be long do you think?

or are trans activists beginning to realise that it is NEVER appropriate. And that they can fuck off in telling us the communal changing rooms simply don't exist as we know that they do, and that we as women and girls have been using them all our lives across many countries.

The reality is that their arguments do not stand up to scrutiny.

Any pubescent or post pubescent male that exposes their penis without express permission (ie. from every female in that area) needs to realise that they are indecently exposing themselves.

@Megthehen

Once lived with a family member with these tendencies...always waited until just two of us awake in the house...then the parading around started..f*king grim. ...so glad to leave home.

Using the term 'pre-rape' would have pinpointed what is wrong, to anyone who heard about it, and even to the creep himself.

Remove the 'f' word. Exactly as the word 'circumcision' was removed, after thousands of years of injuring or killing women, by pretending they are the same as men physically, and have a surplus foreskin to be harmlessly removed.

Women are not the same as men in their attitudes to sex with strangers, any more than in their genitalia.

'xy' is not the same as 'xx'