EA Forums

Could a nullo, missing both penis and testicles be arrested for indecent exposure even though there is nothing indecent to expose?

Can't say but I heard that in Brazil transsexuals have gotten away with exposing their breasts because the law says women can't expose their breasts in public... and the transsexuals were able to prove they were not women!

Well maybe if they bend over and demonstrate where the sun don't shine.

Legal: Indecent exposure laws in most states make it a crime to purposefully display one's genitals in public, causing others to be alarmed or offended.

So, you might be arrested, but not necessarily convicted. But causing others to be alarmed or offended still might result in a conviction.

Frankly I have seen obese men (not transexuals) in swimsuits on the beach who had breasts that certainly alarmed and offended me. And I've seen both men and women on the beach who had on swimsuits where the genitals were very visible, though covered.

I don't know why anyone would subject themselves to such an experiment. The hassle and cost of defending oneself in court hardly seems worth embarking on such a venture. Maybe just wear one of those "thongs" and go for shock and awe while not actually crossing the line to test the law.

Most of the laws that are written generally consider the pubic area as any of that part of the body which contains any pubic hair which is kind of vague. This is because many men seem to have hairy legs right up into their pubic area and then hair right up into their naval and on their rear end too. And then there are many women that remove as much hair as they can around that region although technically speaking since there is normally hair there then it would be considered part of the pubic area. And since nobody wants to nitpick and look like a fool women can usually get away with it. So I think a eunuch can do the same as a female and just get by with a paint-on or else a women's g-string. (I can wear one with no problem.) They also don't have cover their areolas too but probably one should have their ID with them though -the one saying "M" as opposed to "F".

It probably depends on the specific wording of the statute.

Canada for instance has a Criminal Code provision against lewd behaviour. One doesn't even have to expose one's genitals to behave lewdly.

Canada also has a provision in the Criminal Code making public nudity a crime. However, the courts have interpreted nudity to mean without any clothes. Thus one can go essentially nude - in the annual Gay Pride parade for instance - genitals or a crotch without genitals (guys w/o genitals!), but with shoes, and one isn't nude. I've thus marched essentially nude - shoes only - with a gay men's club on several occasions. BTW, no one has paid attention to my lack of balls. Putting all the spectators together, it's been about a million. The crime of public nudity is quite controversial here, and for that reason it can't be enforced by police in any event. Charges can only be brought by the provincial A-G or Minister of Justice in person. As far as I know, no one has been charged with public nudity in BC where I live since the 1960s.

Milkman (imported) wrote: Sun Dec 20, 2009 4:37 am Could a nullo, missing both penis and testicles be arrested for indecent exposure even though there is nothing indecent to expose?

Pennsylvania law defines it this way:

(a) Offense defined.--A person commits indecent exposure if that person exposes his or her genitals in any public place or in any place where there are present other persons under circumstances in which he or she knows or should know that this conduct is likely to offend, affront or alarm.

(b) Grading.--If the person knows or should have known that any of the persons present are less than 16 years of age, indecent exposure under subsection (a) is a misdemeanor of the first degree. Otherwise, indecent exposure under subsection (a) is a misdemeanor of the second degree.

http://naturistaction.org/StatesFrames/ ... _laws.html

And I notice is says that if no one is "affronted, offended, or alarmed" then it's not a crime.

The last time I was at the theater, one of the employees and I were discussing previous shows and they did HAIR complete with nudity. They also performed OH CALCUTTA and THINGS OF DRY HOURS... All of these have nude scenes and the reason they are lewd or indecent exposure is that the patrons know in advance and have a choice to see the actors cavorting naked or not. That's why theaters can put on "NAKED BOYS SINGING" and not be arrested.

Long ago, I was at the Opera SALOME where the soprano danced the "Dance of Seven Veils" and ended up in a flesh colored body suit. The audience booed, really booed and hissed. She didn't look that bad but it was artistically awful. Now that's wandering off the point, isn't it?

SexlessC23 (imported) wrote: Sun Dec 20, 2009 7:38 am Can't say but I heard that in Brazil transsexuals have gotten away with exposing their breasts because the law says women can't expose their breasts in public... and the transsexuals were able to prove they were not women!

Would be interesting to try that if I had the breasts for it.

Any law that says you have done something illegal because someone else was offended should be stricken from the books. The world is full of people who are offended at something. What offends one is art to another. What offends another is an expression of freedom to someone else. Too bad people can't just think, "that behavior offends me, disgusts me, that person isn't someone I would like to associate with", and they then just went on their way. But NOOO they have to make their standards into laws. Prudes. Too bad we can't put all the prudes and conservatives into their own states so that they can pass all the conservative laws they want and be fat and happy and let free thinking people live unmolested elsewhere. For whatever strange reason we are a country divided in thought and politics and we are not co-mingling or getting along very well. Almost makes you wonder if we might not have been better off if there was some kind of North and South USA (or EAst and West USA) and the conservatives lived in one half and the liberals lived in the other half and we all not have to co-mingle with one another.

Milkman (imported) wrote: Sun Dec 20, 2009 4:37 am Could a nullo, missing both penis and testicles be arrested for indecent exposure even though there is nothing indecent to expose?

It should be the same as it would be for a woman who goes bottomless with her legs together (nothing really exposed). Would she be arrested for indecent exposure?

SexlessC23 (imported) wrote: Sun Dec 20, 2009 7:38 am Can't say but I heard that in Brazil transsexuals have gotten away with exposing their breasts because the law says women can't expose their breasts in public... and the transsexuals were able to prove they were not women!

Interesting, given the lengths of many transsexuals to proving they ARE women, that one would sell one's dignity in order to get off a charge... oh wait what am I talking about? If they were exposing their breasts they had no dignity to begin with...

I remember in Australia some time ago a woman who ran naked on to a football field was let off by the judge. He claimed that because her genitals were between her legs and you couldn't see them, so it was not indecent exposure. So I guess if you were a guy and tucked your balls away and penis between your legs you might also get away with it.

Don't think I'll try it out though

castr8fun (imported) wrote: Tue Dec 29, 2009 9:27 am I remember in Australia some time ago a woman who ran naked on to a football field was let off by the judge. He claimed that because her genitals were between her legs and you couldn't see them, so it was not indecent exposure. So I guess if you were a guy and tucked your balls away and penis between your legs you might also get away with it.

Don't think I'll try it out though

In America, naked breasts would be considered sufficiently, obscene for prosecution and persecution.

Moi

land of the free and home of the brave

SexlessC23 (imported) wrote: Sun Dec 20, 2009 7:38 am Can't say but I heard that in Brazil transsexuals have gotten away with exposing their breasts because the law says women can't expose their breasts in public... and the transsexuals were able to prove they were not women!

:-\Sexless It is perfectly legal for female to be bear breasted in Brazil Ernie:)

Ernie of Maine (imported) wrote: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:29 am :-\Sexless It is perfectly legal for female to be bear breasted in Brazil Ernie:)

But, not in Maine!

Moi

the nanny state's protections against, blue breasts.

How's your blizzard Ernie

moi621 (imported) wrote: Tue Dec 29, 2009 9:50 am In America, naked breasts would be considered sufficiently, obscene for prosecution and persecution.

Moi

land of the free and home of the brave

:-\Moi my friend you are toking out of turn agin Massachusetts Constitution proclaims on law well be gender neutral =we all may be bear breasted:boobies: Ernie:)

moi621 (imported) wrote: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:42 am But, not in Maine!

Moi

the nanny state's protections against, blue breasts.

How's your blizzard Ernie

Moi Maine ,Vermont,Massachusetts it all the same:) Ermie

Moi,

Ernie of Maine (imported) wrote: Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:05 pm Maine ,Vermont,Massachusetts it all the same:) Ermie

Moi is not the same as Vermont, as Massaahhh who wants to spell it, or as Maine. Y'all are damned Yankees, just a type of Easterner, and Midwest should have to change their name to, Mideast!

But, Yankees are the worst of all Easterners because they want to run the whole country.

Yankees caused the War Between the States over this desire to run the country and profit from the outlands of the Yankee Nation.

Or was Moi, the same as Vermont, the same as etc. a personal attack.

Oh, I am hurt. I bleed emotionally. Mods! MODS! Ernie called me a Liberal.

Moi

moi621 (imported) wrote: Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:19 pm Moi is not the same as Vermont, as Massaahhh who wants to spell it, or as Maine. Y'all are damned Yankees, just a type of Easterner, and Midwest should have to change their name to, Mideast!

But, Yankees are the worst of all Easterners because they want to run the whole country.

Yankees caused the War Between the States over this desire to run the country and profit from the outlands of the Yankee Nation.

Or was Moi, the same as Vermont, the same as etc. a personal attack.

Oh, I am hurt. I bleed emotionally. Mods! MODS! Ernie called me a Liberal.

Moi

Damn, maybe he shoulda called you a commie pinko

moi621 (imported) wrote: Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:19 pm Moi is not the same as Vermont, as Massaahhh who wants to spell it, or as Maine. Y'all are damned Yankees, just a type of Easterner, and Midwest should have to change their name to, Mideast!

But, Yankees are the worst of all Easterners because they want to run the whole country.

Yankees caused the War Between the States over this desire to run the country and profit from the outlands of the Yankee Nation.

Or was Moi, the same as Vermont, the same as etc. a personal attack.

Oh, I am hurt. I bleed emotionally. Mods! MODS! Ernie called me a Liberal.

Moi

Moi were did you get these ideas? I think you mit wont to reread Civie War history agin. It was the South that started the war over a midwestern president and The Republican party. Then boiled down to slavery. I don't remember calling Liberal or anything. Sorry if I offend you. Ernie

Ernie of Maine (imported) wrote: Thu Dec 31, 2009 3:29 pm Moi were did you get these ideas? I think you mit wont to reread Civie War history agin. It was the South that started the war over a midwestern president and The Republican party. Then boiled down to slavery. I don't remember calling Liberal or anything. Sorry if I offend you. Ernie

"Battle Cry of Freedom" by McPherson

http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Cry-Freedo ... 0195038630

and

"Moi,

Ernie of Maine (imported) wrote: Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:05 pm Maine ,Vermont,Massachusetts it all the same

Ermie"

Moi, the same as all those Liberals ! ?

Does that serve to answer.

And then YOU caused those two now closed, hate threads.

Ernie of Maine, I trust you understand, fun.

Moi

Ernie of Maine (imported) wrote: Thu Dec 31, 2009 3:29 pm Moi were did you get these ideas? I think you mit wont to reread Civie War history agin. It was the South that started the war over a midwestern president and The Republican party. Then boiled down to slavery. I don't remember calling Liberal or anything. Sorry if I offend you. Ernie

The south might have caused the war by wanting to separate from the union inorder to continue slavery. However, my recall of history is that the north started the war to prevent the separation.

However, what does this discussion have to do with the thread topic, "Indecent Exposure for Nullos"?

Mac, it's called "politico-itis - the need to continually post political crap where it doesn't belong." There is no cure.

Mac (imported) wrote: Fri Jan 01, 2010 2:06 am The south might have caused the war by wanting to separate from the union inorder to continue slavery. However, my recall of history is that the north started the war to prevent the separation.

However, what does this discussion have to do with the thread topic, "Indecent Exposure for Nullos"?

Sorry Moi set a trap and I fell in to it Sorry Ernie

Ernie of Maine (imported) wrote: Fri Jan 01, 2010 1:13 pm Sorry Moi set a trap and I fell in to it Sorry Ernie

Read with a light heart. In mirth.

First he calls me a, Liberal,

provokes 2 hate threads now closed,

now he calls me a trapper.

Trickster I could accept.

I am not a trapper.

Dear Ernie, I just plugged your reputation.

Peace

Moi