Miss Rebecca wrote:
If you aren't given an option or choice in if you wish to see a man's gentians or not, and he shows them to you regardless, then IMO that is forcing you to view them. Same would apply for a woman doing this to a man in the same situation.
Yes, but it is visual only. What about public kissing? That's visual only too, and if you don't like to see when people kiss each other, then they are "forcing" you to view them. Same with public necking. And some women go topless at the beach, and they are "forcing" you to look at their boobs. Not to mention the previously mentioned dick-pics that many women get on dating sites. Surely, they are forcing you to view their genitals, right? And all the online porn that sometimes comes up when you view non-pornographic content as ads.
So, no, I don't think it makes any sense that flashing is illegal when kissing, necking, going topless and sending dick pics online isn't.
Miss Rebecca wrote:
On a much more serious side of things, that is why 'Indecent Exposure' is a chargeable offence. Here in Australia a man or woman can be charged with Indecent Exposure for urinating in a public space (as in going into an alleyway or a more hidden area) because the law states that exposing your genitals in public or to an unwilling recipient is illegal. A number of years ago a male friend of mine got charged with indecent exposure after a night of having a few too many drinks and wandered up a laneway where he thought he could relieve himself in private without anyone seeing him. The police came around the corner whilst he was relieving himself and he now has an Indecent Exposure charge on his police file.
I know, but it makes as little sense as when homosexuality was a criminal offence, later a disorder and now perfectly legal. I mean, we are talking about the same behavior that has been viewed in radically different ways.
Besides, flashing has not always been a criminal offence. It became a criminal offence in the 70s or something like that. Before that, passive flashing was legal, while active was not. Something they really should not have changed.