• Help before they lock us all up!

    Tigerlilies [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 1445
    • Joined: 12 Jan 2010

    throbbing wrote:

    It seems to me that if a man walking down a street sees a woman undressing in her bedroom, then he is guilty of being a peeping tom, whereas if it were the woman staring at a man doing the same, the man would be guilty of indecent exposure.
    Queen Victoria is said to have refused to outlaw lesbianism because she didn't believe that it could happen, yet was quite happy to believe in and outlaw male homsexuality.
    Does our law assume that any man engaged in unconventional sexual behaviour is dangerous and probably needs locking up, while a woman doing something similar is, at worst, a little eccentric, but probably just a little frustrated?

    Interesting point, throbbing. Germain Greer wrote a lot about how we should react to flashers. She wrote that laughter is a great tool against them. If we see the actual penis as the thing to be feared (rather than a warped person behind it) then we get our tragets wrong. It's like when people call for rapists to be castrated. It's not the penis that's the real weapon and a rapist doesn't need one to hurt someone. It's also a reaction that can make feel men feel like the very fact they have a willy makes them some kind of potential rapist.

    I loved Greer's early writing (not her of late, she's gone a bit batty) when she says we should treat rape as a violent crime of hate, not passion. I't's something that crops up in novels and movies a lot. The 'she-was-just-too-seductive-to-resist!' notion instead of standing up and saying that a real man wouldn't do this to another human being.

    No bloke can be around an attractive woman without raping her, right guys? Le sigh. If I was a man I would be incredibly offended that the actions of a minority of haters criminalises my entire gender.

    Alicia4Ever [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: General
    • Posts: 1515
    • Joined: 27 Feb 2010

    perhaps its as well i didnt go to the police, as i could have been locked up for peeping on the women who sat astride me. by that definition they were only having a private group masturbation party.

    then again as i was the sex toy they were using, perhaps i could have got off by claiming that as an inanimate object i was not subject to the laws that govern living beings.

    sweetlove666 [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 2731
    • Joined: 17 Nov 2008

    *bumped for slave malcon*

    my blog idea is basically descussing the laws in R v brown and other key cases and my own conclusions.

    Slave Malcom [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Colonel
    • Posts: 95
    • Joined: 12 Aug 2008

    cheers SL

    Muz333 [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 1056
    • Joined: 18 Apr 2010

    The trouble with things like this is where do we make the line? What inaminate objects such as a Fleshlight are okay to have sex with in your own personal space and what becomes not okay? Would a woman using an electric tooth brush have been treated in the same manner?

    Another thing to take into consideration would be the fact this man was likely an objectophile which as far as I know is treated a legit medical condition and thus he shouldn't have been punished for it. I think what annoys me most about this article is the fact he done it in his own privacy!

    WandA [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 8863
    • Joined: 28 Nov 2007

    Hella Rouge (LH) wrote:

    I can see myself getting arrested the next time I go out dancing in a night club...that sometimes looks like simulating sex. Haha.

    Only look like simulating sex? Bah!

    Post a reply to this thread

    Please sign in to post messages to the forum.