In Sweden, it is now legal to masturbate in public - as long as you are not targeting a specific person for your fantasy.
Long live Sweden. Such a openly courageous and intentionally hilarious proviso, which has since became a landmark ruling on the case of public sexual activity, is not possible in any other country except in my own, Sweden. This of course comes in a long line of similar such laws and rulings in the past, including having sex with mannequins, masturbating in theaters, etc.
The case in question that galvanized the law is the case of a 65-year-old who man had been charged with sexual assault after he was seen on 6 June removing his shorts and masturbating near the water’s edge. The district court of Södertörn issued a judgement in which it said that it “may be proven that the man exposed himself and masturbated on this occasion”, according to the Swedish English-language news website The Local. Yet the court acquitted the man, and said the man had not committed an offence because he did not direct his activities towards a specific person.
This is logical. Should we adopt a similar policy on public sexual conduct worldwide?
christ...I really don't think it should be legal!!!
I reject the argument that he wasn't targeting it at anyone. If you do something like that in a public place you are de facto targeting the public imo.
On September 30 2013 23:03 vBr wrote: What.. As a fellow Swede, I'm gonna go ahead and vote no. There are some things that's better kept out of public.
Umm, it's just another social norm not to masturbate in public. No way should it have anything to do with the law.
In all seriousness, this is really challenging for any law makers, as it is much more a problem of common courtesy. But there is no law enforcing common sense, that however is a good thing in many other areas.
Im okay with it if youre partly secluded. I think sweden is also the country with the drive up brothel things with guards and shit near by. Something like that(with some tweaking of course) could work.
The guy was removing his shorts and masturbated near the waterfront, probably somewhere out of town and with almost no people around, Then some guy or girl accidently saw him and pressed charges and the judge let him go, wich is reasonable. No way you are allowed to walk around naked or masturbate in a mall or something like that.
Obviously if you're doing it to cause offence by jacking off in front of a school there is an issue but I strongly suspect that that is covered by other laws. With that in mind I see no reason why the act has to be illegal. A lot of people enjoy the outside and I see no reason why masturbating outside should be against the law but fucking your girlfriend against a tree when you're miles from everywhere is fine.
And it appears that Sweden’s prosecution service will accept the ruling, with public prosecutor Olof Vrethammar telling the Mitti newspaper that he wasn't planning to appeal.
“For this to be a criminal offence it's required that the sexual molestation was directed towards one or more people. I think the court's judgement is reasonable,” he said.
Yep, so if you're targeting a group, even a broad group like the general population of the area, with your act with the intention of indirectly involving them through them seeing you it's bad. If you're just enjoying the great outdoors it's fine. The ruling makes perfect sense.
Holy smokes. That is absolutely mind boggling. Sweden why you so silly sometimes "/
Just think about it as a parent, from their perspective. There young daughters ranging from 6-16 walking alone the riverbanks with there friends or whatever and seeing men masturbating (or females) it would scare them for life! Especially if the older generation where the most prolific people to do this. Can't see this doing nothing but harm Sweden's image >.<
I can understand how this guy was acquitted, but this can under no circumtances mean that it's generally ok to masturbate in public. What if children are at the scene? It should only be allowed in areas where no children are allowed if anything.
The general population in the west has some serious sexual suppression issues for I don't know what reason, but sweden keeps proving they don't let irrational opinions in that regard make the laws.
I think that if you are intentionally showing your dong to passerbys it's too much... But I see no issue masturbating in a public bathroom, outside in a field, movie theatre, or just anywhere where your penis/vagina is not exposed to many people who don't want to seewhere
Now that we are in a day and age where everyone is always busy, you should not be required to receive your secure release late in the evening when you're home. I hope other countries follow suit.
My parents have had sex in public when they were younger - obviously not when others were around. (on cars, in woods, etc, you know, plenty of people have had sex in public, myself included.)
People here immediatly think about someone masturbating when there are a ton of people around. That is rarely going to happen.
Too many dramaqueens in this thread, this is not such a big deal.
Well, it sounds more like he couldn't be charged with Sexual Assault. I'm sure he could still get in trouble for public indecency. But as I am not a Swede, I don't know much about the Swedish legal system
On September 30 2013 23:16 Pandemona wrote: Holy smokes. That is absolutely mind boggling. Sweden why you so silly sometimes "/
Just think about it as a parent, from their perspective. There young daughters ranging from 6-16 walking alone the riverbanks with there friends or whatever and seeing men masturbating (or females) it would scare them for life! Especially if the older generation where the most prolific people to do this. Can't see this doing nothing but harm Sweden's image >.<
Children aren't born afraid of sexuality, it's just how you raise them (in england?)
this title is a bit misleading. he wasn't charged with a sex crime because there the prosecution could not prove he was directing his behavior toward someone in the vicinity. he will however probably be charged with "förargelseväckande beteende" which translates roughly as "outrageous public behavior." so keep your pants on, its not legal to masturbate publicly in Sweden, even if you aren't looking someone in the eyes while you're doing it.
On September 30 2013 23:16 Pandemona wrote: Holy smokes. That is absolutely mind boggling. Sweden why you so silly sometimes "/
Just think about it as a parent, from their perspective. There young daughters ranging from 6-16 walking alone the riverbanks with there friends or whatever and seeing men masturbating (or females) it would scare them for life! Especially if the older generation where the most prolific people to do this. Can't see this doing nothing but harm Sweden's image >.<
Because seeing someone masturbating is so scary!
Are you serious? I could explain masturbation a 6 year old girl so she wouldn't think twice about it and this is before we get into the fact that girls, from 6 to 16, also masturbate. You have a lot of sexual guilt going on, try not to push that on other people and make very sure you don't make laws with it.
On September 30 2013 23:23 Dundron2000 wrote: this title is a bit misleading. he wasn't charged with a sex crime because there the prosecution could not prove he was directing his behavior toward someone in the vicinity. he will however probably be charged with "förargelseväckande beteende" which translates roughly as "outrageous public behavior." so keep your pants on, its not legal to masturbate publicly in Sweden, even if you aren't looking someone in the eyes while you're doing it.
On September 30 2013 23:20 Musicus wrote: I can understand how this guy was acquitted, but this can under no circumtances mean that it's generally ok to masturbate in public. What if children are at the scene? It should only be allowed in areas where no children are allowed if anything.
At all costs we must keep children from learning they have genitals. That needs to be our number one priority going into legislature.
On September 30 2013 23:16 Pandemona wrote: Holy smokes. That is absolutely mind boggling. Sweden why you so silly sometimes "/
Just think about it as a parent, from their perspective. There young daughters ranging from 6-16 walking alone the riverbanks with there friends or whatever and seeing men masturbating (or females) it would scare them for life! Especially if the older generation where the most prolific people to do this. Can't see this doing nothing but harm Sweden's image >.<
Why would seeing a man masturbate scare a young girl for life? That makes no sense to me, if that was the case I am pretty sure mankind would have died by now.
The person who wrote the article needs a crash course on the difference between legislative and judiciary powers. Legal precedents can be a big deal but they don't legalize wanking in public.
On September 30 2013 23:20 Musicus wrote: I can understand how this guy was acquitted, but this can under no circumtances mean that it's generally ok to masturbate in public. What if children are at the scene? It should only be allowed in areas where no children are allowed if anything.
At all costs we must keep children from learning they have genitals. That needs to be our number one priority going into legislature.
On September 30 2013 23:20 Musicus wrote: I can understand how this guy was acquitted, but this can under no circumtances mean that it's generally ok to masturbate in public. What if children are at the scene? It should only be allowed in areas where no children are allowed if anything.
At all costs we must keep children from learning they have genitals. That needs to be our number one priority going into legislature.
How delusional can someone be?
Maybe some kind of reverse dog collar around their waists, fitted at childbirth and replaced with ones of increasing size as they grow up.
On September 30 2013 23:20 Musicus wrote: I can understand how this guy was acquitted, but this can under no circumtances mean that it's generally ok to masturbate in public. What if children are at the scene? It should only be allowed in areas where no children are allowed if anything.
At all costs we must keep children from learning they have genitals. That needs to be our number one priority going into legislature.
I don't know why you quoted me to express your opinion, but I don't agree with you. I think we need to educate children and be open about topics like this. But that has nothing to do with masturbating in public.
On September 30 2013 23:20 Musicus wrote: I can understand how this guy was acquitted, but this can under no circumtances mean that it's generally ok to masturbate in public. What if children are at the scene? It should only be allowed in areas where no children are allowed if anything.
At all costs we must keep children from learning they have genitals. That needs to be our number one priority going into legislature.
I'd like to think there's middle ground between kids knowing they have genitals and kids watching a bukkake finale on the way to daycare.
On September 30 2013 23:20 Musicus wrote: I can understand how this guy was acquitted, but this can under no circumtances mean that it's generally ok to masturbate in public. What if children are at the scene? It should only be allowed in areas where no children are allowed if anything.
At all costs we must keep children from learning they have genitals. That needs to be our number one priority going into legislature.
I don't know why you quoted me to express your opinion, but I don't agree with you. I think we need to educate children and be open about topics like this. But that has nothing to do with masturbating in public.
Educate children about how masturbation is so shameful that if you do it where anyone could potentially see you're a criminal!
Well i think that is really NOT OK... But in my country you can be charge for peeing on a tree so.... Maybe i'm endoctrinated
So the guy can masturbate in public places and if someone sees him it's their faults. Did i understand right ?
On September 30 2013 23:20 FiWiFaKi wrote: Should totally me legal, good change.
I think that if you are intentionally showing your dong to passerbys it's too much... But I see no issue masturbating in a public bathroom, outside in a field, movie theatre, or just anywhere where your penis/vagina is not exposed to many people who don't want to seewhere
Now that we are in a day and age where everyone is always busy, you should not be required to receive your secure release late in the evening when you're home. I hope other countries follow suit.
What the fuck ? i'm going to really look where i sit in theater...
Urgh. I feel sometimes societies goes in the wrong direction.
To me there is a difference between learning about sex, enjoying sex, and then jacking off/having sex in the wild. What the f*** is the need for it?
So next time I'm in Sweden and I decide to take a walk in Sweden's beautiful nature, I can perhaps expect to see some person moaning in the woods masturbating furiously. Well that's great. Im happy to see the majority of people here think its a tad too much.
On September 30 2013 23:16 Pandemona wrote: Holy smokes. That is absolutely mind boggling. Sweden why you so silly sometimes "/
Just think about it as a parent, from their perspective. There young daughters ranging from 6-16 walking alone the riverbanks with there friends or whatever and seeing men masturbating (or females) it would scare them for life! Especially if the older generation where the most prolific people to do this. Can't see this doing nothing but harm Sweden's image >.<
Why would seeing a man masturbate scare a young girl for life? That makes no sense to me, if that was the case I am pretty sure mankind would have died by now.
You don't think it could be harmful for a child to see that? The child could believe that he or she was about to get raped. I would call that a traumatic experience.
On September 30 2013 23:20 Musicus wrote: I can understand how this guy was acquitted, but this can under no circumtances mean that it's generally ok to masturbate in public. What if children are at the scene? It should only be allowed in areas where no children are allowed if anything.
At all costs we must keep children from learning they have genitals. That needs to be our number one priority going into legislature.
I don't know why you quoted me to express your opinion, but I don't agree with you. I think we need to educate children and be open about topics like this. But that has nothing to do with masturbating in public.
Educate children about how masturbation is so shameful that if you do it where anyone could potentially see you're a criminal!
Kwark if you're gonna strawman other people's opinions to ridiculous extremes, don't be too surprised when people start talking about how TL mods support sex education via money shot.
On September 30 2013 23:23 Dundron2000 wrote: this title is a bit misleading. he wasn't charged with a sex crime because there the prosecution could not prove he was directing his behavior toward someone in the vicinity. he will however probably be charged with "förargelseväckande beteende" which translates roughly as "outrageous public behavior." so keep your pants on, its not legal to masturbate publicly in Sweden, even if you aren't looking someone in the eyes while you're doing it.
Can a mod put this in OP? Or up top?
OP is quite misleading (which is likely due to the linked article).
On September 30 2013 23:20 Musicus wrote: I can understand how this guy was acquitted, but this can under no circumtances mean that it's generally ok to masturbate in public. What if children are at the scene? It should only be allowed in areas where no children are allowed if anything.
At all costs we must keep children from learning they have genitals. That needs to be our number one priority going into legislature.
I don't know why you quoted me to express your opinion, but I don't agree with you. I think we need to educate children and be open about topics like this. But that has nothing to do with masturbating in public.
Educate children about how masturbation is so shameful that if you do it where anyone could potentially see you're a criminal!
Kwark if you're gonna strawman other people's opinions to ridiculous extremes, don't be too surprised when people start talking about how TL mods support sex education via money shot.
There are already laws covering that. What this ruling says is that masturbation isn't inherently criminal and I'm absolutely amazed that people are disputing that.
On September 30 2013 23:20 Musicus wrote: I can understand how this guy was acquitted, but this can under no circumtances mean that it's generally ok to masturbate in public. What if children are at the scene? It should only be allowed in areas where no children are allowed if anything.
At all costs we must keep children from learning they have genitals. That needs to be our number one priority going into legislature.
I don't know why you quoted me to express your opinion, but I don't agree with you. I think we need to educate children and be open about topics like this. But that has nothing to do with masturbating in public.
Educate children about how masturbation is so shameful that if you do it where anyone could potentially see you're a criminal!
People must really hate having discussions with you. You just keep putting words in my mouth and I will not lower myself to this level. Let's stop right here. Have a nice day.
On September 30 2013 23:20 Musicus wrote: I can understand how this guy was acquitted, but this can under no circumtances mean that it's generally ok to masturbate in public. What if children are at the scene? It should only be allowed in areas where no children are allowed if anything.
At all costs we must keep children from learning they have genitals. That needs to be our number one priority going into legislature.
I don't know why you quoted me to express your opinion, but I don't agree with you. I think we need to educate children and be open about topics like this. But that has nothing to do with masturbating in public.
Educate children about how masturbation is so shameful that if you do it where anyone could potentially see you're a criminal!
Kwark if you're gonna strawman other people's opinions to ridiculous extremes, don't be too surprised when people start talking about how TL mods support sex education via money shot.
There are already laws covering that. What this ruling says is that masturbation isn't inherently criminal and I'm absolutely amazed that people are disputing that.
People are disputing the ability to do so in public in full view of other people, on the flawed notion that this ruling legalised it, mainly based on the idea that a dude jerking it in front of children is pretty fucked up.
On September 30 2013 23:20 Musicus wrote: I can understand how this guy was acquitted, but this can under no circumtances mean that it's generally ok to masturbate in public. What if children are at the scene? It should only be allowed in areas where no children are allowed if anything.
At all costs we must keep children from learning they have genitals. That needs to be our number one priority going into legislature.
I don't know why you quoted me to express your opinion, but I don't agree with you. I think we need to educate children and be open about topics like this. But that has nothing to do with masturbating in public.
Educate children about how masturbation is so shameful that if you do it where anyone could potentially see you're a criminal!
People must really hate having discussions. You just keep putting words in my mouth and I will not lower myself to this level. Let's stop right here. Have a nice day.
You are arguing that there needs to be a law against masturbation in public because a child could passively see it (passively because if the child is intended to see it then it's covered by the law) and you think something bad will come of the child seeing it. You didn't make it clear what bad thing you thought would happen if they learned that sometimes people rub their genitals so I made a guess, maybe you should clear that up. What bad thing do you think will happen if a child sees someone masturbating?
On September 30 2013 23:40 TheRealArtemis wrote: Urgh. I feel sometimes societies goes in the wrong direction.
To me there is a difference between learning about sex, enjoying sex, and then jacking off/having sex in the wild. What the f*** is the need for it?
So next time I'm in Sweden and I decide to take a walk in Sweden's beautiful nature, I can perhaps expect to see some person moaning in the woods masturbating furiously. Well that's great. Im happy to see the majority of people here think its a tad too much.
What is wrong with seeing a person masturbate?
That there are people that think having sex in the wild is weird, is just mindboogling to me. We did it for thousands of years and a lot of people still do it, and all other animals do it.
Todays society keeps making sex out to be some weird shameful thing and its causing guys and girls in particular to have a very bad relation to masturbating and their body, which can cause a lot of problems throughout a persons life.
If we let children grow up with masturbating being a completely ok thing to do, then we would have a much healthier generation, instead of the plethora of issues teenagers end up having today.
On September 30 2013 23:40 TheRealArtemis wrote: Urgh. I feel sometimes societies goes in the wrong direction.
To me there is a difference between learning about sex, enjoying sex, and then jacking off/having sex in the wild. What the f*** is the need for it?
So next time I'm in Sweden and I decide to take a walk in Sweden's beautiful nature, I can perhaps expect to see some person moaning in the woods masturbating furiously. Well that's great. Im happy to see the majority of people here think its a tad too much.
On September 30 2013 23:16 Pandemona wrote: Holy smokes. That is absolutely mind boggling. Sweden why you so silly sometimes "/
Just think about it as a parent, from their perspective. There young daughters ranging from 6-16 walking alone the riverbanks with there friends or whatever and seeing men masturbating (or females) it would scare them for life! Especially if the older generation where the most prolific people to do this. Can't see this doing nothing but harm Sweden's image >.<
Why would seeing a man masturbate scare a young girl for life? That makes no sense to me, if that was the case I am pretty sure mankind would have died by now.
You don't think it could be harmful for a child to see that? The child could believe that he or she was about to get raped. I would call that a traumatic experience.
Children generally don't even understand the concept of rape. Untill they get "the sex talk" or learn about it from other sources sexuality isn't even something that's on their mind. After said sex talk or learning about it from other sources they will know masturbation is a perfectly normal form of release and doesn't do any harm whatsoever.
I wouldn't want to watch it myself, but the notion that it might traumatize children is retarded beyond words.
If you see a guy through his window masterbating, this is voyeurism and you can be charged. If a guy masterbate in the street and "forces you" (in a sens) to watch, it's public nudity and it's charged.
So basicly if i understand right, people are talking about removing the charging for people that masturbate in the street ?
Scared to go to Sweden x-x It would be really disturbing to have someone try to do that nearby, especially if I was with someone like my younger sister ... I don't get how they can think this is OK. Sweden going a bit overboard with all the freedom stuff in my opinion.
On September 30 2013 23:25 NTTemplar wrote: Why would seeing a man masturbate scare a young girl for life? That makes no sense to me, if that was the case I am pretty sure mankind would have died by now.
You don't think it could be harmful for a child to see that? The child could believe that he or she was about to get raped. I would call that a traumatic experience.
No I really don't think that would be harmful, seeing a person masturbating and thinking they will be raped? no I really doubt any child would think that, a child isn't thinking they will be raped before they are actually being raped, if they were able to think that, they would be able to distinquish between a person assaulting you and a person just masturbating by themselves.
I however think it is very harmful for a child to see anyone masturbating being punished, putting it in their mind that if they ever do that then they will be punished, so it is a bad bad thing to do.
On September 30 2013 23:40 TheRealArtemis wrote: Urgh. I feel sometimes societies goes in the wrong direction.
To me there is a difference between learning about sex, enjoying sex, and then jacking off/having sex in the wild. What the f*** is the need for it?
So next time I'm in Sweden and I decide to take a walk in Sweden's beautiful nature, I can perhaps expect to see some person moaning in the woods masturbating furiously. Well that's great. Im happy to see the majority of people here think its a tad too much.
What is wrong with seeing a person masturbate?
That there are people that think having sex in the wild is weird, is just mindboogling to me. We did it for thousands of years and a lot of people still do it, and all other animals do it.
Todays society keeps making sex out to be some weird shameful thing and its causing guys and girls in particular to have a very bad relation to masturbating and their body, which can cause a lot of problems throughout a persons life.
If we let children grow up with masturbating being a completely ok thing to do, then we would have a much healthier generation, instead of the plethora of issues teenagers end up having today.
What...If anything todays society does the exact opposite. More and more shows are about sex. About public sex on tv, and about learning how to pleasure your partner. The latest show I heard about from the UK (I believe?) is going to be about couples having sex in a big box in the studio, that is sound proof, and you cant look in. then when they are done, they come out and talk about it.
So I don't see where our society says sex is a bad thing. And I personally never said sex was bad. I just find it ridicules that now we cant be anywhere, even in nature, without seeing some 65 old man, janking his dick. I don't want/wish to see another person masturbate. I find it gross if I would ever find such a person while im out walking my dog. Its disturbing.
On September 30 2013 23:51 FFW_Rude wrote: If you see a guy through his window masterbating, this is voyeurism and you can be charged. If a guy masterbate in the street and "forces you" (in a sens) to watch, it's public nudity and it's charged.
So basicly if i understand right, people are talking about removing the charging for people that masturbate in the street ?
If you're doing it because you get off on people watching you it's still illegal because you're involving them. If you're just doing your own thing, not involving anyone, not harming anyone, who the fuck cares. Now I'm reasonably sure everyone deciding to do it on a street would be the first category but also that most people masturbating or fucking their girlfriends outside are the second category. There is no reason to make a blanket law against the acts themselves when you can distinguish between them.
On September 30 2013 23:40 TheRealArtemis wrote: Urgh. I feel sometimes societies goes in the wrong direction.
To me there is a difference between learning about sex, enjoying sex, and then jacking off/having sex in the wild. What the f*** is the need for it?
So next time I'm in Sweden and I decide to take a walk in Sweden's beautiful nature, I can perhaps expect to see some person moaning in the woods masturbating furiously. Well that's great. Im happy to see the majority of people here think its a tad too much.
What is wrong with seeing a person masturbate?
That there are people that think having sex in the wild is weird, is just mindboogling to me. We did it for thousands of years and a lot of people still do it, and all other animals do it.
Todays society keeps making sex out to be some weird shameful thing and its causing guys and girls in particular to have a very bad relation to masturbating and their body, which can cause a lot of problems throughout a persons life.
If we let children grow up with masturbating being a completely ok thing to do, then we would have a much healthier generation, instead of the plethora of issues teenagers end up having today.
What...If anything todays society does the exact opposite. More and more shows are about sex. About public sex on tv, and about learning how to pleasure your partner. The latest show I heard about from the UK (I believe?) is going to be about couples having sex in a big box in the studio, that is sound proof, and you cant look in. then when they are done, they come out and talk about it.
So I don't see where our society says sex is a bad thing. And I personally never said sex was bad. I just find it ridicules that now we cant be anywhere, even in nature, without seeing some 65 old man, janking his dick. I don't want/wish to see another person masturbate. I find it gross if I would ever find such a person while im out walking my dog. Its disturbing.
Seeing someone jacking off and not involving them in any way, just enjoying their body, ought not to do anything to harm a child's sexual development while all those tv shows probably do because they impart value judgements about their material.
Ultimately it comes down to you thinking you have more right to walk your dog than another guy does to touch his dick in the same space. He's happy co-existing but you're not.
On September 30 2013 23:51 FFW_Rude wrote: If you see a guy through his window masterbating, this is voyeurism and you can be charged. If a guy masterbate in the street and "forces you" (in a sens) to watch, it's public nudity and it's charged.
So basicly if i understand right, people are talking about removing the charging for people that masturbate in the street ?
If you're doing it because you get off on people watching you it's still illegal because you're involving them. If you're just doing your own thing, not involving anyone, not harming anyone, who the fuck cares. Now I'm reasonably sure everyone deciding to do it on a street would be the first category but also that most people masturbating or fucking their girlfriends outside are the second category. There is no reason to make a blanket law against the acts themselves when you can distinguish between them.
So if you do your own thing by a tree and i stumble accross you. It's fine ? Because i was involved at the time because i saw you. i fail to understand what you want to say
On September 30 2013 23:51 FFW_Rude wrote: If you see a guy through his window masterbating, this is voyeurism and you can be charged. If a guy masterbate in the street and "forces you" (in a sens) to watch, it's public nudity and it's charged.
So basicly if i understand right, people are talking about removing the charging for people that masturbate in the street ?
If you're doing it because you get off on people watching you it's still illegal because you're involving them. If you're just doing your own thing, not involving anyone, not harming anyone, who the fuck cares. Now I'm reasonably sure everyone deciding to do it on a street would be the first category but also that most people masturbating or fucking their girlfriends outside are the second category. There is no reason to make a blanket law against the acts themselves when you can distinguish between them.
seems like enforcing someone being malicious about it would be fairly difficult. "he looked at me funny while playing with his thing" "no i didn't"
although I guess the same can be said for a bunch of laws.
On September 30 2013 23:51 FFW_Rude wrote: If you see a guy through his window masterbating, this is voyeurism and you can be charged. If a guy masterbate in the street and "forces you" (in a sens) to watch, it's public nudity and it's charged.
So basicly if i understand right, people are talking about removing the charging for people that masturbate in the street ?
If you're doing it because you get off on people watching you it's still illegal because you're involving them. If you're just doing your own thing, not involving anyone, not harming anyone, who the fuck cares. Now I'm reasonably sure everyone deciding to do it on a street would be the first category but also that most people masturbating or fucking their girlfriends outside are the second category. There is no reason to make a blanket law against the acts themselves when you can distinguish between them.
Because you can still walk in on them. Like I said in a previous post. Im just to accept having to watch people masturbate in nature while im running or walking my dog? or simply taking a stroll?
They're forced to accept you walking your dog. That bizarre inter-species master slave relationship is way weirder than a guy touching his dick. Hell, bonobos masturbate but they don't keep pets. The difference is they're not trying to ban you walking your dog.
On September 30 2013 23:40 TheRealArtemis wrote: Urgh. I feel sometimes societies goes in the wrong direction.
To me there is a difference between learning about sex, enjoying sex, and then jacking off/having sex in the wild. What the f*** is the need for it?
So next time I'm in Sweden and I decide to take a walk in Sweden's beautiful nature, I can perhaps expect to see some person moaning in the woods masturbating furiously. Well that's great. Im happy to see the majority of people here think its a tad too much.
What is wrong with seeing a person masturbate?
That there are people that think having sex in the wild is weird, is just mindboogling to me. We did it for thousands of years and a lot of people still do it, and all other animals do it.
Todays society keeps making sex out to be some weird shameful thing and its causing guys and girls in particular to have a very bad relation to masturbating and their body, which can cause a lot of problems throughout a persons life.
If we let children grow up with masturbating being a completely ok thing to do, then we would have a much healthier generation, instead of the plethora of issues teenagers end up having today.
What...If anything todays society does the exact opposite. More and more shows are about sex. About public sex on tv, and about learning how to pleasure your partner. The latest show I heard about from the UK (I believe?) is going to be about couples having sex in a big box in the studio, that is sound proof, and you cant look in. then when they are done, they come out and talk about it.
So I don't see where our society says sex is a bad thing. And I personally never said sex was bad. I just find it ridicules that now we cant be anywhere, even in nature, without seeing some 65 old man, janking his dick. I don't want/wish to see another person masturbate. I find it gross if I would ever find such a person while im out walking my dog. Its disturbing.
The shows about sex are in the minority, the big medias are constantly suppressing sex and they reach out to a vastly bigger audience.
If I go to the swimhall I have to see dousens of naked guys in the lockerrooms, I think that is gross, so I just don't look. What is the difference that they are masturbating? so its gross, then just don't look and walk on, why should that upset you anymore? He is just masturbating, its not a big deal, its plain masturbating, ok you think its gross looking at this 65 old man, then don't look and just continue your walk peacefully.
You are blowing it up to be some kind of big deal that he is masturbating, when it isn't.
Also you mentioned your dogs, plenty of dogs hump stuff in public all the time, should dogs be banned from public or be taught to never hump stuff then? that would be ridicouless, and its also ridicouless to be so upset about someone masturbating.
Masturbating isn't a big deal, its a healthy activity and if you don't like to watch it just don't look at it and continue your day as normal.
On October 01 2013 00:00 Badfatpanda wrote: If we're OK with public release of bodily fluids why the fuck is public defecation still illegal then?
Clean up as you go and don't do it directed at anyone and I see no reason why it should be. I hear horror stories about people peeing on the side of the road in the US being put on the sex offenders register. Sometimes in life people just have to pee.
On September 30 2013 23:20 Musicus wrote: I can understand how this guy was acquitted, but this can under no circumtances mean that it's generally ok to masturbate in public. What if children are at the scene? It should only be allowed in areas where no children are allowed if anything.
At all costs we must keep children from learning they have genitals. That needs to be our number one priority going into legislature.
I don't know why you quoted me to express your opinion, but I don't agree with you. I think we need to educate children and be open about topics like this. But that has nothing to do with masturbating in public.
Educate children about how masturbation is so shameful that if you do it where anyone could potentially see you're a criminal!
People must really hate having discussions. You just keep putting words in my mouth and I will not lower myself to this level. Let's stop right here. Have a nice day.
You are arguing that there needs to be a law against masturbation in public because a child could passively see it (passively because if the child is intended to see it then it's covered by the law) and you think something bad will come of the child seeing it. You didn't make it clear what bad thing you thought would happen if they learned that sometimes people rub their genitals so I made a guess, maybe you should clear that up. What bad thing do you think will happen if a child sees someone masturbating?
im pretty sure you are trolling.... but how about cause its fucking indecent and most people dont want to live in a society where you can take your dick out in public. Im sorry KWARK but if you want that, then I would want you in jail and I think as a society we made it clear that shit is wrong. I dont want a 6 year old kid walking down the street seeing that shit and think it is okay...what bad comes of it? I dunno maybe the kid will then decide to take his dick out in his grade 1 class. Its not just kids though most grown ups believe it or not dont wanna see you KWARK stroking your dick in public. If you want to stroke your dick at home in front of your kids to teach em its okay to rub your genitals sometimes that is your right as a parent I guess, just dont teach the rest of our kids.
On October 01 2013 00:00 Badfatpanda wrote: If we're OK with public release of bodily fluids why the fuck is public defecation still illegal then?
Clean up as you go and don't do it directed at anyone and I see no reason why it should be. I hear horror stories about people peeing on the side of the road in the US being put on the sex offenders register. Sometimes in life people just have to pee.
Also dogs and horses alleready do both of these along the streets, and that isn't being enforced. And people usually don't clean up after horses even.
We don't want children to know about masturbation because it will hurt them. Children love things that will hurt them for example cigarettes. We must protect our children.
On September 30 2013 23:51 FFW_Rude wrote: If you see a guy through his window masterbating, this is voyeurism and you can be charged. If a guy masterbate in the street and "forces you" (in a sens) to watch, it's public nudity and it's charged.
So basicly if i understand right, people are talking about removing the charging for people that masturbate in the street ?
If you're doing it because you get off on people watching you it's still illegal because you're involving them. If you're just doing your own thing, not involving anyone, not harming anyone, who the fuck cares. Now I'm reasonably sure everyone deciding to do it on a street would be the first category but also that most people masturbating or fucking their girlfriends outside are the second category. There is no reason to make a blanket law against the acts themselves when you can distinguish between them.
Because you can still walk in on them. Like I said in a previous post. Im just to accept having to watch people masturbate in nature while im running or walking my dog? or simply taking a stroll?
They're forced to accept you walking your dog. That bizarre inter-species master slave relationship is way weirder than a guy touching his dick. Hell, bonobos masturbate but they don't keep pets. The difference is they're not trying to ban you walking your dog.
If i replace the "walking the dog" by "talking a walk on myself" is that still apply ? I want to understand why you support this so vehemently. I think i'm missing something. Maybe i don't understand you very well
On September 30 2013 23:20 Musicus wrote: I can understand how this guy was acquitted, but this can under no circumtances mean that it's generally ok to masturbate in public. What if children are at the scene? It should only be allowed in areas where no children are allowed if anything.
At all costs we must keep children from learning they have genitals. That needs to be our number one priority going into legislature.
I don't know why you quoted me to express your opinion, but I don't agree with you. I think we need to educate children and be open about topics like this. But that has nothing to do with masturbating in public.
Educate children about how masturbation is so shameful that if you do it where anyone could potentially see you're a criminal!
People must really hate having discussions. You just keep putting words in my mouth and I will not lower myself to this level. Let's stop right here. Have a nice day.
You are arguing that there needs to be a law against masturbation in public because a child could passively see it (passively because if the child is intended to see it then it's covered by the law) and you think something bad will come of the child seeing it. You didn't make it clear what bad thing you thought would happen if they learned that sometimes people rub their genitals so I made a guess, maybe you should clear that up. What bad thing do you think will happen if a child sees someone masturbating?
im pretty sure you are trolling.... but how about cause its fucking indecent and most people dont want to live in a society where you can take your dick out in public. Im sorry KWARK but if you want that, then I would want you in jail and I think as a society we made it clear that shit is wrong. I dont want a 6 year old kid walking down the street seeing that shit and think it is okay...what bad comes of it? I dunno maybe the kid will then decide to take his dick out in his grade 1 class. Its not just kids though most grown ups believe it or not dont wanna see you KWARK stroking your dick in public. If you want to stroke your dick at home in front of your kids to teach em its okay to rub your genitals sometimes that is your right as a parent I guess, just dont teach the rest of our kids.
I'm not trolling. I'm reasonably sure you can teach a kid about not masturbating in school without banning masturbation by yourself in the countryside. You're arguing for the banning of A because of potential result E which isn't something caused by A, is itself solvable by F and skipped four intervening letters anyway.
I am really not ok with this law, I refuse to see people who shamelessly do their own business in public, and it's really disrespectful for other people aswell. I can understand that this is exciting aswell as having sex and stuff, but doing it without any regard to other people in public is a big sign of inconsideration.
Moreover, I am shocked that people tell about their parents sex life and that KwarK for example finds no problem that a 65 year old man masturbates in front of little children with their parents who are just walking by.
On September 30 2013 23:20 Musicus wrote: I can understand how this guy was acquitted, but this can under no circumtances mean that it's generally ok to masturbate in public. What if children are at the scene? It should only be allowed in areas where no children are allowed if anything.
At all costs we must keep children from learning they have genitals. That needs to be our number one priority going into legislature.
I don't know why you quoted me to express your opinion, but I don't agree with you. I think we need to educate children and be open about topics like this. But that has nothing to do with masturbating in public.
Educate children about how masturbation is so shameful that if you do it where anyone could potentially see you're a criminal!
People must really hate having discussions. You just keep putting words in my mouth and I will not lower myself to this level. Let's stop right here. Have a nice day.
You are arguing that there needs to be a law against masturbation in public because a child could passively see it (passively because if the child is intended to see it then it's covered by the law) and you think something bad will come of the child seeing it. You didn't make it clear what bad thing you thought would happen if they learned that sometimes people rub their genitals so I made a guess, maybe you should clear that up. What bad thing do you think will happen if a child sees someone masturbating?
im pretty sure you are trolling.... but how about cause its fucking indecent and most people dont want to live in a society where you can take your dick out in public. Im sorry KWARK but if you want that, then I would want you in jail and I think as a society we made it clear that shit is wrong. I dont want a 6 year old kid walking down the street seeing that shit and think it is okay...what bad comes of it? I dunno maybe the kid will then decide to take his dick out in his grade 1 class. Its not just kids though most grown ups believe it or not dont wanna see you KWARK stroking your dick in public. If you want to stroke your dick at home in front of your kids to teach em its okay to rub your genitals sometimes that is your right as a parent I guess, just dont teach the rest of our kids.
I'm not trolling. I'm reasonably sure you can teach a kid about not masturbating in school without banning masturbation by yourself in the countryside. You're arguing for the banning of A because of potential result E which isn't something caused by A, is itself solvable by F and skipped four intervening letters anyway.
Oh i think i understood now. It was a little to subtle for me since you use a lot of sarcasm in your previous post.
Basicly you say :
- Don't arrest people that do things that can be prevented by teaching children ? Is that it ?
But what of people that do it and will be saying after : "i was doing my own thing" but he got off by people walking buy. Who do you prevent that ?
We don't want children to know about masturbation because it will hurt them. Children love things that will hurt them for example cigarettes. We must protect our children.
Its not about masturbation is bad, its about a lot of people don't want to accidently stumble on to people who do. I love masturbation, hey there I said it. But that doesn't mean I wish to accidently see my best friend do it. Im gonna be grossed out by it.
On September 30 2013 23:20 Musicus wrote: I can understand how this guy was acquitted, but this can under no circumtances mean that it's generally ok to masturbate in public. What if children are at the scene? It should only be allowed in areas where no children are allowed if anything.
At all costs we must keep children from learning they have genitals. That needs to be our number one priority going into legislature.
I don't know why you quoted me to express your opinion, but I don't agree with you. I think we need to educate children and be open about topics like this. But that has nothing to do with masturbating in public.
Educate children about how masturbation is so shameful that if you do it where anyone could potentially see you're a criminal!
People must really hate having discussions. You just keep putting words in my mouth and I will not lower myself to this level. Let's stop right here. Have a nice day.
You are arguing that there needs to be a law against masturbation in public because a child could passively see it (passively because if the child is intended to see it then it's covered by the law) and you think something bad will come of the child seeing it. You didn't make it clear what bad thing you thought would happen if they learned that sometimes people rub their genitals so I made a guess, maybe you should clear that up. What bad thing do you think will happen if a child sees someone masturbating?
im pretty sure you are trolling.... but how about cause its fucking indecent and most people dont want to live in a society where you can take your dick out in public. Im sorry KWARK but if you want that, then I would want you in jail and I think as a society we made it clear that shit is wrong. I dont want a 6 year old kid walking down the street seeing that shit and think it is okay...what bad comes of it? I dunno maybe the kid will then decide to take his dick out in his grade 1 class. Its not just kids though most grown ups believe it or not dont wanna see you KWARK stroking your dick in public. If you want to stroke your dick at home in front of your kids to teach em its okay to rub your genitals sometimes that is your right as a parent I guess, just dont teach the rest of our kids.
If you go to the lockerroms in your local swim pool or gym you will see tons of dicks around, how is that not indecent? They should all have their own little box to be naked it, and be fully clothed otherwise right?
Many tribes in africa not affected by modern media actually go around naked and they have no fucking problem with it, because they don't have some twisted view that sexuality needs to be suppressed.
Children there run around seeing adults naked all around them all the time and its not a problem.
If you at every opportunity punish people for being nude and masturbating you are putting it into childrens heads that its bad, in particular a lot of teenage girls in society feel shameful for masturbating and it takes a toll on their mentalhealth, many chose not to do it because of that shame and the impressions they get that its wrong, this cases a ton of mentalhealth issues for teenage girls, guys are affected as well but to a much lesser degree, as guys have a very strong physical need to masturbate, compared to girls who have a much stronger emotional need for it.
A lot of grown ups are like you, affected by societies suppression of sexuality, which causes a lot of harm.
If someone were to sexually assault someone/harass them through masturbation, how would you prove it? What level of proof would you require to stop sick fucks from treading the line?
We don't want children to know about masturbation because it will hurt them. Children love things that will hurt them for example cigarettes. We must protect our children.
This is the wrong way to do it, in France, even tho its illegal to buy cigarettes before 18 i believe, you dont have any trouble to find 12yo kids smoking
On September 30 2013 23:51 FFW_Rude wrote: If you see a guy through his window masterbating, this is voyeurism and you can be charged. If a guy masterbate in the street and "forces you" (in a sens) to watch, it's public nudity and it's charged.
So basicly if i understand right, people are talking about removing the charging for people that masturbate in the street ?
If you're doing it because you get off on people watching you it's still illegal because you're involving them. If you're just doing your own thing, not involving anyone, not harming anyone, who the fuck cares. Now I'm reasonably sure everyone deciding to do it on a street would be the first category but also that most people masturbating or fucking their girlfriends outside are the second category. There is no reason to make a blanket law against the acts themselves when you can distinguish between them.
Because you can still walk in on them. Like I said in a previous post. Im just to accept having to watch people masturbate in nature while im running or walking my dog? or simply taking a stroll?
They're forced to accept you walking your dog. That bizarre inter-species master slave relationship is way weirder than a guy touching his dick. Hell, bonobos masturbate but they don't keep pets. The difference is they're not trying to ban you walking your dog.
If i replace the "walking the dog" by "talking a walk on myself" is that still apply ? I want to understand why you support this so vehemently. I think i'm missing something. Maybe i don't understand you very well
I don't understand why walking a dog in a forest is fine, walking alone in a forest is fine, having a picnic in a forest is fine, dressing up as a clown in a forest is fine but jacking it in a forest needs to be illegal because someone might see. Someone might see all of these things and yet they're not banned. It's only if you impart some hugely negative value judgement on masturbation that it makes any kind of sense and I just don't agree that it's especially harmful. Non-consensual sexual involvement should absolutely be illegal but it is so that's not the issue. People seem to be saying that just passively seeing it is so awful it must be illegal and I just don't see why. Freedom should be limited on the basis of harm.
On September 30 2013 23:51 FFW_Rude wrote: If you see a guy through his window masterbating, this is voyeurism and you can be charged. If a guy masterbate in the street and "forces you" (in a sens) to watch, it's public nudity and it's charged.
So basicly if i understand right, people are talking about removing the charging for people that masturbate in the street ?
If you're doing it because you get off on people watching you it's still illegal because you're involving them. If you're just doing your own thing, not involving anyone, not harming anyone, who the fuck cares. Now I'm reasonably sure everyone deciding to do it on a street would be the first category but also that most people masturbating or fucking their girlfriends outside are the second category. There is no reason to make a blanket law against the acts themselves when you can distinguish between them.
Because you can still walk in on them. Like I said in a previous post. Im just to accept having to watch people masturbate in nature while im running or walking my dog? or simply taking a stroll?
They're forced to accept you walking your dog. That bizarre inter-species master slave relationship is way weirder than a guy touching his dick. Hell, bonobos masturbate but they don't keep pets. The difference is they're not trying to ban you walking your dog.
If i replace the "walking the dog" by "talking a walk on myself" is that still apply ? I want to understand why you support this so vehemently. I think i'm missing something. Maybe i don't understand you very well
I don't understand why walking a dog in a forest is fine, walking alone in a forest is fine, having a picnic in a forest is fine, dressing up as a clown in a forest is fine but jacking it in a forest needs to be illegal because someone might see. Someone might see all of these things and yet they're not banned. It's only if you impart some hugely negative value judgement on masturbation that it makes any kind of sense and I just don't agree that it's especially harmful. Non-consensual sexual involvement should absolutely be illegal but it is so that's not the issue. People seem to be saying that just passively seeing it is so awful it must be illegal and I just don't see why. Freedom should be limited on the basis of harm.
Well... Seeing someone masturbating can be non-consensual sex if the person you see what you to see it. How do you prove that it's not the case then ? So you have the same problem to : "You get out of your home and open the door". 1. You see me walking accosse the street. 2. You see me masturbating accross the street.
On October 01 2013 00:15 Jibba wrote: If someone were to sexually assault someone/harass them through masturbation, how would you prove it? What level of proof would you require to stop sick fucks from treading the line?
If a guy picked in front of a school to do it I'd be happy concluding his intention was probably to be seen by the children. If he picked behind a tree in the middle of nowhere I'd be happy concluding that it was not. We have a legal system to decide these things.
"They're forced to accept you walking your dog. That bizarre inter-species master slave relationship is way weirder than a guy touching his dick. Hell, bonobos masturbate but they don't keep pets. The difference is they're not trying to ban you walking your dog."
Like wtf?
Annyway i saw a lunatic masturbate in a train once ,it was not aimed at annyone specific (he was just mentally ill), he didnt even have his dick out his pants and it was fking disgusting still.
"People seem to be saying that just passively seeing it is so awful it must be illegal and I just don't see why. Freedom should be limited on the basis of harm."
Yes seeing a guy masurbate in public is verry awfull tbh.
Actually its a somewhat interesting question tbh. Most would probably say its okay to masturbate somewhere in nature or other public places if you're all alone. At the same time most would say its not okay to do it in front of, or "towards", someone else, no matter where. But imagine someone actually masturbating sort of for himself without looking at anyone else or in any other way making an effort to "show the world" what he's doing. If I understood it correctly, thats about what happened since he "didnt target any specific person". I dont know what to think really, but I wouldnt say its clear either way. My instinct says not allowed, but at the same time I kind of wish it would be allowed since it might stop a bit of all this "looking down on masturbating" which is all over our society for really no reason.
On October 01 2013 00:15 Jibba wrote: If someone were to sexually assault someone/harass them through masturbation, how would you prove it? What level of proof would you require to stop sick fucks from treading the line?
If a guy picked in front of a school to do it I'd be happy concluding his intention was probably to be seen by the children. If he picked behind a tree in the middle of nowhere I'd be happy concluding that it was not. We have a legal system to decide these things.
But what if the guy is not IN FRONT of the school and is against the wall that board the school and get off by hearing the voices of children... They were arrest of that kind of guy... How do you prove what they are doing if you have no law to this ?
On September 30 2013 23:51 FFW_Rude wrote: If you see a guy through his window masterbating, this is voyeurism and you can be charged. If a guy masterbate in the street and "forces you" (in a sens) to watch, it's public nudity and it's charged.
So basicly if i understand right, people are talking about removing the charging for people that masturbate in the street ?
If you're doing it because you get off on people watching you it's still illegal because you're involving them. If you're just doing your own thing, not involving anyone, not harming anyone, who the fuck cares. Now I'm reasonably sure everyone deciding to do it on a street would be the first category but also that most people masturbating or fucking their girlfriends outside are the second category. There is no reason to make a blanket law against the acts themselves when you can distinguish between them.
Because you can still walk in on them. Like I said in a previous post. Im just to accept having to watch people masturbate in nature while im running or walking my dog? or simply taking a stroll?
They're forced to accept you walking your dog. That bizarre inter-species master slave relationship is way weirder than a guy touching his dick. Hell, bonobos masturbate but they don't keep pets. The difference is they're not trying to ban you walking your dog.
If i replace the "walking the dog" by "talking a walk on myself" is that still apply ? I want to understand why you support this so vehemently. I think i'm missing something. Maybe i don't understand you very well
I don't understand why walking a dog in a forest is fine, walking alone in a forest is fine, having a picnic in a forest is fine, dressing up as a clown in a forest is fine but jacking it in a forest needs to be illegal because someone might see. Someone might see all of these things and yet they're not banned. It's only if you impart some hugely negative value judgement on masturbation that it makes any kind of sense and I just don't agree that it's especially harmful. Non-consensual sexual involvement should absolutely be illegal but it is so that's not the issue. People seem to be saying that just passively seeing it is so awful it must be illegal and I just don't see why. Freedom should be limited on the basis of harm.
Well... Seeing someone masturbating can be non-consensual sex if the person you see what you to see it. How do you prove that it's not the case then ? So you have the same problem to : "You get out of your home and open the door". 1. You see me walking accosse the street. 2. You see me masturbating accross the street.
It's the same thing for you ?
Those can be done on a case by case basis. If the police think the person targeted you to see it then it's still covered by this law, the ruling only says that if they're not involving anyone else (or any groups of people) then the act of masturbation outside isn't inherently illegal. There might be other laws being broken but just jacking it in a public place isn't illegal.
It's like seeing dicks everywhere in the gym. I don't like it and I try not to look but I also try not to confuse my dislike of it with things that should be illegal.
On September 30 2013 23:51 FFW_Rude wrote: If you see a guy through his window masterbating, this is voyeurism and you can be charged. If a guy masterbate in the street and "forces you" (in a sens) to watch, it's public nudity and it's charged.
So basicly if i understand right, people are talking about removing the charging for people that masturbate in the street ?
If you're doing it because you get off on people watching you it's still illegal because you're involving them. If you're just doing your own thing, not involving anyone, not harming anyone, who the fuck cares. Now I'm reasonably sure everyone deciding to do it on a street would be the first category but also that most people masturbating or fucking their girlfriends outside are the second category. There is no reason to make a blanket law against the acts themselves when you can distinguish between them.
Because you can still walk in on them. Like I said in a previous post. Im just to accept having to watch people masturbate in nature while im running or walking my dog? or simply taking a stroll?
They're forced to accept you walking your dog. That bizarre inter-species master slave relationship is way weirder than a guy touching his dick. Hell, bonobos masturbate but they don't keep pets. The difference is they're not trying to ban you walking your dog.
If i replace the "walking the dog" by "talking a walk on myself" is that still apply ? I want to understand why you support this so vehemently. I think i'm missing something. Maybe i don't understand you very well
I don't understand why walking a dog in a forest is fine, walking alone in a forest is fine, having a picnic in a forest is fine, dressing up as a clown in a forest is fine but jacking it in a forest needs to be illegal because someone might see. Someone might see all of these things and yet they're not banned. It's only if you impart some hugely negative value judgement on masturbation that it makes any kind of sense and I just don't agree that it's especially harmful. Non-consensual sexual involvement should absolutely be illegal but it is so that's not the issue. People seem to be saying that just passively seeing it is so awful it must be illegal and I just don't see why. Freedom should be limited on the basis of harm.
Well... Seeing someone masturbating can be non-consensual sex if the person you see what you to see it. How do you prove that it's not the case then ? So you have the same problem to : "You get out of your home and open the door". 1. You see me walking accosse the street. 2. You see me masturbating accross the street.
It's the same thing for you ?
Those can be done on a case by case basis. If the police think the person targeted you to see it then it's still covered by this law, the ruling only says that if they're not involving anyone else (or any groups of people) then the act of masturbation outside isn't inherently illegal. There might be other laws being broken but just jacking it in a public place isn't illegal.
It's like seeing dicks everywhere in the gym. I don't like it and I try not to look but I also try not to confuse my dislike of it with things that should be illegal.
I think i know what you want to say but i just don't get how you can differencate the malicious guy from the normal guy ?
Are you seriously trying to compare walking a dog to masturbating? I mean, that already discredits you completely so I'm not sure why I'm even responding.
You also seem to have views completely different from most of the rest of the world so it's strange how you speak as if it's even close to the truth - some "in my opinion"s would be more than justified.
In my opinion I am sexually involved if I stumble upon a dude masturbating and get disgusted, even if afterwards I turn around and leave. It should be my right to walk along the path normally, not his right to force me to turn around. On the street that's not even as bad as I can leave, what about the train if he starts doing it next to me? Or do you believe that "harm" is only limited to physical harm? That makes you seem extremely naive, have you ever visited a psychiatric hospital? Or do you perhaps believe that mental harm doesn't exist because it doesn't affect -you-?
Then we can of course get into the obvious stuff like it being impossible to prove that a person isn't doing it because being seen by others turns him off. Do you suggest lie detectors or do you assume every public masturbator is an honest person?
It's most certainly not legal to masturbate in public here. Out in nature by yourself? Most definitely. You will however definitely be stopped if you do it in front of people, just like you're not technically allowed to urinate in public.
The thread is simply named incorrectly. The point is that it's not considered sexual assault if you don't specifically target someone with your masturbation, it's still not legal.
On October 01 2013 00:04 NTTemplar wrote: If I go to the swimhall I have to see dousens of naked guys in the lockerrooms, I think that is gross, so I just don't look. What is the difference that they are masturbating? so its gross, then just don't look and walk on, why should that upset you anymore? He is just masturbating, its not a big deal, its plain masturbating, ok you think its gross looking at this 65 old man, then don't look and just continue your walk peacefully.
I get where the people saying this sort of masturbation shouldn't be illegal are coming from, but I really doubt that many people who publicly masturbate are doing it because they simply want to jerk it in nature. There is, I would expect, a certain element of exhibitionism. Which is essentially deriving sexual gratification from others. I really don't want anyone deriving sexual gratification from me unless I give them my permission and I'm sure most of us agree.
I also think there is also a reasonable amount of weight behind the argument someone else said that simply coming across someone masturbating in public could very much frighten someone, especially if that person were by nature timid or fairly innocent.
On October 01 2013 00:15 Jibba wrote: If someone were to sexually assault someone/harass them through masturbation, how would you prove it? What level of proof would you require to stop sick fucks from treading the line?
This is another reason - the basic fact that the defence of 'I was just enjoying nature' would be so available to people who were, in fact, deriving sexual pleasure from the proximity to people...it's just a bad practical idea. For a small gain in personal rights you are opening up several cans of worms.
On October 01 2013 00:15 Jibba wrote: If someone were to sexually assault someone/harass them through masturbation, how would you prove it? What level of proof would you require to stop sick fucks from treading the line?
If a guy picked in front of a school to do it I'd be happy concluding his intention was probably to be seen by the children. If he picked behind a tree in the middle of nowhere I'd be happy concluding that it was not. We have a legal system to decide these things.
Using children is too much of an extreme. What about just masturbating on the lift or a bus?
On October 01 2013 00:15 Jibba wrote: If someone were to sexually assault someone/harass them through masturbation, how would you prove it? What level of proof would you require to stop sick fucks from treading the line?
If a guy picked in front of a school to do it I'd be happy concluding his intention was probably to be seen by the children. If he picked behind a tree in the middle of nowhere I'd be happy concluding that it was not. We have a legal system to decide these things.
But what if the guy is not IN FRONT of the school and is against the wall that board the school and get off by hearing the voices of children... They were arrest of that kind of guy... How do you prove what they are doing if you have no law to this ?
In cases where he's obviously involving other people it's still illegal. Are you arguing that we should outlaw a bunch of stuff that doesn't harm anyone so that way it's easier to prosecute people who do stuff that is illegal because they'll have broken a really broad law? That seems a shitty way to legislate. Might as well ban breathing so any time you have a murder suspect you can't convict you can get them on breathing.
On October 01 2013 00:15 Jibba wrote: If someone were to sexually assault someone/harass them through masturbation, how would you prove it? What level of proof would you require to stop sick fucks from treading the line?
If a guy picked in front of a school to do it I'd be happy concluding his intention was probably to be seen by the children. If he picked behind a tree in the middle of nowhere I'd be happy concluding that it was not. We have a legal system to decide these things.
But what if the guy is not IN FRONT of the school and is against the wall that board the school and get off by hearing the voices of children... They were arrest of that kind of guy... How do you prove what they are doing if you have no law to this ?
In cases where he's obviously involving other people it's still illegal. Are you arguing that we should outlaw a bunch of stuff that doesn't harm anyone so that way it's easier to prosecute people who do stuff that is illegal because they'll have broken a really broad law? That seems a shitty way to legislate. Might as well ban breathing so any time you have a murder suspect you can't convict you can get them on breathing.
Yes, because the benefit of public masturbation doesn't outweigh the difficulty and cost of the harassment that ensues. We're not talking fundamental rights or basic sustenance.
It's the same way we make rules that don't necessarily apply very well on an individual basis, but exist due to how things function in the entire system.
On October 01 2013 00:15 Jibba wrote: If someone were to sexually assault someone/harass them through masturbation, how would you prove it? What level of proof would you require to stop sick fucks from treading the line?
If a guy picked in front of a school to do it I'd be happy concluding his intention was probably to be seen by the children. If he picked behind a tree in the middle of nowhere I'd be happy concluding that it was not. We have a legal system to decide these things.
But what if the guy is not IN FRONT of the school and is against the wall that board the school and get off by hearing the voices of children... They were arrest of that kind of guy... How do you prove what they are doing if you have no law to this ?
In cases where he's obviously involving other people it's still illegal. Are you arguing that we should outlaw a bunch of stuff that doesn't harm anyone so that way it's easier to prosecute people who do stuff that is illegal because they'll have broken a really broad law? That seems a shitty way to legislate. Might as well ban breathing so any time you have a murder suspect you can't convict you can get them on breathing.
How is that obvious ? The guy is not directing at anything.
Well i'm done talking with you because you are awfully aggressive. You are a MOD and you must give exemple (or at least don't do what people get ban for). People get banned for the passive aggressive stuff... Show the exemple and have a civil discussion. You are basicly saying to me : "You are a dumbass".
On September 30 2013 23:10 FromShouri wrote: Im okay with it if youre partly secluded. I think sweden is also the country with the drive up brothel things with guards and shit near by. Something like that(with some tweaking of course) could work.
Sweden != Switzerland. All forms of prostitution is illegal in Sweden.
On October 01 2013 00:15 Jibba wrote: If someone were to sexually assault someone/harass them through masturbation, how would you prove it? What level of proof would you require to stop sick fucks from treading the line?
If a guy picked in front of a school to do it I'd be happy concluding his intention was probably to be seen by the children. If he picked behind a tree in the middle of nowhere I'd be happy concluding that it was not. We have a legal system to decide these things.
Using children is too much of an extreme. What about just masturbating on the lift or a bus?
I know a couple (now married) who used to do all sorts of sex stuff on buses and never once got caught. Nobody was harmed and I'm not sure why we need a law against doing stuff like that.
The same principle of reasonable assumption applies. If a guy picks a crowded lift as a place to jack it I'd be happy concluding that he wanted to jack off with all these people around him, that he was non-consensually involving them in it.
On October 01 2013 00:28 Rassy wrote: It does harm people if they see it, you are just in denial. Just because you dont mind seeing a guy masturbate in public does not mean this goes for everyone. The majority of people find seeing a guy masurbate in anny situation other then a private sexual encounter disgusting. Am not even gonna read this thread annymore, this is beyond crazy lol.
Your guilt issues surrounding masturbation are no more justified as public policy than Islamic concerns regarding women showing their faces in public. Appealing to the majority is what allows them to enforce Sharia law in Islamic countries too. "I don't like it" and "the majority don't like it" are not great reasons to take away freedoms. Also "I am harmed by you doing it, even though it doesn't involve me" isn't even a morally grey proclamation, it is literally the argument used to ban homosexuality.
On September 30 2013 23:16 Pandemona wrote: Holy smokes. That is absolutely mind boggling. Sweden why you so silly sometimes "/
Just think about it as a parent, from their perspective. There young daughters ranging from 6-16 walking alone the riverbanks with there friends or whatever and seeing men masturbating (or females) it would scare them for life! Especially if the older generation where the most prolific people to do this. Can't see this doing nothing but harm Sweden's image >.<
I cant see how that should do anything to the children, as they either will not understand what the man is doing, be confused and go away as he seems to be naked, or understand what's going on and go away to leave the guy to his pleas. At worst they will feel disgusted (like in early puberty around 12, where sex is a subject of conversation but still a no-go). Many young children are disgusted by seeing a spider too. Few take lasting damage from that. It's more that parents often seem to think that their children cant handle sexuality and that something terrible will happen when the children notice. How do these people think humans have survived while living in caves or houses with only one room together?
On September 30 2013 23:20 FiWiFaKi wrote: Should totally me legal, good change.
I think that if you are intentionally showing your dong to passerbys it's too much... But I see no issue masturbating in a public bathroom, outside in a field, movie theatre, or just anywhere where your penis/vagina is not exposed to many people who don't want to seewhere
Now that we are in a day and age where everyone is always busy, you should not be required to receive your secure release late in the evening when you're home. I hope other countries follow suit.
I totally agree. Dont see anything wrong with people masturbating where nobody can see them. And it shouldnt be to hard to judge whether this is a place where people pass by often or not.
I dont think its that hard to see if its directed at someone.
First check if they tried to stay secluded (obviously jacking off at the town square is a no no). Secondly check if they tried to get the attention of any person, followed them, was on their property or similar. Thirdly judge the reaction they had when they were detected.
In a somewhat similar case one person was aquitted for taking pictures of a naked person because the victim was walking around naked in their livingroom plainly visible from the street while another was slammed because he was standing in their garden taking pictures on people in the bathroom. Its not so hard to determine most of the time.
Also its not illegal to be naked in your house but it is if you try to get peoples attention to it.
Sweden is kind of big on the sexual freedom front as long as you dont force it on another person. That was why beastiality is legal as long as its not animal cruelty. This will probably change because of the rampant horse rape tho. (I wish I was kidding ). Itsprobably for the best.
On October 01 2013 00:15 Jibba wrote: If someone were to sexually assault someone/harass them through masturbation, how would you prove it? What level of proof would you require to stop sick fucks from treading the line?
If a guy picked in front of a school to do it I'd be happy concluding his intention was probably to be seen by the children. If he picked behind a tree in the middle of nowhere I'd be happy concluding that it was not. We have a legal system to decide these things.
But what if the guy is not IN FRONT of the school and is against the wall that board the school and get off by hearing the voices of children... They were arrest of that kind of guy... How do you prove what they are doing if you have no law to this ?
In cases where he's obviously involving other people it's still illegal. Are you arguing that we should outlaw a bunch of stuff that doesn't harm anyone so that way it's easier to prosecute people who do stuff that is illegal because they'll have broken a really broad law? That seems a shitty way to legislate. Might as well ban breathing so any time you have a murder suspect you can't convict you can get them on breathing.
Yes, because the benefit of public masturbation doesn't outweigh the difficulty and cost of the harassment that ensues. We're not talking fundamental rights or basic sustenance.
It's the same way we make rules that don't necessarily apply very well on an individual basis, but exist due to how things function in the entire system.
I don't get this harassment thing and how it isn't already covered by the "not directed at anyone" aspect of the ruling. If you're picking a specific person to masturbate in front of because you want them to see it then that's illegal. I don't see how this ruling in any way allows harassment, it's simply that the act itself isn't criminal, rather how you do it might make it criminal.
I've seen two people publicly masturbating in the US throughout my life. It is not a comfortable sight at all. That kind of activity should stay at home.
On October 01 2013 00:28 Rassy wrote: It does harm people if they see it, you are just in denial. Just because you dont mind seeing a guy masturbate in public does not mean this goes for everyone. The majority of people find seeing a guy masurbate in anny situation other then a private sexual encounter disgusting. Am not even gonna read this thread annymore, this is beyond crazy lol.
Well, what about public puking? Children (or...... adults) peeing or shitting themselves in public? Sneezing and accidentally getting half a litre of snot all over yourself? None of that disgusting? So all should be illegal then?
i think it should not be allowed, but it also shouldnt incur a sexual assault charge, that is equally stupid.
Well, what about public puking? Children (or...... adults) peeing or shitting themselves in public? Sneezing and accidentally getting half a litre of snot all over yourself? None of that disgusting? So all should be illegal then?
peeing is illegal, so is pooping.
The rest is uncontrollable and is being done involuntarily. I am sure if you accidentlly jizz in your pants, noone will arrest you.
On October 01 2013 00:15 Jibba wrote: If someone were to sexually assault someone/harass them through masturbation, how would you prove it? What level of proof would you require to stop sick fucks from treading the line?
If a guy picked in front of a school to do it I'd be happy concluding his intention was probably to be seen by the children. If he picked behind a tree in the middle of nowhere I'd be happy concluding that it was not. We have a legal system to decide these things.
Using children is too much of an extreme. What about just masturbating on the lift or a bus?
I know a couple (now married) who used to do all sorts of sex stuff on buses and never once got caught. Nobody was harmed and I'm not sure why we need a law against doing stuff like that.
The same principle of reasonable assumption applies. If a guy picks a crowded lift as a place to jack it I'd be happy concluding that he wanted to jack off with all these people around him, that he was non-consensually involving them in it.
See, this actually happens on the NYC subway. And the creeps are usually staring intently at a young girl in the car. How do you stop that guy given how immense the burden of proof would be, and okay the other guy just using his imagination?
On October 01 2013 00:28 Rassy wrote: It does harm people if they see it, you are just in denial. Just because you dont mind seeing a guy masturbate in public does not mean this goes for everyone. The majority of people find seeing a guy masurbate in anny situation other then a private sexual encounter disgusting. Am not even gonna read this thread annymore, this is beyond crazy lol.
Well, what about public puking? Children (or...... adults) peeing or shitting themselves in public? Sneezing and accidentally getting half a litre of snot all over yourself? None of that disgusting? So all should be illegal then?
Those are not things that you can necessarily control.
Masturbating and having sex in semi public places is legal as long as you dont get caught , dont leave a mess and other people dont see it, it realy is as simple as that.
You are now comparing 2 different things.the situation where noone else sees it to the situation where other people see it. These are 2 completely different things.
On October 01 2013 00:15 Jibba wrote: If someone were to sexually assault someone/harass them through masturbation, how would you prove it? What level of proof would you require to stop sick fucks from treading the line?
If a guy picked in front of a school to do it I'd be happy concluding his intention was probably to be seen by the children. If he picked behind a tree in the middle of nowhere I'd be happy concluding that it was not. We have a legal system to decide these things.
But what if the guy is not IN FRONT of the school and is against the wall that board the school and get off by hearing the voices of children... They were arrest of that kind of guy... How do you prove what they are doing if you have no law to this ?
In cases where he's obviously involving other people it's still illegal. Are you arguing that we should outlaw a bunch of stuff that doesn't harm anyone so that way it's easier to prosecute people who do stuff that is illegal because they'll have broken a really broad law? That seems a shitty way to legislate. Might as well ban breathing so any time you have a murder suspect you can't convict you can get them on breathing.
Yes, because the benefit of public masturbation doesn't outweigh the difficulty and cost of the harassment that ensues. We're not talking fundamental rights or basic sustenance.
It's the same way we make rules that don't necessarily apply very well on an individual basis, but exist due to how things function in the entire system.
I don't get this harassment thing and how it isn't already covered by the "not directed at anyone" aspect of the ruling. If you're picking a specific person to masturbate in front of because you want them to see it then that's illegal. I don't see how this ruling in any way allows harassment, it's simply that the act itself isn't criminal, rather how you do it might make it criminal.
Why is the intention so important? For the people watching it, there is no significant difference between a guy just doing his own thing or a guy wanting it to be seen.
On October 01 2013 00:15 Jibba wrote: If someone were to sexually assault someone/harass them through masturbation, how would you prove it? What level of proof would you require to stop sick fucks from treading the line?
If a guy picked in front of a school to do it I'd be happy concluding his intention was probably to be seen by the children. If he picked behind a tree in the middle of nowhere I'd be happy concluding that it was not. We have a legal system to decide these things.
But what if the guy is not IN FRONT of the school and is against the wall that board the school and get off by hearing the voices of children... They were arrest of that kind of guy... How do you prove what they are doing if you have no law to this ?
In cases where he's obviously involving other people it's still illegal. Are you arguing that we should outlaw a bunch of stuff that doesn't harm anyone so that way it's easier to prosecute people who do stuff that is illegal because they'll have broken a really broad law? That seems a shitty way to legislate. Might as well ban breathing so any time you have a murder suspect you can't convict you can get them on breathing.
Yes, because the benefit of public masturbation doesn't outweigh the difficulty and cost of the harassment that ensues. We're not talking fundamental rights or basic sustenance.
It's the same way we make rules that don't necessarily apply very well on an individual basis, but exist due to how things function in the entire system.
I don't get this harassment thing and how it isn't already covered by the "not directed at anyone" aspect of the ruling. If you're picking a specific person to masturbate in front of because you want them to see it then that's illegal. I don't see how this ruling in any way allows harassment, it's simply that the act itself isn't criminal, rather how you do it might make it criminal.
It's that it will be nearly impossible to prove harassment outside of extreme cases, making that section essentially null.
On October 01 2013 00:15 Jibba wrote: If someone were to sexually assault someone/harass them through masturbation, how would you prove it? What level of proof would you require to stop sick fucks from treading the line?
If a guy picked in front of a school to do it I'd be happy concluding his intention was probably to be seen by the children. If he picked behind a tree in the middle of nowhere I'd be happy concluding that it was not. We have a legal system to decide these things.
Using children is too much of an extreme. What about just masturbating on the lift or a bus?
I know a couple (now married) who used to do all sorts of sex stuff on buses and never once got caught. Nobody was harmed and I'm not sure why we need a law against doing stuff like that.
The same principle of reasonable assumption applies. If a guy picks a crowded lift as a place to jack it I'd be happy concluding that he wanted to jack off with all these people around him, that he was non-consensually involving them in it.
See, this actually happens on the NYC subway. And the creeps are usually staring intently at a young girl in the car. How do you stop that guy given how immense the burden of proof would be, and okay the other guy just using his imagination?
You understand that staring at someone while doing it means it is illegal, right? That is in no way impacted by this ruling. If I understand you correctly you're saying that while this ruling doesn't allow X you don't want the ruling anyway because you want the law to be as broad as possible, even if it bans things where no harm is done, because it makes convicting people easier. Is that right?
On October 01 2013 00:15 Jibba wrote: If someone were to sexually assault someone/harass them through masturbation, how would you prove it? What level of proof would you require to stop sick fucks from treading the line?
If a guy picked in front of a school to do it I'd be happy concluding his intention was probably to be seen by the children. If he picked behind a tree in the middle of nowhere I'd be happy concluding that it was not. We have a legal system to decide these things.
I think I agree with you. You're okay if it happens in butt fuck nowhere where people are hardly ever present (forest, plains, etc.), but aren't okay with it happening in populated areas. I'm okay with it being this way, but I can see it being hard to enforce unless you specifically deem spots to be okay to masturbate at publicly.
It doesnt ban things where no harm is done, since if no harm is done noone sees it, you are not caught and you wont get punished Thats the beauty of the law, it only effects the situations where you get caught.
On October 01 2013 00:15 Jibba wrote: If someone were to sexually assault someone/harass them through masturbation, how would you prove it? What level of proof would you require to stop sick fucks from treading the line?
If a guy picked in front of a school to do it I'd be happy concluding his intention was probably to be seen by the children. If he picked behind a tree in the middle of nowhere I'd be happy concluding that it was not. We have a legal system to decide these things.
Using children is too much of an extreme. What about just masturbating on the lift or a bus?
I know a couple (now married) who used to do all sorts of sex stuff on buses and never once got caught. Nobody was harmed and I'm not sure why we need a law against doing stuff like that.
The same principle of reasonable assumption applies. If a guy picks a crowded lift as a place to jack it I'd be happy concluding that he wanted to jack off with all these people around him, that he was non-consensually involving them in it.
See, this actually happens on the NYC subway. And the creeps are usually staring intently at a young girl in the car. How do you stop that guy given how immense the burden of proof would be, and okay the other guy just using his imagination?
Its real easy. First prove he was masterbating in the subway car. Then have witnesses (like the girl) say he stared at her. 99,99999 pct likelyhood they will be more trustworthy = conviction.
We have nailed a guy dryhumping teenagers on the bus in my hometown several times, is it any different?
On October 01 2013 00:15 Jibba wrote: If someone were to sexually assault someone/harass them through masturbation, how would you prove it? What level of proof would you require to stop sick fucks from treading the line?
If a guy picked in front of a school to do it I'd be happy concluding his intention was probably to be seen by the children. If he picked behind a tree in the middle of nowhere I'd be happy concluding that it was not. We have a legal system to decide these things.
But what if the guy is not IN FRONT of the school and is against the wall that board the school and get off by hearing the voices of children... They were arrest of that kind of guy... How do you prove what they are doing if you have no law to this ?
In cases where he's obviously involving other people it's still illegal. Are you arguing that we should outlaw a bunch of stuff that doesn't harm anyone so that way it's easier to prosecute people who do stuff that is illegal because they'll have broken a really broad law? That seems a shitty way to legislate. Might as well ban breathing so any time you have a murder suspect you can't convict you can get them on breathing.
Yes, because the benefit of public masturbation doesn't outweigh the difficulty and cost of the harassment that ensues. We're not talking fundamental rights or basic sustenance.
It's the same way we make rules that don't necessarily apply very well on an individual basis, but exist due to how things function in the entire system.
I don't get this harassment thing and how it isn't already covered by the "not directed at anyone" aspect of the ruling. If you're picking a specific person to masturbate in front of because you want them to see it then that's illegal. I don't see how this ruling in any way allows harassment, it's simply that the act itself isn't criminal, rather how you do it might make it criminal.
It's that it will be nearly impossible to prove harassment outside of extreme cases, making that section essentially null.
Then have the burden of proof be on the guy jacking off. If he took reasonable steps to not involve anyone else then he's in the clear. There will always be shades of grey with any law but we have an entire legal system dedicated to dealing with this shit and working out how grey is too grey. This isn't some new unsolvable problem that needs addressing, this is what the legal system does. Painting everything black is not a reasonable solution to the shades of grey problem.
On October 01 2013 00:15 Jibba wrote: If someone were to sexually assault someone/harass them through masturbation, how would you prove it? What level of proof would you require to stop sick fucks from treading the line?
If a guy picked in front of a school to do it I'd be happy concluding his intention was probably to be seen by the children. If he picked behind a tree in the middle of nowhere I'd be happy concluding that it was not. We have a legal system to decide these things.
Using children is too much of an extreme. What about just masturbating on the lift or a bus?
I know a couple (now married) who used to do all sorts of sex stuff on buses and never once got caught. Nobody was harmed and I'm not sure why we need a law against doing stuff like that.
The same principle of reasonable assumption applies. If a guy picks a crowded lift as a place to jack it I'd be happy concluding that he wanted to jack off with all these people around him, that he was non-consensually involving them in it.
See, this actually happens on the NYC subway. And the creeps are usually staring intently at a young girl in the car. How do you stop that guy given how immense the burden of proof would be, and okay the other guy just using his imagination?
You understand that staring at someone while doing it means it is illegal, right? That is in no way impacted by this ruling. If I understand you correctly you're saying that while this ruling doesn't allow X you don't want the ruling anyway because you want the law to be as broad as possible, even if it bans things where no harm is done, because it makes convicting people easier. Is that right?
Yes. The societal cost is increased rates of harassment due to the difficulty of proving a mental act, while enabling the physical act.
On October 01 2013 00:28 Rassy wrote: It does harm people if they see it, you are just in denial. Just because you dont mind seeing a guy masturbate in public does not mean this goes for everyone. The majority of people find seeing a guy masurbate in anny situation other then a private sexual encounter disgusting. Am not even gonna read this thread annymore, this is beyond crazy lol.
Well, what about public puking? Children (or...... adults) peeing or shitting themselves in public? Sneezing and accidentally getting half a litre of snot all over yourself? None of that disgusting? So all should be illegal then?
Those are not things that you can necessarily control.
True. But thats kind of what makes it ok. That when someone pukes you kinda "know" they didnt want to. So you dont interpret it as the guy puking tried to disgust you even if he did. I think thats kind of what the article meant by "not targetting the masturbation towards anyone". It wasnt meant to be disgusting, or possibly even shown, for anyone around. Im not sure what to think of it really but I can definitely see how they reasoned when they didnt convict him.
On October 01 2013 00:15 Jibba wrote: If someone were to sexually assault someone/harass them through masturbation, how would you prove it? What level of proof would you require to stop sick fucks from treading the line?
If a guy picked in front of a school to do it I'd be happy concluding his intention was probably to be seen by the children. If he picked behind a tree in the middle of nowhere I'd be happy concluding that it was not. We have a legal system to decide these things.
But what if the guy is not IN FRONT of the school and is against the wall that board the school and get off by hearing the voices of children... They were arrest of that kind of guy... How do you prove what they are doing if you have no law to this ?
In cases where he's obviously involving other people it's still illegal. Are you arguing that we should outlaw a bunch of stuff that doesn't harm anyone so that way it's easier to prosecute people who do stuff that is illegal because they'll have broken a really broad law? That seems a shitty way to legislate. Might as well ban breathing so any time you have a murder suspect you can't convict you can get them on breathing.
Yes, because the benefit of public masturbation doesn't outweigh the difficulty and cost of the harassment that ensues. We're not talking fundamental rights or basic sustenance.
It's the same way we make rules that don't necessarily apply very well on an individual basis, but exist due to how things function in the entire system.
I don't get this harassment thing and how it isn't already covered by the "not directed at anyone" aspect of the ruling. If you're picking a specific person to masturbate in front of because you want them to see it then that's illegal. I don't see how this ruling in any way allows harassment, it's simply that the act itself isn't criminal, rather how you do it might make it criminal.
It's that it will be nearly impossible to prove harassment outside of extreme cases, making that section essentially null.
Then have the burden of proof be on the guy jacking off. If he took reasonable steps to not involve anyone else then he's in the clear. There will always be shades of grey with any law but we have an entire legal system dedicated to dealing with this shit and working out how grey is too grey. This isn't some new unsolvable problem that needs addressing, this is what the legal system does. Painting everything black is not a reasonable solution to the shades of grey problem.
It is when it's a super fucking minor benefit. Even the rules on TL are designed with this in mind. You can't make every case a discretionary one. Sometimes exceptions get cut down because of the grand scheme of things.
On September 30 2013 23:51 FFW_Rude wrote: If you see a guy through his window masterbating, this is voyeurism and you can be charged. If a guy masterbate in the street and "forces you" (in a sens) to watch, it's public nudity and it's charged.
So basicly if i understand right, people are talking about removing the charging for people that masturbate in the street ?
If you're doing it because you get off on people watching you it's still illegal because you're involving them. If you're just doing your own thing, not involving anyone, not harming anyone, who the fuck cares. Now I'm reasonably sure everyone deciding to do it on a street would be the first category but also that most people masturbating or fucking their girlfriends outside are the second category. There is no reason to make a blanket law against the acts themselves when you can distinguish between them.
Because you can still walk in on them. Like I said in a previous post. Im just to accept having to watch people masturbate in nature while im running or walking my dog? or simply taking a stroll?
They're forced to accept you walking your dog. That bizarre inter-species master slave relationship is way weirder than a guy touching his dick. Hell, bonobos masturbate but they don't keep pets. The difference is they're not trying to ban you walking your dog.
If i replace the "walking the dog" by "talking a walk on myself" is that still apply ? I want to understand why you support this so vehemently. I think i'm missing something. Maybe i don't understand you very well
I don't understand why walking a dog in a forest is fine, walking alone in a forest is fine, having a picnic in a forest is fine, dressing up as a clown in a forest is fine but jacking it in a forest needs to be illegal because someone might see. Someone might see all of these things and yet they're not banned. It's only if you impart some hugely negative value judgement on masturbation that it makes any kind of sense and I just don't agree that it's especially harmful. Non-consensual sexual involvement should absolutely be illegal but it is so that's not the issue. People seem to be saying that just passively seeing it is so awful it must be illegal and I just don't see why. Freedom should be limited on the basis of harm.
No, freedom shouldn't be limited on the basis of harm. Freedom should be limited to the respect on other people and the fact of living together in a peaceful society. The problem is that you're putting masturbation on the same level as dressing as a clown or walking the dog, which is absolutely not the same. The first one is a fact of clothes, that harms no one. The second one is absolutely normal and disturbs no one. Masturbating behind a tree is not disturbing too, that's true. But there is an ethic that is to not show it to people, because it's something that is only for you and no one else. Imagine if one of your parents, or one of your children would see you ? The problem is that they don't try to see you, you are in fault because you aren't in a private zone. Masturbating is something socially disturbing if it's shown to someone, and it must stay like that. I have nothing against masturbation as long as people don't suddenly consider masturbation as something absolutely normal that can be done anywhere.
On October 01 2013 00:15 Jibba wrote: If someone were to sexually assault someone/harass them through masturbation, how would you prove it? What level of proof would you require to stop sick fucks from treading the line?
If a guy picked in front of a school to do it I'd be happy concluding his intention was probably to be seen by the children. If he picked behind a tree in the middle of nowhere I'd be happy concluding that it was not. We have a legal system to decide these things.
But what if the guy is not IN FRONT of the school and is against the wall that board the school and get off by hearing the voices of children... They were arrest of that kind of guy... How do you prove what they are doing if you have no law to this ?
In cases where he's obviously involving other people it's still illegal. Are you arguing that we should outlaw a bunch of stuff that doesn't harm anyone so that way it's easier to prosecute people who do stuff that is illegal because they'll have broken a really broad law? That seems a shitty way to legislate. Might as well ban breathing so any time you have a murder suspect you can't convict you can get them on breathing.
Yes, because the benefit of public masturbation doesn't outweigh the difficulty and cost of the harassment that ensues. We're not talking fundamental rights or basic sustenance.
It's the same way we make rules that don't necessarily apply very well on an individual basis, but exist due to how things function in the entire system.
I don't get this harassment thing and how it isn't already covered by the "not directed at anyone" aspect of the ruling. If you're picking a specific person to masturbate in front of because you want them to see it then that's illegal. I don't see how this ruling in any way allows harassment, it's simply that the act itself isn't criminal, rather how you do it might make it criminal.
Why is the intention so important? For the people watching it, there is no significant difference between a guy just doing his own thing or a guy wanting it to be seen.
Maybe they should stop watching things that offend them so much if the guy is just doing his own thing and not involving them in any way. A lot of people have serious phobias about dogs but they don't try to ban dog walking in public parks because they understand the difference between their issue and a legal issue.
On October 01 2013 00:15 Jibba wrote: If someone were to sexually assault someone/harass them through masturbation, how would you prove it? What level of proof would you require to stop sick fucks from treading the line?
If a guy picked in front of a school to do it I'd be happy concluding his intention was probably to be seen by the children. If he picked behind a tree in the middle of nowhere I'd be happy concluding that it was not. We have a legal system to decide these things.
But what if the guy is not IN FRONT of the school and is against the wall that board the school and get off by hearing the voices of children... They were arrest of that kind of guy... How do you prove what they are doing if you have no law to this ?
In cases where he's obviously involving other people it's still illegal. Are you arguing that we should outlaw a bunch of stuff that doesn't harm anyone so that way it's easier to prosecute people who do stuff that is illegal because they'll have broken a really broad law? That seems a shitty way to legislate. Might as well ban breathing so any time you have a murder suspect you can't convict you can get them on breathing.
Yes, because the benefit of public masturbation doesn't outweigh the difficulty and cost of the harassment that ensues. We're not talking fundamental rights or basic sustenance.
It's the same way we make rules that don't necessarily apply very well on an individual basis, but exist due to how things function in the entire system.
I don't get this harassment thing and how it isn't already covered by the "not directed at anyone" aspect of the ruling. If you're picking a specific person to masturbate in front of because you want them to see it then that's illegal. I don't see how this ruling in any way allows harassment, it's simply that the act itself isn't criminal, rather how you do it might make it criminal.
Why is the intention so important? For the people watching it, there is no significant difference between a guy just doing his own thing or a guy wanting it to be seen.
Because it's different to be disgusted than to be harassed. Anyways, it is also illegal on many countries to have sex on public spaces, and as far i know, masturbation is having sex with yourself. Maybe i am too close minded to understand how it was ok because it was masturbation but it is not ok to fuck with my girlfriend on the beach (or maybe on sweden i can do both).
On October 01 2013 00:15 Jibba wrote: If someone were to sexually assault someone/harass them through masturbation, how would you prove it? What level of proof would you require to stop sick fucks from treading the line?
If a guy picked in front of a school to do it I'd be happy concluding his intention was probably to be seen by the children. If he picked behind a tree in the middle of nowhere I'd be happy concluding that it was not. We have a legal system to decide these things.
But what if the guy is not IN FRONT of the school and is against the wall that board the school and get off by hearing the voices of children... They were arrest of that kind of guy... How do you prove what they are doing if you have no law to this ?
In cases where he's obviously involving other people it's still illegal. Are you arguing that we should outlaw a bunch of stuff that doesn't harm anyone so that way it's easier to prosecute people who do stuff that is illegal because they'll have broken a really broad law? That seems a shitty way to legislate. Might as well ban breathing so any time you have a murder suspect you can't convict you can get them on breathing.
Yes, because the benefit of public masturbation doesn't outweigh the difficulty and cost of the harassment that ensues. We're not talking fundamental rights or basic sustenance.
It's the same way we make rules that don't necessarily apply very well on an individual basis, but exist due to how things function in the entire system.
I don't get this harassment thing and how it isn't already covered by the "not directed at anyone" aspect of the ruling. If you're picking a specific person to masturbate in front of because you want them to see it then that's illegal. I don't see how this ruling in any way allows harassment, it's simply that the act itself isn't criminal, rather how you do it might make it criminal.
Why is the intention so important? For the people watching it, there is no significant difference between a guy just doing his own thing or a guy wanting it to be seen.
Maybe they should stop watching things that offend them so much if the guy is just doing his own thing and not involving them in any way. A lot of people have serious phobias about dogs but they don't try to ban dog walking in public parks because they understand the difference between their issue and a legal issue.
I haven't read a lot of posts in this thread but you can't seriously compare dog walking to masturbation. They are way too different to do that so I don't think the comparison holds.
On September 30 2013 23:20 FiWiFaKi wrote: Should totally me legal, good change.
I think that if you are intentionally showing your dong to passerbys it's too much... But I see no issue masturbating in a public bathroom, outside in a field, movie theatre, or just anywhere where your penis/vagina is not exposed to many people who don't want to seewhere
Now that we are in a day and age where everyone is always busy, you should not be required to receive your secure release late in the evening when you're home. I hope other countries follow suit.
I actually completely agree with this. People interpret this a lot as actually doing it publicly, but obviously people that are going to do it in those places were going to anyway - I think this is a good rule, in this day and age. I personally can't say I'm much of a fan, but if you're alone and there's nobody in a certain radius around you - Do what you need to do.
What the fuck, this isn't a new law, there is no change. This is a specific case where the ruling turned out this way. That's it. Now, I assume from the article that this was from Tingsrätten (the lowest instance), where it has absolutely no power as a precedent...
On October 01 2013 00:15 Jibba wrote: If someone were to sexually assault someone/harass them through masturbation, how would you prove it? What level of proof would you require to stop sick fucks from treading the line?
If a guy picked in front of a school to do it I'd be happy concluding his intention was probably to be seen by the children. If he picked behind a tree in the middle of nowhere I'd be happy concluding that it was not. We have a legal system to decide these things.
But what if the guy is not IN FRONT of the school and is against the wall that board the school and get off by hearing the voices of children... They were arrest of that kind of guy... How do you prove what they are doing if you have no law to this ?
In cases where he's obviously involving other people it's still illegal. Are you arguing that we should outlaw a bunch of stuff that doesn't harm anyone so that way it's easier to prosecute people who do stuff that is illegal because they'll have broken a really broad law? That seems a shitty way to legislate. Might as well ban breathing so any time you have a murder suspect you can't convict you can get them on breathing.
Yes, because the benefit of public masturbation doesn't outweigh the difficulty and cost of the harassment that ensues. We're not talking fundamental rights or basic sustenance.
It's the same way we make rules that don't necessarily apply very well on an individual basis, but exist due to how things function in the entire system.
I don't get this harassment thing and how it isn't already covered by the "not directed at anyone" aspect of the ruling. If you're picking a specific person to masturbate in front of because you want them to see it then that's illegal. I don't see how this ruling in any way allows harassment, it's simply that the act itself isn't criminal, rather how you do it might make it criminal.
Why is the intention so important? For the people watching it, there is no significant difference between a guy just doing his own thing or a guy wanting it to be seen.
Maybe they should stop watching things that offend them so much if the guy is just doing his own thing and not involving them in any way. A lot of people have serious phobias about dogs but they don't try to ban dog walking in public parks because they understand the difference between their issue and a legal issue.
the same could be said about a guy targeting persons/wanting it to be seen.
On October 01 2013 00:15 Jibba wrote: If someone were to sexually assault someone/harass them through masturbation, how would you prove it? What level of proof would you require to stop sick fucks from treading the line?
If a guy picked in front of a school to do it I'd be happy concluding his intention was probably to be seen by the children. If he picked behind a tree in the middle of nowhere I'd be happy concluding that it was not. We have a legal system to decide these things.
But what if the guy is not IN FRONT of the school and is against the wall that board the school and get off by hearing the voices of children... They were arrest of that kind of guy... How do you prove what they are doing if you have no law to this ?
In cases where he's obviously involving other people it's still illegal. Are you arguing that we should outlaw a bunch of stuff that doesn't harm anyone so that way it's easier to prosecute people who do stuff that is illegal because they'll have broken a really broad law? That seems a shitty way to legislate. Might as well ban breathing so any time you have a murder suspect you can't convict you can get them on breathing.
Yes, because the benefit of public masturbation doesn't outweigh the difficulty and cost of the harassment that ensues. We're not talking fundamental rights or basic sustenance.
It's the same way we make rules that don't necessarily apply very well on an individual basis, but exist due to how things function in the entire system.
I don't get this harassment thing and how it isn't already covered by the "not directed at anyone" aspect of the ruling. If you're picking a specific person to masturbate in front of because you want them to see it then that's illegal. I don't see how this ruling in any way allows harassment, it's simply that the act itself isn't criminal, rather how you do it might make it criminal.
It's that it will be nearly impossible to prove harassment outside of extreme cases, making that section essentially null.
Then have the burden of proof be on the guy jacking off. If he took reasonable steps to not involve anyone else then he's in the clear. There will always be shades of grey with any law but we have an entire legal system dedicated to dealing with this shit and working out how grey is too grey. This isn't some new unsolvable problem that needs addressing, this is what the legal system does. Painting everything black is not a reasonable solution to the shades of grey problem.
It is when it's a super fucking minor benefit. Even the rules on TL are designed with this in mind. You can't make every case a discretionary one. Sometimes exceptions get cut down because of the grand scheme of things.
Well consider this ruling a test case. If it triggers a spate of sexual harassment with the law unable to do anything about it then I'm sure they'll reconsider it. But if, as I suspect, it just functions as an exemption that stops people who didn't intend anything malicious and didn't harm anyone from being registered as sex offenders then good for them.
On October 01 2013 00:15 Jibba wrote: If someone were to sexually assault someone/harass them through masturbation, how would you prove it? What level of proof would you require to stop sick fucks from treading the line?
If a guy picked in front of a school to do it I'd be happy concluding his intention was probably to be seen by the children. If he picked behind a tree in the middle of nowhere I'd be happy concluding that it was not. We have a legal system to decide these things.
But what if the guy is not IN FRONT of the school and is against the wall that board the school and get off by hearing the voices of children... They were arrest of that kind of guy... How do you prove what they are doing if you have no law to this ?
In cases where he's obviously involving other people it's still illegal. Are you arguing that we should outlaw a bunch of stuff that doesn't harm anyone so that way it's easier to prosecute people who do stuff that is illegal because they'll have broken a really broad law? That seems a shitty way to legislate. Might as well ban breathing so any time you have a murder suspect you can't convict you can get them on breathing.
Yes, because the benefit of public masturbation doesn't outweigh the difficulty and cost of the harassment that ensues. We're not talking fundamental rights or basic sustenance.
It's the same way we make rules that don't necessarily apply very well on an individual basis, but exist due to how things function in the entire system.
I don't get this harassment thing and how it isn't already covered by the "not directed at anyone" aspect of the ruling. If you're picking a specific person to masturbate in front of because you want them to see it then that's illegal. I don't see how this ruling in any way allows harassment, it's simply that the act itself isn't criminal, rather how you do it might make it criminal.
Why is the intention so important? For the people watching it, there is no significant difference between a guy just doing his own thing or a guy wanting it to be seen.
Maybe they should stop watching things that offend them so much if the guy is just doing his own thing and not involving them in any way. A lot of people have serious phobias about dogs but they don't try to ban dog walking in public parks because they understand the difference between their issue and a legal issue.
the same could be said about a guy targeting persons/wanting it to be seen.
I disagree. Once voyeurism is involved the other person is being made part of the act against their will. Without any intent to be seen the watcher isn't a part of the act.
There is a legitimate argument to be made about the concept of indecency and its place in modern society. It's slightly more rewarding than quibbling about how far away you have to be from people before you are allowed to jack it in nature.
I think letting the guy go, in this particular case, seems reasonable. Given the situation, he probably had a "reasonable expectation" of privacy, and that he wouldn't be "endangering" or "harassing" anyone with what he was doing.
However, it seems weird to me that the Swedish government now feels the need to codify this specific case ruling into a standing law. Clearly, I don't have a full understanding how of the Swedish legal system works, and maybe this is just how they have to do it now that they have made the ruling on this particular case (and they can't have standing case-law). If that is what is going on, then this entire thing seems pretty sensationalist.
On September 30 2013 23:20 FiWiFaKi wrote: Should totally me legal, good change.
I think that if you are intentionally showing your dong to passerbys it's too much... But I see no issue masturbating in a public bathroom, outside in a field, movie theatre, or just anywhere where your penis/vagina is not exposed to many people who don't want to seewhere
Now that we are in a day and age where everyone is always busy, you should not be required to receive your secure release late in the evening when you're home. I hope other countries follow suit.
I actually completely agree with this. People interpret this a lot as actually doing it publicly, but obviously people that are going to do it in those places were going to anyway - I think this is a good rule, in this day and age. I personally can't say I'm much of a fan, but if you're alone and there's nobody in a certain radius around you - Do what you need to do.
Maybe because the old dude, was on the beach, at the water's edge.
On September 30 2013 23:20 FiWiFaKi wrote: Should totally me legal, good change.
I think that if you are intentionally showing your dong to passerbys it's too much... But I see no issue masturbating in a public bathroom, outside in a field, movie theatre, or just anywhere where your penis/vagina is not exposed to many people who don't want to seewhere
Now that we are in a day and age where everyone is always busy, you should not be required to receive your secure release late in the evening when you're home. I hope other countries follow suit.
I actually completely agree with this. People interpret this a lot as actually doing it publicly, but obviously people that are going to do it in those places were going to anyway - I think this is a good rule, in this day and age. I personally can't say I'm much of a fan, but if you're alone and there's nobody in a certain radius around you - Do what you need to do.
Maybe because the old dude, was on the beach, at the water's edge.
Most of the coastline in England is deserted. If it were a crowded beach frequented by children during daytime in the Summer holidays I'd be happy concluding he wanted to be seen and I suspect most courts would decide the same.
On September 30 2013 23:20 FiWiFaKi wrote: Should totally me legal, good change.
I think that if you are intentionally showing your dong to passerbys it's too much... But I see no issue masturbating in a public bathroom, outside in a field, movie theatre, or just anywhere where your penis/vagina is not exposed to many people who don't want to seewhere
Now that we are in a day and age where everyone is always busy, you should not be required to receive your secure release late in the evening when you're home. I hope other countries follow suit.
I actually completely agree with this. People interpret this a lot as actually doing it publicly, but obviously people that are going to do it in those places were going to anyway - I think this is a good rule, in this day and age. I personally can't say I'm much of a fan, but if you're alone and there's nobody in a certain radius around you - Do what you need to do.
Maybe because the old dude, was on the beach, at the water's edge.
Most of the coastline in England is deserted. If it were a crowded beach frequented by children during daytime in the Summer holidays I'd be happy concluding he wanted to be seen and I suspect most courts would decide the same.
Yeah, that would make sense, but it was on Sweden, and we have no clue which beach it was. I guess i will give the benefit of the doubt or wether the man thought he was alone or not, in which case i totally agree, and probably the pictures of the beach misslead me into thinking that was the actual place, which seems fairly crowded.
On September 30 2013 23:20 Musicus wrote: I can understand how this guy was acquitted, but this can under no circumtances mean that it's generally ok to masturbate in public. What if children are at the scene? It should only be allowed in areas where no children are allowed if anything.
At all costs we must keep children from learning they have genitals. That needs to be our number one priority going into legislature.
I don't know why you quoted me to express your opinion, but I don't agree with you. I think we need to educate children and be open about topics like this. But that has nothing to do with masturbating in public.
Educate children about how masturbation is so shameful that if you do it where anyone could potentially see you're a criminal!
People must really hate having discussions. You just keep putting words in my mouth and I will not lower myself to this level. Let's stop right here. Have a nice day.
You are arguing that there needs to be a law against masturbation in public because a child could passively see it (passively because if the child is intended to see it then it's covered by the law) and you think something bad will come of the child seeing it. You didn't make it clear what bad thing you thought would happen if they learned that sometimes people rub their genitals so I made a guess, maybe you should clear that up. What bad thing do you think will happen if a child sees someone masturbating?
im pretty sure you are trolling.... but how about cause its fucking indecent and most people dont want to live in a society where you can take your dick out in public. Im sorry KWARK but if you want that, then I would want you in jail and I think as a society we made it clear that shit is wrong. I dont want a 6 year old kid walking down the street seeing that shit and think it is okay...what bad comes of it? I dunno maybe the kid will then decide to take his dick out in his grade 1 class. Its not just kids though most grown ups believe it or not dont wanna see you KWARK stroking your dick in public. If you want to stroke your dick at home in front of your kids to teach em its okay to rub your genitals sometimes that is your right as a parent I guess, just dont teach the rest of our kids.
If you go to the lockerroms in your local swim pool or gym you will see tons of dicks around, how is that not indecent? They should all have their own little box to be naked it, and be fully clothed otherwise right?
Many tribes in africa not affected by modern media actually go around naked and they have no fucking problem with it, because they don't have some twisted view that sexuality needs to be suppressed.
Children there run around seeing adults naked all around them all the time and its not a problem.
If you at every opportunity punish people for being nude and masturbating you are putting it into childrens heads that its bad, in particular a lot of teenage girls in society feel shameful for masturbating and it takes a toll on their mentalhealth, many chose not to do it because of that shame and the impressions they get that its wrong, this cases a ton of mentalhealth issues for teenage girls, guys are affected as well but to a much lesser degree, as guys have a very strong physical need to masturbate, compared to girls who have a much stronger emotional need for it.
A lot of grown ups are like you, affected by societies suppression of sexuality, which causes a lot of harm.
So do you want to live in a society where it is okay for everyone to be naked? Be our guest. Also about that societies suppression of sexuality... sexuallity is all over the fucking place in our society. You have girls expressing there sexuality in grade 6 and 7 now days thanks to our media. Sex is everywhere in your face all the time. You have fucking titty bars, hookers, porn on your computer can you at least keep your dick in your pants while your out on the street? It has also led to us objectifying women. Just look at the fucked up porn that exists and what the womens roll is in these films.. you watch enough of that shit and it will probably harm you a lot fucking more then "societies supression of sexuality" I think those people that go home and have the urge to masterbate and look at porn all night have fucking bigger problems then people who fear masterbating. Im not saying masterbation is wrong but with all the sexuality our society is exposed to and since porn has basically gone mainstream it has become compolsion for a lot of people which harms there social life and ability to actually talk to girls. I dont know if I went off on a tangent here but my point was that no our society is not fucking supressing sexuality, for me its become over sexualized. There has to be a balance though there are societies that supress it to much but it definetiliy isnt us in the west, we fucking oversexualize shit.
I picture a guy going to a deserted beach, then walking around for hours till he sees someone, to then do his thing.
You not only should have a decent expectency of privacy in this case, you should be obligated to take precautions and make sure that noone else sees you. That is the most reasonable way to go about this.
On September 30 2013 23:20 Musicus wrote: I can understand how this guy was acquitted, but this can under no circumtances mean that it's generally ok to masturbate in public. What if children are at the scene? It should only be allowed in areas where no children are allowed if anything.
At all costs we must keep children from learning they have genitals. That needs to be our number one priority going into legislature.
I don't know why you quoted me to express your opinion, but I don't agree with you. I think we need to educate children and be open about topics like this. But that has nothing to do with masturbating in public.
Educate children about how masturbation is so shameful that if you do it where anyone could potentially see you're a criminal!
People must really hate having discussions. You just keep putting words in my mouth and I will not lower myself to this level. Let's stop right here. Have a nice day.
You are arguing that there needs to be a law against masturbation in public because a child could passively see it (passively because if the child is intended to see it then it's covered by the law) and you think something bad will come of the child seeing it. You didn't make it clear what bad thing you thought would happen if they learned that sometimes people rub their genitals so I made a guess, maybe you should clear that up. What bad thing do you think will happen if a child sees someone masturbating?
im pretty sure you are trolling.... but how about cause its fucking indecent and most people dont want to live in a society where you can take your dick out in public. Im sorry KWARK but if you want that, then I would want you in jail and I think as a society we made it clear that shit is wrong. I dont want a 6 year old kid walking down the street seeing that shit and think it is okay...what bad comes of it? I dunno maybe the kid will then decide to take his dick out in his grade 1 class. Its not just kids though most grown ups believe it or not dont wanna see you KWARK stroking your dick in public. If you want to stroke your dick at home in front of your kids to teach em its okay to rub your genitals sometimes that is your right as a parent I guess, just dont teach the rest of our kids.
If you go to the lockerroms in your local swim pool or gym you will see tons of dicks around, how is that not indecent? They should all have their own little box to be naked it, and be fully clothed otherwise right?
Many tribes in africa not affected by modern media actually go around naked and they have no fucking problem with it, because they don't have some twisted view that sexuality needs to be suppressed.
Children there run around seeing adults naked all around them all the time and its not a problem.
If you at every opportunity punish people for being nude and masturbating you are putting it into childrens heads that its bad, in particular a lot of teenage girls in society feel shameful for masturbating and it takes a toll on their mentalhealth, many chose not to do it because of that shame and the impressions they get that its wrong, this cases a ton of mentalhealth issues for teenage girls, guys are affected as well but to a much lesser degree, as guys have a very strong physical need to masturbate, compared to girls who have a much stronger emotional need for it.
A lot of grown ups are like you, affected by societies suppression of sexuality, which causes a lot of harm.
So do you want to live in a society where it is okay for everyone to be naked? Be our guest. Also about that societies suppression of sexuality... sexuallity is all over the fucking place in our society. You have girls expressing there sexuality in grade 6 and 7 now days thanks to our media. Sex is everywhere in your face all the time. You have fucking titty bars, hookers, porn on your computer can you at least keep your dick in your pants while your out on the street? It has also led to us objectifying women. Just look at the fucked up porn that exists and what the womens roll is in these films.. you watch enough of that shit and it will probably harm you a lot fucking more then "societies supression of sexuality" I think those people that go home and have the urge to masterbate and look at porn all night have fucking bigger problems then people who fear masterbating. Im not saying masterbation is wrong but with all the sexuality our society is exposed to and since porn has basically gone mainstream it has become compolsion for a lot of people which harms there social life and ability to actually talk to girls. I dont know if I went off on a tangent here but my point was that no our society is not fucking supressing sexuality, for me its become over sexualized. There has to be a balance though there are societies that supress it to much but it definetiliy isnt us in the west, we fucking oversexualize shit.
I'm not sure what your issue with hardcore pornography is. It can, and is, enjoyed by healthy men and women. There is nothing mutually exclusive about bondage sodomy threesomes and a loving healthy relationship. As long as all parties freely consent to everything and no harm is being done then let people be happy with their sexual expression.
Honestly I feel most of the damaging results of sex result from shame and repression.
On September 30 2013 23:20 FiWiFaKi wrote: Should totally me legal, good change.
I think that if you are intentionally showing your dong to passerbys it's too much... But I see no issue masturbating in a public bathroom, outside in a field, movie theatre, or just anywhere where your penis/vagina is not exposed to many people who don't want to seewhere
Now that we are in a day and age where everyone is always busy, you should not be required to receive your secure release late in the evening when you're home. I hope other countries follow suit.
I actually completely agree with this. People interpret this a lot as actually doing it publicly, but obviously people that are going to do it in those places were going to anyway - I think this is a good rule, in this day and age. I personally can't say I'm much of a fan, but if you're alone and there's nobody in a certain radius around you - Do what you need to do.
Maybe because the old dude, was on the beach, at the water's edge.
Most of the coastline in England is deserted. If it were a crowded beach frequented by children during daytime in the Summer holidays I'd be happy concluding he wanted to be seen and I suspect most courts would decide the same.
But aren't doing it in the open, an act of voyeurism?
You have to ask yourself why do it in a public place where people or children could easily walk in on you, like in this case. He didn't do a good job of finding a place where nobody could see him. Because you would think he would find it embarrassing if somebody saw him right? Since he has no intention of people seeing him according to court. People like that do it because they like the danger of getting spotted.
Like the couple you talked about in the buss. They didn't do in there because if was comfortable, but because they liked the danger involved.
So why didn't he find a better spot...I still think this reeks of the excitement of public sex or voyeurism.
He/others will just keep using places where the odd chance of 1 or more will find him, and claim he didn't intent of doing so, because it wasn't a crowded beach.
On September 30 2013 23:51 FFW_Rude wrote: If you see a guy through his window masterbating, this is voyeurism and you can be charged. If a guy masterbate in the street and "forces you" (in a sens) to watch, it's public nudity and it's charged.
So basicly if i understand right, people are talking about removing the charging for people that masturbate in the street ?
If you're doing it because you get off on people watching you it's still illegal because you're involving them. If you're just doing your own thing, not involving anyone, not harming anyone, who the fuck cares. Now I'm reasonably sure everyone deciding to do it on a street would be the first category but also that most people masturbating or fucking their girlfriends outside are the second category. There is no reason to make a blanket law against the acts themselves when you can distinguish between them.
Because you can still walk in on them. Like I said in a previous post. Im just to accept having to watch people masturbate in nature while im running or walking my dog? or simply taking a stroll?
They're forced to accept you walking your dog. That bizarre inter-species master slave relationship is way weirder than a guy touching his dick. Hell, bonobos masturbate but they don't keep pets. The difference is they're not trying to ban you walking your dog.
If i replace the "walking the dog" by "talking a walk on myself" is that still apply ? I want to understand why you support this so vehemently. I think i'm missing something. Maybe i don't understand you very well
I don't understand why walking a dog in a forest is fine, walking alone in a forest is fine, having a picnic in a forest is fine, dressing up as a clown in a forest is fine but jacking it in a forest needs to be illegal because someone might see. Someone might see all of these things and yet they're not banned. It's only if you impart some hugely negative value judgement on masturbation that it makes any kind of sense and I just don't agree that it's especially harmful. Non-consensual sexual involvement should absolutely be illegal but it is so that's not the issue. People seem to be saying that just passively seeing it is so awful it must be illegal and I just don't see why. Freedom should be limited on the basis of harm.
No, freedom shouldn't be limited on the basis of harm. Freedom should be limited to the respect on other people and the fact of living together in a peaceful society. The problem is that you're putting masturbation on the same level as dressing as a clown or walking the dog, which is absolutely not the same. The first one is a fact of clothes, that harms no one. The second one is absolutely normal and disturbs no one. Masturbating behind a tree is not disturbing too, that's true. But there is an ethic that is to not show it to people, because it's something that is only for you and no one else. Imagine if one of your parents, or one of your children would see you ? The problem is that they don't try to see you, you are in fault because you aren't in a private zone. Masturbating is something socially disturbing if it's shown to someone, and it must stay like that. I have nothing against masturbation as long as people don't suddenly consider masturbation as something absolutely normal that can be done anywhere.
The fact you call walking a dog normal and non disturbing but masturbating unnormal and disturbing is really weird to me. Just proves how messed up our society is, many species of monkeys have sex with each other while the others are around, but they don't enslave other animals.
Masturbating is something the majority considers disturbing because that is what our society has turned into, you also think homosexuality should be illegal and women should not be allowed to show their face? societies in the middle east think so and are making rules based on it.
The way you are treating masturbation is no different from how the middle east is treating women and homosexuals.
If I walked in the woods and saw someone masturbate I wouldn't care, when I see a dog humping something I don't care, when I see dogs have sex in the street I don't care, if I walked in on one of my parents having sex I wouldn't care either, because its not a big deal.
I realize how normal it is, so it doesn't disturb me, what does disturb me is that societies want women to not show their faces in public, and that societies consider masturbation disturbing; both of those make me worry for the future.
Further, I do find naked men gross, but I also find pooping gross, sneezing gross, fat people gross, coughing gross, bad hygiene gross etc
Now sure, sneezing and pooping and coughing isn't something you control so we can exclude those, but should people with bad hygiene or overweight people be criminalized?
I am actually more grossed out by particularly bad breath than a man masturbating.
On September 30 2013 23:20 FiWiFaKi wrote: Should totally me legal, good change.
I think that if you are intentionally showing your dong to passerbys it's too much... But I see no issue masturbating in a public bathroom, outside in a field, movie theatre, or just anywhere where your penis/vagina is not exposed to many people who don't want to seewhere
Now that we are in a day and age where everyone is always busy, you should not be required to receive your secure release late in the evening when you're home. I hope other countries follow suit.
I actually completely agree with this. People interpret this a lot as actually doing it publicly, but obviously people that are going to do it in those places were going to anyway - I think this is a good rule, in this day and age. I personally can't say I'm much of a fan, but if you're alone and there's nobody in a certain radius around you - Do what you need to do.
Maybe because the old dude, was on the beach, at the water's edge.
Most of the coastline in England is deserted. If it were a crowded beach frequented by children during daytime in the Summer holidays I'd be happy concluding he wanted to be seen and I suspect most courts would decide the same.
But aren't doing it in the open, an act of voyeurism?
You have to ask yourself why do it in a public place where people or children could easily walk in on you, like in this case. He didn't do a good job of finding a place where nobody could see him. Because you would think he would it embarrassing if somebody saw him right. Since he has no intention of people seeing him according to court. People like that do it because they like the danger of getting spotted.
Like the couple you talked about in the buss. They didn't do in there because if was comfortable, but because they liked the danger involved.
So why didn't he find a better spot...I still think this reeks of the excitement of public sex or voyeurism.
He/others will just keep using places where the odd chance of 1 or more will find him, and claim he didn't intent of doing so, because it wasn't a crowded beach.
I'm sure if there emerges an ongoing issue of sex offenders gaming the system to get away with it and despite the pattern the law still cannot prove that they are targeting people then they'll reconsider it. But as it is it just allows people who didn't do any harm to not have their lives ruined by the label of a sex offender which I can't see as a bad thing.
On October 01 2013 00:50 HardlyNever wrote: However, it seems weird to me that the Swedish government now feels the need to codify this specific case ruling into a standing law. Clearly, I don't have a full understanding how of the Swedish legal system works, and maybe this is just how they have to do it now that they have made the ruling on this particular case (and they can't have standing case-law). If that is what is going on, then this entire thing seems pretty sensationalist.
It's a single ruling for a specific case at a low instance. It doesn't mean jack shit. Sensationalist is an understatement.
I'm surprised nobodies brought up health issues. I pretty much agree that masturbating in some public areas are fine like bathrooms and certain outdoor areas, but I shouldn't have to worry if some guy just shot his load all over the theatre seat im about to sit in. To me it should basically run along the same rules as using the toilet.
The prosecutors tried the man for a crime for which a person has to be targeted, which wasn't the case here. It's still friggin illegal to masturbate in public in Sweden! The crime just didn't fit the accusation, the prosecutor screwed up. And this was one ruling in the lowest court of law. Hardly a codified piece of legislation making it legal to rub your dick all over. Jeeeez.. get a grip people!
It is still illegal to publically masturbate in Sweden. It is a lesser offense than sexual assault under the circumstances of this specific crime. I guess no one bothered to fact check this since the OP is from Sweden.
EPT
