TOPICS:
DEC 31, 2007 05:31 PM
DEC 31, 2007 10:10 PM
JAN 01, 2008 04:16 AM
bean said:
DCruz said:
Nessuno said:
Copper said:
It IS legal for women to be topless here in Columbus, Ohio.
However, it should be noted that the woman sunbathing was not involved with the police, she was just an ordinary citizen sunbathing.
In one of the articles I originally read about the incident, it noted that the woman ASKED to see the man's penis, so the police charging him with indecent exposure is no different than, for example, you and your woman getting caught getting it on in a public area & being charged. Only in this incidence, the woman cannot be charged, since it's legal to bare one's tits here in good ol' CBus.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Does anyone else feel that if someone is going to enforce this case, they should prosecute the woman too? I mean, the law is backwards, but if you have a faulty law, it should at least not see sexist enforcement.
you know, I was just thinking the same thing... and since she isn't, does it somehow imply she was in on the whole thing ? 
Cause I honestly don't see why she shouldn't be charged when she's the one who asked...
No, the fact that she's not being charged with anything doesn't imply that she's in on anything, since he's the one that broke the law, not her.
To Nessuno, how is a law that says that both male and female chests can be bared in public, but that nobody's genitals can, "backwards?" Furthermore, how is it faulty?
If she's not involved with the cops, it's not entrapment. Period. It's not even close.
Dude whipped out his cock in public. It doesn't take a brain surgeon (or a lawyer for that matter) to think, "maybe this isn't acceptable conduct."
This whole thing seems like a tempest in a teapot, most of the outrage about it seems misdirected, and some of it seems to border on misogyny. It's not like he was branded a sexual predator or had to register as a sex offender or anything. He got a ticket for exposing himself in public. Boo fucking hoo.
Even the statement from the cops about catching "men" isn't that big a deal if you think about it. He's not saying they won't arrest women if they're found exposing themselves in public, but maybe that just doesn't happen as much as guys whipping out their dicks.
The only thing really worth getting upset about is the creepiness inherent in the idea of cops filming topless sunbathers.
Of course, this whole thing changes if the woman was an agent of the police.
While I agree that some peoples responses to this article border close to misogyny, its not hard to understand why such a reactionary conclusion is present; though a more accurate focus of where this reaction comes from is needed, so lets review the verdict again.
The argument[entrapment] failed to sway a Franklin County Municipal Court jury that found Garrison guilty of public indecency last month. He was ordered to stay away from the park, placed on a year's probation and fined $250. Currently, Garrison remains on paid desk duty while the fire department conducts an internal investigation into his behavior.
So basically the court is treating him like a potential re-offender with a one year restraining order against going near the park. The question of this women acting without any prior knowledge of the operation becomes irrelevant when analyzing the sexist antagonism at work; the court verdict is Misandryst, it fails to reckognise that he only acted on the behalf and after instructions from a 2nd party and assumes that he would offend again without seemingly proving that he has a history related to the park itself and not the 2nd party! The failure in this verdict is represented through the restraining order on the man, not to mention on the man alone, after all could this women not be a danger to soceity by (gasp) asking more men to show their penises in public?
Of course not, shudder at the thought that women might want to see more then one mans cock, that would fly in the face of all these conservative values this board holds dear.
Unless of course she represents no danger in the fact that she was merely acting on the behalf of the authorities, which would also explain why she was not charged in her social conduct in at least as a partner in this misdemeanor, regardless of the legal status on the quality of upper body clothing she was wearing at the time.
Also another aspect to consider is when I looked at the news link, the park seems quite empty, which then begs the question, much like the tree falling in the forrest, is society wounded by the the act of a women asking a man to expose himself in a public place, even if their is no public around except for the authorities?
JAN 12, 2008 04:37 PM
JAN 12, 2008 04:39 PM
JAN 12, 2008 04:44 PM
JAN 12, 2008 05:08 PM
JAN 12, 2008 05:14 PM
JAN 16, 2008 08:02 AM
HLB is glad she is moving Kentucky next week... And who thought those words would ever come out of my mouth? 
_margot_
Los Angeles, CA
December 2007
DEC 31, 2007 05:16 PM