It’s just a penis. Is the kid more traumatized by seeing the penis or by everybody’s reaction to him just seeing the penis?
Sometimes I am amused by the minutiae of legal doctrines and their application to the real world. Oddly enough, Virginia Courts have had to deal with this issue before:
*"On the morning of August 22, 2003, Willis displayed his [ed. Willis was apparently a post op transexual with female appearing breasts, not just man breasts.] breasts and buttocks three separate times while on a public street in Richmond. Specifically, at 2:50 a.m., Willis showed his breasts twice and his buttocks once. This first occurrence lasted approximately twenty-five seconds. During the second incident, occurring at 2:55 a.m., he displayed his buttocks for approximately twenty seconds. During the third incident, occurring at 3:23 a.m., he got out of a car with his breasts bared.
These three occurrences were observed and videotaped by Officer Matthew Edgar, an undercover officer with the Richmond Police Department. Willis was arrested on September 9, 2003, for “intentionally mak[ing] an obscene display of the accused’s person or private parts in a public place or in a place where others were present.”
At trial, Willis argued that his conduct did not amount to an “obscene display” because “the fact that [he] bent over . . . and [the officer] saw some cheeks is not obscene according to the definition of obscene.” In essence, Willis contended that the exposure of body parts other than genitalia is not sufficient to constitute an “obscene display” unless that exposure is coupled with an additional gesture or some other form of lewd conduct."*
The Court went on to rely on the trial courts’ finding that the display, even though not of genitalia, was still “obscene” within the definition of the Virginia Code.
"Here, when viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, Willis’ conduct clearly had “as its dominant theme or purpose an appeal to the prurient interest in sex.” During each of these three incidents, Willis exposed either his breasts or his buttocks for an extended length of time. While his body parts were exposed, Willis made no attempt to cover himself. These incidents occurred between 2:00 and 3:30 in the morning while Willis was parading up and down a street in an area known for illegal prostitution. Taken as a whole, these circumstances suffice to demonstrate that Willis’ conduct was both intentional and done with the purpose of “appeal[ing] to the prurient interest in sex. Cf. Hart v. Commonwealth, 18 Va. App. 77, 79-80, 441 S.E.2d 706, 707 (1994) (affirming conviction for indecent exposure where the defendant made certain suggestive remarks while wearing a G-string swimsuit in public, thereby exposing his buttocks and a portion of his pubic area).”
While there is a certain prudity to the courts’ application of the obscene standard, the judge in this case wasn’t necessarily wrong. And, given the testimony at trial, I don’t really have a problem with the guy getting convicted. I’ll note that his sentence was suspended, meaning (I think, someone more familiar with Virginia law would know for sure) there isn’t a conviction and he wasn’t fined or sentenced to jail.
Well, darn, I can’t find the relevant Kids in the Hall clip on YouTube.
“Aww, you made the coffee naked!”
The court found that he was singing and making loud noises in an attempt to get people to look at him naked, which is not what you do within your home.
Honestly I don’t care about nudity, either. I don’t care that the guy was naked in his own house, and it’s a rare day indeed that I’m not walking around naked in my own house at some point. This guy was not just walking around naked in his house, though. He was walking around naked in his house and trying to get people to look at him.
More importantly, why was I not informed?
The article I read said there was a whole man attached to the penis.