Phantom flogger is foodie favorite!

There is such a thing as compulsive masturbation. A guy (or possibly a woman?) will flog the dolphin 30-40 times a day, and get very little enjoyment out of it, but can’t stop. And yes, it is treatable.

I’m not sure that this guy qualifies, though.

Wait a minute. Where did she say any of that? Or seemed in need of therapy? She said some of her girlfriends had felt traumatized by something similar. Sh certainly didn’t seem traumatized, she took out a camera and …er…exposed someone committing a crime. Kind of the opposite of a victim.

And she didn’t call him a rapist. She speculated he might go one to assault or rape. I don’t now the general likelyhood of flashers “graduating” to rape so that might be unfounded, but while it’s NOT rape it is a type of assualt and comes for the same impulse.

I also have a strong objection to internet vigilantism. What happens if one of her readers sees a guy that looks sort of like this pervert? What if, as a result of this public shaming, someone beats or kills this guy? These things tend not to go as planned.


So I guess the police should stop putting up composite drawings or taking mug shot? Yes I know that’s the police and not a “vigilant” but how does that effect your objection?
Oh, and as a non-shopping female, I’m offended by your assertion that woman get their therapy at Bloomingdales. In fact, I’m traumatized :D.

You’re right, but if her friends were traumatized, then they overreacted possibly. And to take a picture of the guy in hopes of preventing further trauma seems–I don’t know, kind of creepy in itself.

Do you know this for certain? I’ve never heard of flashers graduating to rape. Maybe they do, but until I’m certain, I’d be hesitant to plaster a person’s picture all over the internet calling him a “possible” rapist.

You’re correct. It’s the police and not a vigilante. Let them do their jobs, and don’t take the law into your own hands. You never know how it may backfire.

Perhaps just a world of Hoyt… :stuck_out_tongue:

<runs for life>

Wow, talk about a virtual lynch mob!

Reading the vindictive blogger’s responses make me sick to my stomach.

This type of behavior worries me. What if someone sees this, decides, “Hey, maybe I’ll take a motion-blurred camperaphone pic of that coworker I hate and tell everybody he beat his meat in front of me” ?

She was taking a picture of the guy because he was committing a crime and she wanted to prevent him from doing it again. Seems pretty reasonable.

Does it have to be rape before you can say this is not something I should have to put up with on my ride home?

Do I know what for certain? That he would become a rapist? Of course not. I said as much.

Or that it comes from the same impulse? Well, I don’t have a scienctific study for that but I’m willing to stand behind my statement. While exibitionists (like most perverts :)) generally get their jollies in realitivly socially accepted way, guys who deliberatly expose themselves to unwilling veiwers are doing so to provoke a reaction…embarassement, disgust…fear. Which is pretty much what rapists get off on.

If any women get “traumatized” by this, I think it’s more the hostility of the act then the sight of an errant penis (it happened to me…on the NY subway in fact. And it didn’t traumatize me but it creeped me out for the rest of the day. And I LIKE penises.)

Ok. But your objection was that it could lead to someone mistaking someone else for the crime and beating them up. That wouldn’t be any different if it was her or the police distributing the picture.

Although I do agree with you, she would have been wiser to just turn the picture over to the police and leave it at that. Though, in that, I’m still saying she was quite right to take the picture in the first place.
(Although not a law abiding one; at the risk of undermining my defense of her, I will note that it is in fact, illegal to take pictures of people on the NYC subway :D)

Er…yeah, she had to deal with his nasty, criminal behavior and in reponse she wanted to have him arrested.

How disgusting and vindictive.

And yes, it would be very bad if people set up web sites and use them to defame other people unjustly. If only Thao Nguyen hadn’t given them the idea!!

(I mean, despite the fact that she doesn’t seem to have made this up and has nothing to do with someone who does. But I mean other than that…)

It would be especially helpful if the coworker’s erect penis was conveniently visible. :dubious:

Anyway, the simple answer to that question is “Slander or libel charges.” So what?

I’m intrigued by the subway evangelism phenomenon. Do people in other cities encounter this, or is it a specifically New York thing? I’m a regular CTA passenger and I have never once encountered an evangelist on either the el or bus here in Chicago. Crazy mutterers, yes, but people loudly interested in religion, no.

In addition to the two notorious examples I mentioned earlier (Fred Coe and Randall Woodfield (who became known as the I-5 killer after further “graduating” to serial murder)), there’s Colin Pitchfork in England, who decided after years of flashing that the thrill wasn’t enough and “graduated” to rape and murder (his case was the subject of Joseph Wambaugh’s book “The Blooding”, about the first murders ever solved by DNA testing).

We had a case around here recently where a “Nude Jogger” would carry a camera to take photos of women he flashed. He also started grabbing some of the women and sneaking into apartment buildings. He was caught (he turned out to be a local attorney), so it’s hard to tell what he might have “graduated” to if not stopped.

Let’s try to avoid slippery slope arguments.

No, it doesn’t. But a bit of perspective is in order.

You said as much but then in the same breath you professed that public wankers are more or less the same as rapists. Here:

For someone with no scientific evidence you seem to know quite a bit about the motivations of these guys. And you seem quite comfortable with someone becoming judge, jury, and executioner over such a lack of evidence. Do you think a court of law could convict someone on “Well, I don’t have a scienctific study for that but I’m willing to stand behind my statement”?

“The police do it so it’s OK for me to do it too.” Sorry, no. You can’t go around cuffing people or getting into car chases, either.

And I have something of a problem with the police posting post office sketches, for the same reason. I have serious problems with the sex offender registry. But at least the police have some bit of credibility. They have some evidence in their favor when they post such things. And they don’t put these things on a blog. And of course, they instruct you to contact them if you see the offender–not take matters into your own hands.

Yes, she would have. Much wiser.

I was wondering about this, too. The “evidence” we have is a picture of a man not holding his penis in his hand.

In addition to the two notorious examples I mentioned earlier (Fred Coe and Randall Woodfield (who became known as the I-5 killer after further “graduating” to serial murder)), there’s Colin Pitchfork in England,QUOTE]
Thanks for those examples. I did not know about them.

Does this mean that every flasher will inevitably turn into a serial rapist or murderer? Should we execute them all now because we know how they’ll eventually turn out?


Careful, you could be severely injured if that flaming strawman collapses.

As even a cursory reading of my posts would show, I was responding to the mindset that says “oh well, flashers are harmless”, and your post saying “I’ve never heard of flashers graduating to rape.”

I also said previously, “The common generalization is that such pervs are harmless; while this may be true in most cases, exposers have also gone on to higher levels of thrills including serial rape and murder.”

A reasonable conclusion from the information you have been given is that, yes, women targeted by flashers (especially on a near-empty subway car) might just have reason to be scared.

One might also justifiably conclude that you are an ass.

And I responded that you showed me some examples where I was wrong. And I thanked you for it. Problem?

Which supports my point that you can’t condemn the many on the basis of a few. In this we seem to be in agreement.

Granted, although this assumes that such women are familiar with the cases you cited. I’m not sure that I would make such an assumption. Even so, scared does not equal traumatized. It certainly does not justify plastering the offender’s picture all over the internet.

One might, if one were so inclined. No skin off my nose.

One of the disturbing parts of this story is that papers like the Daily News already had screaming headlines labeling the guy in the picture a perv and whatnot. I know the News is a rag and all, but people do read it. So like Incubus said, I hope this doesn’t allow people in the future to snap a pic of someone they don’t like and have newspapers in the city putting it up with “Pervert!” headlines without any evidence whatsoever.

Of course, it does seem pretty likely that she got the right guy in this case.

You’ve heard of Photoshop, right?

And winning a slander or libel case is little comfort after you’ve been labeled world-wide as a pervert. Only some percentage of the people who think of you as a sexual devient will change their mind, or even hear of you winning the case. Don’t fool yourself into thinking an innocent person’s life couldn’t be destoyed by a situation similar to this.

I’m not saying the woman in this case should have done anything differently, but let’s not ignore that fact that an innocent could be maliciously slandered in a similar fashion, and winning a court case would almost certainly not put everything back to normal.

Also, regarding exhibiltionism-

Wouldn’t taking an exhibitionist’s picture and posting it on the internet just encourage them? I’m sure it wasn’t this guy’s intention (being a well known restaurant owner and all) but I can certainly imagine this would just encourage exhibitionists when they think about all the people on the internet that might be gawking at them.

What slippery slope? I don’t think he should be arrested because what he did leads to rape or is like rape…I think he should be arrested for what he did.

And shoplifters are more or less like Bonnie and Clyde. If I note that they both have the same motivation, does that mean I’m saying their actions are equivilent? No, it doesn’t.

Yes. I have to say I think I know something about the motives of these guys. Based on my own experience, what I know of the experience of others and my ability to use my brain. Of course when I say I know, I mean it is my own considered and thought out opinion. Where did I say it should be accepted on any other level?

And where did Ms. Nyguen set herself up as judge jury and executioner? Most of her story is about trying to take her evidence to the proper authorities.

Of course not. Where are you getting these things from? I expect the court to convict him on what he actually did.

Right, that’s what I said. :rolleyes: Actually I was just responding to YOUR argument that it could lead to the wrong person (or even the right person which wouldn’t be good either) being attacked by vigilantes. And pointing out that AS FAR AS THAT GOES it could happen with any distributed discription whoever it came from.

Then I said I agreed that she should have just given it to the police and not published it herself. I understand the concern about abuses coming from blogs like hers. That said, though, I don’t see where she called for vigdilantism any more than the police would have. She mainly talked about her efforts to get the guy arrested.

Well, that goes to my point about most perverts getting off in more respectable ways. If the guy’s an exibitionist he could send out his own picture. There are PLENTY of places he could go to get gawked at.

But if his point is to find an unwilling viewer…and enjoying her discomfort…then normal exibitionism won’t do it for him. Hence, the sense in which I say flashing is “like” rape.