Ms. Nguyen stated that if this guy were to be allowed to continue, he might become a rapist, and therefore needed to be stopped. That’s the slippery sope I’m talking about. I have no problem with his being arrested for what he actually did.
Fair enough. But then why bring up the rape stuff in the first place?
Sure, but it still amounts to a guess. Which is fine, if it’s all academic anyway. It’s when Ms. Nguyen takes matters into her own hands that I have a problem with.
Not quite. She posted the guy’s picture on the internet. And she gave a story that intentially or not incited at least violent thoughts. And these might turn to violent actions, perhaps against the wrong person.
Would she be liable if that happened? You’d have to ask a lawyer, but I seem to remember that such a precedent has been set. It doesn’t matter if her intentions were good. (Which I don’t think they were. She obviously posted the picture so that other people could identify him.)
And the fact that she spent much of her blog talking about how she tried to get police involvement doesn’t matter. She still posted the guy’s picture.
What, you’re unconvinced by the photo because he’s only stroking it and not using a monkey-grip?
Of course. This picture has the verisimilitude of a crappy cellphone pic with a lousy “shutter speed,” though.
As for the hypothetical of someone faking up a picture to humiliate someone, I don’t think it enters into it. That’s a criminal act, and anyone who stooped to it should be shown up. Yes, a smear could create a lot of grief for someone – so could the damage to reputation coming from any accusation or investigation – but we wouldn’t say that nobody should ever be accused of or reported or investigated for sex crimes (or anything else) because a baseless accusation against an innocent person might harm them.
The only thing I found alarming about the story was the The Daily News rushing to press with the guy’s name. I’d like to give them the benefit of the doubt and think that there was 100% certainty that he was guilty (e.g. multiple confirmations, additional information that wasn’t printed, awareness of his history of committing the same crime, etc) but I get the feeling that they may have run with not much more than several people saying it looks like so-and-so. This is particularly spooky because it was a person with a reasonably high public profile – it could have been ugly if the actual flasher turned out to be a doppelganger who never left his apartment except to wank and was known and recognized by no-one.
It’s a widely accepted motivation for exhibitionism. From this site:
*
"The typical exhibitionist often harbors feelings of anger, hostility, shame, doubt, or a deep sense of inadequacy, which in turn produces a compulsive need to prove himself by frightening others. By shocking the onlooker, the exhibitionist hopes to produce a response within the victim that will ensure him that even though he cannot command love, respect or attention, at least he is powerful enough to produce some kind of reaction from total strangers…
Are exhibitionists dangerous?
Since exhibitionists do not always approach their victims to touch or fondle them, some people believe that they are not much of a danger to society. However, research shows that the degree of sexual assault committed by exhibitionists increases through time. Many psychologists also believe that victims of exhibitionism are usually quite traumatized by the experience (ASP Test Page). "*
One relatively recent study of exhibitionism offenders (Abel et al, Bulletin of the Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 16 (153-168)) found that 46% of exhibitionism offenders had either sexually assaulted children outside the family or committed incestuous offenses, while 25% had committed rape.
I have been approached by an evangelist actually on transit once. It was very memorable, and probably not much like the New York style. A lady of about forty got on the bus, dressed entirely in white – white boots, a light summer dress, a cape, and a wiiiiide-brimmed hat. She walted directly to the back, where I was sitting, gave me a big smile and batted her long lashes over her wide blue eyes, and asked me “Would you like to join the Eternity Club?” “Uh, no.”
Then she went on to talk to someone else – and was promptly chucked off the bus. We don’t see it here because it’s fecking annoying and the transit company doesn’t allow it, thank god.
We do have a few fire-and-brimstone, screaming-at-the-top-of-their-lungs nutjobs that loiter at the bustops and harrass people as they get off the bus – but at least we’re not obliged to remain in an enclosed space with them.
Huh. Well, then, I stand corrected. Learn something new every day, I guess.
I suppose it sounds incredible to me because, well, it would never occur to me to flash someone or become the Public Masturbator. (Sounds like an elected office, don’t it?)
One turn on for me (though not a huge one) is being watched. I think a lot of people are into that. I just assumed that’s why flashers did what they did.
I haven’t seen too many hellfire and brimstone preachers on the T in Boston, but we used to get a lot of people inviting you to Bible study groups (Maybe they still do this, but they know better than to approach me these days). These people are often friendly to a fault, and there was only one I found to be truly obnoxious.
This one time, it was two young knockout babes. I was looking at them furtively like “Gee, I could go for some of that.” They responded by saying hello and asking if I had any plans for that night and if I’d like to join them. Uh, does the Pope shit in the woods? Just let me stop to get some vitamin E. Then they said it was a Bible study meeting. Rats! I can honestly say that I wish they had been flashers instead.
Well, I see this has already be answered . Good link, Jackmannii.
But I was just going to say speaking for myself, that I based it on the impression I got from my own experience, from converstaions with my mother (no, I don’t mean where she told me to stay away from men in raincoats, I mean she’s a psychologist ) from things I’ve read (including a very interesting book on male sexual fantasy that included first hand {ahem} accounts by flashers)…
And finally the idea that exibitionists do have legitimate outlets (certain a lot more for woman than men, but still), so that the unwillingness of the other person seems to be crucial for some people. And if that’s the case…
The motivations of flashers are not all the same, and some revel in making their viewers uncomfortable and frightened, as has been cited. I think I’ve read about some who actually get off on the humiliation of being seen naked; I’d suspect being laughed at might actually be what some of them get off on. Just idle speculation, mind.
