Visual Sexual Aggression

Wow, they're opening a Pandora's Box with this one. It'll be interesting to see how they can possibly determine if somebody was viewing a kid "aggressively." Weird.

Conspiracy Theory said:

There is a Democrat trying to ban that.

It's for the children.

Click to expand...

wow what is "visual sexual aggression?"
this sounds like thought crime and it makes me sad to know that people don't find this a bit orwellian.

I wonder how many parents and guardians will be suspect because they are keeping a close eye...guilty until proven innocent?

The police asked the man to move along, that was the correct action. What is being suggested is that he should have been held, in custody I assume, while a background check was run. If the background check showed anything what would be the next move? What if it showed something unrelated to children? What if it didn't show anything?

Police should be watching for those who stalk children. (and anyone else, for that matter)

Of course, a person who is watching the washroom doors for a long period of time should be asked to move along. Providing, of course, that they aren't just waiting for a friend (or family member) who's in line to use the washroom at a busy place.

But to make it a crime to people-watch is going a bit far... perhaps there is more to this story than meets the eye. I hope there is. Because I know dozens of people who life to people-watch and they are not criminals, just normal people.

If someone is often spotted watching washrooms or changerooms or the like, then yes, they should be asked to leave and a background check should be done. But making people-watching a crime is going too far.

Agreed. Unless there's more solid evidence of potential criminal behaviour, you shouldn't arrest someone for looking.

Unless there's more solid evidence of potential criminal behaviour, you shouldn't arrest someone for looking..

Click to expand...

...and certainly not have that be a felony.

Is anyone esle very curious as to how "leering" or "viewing" or however this law puts it is defined? I mean, could theoretically anyone who catches a glimpse of a girl be up crap creek without a paddle?

Hmmm????
Maybe those police officers we not really watching a suspected criminal but were leering at young people???

I see this law turning into a problem for everyone!

Shadowfax503 said:

Hmmm????
Maybe those police officers we not really watching a suspected criminal but were leering at young people???

I see this law turning into a problem for everyone!

Click to expand...

Agreed.

While the concept might be a good idea, I just don't see this law as one that can be workable on a practical level. I mean, I could be sitting in a park, reading a book and drinking some good coffee, and be arrested because I was also watching some kids play? Sounds pretty stupid to me.

Tell this to construction workers country wide and see how it goes.

I have often wondered if the art of staring within certain nationalities is hereditary or learned.

This is truly a great phenomenon.

Ginny said:

Tell this to construction workers country wide and see how it goes.

I have often wondered if the art of staring within certain nationalities is hereditary or learned.

This is truly a great phenomenon.

Click to expand...

Well... ogling a beautiful woman is rude and crude, but it IS a whole different matter than ogling children.

I just don't know how anybody can determine whether a person is watching children play, or viewing them in a "sexually aggressive" way. I love children, and as the father of two grown sons and an almost grown daughter, I miss "little kids". I often find myself watching little kids play, and missing those days with my own kids. So how does somebody know that I'm just enjoying the marvel of children at play, and not viewing them in a sexually aggressive way?

ParsonJefferson said:

Well... ogling a beautiful woman is rude and crude, but it IS a whole different matter than ogling children.

I just don't know how anybody can determine whether a person is watching children play, or viewing them in a "sexually aggressive" way. I love children, and as the father of two grown sons and an almost grown daughter, I miss "little kids". I often find myself watching little kids play, and missing those days with my own kids. So how does somebody know that I'm just enjoying the marvel of children at play, and not viewing them in a sexually aggressive way?

Click to expand...

I agree!
I have three children all are teens now and I too miss young children. I and my wife have recently talked about having more children because we do mis having little ones around.
So how does one determine that someone is not just enjoying watching a child play? This law is way to subjective and way to harsh. We are setting up our cops to become the thought police.

BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING!

Nobody know why people are 'looking' they way they do. I often get accused of ignoring people or looking at someone sternly because my vision isn't what it used to be and I don't often wear glasses so I guess I don't see some familiar faces going by in the distance and squint alot! My daughter has been accused of giving people 'dirty looks' for the same reason.

If we can make everyone a potential criminal it is easier to justify more and more corrosive methods of control of the people.

The more frightened the people are they might be sited as a criminal the less likely they will put themselves in positions where they might "stand out", thereby more likely to be controlled.

READ THE BILL AND THE ARTICLE.

BILL

It criminalizes "An adult exposing his or her genitals to a child, and enticing the child to expose himself or herself to the adult, for purposes of shocking someone or causing sexual arousal." It's RIGHT THERE IN THE ARTICLE.

You guys should be ashamed of yourselves, especially the OP, if all of you of you are too lazy to try to verify the information that you are regularly bombarded with. Don't act like sheep; if you do, you're contributing to the downhill slide of both this forum and your country. Christian forums used to be better than this.

That's not "right there in the article".

The article makes no mention of exposing genitals and sound like it makes leering a crime.

Thanks for finding that bill though.

It's strange, the article and bill seem to have nothing to do with each other.

How would this change to the law lead to the arrest of dirty old men watching restrooms?

Arkanin said:

READ THE BILL AND THE ARTICLE.

BILL

It criminalizes "An adult exposing his or her genitals to a child, and enticing the child to expose himself or herself to the adult, for purposes of shocking someone or causing sexual arousal." It's RIGHT THERE IN THE ARTICLE.

You guys should be ashamed of yourselves, especially the OP, if all of you of you are too lazy to try to verify the information that you are regularly bombarded with. Don't act like sheep; if you do, you're contributing to the downhill slide of both this forum and your country. Christian forums used to be better than this.

Click to expand...

If that is indeed what the bill says--and that's all it criminalizes, exposure of genitals and enticement for same--then the blame goes with the journalist that titled the cited article.

Arkanin said:

READ THE BILL AND THE ARTICLE.

BILL

It criminalizes "An adult exposing his or her genitals to a child, and enticing the child to expose himself or herself to the adult, for purposes of shocking someone or causing sexual arousal." It's RIGHT THERE IN THE ARTICLE.

You guys should be ashamed of yourselves, especially the OP, if all of you of you are too lazy to try to verify the information that you are regularly bombarded with. Don't act like sheep; if you do, you're contributing to the downhill slide of both this forum and your country. Christian forums used to be better than this.

Click to expand...

Thank-you for taking the time to research this, but...

The article in the OP presented a different picture of the bill. Many people did question the article's thoroughness, but sometimes a person has time to post an opinion on an article but not actually research it... that's just the way it goes. I mean, sometimes I have time to track down the source material of an article, and sometimes I don't.

A bill aimed at intentional flashers, especially at flashers who flash children, is a good thing. (because sometimes, a person can unintentionally flash intimate areas... ie, when a woman's skirt get caught on a railing, revealing her undwear, or when a waterslide tears a hole in a person's swimsuit)