Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Personally one of the things I have thought quite ridiculous is how a man can just say pee out on the side of the road with no one around yet if a cop happens to catch him he'll get charged as a sex offender. Seriously? I could understand if he says goes showing off to some children but just for going outside? I don't even think he should if it's adults. Perhaps a fine but I think the sex offender status should only be relegated to those that purposely show themselves to children or actually sexually abuse a child.
To clarify: you state this as if it's a given that a peeing man caught by a cop will be charged as a sex offender. Do you have a basis for this? Is it a law? Have there been actual such occurrences?
I'm in favor of "you do the crime, you do the time". However, charging someone as a "sex offender for urinating outside is above and beyond what a person should be charged with. In my opinion, I think this has alot to do with supplying the prison system. The fewer people committing crimes, the more ways to think of putting people behind bars. Prison is suppose to break a criminal, not be supplied by people who done "dumb crap".
I can sEE some sex offenders using the peeing excuse to expose themselves to others, so it depends on the situation. Peeing in front of others blatantly is probably indecent exposure. Peeing in an alley, behind a tree, or on country street is not.
I can sEE some sex offenders using the peeing excuse to expose themselves to others, so it depends on the situation. Peeing in front of others blatantly is probably indecent exposure. Peeing in an alley, behind a tree, or on country street is not.
Haha, brings up the rest stop scene from There's Something About Mary.
But you're right, someone could use that as an excuse for why they were exposed. I think some analysis of a situation and common sense has to be applied.
No because he is not doing it as a sexual act he is doing it as a normal bodily function. He is trying to take a pee not trying to have sex. Now if you want to accuse him of public nudity I could understand it.
Is a streaker also a sexual predator as well? There are a lot of words that could be used to describe this guy but I do not think sexual predator would be one of them.
Well, I don't agree that public urination should be charged as a sex crime unless there are other people around, etc. However, the basis should not be that it is a "normal bodily function" - so is ejaculation but THAT would be a pretty different situation!
I've spoke with folks whose career is based on the case loads that include sex offenses, parole officers, probation officers, and the like.
There are guidelines to this act that transcend y'alls pseudo-opinions. Some of you have touched on it. If a guy does it discreetly, it's not a sex offense, period, end of story. If they do it to be seen and get a rise out of people, then there ya go.
I'm no expert here, this is just what I've heard about the subject. How they determine one from the other is beyond me. I'd think it may depend on circumstances and/or precedence.
Now take flashers for instance. They are typically very dangerous sex offenders because they statistically show no boundaries.
To not understand the thinking of a sex offender is a good thing imo. I hear that they tend to be very dangerous manipulative chameleons and otherwise very scummy and narcissistic people.
The Family Watch Dog link gives a pretty good overview. I do think that people doing something other than peeing is what started the whole thing. I regularly review lists of sexual offenders and in KS, they tell you enough to know exactly what went down. Genitalia exposed? That's a problem and the person has committed a "no-no" but whether or not a sexual offense has occurred, that needs to be looked at on an individual basis unless children have seen "it".
We had a neighbor who "mooned" someone from his window in his house that was driving by. Kids were getting out of school and saw him. He is still on the sexual offender list. When kids are involved, I think it becomes serious and whatever one gets from law enforcement, I am for that.
Do men have smaller bladders than women, because why isn't this a problem for females? Sounds like a case of "because they can". No, in most cases it shouldn't be a sex offender crime, but I do believe a man should find a potty room like we women do. Posters have brought up alley ways...ewwww
Last edited by Oldhag1; 04-04-2015 at 10:34 PM..
Reason: Removed icons
I've spoke with folks whose career is based on the case loads that include sex offenses, parole officers, probation officers, and the like.
There are guidelines to this act that transcend y'alls pseudo-opinions. Some of you have touched on it. If a guy does it discreetly, it's not a sex offense, period, end of story. If they do it to be seen and get a rise out of people, then there ya go.
I'm no expert here, this is just what I've heard about the subject. How they determine one from the other is beyond me. I'd think it may depend on circumstances and/or precedence.
Now take flashers for instance. They are typically very dangerous sex offenders because they statistically show no boundaries.
To not understand the thinking of a sex offender is a good thing imo. I hear that they tend to be very dangerous manipulative chameleons and otherwise very scummy and narcissistic people.
But that's still not a good enough reason. Doing it for attention, while wrong, isn't a 'sex offense.' Most people assume that the sex offender registry houses only dangerous people, but the knowledgable person knows that not to be true. It has a lot of people on there that have no business being on their.
If the sex offender registry were restricted to law enforcement, it wouldn't be an issue, but there name is plastered on the internet for everyone to see, from your neighbors to your employers. Regardless of the actual offense, being on the registry makes employment tricky because it makes you a liability, rather or not it makes sense (and it doesn't).
I don't care why they did. Being on a public registry is far too severe a punishment for peeing in public.
Quote:
Originally Posted by breeinmo.
Do men have smaller bladders than women, because why isn't this a problem for females? Sounds like a case of "because they can". No, in most cases it shouldn't be a sex offender crime, but I do believe a man should find a potty room like we women do. Posters have brought up alley ways...ewwww
Well, from an anatomy perspective, a man can pee with a lot less effort than a woman. If women's genitals made is easier to pee wherever, they'd probably do it too.
Last edited by Oldhag1; 04-04-2015 at 10:35 PM..
Reason: Edited quote
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
