Stupid Sex Laws

[joreth]

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/naked-justice-man-arrested-for-being-nude-in-his-own-kitchen/

I will, once again, preface this with a disclaimer that really shouldn't need to be said. But it does, so I will.

I am not opposed to proper legislation and punishment for actual sexual offenders. Rapists (violent and non-violent), child molesters, sexual harassment perpetrators, etc. do, indeed, need to be both punished and prevented from harming society. That's not what I'm talking about here.

What I'm talking about is the criminalization of any activity that even remotely involves the genitals with complete disregard to whether or not the activity is sexual in nature, whether it's participated in by consenting adults, and whether it's performed on private property. I'm talking about the punishment not fitting the crime, and about labeling all of these people with the same label, as if their offenses were equal, and about the punishment for sharing a label with a rapist or child molester resulting in otherwise decent human beings being denied their basic rights as citizens after completing their time served, such as housing and the ability to work a legitimate job and contribute to society after their debt has been paid.

In this case, a guy has been arrested for being naked in his own kitchen.

Yes, you read that right.  It wasn't a typo.  He was ARRESTED for being naked in his own kitchen.  Should he later be convicted in a court of law, he will have to serve jail time, probably pay a fine, and only be allowed to live in certain places, take certain types of jobs, and be denied for all other jobs because of his felony record, all because he was NAKED IN HIS OWN KITCHEN.

The article I'm linking to provides some questionable points in the case.  And I think these are reasonable points to question.  But the really important points in the case are:

1) HE WAS IN HIS OWN KITCHEN.  
2) She was trespassing on HIS property
3) If the genders were reversed, the lookiloo would have been arrested as a Peeping Tom

OK, so maybe it wasn't in the best of taste to leave his blinds open, but c'mon, it's not reasonable to expect a person to shut himself off from sunlight on the off-chance someone might be illegally on his property and peeking through his windows to catch a glimpse of his bare chest and call the cops for it.

Oh, did I mention that she only saw him naked from the waist up?

But really, if you don't want to see what people are doing inside their homes, DON'T FUCKING PEEK IN THEIR WINDOWS!

And I have to agree with the author of the article I linked to about the gender bias.  I think this says some very dangerous things about our society, including how we have sexualized and objectified women to a pathological degree.  A man looking at a naked woman is the criminal.  A woman looking at a naked man makes the man the criminal.  No matter how you slice it, the man is always at fault when it comes to exposing a woman to sex.  Because men are all sex maniacs and monsters (and, by extension, it's OK that they are), and women are delicate flowers that must be protected from all things sex-related at all costs.  Or something.  There are just so many things wrong with this that I think it deserves its own rant just on the gender bias ... but now now, I'm running late.

The criminalization of everything genital-related is absurd.  People, I have a newsflash:  It's not going to scar your kids for life if they know what a penis looks like, or where babies come from, or even that adults sometimes do silly things like walk around naked in their living rooms.  In fact, it probably WILL scar them for life if they don't know this.

Comments

[femetal.livejournal.com]

I did a little research on the incident, and one thing I did find was that she was not actually on his property (something I consider to be absolutely *the* material factor in the case). She was walking on a path on common property which runs by his house. There does not appear to have been any trespassing.

However, he was charged with indecent exposure, which requires both exposure, and an "indecent act". Being nude in one's own home has clearly and repeatedly been determined not to qualify as "indecent" under Virginia law (where the incident took place.) So, ultimately, he is highly unlikely to be prosecuted, and unless there are facts which have not been revealed, even if he were, he would almost certainly be found not guilty.

Also, on the Q&A I read, several people brought up the whole "peeping" thing, and since the viewer was on public property and her viewing him required no special attempt to circumvent any attempt at privacy (such as looking through a crack or peep hole), she cannot be charged with "peeping" in Virginia. There were apparently no blinds or curtains on the windows through which she viewed him.

So, the bottom line is, if:
a) you live in Virginia,
b) you like to be nude in your home,
and c) you have windows which face adjacent public property or property belonging to others,

then make sure you have blinds or curtains on your windows which prevent you from being exposed to any passers by. (Good advice on all accounts as far as I'm concerned.)

The law may be different where you are, and a similar case might go differently there.


BTW, I totally agree on the whole gender bias rant. It's absurd, and pisses me right the fuck off!

[joreth]

OK, her being on public property *does* alter things a little bit. I have not done any research, I've only heard the outraged comments and read this article, and in those sources it was indicated she was cutting through his lawn with her kid.

And, you're right, it *probably* will not result in a prosecution. But he still never should have been arrested in the first place, particularly if the claim that she viewed him from the waist up is true, even if he had been in full view of public property. It's a particularly sore spot with me that men can go topless where women can't, but the solution is not to require men to put on shirts in their own homes.

As you said, indecent exposure requires an indecent act, which he clearly did not do. I can understand peeing in public or on someone's property to be classified as "indecent exposure" with the qualification that it requires an "indecent act", but I still maintain that, in either case, indecent exposure should not be a sex offense by the standards which require lifetime registry as a sex offender, limited housing, etc. It should require an actual sex abuse to be labeled a sex offender, not getting drunk and pissing in an alley or walking around nude in one's own home even if the windows happen to be open.

[londubh.livejournal.com]

There are other questions. The first news report I heard about the story said it was 05:30 when this occurred (including an interview with the accused), and that the "victims" in question were tresspassing, then later stories said it was 0830, and they were on public property.

The other thing that makes me concerned about the entire thing is that the "victim" (according to a local news station) happens to be a cop's wife. Just a thought, but I wonder whether this mightn't be a case of a cop overreacting because he's scared of him being less of a man because his wife saw another guy without his clothes on, and decides to punish the victim...

[joreth]

I'm getting conflicting reports on whether there was trespassing or not, and I think that does affect the implications of the case, but I don't think it changes the overall absurdity of the case, given the other facts not disputed.

I did note that the "victim" was a cop's wife, but I am unsure how that plays into it here, other than the likelihood that any relative of a law enforcement agency is more likely to get said law enforcement to actually look into "small" crimes and/or put more effort into the enforcement of the law.

That doesn't *necessarily* mean that the cops are out of line in any given case (although, clearly, I think they were in this case), but I do think it means that a crime reported by a relative is more likely to get more attention than a crime reported by a random person unless the crime is particularly heinous or sensationalized.