indecent exposure
By oyenkai
@oyenkai (4394)
Philippines
May 18, 2009 1:35am CST
Flint, Michigan is very specific with what they consider as "indecent exposure" and it is not limited to nudity - among the qualifications are: showing the garter of your briefs or boxer shorts will result to a warning; then pants pulled below the buttocks and showing buttcracks are actually charged with jail time and/or a fine.
See: http://is.gd/AV62
Do you think this is going too far and showing someone's brief garter is actually a fashion statement and not indecent exposure?
What is your personal notion of "indecent exposure"?
2 responses
@med889 (5940)
•
18 May 09
I believe indecent exposure is when someone is being dressed up uncomfortably when he/she is at a specific occasion. For example, if i have to come to the office where there is more than 400 people and I have a meeting to attend to and I am wearing something which is very very inappopriate as the dress might be only for pubs then surely many will say that I am dressed up indecently, so one an outfit is good when you wear it at the appopriate occassions. And Not when it is least demanded. Showing you boxer shorts in an office is called indecent in britain or in the office I work in. And trying to show your bra also is not recommended here. We have to get dressed formally and respect others if we want to be respected.
@aseretdd (13729)
• Philippines
18 May 09
I don't think showing the garter of briefs or boxer shorts can be classified as indecent exposure... i don't like that... but we have to give people a break... for sure those who wrote and approved this law are the most conservative ones in a not so good way...
Last week i watched in the news were men were brought to jail for not wearing a shirt in public places... i don't think that is indecent exposure... but i agree with the law... since eventhought it is hot outside... that is not a reason to go out and shirtless...
1 person likes this
