|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday February 10, @01:34PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Are they outlawing hard nipples too? If not, they should.
Frank H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are they outlawing hard nipples too? If not, they should.
Nope. The erection laws in all these places specifically applies to genitals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a CLEAR violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and I suspect that it's so clear that it will not stand under a Constitutional challenge.
FrankH
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a CLEAR violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and I suspect that it's so clear that it will not stand under a Constitutional challenge.
Tennessee's law has been on the books for decades. Mississippi passed their law (unchallenged) last year. So far, there hasn't been any instance of the "erection law" being enforced (that doesn't excuse it's presence on the books, of course). I'm just wondering aloud whether it ever will be challenged.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
""""I'm just wondering aloud whether it ever will be challenged.""""
A good way to challenge this stupid "junk law" is for men where the law is in effect to put an oblong Idaho potatoe (or is that potato?) down the front of their pants. Hey, normal non-femmunists women can do this too! Wouldn't that just blow the cops minds?
There is no law against walking around with an oblong potato in the crotch of your pants........ Yet!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is also erectile tissue in the sinuses that becomes engorged when the genitals become engorged. This must be outlawed also!! What an evolutionary outrage to our exquisitely honed sensibilities.
If it becomes against the law to have an erection in one's clothes in my neighborhood, then I'm going out hard in protest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
uh...guh... I can't even formulate a comment on this law, it's stupidity is radiating from the computer into my brain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, guys.
I know that April 1st is just around the corner as it were.
But isn't this jumping the gun a little bit?
I mean February is not half over and then there is all of March.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Love the title!
I think I'm going to go down there in a strap-on and see what people think... ROFL
And wouldn't it be illegal for women to pack socks in their pants for Halloween? Or if they cross-dress?
This is a really stupid law. Are they going to pass the Lorena Bobbit ordinance too? LOL
"Female men's activist" is not an oxymoron.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I think I'm going to go down there in a strap-on and see what people think... ROFL"
LOL! Maybe the men down there should do that too.
So if they aren't allowing covered erections, I guess we'll just have to brazenly exposes it whenever it begins to swell with pride.
Hmmm, maybe men will have to dissappear from the public eye while erect. Hey, I wonder if women will start feeling flattered when men suddenly ditch out on them using the formerly flimsy excuse that "Something's just come up"?
Also, this law says you can't draw attention to your penis when it's erect only! So in court, why not just claim that it was flaccid? I'd like to see the prosecutor try to challenge that claim. Whatever the witness testimony is to the apparent size of the bulge in your jeans, claim that when erect you're three times that size. How can they prove otherwise? They can't make you get erect in court and show them because that would be drawing attention to it which is illegal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday February 11, @12:17PM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
What is the name of the city that passed the ordinance? Perhaps we should flood them with protest e-mail. Could someone post a municipal webpage URL? I think the poster said it was "Locust", Tennessee.
We should reward Locust for their persecution of men with a catchy name. How would they like to be known as "Male Hate City, USA"? Surely there must be a better name. How about "Locust, Tennessee--Man Hater, USA"?
It sounds like the ordinance is clearly designed to target men. Some men can't control when they have erections, especially adolescent boys. Sometimes it just happens even if you're not thinking about sex. Just how are they going to determine when it is voluntary and when it is involuntary? How will they prove mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt? What is the penalty? Will it be life and career destroying offense like a sex crime conviction?
As another poster mentioned, shouldn't this law also apply to women with hard nipples? Shouldn't we force them to wear thick bra cups? I've seen women in public all the time. Why not cite them for a sex offense? After all, they could cite the defense of involuntariness. If that happened, the feminists would probably hold protest marches.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I *think* this is meant to apply to men arousing themselves voluntarily (i.e. whacking off in their pants in public), not involuntary erections. But not sure how they'd prove their case, or how a man who was aroused inadvertantly could prove his innocence.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
