Hi Everyone

[Since1982]

They aren't and I'm not talking about accidental things like showing the top edge of jockeys or boxers above your waistline when bareback. We're talking about either intentionally zipping down and leaving it like that or dropping trousers or pants completely and wearing nothing but tight underwear that has a fly that is not zipped as underwear fly's are not, and/or showing a large bulge which "could" possibly be seen thru the semi-open fly. We're talking about intentional indecent exposure or the preliminaries to exposure, such as unbuttoning and zipping down on the street and leaving it unzipped or dropping pants and leaving them off.

[Bravehearts.us]

Thats different then what they showed on the COPS TV show the one day, they didn't care about the females exposing their breasts (unless they did it so much to cause a problem) and didn't care about the guy who unzipped his pants until he showed some flesh. And thats what they said if I recall correctly "if he shows it" Obviously it is not applied equaly.

As much as some people would like to think that a female breast is a sexual object, it is not.

Steven

Anything can be a sexual object. The breasts are not reproductive organs. That's the difference.
Lar

[Bravehearts.us]

Why do you keep saying “large bulge," Skip? Will they not arrest you if you have a small bulge?
Lar

[Since1982]

you lucky guy, I saw those pics you posted. you definitely have a "large bulge". Unfortunately, I do not. Due to some ill-conceived, for the wrong reason, experimental injections I got when I was 12, my lack of a "bulge" of any size leaves me out of consideration in that. I CAN wear flat front straight skirts without any bulge tho.. My bulgee was big enough to reproduce but just barely. 2 sons produced in the 60's can attest to that. Plus my wife found a place for it...I really miss her and my youngest son...They were killed in a car crash in Freeport Grand Bahama in 1974. When I think about that I get all weepy but life must go on.