back to article Naked cyclists take a hard line on 'aroused' protest participant

The Canterbury World Naked Bike Ride jaunt on Saturday got off to an entertaining start as one "over-excited" male participant was spotted sporting an erection. One shaken onlooker said: "Everyone was taking their clothes off to get ready for the ride. I heard gasps and I turned around – it was a horrible sight. It's fair to …

  1. Peter Simpson 1
    Happy

    Won't someone please hand that man an ice pack?

    Be prepared!

  2. Voland's right hand Silver badge

    Cough.. cough... cough...

    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/man-had-sevenweek-erection-after-bike-accident-29912910.html

  3. This post has been deleted by its author

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I don't understand the common human, I really don't.

    Floppy willy fine, hard willy not fine.

    Especially as for the most part the transition from floppy to hard isn't within the power of the person.

    "I heard gasps and I turned around – it was a horrible sight."

    it was a willy, tbh human bodies on the whole are pretty ghastly to look at. It's like the world is full of giggling 9 year olds when it comes to human bodies.

    1. Paul 25

      Same with women's bodies

      Massive poster of a woman wearing pretty much nothing, not much complaint (on the grounds of prudishness, sexisms another issue)

      Show her nipples even partly, and prepare for mass outrage.

      Man's nipples, not a problem. Women's nipples? Massive issue.

      Our attitude to the human body is really, really weird.

      And as others have pointed out, an erection is not something that's under conscious control, it isn't a muscle, as every man who's had a "morning glory" as a result of waking up with a full bladder can attest to.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Same with women's bodies

        So were women with erect nipples also told to cover up or shove off at this event? If not, why not?

        1. Corinne

          Re: Same with women's bodies

          It was a chilly day - nipples get erect in the cold (opposite effect on a penis usually). Plus some women have nipples that stick out all the time, as do some men.

        2. Pookietoo

          Re: Same with women's bodies

          Any woman with an erect penis was told to cover up.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Same with women's bodies

        You my friend live in a very tame country. I suggest you need some fresh air. May I suggest this:

        http://www.fermer.bg/f/user_images/big/9/big_77309f3bca85a77f27c972609416b2ef.jpg

        The picture is a dairy van (the local equivalent of the UK milk float) and the inscription translates: "The Milk is HERE!".

        And do not even get me started on the subject of German newspapers and advertisements, Sauna anywhere eastwards from Czech republic or "requirements" for an affair with a French president.

      3. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

      I would pay rather a lot of money to be able to control when I where I experience arousal/get an erection/etc. I'm not talking about Viagra here, but the ability to just flick some sort of mental switch and not be tying up blood by engorging my dong, or having my thoughts race around carnal pleasures.

      Or hell, the ability to be "ready to go" at a moment's notice, not just standing at attention but psychologically as well. That can be a stumbling block after a particularly difficult day.

      Do other people have this talent/skill/mutation? Am I a freak for not having the ability to do this? Every time I read one of these things where men are expected not to be aroused, or not to look at {member of preferred sex} or not to think of {whatever is a thoughtcrime} I find myself wondering "is that even possible for the average man?"

      And if it is, how do I remediate it? Are there schools? Genetic resequencing? What's the solution? A lifetime of religious "guilt and shame" about sex and sexuality didn't work. Surely if this is something enforceable by police then it is something I am expected to have conscious control over, and thus it is a life skill that should be relatively easily able to obtain?

      Yes? No? Am I alone in my thinking and concerns here?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @Trevor Potts and other spontaneous erection sufferers like him.

        Does simply looking at the average naked female body actually get you aroused ?

        Anytime that I have been in one of those "everybody naked" situations I have found that most women's bodies don't actually create that kind of effect.. And I really can't imagine many women getting aroused at men's bodies either... Unfortunately most people do not look very good when they are naked.....live naked bodies don't look "erotic" especially when outdoors.

        I would go as far as to say that arousal is a psychological state of mind that is "self induced" rather than "externally induced". Personally I can't ever think of any occasions when "spontaneus erection " has ever happened.

        I will comment as A/C just in case it inspires you to get an erection just at the sight of my handle. And neither of us wants that....

        Word of advice : Do not give speeches on hot days when there are women in the audience...with sightly open blouses and short skirts..

        1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

          "Does simply looking at the average naked female body actually get you aroused ?"

          Yep. Without fail. Hell, even partially naked ladies. And captain winkie doesn't seem to be particularly choosy.

          "live naked bodies don't look "erotic" especially when outdoors."

          That's not what my biology has to say on the matter.

          "I would go as far as to say that arousal is a psychological state of mind that is "self induced" rather than "externally induced". Personally I can't ever think of any occasions when "spontaneus erection " has ever happened."

          Okay, where's the proof of this? And if you are correct, where's the training/schooling/what-have-you to consciously control this? As I said, the religious school of guilt and shame didn't work. I have absolutely no conscious control over captain winkie that i am aware of. So I'm curious. It wasn't a subject that we were even allowed to discuss as children. In my society it's a subject that's taboo to talk abotu as adults.

          Some people - most notably powerful ladies within the feminist movement - demand that we "control ourselves", and insist that all men can do it as a simple act of will requiring next to no effort. I've never in my life been able to exert any concious control over captain winkie, despite being in many situations where I wish I could.

          So, hey, if you know of the magic solution, please do share. It would be useful, if I am to live in a society where apparently I am supposed to be able to exert mental control over my biology that I learn how.

          Unless, of course, it's all opinion, and not backed by and empirical evidence or actual science.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @Trevor Potts

        >just flick some sort of mental switch

        Think of Joanna Lumley, works every time. Oh bugger, that's me stuck behind my desk for the rest of the morning.

        1. TRT Silver badge

          I've heard...

          that a nurse encountering a priapic situation in a normal male could correct it with a sharp blow on the member using a pencil.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: I've heard...

            And I heard that they used a cold spoon... I have no idea how they used the spoon though...

            1. skeptical i
              Linux

              Re: I've heard...

              re: "no idea how they used the spoon", maybe eating ice cream? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/26/who_was_downloading_smut_in_the_office_while_eating_ice_cream/ (rated NSFW, if that is any concern to anyone reading this article) Tux 'cuz penguins like it cold.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Where are the police?

    Surely they should be monitoring this event and placing any one who gets a little excited on the sex offenders register?

    Won't someone think of the pointless bureaucracy masquerading as protecting the children?

    1. chivo243 Silver badge

      Re: Where are the police?

      check the second link provided in the story, seems the offending member of society is getting a stiff talking to by the local plods... (un)fortunately his back it turned to the camera.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Where are the police?

      They are busy downloading all our metadata.

      1. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

        Re: Where are the police?

        "downloading all our metadata."

        Surely, you mean "meatdata"?

    3. Pookietoo

      Re: Where are the police?

      Police spokesman said "Police have assessed the impact of this event and the likelihood of disorder and crime is considered to be low." There won't be many pick-pockets around, not sure about bag snatchers.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Where are the police?

      Stood naked and surrounded by policewomen in uniform. Not a good idea. Actually it's a pretty damn good idea but not for this event.

  6. Pen-y-gors Silver badge

    Indeed, where are the police?

    Sounds as if it was okay to ride naked through Canterbury on Sunday. What would happen if I do the same today, or tomorrow? Would the Peelers pull me over? And if this is okay, then why do the police keep arresting that poor bloke who is trying to walk around naked, but is spending most of his life in jail? Where's the consistency? Is it legal to be naked in public or not?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Indeed, where are the police?

      "Is it legal to be naked in public or not?"

      It differs depending on which UK jurisdiction.

      The Naked Rambler was initially repeatedly arrested under Scottish Law.

      In England and Wales it is governed by the Sexual Offences Act 2003 - which was intended to rationalise a ragbag of out-of-date laws. However some single issue lobbies used the drafting to try to impose draconian restrictions particularly on men. The result is quite subjective and there have been occasions where different police areas have taken different views.

      In theory there is no offence to be naked in a public place in England without an erection. With an erection becomes more problematic. In theory there is equality for women - but I can't remember what defines a woman as "flashing".

      The initial draft bill for the SOA 2003 (Rec 54?) defined the offence as exposure which might cause "alarm or distress" to the hypothetically most vulnerable person that could be envisaged - even if no such person was present. No one actually had to be present to observe the person. Basically any male nudity visible from a public place could have been an offence.

      After protests from many quarters of outdoor activities it was modified to "with intent to cause alarm or distress" - which was how the equivalent old laws were phrased. The Police and single issue lobbies complained that re-inserting "with intent" made it difficult for them to get convictions.

      There is also a Public Order Act that looked as if it could be used against naturists. The minister at the time gave a verbal assurance that this would not be the case. However - surprise, surprise - it has been used against naturists by police circumventing their limitations under the SOA 2003.

      Before 2003 - the police in one area were told by their Chief Constable to crack down on people using a long-established naturist beach. Most of those arrested were respectable middle class people who accepted a caution for "indecent exposure" rather than go to court. What the police didn't tell them was that the local CPS was refusing to prosecute in such cases. To accept such a caution after 2003 would automatically incur being put on the Sexual and Violent Offenders Register.

      The UK is still suffering the cultural hangover caused by centuries of the Christian Churches' obsession with controlling people's sex lives.

    2. John G Imrie Silver badge

      Re: Indeed, where are the police?

      And if this is okay, then why do the police keep arresting that poor bloke who is trying to walk around naked, but is spending most of his life in jail?

      He's in Scotland now. They have a different law up there.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Indeed, where are the police?

        "He's in Scotland now."

        Also jailed in England by use of an ASBO to circumvent his protection under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29800016

        "The former Royal Marine was found guilty by a jury at Winchester Crown Court of breaching an anti-social behaviour order (Asbo)."

        1. YetAnotherLocksmith Bronze badge

          Re: Indeed, where are the police?

          The whole abuse of the legal system in respects to the Naked Rambler is horrifying.

          Yes, pretty much the only man in the country who wants to be naked all the time has had what is essentially a custom law (for that's what an ASBO is!) created just to create offences when he is naked.

          Unlike the British legal system, you couldn't make it up!

    3. AbelSoul
      Trollface

      Re: Would the Peelers pull me over?

      Perhaps that's exactly what this unfortunate chap was hoping for.

  7. Ralph B

    > Floppy willy fine, hard willy not fine.

    Let me try to explain with an analogy: A man running around with a gun is more worrying than a man running around with no gun. One worries that he might want to fire it at someone. And that could really spoil someone's day. Even if he is firing blanks, or if the gun is unloaded but he pokes someone with it. He could have someone's eye out with it.

    <small>(For the hard-of-thinking, the "gun" in this analogy is an "erection", not a "willy".)</small>

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Your analogy is stupid.

    2. Evil Auditor Silver badge
      Devil

      @Ralph B

      Are you Eadon's cousin?

    3. Tom 38 Silver badge

      Makes perfect sense to me, he's saying it's fine to run around with a gun, as long as it is concealed.

      Wait, that's not right.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      You mean it's OK to can carry a gun in public, but not if it's fully cocked?

      Aside: memories of the Mull of Kintyre.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mull_of_Kintyre_test

    5. Ralph B
      Thumb Up

      > Let me try to explain with an analogy

      Wow! 23 down-votes and counting. I hadn't realised The Reg had such a following from flashers.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        No just lots of people that think your analogy was rubbish.

        1. This post has been deleted by its author

    6. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

      I don't have conscious control over whether or not I have an erection. I do have conscious control over whether or not I carry a gun. Thus your analogy is not only flawed, it's irrational and dangerous.

      Perhaps more to the point, I can carry around both and erect penis AND a gun and proceed to use neither of them, except when and where appropriate. That part of this absolutely is under conscious control.

      An erect penis is no different from an unerect penis. Or a woman's nipple. Or her elbow. Or some of the hairs on my ass. It's all just parts of a body, man. It's what you do with it that matters.

      1. Ralph B

        @Trevor_Potts

        Thanks for writing a more considered reply than "Your analogy is stupid" to my now massively down-voted missive.

        > I don't have conscious control over whether or not I have an erection. I do have conscious control over whether or not I carry a gun.

        You do however have conscious control over whether you reveal your penis to others.

        > I can carry around both and erect penis AND a gun and proceed to use neither of them

        Indeed, but at the risk of collecting yet more downvotes, I would like to point out that an erect penis can be used for a lot of things that an flaccid penis cannot, just as a gun can be used for a lot of things that an absence-of-a-gun cannot. That is why the the items in question are more worrying to observers.

        > An erect penis is no different from an unerect penis.

        Except, again, for what it can be used for. An observer seeing a fellow wielding a gun or an erect penis would be justly concerned at what that fellow might be about to do with it. They might, for instance, be worried that he will poke someone with it, or that it will go off accidentally in his hand. A fellow with no gun, or a flaccid penis, raises no such concerns.

        Now I'm not saying that erect penises are guns. They are not deadly weapons (unless badly infected.) Indeed, when used appropriately they are wondrous, life-enhancing and life-giving things. But to pretend that observers need not be concerned at the implications of their unexpected appearance for unwanted physical attention, pregnancy, or at least laundry services is clearly nonsense. The flaccid penis presents a much reduced set of risks.

        Surely such a logical and empirical observation cannot be so controversial as the forum votes suggest?

      2. Ralph B

        @Trevor_Potts again

        > I don't have conscious control over whether or not I have an erection. I do have conscious control over whether or not I carry a gun.

        However I assume that you do have conscious control over whether you reveal your penis in public. To extend my "flawed", "irrational and dangerous" analogy further, this is exactly why concealed carrying of weapons is permitted in many US states, whereas waving your weapon around in public is not. One behaviour is likely go unnoticed, whereas the other is likely to cause public anxiety and distress regarding the perceived risks.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: @Trevor_Potts again

          "[...] whereas the other is likely to cause public anxiety and distress regarding the perceived risks."

          Perception of risk is in the mind of the observer. If you are conditioned to have sexual fear then you will be unable to judge an innocent situation on its context.

        2. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

          Re: @Trevor_Potts again

          "You do however have conscious control over whether you reveal your penis to others."

          Why should it matter if I do? Because you have religious hangups? Why should your bizarre belief in the ravings of desert madmen be allowed to affect my behavior, hmm? The threat of violence from people who uphold your right to force your beliefs on me is really the only reason I wear pants at all. Pants are evil.

          "Indeed, but at the risk of collecting yet more downvotes, I would like to point out that an erect penis can be used for a lot of things that an flaccid penis cannot, just as a gun can be used for a lot of things that an absence-of-a-gun cannot. That is why the the items in question are more worrying to observers."

          So we're guilty of violating your imagination unless proven innocent? What the fuck?

          "Except, again, for what it can be used for. An observer seeing a fellow wielding a gun or an erect penis would be justly concerned at what that fellow might be about to do with it."

          No, he's not justified at all in worrying about that, unless a threat has been made. If a threat has not been made, then it's just a person with a goddamned erection. Even a person with a gun is just a person with a gun unless and until they make a threat to something with it other than carry it around.

          Why do you keep insisting that your ability to dream up fantasies should strip from others the presumption of innocence?

          "They might, for instance, be worried that he will poke someone with it, or that it will go off accidentally in his hand. A fellow with no gun, or a flaccid penis, raises no such concerns."

          So you're worried that my penis might touch you? Why is this a concern? How is it any different than my hand? Or my nose? My hair? My kneecaps are way less clean than my penis, I'm sure, but would you be afraid of them?

          Or is it spooge you're afraid of? Maybe you'll get spooged on. Will you die? Will the world come to an almightly, grinding end? Or will you wipe it off and say "dude, not cool" and just go about your day?

          Or are you fixated on the gun analogy here, the one that doesn't really work? Guns have safeties. And people can get training in how to handle guns. They don't tend to go off unless you're either stupid or you are intending to make them go off. That's even presuming that the gun is loaded and there's a round in the chamber, which would be an idiotic way to carry a gun around.

          "But to pretend that observers need not be concerned at the implications of their unexpected appearance for unwanted physical attention, pregnancy, or at least laundry services is clearly nonsense. The flaccid penis presents a much reduced set of risks "

          What an absolute load of horseshit. I should be judged and restrained, my freedoms removed because of what I might do, even those no intent to do so has been displayed?

          An erect penis is not intent to rape, or to copulate, or even to do anything except be erect for a period of time before being non erect. You do not spontaneously get pregnant because you are in the presence of an erect penis. You don't even get spooged on unless there's some effort involved, so even your laundry tripe is revealed for what it is.

          "Surely such a logical and empirical observation cannot be so controversial as the forum votes suggest?"

          Your delusional paranoia and presumption of guilt is emphatically not empirical observation.

          "However I assume that you do have conscious control over whether you reveal your penis in public. To extend my "flawed", "irrational and dangerous" analogy further, this is exactly why concealed carrying of weapons is permitted in many US states, whereas waving your weapon around in public is not. One behaviour is likely go unnoticed, whereas the other is likely to cause public anxiety and distress regarding the perceived risks."

          If you are distressed by the sight of an erect penis then you need to be disturbed. Actually, you probably are disturbed, mentally, complete with delusions of sky fairies and the belief that sex, sexuality and nudity are somehow bad.

          People with your mindset rule only through force of arms and violence. The day will come when there aren't enough of you crazies to force us to obey the paranoid and hateful voices in your heads. On that day, a magical world of no more goddamned pants will ensue. Maybe Kilts will become a thing again. Or we'll invent some form of protective covering for our legs that is not bloody pants.

          Either way, it will be marvelous to be able to do so without folks with your mindset to oppress us. maybe I'll even live to see the day where I can walk in a public space and have well-ventilated, sweat free testicles. Publicly visible or not.

          And there may, or may not be erections. Those occur on their own schedule. But you might consider investigating them, as they can be great fun and you sure as all hell need some.

          1. Ralph B

            Re: @Trevor_Potts again

            Sorry if I struck a nerve, Trevor. Just some final thoughts here:

            1) I am an atheist.

            2) I personally have no problem with you waving your erect penis around in public. I was attempting (and apparently failing) to explain why society-in-general finds such behaviour worrying, to the extent of drafting laws against it. I thought the gun analogy works, but obviously for you (and at least 42 others) it doesn't. So be it.

            3) Have a good day now.

            1. TRT Silver badge

              Re: @Trevor_Potts again

              "An erect penis is no different from an unerect penis"

              I keep telling my wife that, but she insists there is a big difference.

            2. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

              Re: @Trevor_Potts again

              "I personally have no problem with you waving your erect penis around in public. I was attempting (and apparently failing) to explain why society-in-general finds such behaviour worrying, to the extent of drafting laws against it. I thought the gun analogy works, but obviously for you (and at least 42 others) it doesn't. So be it."

              What you said boiled down to "presume everyone guilty instead of innocent".

              Reality is "sex is bad because a priest told me so".

              So that's actually two nerves struck. The first, anything that smacks of guilty until proven innocent makes me very, very unhappy. The second: religion is completely irrational and should never be allowed to be the basis for any law. Sadly, it is the basis for the anti-nudity nonsense, like it or not.

              And have a good day yourself.

          2. KR Caddis

            Re: @Trevor_Potts again

            To extend my "flawed", "irrational and dangerous" analogy further, this is exactly why concealed carrying of weapons is permitted in many US states, whereas waving your weapon around in public is not. One behaviour is likely go unnoticed, whereas the other is likely to cause public anxiety and distress regarding the perceived risks."

            In most, if not all States here (US), carrying a concealed weapon requires a permit from the local Police or Sheriff authority with jurisdiction whereas "open carry" is practiced by some gun enthusiasts as asserting their right to carry established by the second amendment to the Constitution. There is ongoing dispute about that, with most Courts siding with the right to carry as well as own, with some restrictions, such as fully automatic weapons, above 50 caliber, felons, mental illnesses, etc. Personally I'm very anxious when around persons walking around in public `with an exposed weapon , MY problem apparently, as I cannot possibly know the motive or need for it. As a male, I'd be offended to some degree by someone's exposed penis, depending on the situation, but not overwhelmed with fright, unless I was accosted. Upon watching a bike ride? I think not. On the bus or in the workplace? Upset, and reasonably so for myself and most others I believe. Our country used to have reasonably effective mental health services until the election of Ronald Reagan to Governor in CA, thus setting the precedent for "it's all about me" government. Now it's not uncommon to see ranting homeless rampant in many cities and even small towns; there are no treatment centers except for those judged criminally insane.

            I'm a gun owner of 6 or so guns of various types as I used to hunt game. My sons use them now for target practice and hunting. I bought my first as protection against a threat made against my pregnant wife and me over a property purchase. Restraining Orders offer no real protection and simply piss people off even more. Our situation defused with time and distance, thank goodness. We live an hour from any response of law enforcement and almost a much from any medical facility,, so it had to be self protection or none. The gun in public is only useful for violence. When was the last time a bear attacked anyone in Costco, or McDonalds, for that matter?

            As for penile control, I would prefer that an erection would be a matter control or a switch. While I suffered frequent embarrassment in Middle and High School. a bit less in University, after chemo,radiation and seven major colorectal surgeries, I would like to have control for the opposite reason. I'm not old and regret no losing what I couldn't have when I was so physically ready. It s a beautiful, natural part of life, not criminal if mutually agreed.

        3. Khaptain Silver badge

          Re: @Trevor_Potts again

          I would suggest the following:

          * Someone carrying a gun or an erect penis around, is not a problem.

          * The problem, if there was to be one, would lie within the "intent" that the person has with the aforementioned item(s).

          1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

            Re: @Trevor_Potts again

            "The problem, if there was to be one, would lie within the "intent" that the person has with the aforementioned item(s)"

            To a very limited extend, I understand why some people might be concerned about an individual carrying a gun. Particularly if they are American urbanites and the gun in question is a handgun.

            Do remember, however, that I am from a sparsely populated region of Canada, and have spent most of my life in places where it's absolutely not weird at all to see someone carrying a long gun around most of the day. I also grew up in a military community, so seeing folks armed as part of their duties was perfectly normal and nothing to worry about at all.

            Where I have a problem is the assumption of intent based not on an individual in question's actions, but based upon the twitchings of the observer's paranoid mind spiders.

            If I am lying on a nude beach with a full erection, by what right do you say I have intent to do anything wrong? If I am participating in a nude protest (or campus nude-and-freezing-polar-bear-dive or whatnot) by what right do you ascribe a different intent to me because of an erect penis versus a flaccid one?

            A person carrying a gun has a choice about how they carry that gun. Someone participating in nude - or for that matter, clothed - activities has absolutely no control whatsoever over whether or not they have an erection.

            So while I can almost, sort of, under some limited circumstances when dealing with observers possessed by mind spiders understand why "gun = panic" to some people, nothing anyone here has said explains to me on what grounds they presume intent, guilt, or anything else about a man based on the whether or not his penis is erect.

            1. Khaptain Silver badge

              Re: @Trevor_Potts again

              @Trevor

              If you know in advance that you suffer from sporadic or unintentional erections then it is perfectly reasonable to assume that you would be prepared to take appropriate action before or during such an event should it "arise" ( pun intended). For example, you could wear extremely baggy trousers/shorts in order that no-one would be aware of the aforementioned afflication. In the case of a gun owner, his reponsability would be to conceal carry.

              If however you already know about your afflication and you decide to walk through the park wearing thin white spandex shorts whilst taking the occasional glance at the local sunbathing, penis fearing , sunday school, virgin beauties then quite possibly you could be considered as having the "intent" to shock.......In the case of a gun owner, walking about Central Park whilst actually holding a cocked ( pun intended) and loaded pistol in your hand would be probably be considered "intent" to incite reaction.

              "Intent" is probably not so easy to prove but I think in many cases it could be shown that insufficient care was taken to mitigate the risks....

              1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

                Re: @Trevor_Potts again

                "If you know in advance that you suffer from sporadic or unintentional erections then it is perfectly reasonable to assume that you would be prepared to take appropriate action before or during such an event should it "arise" ( pun intended)."

                A) Virtually all males "suffer" from this. It's not abnormal. It's simply part of begin male. I object strenuously to your using the term "suffer" here at all, as you again attempting to indicate that erections are bad, abnormal or harmful. They aren't.

                Read this. It might start to alleviate your ignorance.

                B) Why should I have to do anything about the fact that I might have an erection? There's nothing wrong with it. You have not yet manged to explain what might be wrong with having an erection or why anything should be done about it at all.

                "If however you already know about your afflication"

                Erections are not affliction. Erections that occur without conscious control aren't afflictions. They are a normal and healthy part of being a male.

                "decide to walk through the park wearing thin white spandex shorts whilst taking the occasional glance at the local sunbathing, penis fearing , sunday school, virgin beauties then quite possibly you could be considered as having the "intent" to shock"

                If the milled masses can't cope with the sight of an erection that's their problem. There's nothing abnormal, harmful or "bad" about an erection. Unless and until someone can prove that there is harmful intent there is no grounds to restrain me or my member from going about our day.

                There is also no grounds to presume that either of us have an "intent to shock". Because, again, you've done nothing to prove that there's anything wrong or abnormal about having erections, or that I should consider them something to be hidden, worried about, be ashamed of or otherwise cover in a dick burkha.

                "In the case of a gun owner, walking about Central Park whilst actually holding a cocked ( pun intended) and loaded pistol in your hand would be probably be considered "intent" to incite reaction"

                Probably true, but that wasn't the comparison. An erection was simply compared to walking around with a gun. And you taking that bad comparison and then compounding it by now comparing a perfectly natural body function "to pointing a loaded gun at people" is outrageous and insane.

                ""Intent" is probably not so easy to prove but I think in many cases it could be shown that insufficient care was taken to mitigate the risks...."

                WHAT FUCKING RISK?

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: @Trevor_Potts again

                  Trevor - why did you even go into this terrible discussion my comments were fine and they're is no point in "preaching to the perverted" to which this "individual" is. Facts versus belief is a waste of time.

                  I'll never provide praise nor props as you'll not want that from me, the ultimate anonymous coward

                  BTW This whole thing has given me 116 upvotes

                  so I am now

                  5813 upvotes vesus 1127 downvotes.

                  Shouldn't I be somekind of special super anon.

                  1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

                    Re: @Trevor_Potts again

                    Because of the very false conceptualization that people who aren't terrified of genitalia are somehow "perverted".

                    If there's a perversion, it's in believing that some part of a human body needs to be treated as visually "horrifying". Though I'll take "belief in a god that doesn't exist" as also quite fucked up.

  8. Nolveys Silver badge
    Gimp

    The police should have just given him a spanking right there on the spot.

  9. Dieter Haussmann

    Surely that is sexist as women don't get them?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      as women don't get them

      You need to improve your technique...

    2. Evil Auditor Silver badge

      Re sexist

      I intervened on that matter already and Canterbury plods confirmed to deploy a special nipples watching unit next year. Vacancies will be posted soon, check here: Jobs

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: sexism

      Surely that is sexist as women don't get them?

      In my experience women can get as many erections as they like, men are such tarts.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      >as women don't get them

      Old (crap) joke.

      Little girl and boy naked by pool. Little girl notices something between little boys legs and asks if she can play with it. Little boy says, "No, you've broken yours". Little girl runs crying to her mum who consoles the girl and tells her, "Never mind, when you are older you'll be able to get one whenever you want".

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: >as women don't get them

        I was looking to see if I could find the "Pussy Pie"* cartoon of that joke... but that isn't a good thing to Google for at work... but it does return a lot of hits

        * an alternative to the series of "Wicked Willie" cartoon books.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Nudity in the Canterbury World Naked Bike Ride is NOT an excuse for self-exhibitionism

    No, I would say that it's a consequence.

  11. rcp27

    Margaret Thatcher naked on a cold day! Margaret Thatcher naked on a cold day!

    1. Peter Simpson 1
      Thumb Up

      That thought, had it occurred to the gentleman subject of the original article, would have resolved the "problem", more or less immediately, I am positive.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      naked cold Maggie

      Wouldn't always work. Edward Snowden thinks she was hot.

  12. armyknife

    Titles are for foffs.

    I'm a cyclists, but these type of attention seeking events bore me.

    1. DJV Silver badge

      Re: "I'm a cyclists"

      Just how many are you? Does even your shrink know?

  13. Chris G Silver badge

    Running around erect

    And naked.....

    I bet he felt a bit of a plonker!

  14. Yugguy

    Legend

    "I'm not riding, but I'm enjoying being here with nothing on. And I like to look at the girls"

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Men in tights

    Lycra doesn't cover up a meat-sword either, but I imagine this would have been acceptable.

    How odd the English.

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Been there, done that...

    in London, although I didn't go full mast.

    Was great fun once we ditched the swarm of middle-aged men with cameras. They were scarily aggressive and swamped any poor girl who so much as took her top off.

    An erect member is a small issue when compared to those tools.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Been there, done that...

      Which sums up the English attitude to nudity. Prurience hiding under a puritan banner.

      My Finnish girlfriends used to roll their eyes and say "Typical English".

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Been there, done that...

        I'm afraid that's just a disparity between the media's portrayal of the UK when compared to the reality, mixed with a bit of racism.

        They play to the international view that we are all posh horse riders or pregnant by 14.

        Challenge: Pick up a red top paper (sun, star, mirror) and find a page without sex or sports.

        1. Khaptain Silver badge

          Re: Been there, done that...

          @Dewix

          Quote

          1 : They play to the international view that we are all posh horse riders or pregnant by 14.

          2 : Challenge: Pick up a red top paper (sun, star, mirror) and find a page without sex or sports.

          The 2nd statement kind of confirms the end of the 1st statement....

      2. RW
        Boffin

        Re: Been there, done that...

        I draw your attention to Peter Fryer's "Mrs Grundy: Studies in English Prudery".

    2. Grikath

      Re: Been there, done that...

      "the swarm of middle-aged men with cameras. They were scarily aggressive and swamped any poor girl who so much as took her top off."

      Those are pretty much universal, and can generally be spotted in the wild on any event where Cleavage (or more) is to be expected. Dunno about the UK, but over here in Holland they're known as Fapparazzi.

  17. AndrewDu

    "Canterbury needs a drastic and radical change to how it controls the perceived need for private motor vehicle use."

    Let me fix that for him:

    "Everybody else's lives need to be changed and inconvenienced to suit our leisure requirements"

    OK now?

    Idiots.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Flame

      Death race

      The protests are about all the cyclists that get injured, maimed and killed year in, year out.

      The nudity is to raise awareness of cyclists since so many drivers seem blind to us. The protest route is usually to each site in which a cyclist gets killed.

      I'm not saying there aren't A'hole cyclists, just that there is a death toll which needs highlighting.

      .

      As a secondary note, my wife got hit last month. A left hook* hit and run. She got out of it with a concussion and some scrapes, which was very lucky.

      More worryingly is that there is a culture building within motoring world where this is applauded.

      * left hook is where a car attempts to overtake and turns into the cyclist without indication.

      1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

        Re: Death race

        "More worryingly is that there is a culture building within motoring world where this is applauded."

        This is a bad thing. Though if I'm being entirely honest, more than once I've wanted to run one or two of the cyclist buggers down for being utter fucksticks, but have thus far been able to restrain myself.

        The problem isn't cyclists or motorists. It's self-important assholes. There are plenty of cyclists who think the law just doesn't apply to them. There are plenty of motorists who think the same.

        The difference is that is a cyclist decides that the entire universe should just get out of their way, and YOLOs through a red light, or does 10kph on a 110kph hiway, right down the centre line (both of which happen all to frequently around here) then the cyclist is going to inevitably come to very real grips with the fact that the right of weight doesn't work in their favour.

        A cyclist being an asshat at a motorist usually results in an injured or dead cyclist. A motorist being an asshat at a cyclist also results in an injured or dead cyclist.

        I agree 100% that we need to have awareness raised such that asshat motorists are both aware of the law and prosecuted for breaking it. That said, we also need to crack down on asshat cyclists, because the quickest way for a cyclist to cut their risk in half is to obey the goddamned law in the first place.

        Sharing the road requires predictability. Both sides need to agree on a code of behavior - in this case the law - and abide by it. That allows us to operate vehicles of all sizes without too many really nasty consequences. When anyone - on any vehicle of any size - decides the law doesn't apply to them, that's when bad things happen.

        Of course, being human, it's a hell of a lot easier to just villainize "them" and ignore the failings of "us". Regardless of who is "us" and who is "them". :(

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Death race

          >more than once I've wanted to run one or two of the cyclist buggers down

          Ah, but cars aren't allowed on the pavement.

  18. Tom 7 Silver badge

    Cycling normally works the other way

    it seems that smashing your perineum with a hard saddle on a regular basis is really good for erectile dysfunction.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Cycling normally works the other way

      Tell that to my girlfriend who got pregnant at the first go. Despite over 100 miles a week in the saddle.

      1. perlcat

        Re: Cycling normally works the other way

        Wrong saddle.

  19. Ray Gratis
    Coat

    Whining cyclists

    At least they can't complain about the number of bike racks.

  20. herman Silver badge

    So how many people gasped as the sight of erect nipples and clits?

  21. awood-something_or_another

    Just don't go 'round sniffing seats.......

    ..... oh yeah, there's that side of it.

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Oh great

    Another attention seeking idea based around nothing more novel than tits and cock out.

    We live in a prudish country. That attitude is changing thanks to the internet and porn, but I suspect another ten generations will need to pass before we're fine with it.

    As for cyclists, I'm one, and I say fuck them. If you die on the road on your bike and you were obeying the road laws, being safe and careful, etc, then that's a hell of a shame (but you knew the risks when you got on your bike). If you're one of those assholes that give the rest of us a bad name by breaking red lights, ignoring cycle lanes, going on the pavement and generally being a cunt on two wheels (including re-passing traffic that's already overtaken you when you reach a red light so they have to do it all over again), then I hope you fucking die in a horrible accident because you deserve it.

    Thanks!

    1. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: Oh great

      You sound a typical impatient car driver who think only he should be on the road.

      The sort of blind twat who has no wish to look beyond the sat nav/cell phone to the world outside and realise just how shit his driving is.

      But then the really careful cyclist aware drivers are just as bad, giving the cyclist a wide berth and watching as they over take the cyclist so that they make sure they missed hitting the cyclist, all while running the biker off the road coming the other way before imbedding their car in the front of a bus.....

      1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

        Re: Oh great

        "You sound a typical impatient car driver who think only he should be on the road."

        And you sound like a self-important cyclist who thinks the laws of the road shouldn't apply to him.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Oh great

      "That attitude is changing thanks to the internet and porn, but I suspect another ten generations will need to pass before we're fine with it."

      In England in the 1970s it seemed things were changing. There were confident predictions that we were following Denmark's lead with a move towards a reasonable attitude to social nudity - and less media censorship.

      It didn't work out that way. In many ways people are more body shy now - and there are vociferous single issue lobbies pushing politicians to more repressive measures.

      Old friends in Sweden complain that the USA conservatives' constant criticism of Scandinavian liberal attitudes since the1980s have been very corrosive

  23. Simon Harris Silver badge

    The route

    The organisers may have themselves to blame. Did the route take in lots of cobbled streets? - I believe Canterbury has quite a few!

    1. TRT Silver badge

      Re: The route

      It was around the local area. Pett Bottom, Lower Hardres, Stelling Minnis, Bodsham, Crundale, Nackington, Old Wives Lees, Upper Harbledown, Rough Common, Honey Hill, Cockering Road etc.

      1. Simon Harris Silver badge

        Re: The route @TRT

        Pett Bottom? Cockering Road? ... you're just making up rude-sounding place names now aren't you?*

        * actually I checked, and they're real places!

  24. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

    I am totally shocked!

    That happened to him while surrounded by that mass of podgy, saggy, unhealthy looking male flesh wearing ridiculous helmets?

  25. Bleu

    Feel sorry for him

    Surely at least some of the woman participants would have lubricated their seats, etc., from the thrill of public exposure and being in a group of naked people?

    Do they check for that, too?

    The decent thing to do would have been to let him go, a minute or so of riding would have reduced his member.

    Him riding along at the start would have been quite a sight!

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Should you become aroused, you WILL pull over to the side of the road

    This is truly outrageously male-o-gynist attitude! If I were a fine woman rubbing my clit against the saddle til red-hot with all the friction and excitement of a naked bike ride, would I be ordered off me bike and forced to cover it up?! Nosir, they'd never dare, I could expose my jewels to the public as I please.

  27. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    angle and ruler

    I wonder if they had a benchmark to apply against a penis, to see whether it's passed sufficiently far from "floppy" to "erect", and if it has... chop-chop!

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

      1. TRT Silver badge

        Re: angle and ruler

        Is that the one where you think of Paul McCartney and you've passed?

  28. Daveho

    Surprising

    Only comically speaking, I think its funny that they booted this guy. Since most of them are probably secular humanists, then they have to accept that they are just machines and the event was epiphenomenal in nature. :) How prudish that they'd have the audacity to claim a moral high ground.. hehe

  29. perlcat
    Coat

    The opposition to this activity is oddly stiffer than anticipated.

    I'll go away now.

  30. Blitheringeejit
    Joke

    El Reg falling down on the job

    Kent Online made a much better job of exploiting the pun-ability of this story than the usually-unsurpassed Reg subs. Particular favourite: "Shannon Walters, who lives nearby said: "They claim they are protesting about safety but hardly any are wearing helmets."

  31. Mark 85 Silver badge

    Playmobil

    or it didn't happen.

  32. Stevie Silver badge

    Bah!

    Wouldn't an equally valid safety protest involve the cyclists dressing up in those suits that bomb disposal experts wear when on the job?

  33. Michael Thibault

    Ahem!

    >Nudity in the Canterbury World Naked Bike Ride is NOT an excuse for self-exhibitionism.

    Erect penis != exhibitionism.

    The former is largely governed by a reflex arc, the latter not.

    A stiff public bamboo could be acutely embarrassing with, or without, the presence of prudes or the cops--not speaking from experience. And there's no Off button or anything, even!

    Anyway, come prepared.

  34. Bucky 2

    Anyone who has ever been a teenager (well, has ever been a teenaged boy) will know that--frequently--the thing does what it wants, whether or not you're actually thinking of anything sexy.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      >the thing does what it wants

      Look, not being boastful or anything so posting AC but I'm well past my teenage years and this still happens.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "[...] well, has ever been a teenaged boy [...]"

      At family naturist swims the teenage boys seemed to have no problems - even when they were with teenage girls. The answer is apparently "familiarity". They had been used to being naked in social situations for some time.

      It is the unexpected glimpse, or even the possibility of seeing something not hidden, that acts as the stimulus to the psyche. That is why "textiles" tend to think about sex when they see nudity - and naturists don't.

      As D H Lawrence said in his poem "Figs" - a fig leaf is not to hide but to adorn. What is hidden is always an allure and titillation.

  35. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It's hard driving round the city

    Seriously, I'm fed up of spending half my life stuck on the ring road going into the city, when I only wanted to go from one side of it to the other. Years of piss-poor planning and under-investment, but the poor motorists - that don't even want to be there - get the blame.

  36. Anonymous Coward
    IT Angle

    IT

    So what was the IT angle then?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Joke

      Re: IT

      About 70°

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: IT

        "About 70°"

        Out of a range of 0 to 180°?

  37. This post has been deleted by its author

  38. Ben 54

    Looked at the original article and..

    for cyclists they all look horribly out of shape. I honestly don't know why he got aroused. Even so, public nudity seems to be ok here, but getting aroused while nude is not? Not something you can easily control. It is like single someone out who is sweating while walking.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019