Flashing Dick Forum

💣 👉🏻👉🏻👉🏻 ALL INFORMATION CLICK HERE 👈🏻👈🏻👈🏻

Take cyberflashing seriously — and that starts with language.
By Rachel Thompson on July 19, 2019
Take cyberflashing seriously — and that starts with language. Credit: vicky leta / mashable
The moment Tara Jane O'Reilly sat down on the tube at Baker Street station, a photo of a penis was Airdropped to her phone. As the only woman sitting in a packed carriage at 10 p.m., O'Reilly says she felt targeted.
"Like as though as soon as they saw a new iPhone connect they knew it would be my phone," she says.
O'Reilly declined the Airdrop request and said she felt "shocked and grossed out." But it didn't end there. "Then it popped up again, and again. So I started to go into my settings but the fucking photo kept popping up until I finally switched Airdrop off," she says. "I couldn’t work out who did it — the tube was relatively packed and it was just really grim." A week later, O'Reilly says she is feeling slightly unsettled by her experience.
The reality of cyberflashing can be terrifying and violating, as O'Reilly's experience shows. But it's not as uncommon as you might think. Per YouGov data, 41 percent of women aged between 18 and 36 "have been sent an unsolicited photo of a man's private parts."
Often the language we use to describe this behaviour betrays a levity that's out of step with the serious nature of this sexual offence. While the term cyberflashing might not be one you're overly familiar with, you'll have likely heard mention of "unsolicited dick pics" or nudes. Cyberflashing refers to the act of sending unsolicited sexually explicit photos to strangers using Apple AirDrop in public places — as well as via messaging apps like Snapchat, Twitter, and dating apps. Researchers say that women are often overwhelmingly the target of this gendered act.
But does this term really do justice to what is in actual fact a very upsetting crime? And are we taking this crime seriously? I asked on Twitter if anyone had received an Airdropped unsolicited nude. The response? A string of "looool" DMs, "do people really do this", along with the tears-of-laughter emoji. Was I missing a joke? But that response wasn't surprising in the least. In my experience as a reporter, the default response to any article containing the word "dick pic" — be it unsolicited or solicited — is unbridled mirth. The prevalence of this response recently made me question the terminology I've used in my reporting — and whether we should all dispense with the term "unsolicited dick pic"?
Sophie Gallagher, a journalist at HuffPost UK who reports on cyberflashing, says the term dick pics "belittles it and makes it sound humorous." She believes this speaks volumes about how women are socialised to cope with this type of behaviour.
"Women are very much conditioned to laugh it off or make a joke or to deal with it in that dark humour way, so the language we use to talk about it is massively belittling," says Gallagher.
In her experience reporting on this issue, Gallagher says she's encountered men dismissing cyberflashing as "making a mountain out of a molehill." But she says the term is an objective description of flashing that happens in an online setting. "This is exactly the same as offline flashing, just it’s done online. It’s exactly the same behaviour, just it happens in a different way," she adds.
Clare McGlynn, professor at Durham Law School and an expert in the legal regulation of image-based sexual abuse, agrees that referring to cyberflashing as simply dick pics can "sensationalise and minimise" this crime.
"The only reason I hesitate is that actually many people think that the term flashing itself minimises exposure," says McGlynn. She says that physical flashing can be highly traumatic for those who experience it, but it's a criminal offence that's not "taken terribly seriously."
When it comes to discussions of sexual violence, our word choices are crucial.
A recent analysis of media reporting on sexual violence during the #MeToo movement by Sophie Hindes and Dr. Bianca Fileborn looked at the terminology used by Australian media outlets when reporting on the Aziz Ansari sexual misconduct allegations. They found that publications framed the case as "non-violence" by using language "that consistently downplayed and minimised the nature of the encounter as something other than sexual violence." Hindes and Fileborn found that "colloquial and ambiguous" wording lessened the seriousness of the allegations against Ansari.
Using vague, colloquial wording in this context can result in tangible consequences for survivors of sexual violence, Hindes, a doctoral candidate at the University of Melbourne whose research focuses on sexual consent in queer relationships, tells me.
"When language is used that minimises an act it can have significant impacts including people not taking victim/survivors seriously, certain behaviours being excused as 'not a big deal,' and consequently people may find sexual consent difficult to navigate in practice as non-consensual behaviours become minimised and normalised through language," says Hindes.
In the aftermath of the publication of sexual abuse allegations against Harvey Weinstein, the New York Times responded to readers' concerns about the language it used to describe sexual assault. "The easiest way to report claims of sexual harassment or assault without incurring legal liability is to cite the language contained in legal documents, such as complaints or police reports," writes the Times' First Amendment fellow Christina Koningisor.
Using the specific legal terminology to describe sexual assault is ideal. But, what if the law doesn't officially recognise the assault in question as a criminal offence?
The problem with cyberflashing is that our laws — much like our language — are pretty murky. In England and Wales, the law does not currently cover cyberflashing, but Scotland introduced a law against it in 2010. In England and Wales, if you report cyberflashing to the police, there are a number of existing offences under which the perpetrator could be prosecuted, according to Dr. Yvette Russell, senior lecturer in Law and Feminist Theory at University of Bristol Law School.
"These include the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, some provisions in the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and other legislations governing malicious communications," says Russell. "However, prosecution under these provisions is unusual in these cases and far from consistent." As Siân Brooke, DPhil researcher at the Oxford Internet Institute, tells me, "there is no official definition of cyber-flashing within UK legislation."
What about cyberflashing laws elsewhere? In New York City, a bill was proposed in late 2018 with a view to making it illegal to send "an unsolicited sexually explicit video or image to another person with intent to harass, annoy or alarm such other person." The law would make cyberflashing punishable by up to one year in prison, or a fine of up to $1,000, or both. In Texas, the House of Representatives passed a bill in 2019 making "unlawful electronic transmission of sexually explicit visual material" illegal and punishable with a fine up to $500.
In Australia, there is no specific anti-cyberflashing law but cyberflashers could be prosecuted under the Telecommunications Act 1997, which prohibits the use of a carriage service to "harass, offend or intimidate another person." In Canada, academics say cyberflashing doesn't "fit nearly under any of our criminal laws" and are calling for clarification of existing laws or a new, specific offence.
In Singapore, a bill was passed in May that made cyberflashing illegal and punishable by up to a year in prison or a fine. In Japan, where cyberflashers are referred to as "AirDrop chikan" — or "AirDrop perverts" — there have been at least two arrests for cyberflashing.
Cyberflashing can be very upsetting and traumatic for those who experience it. Credit: Getty Images/iStockphoto
The Law Commission announced in June that it will be conducting a review of the existing criminal law to consider whether survivors are being adequately protected from cyberflashing in addition to other image-based behaviours like deepfake pornography, and upskirting. The Law Commission won't be reporting back on its findings, however, until 2021. And McGlynn says you'd probably not see any legislation on it until 2022 at the earliest. "That’s simply too long to wait in my opinion," McGlynn says. When I put those concerns to The Law Commission they responded stating: "This is a complicated area of law and will take time to get right."
HuffPost's Gallagher has spoken to over 70 women who were cyberflashed and each of them said it really upset them. "It's really easy to dismiss it as lesser than traditional flashing but actually when you speak to women, your phone is a private space and it's a massive invasion of that," says Gallagher. Some of the women she interviewed had been flashed both online and offline. "All of them said both were equally as bad. Maybe in slightly different ways, but they both had an impact."
Online flashing is not being taken as seriously as offline flashing. Brooke believes this is because "society and the law just sees 'unsolicited dick pics' as an annoying internet phenomenon, that is simply not 'real'." Often online commentary surrounding the act focuses on what the recipient of the offensive image should have done differently — but not on the actions of the perpetrator.
"The language we often see surrounding these violent acts are tantamount to victim blaming," says Brooke. "Responses such as 'well, don’t look,' 'just switch it off,' 'log off.'"
This reinforces the problematic idea that the responsibility lies with the recipient, and not with those who sent the image. "This only serves to validate cyberflashing and see it as the victim’s fault for communicating online," adds Brooke.
You need only read O'Reilly's experience of being a lone female in a late-night tube carriage while her phone is bombarded with obscene images, to know that the term "unsolicited dick pics" isn't an accurate descriptor. Cyberflashing is not a simple case of receiving something you didn't request. It's not a misunderstanding. Cyberflashing is an act of sexual violence. And we should be using words that properly convey that.
Related Video: Sports journalists in Brazil have had it with sexual harassment on the job
Avoid germs and make a fashion statement at the same time.
Honoring the civil rights legend one year after his death.
I don't know why I thought it would be good.
Participants judged audio clips from police body camera recordings without knowing officers' or drivers' race or gender.
The four-time Grand Slam winner has now been immortalised in plastic.
Software engineer Manu Cornet says Google went from being "like Disneyland" to like any other profit-driven company.
Intuit is leaving the Free File Program.
Want your hair color back? Show your scalp to your doctor — and your boss.
The Full Self-Driving feature, of course, does not make Teslas fully autonomous.
Who knew space could get so crowded?
The biggest stories of the day delivered to your inbox.
By signing up to the Mashable newsletter you agree to receive electronic communications from Mashable that may sometimes include advertisements or sponsored content.
©2021 Mashable, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Mashable, MashBash and Mashable House are among the federally registered trademarks of Ziff Davis, LLC and may not be used by third parties without explicit permission.

Dick pics aren't new – men made art out of penises as far back as the Roman Empire – but the methods by which they're sent are changing, and the law is failing to keep up. It's illegal to flash your naked body on the street in the UK (aka indecent exposure) but if an adult sends another person sexual images or videos without their consent, it's unlikely to result in serious legal consequences.
"Cyberflashing", as the phenomenon has become known, is when someone sends an intimate, sexual image of themselves to someone without the recipient's consent. It can be done through features like AirDrop or Bluetooth in a public place, or on dating apps, via DMs, email and other modes of communication. The practice is often done by anonymous men to women in order to intimidate or provoke reaction.
It's become so common that many women consider unsolicited dick pics a fact of life, but once these images are fired off into the ether, there's no way of knowing how the recipient will respond. Some laugh it off, some stand up to the perpetrators, but for others the impact is more damaging.
A YouGov survey last year found that 41% of millennial British women (aged between 18 and 36) had received an unsolicited photo of a man's genitalia, and while more than half said they found it "gross" (58%) or "stupid" (54%), others described the experience as "distressing" (23%) and "threatening" (17%). Just 13% described receiving a dick pic as "pleasing".
What's clear from these figures is that dick picks aren't just a joke, and campaigners are stepping up their efforts to make them illegal. It's easy to argue that women – or anyone who'd rather not receive a photo of someone else's genitals, thanks – should "just turn off" the AirDrop or Bluetooth settings on their phone or make their DMs private, but we know victim-blaming doesn't work and anyway, they shouldn't have to. Cyberflashing is not illegal in the way that IRL indecent exposure is, but the calls for this to change are getting louder. (Many want Apple to remove its photo preview feature, to which the company responded by telling the BBC that "you can just change your privacy settings".)
Initiatives such as 'Don't be a dick' from The Empowerment Project and media reporting on the topic are giving voice to victims' experiences; in October, a group of MPs said a new law criminalising the creation and distribution of sexual images "on the basis of the victim’s lack of consent rather than perpetrator motivation" was needed. (Currently, cyberflashing can be prosecuted under laws including the Indecent Displays Control Act (1981) but many, including lawyers, politicians and academics, argue current law is unfit for purpose.) Ahead, three women who have been cyberflashed tell Refinery29 why it's not always easy to laugh off.
Rochelle, 23, from London, was cyberflashed on the Northern Line via AirDrop.
It made me feel shocked, uncomfortable, annoyed and quite sick as it kept popping up despite me declining the image. I think men do it because they think it’s funny to see other people’s reactions, although I was far from amused. Perhaps they get a sense of power over others, especially when people are unaware of who it's coming from. It seems predatory to me because it’s subjecting people to unwanted and inappropriate images.
Rachel, 40, from Brighton, was cyberflashed on a bus last year by an unknown sender.
I was travelling home alone by bus when a dick pic popped up on my phone. In the space of a second or two I was confused, shocked, then disgusted. But once I deleted it I was suspicious about who’d sent it. No one I could see looked likely so I wondered if it was a joke and some teenagers had done it to see how I reacted. It didn’t occur to me until afterwards that someone would deliberately send that to a stranger – it’s not a nice thing to see. If someone is sad and desperate enough to have to do that for attention then they need help. It also made me think that AirDrop shouldn't have a preview of the photo as the first thing you see. What if I’d been in a work meeting or with my partner? I didn't consider reporting it to the transport network or police. I imagine they would've just dismissed it as a prank. In my shock, I also didn’t accept the image so had no evidence anyway.
I couldn't even tell you how many times I've been sent dick pics on dating apps, specifically Tinder and Bumble and also on WhatsApp during conversations without me asking.
Cara*, 31, from London, has been sent unsolicited dick pics countless times while online dating.
I couldn't even tell you how many times I've been sent dick pics on dating apps, specifically Tinder and Bumble and also on WhatsApp during conversations without me asking. They've always been sent randomly and out of nowhere. Guys will start off seeming mega chilled, we'll be having a good chit-chat about work and life, and then you get a message which is an instant red flag, like "So, what are your kinks? When was the last time you got laid?" and then, BAM, a penis is thrust into my inbox.
I used to feel quite embarrassed and because I had low confidence I wouldn't want to offend them and would say something like, "Sorry I'm really not into that". Eventually I started to reply with sass. I'd send a message about why I find their dick repulsive and then hit block. But I know either way they're doing it for a reaction, so I'm not sure what would have been the best reply. It makes me think that so many guys are gross and do it as a power trip.
What Is Cyberflashing – Unsolicited Airdrop Dick Pics

Painful Gangbang Video
Beauty Teen Sex Casting
Teen Tits Picture
Xxx Prison Love Dreams Films
Max S Gangbang
Dickflash Forum (@DickflashForum) | Twitter
Stop saying 'unsolicited dick pics' when talking about ...
What Is Cyberflashing – Unsolicited Airdrop Dick Pics
@flashing_public | Twitter
Mum tries extreme crotch-flashing denim shorts to show ...
Flashing Touch Bar rectangle: Mac Talk Forum: Digital ...
Girls As Young As 10yo Are Flashing Their Private Parts On ...
Flashing Folder with Question Mark????: Mac Talk Forum ...
Flashing Dick Forum