Schrodinger's Exhibitionism
👁 232
https://blenderdumbass.org/articles/how_to_spot_an_evil_law_ : 👁 1
https://blenderdumbass.org/reviews/transformers_4_is_a_ballsy_brave_film : 👁 1
https://blenderdumbass.org/articles/the_copyright_mentality : 👁 1
![[avatar]](/pictures/favicon.png)
by Blender Dumbass
Aka: J.Y. Amihud. A Jewish by blood, multifaceted artist with experience in film-making, visual effects, programming, game development, music and more. A philosopher at heart. An activist for freedom and privacy. Anti-Paternalist. A user of Libre Software. Speaking at least 3 human languages. The writer and director of the 2023 film "Moria's Race" and the lead developer of it's game sequel "Dani's Race".
Information or opinions might not be up to date.
In Germany by law you have designated areas where people can go Nude. Some areas where people can't, by law, wear any clothes. But other areas where people can't go without clothes. But that will be only a very minor crime. And only if somebody was offended, but people rarely do. In 2016 in Italy a 69 year old man ( nice ) masturbated himself in front of a female student in University of Catania in Sicily. The judge gave him a small fine and ruled the case in his favor. Technically legalizing public masturbation in Italy. Giving rise to a few Italian based exhibitionist porn channels. On the other hand a career of comedian Luis CK was nearly brought to an end when it's been shared that he was masturbating in-front of people too. The Schrodinger's Cat is a thought experiment to explain quantum superposition. Where you put a cat into a box with a bomb that has 50% chance of blowing up. Until you open the box, the cat is either dead or alive. He is in a superposition. Let's talk about the Schrodinger's Exhibitionism. Or Exhibitionism in moral superposition. ↩ Reply
This article is a reference of my book Sheiny The Hacker and contains a minor spoiler. So please read the book first, if you don't want it to get spoiled. ↩ Reply
It was just after the chapter VI titled "Can Chloe Break Him" when Mendel was trying to explain himself to Mr. Hambleton. To remind you, the two little girls and Mendel just ran across the town totally naked, screaming curse words and laughing. Until intelligence returned to them and they sought shelter in Mr. Hambleton's shed. ↩ Reply
Mr. Hambleton: From your house till here? ↩ Reply
Mendel: Yes. ↩ Reply
Mr. Hambleton: Totally naked? ↩ Reply
Mendel: Yes. ↩ Reply
Mr. Hambleton: You are crazy! ↩ Reply
Chloe: Why crazy? ↩ Reply
Mr. Hambleton: What if somebody complained to the police? ↩ Reply
Chloe: No, I mean, Mendel looked a bit crazy. He was screaming and yelling like an idiot. And you, Sheiny... I know you are rather smart usually. But you didn't even try to lock the house. I locked it. ↩ Reply
Chloe pointed at the keys from Mendel's house in her hand. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: I didn't think he will run to the street. I thought I would just drag him back into the flat. ↩ Reply
Mendel: You tried to rape me. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: Sorry! ↩ Reply
Chloe: What sorry? He had a hard on. ↩ Reply
Mendel: I'm sorry for having a hard on. ↩ Reply
Chloe: Don't be. It's natural. ↩ Reply
Mr. Hambleton: You are a lucky man. ↩ Reply
Mendel: Yeah yeah... ↩ Reply
Mr. Hambleton: But still, it was stupid to do that. Pray that police would not know about it. ↩ Reply
Chloe: Why is it illegal? ↩ Reply
Mr. Hambleton: To go nude? ↩ Reply
Chloe: Yes, to go nude. It makes no sense. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: It makes a lot of sense. You are just too perverted to understand it. ↩ Reply
Mr. Hambleton: Well perhaps some people don't want to see it. I mean your private parts. ↩ Reply
Chloe: Is my cunt ugly? ↩ Reply
Mendel: It's not about ugly. People don't want to have a hard on. ↩ Reply
Chloe: Why? But it's nice to be aroused. ↩ Reply
Everybody but Chloe facepalmed themselves. ↩ Reply
Mendel: I don't want to be in a position where I might go to jail because somebody saw me with a hard on. And not just hard on, but a hard on you. ↩ Reply
Chloe: You ran into the street first. ↩ Reply
Mendel: To call for help. ↩ Reply
Chloe: Nah, I bet you like showing your pipi to strangers. ↩ Reply
Mendel: No I don't. ↩ Reply
Chloe: Why then you had a hard on us? ↩ Reply
Mendel: I couldn't control it. But I didn't want it. ↩ Reply
Chloe: Well, your body knows what you want more than your brain. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: Well then, that's not freedom. ↩ Reply
Chloe stopped to buffer what Sheiny just said. ↩ Reply
Mr. Hambleton: Well, Chloe, he said that he didn't want to go to prison. And having a hard on you may be enough to incriminate him. So he didn't want to have it. Even though his body doesn't give a damn. ↩ Reply
Chloe: Then, the law is evil! ↩ Reply
Sheiny: The law is trying to protect people's freedom. In this case freedom not to see things they don't want to see. Like your freedom to install an ad-blocker. ↩ Reply
Mr. Hambleton: How about freedom of speech? ↩ Reply
Sheiny: Freedom of Speech is not freedom of forced listening. I mean. If you force somebody to listen it's already power, not freedom. ↩ Reply
Chloe: I'm not forcing you to look at me when I show you my pussy. ↩ Reply
Mendel: You kind of do. ↩ Reply
Chloe: You can look away if you want. ↩ Reply
Mendel: It's really hard to do that. ↩ Reply
Chloe: Because you like what you see. ↩ Reply
Mendel: Yes, but sometimes I might like one thing and want another. ↩ Reply
Mr. Hambleton: In the Netflix headquarters I think they made a rule that a man cannot look at a woman for more than 10 seconds at a time. Otherwise it's a sexual misconduct. ↩ Reply
Chloe: That's evil! ↩ Reply
Mr. Hambleton: They are trying to prevent the Me Too movement from being able to destroy the company. It's not like they see anything wrong with eye contact for 11 seconds. But they are escaping the potential trouble that could happen otherwise. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: I'm not sure it was exactly 10 seconds. I think it was more. ↩ Reply
Mr. Hambleton: Yeah, but the point is still there. ↩ Reply
Chloe: Why is there a trouble to begin with? ↩ Reply
Mr. Hambleton: It's because apparently Harvey Weinstein is a dick shit. ↩ Reply
Chloe: What? ↩ Reply
Sheiny: You know about the Me Too movement? ↩ Reply
Chloe: No, what's that? ↩ Reply
Mendel stood there equally confused since he was in prison when the whole saga began. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: There is this ugly ass motherfucker called Harvey Weinstein. He is a movie producer or something. A lot of women came out to say that he was very perverted pervert and did a bunch of rape. Seeing that, a lot more women came out saying that they were raped or sexually abused in another way, either by Harvey or by some other big name in Hollywood. Everybody raising their hands and saying "Me Too". Therefor the Me Too movement. ↩ Reply
Mr. Hambleton: To me it seems like at least half of those claims are total bullshit. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: It's possible. ↩ Reply
Mr. Hambleton: No, hear me out. Imagine you don't like somebody. Harvey for example is an ugly ass. And he is also a very big dick, as far as I can tell. Guys would have fought with him by being more dicks than he is. Because that's what guys do. Girls though? They cannot chest-bump a guy that's twice as big. But what they can do is destroy his reputation by telling awful stories. At first nobody believed that it would work against the Hollywood elite. But then Harvey's stories made him arrested. And a wave of similar attacks began. And it's easy to assume that most of them are made up. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: You are still afraid that I will tell about the picture I found? ↩ Reply
Mr. Hambleton: Well... I think... Now I think that you don't even need to find any picture. You can just imagine a story plausible enough and it will do the trick. ↩ Reply
Mendel: That's what Cherishes father did to me. He made up a story about me and Cherish. Exaggerated all of the facts. Added false statements. And here I was in prison for no law actually broken. ↩ Reply
Chloe: On one hand, that's disgusting. On the other hand, how else can I protect myself? Even though I want to be able to walk naked on the street. ↩ Reply
Mr. Hambleton: We have laws prohibiting fighting. Like you have to consent to a fight, in a way. So maybe we can have stronger laws against false statements like these. There are some. But they could be stronger. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: What about freedom of speech? ↩ Reply
Mr. Hambleton: What about freedom of speech? ↩ Reply
Sheiny: You are saying we have to ban fiction? If people cannot say lies how can they write stories that are not true? ↩ Reply
Mr. Hambleton: No, I mean like in the court of law. Like if you give an oath to speak the truth and say something that's false. That's it. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: Okay let's fly with that for a second. But here is a thought: Say you are at home looking outside the window. You see Chloe running naked outside and you have a hard on. Somebody notices that you have a hard on. And they tell this story to the police. Or to the court. Nobody told lies. But there is nobody harmed either. I mean the only person harmed at that point is a person with a hard on. ↩ Reply
Mr. Hambleton: Well that's why it's illegal to run around naked. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: Okay, not naked. With a short skirt? ↩ Reply
Mendel: Then, maybe we need to prohibit short skirts. ↩ Reply
Mr. Hambleton: Oh... That's already starting to look like Islam. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: Exactly. Do you want all people to walk around with so much clothes that it's impossible to see them at all? Just because somebody may feel a bit of arousal? It's like laws prohibiting speech because somebody may feel an emotion. I think I'm starting to agree with Chloe. ↩ Reply
Chloe: Naked forever! ↩ Reply
Mr. Hambleton: But what if the person doesn't want to feel an emotion? I mean. I don't want people to show me pictures of dead children. That would be devastating. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: We have a warning message every time that something like this is shown. ↩ Reply
Mr. Hambleton: So if a girl wants to wear a short skirt, there should be a sign in front of her warning people of potential arousal? ↩ Reply
Sheiny: I see. There is a problem there. ↩ Reply
Chloe: Just let people show wherever they want. ↩ Reply
Mendel started laughing. ↩ Reply
Mendel: Imagine a billboard selling beer or something, with a pare of tits. So guys would look up. That would be funny. ↩ Reply
Chloe: Or a billboard advertising dildos, with a picture of a real man's cock beside it. To show how superior the dildo is, or something. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: On the computer, given that the software is free, it's an easy question to answer. You just set it up to block anything you don't like. But let's say I don't want to see a cocky billboard. I can't just block it. ↩ Reply
Chloe: You can look away. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: It will be hard. ↩ Reply
Chloe: At first. ↩ Reply
Mr. Hambleton: There was this video of a Muslim guy arguing that some women want to be raped by wearing suggestive clothes. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: Well, then if Chloe goes naked, this Muslim guy has a hell of an argument of why he raped her. ↩ Reply
Chloe was visibly confused. ↩ Reply
Mr. Hambleton: It seems to be related to the way his religion is constructed. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: So it's just an attempt to promote the extreme clothing? ↩ Reply
Mr. Hambleton: No, it's an utter inability to control sexual impulses. The people who can control themselves sexually the best are nudists. Because they see naked people all the time. They are used to it. On the other hand if you don't even see the face of a person of the opposite sex, a face would arouse you. The question here is, what's better? To avoid needing control, or to have control? ↩ Reply
Sheiny started thinking deeply. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: Is it true? Like is there actual data suggesting that more exposure to sex lowers interest in sex? I mean it sounds intuitive. But it is quantifiable? ↩ Reply
Mr. Hambleton: I think there is a study. I don't remember. Anyway... See even in software, we advocate for having control. While Apple and others advocate for avoiding needing control. The age old question of convenience versus freedom. It's convenient for a man not to see a woman at all. But it's freedom if he can control himself with a totally naked woman. ↩ Reply
Chloe: Or if she controls herself with a good hard cock in front of her. Though I don't know why would I control myself. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: So public nudism should be legal? ↩ Reply
Chloe: Public sex should be legal! ↩ Reply
Mr. Hambleton: I think if there is no physical contact and it's just an exhibition. It should be legal. ↩ Reply
Mendel: I'm thinking about this guy in a robe hiding around the tree. Jumping in front of a woman with his dick. Scaring her to shit. What if she dies from a heart attack or something? ↩ Reply
Mr. Hambleton: Then it's man-slaughter. Or even murder. Depending on the motif. You see. We don't need a separate law just for this. When we already have a law for murder. ↩ Reply
Mendel: It still feels a bit weird. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: People should have the freedom to be weird. ↩ Reply
Mendel: So I can jerk of in front of you? ↩ Reply
Chloe: Yes! ↩ Reply
Sheiny: I guess so. ↩ Reply
Mendel: But I don't want to. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: Freedom is not a requirement. If you don't want to, you don't have to. ↩ Reply
Mendel: Well. Suppose I was jerking off on the street to some random stranger. Isn't that me using her body for my own benefit, so to speak? ↩ Reply
Chloe: You are not touching her. ↩ Reply
Mendel: I'm masturbating to her. Should it still require consent? ↩ Reply
Sheiny: Well, there is a different issue here at hand. Do you believe in that there is a concept called "Intellectual property"? ↩ Reply
Mendel: Ha? ↩ Reply
Mr. Hambleton: Even I'm confused. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: See, if you touch a person you violate this person's freedom. But if you are far away you don't. You are not taking anything from that person by masturbating on that person. But you do take something away by touching that person. If you claim that you are taking something away from the person by remotely, using his or her likeness to give yourself pleasure, you must be believing in "Intellectual property". Because it's the same concept here. ↩ Reply
Mendel: I don't understand. ↩ Reply
Mr. Hambleton: I think I do. Am... See the copyright industry argues that there is such a thing as intellectual property. A concept of owning an idea. That's why, they argue, there are laws such as copyright, patents, trademark and so on. But quite frankly those laws all have different original roots. They were designed for different purposes. And they have entirely different sets of rules. Therefor there never was intellectual property. For example, copyright was invented as a censorship method. Those who could legally print books had "copy right". Others had no copy right. Later this law was sculpted a bit to reflect the needs of the book publishing houses. They didn't want other book publishers to compete with them when the book was still hot and people were buying it. So copyright was turned into a method of increasing incentive to produce creative works. A kind of limited monopoly. What I believe Sheiny argues is that you can view a body as a creative work and pleasure from that body as pleasure from any other creative work. And you can view masturbating on somebody without them allowing you as a kind of "piracy". ↩ Reply
Sheiny: I want to add that "piracy" is not related with copyright. It's related with ships in the sea. ↩ Reply
Mendel: Do you have a headache pill? ↩ Reply
Mr. Hambleton: Basically because intellectual property never existed and copyright is only a temporary monopoly, which even at this level could be debated as serving any practical benefit to society. We can extend this thought, and claim that masturbation on anyone's likeness does not in anyway constitute violation. Which we cannot argue about a touch. Because then it's already definitely a violation. ↩ Reply
Mendel: Wait, copyright is so people will not steal from the artist. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: Stealing from the artist would be, say taking the original work from him. So he has none. But copyright, makes it illegal to produce identical copies. For a limited period of time. If you have a copy of a work, you are not stealing the original work. It's still exists and it still belongs to the artist. ↩ Reply
Mendel: How is this related to masturbation? ↩ Reply
Sheiny took Mendel's hand and put it on her knee. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: You are now holding my knee. Your fingers exert slight amount of force onto my skin. I can barely move my knee at the moment. That's a violation of my freedom. ↩ Reply
Mendel: Okay... I see that. ↩ Reply
Sheiny stood up and walked over to the center of the room. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: Now, let's say you were masturbating. You are not controlling me. I may feel a bit disgusted. The same way like if there was a dead cat or something. But my freedom is not violated. The fact that you are using my likeness doesn't take away from my freedom. I still own my likeness. ↩ Reply
Mendel: But I'm still looking at you. Isn't that weird? ↩ Reply
Chloe: Why would it be weird? ↩ Reply
Mendel: Well, then I'm a stalker. And I violate your privacy. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: Hm... That's a very interesting question. ↩ Reply
Mr. Hambleton: Well, is that a violation of people's privacy to use your eyes on the street? ↩ Reply
Chloe: Stalker is one who follows people. ↩ Reply
Mr. Hambleton: Yeah, but what if it so happens that I need to walk into the same direction as that other person? And just so happen to be that I like that person's appearance? So I don't take my eyes from her... And even stranger if I masturbate all this time... ↩ Reply
Chloe: Well then you are a stalker. ↩ Reply
Mr. Hambleton: Well I didn't have an intention to stalk. It happened by mistake that I stalked. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: Well if you didn't have an intention to kill a person and still killed a person by mistake, you still go to jail for murder. ↩ Reply
Mr. Hambleton: I'm trying to figure out what are the rules of masturbating on the street then... If we want to legalize it... ↩ Reply
Chloe: How about not looking at the same person for more than x amount of time? ↩ Reply
Mr. Hambleton: Then it's the same evil as in Netflix. ↩ Reply
Chloe: Shit! ↩ Reply
Mendel: Well if people would be polite and communicate when they start feeling like it's getting uncomfortable. Maybe we could get around this issue all together. ↩ Reply
Mr. Hambleton: Yeah, but the whole point is that it's kind of uncomfortable to begin with. The idea is that it being uncomfortable is not a great enough reason to remove certain freedoms. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: With speech you are not violating privacy. You broadcast a message. Unless you broadcast somebodies personal information. If you just walk naked, you broadcast your own body. The only privacy who's violated is yours. But if you are actively staring at somebody you might see that somebodies information that this somebody wants to be private. It's not related to masturbation. It's impolite in general. ↩ Reply
Mr. Hambleton: Yeah, but how much time exactly is there before it becomes impolite? ↩ Reply
Sheiny: On the street? ↩ Reply
Mr. Hambleton: Yes. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: Well... Let me think... I think it's irrelevant. The street is a public place. There is no privacy to be had, so to speak. Of course we can sense sometimes a slight violation of privacy even in this context. Like if you see somebodies messages on the phone. You know to turn your eyes away because you know that you went too far. But technically speaking when you go outside it's a broadcast area. ↩ Reply
Mr. Hambleton: What if a person wants to go from point A to point B in privacy? ↩ Reply
Sheiny: Through a public street? It's kind of impossible. Well, sometimes it's overly impossible, like with China's social credit score cameras everywhere. But in the normal place, I guess there are ways to go around the crowded parts. Like the president has a private underground system of tunnels for that. A normal person, without stalkers, might use a less crowded pathway. It would provide some privacy. ↩ Reply
Mr. Hambleton: What if that person has a stalker? ↩ Reply
Sheiny: It think we already have laws against it. The person can deal with the stalker through the police. ↩ Reply
Mendel: Is that stalking to sit in front of the same house every day? Like let's say you live in that house. And you walk outside to breath some fresh air. But you happened to see your neighbor coming and going every time. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: You are not following your neighbor. Aren't you? ↩ Reply
Mendel: What if I'm sitting right in her path? ↩ Reply
Sheiny: Then it's a violation of her freedom to get out of the house. It's not stalking. And it's not sexual. It's just you are blocking the exit, so to speak, with your body. ↩ Reply
Mendel: So masturbating in the doors of buildings should be illegal? ↩ Reply
Sheiny: It's not about masturbating. If you sit there and somebody wants to go through, you should move. That's all. ↩ Reply
Chloe: So basically. There is nothing wrong with public sex? Right? ↩ Reply
Mr. Hambleton: Yes! I guess... ↩ Reply
Sheiny: That is of course if the data is correct. ↩ Reply
Mr. Hambleton: What data? ↩ Reply
Sheiny: That you are claiming that with more exposure to sex people will be able to control themselves better. But what if it's not true? ↩ Reply
Happy Hacking! ↩ Reply
Find this post on Mastodon
Blender Dumbass
c:0I ended this article on a question because there is a possibility that with sex, a lot of exposure creates addiction instead of liberating you from it. Thought perhaps the addiction is created when you are exposed more than nominally, but not enough to make you sick of it. It's a strange thing to think about. Because both are equally possible. And therefor it's a Schrodinger's type problem.
![[avatar]](https://spee.ch/8/c85d3be86ae5ed3b.png)
![[avatar]](/pictures/smith.jpg)
WanchaiMike
c:2I think 'Schrodinger's Cock' is better name for this article.
If he was to walk the streets naked.
Blender Dumbass
c:3@WanchaiMike well when I thought of writing it I would call it a bunch of different names. But I talked to a guy at work about the ideas here and he suggested Schrodinger's Exhibitionism which I very liked. But yeah, perhaps Cock could be a little bit more fun.
![[thumbnail]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/03/Leon-poster.jpg)
![[thumbnail]](/pictures/thumbs/me_insane.jpg)
![[thumbnail]](/pictures/thumbs/freedom-illegal.png)
![[thumbnail]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5d/One_Battle_After_Another.jpg/250px-One_Battle_After_Another.jpg)
![[thumbnail]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/db/The_Matrix.png/250px-The_Matrix.png)
![[thumbnail]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/3a/Ultraviolet_poster.jpg/250px-Ultraviolet_poster.jpg)
![[thumbnail]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/04/Machete_Kills.jpg/250px-Machete_Kills.jpg)
![[thumbnail]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/35/Le_Dernier_Combat.jpg/250px-Le_Dernier_Combat.jpg)
![[thumbnail]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/38/F1_%282025_film%29.png/250px-F1_%282025_film%29.png)
![[thumbnail]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e0/Bronson_poster.jpg/250px-Bronson_poster.jpg)