Sorry Davie, what did you intend to say when you wrote "indebect behaviour"? I've inserted several letters to decipher, but nothing has worked.
Anyhoo, Bob, indiscreet public sex is not a easy hurdle to get over. I personally don't want to be bothered by it. I don't like going to gay beaches, because they so often want to do sex freely. Sex is a personal thing between usually two people and public actions are simply exhibitionistic, which means bringing someone else into ones bedroom against their will. That being said, right or wrong, it isn't going to be practical to push for that and public nudity at the same time.
The intent and gain in rape is more often a power trip over women, even more than physical relief. The damage is often more related to that than the physicality of it. Socially, I can control my expression of feelings of anger and sex.
I don't wish to be forced into somebody elses sexual activities. I'm not personally much for watching either. Simple nudity is a matter of personal adornment. It has less to do with sex than even teasing attention getter gear like short skirts, or bikinis, just because they are designed to augment that.
Davie, it would seem that the policy that you stated makes for a lot of grey area. How does one prove intent, if I am guilty until proven innocent, as I think UK law leans towards. Please, correct me if that is wrong. Still, intent to shock is nebulous. How can one know what will shock another, with all of the weirdos out there that think naked members of there own species are a hazard, or another's nudity automatically has anything to do with them. I shouldn't be responsible for another person's imagined projections upon me, or another's speculation on my intent, either.
Intent and the sexual intent proof needed can be simply the introduction of an erection. I couldn't count the number of times that I have been flashed by possibly exhibitionistic women in public places. Doesn't what you say discriminate between the genders?
Jbee