Information AboutMooning |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT MOONING | |
| civil disobedience | |
| gestures | |
| new age | |
| nudity | |
| protest tactics | |
| subcultures | |
|
at a mass mooning in May 1995.]] Mooning is generally considered a rude and insulting act (though less offensive than Flashing ). WORD HISTORY '' Moon '' has been a common shape-metaphor for the Buttocks in English since 1743, and the verb ''to moon'' has meant 'to expose to (moon)light' since 1601, long before they were combined in US student slang in the verb(al expression) mooning "to flash the buttocks" in 1968. Formerly, mooning was slang for "wandering idly" and "romantically pining".1 GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION The custom of mooning may be limited to North America , some countries of Europe , Australia (where the phrase 'mooning' is replacing the former vivid expression "flashing a browneye" or "chucking a browneye"), and the Māori of New Zealand . LEGAL STATUS The legal position of mooning varies between legislations, from Indecent Exposure to legal self-expression. Some example cases include: Africa Two Zimbabwe brothers were charged and jailed for indecent exposure in 2006, for wearing traditional African Loincloth es which leave the buttocks exposed.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4673510.stm Whilst not strictly mooning, it illustrates the legal view on mooning in that country. The BBC reports that whilst this "reignited" a debate, "not many people in the capital are on their side". Greece A 2003 case saw two British tourists convicted and jailed for 7 months each on indecent exposure charges. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20030827/ai_n12708294 USA In 2006, a only relates to exposure of the genitals, adding that even though mooning was a "disgusting" and "demeaning" act to engage in, and had in addition taken place in the presence of a minor, :" {Link without Title} f exposure of half of the buttocks constituted indecent exposure, any woman wearing a Thong at the beach at Ocean City would be guilty." Defense attorneys had cited a 1983 case of a woman who was arrested after protesting in front of the U.S. Supreme Court wearing nothing but a cardboard sign that covered the front of her body. In that case, the Washington D.C. Court of Appeals had ruled that indecent exposure is limited to a person's genitals. No review of the case by a higher body, such as a Supreme Court took place, since the States Attorney dropped the prosecution after the ruling. NOTABLE INCIDENTS OF MOONING
REFERENCES
SEE ALSO |
|
|