A follow up

Hopefully at least some of my faithful readers will remember a story I wrote about a while ago about a man who was arrested in his own home because he was naked and visible to people walking by. Apparently there were two witnesses (women) who testified that the man in question did try to attract attention by singing loudly or making noise as people passed his house. He was found guilty and given a suspended sentence for indecent exposure. If he appeals and loses, he could face a fine and/or jail time.

So, apparently he did try to draw attention to himself while naked. So I have no problem with the sentence. My question is this: would it have made a difference if roles were reversed? If it was a man walking by and a naked woman tried to attract his attention and he looked, would the woman have been charged with indecent exposure? Or would the man still be the bad guy and accused of being a peeping tom?

I read a story about a 4 yr old boy in Dallas who has been suspended from preschool because his hair is longer than allowed by the school district. I can understand the need for some sort of dress codes in schools. But 4 yrs old seems to be just a bit young to start suspending kids over dress code violations. But maybe in today's society it is necessary.

This season has been tough for some people in my life, and I would ask that some good thoughts be sent out to a close friend of mine whose brother is fighting cancer (the cancer seems to be winning) and whose father has been fighting a degenerative lung/heart condition. Also, I learned that a man that I shared Christmases with many years ago suddenly and unexpectedly lost his wife this past week. So please send out some prayers for them.