What's the difference in these two situations?

If I can ask a question…. ‘Why and where would a man in his underwear be arrested?’

@cazzie – I’m guessing it would be an indecent exposure charge in most of the U.S. But I could be wrong.

If you don’t like what you see on your TV you can switch channels or turn it off. If you don’t like what you see in the street you can’t do that (unless you count very illegal and very messy methods) so there has to be other controls.

It’s underwear… he’s not showing his thingie…....

I could understand it if the man buying milk was intoxicated. that’s a different story. but, he was buying milk or pick anything from inside the store. he was not intoxicated. so, whats the difference?

Men are not typically arrested for walking around in their underwear. If you don’t believe me, then google images for “the naked cowboy”, who from all accounts has been making a pretty good living in his underwear in Times Square, New York, for quite some time.

@john65pennington Most stores have a dress code; No shirt, no shoes, no service. One would think that the addition of the word “pants” would be unnecessary.
I contest your use of the phrase “public on television”. The public on television are not in their underwear. The highly paid Victoria’s Secret models are in their underwear. (more or less)
You don’t really give us all the information here, and I suspect that there is more to the story. I can well imagine that some stupid man got a belligerent attitude and did something like this just to make a point, and when asked to leave by the store got even more belligerent and it was at this point that the police were called in.
I honestly don’t know which would be worse in this situation; wearing brown socks and a pair of lace up shoes or being barefoot. Either way, the store is at liberty to set standards of acceptable dress, such as not allowing people to wear “hoodies” with the hoods up, or anything else that would obscure features and make identification difficult. They are also under an obligation to the health department and from a liability standpoint to require shoes to be worn and outer covering.
Another thing is that public exposure may be indicative that he has some mental issues going on, and the police may have ended up having him assessed by a professional in order for him to get some help. At the very least, he should be considered a potential danger to others.
There is a time and a place for everything, and the grocery store is not the place for a man to be wandering around in his underwear. Where would he carry his wallet?

How is a man in his underwear any different from a man in a bathing suit? would a man in his bathing suit be arrested? the difference is the fabric and maybe the color (i am thinking of “tighty whities). i have to ask a local cop – i could see the cop “having a talk” with a man in his underwear but i don’t know if it’s illegal, since the man would presumably be all covered up, as far as his genitals are concerned. now if they’re hanging out that would be a different story.

Let me just say that this is an awesome question! I think it’s because society is stupid and we’re just to dumb to realize that it’s the same thing. There’s not a real answer I believe that can explain it. GREAT FREAKING QUESTION!!!!

I don’t see much of a difference except that if it’s on tv you can just switch the channel for 30 seconds and if there is a half naked man in the store you wanted to buy something from you would have to leave for a few minutes to escape the sight. And the store owners wouldn’t like it if customers were leaving because of a guy in his underwear.

Holy moly, because the man on TV was part of a commercial who’s director had a permit to shoot and all the other people were extras in on it so they were not going to be offended. The other guy was just there in his skivvies without everyone else being in on it and for no reason at all. That is the difference I see.