Mooning is the act of displaying one's bare buttocks by removing clothing, e.g., by lowering the backside of one's trousers and underpants, usually bending over, whether also exposing the genitals or not. Mooning is used mostly in the English-speaking world to express protest, scorn, disrespect, or provocation but can also simply be done for shock value or fun. Mooning may be considered indecent exposure, depending on jurisdiction and context.
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.[citation needed] As documented by McLaren, "'mooning', or exposing one's ass to shame an enemy [...] had a long pedigree in peasant culture" throughout the Middle Ages, and in many nations.[1] Formerly, "mooning" was slang for "wandering idly" and "romantically pining."[2]
In Chilean Spanish, the act of mooning is known as cara pálida, lit. "Paleface".
The legal position of mooning varies between jurisdictions, from indecent exposure to legal self-expression. Some example cases include:
Two brothers of Zimbabwean descent were charged and jailed for indecent exposure in 2006, for wearing traditional African loinclothes which leave the buttocks exposed.[3] 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".
Patrick Devine, 19, from County Donegal, Ireland was arrested on 27 July 2007 for allegedly dropping his trousers as a dare in Saint Louis in Senegal. Devine, a student of Queens University Belfast, spent one month in jail for his alleged actions.[4]
A 2003 case saw two British tourists convicted and fined €920 each on indecent exposure charges.[5]
In 2006, a Maryland state circuit court determined that mooning is a form of artistic expression protected by the United States constitutional right of freedom of speech.[6][7] The court ruled that indecent exposure 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, "If 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 building wearing nothing but a cardboard sign that covered the front of her body. In that case, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals had ruled that indecent exposure is limited to a person's genitalia. No review of the case by a higher court took place since prosecutors dropped the case after the ruling.
In California, an appellate court found in 2000 that mooning does not constitute indecent exposure (and, therefore, does not subject the defendant to sex offender registration laws) unless it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the conduct was sexually motivated.[8]