Sex In Public Places

[Lord Woodlouse]

There IS the whole sanitary reason. I doubt body fluids spread all over the sidewalk improve it.

So when do you plan to ban cats, dogs, and wild animals in public places so that you can resume eating off the sidewalk?

In the UK there's hefty fine's for dogs fouling on the pavement. I'm shaking my head grinning at this but I'm now imagining the same "no fouling" signs (with the little scotty dog and a shit, with a red cross through it), except with a stickman and woman going at it with some jism on the side, with a red cross through it.

[Darth Wong]

There IS the whole sanitary reason. I doubt body fluids spread all over the sidewalk improve it.

So when do you plan to ban cats, dogs, and wild animals in public places so that you can resume eating off the sidewalk?

In the UK there's hefty fine's for dogs fouling on the pavement. I'm shaking my head grinning at this but I'm now imagining the same "no fouling" signs (with the little scotty dog and a shit, with a red cross through it), except with a stickman and woman going at it with some jism on the side, with a red cross through it.

I'm still amused by Faqa's bizarre expectation that outdoor public sidewalks should be considered "sanitary" environments.

[Cao Cao]

There may be hefty fines, but it still happens. Rather too frequently really. I'm always seeing dog shit on the pavement It's hardly like there's going to be a cop trailing everybody walking their dog.
And don't get me started on the amount of urine and spit spread about. Bodily fluids from sex wouldn't add much to that.

Actually I'd be more worried for the couple having sex in such unsanitary conditions.

[Lord Woodlouse]

There may be hefty fines, but it still happens. Rather too frequently really. I'm always seeing dog shit on the pavement It's hardly like there's going to be a cop trailing everybody walking their dog.
And don't get me started on the amount of urine and spit spread about. Bodily fluids from sex wouldn't add much to that.

Actually I'd be more worried for the couple having sex in such unsanitary conditions.

Hey, you laugh but that's probably the best "sanitary" argument. The health and safety of those in the act itself.

Still, it IS illegal to pee in a street, or to let your dog crap on it (or hell, for you to crap on it) for all these things happen all the time anyway. It's the least worthwhile argument, though. To me the best reason not to allow it is simply because it would just get right on my tits to have people having a shag everywhere I walk down a street. Especially if they're doing it loudly. The same does go for especially loud and persistant God botherers, too (though they usually need a licence, I think).

Hell, if it were my decision I'd get rid of people trying to sign me up to a bloody charity every step I take down the main street in town.

[Gil Hamilton]

So when do you plan to ban cats, dogs, and wild animals in public places so that you can resume eating off the sidewalk?

Well, there are fines if you let your dog crap all over the sidewalk and don't clean it up. However, even if it weren't finable, it would still be common courtesy.

However, I think that disease is a bit more valid a reason than just simple sanitation. Certain classes of STDs (some of the bacterial ones and insects) can be transmitted by later contact with fluids/hairs left behind, for example, on a toilet seat or a sink (both areas where public sex typically happen on). It's kind of a dodgy argument though, since such STDs don't typically have such a long life outside of their ideal conditions and can be thwarted by common hygiene anyway usually.

[General Zod]

Hey, you laugh but that's probably the best "sanitary" argument. The health and safety of those in the act itself.

Still, it IS illegal to pee in a street, or to let your dog crap on it (or hell, for you to crap on it) for all these things happen all the time anyway. It's the least worthwhile argument, though. To me the best reason not to allow it is simply because it would just get right on my tits to have people having a shag everywhere I walk down a street. Especially if they're doing it loudly. The same does go for especially loud and persistant God botherers, too (though they usually need a licence, I think).

Hell, if it were my decision I'd get rid of people trying to sign me up to a bloody charity every step I take down the main street in town.

The only problem I'd have with people shitting/pissing/etc on the sidewalk, is that I'm not always paying complete attention to the ground I'm walking on, and from time to time on rare occasions I'll step on something nasty like chewing gum. If you're on lunch while at work, or you're a good ways away from home, it can be a real bitch to suddenly find your nice dress shoes caked in dog shit. That's about the only real thing I could think of against it.

[Alan Bolte]

What of the question of sex on private property in view of the public? I.E., in your front yard, across the street from an elementary school. I'm having real trouble thinking of any reasonable arguement there.

[Faqa]

So when do you plan to ban cats, dogs, and wild animals in public places so that you can resume eating off the sidewalk?

I plan to ban them SHITTING in public, which royally pisses me off when I see it.

No one claims to eat off the sidewalk. But I don't think expecting to not walk in people's body fluids is exactly unreasonable.

[Darth Wong]

So when do you plan to ban cats, dogs, and wild animals in public places so that you can resume eating off the sidewalk?

I plan to ban them SHITTING in public, which royally pisses me off when I see it.

You're an idiot. It's one thing to ban pets shitting on the sidewalk, but you can't ban all animals from doing so. They've been shitting wherever they want for billions of years, moron. The idea of a sanitary sidewalk is the most idiotic thing I've heard all day.

No one claims to eat off the sidewalk. But I don't think expecting to not walk in people's body fluids is exactly unreasonable.

Then perhaps you should stay indoors. The outside is strewn with the output of biological life processes, including waste products. And the amount of body fluids released during sexual activity is insignificant compared to all of the other unsanitary material that you find outdoors.

[Faqa]

You're an idiot. It's one thing to ban pets shitting on the sidewalk, but you can't ban all animals from doing so. They've been shitting wherever they want for billions of years, moron. The idea of a sanitary sidewalk is the most idiotic thing I've heard all day.

I said there were sanitary reasons to ban it, not that I expected a fully sanitary sidewalk.

And you can't ban the animals. You CAN, however, punish the owners for letting it happen and not cleaning it. Which nobody seems to view as unreasonable.

Then perhaps you should stay indoors. The outside is strewn with the output of biological life processes, including waste products. And the amount of body fluids released during sexual activity is insignificant compared to all of the other unsanitary material that you find outdoors.

Now, that I think of it, true enough. Sweat and cum are all I'm coming up with. Not that much more unsanitary than a hard game of b-ball, I suppose.

*shrug*

Fine, sanitary argument conceded. Which pretty much removes the only real reason against public sex in the first place.

[SVPD]

I'd say that it's acceptable to ban sex in public for the same reason that it's acceptable to ban disorderly conduct/disturbing the peace/whatever it's called when you live.

For example, while a person in the United States has a constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech, that right does not extend to accosting someone in a bar and cussing them out in an attempt to provoke a fight in which you can then claim self defence. (despite the protestations of liberals to the contrary). If you were to do this, that would not excuse the person who attacked you, but if I were calledto the scene I'd arrest you both as it would be mutual combat.

Sex in public (by in public I mean in areas where people will you you or should reasonably expect to see you) might be somewhat similar. I can't think of any good reason why people would want to have sex in the view of others whom they don't know other than to cause those people to see them. (People who engage in group sex are, to my knowledge, at least passingly familiar with each other and tend to confine it to areas where only members of the group view it. Participants in pornography are usually directly seen only by other members of the production team and are doing it for the expectation of financial gain.)

Since there's no reason to have sex in public view other than to be seen having sex it could be construed as an attempt to provoke a reaction from others. While that reaction might not be violent (just as the person accosted in the bar might not take a swing) and would not excuse violent behavior if it did occur, it clearly wouldn't have occured without the sex taking place.

This isn't to imply that sex in areas which are technically public but which provide a reasonable expectation of privacy should be prohibited (for example, a secluded spot in a public park or forest) but it would be a reason to prohibit it in areas subject to regular traffic.

[Darth Wong]

You're an idiot. It's one thing to ban pets shitting on the sidewalk, but you can't ban all animals from doing so. They've been shitting wherever they want for billions of years, moron. The idea of a sanitary sidewalk is the most idiotic thing I've heard all day.

I said there were sanitary reasons to ban it, not that I expected a fully sanitary sidewalk.

And you can't ban the animals. You CAN, however, punish the owners for letting it happen and not cleaning it. Which nobody seems to view as unreasonable.

Oh really? And who exactly owns all of the wild animals outdoors?

Then perhaps you should stay indoors. The outside is strewn with the output of biological life processes, including waste products. And the amount of body fluids released during sexual activity is insignificant compared to all of the other unsanitary material that you find outdoors.

Now, that I think of it, true enough. Sweat and cum are all I'm coming up with. Not that much more unsanitary than a hard game of b-ball, I suppose.

*shrug*

Fine, sanitary argument conceded. Which pretty much removes the only real reason against public sex in the first place.

Well, as SVPD points out, it's a disruption to public traffic areas, just as a ranting street preacher on a soapbox would be. So there's a legitimate argument to ban it from particular areas such as sidewalks, which are meant for (obviously) walking rather than fucking. But not from the entire outdoors.

[Faqa]

Oh really? And who exactly owns all of the wild animals outdoors?

Nature preserves were not exactly at the top of my list. I was thinking city-suburbia. Where YOU can be reasonably assured that most of the animals are owned, pigeons aside.

Nor do I imagine the public sex argument is much concerned with the Great Outdoors.

Well, as SVPD points out, it's a disruption to public traffic areas, just as a ranting street preacher on a soapbox would be. So there's a legitimate argument to ban it from particular areas such as sidewalks, which are meant for (obviously) walking rather than fucking. But not from the entire outdoors.

Preacher has a right to preach, so long as he doesn't BLOCK the sidewalk, as I recall.

At any rate, obstructing traffic doesn't need a special clause to include public sex.

[Darth Raptor]

Nature preserves were not exactly at the top of my list. I was thinking city-suburbia. Where YOU can be reasonably assured that most of the animals are owned, pigeons aside.

Where do you live? The Moon?

[Vyraeth]

I don't see any reason why; just because you're uncomfortable with what someone's doing doesn't mean that you're unable to use public places or that the government is barring you from using public places.

I think you're minimalizing the issue. We're talking about public sex here. It's abit different then someone hanging a poster which someone might find offensive (to give an example). Sex is an extremely charged element of life, and to allow it to occur in the public (and by public I mean places that the actual public funds, like the sidewalks and streets in a major city, certain parks, etc.).

It's more then just being uncomfortable with it, it's the absurdity of the idea. As some people have alluded to, what's to stop a couple from having sex outside of a grade school (actually that might of been your example), or having sex in the middle of a sidlewalk in say downtown Los Angeles (besides the fact that they'd get trampled), or anywhere else they please in the scope of the "public" (and to clarify, public meaning places funded by citizen's tax dollars, not "public places" like movie theaters).

What would be the ramifications on young children (say under 10 years old, since I'm sure everybody discovers what sex really is by the time they're 12-13), how would people take it? Wouldn't you agree a significant amount of people would find it offensive? A significant amount of people that contribute, monetarily, to that public area?

And on the risk of sounded convoluted, my logic is not that everything that's offensive to the majority should be banned, I'm trying to make a disnction between extremely offensive things, like, in my belief, public sex and minor ones. I don't have exact criteria, but isn't it generally agreeable that sex between two strangers might be more offensive then say a billboard advertisement for a gun show?

Besides, what does "reasonable accomodation" have to do with rights, which are limits on what the government can and can't do to you? This whole idea of having a "right" not to watch someone have sex is a very good example of the common misuse of the concept of a "right": the founders put the Bill of Rights in the Constitution to define behaviors which the government could not regulate; rights have nothing to do with interpersonal interaction, but rather regulate government-person interaction.

I was never referring to rights in a legal context. Atleast not intentionally, although in a way, I think laws against indecent exposure or even having sex in public exist for some of the reasons I mentioned, because that's the only reason, beyond extraordinary pressure from religious groups that I can think of as to why they're there in the first place.

How about if they own the land opposite the school?

I would think that the people on the land opposite of the school would have to create some barrier to restrict viewing of the sex.

Why should "reasonably accomodate" mean that people can force others not to do things that they don't want to see? When you force someone else not to do something upon threat of criminal charges, you are imposing your standards of conduct upon him by force, and there should be a better justification than "I just don't like seeing that".

Well, you predicted half my response because I'm going to default to the public itself. Aren't standards of conducted determined by society aka the public at large? And shouldn't the public who pays for public areas (like sidewalks, parks, etc.) be allowed to determine what happens in those areas?

And I realize what you'll say next, you'll probably point out that using such logic would mean that the public would be able to do virtually anything -- no matter how insane. For instance, and I know this sounds ludicrous, but after a terrorist attack the public might decide that all Muslims must wear specially issued clothing while traversing public areas and be subjected to random police searches (well, actually, I believe my statement draws parralells with what the Naziz did to the Jews in the late 30s). And that's not what I'm advocating.

When I say reasonable accomodation, I mean that we should accomodate people in a sensible fashion. Why do people need to be allowed to have sex in public? What's the real benefit of it?

I mean, I understand the romanticism of having sex in a park, in a secluded area, but I'm all for people comitting public sex discreetly as long as they realize the risks of being caught (and practically, if they're having sex in a secluded area, I doubt they will get caught, it happens all the time).

Besides, not all places that are in public are "public", so your tax dollars argument is bunk. A movie theatre, for instance, is not a public place, but it would still be exhibitionism if Jane gave John a blowjob in the back of the theatre.

I'm referring to public places funded by tax dollars, not "public" places in the sense of malls or theaters where the public frequents. I think in those cases, the owners of such establishments would naturally bar public sex for fear of losing their customer base. And I realize that at current, public sex is still illegal in those areas even if they aren't owned by the public, but I'm of the opinion people should be allowed to do what they want -- as long as it's not a criminal action on private property.

Further, where is your legal evidence that such a right exists? Don't backpedal now.

When I used the word "right", I was speaking in an abstract sense. So don't be so pretentious, I'm not backpedaling from anything. My fault was in not clarifying what I was saying initially, and I'll keep this in mind for future debates.

Vyraeth, you're off your nut. People don't have a right to any of this bullshit nonsense about avoiding offense, or having their taboos reasonably accomodated. This is an outgrowth of PCist mentality, that suggests everyone should have their little eccentricities catered to. Seeing two people have sex does not harm anyone. Seeing/hearing a "swear" (which is only taboo because people decided that particular collection of sounds was to be taboo; consider "I sexing hate that sexing son of a female dog" -- same exact meaning to each word, but it's somehow "less offensive"? bulllllshit) does not harm anyone.

It's not a matter of catering to everyone's "little eccentricities" as you so eloquently stated, it's a matter of accomodating the interests of the public in a reasonable fashion. What's that mean? Well, let's use your example of swearing and having sex. I'm well aware that swear words are only taboo because at one time, somebody or some group decided the words were to be, and I realize that they're only as offensive as people make them; but some people take them fairly offensively. I'd say the people most likely to do this are people who are apart of a fudamentalist religious sect, but I've also heard people remark how the words seem dirty when used.

And yes, this may be in line with politically correct mentality, but when it comes to dealing with the public, what better position is there? If the majority of the people who pay for a certain area would prefer that sex not occur there, then don't they have that right?

I find overt displays of religious faith to be offensive. So if I employ Vyraeth's logic, I can now demand that all Christian bumper stickers, posters, T-shirts, pendants, and other forms of visible expressions of faith be outlawed, upon threat of fines and/or imprisonment. After all, I have to be "accomodated", right? And accomodating someone's desire to impose his tastes upon others is perfectly reasonable, right?

Oh wait, he'll just pull the "strength in numbers" argument, ie- mob rule.

If you employ my logic, then it has to be done in a reasonable manner, and your example is far from that. You, as an individual only need to be accomodated so far. There's a huge difference between a visible expression of faith in a particular religion then there is two people having sex.

Especially if you consider what ramifications that viewing sex would have on young children. You're a father, would you let your children watch pornography (assuming they're prepubescent)? And like I noted before, I realize I'm using this as a point in a debate, but if there's no real correlation between young children being exposed to sex and it doing harm then I'll drop the point.

And yes, you stated one of my other arguements, but I already gave the gist of that in another reply to you, so I won't bother reiterating it again.

My children see my wifes breasts on occasion and see us naked once and a while and have walked in on us having sex to no great harm. Once you explain sex to children in a mature and responsible manner they literally shrug their shoulders and go on with life. We even explained to my son when he was four why he had a penis and his sister has a vagina and he seems no worse for wear. Numerous European countries have vary liberal attitudes towards sex and nudity and have low occurances of sexual harrassment and sexual assualt, so what does that tell you about your assumption?

I think there's a big difference between sex, in a very natural sense, where two beings are simply in the act of it and between things like bondage/BDSM where there's a strong element of domination.

Would you let your children watch pornography? And if so, would you allow them to watch BDSM-style pornography?

And if you wouldn't, then why is public sex permissible to you? (Now obviously if there's a stipulation that this type of sex is barred in public I can't use this example.)

Note: Thanks for all the replies, this is really a nice diversion. I've tried to reply to everyone, if I've missed anyone feel free to let me know via PM, it's just that there were so many in so short a span of time.

Further, there are alot of things the majority of the public finds offensive. Athiesm, homosexuality, so on and so on. Should athiests be banned from public places in areas where the majority of people find atheism offensive? Gay folks too?

I see exactly what you're saying and this is not the position I'm trying to advocate, the public can be quite ignorant at times. I guess what it is is that the idea of people having sex in broad daylight in the midst of a busy street just doesn't seem right to be. Give me some time and I'll try and elaborate on this more.

[Aaron]

I think there's a big difference between sex, in a very natural sense, where two beings are simply in the act of it and between things like bondage/BDSM where there's a strong element of domination.

Sex is sex, whether they are going at it au natural or employing whips and ropes is of no concern to me. I don't have any of the Christian hang ups concerning sex and my wife and I occasionaly employ handcuffs and 5-50 cord as my disability allows me too.

Would you let your children watch pornography? And if so, would you allow them to watch BDSM-style pornography?

I would not allow my 5 and 3 year old to watch pronography for the simple reason that it is adult entertainment and they will not derive anything out of it. When they are teenagers however and it is time for more in depth discussions about sex and STDs I may employ educational sex videos and porn magazines. If they want to know want BDSM sex is then we can cruise to a website to find out more. They will be almost adults and can be treated accordingly.

[Faqa]

Where do you live? The Moon?

Where do you live, that uncontrolled animals are such a problem? I live in a small city, and 90 percent of the animals here are pets.

[Cao Cao]

Nature preserves were not exactly at the top of my list. I was thinking city-suburbia. Where YOU can be reasonably assured that most of the animals are owned, pigeons aside.

Here in London I see stay dogs and cats regularily.
Also, unless you put a cop or a camera on every street it's still going to be an unenforcable law most of the time.

The fact that most of the dog poo bins I see in parks near me are badly maintained and full of garbage which people shouldn't be throwing in there doesn't help matters, mind you.

[Keevan_Colton]

"It just doesnt seem right to me"
"It's more then just being uncomfortable with it, it's the absurdity of the idea."

Got anything better? Besides your thing about building a barrier makes it clear that it's not the use of public land that's the real issue you've got. After all, that would be private land, just in view of the public.

[Aaron]

Where do you live, that uncontrolled animals are such a problem? I live in a small city, and 90 percent of the animals here are pets.

I don't know what things are like in Israel but in North American cities you can expect everything from racoons, skunks, deer, and even coyotes in places like Vancouver.

[Darth Wong]

Well, you predicted half my response because I'm going to default to the public itself. Aren't standards of conducted determined by society aka the public at large?

Yes. What do these customary standards of conduct have to do with criminal charges? I can do plenty of things that violate various rules of social conduct without being thrown in jail for them.

When I say reasonable accomodation, I mean that we should accomodate people in a sensible fashion.

Define "sensible".

Why do people need to be allowed to have sex in public? What's the real benefit of it?

People do not need to justify their personal behaviour in order to avoid staying out of prison. The government needs to give a damned good reason to throw them in prison.

I mean, I understand the romanticism of having sex in a park, in a secluded area, but I'm all for people comitting public sex discreetly as long as they realize the risks of being caught (and practically, if they're having sex in a secluded area, I doubt they will get caught, it happens all the time).

Who gives a shit what you personally like or dislike? I dislike rap music, but you don't see me calling to have people thrown in jail for listening to it where I can hear.

If you employ my logic, then it has to be done in a reasonable manner, and your example is far from that.

Nonsense. Your logic leads directly to the conclusion I posted. The fact that you reject some of the conclusions of your own logic (by labeling them unreasonable and then discarding them) means that the logic itself is unreasonable, not that everyone should copy your technique of applying it and then throwing out whatever conclusions it produces which are ridiculous.

You, as an individual only need to be accomodated so far. There's a huge difference between a visible expression of faith in a particular religion then there is two people having sex.

No there isn't.

Especially if you consider what ramifications that viewing sex would have on young children.

And what are those?

You're a father, would you let your children watch pornography (assuming they're prepubescent)?

No. I also don't let them watch reality TV, MTV, or televangelists. Should we throw people in jail for all those things too?

And like I noted before, I realize I'm using this as a point in a debate, but if there's no real correlation between young children being exposed to sex and it doing harm then I'll drop the point.

You have to provide evidence for that correlation before presuming it.

[Faqa]

I don't know what things are like in Israel but in North American cities you can expect everything from racoons, skunks, deer, and even coyotes in places like Vancouver.

The fuck? You might get a few wild animals in the Northern cities, but that's about it. Most anywhere that's called a city is pretty wild-animal-less.

Here in London I see stay dogs and cats regularily.
Also, unless you put a cop or a camera on every street it's still going to be an unenforcable law most of the time.

Doesn't change the fact that it shouldn't be legalized.

[Aaron]

The fuck? You might get a few wild animals in the Northern cities, but that's about it. Most anywhere that's called a city is pretty wild-animal-less.

Alot of North American cities contain extensive greenbelts and are located in greenbelts themselves (especially in Canada), this coupled with the plentiful food IE: garbage provides an ideal habitat for lots of animals.

[Darth Raptor]

The fuck? You might get a few wild animals in the Northern cities, but that's about it. Most anywhere that's called a city is pretty wild-animal-less.

Actually no, not when you get out of the desert. The large-scale urbanization of Earth has displaced a lot of species in the temperate and tropical regions, but even more have adapted admirably to an environment with a lot of available food and shelter. Many biologists consider cities to be novel and unique ecosystems in their own right.

[Faqa]

Actually no, not when you get out of the desert. The large-scale urbanization of Earth has displaced a lot of species in the temperate and tropical regions, but even more have adapted admirably to an environment with a lot of available food and shelter. Many biologists consider cities to be novel and unique ecosystems in their own right.

I was talking about what I see here in Israel...