Sex In Public Places

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2006-09-06 08:20pm

Should sex in public places be legal? Why or why not? What should the limits be (assuming it only refers to mentally mature consenting sex)? Straightforward question, what are your thoughts?

Vyraeth · Post by **Vyraeth** » 2006-09-06 08:36pm

No it shouldn't be legal in public places, since by their nature, "public places" are open to the public and I'm sure there are members of the public who wouldn't want to be forced to watch two or more people having sex.

In essence, it interferes with another person's right not to watch lewd, sexual content.

SCRawl · Post by **SCRawl** » 2006-09-06 08:44pm

It really shouldn't be legal, no. I mean, you can't spit on the sidewalk, should it be legal to ejaculate on it?

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-09-06 08:48pm

Vyraeth wrote:In essence, it interferes with another person's right not to watch lewd, sexual content.

Since when has that been a right?

SeeingRed · Post by **SeeingRed** » 2006-09-06 08:51pm

I don't know...sex in public places is not prevalent at all right now, and I'm inclined to believe that that isn't solely because it's not currently legal. Sure, if sex in public places was legalized, we'd see an uptick in its frequency, but it seems to me that there's a certain portion of the population that will refrain from doing that for purely moral/social/modesty reasons, while the other portion of the population (which presumably enjoys the prospect of sex in a public locale) will engage in such activity without regard for its legality.

Not that I particularly believe that public sex should be legalized, but, just a thought.

Cao Cao · Post by **Cao Cao** » 2006-09-06 08:56pm

Lewd is a matter of opinion in the end.
That said, I don't think it should be legal. It'd be far too distracting for one thing - and that has nothing to do with taboos. I don't have much problem with nudity for instance, but seeing two people going at it it'd turn my head. Especially if those two people were women... heh.. heh.. *walks right into a lamp post*

Ow.

Vyraeth · Post by **Vyraeth** » 2006-09-06 08:56pm

Surlethe wrote:Since when has that been a right?

It's not a right outlined in the Bill of Rights, as far as I know (if we're talking about the United States), but I believe that it's a right inherent with the idea of "public".

Shouldn't public places by their nature try to reasonably accomodate all members of the public? And wouldn't allowing people to have sex publicly interfere with this notion of reasonable accomodation?

Majin Gojira · Post by **Majin Gojira** » 2006-09-06 08:57pm

Last I checked, rights were things you COULD do, not things you COULDN'T do.

Cao Cao · Post by **Cao Cao** » 2006-09-06 08:59pm

Vyraeth wrote:Shouldn't public places by their nature try to reasonably accomodate all members of the public? And wouldn't allowing people to have sex publicly interfere with this notion of reasonable accomodation?

Reasonable accomodation? That's some mighty sticky territory you're heading into there..

Vyraeth · Post by **Vyraeth** » 2006-09-06 09:01pm

Majin Gojira wrote:Last I checked, rights were things you COULD do, not things you COULDN'T do.

I don't see how your comment applies. I'm arguing that members of a public have a right not to be subjected to another individual or a group of individuals engaged in sexual activity.

Vyraeth · Post by **Vyraeth** » 2006-09-06 09:02pm

Cao Cao wrote:Reasonable accomodation? That's some mighty sticky territory you're heading into there..

Well perhaps we could explore some of that "sticky territory" here? Or would that be going off-topic, in which case I digress.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2006-09-06 09:04pm

Vyraeth wrote:No it shouldn't be legal in public places, since by their nature, "public places" are open to the public and I'm sure there are members of the public who wouldn't want to be forced to watch two or more people having sex.

I don't think it could be reasonably said they were being "forced" into watching it.

In essence, it interferes with another person's right not to watch lewd, sexual content.

So why is sexy advertising allowed?

People now that want to have sex in the open do it and hope to not get caught, when they are caught, they get fined, arrested, whatever, for what amounts to a victimless crime. If there were some actual harm, rather than mere offence, I could get why it would be banned carte blanche, but "the right to not be offended" seems to be a really dangerous set of rights.

Cao Cao · Post by **Cao Cao** » 2006-09-06 09:06pm

Vyraeth wrote:
Cao Cao wrote:Reasonable accomodation? That's some mighty sticky territory you're heading into there..
Well perhaps we could explore some of that "sticky territory" here? Or would that be going off-topic, in which case I digress.

Well, for example, where I live I see several Muslim women in that full cover-the-body getup they wear where you only see their eyes and part of their face.. I forget what it's called.
Anyway, people in the getup scare me. Maybe they should accomodate me and wear normal clothing, no?

Vyraeth · Post by **Vyraeth** » 2006-09-06 09:12pm

Rye wrote:I don't think it could be reasonably said they were being "forced" into watching it.

Well, if you mean to say (and please, don't think I'm trying to put words in your mouth) that members of the public who wouldn't want to be subjected to this activity wouldn't have to look at it, I'd say that they shouldn't be forced into that situation in the first place. I believe members of the public have the right to look at anything in the scope of a "public" place without having to worry about extremely objectionable content.

Vyraeth wrote:In essence, it interferes with another person's right not to watch lewd, sexual content.

Rye wrote:So why is sexy advertising allowed?

This is my fault for not properly stating my initial position. I mean that it interferes with a person's right not to be subjected to obscene sexual behavior.

There's a huge difference between a lingerie ad on a billboard and a couple engaged in anal sex.

Rye wrote:People now that want to have sex in the open do it and hope to not get caught, when they are caught, they get fined, arrested, whatever, for what amounts to a victimless crime. If there were some actual harm, rather than mere offence, I could get why it would be banned carte blanche, but "the right to not be offended" seems to be a really dangerous set of rights.

I don't really think it's victimless. What if young children were subjected to a couple engaged in sexual activity? Could it not be said that these young children now become victims? I mean, if you allow sex in public places wouldn't it also be appropriate to take age limitations off pornography? Specific types of pornography, I should say, since I highly doubt a couple having sex in public could represent the dozens of forms out there.

Vyraeth · Post by **Vyraeth** » 2006-09-06 09:14pm

Cao Cao wrote:Well, for example, where I live I see several Muslim women in that full cover-the-body getup they wear where you only see their eyes and part of their face.. I forget what it's called.
Anyway, people in the getup scare me. Maybe they should accomodate me and wear normal clothing, no?

I believe you're sensationalizing my position. I said reasonable accomodations.

I think it's alot more reasonable to bar people from having sex in public, then it is to bar people from wearing certain types of clothing, since in-general, public sex seems to be alot more offensive then clothes.

Cao Cao · Post by **Cao Cao** » 2006-09-06 09:21pm

Vyraeth wrote:
Cao Cao wrote:Well, for example, where I live I see several Muslim women in that full cover-the-body getup they wear where you only see their eyes and part of their face.. I forget what it's called.
Anyway, people in the getup scare me. Maybe they should accomodate me and wear normal clothing, no?
I believe you're sensationalizing my position. I said reasonable accomodations.

I think it's alot more reasonable to bar people from having sex in public, then it is to bar people from wearing certain types of clothing, since in-general, public sex seems to be alot more offensive then clothes.

My accomodation is reasonable. Why should anyone be able to conceal themselves like that? Maybe it offends me. Plus who knows if it's actually a guy with a machine gun under all that wrapping?
This is my point, you're talking about restricting what people do because others will be offended, when there are lots of things people do that offend others.

Now I'm not advocating it or anything, however I do have to point out that this social taboo argument is flawed.

Vyraeth · Post by **Vyraeth** » 2006-09-06 09:31pm

Cao Cao wrote:My accomodation is reasonable. Why should anyone be able to conceal themselves like that? Maybe it offends me. Plus who knows if it's actually a guy with a machine gun under all that wrapping?
This is my point, you're talking about restricting what people do because others will be offended, when there are lots of things people do that offend others.

Now I'm not advocating it or anything, however I do have to point out that this social taboo argument is flawed.

I realize that there are lots of things that people do that offend others, but I never said that everything that could potentially offend someone should be restricted. I said, essentially, that public places should be as inoffensive as possible, because they are owned by the "public".

As I stated above, this entire idea works on the basis of "reasonable accomodations".

Using your particular example, it's not reasonable to bar certain types of clothing because we can't reasonably say that a significant portion of Muslim women carry concealed weapons. And more to the point, I think we can say, that a fair amount of the people who make up the public aren't offended by clothing -- I would think the typical response would be indifference.

Explicit sexual activity however is an entirely different thing. Is it not true that young children (say below the age of 10-13, before puberty) exposed to explicit sexual content are at risk for psychological disorders? (This is not a rhetorical question, I am asking the highly educated community that makes up these boards.)

Assuming that is true, how is it fair to them to have to witness this sort of activity? As far as I know, a style of clothing doesn't really lead to young children developing psychological disorders or complications.

Note: As I indicated above, I'm not sure about the validity of my statement, so I would prefer for someone with experience or knowledge in the area to make a comment one way or the other concerning it's correctness.

Pick · Post by **Pick** » 2006-09-06 10:04pm

I would really prefer that sex was barred in public places (though I do not advocate some of the unreasonably large fines, etc., currently in some places.) As far as I'm concerned, a public place should be largely free of repulsive material, be it dogshit or really ugly people humping on the bike path. There could be areas of parks/services designated for sex, however, and that would not bother me.

Oni Koneko Damien · Post by **Oni Koneko Damien** » 2006-09-06 10:09pm

Honestly, there is no good reason to bar it.

Every argument presented so far is some variation of 'people might not like it', which is no reason to bar something...or 'it's distracting', which is kind of a load of bullshit since a four hundred pound guy in a pink tube-top is equally distracting, but there are no laws against that.

I guess I'm indifferent to the whole thing. I don't particularly get off on watching other people get each other off, but I'm not exactly disturbed by it either.

Oni Koneko Damien · Post by **Oni Koneko Damien** » 2006-09-06 10:10pm

Slight appendum:

I see no issue with banning it from certain places, where it presents a safety hazard, or actively interferes with other peoples' rights. Much the same as having certain areas you cannot skateboard, or banning bikes from the inside or around certain buildings.

ThatGuyFromThatPlace · Post by **ThatGuyFromThatPlace** » 2006-09-06 10:24pm

I agree with pick. I have no personal feelings one way or the other on the issue specifically, but as an issue of rights, I feel that thee are places in parks where you canr ide your bike, other places for walking your dog, other places for playing with kids and the like and each area has its own rules and regulations specific to that activity, I see no reason why the same accomodations couldn't be made for people wanting to sex it up out of doors and in public

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2006-09-06 10:26pm

Oni Koneko Damien wrote:Slight appendum:

I see no issue with banning it from certain places, where it presents a safety hazard, or actively interferes with other peoples' rights. Much the same as having certain areas you cannot skateboard, or banning bikes from the inside or around certain buildings.

Now, the challenge is to create a sign for that.

Pick · Post by **Pick** » 2006-09-06 10:28pm

Well to be fair, public opinion is going to have some sway over public resources.

And particularly unpleasant distracting things are often banned from public places. Very loud boomboxes are banned from the parks in my area, and Man-Faye was banned from Anime Expo 2004 (that was a glorious day.) You can't ride powered scooters on the bike path on my old town either, since they're too noisy, etc. You can't use skateboards on the kid's toys.

As I said, a specifically designated place for it is perfectly reasonable, but I don't think that applies to all public areas.

Darth Garden Gnome · Post by **Darth Garden Gnome** » 2006-09-06 10:33pm

Pick wrote:As I said, a specifically designated place for it is perfectly reasonable, but I don't think that applies to all public areas.

Oh, but wouldn't it be glorious to have your day at the library augmented by liberal viewing of others' genitals!

Pick · Post by **Pick** » 2006-09-06 10:35pm

Darth Garden Gnome wrote:
Pick wrote:As I said, a specifically designated place for it is perfectly reasonable, but I don't think that applies to all public areas.
Oh, but wouldn't it be glorious to have your day at the library augmented by liberal viewing of others' genitals!

Well maybe they could get more people to go to libraries that way....

Not me, though. I honestly think most people look better with clothes on.