Sex In Public Places

[Morilore]

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?

You have no idea how hilarious you sound. "I'm not saying that everything the majority finds offensive should be banned, I'm saying that everything the majority finds really offensive should be banned."

What do you mean when you refer to "accomodations" being "sensible" and "reasonable?" What, exactly, is it that qualitatively separates banning sex in public from banning religious displays in public?

[Darth Raptor]

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

Israel? I wasn't that far off. See, on this side of the planet, we have life, and I have to brake for deer and scrape racoon shit off my sidewalk.

[Cao Cao]

Tsk, and I thought the stray pets where I live were bad.
In many parts of the world you're just not going to control what animals do to your streets, unless extermination is an option.. which it usually isn't.

[Surlethe]

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.).

So? Why should being "extremely charged" (whatever that means) necessitate banning?

It's more then just being uncomfortable with it, it's the absurdity of the idea.

Oh, please. Absurdity is hardly something you can ban from public places. Are you going to ban Happy Friday Guy from the Ball State Campus (which is funded by taxpayers, mind you) next?

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).

Nothing.

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?

Oh no! Think of the children! This debunks my entire argument, to be sure, since the very mention of sex is traumatizing to children! While we're saving the children from confusion, why don't we ban people speaking Chinese in the streets, too?

Wouldn't you agree a significant amount of people would find it offensive?

Do you realize that an appeal to popularity is a fallacy?

A significant amount of people that contribute, monetarily, to that public area?

So?

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.

So instead of just anything that's offensive to the majority, you'll ban anything that's really offensive to the majority. All right! Sanctify the flag! Burn the goddamn witches! Let's hunt down the atheists and put them all to death!

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?

If you don't have criteria, then you've got no business making an argument, genius.

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.

What context beyond legality does the word "right" have? In any case, you're only making a convoluted appeal to popularity again.

[Darth Wong]

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.

That's because you live in a fucking desert. Even people wouldn't survive there in great quantity without technological assistance. We live near forest. It is impossible to keep our suburbs animal-free. And I feel sorry for you if you don't have birds in your cities; that must be a pretty bleak environment.

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

Don't be ridiculous. You simply cannot sanitize the outdoors, no matter how much you try to ignore reality.

[wolveraptor]

Don't be ridiculous. You simply cannot sanitize the outdoors, no matter how much you try to ignore reality

He's arguing that any animals people can be said to be in control of should not be permitted to shit on the sidewalk. Just because we can't completely sanitize such an environment doesn't mean we shouldn't try to minimize overtly disgusting artifacts like mounds of dog-shit.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

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.

You would think that, wouldn't you? However, I can personally attest to situations where, given the right environment, someone can simply not care about the fact that they are in plain view rather than simply being exhibitionists.

[McC]

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.

Good for them. They can, and take this down verbatim if you please, "fuck off and blow my engorged cock and subsequently gargle my shit." That should be good and inoffensive.

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?

Um...did I read that right? Yep, I did. You just suggested political correctness as a good course of action. As far as I'm concerned...

You lose! Good day, sir!

Thanks for playing.

[Darth Wong]

Don't be ridiculous. You simply cannot sanitize the outdoors, no matter how much you try to ignore reality

He's arguing that any animals people can be said to be in control of should not be permitted to shit on the sidewalk.

No, he was arguing that the six ounces of body fluids that two people might release during sex, assuming they didn't bother to bring a blanket for some reason, would represent a major public-health risk which justifies banning the practice. This argument only makes sense if the outdoor environment is presently so damned clean that a few ounces of bodily fluids would really make a big difference.

Just because we can't completely sanitize such an environment doesn't mean we shouldn't try to minimize overtly disgusting artifacts like mounds of dog-shit.

Dog-shit is solid waste, which does not disappear as easily as a few ounces of vaginal secretions or semen.

[wolveraptor]

No, he was arguing that the six ounces of body fluids that two people might release during sex, assuming they didn't bother to bring a blanket for some reason, would represent a major public-health risk which justifies banning the practice. This argument only makes sense if the outdoor environment is presently so damned clean that a few ounces of bodily fluids would really make a big difference.

He was earlier, and I agree that that was a retarded argument, but that particular statement was with regards to pets defecating.

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.

[Faqa]

No, he was arguing that the six ounces of body fluids that two people might release during sex, assuming they didn't bother to bring a blanket for some reason, would represent a major public-health risk which justifies banning the practice. This argument only makes sense if the outdoor environment is presently so damned clean that a few ounces of bodily fluids would really make a big difference.

You MAY recall that I later admitted that part was incorrect.

That's because you live in a fucking desert. Even people wouldn't survive there in great quantity without technological assistance. We live near forest. It is impossible to keep our suburbs animal-free. And I feel sorry for you if you don't have birds in your cities; that must be a pretty bleak environment.

I specifically mentioned pigeons in my statement on the matter. Yes, there's gonna be uncontrolled animals. But in cities, they're pretty much down to managable numbers, with most animals being domesticated. We somehow failed to have raccoons go through our garbage.

What you can't control, you can't control. But most animals in the city, you CAN control, and should. If your pet shits on the sidealk, clean it the fuck up. Pay city cleaners to clean up whatever significant messes the uncontrolled make. Is this so unreasonable?

"A fucking desert"? The coastline is good farmland, the North is forests and rivers. The largest portion of our land is the Negev, true, since it's fucking huge, but it's also sparsely populated.

Most of Israel may be desert like, but the majority of people live in the other areas.

[Darth Wong]

You MAY recall that I later admitted that part was incorrect.

True, which is why I was only discussing it in the past tense.

I specifically mentioned pigeons in my statement on the matter. Yes, there's gonna be uncontrolled animals. But in cities, they're pretty much down to managable numbers, with most animals being domesticated. We somehow failed to have raccoons go through our garbage.

Try living in a temperate zone.

What you can't control, you can't control. But most animals in the city, you CAN control, and should. If your pet shits on the sidealk, clean it the fuck up. Pay city cleaners to clean up whatever significant messes the uncontrolled make. Is this so unreasonable?

Find me the quote where I said that I opposed "pick up after your pet" laws. But the fact is that there are no laws whatsoever prohibiting the emission of pet fluids, which is what would be relevant to the original argument about fluid emissions. My dog can pee anywhere on the sidewalk that he damned well pleases, and that's totally legal because (surprise) pet urine is not a big deal. It washes away by itself. Your attempt to introduce the red-herring of solid waste was pitiful the first time and it's even more pitiful now with this added strawman of assuming that I oppose pooper-scooper laws.

"A fucking desert"? The coastline is good farmland, the North is forests and rivers. The largest portion of our land is the Negev, true, since it's fucking huge, but it's also sparsely populated.

Most of Israel may be desert like, but the majority of people live in the other areas.

Then you must not have much greenspace in your cities, for which I would again have to pity you. We have dedicated large portions of our city to greenspace, including areas which are sufficiently wild for hiking trails, and I've seen deer in a conservation area 15 minutes from my house. And I doubt your forests are similar to the ones in temperate zones. Head out north from my house and you don't have to drive too far before you're in bear country.

[Ace Pace]

Then you must not have much greenspace in your cities, for which I would again have to pity you. We have dedicated large portions of our city to greenspace, including areas which are sufficiently wild for hiking trails, and I've seen deer in a conservation area 15 minutes from my house. And I doubt your forests are similar to the ones in temperate zones. Head out north from my house and you don't have to drive too far before you're in bear country.

unfortunately, most cities in Israel do not have large portions of the city dedicated to parks and nature reserves due to population density.

To be on topic, I don't have a specific problem with sex in a public location, however, personally I might find it very distracting if it was done in a manner that was purposefully eye catching and dangerously distracitng(locations such as traffic intersections).

[Faqa]

unfortunately, most cities in Israel do not have large portions of the city dedicated to parks and nature reserves due to population density.

Cities, no. But between the North and the Negev, there's enough natural territory to satisfy anybody. Trust me, combat units don't have to look far for places to run their troops ragged....

Find me the quote where I said that I opposed "pick up after your pet" laws. But the fact is that there are no laws whatsoever prohibiting the emission of pet fluids, which is what would be relevant to the original argument about fluid emissions. My dog can pee anywhere on the sidewalk that he damned well pleases, and that's totally legal because (surprise) pet urine is not a big deal. It washes away by itself. Your attempt to introduce the red-herring of solid waste was pitiful the first time and it's even more pitiful now with this added strawman of assuming that I oppose pooper-scooper laws

Your argument seemed to be that the sidewalk was so unsanitary, there was no point in trying to appeal for sanitation at all. In that context, I brought up animal shit. Hardly a red herring.

I later admitted that body fluids weren't a big issue. Urine is supposed to be sterile as well, or so I recall.

[Darth Wong]

unfortunately, most cities in Israel do not have large portions of the city dedicated to parks and nature reserves due to population density.

Cities, no. But between the North and the Negev, there's enough natural territory to satisfy anybody. Trust me, combat units don't have to look far for places to run their troops ragged....

I doubt, however, that these forests contain as much large-mammal wildlife as temperate forests.

Find me the quote where I said that I opposed "pick up after your pet" laws. But the fact is that there are no laws whatsoever prohibiting the emission of pet fluids, which is what would be relevant to the original argument about fluid emissions. My dog can pee anywhere on the sidewalk that he damned well pleases, and that's totally legal because (surprise) pet urine is not a big deal. It washes away by itself. Your attempt to introduce the red-herring of solid waste was pitiful the first time and it's even more pitiful now with this added strawman of assuming that I oppose pooper-scooper laws

Your argument seemed to be that the sidewalk was so unsanitary, there was no point in trying to appeal for sanitation at all.

No, my argument was that the sidewalk is unsanitary. I never said that it would be impossible to make it even more unsanitary.

[Ace Pace]

unfortunately, most cities in Israel do not have large portions of the city dedicated to parks and nature reserves due to population density.

Cities, no. But between the North and the Negev, there's enough natural territory to satisfy anybody. Trust me, combat units don't have to look far for places to run their troops ragged....

I doubt, however, that these forests contain as much large-mammal wildlife as temperate forests.

No, they don't, the few large animals that were wild in this country are nearly extinct and mostly clustered(as far as I know) around the nature reserve in Ein Gedi.

[MagnusTheReD]

Cities, no. But between the North and the Negev, there's enough natural territory to satisfy anybody. Trust me, combat units don't have to look far for places to run their troops ragged....

I doubt, however, that these forests contain as much large-mammal wildlife as temperate forests.

No, they don't, the few large animals that were wild in this country are nearly extinct and mostly clustered(as far as I know) around the nature reserve in Ein Gedi.

Well, I've heard numerous times that there's lots of- get this- wild boras(!) around the Golan heights!
I mostly heard this from soldiers serving in the vicinity of the area, and lately my cousin who happens to serve there as well comnfirmed that
rumor.

On topic: I don't see any reason why outdoor sex should be banned, but sex in public places is somewhat more problematic, even if only because of our children.
One can only imagine what kind of psychological damage an image like this would cause to the mind of a child!
Well, I know would be psychologically damaged if I would see something like this at the age of five!

[Ace Pace]

On topic: I don't see any reason why outdoor sex should be banned, but sex in public places is somewhat more problematic, even if only because of our children.
One can only imagine what kind of psychological damage an image like this would cause to the mind of a child!
Well, I know would be psychologically damaged if I would see something like this at the age of five!

Why would you be? It's not asif you'd be seeing anything unnatural.

Lets quote a parent who posted in this thread regarding the same thing.

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?

[/quote]

[MagnusTheReD]

On topic: I don't see any reason why outdoor sex should be banned, but sex in public places is somewhat more problematic, even if only because of our children.
One can only imagine what kind of psychological damage an image like this would cause to the mind of a child!
Well, I know would be psychologically damaged if I would see something like this at the age of five!

Why would you be? It's not asif you'd be seeing anything unnatural.

Lets quote a parent who posted in this thread regarding the same thing.

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?

Well, I prefer to explain it to my kids when I'll feel the time has come, at home, using some designated child literature-there's lot's of great children books which explain it on the basic physiological level the child can comprehend without the stupid "bees and flowers" examples so commonly used in Soviet Russia.
That was the way it was explained to me, and in the age of eight I knew a lot more about the human reproduction system that any of my classmates.

Well, I don't have kids of my own yet so I'm not an expert, but that's my opinion.

[Surlethe]

Well, I prefer to explain it to my kids when I'll feel the time has come, at home, using some designated child literature-there's lot's of great children books which explain it on the basic physiological level the child can comprehend without the stupid "bees and flowers" examples so commonly used in Soviet Russia.
That was the way it was explained to me, and in the age of eight I knew a lot more about the human reproduction system that any of my classmates.

Well, I don't have kids of my own yet so I'm not an expert, but that's my opinion.

Someone preempting your preferences is not the same as causing psychological harm to the child. To get an idea of what this argument's logic can do, replace "sex in public" with "people of other races": "I prefer to explain people of other races to my kids when I'll feel the time has come, at home, using some designated child literature. (implied therefore,) people of other races should be banned from using public places."

[SVPD]

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.

You would think that, wouldn't you? However, I can personally attest to situations where, given the right environment, someone can simply not care about the fact that they are in plain view rather than simply being exhibitionists.

That's sort of the point. In certain environments (such as the out-of-the way spot in the forest where someone could come along, maybe a nude beach, I'm sure there are others) one might simply not care.

In others, such as a bus stop shelter, it indicates a desire to do it for no other reason than to be seen by and annoy others. Suppose it's raining, should people be able to take up extra space in the bus shelter so they can do it dog style while waiting on the bus?

How about hate speech? That's considered offensive by the vast majority of people. I don't know anyone who wouldn't be offended by someone yelling "I hate niggers" on the street corner. It's illegal in Canada too, to my understanding. Isn't that, just like sex in the bus stop, doing something for no other purpose than to offend and annoy people?

[McC]

In others, such as a bus stop shelter, it indicates a desire to do it for no other reason than to be seen by and annoy others. Suppose it's raining, should people be able to take up extra space in the bus shelter so they can do it dog style while waiting on the bus?

Not necessarily. They may simply get the urge to have sex while waiting for the bus, and again not care if they're seen or not.

How about hate speech? That's considered offensive by the vast majority of people. I don't know anyone who wouldn't be offended by someone yelling "I hate niggers" on the street corner. It's illegal in Canada too, to my understanding. Isn't that, just like sex in the bus stop, doing something for no other purpose than to offend and annoy people?

This is different at least in the regard that it's intent is to hurt or ostracize. A couple having sex is not intended (usually) to hurt or ostracize anyone. So, your analogy is false.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

That's sort of the point. In certain environments (such as the out-of-the way spot in the forest where someone could come along, maybe a nude beach, I'm sure there are others) one might simply not care.

In others, such as a bus stop shelter, it indicates a desire to do it for no other reason than to be seen by and annoy others. Suppose it's raining, should people be able to take up extra space in the bus shelter so they can do it dog style while waiting on the bus?

How about hate speech? That's considered offensive by the vast majority of people. I don't know anyone who wouldn't be offended by someone yelling "I hate niggers" on the street corner. It's illegal in Canada too, to my understanding. Isn't that, just like sex in the bus stop, doing something for no other purpose than to offend and annoy people?

Niether one of those descriptions fit the situation I was describing. I'm talking about drunk people at clubs who get a little too far with their flirting and end up fucking each other in plain view of others. They're not doing it to gain attention. They simply don't care that they are in plain view.

[SVPD]

That's sort of the point. In certain environments (such as the out-of-the way spot in the forest where someone could come along, maybe a nude beach, I'm sure there are others) one might simply not care.

In others, such as a bus stop shelter, it indicates a desire to do it for no other reason than to be seen by and annoy others. Suppose it's raining, should people be able to take up extra space in the bus shelter so they can do it dog style while waiting on the bus?

How about hate speech? That's considered offensive by the vast majority of people. I don't know anyone who wouldn't be offended by someone yelling "I hate niggers" on the street corner. It's illegal in Canada too, to my understanding. Isn't that, just like sex in the bus stop, doing something for no other purpose than to offend and annoy people?

Niether one of those descriptions fit the situation I was describing. I'm talking about drunk people at clubs who get a little too far with their flirting and end up fucking each other in plain view of others. They're not doing it to gain attention. They simply don't care that they are in plain view.

They're also drunk. I don't think the behavior of intoxicated persons is a good standard.

[SVPD]

In others, such as a bus stop shelter, it indicates a desire to do it for no other reason than to be seen by and annoy others. Suppose it's raining, should people be able to take up extra space in the bus shelter so they can do it dog style while waiting on the bus?

Not necessarily. They may simply get the urge to have sex while waiting for the bus, and again not care if they're seen or not.

Which changes the fact that they take up extra space in what way?

This is different at least in the regard that it's intent is to hurt or ostracize. A couple having sex is not intended (usually) to hurt or ostracize anyone. So, your analogy is false.

You admit that it CAN be the case that someone might be having sex in public to hurt someone, so how is the analogy false?

Again, my concern is not with preventing public sex, it's with preventing violence and disorder that might result from indiscrete sex?

How about if someone in the busstop gets mad and picks a fight because there's not enough room for everyone to get out of the elements?

How about if a mentally disturbed person sees the couple having sex and attacks them? (physically or sexually)?

How about if someone's ex sees it going on and attacks them?

In all these cases I'm well aware that the people having sex are the victim. However, dealing with the problem takes police time and effort that could be better spent elsewhere. I don't think it's ridiculous to ask people to have their outdoor/public sex in more seculded or designated areas in order to avoid an unnecessary burden the taxpayer pays for.

It's not as if the polcie don't get enough bullshit calls to deal with already.