Sex In Public Places

[McC]

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

Fat people take up extra space too. Shall we outlaw obesity? "Taking up extra space" is inconsiderate, but not illegal.

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?

I'm not going to go down this hair-splitting road. "Almost always intended as hurtful" and "usually not intended as hurtful" should be distinction enough.

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

"Again, my concern is not with preventing interracial interaction, it's with preventing interracial violence and disorder that might result from interracial interaction."

So, because some people are immature fuckwhits, law should cater to them? In what world?

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?

Then he goes to jail for assault.

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

Then he goes to jail for assault, or the psych ward for rehab.

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

Then he goes to jail for assault.

In all these cases I'm well aware that the people having sex are the victim.

Let's outlaw miniskirts, since that'll reduce the temptation presented to rapists when a woman wearing one walks by, too. Same logic, right?

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.

As a rule, I'm not against the idea of people being asked to be discrete about their public copulations. I am against the idea of them somehow suffering legal reprocussions as a result of them, though.

[Cao Cao]

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

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.

And all this will just get you the usual comparsions.
As in, what if an interracial couple is holding hands while walking down the street and attracts the ire of a gang of racists?
What if a rapist sees a woman in a miniskirt and decides to have a go?

Do we therefore ban mixed race couples and tell people what to wear?

[Cao Cao]

Aw crap I messed up the first response somehow, it should read:

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

If somebody wants to take up extra space, they don't have to be having sex to do it.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

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

A good standard for what? You said there's only one reason why anyone would have sex in plain view of others and that's to aggravate the public. I've just provided an example of an instance that disproves that idea. Whether they were drunk or not is irrelevant to the discussion.

And to address the topic of public sex regulation, I think it's ridiculous to think that if there were no such laws, a significant number of people will suddenly have public sex in plain view in an attempt to simply aggravate others. In reality, the number of people who would actually do that is small and can easily be reviewed on a case to case basis.

[Vyraeth]

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.

I see exactly what you're saying here, and it's not really something I considered before. So essentially, you won't let them watch pornography because it'd be a useless waste of their time rather than that it might be harmfula to them?

"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.

Well, the initial post is asking for my thoughts, and those were (keyword) my thoughts, so I don't need any better. But in the interest of not playing tennis without a net, I'll concede on those points since they're subjective.

About my barrier idea, I believe building a barrier would be appropriate because the whole idea was to keep public sex out of the public view. Having it occur in the view of the public would defeat my whole idea.

But you're right about the barrier being on private land, that was an oversight on my part (I assumed that the owners of the land would have to be responsible for building the barrier to prevent from interferring in the "public view"), it should be built on the public side.

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.

Ok, I see what you mean.

Define "sensible".

By sensible I meant that we'd prevent certain extremes. Like we wouldn't ban styles of dress just because an individual finds them offensive. Or religious symbols. Or political bumper stickers. Or we wouldn't ban people from eating certain types of candy bars because they find them offensive.

And this to answer your point about my logic being unreasonable was what I wanted my logic to be. The idea of banning things that the public finds too offensive in public areas because they pay for them; but moderating this idea by establishing sensible things to ban or what not.

However, I realize the flaw with labelling things sensible now that you've asked me to define it since my definition of sensibility in that context is predicated around the idea that sex is somehow worse then poignant political bumper stickers, or to use your example, worse then religious symbols. And that's simply not true.

So I concede my point here.

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.

Well, since the thread incorporated opinions, I had tossed that bit in, but I see what you mean, it doesn't really belong, because who really cares.

Although I'm not going to concede here, because there's nothing to concede, it was just a comment I made.

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.

I already addressed this, but I quoted it to make sure people reading know I didn't ignore this.

And what are those?

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

Alright, will do. I actually searched for any evidence of this, and couldn't find it, so I concede the point, and I'll make sure not to make this same mistake again.

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

No, you shouldn't, yes, that's ridiculous. But since you don't want your children to see pornography, shouldn't you have some right as a parent to be able to protect them from public sex (without having to lock them indoors)? And when I asked that question about pornography, I was making a correlation to pornography that offers a similair depiction to public sex, not bizarre pornography that really couldn't be said to.

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?

I elaborated on this above, and generally came to the point where I admitted a I needed to concede. Once I thought about what you and others were asking, I realized that the only reason public sex was worse then a religious display was because I had the preconceived notion it was. And that doesn't really qualify as a good reason to ban it, etc. So like I said, I concede the point.

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

I would type up another similair response to the two above, but it just hogs space. I concede this point and if you care to know why, you can read above.

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?

Well I was going to argue that public sex is absurdity on a higher scale then your example (since I don't even know what you're talking about), but there's no real way to establish that, and again, for reasons I've touched on heavily above.

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?

This point of mine would of been alot more valid if there were professional studies backing up that there is psychological harm to children from viewing sex at a young age. I haven't found such a study yet, and it doesn't seem like I will, so I concede this point.

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

I thought this fallacy was only if you used popularity amongst those around you to drive home a point without substantiating it (I.E. only winning a debate because people like you). But since you're obviously referring to popularity in terms of population, I see what you're saying, in a sense, it's sort of defaulting to mob rule as Darth Wong said.

But I was considering another arguement. What if people who make up the public in certain area decide they don't want public sex and ban it. Does validating their decision by saying that's what they want (and implying that they have the right to manage their area how they want, since they live there) still constitute a fallacy?

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!

That's taking it to the extremes again. Maybe I set myself up for that, but that's not what I meant. By sensible accomodations, I meant that we wouldn't make accomodations to the extent that personal harm would be permissible, etc.

Maybe to you guys I'm drawing epicycles, so next time I bring up a position like this I'll outline it abit better. Not that, in this particular case, Surlethe, it really matters, since I've conceded this issue.

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

Well before you turn smart alec, I never said I didn't have criteria, I said I didn't have precise criteria, essentially saying I may not have a scientific study or proof, but isn't it reasonable to say that people would take sex between two strangers abit more offensively then a billboard advertisement for a gun show?

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

Well, see above for a further question on this.

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.

Well, that was a pretty pointless addition, wasn't it?

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.

I was speaking in terms of the government dealing with the public in the context of a public area. Political correctness is a very bad thing when it comes to personal conversation, or even literary work because it embodies cowardice. If you have something to say, say it.

I suppose what I meant was that the government should maintain a neutral stance, not a politically correct one. Atleast in the matter of handling "public", owned by the state areas, etc. Since that's really the best way to handle the thousands of people who comprise the public.

[Aaron]

I see exactly what you're saying here, and it's not really something I considered before. So essentially, you won't let them watch pornography because it'd be a useless waste of their time rather than that it might be harmfula to them?

Pretty much. I've never seen any evidence that exposing children to sex or sexual images causes harm, Christian bleating aside. To young kids sex is just something they see, they don't put any concious thought into what it represents. Like I have said before in the thread my kids have seen us having sex and they aren't humping the cat. In fact I think they've seen us watching porn before and nothing happened, it's just another TV show to them. Sure you might have to explain what the people are doing but that doesn't cause any harm. In fact I think the more open and up front you are about sex with your kids the less hang ups about it they will have when they are older and hopefully will be more mature about it rather than the stereotypical embarrassed Christian would.

[lazerus]

Don't forget that an exact defintion of the word "public place" is important here.

Most areas were people truly accumulate, such as malls, are not public at all, but private, in which case this is a moot disucssion because the owner of that property can tell you what you can and can't do on it. As such, the only real public place where there are people to be bothered by it is sidewalks and such, in which case there are most likely shops or such who would have legitimate reason to ask those people be stopped: It scares away customers.

So it seems to be a bit of a moot point, as there are very few areas that could truly be considered public.

But fundamentally, I agree with Wong&Others that it's should not be illegal.

[SVPD]

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

Fat people take up extra space too. Shall we outlaw obesity? "Taking up extra space" is inconsiderate, but not illegal.

Requiring a person not to be fat in order to use a bus stop would place an undue burden on that person. Requiring them not to have sex in it places a negligable burden.

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?

I'm not going to go down this hair-splitting road. "Almost always intended as hurtful" and "usually not intended as hurtful" should be distinction enough.[/quote]

Ahh, so we should allow it even when it IS intended as hurtful (or when the person simply doesn't care that it is) even though it imposes no undue burden to prohibit it?

"Hey Honey, there's my ex! Quick, fuck me in the ass and really yell so he'll see!!"

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

"Again, my concern is not with preventing interracial interaction, it's with preventing interracial violence and disorder that might result from interracial interaction."

People can refrain from having sex in public with a bare minimum of self-control... perhaps you could explain how they can refrain from being their own race?

So, because some people are immature fuckwhits, law should cater to them? In what world?

Laws are pretty much designed around immature fuckwits. If there weren't any we'd need very few laws.

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?

Then he goes to jail for assault.

And ties up the time of the police and the courts and expends the taxpayer's money when it all could have been prevented simply by restriciting public sex to secluded or designated areas.

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

Then he goes to jail for assault, or the psych ward for rehab.

See above.

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

Then he goes to jail for assault.

See above.

In all these cases I'm well aware that the people having sex are the victim.

Let's outlaw miniskirts, since that'll reduce the temptation presented to rapists when a woman wearing one walks by, too. Same logic, right?

Actually no. Have you ever heard of a false dilemma?

Furthermore I find it hard to believe that unrestricted public sex would not lead to an increase in rapes.

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.

As a rule, I'm not against the idea of people being asked to be discrete about their public copulations. I am against the idea of them somehow suffering legal reprocussions as a result of them, though.

So we shouldn't prohibit behavior that costs the taxpayer a lot more to deal with when it results in harm, even though prohibiting that behavior poses no or little burden to the person who would engage in it?

I suppose we shouldn't arrest people who walk home very drunk even though they might stumble into traffic... after all, most of them don't get hit by a car.

[Cao Cao]

Ahh, so we should allow it even when it IS intended as hurtful (or when the person simply doesn't care that it is) even though it imposes no undue burden to prohibit it?

"Hey Honey, there's my ex! Quick, fuck me in the ass and really yell so he'll see!!"

What the hell kind of argument is that?
You still evade the fundamental point that if people want to be asses, there are plenty of ways to do it that don't involve sex.

People can refrain from having sex in public with a bare minimum of self-control... perhaps you could explain how they can refrain from being their own race?

Therefore we should refrain from something that offends others when we can?

Laws are pretty much designed around immature fuckwits. If there weren't any we'd need very few laws.

Immature fuckwits will also rape women for wearing miniskirts, throw stones at orthodox Jews in traditional attire and hurl abuse at interracial couples. There doesn't seem to be laws against doing/being any of those things.

And ties up the time of the police and the courts and expends the taxpayer's money when it all could have been prevented simply by restriciting public sex to secluded or designated areas.

Let's replace sex with miniskirts, shall we?

"And ties up the time of the police and the courts and expends the taxpayer's money when it all could have been prevented simply by forcing women to not wear clothing that any rapist would consider provocative."

Actually no. Have you ever heard of a false dilemma?

I didn't see a false dilemma, I saw your logic being used against you

I suppose we shouldn't arrest people who walk home very drunk even though they might stumble into traffic... after all, most of them don't get hit by a car.

People who are drunk are not responsible for their own actions seeing as they're, you know, drunk.

[Keevan_Colton]

Hm, here's an idea, should all public displays of affection be outlawed since they might be hurtful to someones ex?

[DPDarkPrimus]

Hm, here's an idea, should all public displays of affection be outlawed since they might be hurtful to someones ex?

No, they should be banned because they are sinful in the eyes of Allah.

[SVPD]

Ahh, so we should allow it even when it IS intended as hurtful (or when the person simply doesn't care that it is) even though it imposes no undue burden to prohibit it?

"Hey Honey, there's my ex! Quick, fuck me in the ass and really yell so he'll see!!"

What the hell kind of argument is that?
You still evade the fundamental point that if people want to be asses, there are plenty of ways to do it that don't involve sex.

And we have laws against many of them also, which I don't see objections to. It's illegal to go up to someone and cuss them out or threaten them even if you don't actually intend harm. It's illegal to blast your car stereo so that everyone within a quarter mile can hear it.

People can refrain from having sex in public with a bare minimum of self-control... perhaps you could explain how they can refrain from being their own race?

Therefore we should refrain from something that offends others when we can?

That would be polite but that's not what we're discussing is it?

Laws are pretty much designed around immature fuckwits. If there weren't any we'd need very few laws.

Immature fuckwits will also rape women for wearing miniskirts, throw stones at orthodox Jews in traditional attire and hurl abuse at interracial couples. There doesn't seem to be laws against doing/being any of those things.

There's no law against rape?

There's no law against vandalism?



By the way, seeing as "stranger danger" rape is rare in the extreme, I'd like to know exactly how freqent these miniskirt rapes are that you refer to.

And ties up the time of the police and the courts and expends the taxpayer's money when it all could have been prevented simply by restriciting public sex to secluded or designated areas.

Let's replace sex with miniskirts, shall we?

"And ties up the time of the police and the courts and expends the taxpayer's money when it all could have been prevented simply by forcing women to not wear clothing that any rapist would consider provocative."

Let's not. Where's your evidence that rapes of miniskirt-wearing women are statistically significant?

Is requiring certain modes of dress more or less of an imposition than not being allowed to have sex on a sidewalk?

In case you hadn't noiticed, sex has a much more profound effect on people's behavior than mere short skirts. People watch porn to see people having sex. They don't watch movies for the purpose of seeing women in miniskirts.

Actually no. Have you ever heard of a false dilemma?

I didn't see a false dilemma, I saw your logic being used against you

Then perhaps it's time for a visit to the eye doctor.

You seem to have totally ignored my mention of undue burden. Prohiiting sex on a sidewalk or in a busstop or anywhere else it would interefere with other's use of faciulities is not an undue burden.

We prohibit other behaviors, such as blasting your music really loud, which are less of an inconvenience and less likely to result in violence than unrestricted public sex would. I presume you don't object to laws requiring people to roll up their car windows or keep the volume to a reasonable level?

Your false dilemma arises when you assume we must prohibit every behavior which might possibly provoke violence or none at all. We can draw a line somewhere in the middle where the behavior prohibited poses a minimal burden. As Mike says in his "slippery slope" definition on the main site:

There's nothing wrong with picking a spot and drawing the line there, rather than creating a false dilemma and forcing us to choose between two extremes.

I suppose we shouldn't arrest people who walk home very drunk even though they might stumble into traffic... after all, most of them don't get hit by a car.

People who are drunk are not responsible for their own actions seeing as they're, you know, drunk.

They are responsible for their own actions, seeing as they chose to get drunk in the first place. You are aware that we can prosecute people for accidents caused by drunk driving?

[Batman]

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

Fat people take up extra space too. Shall we outlaw obesity? "Taking up extra space" is inconsiderate, but not illegal.

Requiring a person not to be fat in order to use a bus stop would place an undue burden on that person. Requiring them not to have sex in it places a negligable burden.

Oh really. Given that what I've seen of the american population the copulating couple likely still take up less space than the fat man, the burden the couple places on society is effectively zero except for fundie asshats (and even there the damage is imagined emotional) while the fatass is going to cost it quite a bit of money in medical costs and wastwd space in public transportation.

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?

I'm not going to go down this hair-splitting road. "Almost always intended as hurtful" and "usually not intended as hurtful" should be distinction enough.

Ahh, so we should allow it even when it IS intended as hurtful (or when the person simply doesn't care that it is) even though it imposes no undue burden to prohibit it?

Assuming you're american you're doing it already. You people call it 'Free Speech'. If Hate Speech is protected by the Constitution I fail to see why Hate Sex shouldn't be.

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

"Again, my concern is not with preventing interracial interaction, it's with preventing interracial violence and disorder that might result from interracial interaction."

People can refrain from having sex in public with a bare minimum of self-control... perhaps you could explain how they can refrain from being their own race?

He's referring to Racial Hate Speech you moron.
"I wouldn't mind my Linny dating a black guy except it might lead to both of them getting lynched so I guess I can't allow it.'
The difference is what exactly?

So, because some people are immature fuckwhits, law should cater to them? In what world?

Laws are pretty much designed around immature fuckwits. If there weren't any we'd need very few laws.

No they're not. They're designed to punish immature fuckwits, or at least they are in civilized countries (the claim to being one of the US are rapidly losing).

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?

Then he goes to jail for assault.

And ties up the time of the police and the courts and expends the taxpayer's money when it all could have been prevented simply by restriciting public sex to secluded or designated areas.

Same reasoning goes for one of them being extremely fat. Which, incidentally, would be more of a burden on society then said couple having sex so what pray tell is the added benefit of outlawing public sex as opposed to obesity?

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

Then he goes to jail for assault, or the psych ward for rehab.

See above.

You're shitting me. What if a mentally disturbed person attacks the obese person for being extremely fat?

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

Then he goes to jail for assault.

See above.

What if some former co-dieter sees the fat person?

In all these cases I'm well aware that the people having sex are the victim.

Let's outlaw miniskirts, since that'll reduce the temptation presented to rapists when a woman wearing one walks by, too. Same logic, right?

Actually no. Have you ever heard of a false dilemma?

I rather suspect he has. You, however, havent, apparently.

Furthermore I find it hard to believe that unrestricted public sex would not lead to an increase in rapes.

As based on what, exactly?

However, dealing with the problem takes police time and effort that could be better spent elsewhere.

If it weren't illegal there would be no need to spend police time on it.
By that reasoning there should be no illegal parking. After all it takes up police time that could be used 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.

You have yet to demonstrate that burden exists in the first place.

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

Fine. Legalize it, the Police no longer have to deal with it.

As a rule, I'm not against the idea of people being asked to be discrete about their public copulations.

Which costs police time and money.

I suppose we shouldn't arrest people who walk home very drunk even though they might stumble into traffic... after all, most of them don't get hit by a car.

Which DO face a serious danger, unlike the copulating couple (other than from STDs and Mob retaliation and the latter isn't their fault) and to be blunt I agree. If I am so pasted I can't find my way home without wandering out into the street I deserve everything I get.

[Cao Cao]

And we have laws against many of them also, which I don't see objections to. It's illegal to go up to someone and cuss them out or threaten them even if you don't actually intend harm. It's illegal to blast your car stereo so that everyone within a quarter mile can hear it.

That depends on where you live, and those are acts that are specifically for annoying others. Public sex is not.

That would be polite but that's not what we're discussing is it?

Yes it goddamn is.

There's no law against rape?

There's no law against vandalism?

I'm talking about percieved causes, dumbass. Just like you are.
You submit public sex will cause more rape. I'm saying that this is like putting all the blame on the victim.

By the way, seeing as "stranger danger" rape is rare in the extreme, I'd like to know exactly how freqent these miniskirt rapes are that you refer to.

First off, I'm using that as an example to show how silly your argument is.
Secondly, I'll show figures for miniskirt rapes when you show figures for public sex rapes.

Let's not. Where's your evidence that rapes of miniskirt-wearing women are statistically significant?

Where's your evidence that rapes of people having sex in the open are statistically significant?

Is requiring certain modes of dress more or less of an imposition than not being allowed to have sex on a sidewalk?

If you use the argument that people must not do things to appease the majority, it's the same damn thing.

They don't watch movies for the purpose of seeing women in miniskirts.

Right. Cause, y'know, there aren't any movies or TV shows at all with women in skimpy outfits.

You seem to have totally ignored my mention of undue burden. Prohiiting sex on a sidewalk or in a busstop or anywhere else it would interefere with other's use of faciulities is not an undue burden.

Yet I see many people who lie down on bustop seats. Which would be more or less an equal burden, would it not?
Funny how they never get arrested.

We prohibit other behaviors, such as blasting your music really loud, which are less of an inconvenience and less likely to result in violence than unrestricted public sex would. I presume you don't object to laws requiring people to roll up their car windows or keep the volume to a reasonable level?

No such laws exist where I live.

Your false dilemma arises when you assume we must prohibit every behavior which might possibly provoke violence or none at all. We can draw a line somewhere in the middle where the behavior prohibited poses a minimal burden. As Mike says in his "slippery slope" definition on the main site:

The problem is you and others go about this with silly arguments like "It will offend people!" and "it will increase the chance of rape!"

They are responsible for their own actions, seeing as they chose to get drunk in the first place. You are aware that we can prosecute people for accidents caused by drunk driving?

That has nothing to do with being arrested for being drunk and disorderly where they are arrested to prevent doing harm to themselves or others because they are not responsible for their own actions.

[SVPD]

Oh really. Given that what I've seen of the american population the copulating couple likely still take up less space than the fat man, the burden the couple places on society is effectively zero except for fundie asshats (and even there the damage is imagined emotional) while the fatass is going to cost it quite a bit of money in medical costs and wastwd space in public transportation.

Aside from the fact that healthcare costs are totally irrelevant to the issue at hand, I suppose you haven't noticed that it's much easier for the couple to refrain from sex than for the fat person to become thin?

After all that couple couldn't POSSIBLY cross the fucking street to the park or something if they're that desparate. Maybe you missed my references to designated areas?

"Again, my concern is not with preventing interracial interaction, it's with preventing interracial violence and disorder that might result from interracial interaction."

People can refrain from having sex in public with a bare minimum of self-control... perhaps you could explain how they can refrain from being their own race?

He's referring to Racial Hate Speech you moron.
"I wouldn't mind my Linny dating a black guy except it might lead to both of them getting lynched so I guess I can't allow it.'
The difference is what exactly?

Yeah, the word interaction means hate speech.

The difference, you fool, is undue burden. Making people wait a few minutes until they get to an appropriate area to fuck is not in even the same ballpark of burden as prohibiting interracial dating... aside from the fact that your idiotic example uses a parent when we're talking about government.

Laws are pretty much designed around immature fuckwits. If there weren't any we'd need very few laws.

No they're not. They're designed to punish immature fuckwits, or at least they are in civilized countries (the claim to being one of the US are rapidly losing).

"Designed around immature fuckwits" is different from "punish immature fuckwits" in what way? Or did you just find a point you couldn't disagree with so you needed a semantic nitpick?

And ties up the time of the police and the courts and expends the taxpayer's money when it all could have been prevented simply by restriciting public sex to secluded or designated areas.

Same reasoning goes for one of them being extremely fat. Which, incidentally, would be more of a burden on society then said couple having sex so what pray tell is the added benefit of outlawing public sex as opposed to obesity?

It's much more difficult to enforce laws against obesity than against public sex. Existing laws against public sex are practically self enforcing; people who DO decide to fuck outdoors generally take a car somewhere they think they'll be alone, and those are generally teenagers doing it outdoors solely to escape the attention of their parents.

Do you understand the concept of cost-benefit analysis? The benefit of banning public sex is small, but the cost is zero. The benefit of baning obesity is larger, but the cost is much, much larger.

Then he goes to jail for assault, or the psych ward for rehab.

See above.

You're shitting me. What if a mentally disturbed person attacks the obese person for being extremely fat?[/quote]

People with mental disorders do in fact attack people for sexual reasons. Can you cite a case of a disturbed person attacking an obese person?

What if some former co-dieter sees the fat person?

Ex spouses/girl/boyfriends frequently pick fights with new partners. Where's your evidence that former diet partners pick fights with failed dieters?

I rather suspect he has. You, however, havent, apparently.

Maybe you could cite where I'm creating a false dilemma.

If it weren't illegal there would be no need to spend police time on it.
By that reasoning there should be no illegal parking. After all it takes up police time that could be used elsewhere.

On the assaults and other problems created by it you asshole, not by the sex itself. It's the same as cussing someone out in a bar. I don't get called to bars because someone is rude; I get called because someone hit him for being rude.

You have yet to demonstrate that burden exists in the first place.

It doesn't exist now because you can't have sex in public now.

Fine. Legalize it, the Police no longer have to deal with it.

Problems resulting from public sex moron. Not the sex itself. Legalizing public sex could create these problems. Didn't do very well in reading comprehension did we?

As a rule, I'm not against the idea of people being asked to be discrete about their public copulations.

Which costs police time and money.

Maybe you could explain why you're putting someone else's comments in the middle of mine without attributing them properly?

I suppose we shouldn't arrest people who walk home very drunk even though they might stumble into traffic... after all, most of them don't get hit by a car.

Which DO face a serious danger, unlike the copulating couple (other than from STDs and Mob retaliation and the latter isn't their fault) and to be blunt I agree. If I am so pasted I can't find my way home without wandering out into the street I deserve everything I get.

Does the owner of the car deserve the damage to his car?

[SVPD]

And we have laws against many of them also, which I don't see objections to. It's illegal to go up to someone and cuss them out or threaten them even if you don't actually intend harm. It's illegal to blast your car stereo so that everyone within a quarter mile can hear it.

That depends on where you live, and those are acts that are specifically for annoying others. Public sex is not.

Oh really? People buy $3000 car stereos just to annoy others?

That would be polite but that's not what we're discussing is it?

Yes it goddamn is.

At what point did we start discussing voluntarily refraining from behavior others object to?

I'm talking about percieved causes, dumbass. Just like you are.
You submit public sex will cause more rape. I'm saying that this is like putting all the blame on the victim.

In that case, try saying what you mean instead of making people guess. No one's "blaming the victim" for rape, although that's the usual refuge of idiots who don't understand the idea of prevention. I specifically said already that provoking someone to do something doesn't excuse them doing it.

However, if by prohibiting public sex we can stop a certain number of rapes that's preferable to letting them get raped and then prosecuting the rapist. The rapist avoids prison, the victim avoids getting raped, and society avoids expense.... all for the bargain price of fucking on private property or designated/secluded public areas.

First off, I'm using that as an example to show how silly your argument is.
Secondly, I'll show figures for miniskirt rapes when you show figures for public sex rapes.

When people start engaging in public sex I'll have some... people do however wear miniskirts, so if you're not showing how "silly" I'm being by presenting an urban legand as evidence I'm sure you can back it up.

Where's your evidence that rapes of people having sex in the open are statistically significant?

People currently do not have sex in the open.

People currently do wear miniskirts.

[quoteIf you use the argument that people must not do things to appease the majority, it's the same damn thing.[/quote]

How is the burden of requiring people not to fuck oon the sidewalk the same as the burden of requiring certain dress?

By your logic, existing laws against public sex are just as oppresive as Taliban laws requiring women to wear burquas.

Right. Cause, y'know, there aren't any movies or TV shows at all with women in skimpy outfits.

Did you not understand "For the purpose of"? People watch porn to see sex, they don't watch movies with scantily clad women just to see miniskirts. They watch it for the whole movie.

Yet I see many people who lie down on bustop seats. Which would be more or less an equal burden, would it not?
Funny how they never get arrested.

Because there's not a law against it. You could make one though; but by your logic it's ridiculous to ask them to sit up.

No such laws exist where I live.

I didn't ask that. I asked if you object to laws against blasting stereos with windows dowm.

The problem is you and others go about this with silly arguments like "It will offend people!" and "it will increase the chance of rape!"

I haven't argued it should be banned because it offends people, which should be blindingly obvious even to a nitwit like you because I've proposed that it should be legal in designated/secluded areas.

As for rape, your sole counter to that is "well, women get raped for wearing miniskirts!!!111!!!!onehundredeleven" despite the fact that stranger rape is exceedingly rare, and is usually a result of opportunity (walking alone at night in dark areas et al) not mode of dress.

By your logic, we shouldn't prevent convicted felons from owning handguns because we also don't prohibit them from owning kitchen knives.

That has nothing to do with being arrested for being drunk and disorderly where they are arrested to prevent doing harm to themselves or others because they are not responsible for their own actions.

They are responsible for their own actions. They got themselves drunk.

[Keevan_Colton]

So SVPD, you'll be supporting the idea of burkas for women then?

No flashes of seductive ankle to tempt rapists eh?

The fact is your logic leads to the same fucking conclusion.

[Batman]

Oh really. Given that what I've seen of the american population the copulating couple likely still take up less space than the fat man, the burden the couple places on society is effectively zero except for fundie asshats (and even there the damage is imagined emotional) while the fatass is going to cost it quite a bit of money in medical costs and wastwd space in public transportation.

Aside from the fact that healthcare costs are totally irrelevant to the issue at hand, I suppose you haven't noticed that it's much easier for the couple to refrain from sex than for the fat person to become thin?

Given that one (being obese) DOES cause measurable harm to society while the other (fucking in the bus stop) does NOT I fail to see how the issue is irrelevant, given as objective harm to the society overrules subjective harm to the individual.

After all that couple couldn't POSSIBLY cross the fucking street to the park or something if they're that desparate.

And the fat man can't take a taxi?

Maybe you missed my references to designated areas?

Why should they? You sttill have to establish the harm they do.

People can refrain from having sex in public with a bare minimum of self-control... perhaps you could explain how they can refrain from being their own race?

He's referring to Racial Hate Speech you moron.
"I wouldn't mind my Linny dating a black guy except it might lead to both of them getting lynched so I guess I can't allow it.'
The difference is what exactly?

Yeah, the word interaction means hate speech.

No, dumbass, the implication that said interaction is wrong does.

The difference, you fool, is undue burden. Making people wait a few minutes until they get to an appropriate area to fuck is not in even the same ballpark of burden as prohibiting interracial dating

Because of? A lot of people dissaprove of interracial dating, a lot of people dissaprove of public sex. A lot of people dissaprove of the colour purple.
The same standards should be used on all of them. You are STILL sticking with the popularity fallacy.

Laws are pretty much designed around immature fuckwits. If there weren't any we'd need very few laws.

No they're not. They're designed to punish immature fuckwits, or at least they are in civilized countries (the claim to being one of the US are rapidly losing).

"Designed around immature fuckwits" is different from "punish immature fuckwits" in what way? Or did you just find a point you couldn't disagree with so you needed a semantic nitpick?[/quote]
I interpretend this comment to mean those laws were designed to keep immature fuckwits out of trouble (which they seem to do an inordinate amount of time) as opposed to having them deal with the consequences and franky, a lot of the times those laws do exactly that (not that the US are alone in this). If that was not your intention I apologize.

And ties up the time of the police and the courts and expends the taxpayer's money when it all could have been prevented simply by restriciting public sex to secluded or designated areas.

Same reasoning goes for one of them being extremely fat. Which, incidentally, would be more of a burden on society then said couple having sex so what pray tell is the added benefit of outlawing public sex as opposed to obesity?

It's much more difficult to enforce laws against obesity than against public sex. Existing laws against public sex are practically self enforcing; people who DO decide to fuck outdoors generally take a car somewhere they think they'll be alone, and those are generally teenagers doing it outdoors solely to escape the attention of their parents.
Do you understand the concept of cost-benefit analysis? The benefit of banning public sex is small, but the cost is zero. The benefit of baning obesity is larger, but the cost is much, much larger.

The benefit of banning public sex is essentially zero what with there being no objective harm being done and given that no serious effort has ever been done to ban public obesity what, pray tell, do you base your cost numbers on? The harm done to society by public sex is zero until you provide evidence to the contrary. The public harm done by obesity goes into the trillions.
And even if there's no way to effectively fight one OR the other, why, pray tell, is most of the money spent on the one that effectively does no harm whatsoever while the one that irrefutsbly does is virtually ignored?

Then he goes to jail for assault, or the psych ward for rehab.

See above.

You're shitting me. What if a mentally disturbed person attacks the obese person for being extremely fat?

People with mental disorders do in fact attack people for sexual reasons. Can you cite a case of a disturbed person attacking an obese person?[/quote]
This is a trick question, right?

What if some former co-dieter sees the fat person?

Ex spouses/girl/boyfriends frequently pick fights with new partners. Where's your evidence that former diet partners pick fights with failed dieters?

The same place yours is. Not in evidence so far.

Not that that adresses the underlying issue which is that publix sex until further evidence causes no measurable public damage whatsoever while obesity does.

I rather suspect he has. You, however, havent, apparently.

Maybe you could cite where I'm creating a false dilemma.

Maybe you could quote where he was.[/i].

If it weren't illegal there would be no need to spend police time on it.
By that reasoning there should be no illegal parking. After all it takes up police time that could be used elsewhere.

On the assaults and other problems created by it you asshole, not by the sex itself. It's the same as cussing someone out in a bar. I don't get called to bars because someone is rude; I get called because someone hit him for being rude.

IOW the problem is not being caused by the sex but by people being arseholes (big surprise). Guess what-same thing happens for parking tickets. Do away with the tickets, no more hassle. Do away with miniskirts, no more hassle. Do away with the colour pink, no more hassle.
The purpose of the law is not to make the job easier on you, it's to make live safer for the rest of people without unduly restricting their freedom. Guess what-that's what you're advocating.

You have yet to demonstrate that burden exists in the first place.

It doesn't exist now because you can't have sex in public now.

Bzzzt. Wrong. That burden doesn't exist because so far the number of people who have managed to show that sex in public would cause any verifiable harm (other than that caused by bigots) is none whatsoever.
DO tell my how european countries that have billboard ads that would be borderline porn in the US have a significantly lower sexual abuse rate than the US.

Fine. Legalize it, the Police no longer have to deal with it.

Problems resulting from public sex moron. Not the sex itself.

Deal with them as they occur.

Legalizing public sex could create these problems.

Is it me or is that a 'could' in there? You will now show that public sex either inevitably will, or at least has a reasonable chance of creating said (undefined) problems (which could easyly be dealt with without banning public sex in the first place I might add).

[Cao Cao]

Oh really? People buy $3000 car stereos just to annoy others?

They play them at full blast in the open to annoy others.

At what point did we start discussing voluntarily refraining from behavior others object to?

That's only the point of this entire thread.

In that case, try saying what you mean instead of making people guess. No one's "blaming the victim" for rape, although that's the usual refuge of idiots who don't understand the idea of prevention. I specifically said already that provoking someone to do something doesn't excuse them doing it.

However, if by prohibiting public sex we can stop a certain number of rapes that's preferable to letting them get raped and then prosecuting the rapist. The rapist avoids prison, the victim avoids getting raped, and society avoids expense.... all for the bargain price of fucking on private property or designated/secluded public areas.

You are ignoring the fact that a rapist will do what they do regardless of what the victim does! Unless all women stay at home with their doors locked and security dogs on patrol.
You have yet to prove public sex would increase incidences of rape.

When people start engaging in public sex I'll have some... people do however wear miniskirts, so if you're not showing how "silly" I'm being by presenting an urban legand as evidence I'm sure you can back it up.

Good lord, can't you see I'm using an example to point out that your logic is dumb?

How is the burden of requiring people not to fuck oon the sidewalk the same as the burden of requiring certain dress?

By your logic, existing laws against public sex are just as oppresive as Taliban laws requiring women to wear burquas.

The point is that arguments that it offends others or would increase crime are stupid.

Did you not understand "For the purpose of"? People watch porn to see sex, they don't watch movies with scantily clad women just to see miniskirts. They watch it for the whole movie.

Bullshit. Why do I not think that DOA for instance will get many viewers if not for the abundance of attractive, skantily clad women in it?

Because there's not a law against it. You could make one though; but by your logic it's ridiculous to ask them to sit up.

It's still a burden.
Maybe they're asleep and won't wake up.
Maybe they're just assholes and won't move when asked.

I didn't ask that. I asked if you object to laws against blasting stereos with windows dowm.

You have yet to prove that public sex is a burden on that level.

I haven't argued it should be banned because it offends people, which should be blindingly obvious even to a nitwit like you because I've proposed that it should be legal in designated/secluded areas.

As for rape, your sole counter to that is "well, women get raped for wearing miniskirts!!!111!!!!onehundredeleven" despite the fact that stranger rape is exceedingly rare, and is usually a result of opportunity (walking alone at night in dark areas et al) not mode of dress.

By your logic, we shouldn't prevent convicted felons from owning handguns because we also don't prohibit them from owning kitchen knives.

I was speaking of others who've made the offend people argument.
You however cling to the silly notion that public sex will increase rape and other crimes with nothing to back this up.

They are responsible for their own actions. They got themselves drunk.

Nice repetition. How the fuck does this change that they need to be taken off the street before they harm themselves/others?

[SVPD]

Well, after thinking about it for a couple days, I've changed my mind. not enough people would want to ahve sex in public anyhow to make a difference, so it should be legalized.

[Darth Wong]

Or to be more precise, it's difficult to come up with a good reason why otherwise innocent people should be thrown in jail for it.

[SVPD]

Or to be more precise, it's difficult to come up with a good reason why otherwise innocent people should be thrown in jail for it.

Not to re-open the debate, but I was never thinking in terms of jail. I was thinking in terms of a ticket and a fine.

[Batman]

Not to re-open the debate, but I was never thinking in terms of jail. I was thinking in terms of a ticket and a fine.

Why should otherwise innocent people be ticketed/fined for something that has yet to be shown to cause objective harm to anybody?

[lPeregrine]

Not to re-open the debate, but I was never thinking in terms of jail. I was thinking in terms of a ticket and a fine.

Why should otherwise innocent people be ticketed/fined for something that has yet to be shown to cause objective harm to anybody?

The same reason you can be ticketed/fined for having a loud party at 3am, leaving trash all over your lawn, etc. Minor fines for being inconsiderate to the rest of society are hardly unprecedented.

[Batman]

Not to re-open the debate, but I was never thinking in terms of jail. I was thinking in terms of a ticket and a fine.

Why should otherwise innocent people be ticketed/fined for something that has yet to be shown to cause objective harm to anybody?

The same reason you can be ticketed/fined for having a loud party at 3am, leaving trash all over your lawn, etc. Minor fines for being inconsiderate to the rest of society are hardly unprecedented.

The loud party at 3am DOES cause objective harm (neighbours can't sleep), so does leaving trash all over your lawn (attracts raccoons, assorted other vermin et al).
The objective harm caused by public sex is?