Sex In Public Places

[Straha]

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

Wrong. Rights can go both ways. I.E. the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Eigth amendments of the Constitution, off the top of my head. I could go on but I'm both too lazy and in the middle of procrastinating. :p

[Gil Hamilton]

I like things the way they are now really. Such laws don't really stop people from doing the deed in public, but they certainly encourage people to be discrete, which is just fine in my book. Which is the way it should be. I don't have a problem with people doing the sin someplace exciting, after all, my ex and I had sex once in the bathroom of a movie theatre just prior to a showing of "Lilo and Stitch", but I don't want to see folks just shagging all over the place. Spare people the sight of your naked ass drilling someone, you know?

[RedImperator]

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.

I'm not in favor of allowing people to fuck on the subway or in Rittenhouse Square, either, but the notion that people have an inherent right not to see something they find unpleasant, in public, is nonsense. If you disagree, by all means, provide the legal precedent for your position, but otherwise, find another line of argument.

[Simplicius]

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?

It should be a matter of state discretion. Anyone who attempts to claim before a court that he has a right to fuck in public should be thrown out on his ass - at least in the US, where no such right can be construed from any constitutional guarantees.

States (again, in the US) can prohibit it without trouble by use of their legitimate police powers, that is, to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens. The lack of infringement on real, constitutional rights means that the state does not have to go out of its way to justify regulation or prohibition; such reasons as are commonly derided by board members in threads like these - potential for injury, potential for vulnerability to assault, etc. - are legally sufficient.

Should a state or states which prohibit it not do so? I say no. The detriment done by a ban on public sex seems trivial, if one is even present , while lifting a ban seems to offer no significant benefit to society. Given also, as has been noted, that the 'good taste' argument can actually have weight when the space in question is public, and therefore 'owned' by all citizens, a representative body is well within its means to make such a prohibition.

[Cao Cao]

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'd think public sex would be a little more distracting than that.
Such an act would tend to draw crowds if discovered. I imagine it would even in a society that completely accepts sex and nudity, let alone our society.

[Keevan_Colton]

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?

It should be a matter of state discretion. Anyone who attempts to claim before a court that he has a right to fuck in public should be thrown out on his ass - at least in the US, where no such right can be construed from any constitutional guarantees.

Some of the neo-pagans I've known might disagree with that one.

[Solauren]

Picture a few people doing really rough bondage in public, across the street from a grade school, and you'll understand why public sex should not be legal.

However, whatever happens in the privacy of your own home, or a private building of any kind, is all good

[Vyraeth]

I'm not in favor of allowing people to fuck on the subway or in Rittenhouse Square, either, but the notion that people have an inherent right not to see something they find unpleasant, in public, is nonsense. If you disagree, by all means, provide the legal precedent for your position, but otherwise, find another line of argument.

I think depending on the degree of unpleasantness there is an assumed inherent right not to see something they find unpleasant in public. I mean, do they allow swearing in public on billboards or across radio waves? I'm sure the fact that not everyone wants to see two or more people (or even one person) getting it on is a good reason as to why they have "indecent exposure" laws.

But beyond the laws that prevent public nudity, and I'm sure there's a law against public copulation, I don't know of any court cases where this has occurred -- I'm not a lawyer.

Not that you really need them, the laws had to be written for a reason right? (Yes, I reaize that opens a can of worms in itself, so I apologize in advance.)

Note: All the laws I'm referring to exist in the United States. I don't exactly know about Europe or other countries.

And on another note, having a defined area for "public sex" is alot different then just allowing it anywhere that's public. I would say that it would be a better alternative to declare areas like that so that people who wouldn't want to witness such acts could be accomodated by it and people who wanted to commit such acts would be satiated.

Someone also brought up the issue about being content with the current state of the laws, about how they encourage being discreet, and I agree with him. "Public" sex occurs now, but people have the sense to make an effort to keep it hidden. There's a nice balance, I think, although I've never actually had sex in public so I'm speaking entirely in a theoretical sense.

[Gil Hamilton]

Whoa there, sparky, don't attach yourself to me. I think that keeping public sex discrete is a good thing simply because I don't happen to want to catch other folks doing it all over the place (and if it were legal, people would). Hence giving a bases for police or property owner or whatever the legal authority to say "OK, folks, put your trousers back on and get the hell out of here.", not to punish them for doing it.

However, I disagree strongly with the idea that I have a right not to see things that I may or may not consider unpleasant. And as a matter of fact, I support removing alot of obscenity laws from the books, include ones covering swearing and nudity in the media, due to the fact that they objectively don't harm anyone except themselves by government decree. After all, merely saying the word "fuck" or the random nipple, regardless of the context, results in a huge fine and that's plain wrong. There is a serious problem in this country when it comes to priorities of what we consider obscene, where the odd four letter words or depicting a healthy adult relationship is considered obscene and forbidden, but garbage hate speech and horrible violence is not and thus protected.

So don't jump on my wagon here. There isn't a single legal or ethically right to not be offended. In fact, if anything, it goes the other direction entirely.

[Lord Woodlouse]

I don't think it should be legal for the same reasons we have laws against "disturbing the peace". It's just a noisey distraction and is liable to just get on most people's nerves (even if they have liberal attitudes toward sex, I should think).

Also, it makes a mess.

[Vyraeth]

So don't jump on my wagon here. There isn't a single legal or ethically right to not be offended. In fact, if anything, it goes the other direction entirely.

Well slow down, just because I agree with you on one aspect of your position doesn't mean I want to think like you or that I'm in entirely support of your position. What I agreed with was what I reiterated.

However, I disagree strongly with the idea that I have a right not to see things that I may or may not consider unpleasant.

I never implied this either, I'm speaking in the context of a public place. A public place where your tax dollars are used to build and maintain, and where everyone else's tax dollars are.

I would think that it's only logical that "public places" strive to be as "neutral" as possible because they are funded by the majority of the public (excluding minors who don't pay taxes). Because everybody funds said area, either directly or indirectly, I think such areas should try to reasonably accomodate everybody.

There are obvious limitations to this. One person brought up the point about clothing styles being considered offensive, and I'm sure there are a dozen "minor" things people could recite that they find offensive. But they key isn't to try and make these public areas entirely inoffensive, it's to make an effort to make them as inoffensive as reasonably possible.

I think one thing that most people would agree that they would find fairly offensive is the idea of public sex being legal, because Gil Hamilton, as you essentially said yourself, you don't want to watch other people doing it all over the place.

[Surlethe]

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?

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

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

[Keevan_Colton]

Picture a few people doing really rough bondage in public, across the street from a grade school, and you'll understand why public sex should not be legal.

However, whatever happens in the privacy of your own home, or a private building of any kind, is all good

How about if they own the land opposite the school?

[Darth Wong]

I would think that it's only logical that "public places" strive to be as "neutral" as possible because they are funded by the majority of the public (excluding minors who don't pay taxes). Because everybody funds said area, either directly or indirectly, I think such areas should try to reasonably accomodate everybody.

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

[Gil Hamilton]

I never implied this either, I'm speaking in the context of a public place. A public place where your tax dollars are used to build and maintain, and where everyone else's tax dollars are.

"I think depending on the degree of unpleasantness there is an assumed inherent right not to see something they find unpleasant in public." - You

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

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

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

I think one thing that most people would agree that they would find fairly offensive is the idea of public sex being legal, because Gil Hamilton, as you essentially said yourself, you don't want to watch other people doing it all over the place.

I don't find public sex to be particularly offensive. Read what I wrote. I support laws that encourage people to be discrete when they do have public sex. This is to give police and owners the legal standing to tell people to stop if such folks are caught. As an aside, I also don't want to walk around a corner and see a couple of people on the midwest diet getting sloppy in a restroom. I'm not offended by it, just as I'm not offended by country music, but I still don't want to be witness to it.

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

[McC]

I more or less agree with Gil's position. If people want to try to do it in public, discretely, more power to 'em. If they're caught by the police or some such, I think they should be encouraged to move along, but without penalty -- fines or imprisonment for this is nothing short of utter stupidity. However, also like Gil, I'm not keen (usually ) on seeing two random people banging away while I'm having a sandwich or some such.

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

[Hillary]

Picture a few people doing really rough bondage in public, across the street from a grade school, and you'll understand why public sex should not be legal.

Educate me - why?

[Darth Wong]

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

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

[Simplicius]

Some of the neo-pagans I've known might disagree with that one.

The key word in my post is "public," which I have been using in the stricter sense of "a space owned and operated by the public" rather than just "outdoors."

I'll admit I know basically zero about neo-paganism, but it seems absurd that any outdoor sex they indulge in must occur in a municipal, state, or federally owned space, by tenet. Since there are private outdoor spaces which are equally usable, I at least find it difficult to accept that a prohibition of sex on public land would place an impermissible burden on the right to free exercise.

[Keevan_Colton]

Picture a few people doing really rough bondage in public, across the street from a grade school, and you'll understand why public sex should not be legal.

Educate me - why?

Because it's bad, m'kay.

The other alternatives are "I dont like it", "Think of the children!" and various other similar bits of nonsense.

[Darth Wong]

Some of the neo-pagans I've known might disagree with that one.

The key word in my post is "public," which I have been using in the stricter sense of "a space owned and operated by the public" rather than just "outdoors."

I'll admit I know basically zero about neo-paganism, but it seems absurd that any outdoor sex they indulge in must occur in a municipal, state, or federally owned space, by tenet. Since there are private outdoor spaces which are equally usable, I at least find it difficult to accept that a prohibition of sex on public land would place an impermissible burden on the right to free exercise.

It would place the same burden on the right to free exercise as a prohibition of other religious symbols and activities on public property. I would be perfectly willing to support a blanket ban on religious activities on public property, but the vast majority of the people who would gladly lock up people for screwing in public would not.

[Hillary]

Picture a few people doing really rough bondage in public, across the street from a grade school, and you'll understand why public sex should not be legal.

Educate me - why?

Because it's bad, m'kay.

The other alternatives are "I dont like it", "Think of the children!" and various other similar bits of nonsense.

I do find the argument that children seeing sex will set them on the road to ruin but them seeing violence, drinking and smoking somehow doesn't rather amusing.

[Faqa]

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

[Darth Wong]

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

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

[Aaron]

Picture a few people doing really rough bondage in public, across the street from a grade school, and you'll understand why public sex should not be legal.

However, whatever happens in the privacy of your own home, or a private building of any kind, is all good

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?