• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Caribbean Gay Cruise

SPOCKED said:
beamMe said:
Nerys Ghemor said:
...public sex just shouldn't be happening.
Click to expand...

Why not?
Click to expand...
So you think its a good idea for minors (never mind adults of all faiths and sexual orientations who think it's disgusting) to witness public sexual intercourse? Most parents would prefer their kids weren't exposed to this type of lewdness. If you take a vacation to Orgy Island in the South Pacific, where the whole two weeks is "fuckin' outdoors under the stars" well then that's another matter. I can avoid that... go bring your own kids and have a ball. But no one wants to see you bumpin' uglies in the entry to Chucky Cheese or in a WalMart parking lot where there are already enough sanitation horrors.

BillJ said:
You_Will_Fail said:
Puritanical Christianity is still strong in the Carribean and Africa.
Click to expand...

Not a Christian and I don't want to watch anyone's nasty ass wallow around in public whether it be man/woman, man/man, woman/woman (and I love lesbian porn) or man/sandwich.

It's just basic respect for fellow human beings.
Click to expand...
:techman: touche'
Click to expand...



I did mention the hygiene issue, that's a valid concern.


I don't have kids, but I'd be less concerned with them seeing a loving couple having sex on a park bench(with towels, blankets, something for hygienic concerns) than with them seeing some of the horribly graphic, vile and reprehensible violent movies or video games there are these days.




make love, not war. Maybe if people found public sex less objectionable than violence in media we'd have a better society.
 
But we're not discussing movies or video games, those are things that people choose to view. Having sex in public? That's different. Much harder to avoid.
 
Mr. Laser Beam said:
But we're not discussing movies or video games, those are things that people choose to view. Having sex in public? That's different. Much harder to avoid.
Click to expand...


eh, I guess. But we're "forced" to view a lot of things we find offensive, disgusting, or disturbing when we go out in public. I've seen some tatoos and piercings that would qualify in all three categories.

to me, the bottom line is if it's not hurting anybody and not being too disruptive. If they're controlling for those two conditions, my position is to let them play on.
 
sonak said:
bottom line is if it's not hurting anybody and not being too disruptive. If they're controlling for those two conditions, my position is to let them play on.
Click to expand...

Public sex may not be *hurting* anyone, as such, but it is disruptive. And while there may be those who don't mind watching strangers fuck in public, most people probably do mind it.

To put it another way: You just mentioned violent movies, TV, and video games. What if one of those things was being broadcast on a huge TV set in a public square with an associated ground-shaking sound system? You wouldn't like that much, would you?

It's not like, say, a political protest. That is also a disruptive public activity, but in this case, it MUST be. The whole point of a protest is to do it in public. That's the difference there.
 
If they want to have gay sex out in the open they can go to Fire Island in New York unless straight people took it over.
 
Mr. Laser Beam said:
sonak said:
bottom line is if it's not hurting anybody and not being too disruptive. If they're controlling for those two conditions, my position is to let them play on.
Click to expand...

Public sex may not be *hurting* anyone, as such, but it is disruptive. And while there may be those who don't mind watching strangers fuck in public, most people probably do mind it.

To put it another way: You just mentioned violent movies, TV, and video games. What if one of those things was being broadcast on a huge TV set in a public square with an associated ground-shaking sound system? You wouldn't like that much, would you?

It's not like, say, a political protest. That is also a disruptive public activity, but in this case, it MUST be. The whole point of a protest is to do it in public. That's the difference there.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't compare sex to violent video games or movies, though. Sex is a natural biological drive, there's nothing disturbing about it. The discomfort comes from cultural taboos and standards, not about the act itself. And I wasn't really thinking of broadcasting two strangers having sex on a big jumbotron scoreboard somewhere, just two people doing it in a park where there's plenty of space, minding their own business.
 
Dating, seduction, fantasies, everything about sex that is interesting is cultural. Why do people f*ck outside? Obviously to get a kick from the thought of being seen. That's the irony of it, people who want a more natural, deculturified sex only have this urge because of culture.
 
I can understand laws against public sex period, tourist destinations being no different. Its unfortunate that there is a specific law against gay sex however.

RAMA
 
Gryffindorian said:
Indeed. But since buggery covers sodomy, it can be either male-female or male-male.
Click to expand...
Isn’t it the other way around? Sodomy is the broader category, since it can mean male-female anal sex, male-male anal sex, or sex between a human and an animal.

Which brings up the question: What do you call anal sex with an animal? (Besides weird.)
 
scotpens said:
Gryffindorian said:
Indeed. But since buggery covers sodomy, it can be either male-female or male-male.
Click to expand...
Isn’t it the other way around? Sodomy is the broader category, since it can mean male-female anal sex, male-male anal sex, or sex between a human and an animal.

Which brings up the question: What do you call anal sex with an animal? (Besides weird.)
Click to expand...

1. I don't know. I thought buggery was a broad category, but maybe buggery and sodomy are synonymous.

2. It would still be called bestiality.
 
scotpens said:
Gryffindorian said:
Indeed. But since buggery covers sodomy, it can be either male-female or male-male.
Click to expand...
Isn’t it the other way around? Sodomy is the broader category, since it can mean male-female anal sex, male-male anal sex, or sex between a human and an animal.

Which brings up the question: What do you call anal sex with an animal? (Besides weird.)
Click to expand...

1. Perhaps sodomy is the broader term, but that doesn't change the fact the several buggery laws are still defined as any sodomy. But then, I wouldn't expect them to based on any logical reasoning anyway.

2. You could call it screwing the pooch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top