WHY IS PUBLIC SEX WRONG?

[darktheorist]

The idea of people reproducing seems to cause no end of shame within the human race. Ive seen Doggie woggies making love in the middle of the street; doesnt it follow scientifically that HUMANS doing the same, in public, would actually be the same act elevated to a higher, more intellectual plane?

And therefore perfectly free from embarrasment?

And yet on the rare occasion you chance to see two HUMANS having sex in public, its a No. 1 Act Of Public Disgrace.

Myes.

Its almost as if people suddenly stopped believing they were the superior race

Come on, human rights my eye. You cant even have sex in public=your personal freedom can consider itself auto curtailed to a fraction of what the grand old school of Human Rights meant it to be.

 

 

[iNow]

In many ways, it's about control. Sex is one of our basest instincts. Control that and you can control the population. We've been taught to feel shame and find it dirty because that's what society has determined is the correct path. There's a large involvement of religion here, but this type of control began well before religion was formalized in today's form, and likely occurs elsewhere in the animal kingdom (alpha males controlling who can have sex with the group females and when, etc.).

[imatfaal]

In many ways, it's about control. Sex is one of our basest instincts. Control that and you can control the population. We've been taught to feel shame and find it dirty because that's what society has determined is the correct path. There's a large involvement of religion here, but this type of control began well before religion was formalized in today's form, and likely occurs elsewhere in the animal kingdom (alpha males controlling who can have sex with the group females and when, etc.).

 

Agree completely. Women's control over their own fertility and sexual activity is one of the most crucial and oft lacking stages in a progression to a truly modern state. And a stage that is actively rejected and even retired from in many quasi-modern polities (Hey Religious South/Mid West I am talking about you!) Hans Rosling's presentations on age of new mothers, number of children per mother, level of female control over reproduction etc and the correlations with health, wellbeing, wealth, life-expectancy are quite shocking.

 

More on the OP - it is also shocking how many of the (possibly sensible) taboos on defecation have come to be paralleled by taboos on sex - and, before the point is raised, I don't think it is the other way around. Sex is Dirty, if something is dirty it may be harmful, if it is harmful then it should be controlled; that's the logic but the axiom is flawed. The complaints about mothers breastfeeding in public are equally absurd

[StringJunky]

Do we really want a bonobo lifestyle?

[EdEarl]

Many animals have breeding contests to determine which ones (usually male) get to mate, and some of those contests end in death of one or both contestants. If humans did it publicly, I suspect jealousy would lead to fights, in which the jealous one bashes his opponent in the head with a rock or somehow interrupt coitus. Privacy is safer; thus, we made it immoral.

 

Is it unethical? IDK

Edited January 18, 2016 by EdEarl

[Phi for All]

 

More on the OP - it is also shocking how many of the (possibly sensible) taboos on defecation have come to be paralleled by taboos on sex - and, before the point is raised, I don't think it is the other way around. Sex is Dirty, if something is dirty it may be harmful, if it is harmful then it should be controlled; that's the logic but the axiom is flawed. The complaints about mothers breastfeeding in public are equally absurd

 

I've come to dislike hearing so many of our body parts and sexual terminology turned into negative slurs and derogatory pejoratives. Fuck is a great expletive, and fucking feels fantastic. But it seems natural to me that if you're going to keep telling people to fuck themselves when you really mean you'd rather they never have sex again, you're going to develop some very unhealthy attitudes about sex. Especially if you get called a stupid prick/cunt/pussy/dick all the time, and hear others doing the same.

 

But I don't think the opposite of that is public sex. I think the operative injunction is to keep children from being sexualized before they're ready for it.

[Strange]

I think the operative injunction is to keep children from being sexualized before they're ready for it.

 

By not allowing public displays of sex.

 

I think the taboo may be used for political / religious purposes, but I don't think that is the origin of it.

Edited January 18, 2016 by Strange

[StringJunky]

 

... I think the operative injunction is to keep children from being sexualized before they're ready for it.

When push comes to shove, for me, this is what it boils down to: preserving a child's sexual naivete until puberty kicks in.

[Phi for All]

 

I think the taboo may be used for political / religious purposes, but I don't think that is the origin of it.

 

Always the fine line the church walks. "We want you to multiply like crazy, but in a modest way."

[EdEarl]

I think child beauty pageants are bizarre (see pic below) because children are made up as sexual objects.

I do not believe I was adversely affected by seeing dogs copulate when I was very young, and my mother explaining they were making puppies.

 

I'm not in favor of sex acts in streets and other public venues. However, I don't understand how children seeing such acts would necessarily cause adverse affects. I think the way we act about sex can leave our children distressed about sex or OK about sex, and I think we should strive to rear our children with healthy attitudes about sex.

[Phi for All]

I think child beauty pageants are bizarre (see pic below) because children are made up as sexual objects.

Wow, I sure wouldn't use that picture again to argue against child beauty pageants. You don't need those slanted callouts ("caked-on makeup", really? Why not just "beauty-pageant heavy" makeup? Fake teeth?! Doubtful, probably caps). This makes it look like you feel your argument isn't strong enough and needs the descriptors to sway your audience. That's sure not the case here.

 

I do not believe I was adversely affected by seeing dogs copulate when I was very young, and my mother explaining they were making puppies.

Animals having public sex is a BIG red herring. Nobody is suggesting a curb on that. And animals are obviously different than humans, even to a child. Seeing dogs copulate when you're seven is different than seeing your parents, or your friends parents, or complete strangers copulate at the same age.

 

I'm not in favor of sex acts in streets and other public venues. However, I don't understand how children seeing such acts would necessarily cause adverse affects. I think the way we act about sex can leave our children distressed about sex or OK about sex, and I think we should strive to rear our children with healthy attitudes about sex.

I don't understand why you don't understand. Sex as we practice it is a very private thing. Part of the reason is our vulnerability during sex, which is probably part of why we generally prefer to be alone with our partner. Trying to establish safety protocols and providing a secure environment would be much more difficult if having public sex became the norm. I think children are adversely affected when they sense something they don't understand may happen to them, and their home environment can't help them feel secure.

[EdEarl]

I imagined driving with my family by a city park in which exhibitionists are coupling, and my kids seeing it. What would I do to assure my kids were not distressed. I'm not in any way promoting any exhibitionism. But, one never knows what they or their family may see, and one must deal with it.

[MigL]

I beg to differ with you all.

The best sex is 'dirty' sex.

[Phi for All]

I imagined driving with my family by a city park in which exhibitionists are coupling, and my kids seeing it. What would I do to assure my kids were not distressed. I'm not in any way promoting any exhibitionism. But, one never knows what they or their family may see, and one must deal with it.

 

Ah, and I was thinking about the kids seeing public sex without a guardian to explain. The worst case scenario, the one I have the least control over.

 

"...what they or their family see" has been dealt with, mostly by having laws against public sex. I'm not sure about any benefits changing this might bring, but I can see lots of problems, mainly taking away what little control I have over what my family might reasonably be expected to see.

[EdEarl]

We can only hope that we have done well rearing our children, and when they see something illegal or immoral they will be alright. Sometimes we have no control.

[Moontanman]

I'm not so sure it is wrong, I have seen people making love in public several times in my life, it was kind of funny looking... humorous for sure! Can you provide a definition of wrong and how it applies to public sex?

[Delta1212]

When push comes to shove, for me, this is what it boils down to: preserving a child's sexual naivete until puberty kicks in.

Just to Devil's Advocate this point: Why is that desirable?

[StringJunky]

Just to Devil's Advocate this point: Why is that desirable?

So they can have some life without it and learn other things. Life gets exponentially complicated once sex proper comes into the picture. It's just an opinion and it boils down to what a society is used to.

[Phi for All]

Just to Devil's Advocate this point: Why is that desirable?

 

For the most part, events in a child's life are dealt with at their individual pace of development. Kids tend to understand complex concepts in stages. Sex is naturally part of this process, and kids tend to show interest a bit at a time, as they're ready. Unless an event forces them to deal with it prematurely.

 

Public copulation gives a child no time take things at their own pace. They're seeing things they may not be ready to deal with, emotionally or physically. A more open policy forces all children to accept adult sexual behavior whether they want to or not.

[Moontanman]

 

For the most part, events in a child's life are dealt with at their individual pace of development. Kids tend to understand complex concepts in stages. Sex is naturally part of this process, and kids tend to show interest a bit at a time, as they're ready. Unless an event forces them to deal with it prematurely.

 

Public copulation gives a child no time take things at their own pace. They're seeing things they may not be ready to deal with, emotionally or physically. A more open policy forces all children to accept adult sexual behavior whether they want to or not.

 

 

You do realize that is a cultural thing... right? Around the world other cultures do not necessarily hide sexuality the way we do in the west...

[Phi for All]

 

 

You do realize that is a cultural thing... right? Around the world other cultures do not necessarily hide sexuality the way we do in the west...

 

I'm not talking about hiding it. I'm talking about dealing with sex at the child's pace, which is inherently individual. That's what's should be happening in every culture, even those that have sex openly. Kids will ask questions that satisfy what they're curious about, and no more.

 

If a 5-year-old asks about where babies come from, you don't need to give all the details. Do you think it would be healthier to take her down to the park and say, "See those folks, and those ones over there, and there? They're doing what people do to make babies! Watch carefully and all your questions will be answered"?

[imatfaal]

Phi - cannot agree with your reasoning (although not arguing with the imputed intent of not rushing children towards sexual awakening) if this was the reason then I would argue that if you were correct the following would apply:

A. Other methods of change would at least be attempted in order to follow same course - this is not the case. Over the last 50 years whilst our taboos about public sex have remained fairly constant the infantilization of the object of desire has run wild. The pop-stars, actresses, and role models for young people now are sold and promoted as highly sexed and highly sexual whilst at the same time eschewing all real physical maturity but instead aiming for a waif-like faux-innocent doublezero / or skinnyjeaned and smoothchinned (delete as applicable). Even the older stars diet, wax, preen, and generally look sillier and sillier in an attempt to look as young as possible.

B. The more societies control public sex and displays of affection the more children are protected from sexual experience - simply not true. The polities with the most repressive ideas about keeping sexual activity quarantined and even refusing to allow discussion let alone display nearly always practice forced teenage marriage of young early teen girls to whomsoever their father chooses.

[Delta1212]

So I guess the question then is, why does this apply specifically to sex and not all of the many other, very often complicated things we do in public, or at least do not actively hide from children?

 

Cemeteries and funeral processions, taxes and political protests, war and all sorts of violent behavior in general.

 

There are a whole lot of very complicated subjects that sill be confusing for children and that their parents may not want to explain in full at various stages of development, but at least in US culture, it's sex that gets most of the attention to make sure that there is nothing in the public space that might accidentally expose a child to sexual references "before they are ready."

 

So what is special about sex that makes it so much more damaging to children to learn about 'early' than all the other aspects of adult life?

[imatfaal]

 

I'm not talking about hiding it. I'm talking about dealing with sex at the child's pace, which is inherently individual. That's what's should be happening in every culture, even those that have sex openly. Kids will ask questions that satisfy what they're curious about, and no more.

 

If a 5-year-old asks about where babies come from, you don't need to give all the details. Do you think it would be healthier to take her down to the park and say, "See those folks, and those ones over there, and there? They're doing what people do to make babies! Watch carefully and all your questions will be answered"?

 

I think it is a very sad world in which children learn what guns do*, what wars are, how other children are starving, of the stranger-danger, of the dangers of gambling/drinks/drugs - all before they learn where babies come from.

 

Yes - children need to be protected from predatory adults and part of that protection is a removal of children from the personal sexual sphere.

 

*This is not a dig at the US cos the same would apply in the UK

 

---

 

x-posted with delta1212

[Phi for All]

I think sex is different than some of the other issues mentioned because of the emotional and physical vulnerability, and the exploitation potential. Explaining why Aunt Maisy is in that box you're putting in the ground has it's own problems, but they aren't the same as trying to explain watching a public blowjob to an 8-year-old.

 

I agree that there are some unreal expectations placed on kids and their sexuality. I detest the whole kid beauty pageant scene, and I think setting those kinds of expectations on kids is criminal. And the idolization of the sexually innocent yet awakening waif is part of what stems from that. Unreal expectations regarding a complicated part of human development, with some interesting hormonal chemicals to help it come at you really fast and furious. It's too much.

 

For me, the control is to help a child find out about themselves without hiding anything they're genuinely interested in knowing. I don't feel I could do that if people were free to impose their sexual activity on my child in public.