WHY IS PUBLIC SEX WRONG?

[zapatos]

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 suspect that the only reason trying to explain public blow jobs is any more difficult than explaining death is because death is not hidden and sex is. If public sex was all around us and displays of death, such as funerals and cemeteries, were not, then I imagine you would be making the exact opposite comparison.

 

Public sex is only "wrong" because other people don't want to see it for various reasons. Either because they are relatively more prudish, or they don't wish to discuss something as complex as sex prior to a certain level of maturity in their children, or they don't like to see people making funny faces.

 

Public sex is becoming more common though (depending on how you define 'sex' (with a nod to Bill Clinton)). What is done on a dance floor anywhere in the US would have landed you in jail not too long ago.

[Endy0816]

Didn't used to be such an issue.

 

 

This debate, probably more than anything else, has had a profound impact and influence on our lives today. For example, in modern times we often consider anything that has to do with sex or sexuality as ‘private’ and something that should occur ‘behind closed doors.’ In the sixteenth, seventeenth, and even the early eighteenth centuries this was not necessarily the case (though it became increasingly so as time progressed). In fact it was not abnormal for a wedding party to watch the couple on their first night, nor was it uncommon for sexual acts to take place in a bar or in public, and witnesses would think very little of it. [1,2]

 

Again, this was a period where entire families would share the same bed and children were likely to know just how their parents made new siblings. The splitting of the private and public world that happened as a result of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation had an impact on the architecture of the home and the attitudes around sex. Occurring first among the upper classes, who were likely already accustomed to formalized and public marriages. They then began to be adopted by middle and lower classes, slowly at first and then with increasing rapidity, as shown by the architecture of the home: “Bedchambers—and the beds themselves—slowly shifted from being common living areas (in lower-class homes) or sites for social gatherings (in upper-class ones) to being what they are today—private space for the single person or couple who sleep in them.” [1, 2, 3.] (Note #2)

http://www.annalspornographie.com/sex-behind-closed-doors-marriage-and-the-invention-of-privacy/

[Moontanman]

 

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"?

 

 

Not at all, I never suggested such a thing, I live in a university town/beach town, I have over the years happened upon several people engaging in sex, some of them I am sure were just exabitionists but it's really not uncommon. Once, many years ago, I had a class of 2nd graders on the beach explaining the salt marsh ecosystem to them when we came upon a couple who were going at it like rabbits. I was terrified the kids would freak but they held it together better than the other adults that were with us did.

 

The kids giggled a little and but none asked what they were doing and from what I could hear of the exchange between the kids they had a pretty good idea. The teacher who was with us just laughed at my fear and said the kids who needed to ask probably would but that none of them would be scared...

 

My real concern is more about the sexualazation of children and in our culture and the sexualazation of nearly everything in the media, kids should not interact with adult sexuality..

Edited January 19, 2016 by Moontanman

[Gees]

Well, this is an interesting thread!

 

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.

 

Imatfaal and I do not often agree on anything, but in this case I think the above post makes some good points. We have such a schizophrenic view of sex and sexuality that it is no wonder that many people, and children, are confused.

 

When a new person is born, one of the first questions asked is, "Is it a girl or a boy?" Then we start to coordinate their lives around pink or blue, their toys around dolls or trucks, and we dream of them growing into a beautiful woman or a powerful man. At the same time, we tell them and show them in hundreds of different ways that sex is irrelevant to them. By the time their hormones kick in, they are sure that their parents, and most adults, do not have a clue about sex or sexuality -- and I can not blame them for this very logical conclusion.

 

The following phrase from paragraph "A.", "promoted as highly sexed and highly sexual" is a good example of this warped thinking. I remember having an argument with my, then 12 year old, daughter. She wanted to wear clothing that was totally inappropriate for her age, but I said, "No". She argued that "everyone" wears clothing like that, and Brittney Spears wears clothing like that and things that are even more revealing. I said, "Fine. You can wear clothes like Brittney Spears wears as soon as you can afford to hire the same number of bodyguards that Brittney Spears has to protect her from people who misunderstand."

 

Why did my daughter want to wear that clothing? Because she wanted to learn to become a woman, and we have taught her that looking sexual is being sexual. Since women are kick-boxing, men are looking for their sensitive side, and media is ruling a great deal of our education, we have given the impression that sexuality is sex -- and that it is physical. So it is not surprising to find that many young people are experiencing early sex in order to validate their own sexuality.

 

Fifty years ago, a man validated his maleness by keeping his word and knowing how to work and support a family; now a man validates his maleness by being attractive and having sex. Fifty years ago, a woman validated her femaleness by being generous and kind of heart and by sewing, cooking, and maintaining her family's needs; now she validates her femaleness by being attractive and having sex.

 

Sexuality is not just physical. It is also mental and emotional, and it is more subtle and less obvious than just the physical. As we all know, sexuality is also not as "black and white" as just the physical. When we ban public sex, are we also inadvertently banning sexuality, even as we inadvertently promote sex? When one does not understand the difference between sex and sexuality, this could happen, and the evidence would seem to support this possibility.

 

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?

< snip >

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

 

No. No. You have it backward. It is because we are intelligent and because we believe ourselves "superior" that we have this problem.

 

Many, many years ago, I read a book called Rape of the Ape that clearly explained this problem. I was quite young, maybe late teens, so I don't know if this book can be found now, but it was written about the same time that evolution started to be taught in schools.

 

This book was written from the perspective of an ape and chronicled the changes and edicts that society put on the ape as time advanced. It was written with a great deal of humor and explained "thinkery-fuckery". Basically, if I remember correctly, thinkery-fuckery is where you think about your fucking to the point where you fuck-up your thinking and take the fun out of fucking. (Unless you do it right as Migl noted.)

 

The ape also could not understand why, when he got something stuck in his eye, everyone was concerned and wanted to help, but when he got something stuck in his nose, others seem to take offence. The book was a fun read if you can find it.

 

Gee

[tantalus]

We are in the minority of species who prefer in privately.

 

Imagine hunter gather times, imagine social interactions between a small, closely connected band of people, imagine a human who has sex in public all the time, imagine a human who has sex in private all the time, extrapolate...

 

There are reasons to think the individual who has sex in private forms stronger monogamous bonds, has additional sexual partners in secret, avoids violent conflict more regularly and makes fewer non-violent social enemies.

 

edit.This allows private people to outbreed and outcompete public people, or more realistically favours the evolution of sexual behaviour as a private behaviour as the more common activity and social norm.

Edited January 19, 2016 by tantalus

[Phi for All]

 

kids should not interact with adult sexuality..

 

This is exactly my point, and I don't think allowing public sex is in line with this stance, even if it is a natural bodily function.

Public sex is only "wrong" because other people don't want to see it for various reasons. Either because they are relatively more prudish, or they don't wish to discuss something as complex as sex prior to a certain level of maturity in their children, or they don't like to see people making funny faces.

 

My concern is more about an organic approach to sexuality. Children should be encouraged to ask questions about anything they're curious about, especially about sex since there is so much potential for grief as well as pleasure. So we answer questions openly, but try not to push the kids beyond what they want to know. And we do things like not show people having sex on billboards, or public TV, or in public in general.

[Moontanman]

 

This is exactly my point, and I don't think allowing public sex is in line with this stance, even if it is a natural bodily function.

 

My concern is more about an organic approach to sexuality. Children should be encouraged to ask questions about anything they're curious about, especially about sex since there is so much potential for grief as well as pleasure. So we answer questions openly, but try not to push the kids beyond what they want to know. And we do things like not show people having sex on billboards, or public TV, or in public in general.

 

 

I have to disagree with your last assertion, while we generally do not depict people having explicit sex the blatant sexulaity of modern media, even billbords is IMHO probably more of an influence than explicit sex would be. Such images do not go as high over the heads of kids as we think, on some level I think they get the idea of sex and it's uses from such media...

[Lyudmilascience]

yes sex is linked to shame, but for right reasons, kids should not see sex, animals dont normally have sex in front of their young in the wild.

And therefore perfectly free from embarrassment? it is not free of embarrassment because not everyone wants to see sex in public, i have seen some people naked that i will never forget. not haveing sex in public is more related to higher intelligence, because its harder to keep yourself from haveing sex and it shows that people respect other people, if other people dont want to see sex while walking down the street they dont have to.

Its almost as if people suddenly stopped believing they were the superior race - I think not having sex in public proves that we are a superior human race.

[zapatos]

...animals dont normally have sex in front of their young in the wild.

Citation?

[Phi for All]

 

 

I have to disagree with your last assertion, while we generally do not depict people having explicit sex the blatant sexulaity of modern media, even billbords is IMHO probably more of an influence than explicit sex would be. Such images do not go as high over the heads of kids as we think, on some level I think they get the idea of sex and it's uses from such media...

 

Well, if you have to change what I meant by my assertion, do you really disagree with it? Do you really feel that a heavily suggestive billboard is more explicit than a big picture of people fucking? I agree that the heavy suggestions of sex don't go over as many heads as we think, but blatant sexuality isn't always the major message depicted, whereas there's little else to talk about with the fucking billboard.

[iNow]

animals dont normally have sex in front of their young in the wild.

Citation?

Oh...Come on, zapatos. The mommy and daddy animals out in the wild all clearly have the decency to go rent a motel room while leaving their young out in the open to fend for themselves against predation while they're off enjoying some inferior to the human race nookie. Isn't it obvious?

[imatfaal]

 

Well, if you have to change what I meant by my assertion, do you really disagree with it? Do you really feel that a heavily suggestive billboard is more explicit than a big picture of people fucking? I agree that the heavy suggestions of sex don't go over as many heads as we think, but blatant sexuality isn't always the major message depicted, whereas there's little else to talk about with the fucking billboard.

 

I would prefer it if children were free of external influences which hasten their sexual awakening (or bring the trappings of such down upon them before they are mentally and physically ready - but then who is truly mentally ready) - but in a culture where this seems impossible I would much prefer it if their introduction to sex was people who were fond of each other tenderly bonking on the beach rather than the filmic representation of a testerone-soaked jock banging a pneumatic-breasted bimbo as if he was a jackhammer and she needed to be broken.

 

More Sex - less Porn. More Sex - less Violence. More Sex - less talking about sex. ¹

 

1 - This is a manifesto not a wish list²

 

2 - Ok; it is a manifesto and a wish list

[Robittybob1]

yes sex is linked to shame, but for right reasons, kids should not see sex, animals dont normally have sex in front of their young in the wild.

And therefore perfectly free from embarrassment?.....

This is particularly not true in the case of horses. About 8 days after giving birth to a foal a mare returns to heat and will mate with a stallion. The foal is most upset with what is going on and sees it all. I know this for it happen on my farmlet within the last month.

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxX1J7CHEN8 as another example.

[Moontanman]

 

Well, if you have to change what I meant by my assertion, do you really disagree with it? Do you really feel that a heavily suggestive billboard is more explicit than a big picture of people fucking? I agree that the heavy suggestions of sex don't go over as many heads as we think, but blatant sexuality isn't always the major message depicted, whereas there's little else to talk about with the fucking billboard.

 

 

I am not sure that assertion can be made with any accuracy, I think it's possible that subtle messages go a bit deeper than we might think...

 

Considering the fact that around the world sex is not hidden from children and their children seem to be in pretty good shape mentally and sexually... I'm not sure we can really say since our sexual attitudes are cultural and not objectively right or wrong...

Edited January 19, 2016 by Moontanman

[MigL]

I agree with imatfaal...

More sex - Less everything else.

 

But seriously, the fact that its a normal bodily function simply doesn't cut it as an excuse to do it in the alley or up against your neighbour's garage.

I don't wanna see anyone sh*t or pi*s at the side of the road either ( unless I'm driving through France or other southern European countries ).

 

Get a room people !

[Gees]

Lyudmilascience;

 

Please consider the following:

 

< snip >

Its almost as if people suddenly stopped believing they were the superior race - I think not having sex in public proves that we are a superior human race.

 

I do not remember ever seeing spiders having sex. One has to wonder if all of those legs are a hindrance or an asset. (chuckle) But I am absolutely certain that I have many times seen spiders crawling across the ceiling of my bedroom, so have spiders seen me having sex? Probably.

 

By your logic, that would make spiders superior to humans. Are you sure about this?

 

Gee

 

 

Phi for All;

 

Please consider:

 

This is exactly my point, and I don't think allowing public sex is in line with this stance, even if it is a natural bodily function.

 

The following should explain what I find awkward with your thinking.

 

An act where two people expose their skin to each other and fit their bodies together for the purposes of pleasure, satisfaction, bonding, and the promotion of life, and where this act causes an exchange of body fluids is what? Well, most people would call that sex, but it also clearly describes nursing, breast feeding, a baby.

 

So is nursing a baby sexual? It certainly can be described that way. Is it a physical relationship between an adult and a baby/child? Yes. So should it be publicly banned? Many people think so.

 

While doctors, nurses, and hospitals all over the country are trying to get women to start breastfeeding again, legislators all over the country are trying to pass laws to ban public nursing of babies. Women have actually been arrested for feeding their babies, because this natural act embarrassed someone. I wonder if the women also ended up on some sex offenders list because of their lewd behavior. I wonder how many porn stars are on sex offenders lists because of their lewd behavior? Oh! I forgot. Porn stars are not breaking laws, just nursing mothers are breaking laws.

 

And I wonder how the jails manage the women? If the woman is not bonded out within a few hours, her milk is going to start causing her pain because baby is not there to relieve the pressure. Do they take the baby away and feed it a bottle? Leaving mother to be in pain? (Serves her right for being so stupid?) Or do they put the nursing couple in a cell together? That would be alright as long as it's private. Right?

 

My concern is more about an organic approach to sexuality. Children should be encouraged to ask questions about anything they're curious about, especially about sex since there is so much potential for grief as well as pleasure. So we answer questions openly, but try not to push the kids beyond what they want to know. And we do things like not show people having sex on billboards, or public TV, or in public in general.

 

We all want to protect our children. But what do we protect them from? Do we hide everything that is natural, wholesome, and good, treating it like it is some kind of perversion, while exposing them to the lewdness of public media?

 

This does not look like a solution to me.

 

Gee

 

 

Moontanman;

 

I am not sure that assertion can be made with any accuracy, I think it's possible that subtle messages go a bit deeper than we might think...

 

Considering the fact that around the world sex is not hidden from children and their children seem to be in pretty good shape mentally and sexually... I'm not sure we can really say since our sexual attitudes are cultural and not objectively right or wrong...

 

I agree.

 

Gee

[Phi for All]

Phi for All;

 

Please consider:

 

 

The following should explain what I find awkward with your thinking.

 

An act where two people expose their skin to each other and fit their bodies together for the purposes of pleasure, satisfaction, bonding, and the promotion of life, and where this act causes an exchange of body fluids is what? Well, most people would call that sex, but it also clearly describes nursing, breast feeding, a baby.

 

So is nursing a baby sexual? It certainly can be described that way. Is it a physical relationship between an adult and a baby/child? Yes. So should it be publicly banned? Many people think so.

 

While doctors, nurses, and hospitals all over the country are trying to get women to start breastfeeding again, legislators all over the country are trying to pass laws to ban public nursing of babies. Women have actually been arrested for feeding their babies, because this natural act embarrassed someone. I wonder if the women also ended up on some sex offenders list because of their lewd behavior. I wonder how many porn stars are on sex offenders lists because of their lewd behavior? Oh! I forgot. Porn stars are not breaking laws, just nursing mothers are breaking laws.

 

And I wonder how the jails manage the women? If the woman is not bonded out within a few hours, her milk is going to start causing her pain because baby is not there to relieve the pressure. Do they take the baby away and feed it a bottle? Leaving mother to be in pain? (Serves her right for being so stupid?) Or do they put the nursing couple in a cell together? That would be alright as long as it's private. Right?

One of the most long-winded strawman fallacies I've ever read.

 

Considered. Rejected for poor logic and arguing something I never said. Please consider thinking before putting words in people's mouths.

[EdEarl]

..., but it also clearly describes nursing, breast feeding, a baby.

 

So is nursing a baby sexual? It certainly can be described that way. Is it a physical relationship between an adult and a baby/child? Yes. So should it be publicly banned? Many people think so.

 

While doctors, nurses, and hospitals all over the country are trying to get women to start breastfeeding again, legislators all over the country are trying to pass laws to ban public nursing of babies. Women have actually been arrested for feeding their babies, because this natural act embarrassed someone. I wonder if the women also ended up on some sex offenders list because of their lewd behavior. I wonder how many porn stars are on sex offenders lists because of their lewd behavior? Oh! I forgot. Porn stars are not breaking laws, just nursing mothers are breaking laws.

People funny. Before formula was mass marketed and sold as "better than mom's milk, mother or nursemaid fed babies, sometimes in public, which might be why there are existing anti-brest-feeding laws on the books. It should be moms choice, and those opposed need to get their minds out of the gutter. A mom feeding her baby is not going to destroy our culture.

[Phi for All]

Before formula was mass marketed and sold as "better than mom's milk, mother or nursemaid fed babies, sometimes in public, which might be why there are existing anti-brest-feeding laws on the books.

 

Oh Ed, I never considered that angle with breastfeeding before. Making something seem uncomfortable because there's now an alternative is classic brand marketing strategy. It's worked to sell many products, but also gave us some of our weirdest taboos.

[EdEarl]

 

Oh Ed, I never considered that angle with breastfeeding before. Making something seem uncomfortable because there's now an alternative is classic brand marketing strategy. It's worked to sell many products, but also gave us some of our weirdest taboos.

My mistake there are no anti-breast-feeding laws on the books.

[Phi for All]

My mistake there are no anti-breast-feeding laws on the books.

 

Missouri Revised Statute 191.918 has a caveat about discretion that basically invalidates a mother's right to breastfeed in public, if an officer deems too much was shown or it was too enjoyable.

 

Idaho has NO LAWS that protect a mother breastfeeding in public, and to me that's inviting charges of illegal public sexual conduct. The threat of being placed on a national sexual offender's database is as good as an anti-breastfeeding law, imo. Shaming is powerful, and erodes so much of our society.

[Gees]

Phi for All;

 

Please consider:

 

One of the most long-winded strawman fallacies I've ever read.

 

No. It would only be a strawman fallacy if breastfeeding in public was not also considered to be sexual activity in public. But it is considered to be sexual activity by many people. You don't really think that women have been arrested for feeding their babies in public, do you? Are women arrested for bottle feeding their babies in public? This is about sex.

 

The problem with stating that public sex is wrong, and/or should be banned, is that you have to define what is sex. No one has done that in this thread. So should we say that public sexual intercourse is wrong? Wouldn't that mean that blow jobs are OK? Clinton thought so. Or maybe we could be more specific and say that when people put one of their body parts inside another person, and an exchange of body fluids occurs, in public, then it is wrong.

 

That would take care of sexual intercourse and blow jobs, but it would also include breastfeeding, sucking out the venom of a snake bite, french kissing, and may include organ transplants. Hell. I don't know what your background is, but I retired from law. When people start saying that something is wrong, soon enough a law is passed that supports their belief. Although the intent of that law is important, the letter of the law is the bottom line -- or one could say that the words of the law are the law. As stated in my post #29 above, breastfeeding and sexual intercourse can be described with the same words; and therefore, interpreted as the same kind of act.

 

It is difficult to write a good and fair law. Too many times there are circumstances that were not considered, and the law becomes a corruption of what should be fair, moral, and just. Sex is not immoral. It is not wrong or bad; it is natural, wholesome, good, and ensures life.

 

Should sex be private? Many people think so. But does that mean that if sex is not private, then it turns into something that is wrong? If you are having sex in your bedroom and some child comes and looks into the window, does that turn your activity into something that is wrong? Should there be a law that says that you have to close your curtains? I think there may have been a law like that at one time. There is a difference between private sex and hiding sex. Hiding it implies that it is wrong or bad, so what is a teenager to think when hormones kick in and he wants to do something that is bad? This is how perversions begin.

 

Considered. Rejected for poor logic and arguing something I never said. Please consider thinking before putting words in people's mouths.

 

It seems that we have different ideas about the word "considered". My idea of the word, considered, means to read the post, think about it, try to see it from as many perspectives as I can think of, maybe do some research, think about it again, then write my post.

 

You have been at the science forum long enough to know that good logic requires good information. If a person is not knowledgeable enough, they will not understand the logic. So the question is: Is my logic poor, or are you lacking information?

 

I did not put words in anyone's mouth. I simply showed that your words can be interpreted many ways, as you were not clear enough. When people use emotion to decide what is wrong, they often do not consider the full consequence of their words.

 

Gee

[Moontanman]

This subject is difficult for me for various reasons having to do with my own childhood, I know I had mixed feelings when I had two young children and had to face that I didn't have as much control as I would have liked over much if any of what they were exposed to.

 

Our culture is strange in many ways not the least of which is our acceptance of violence for the viewing of children but the rejection of sex and or nudity, it always seemed to be a strange idea that murder and carnage was ok to see (movie ratings support this) but a naked human and people lose their minds.

 

I finally came to realize intellectually that it was far better for children to see sex and sexual behavior than violence, at least at some point we all do experience sex but with a little luck not everyone will experience blood and gore of the magnitude that is freely shown on prime time TV. But putting that knowledge into the real world was not really possible for me.

 

It is very hard to rise above your own culture and see anything that has been drummed into you all your life as wrong and realize that maybe it was not as objective as you were taught to believe. If I had raised girls I am quite sure it would have been considerably worse due to the conditioning of the double standard between the correct way we perceive the raising of males and females in our society.

 

It is difficult to understand how other cultures can be so different and still produce stable humans...

[EdEarl]

It is difficult to understand how other cultures can be so different and still produce stable humans...

People are survivors, including children. Protecting children is part or our DNA, a good thing, which sometimes mean we overprotect. It's not a reason to beat ourselves up. Sooner or later our children tell us when to stop. I think parenting is similar in all cultures, especially when children have internet access.

 

Even abused children can become good adults; learning a culture should not be as traumatic or difficult.

[Phi for All]

No. It would only be a strawman fallacy if breastfeeding in public was not also considered to be sexual activity in public.

Look up the definition of the fallacy. I never mentioned breastfeeding, yet you quoted me for my "awkward thinking", and then brought up breastfeeding to rebut my thinking about public sex. PUBLIC SEX, not SEXUAL ACTIVITY IN PUBLIC. Two different things, so STRAWMAN.

 

I did not put words in anyone's mouth. I simply showed that your words can be interpreted many ways, as you were not clear enough. When people use emotion to decide what is wrong, they often do not consider the full consequence of their words.

Moontanman stated that "kids shouldn't interact with adult sexuality". I responded with what you quoted me on, "This is exactly my point, and I don't think allowing public sex is in line with that stance, even if it is a natural bodily function." How many ways are you able to interpret THAT? What about that exchange led you to believe I was using emotion to decide what's wrong?

 

Seriously, if you're just going to blog at us, please stop quoting members and re-interpreting their words.