ABC's John Stossel looks at police sting operations against adult consensual sex in semi-public (and sometimes, in actuality, private) spaces, and the possibly tragic consequences. Excerpt (the man arrested says he's straight and was arrested while answering nature's call while out jogging):
The park was the site of a police crackdown on gay men using the park for sex. But the police went beyond arrests. Before anyone was convicted, they posted the names, addresses and photos of the men.
Giles's wife saw his picture on the news. Then his employer fired him. "When I lost my job ... my wife was so upset that she had a ... a major heart attack." Another man named by the police killed himself.
It's unknown how many innocents get swooped up in these actions, but there's little question that even for those who arguably are violating public propriety, the government's "sting" (a cheap and easy way to meet arrest quotas) is often devastating, and sometimes deadly.
54 Comments for “Stossel on the ‘Sex Police’”
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Stephen, usually those sting operations by the police aren’t done to secure any quota (what a red herring) but ARE usually engaged when the police log multiple complaints from citizens, neighbors, parents, municipal officers, public park officials, rest stop maintenance staff and others.
As in the Johnson City TN matter, the local paper writes:
“In an effort to eliminate areas of opportunity within the parks, authorities said they plan to destroy the Man Cave at Winged Deer Park, possibly with a controlled burn. That comes as good news to Assistant City Manager Charlie Stahl, who complained about the inappropriate activity after witnessing it firsthand while on a tour of city parks in June.
Stahl reportedly walked into a bathroom at Winged Deer Park and saw two men ?about to engage in sexual activity.? The men were removed from the park only moments before a child came to use the bathroom. “I can only imagine if those two men were not removed, what that little boy would have seen,? Stahl said. ?Our parks are for families. They?re not for this anti-social behavior. That is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.?
As for how many innocents get caught up in the stings, my hunch is not many even though Stossel’s example is extreme… given the need for video/audio evidence for conviction, there aren’t going to be many folks (except maybe Sen Craig) who get caught doing nothing or that the something is other than solicitation of another for sex.
Consenting or not, doing it in public is wrong -and for some, that risk of being caught is part of the allure. Do the crime, do the time.
http://www.johnsoncitypress.com/Detail.php?Cat=HOMEPAGE&ID=60342
posted by another steve on
given the need for video/audio evidence for conviction, there aren’t going to be many folks (except maybe Sen Craig ) who get caught doing nothing or that the something is other than solicitation of another for sex.
Don’t know where you think “audio/video evidence” is necessary for conviction. I’ve known guys arrested with just one cop’s word on what he claims to have seen.
As the article notes, many of these stings are not, in fact, “in public,” but in secluded spots. Not mentioned, cops in mmany, many areas go into adult bookstore vvideo arcades and conduct stings. These are locked booths meant for viewing/masturbatory behavior. But it’s often against the law for two guys to do it together, and so the cop goes in and waits for company, and then takes out the cuffs. Want to defend that?
posted by DUMP on
You obviously don’t know who you are talking to, another steve. Of course Matt will defend that. To him, gays are evil and must be punished…but not him, because he’s a special kind of gay. A Republican gay. A Republican gay with money.
posted by Jorge on
“Sometimes deadly”? Oh please. I don’t care one bit about people who die of shame for committing shameful acts. If they’re innocent that’s a different story.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
But it’s often against the law for two guys to do it together, and so the cop goes in and waits for company, and then takes out the cuffs.
That’s like getting upset that the police set up speed traps.
Easy answer: don’t go into said booths when there’s already another person in there. Just like obeying the speed limit will keep you out of speed traps.
But then again, remember the mentality of the gay community, which thinks that anything that would make public sex more difficult is “discrimination” — and that exposing children to adults having sex is an “educational experience”.
posted by JimG on
What is truly tragic here is that someone’s life can be completely destroyed for wanting to have some sex. If we look at the list of all the rotten things humans can do to each other (and the list is long and varied) the punishment for these acts is completely inappropriate to say the least. Is doing it is in public place classy? No. Is it criminal? I’ll debate that.
Speed traps are designed to prevent someone from being plowed into by another vehicle. Stumbling onto someone giving a blow job, as disconcerting as it may be, is hardly of the same “danger”.
I also thought it was interesting that Charlie Stahl used the phrase “anti-social behavior”. Huh?
posted by arturo fernandez on
isn’t having sex in the backseat of a pickup truck some sort of heterosexual rite-of-passage?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061204131719AAH9PI5
posted by arturo fernandez on
Just recently I was in Vegas, straight Mecca, and all along the strip there were (bless them) illegal immigrants passing out leaflets with pictures of near-naked women, inviting heterosexual males to affirm their straight identity, with a prostitute for the night or an hour. There were pictures of near-naked women all over the street, for everyone and their kids to see, in Vegas, straight Mecca and heterosexual marriage capital of the world.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Naturally, all Steve has to do is raise the subject and MM and ND30 are off and running with their false generalizations.
Personally, I think restrooms are among the least sexy places. Also, since the risk of public sex is part of its appeal, it’s hard to have a lot of sympathy for those who take the risk and get caught.
But what about the guy who gets arrested in the park for soliciting or indecent exposure when he was just going behind a bush to take a leak? Is it possible he’s lying? Yes. But I have seen enough accounts of overzealous vice cops to have some skepticism. In any case, ND30’s claim that the gay community in general champions public sex is pathetic. Oh, but he provided a link! Um, were all straight men blamed for the serial murders of women committed by Ted Bundy? No. Why? Because everyone understood that only Bundy was responsible for Bundy’s crimes. Well, the same goes for gay people. The irony of it is that it is often closeted homophobes like Larry Craig who get caught up in restroom stings. And “out” gays get smeared for the sex crimes of priests whose homophobic superiors are guilty of covering up and facilitating crimes. How about holding people responsible for their own actions, and sparing us the implausible scapegoating?
posted by Richard on
There is no right to have gay or straight sex in public. Period. A public park, is as you might guess by its name, a public place.
The fact that the same is happening in behind a bush, does not make it private.
Get a motel/hotel.
posted by avee on
There are an unusually high number of straw man arguments in this thread. Yes, public sex should be prohibited. But the discussion raised the issue of stings taking part in locked booths of adult video arcades. Richard, are you also defending those actions? And what about the article’s report of the names and addresses of those arrested (but not convicted) being released to the public. Fine with you, Richard?
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Well, THIS Richard does not approve of sting operations, and a locked booth in an arcade is not what reasonably public. (BTW, I suggest that the other Richard pick a last name or other designation so as to distinguish us more readily on these threads.)
The publishing of names and addresses of people arrested for such things is a form of pre-trial punishment with potentially devastating consequences. Those who glibly reply, “They get what they deserve,” are either not paying attention (re-read the “pre-trial” part) or have no respect for our system of justice whereby the accused enjoy a presumption of innocence.
posted by Pat on
Public sex is a no-no. Go back to either person’s pad or a hotel to do the deed.
But I do question some of these stings. Yes, if a two people are engaging in sex publicly, go ahead and arrest them. But what about if sex is being solicited? For example, Larry Craig’s legal defense (I believe) was that he was only trying to solicit sex from the police officer (via toe tap dancing, wide stances, and pretending to pick up TP, and not necessarily have sex in the stall, but go to a private place afterwards. I doubt that’s the case, but that defense isn’t that far fetched. People pick up others in the bars all the time, and usually go to someone’s place and not have sex at the bar, and it’s all legal. I’ve heard that happens once in a blue moon in the straight world for those who are bent on blaming gay persons only.
If the lesson here is that picking up strangers for sex (even in a private location) is a bad idea, that’s fine. I agree with that. But should it be a crime? Can a cop always tell the difference between sex solicitation and a more benevolent beginnings of a courtship? Should a cop arrest a couple in a park who are holding hands, because that could lead to sex?
posted by Pat on
But it’s often against the law for two guys to do it together, and so the cop goes in and waits for company, and then takes out the cuffs. Want to defend that?
If the place’s policy or the law is that it’s illegal for two people to use the same booth, then they shouldn’t do it, period. Rent a flick and go home. On the other hand, unless there is a disruption and/or the manager complained to the police, it seems like police resources can be more wisely used.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Let’s recap bigRichard’s (that would RichardJRosendell) last coherent statement:
1) Stephen raises a subject and MM & ND30 are off and running in the falsehood lane?
Um, no bigRichard. Just because you don’t like that some here don’t willingly sup at your gayLeft table doesn’t mean you have the power or right to smear them. How incredibly arrogant of you.
2) bigRichard: “Also, since the risk of public sex is part of its appeal, it’s hard to have a lot of sympathy for those who take the risk and get caught”
Ummm, bigRichard… news alert, you’re now agreeing with my earlier statements exactly on that point. Did you really want to be in agreement with people you routinely scorn here? But your statement reached a level of pompousity my failed to achieve… gotta give you credit there, bigRichard.
3) RJR: “How about holding people responsible for their own actions, and sparing us the implausible scapegoating?”
Now that would be great bigRichard! If only you actually believed the pretty, empty words you spend here. Some here, myself included, are in favor of holding people accountable… and not giving them a GetOutOfJailCard because they are gay and are just acting “naturally” in soliciting sex in public.
Yep, let’s hold ’em accountable for their conduct. Frankly, I like the idea of publishing the pictures of those caught in sting operations… and those soliciting prostitutes and their license plates… and those frequently known crack dens… and those who engage in the trafficking of kiddie porn… and those who get caught soliticing sex from minors in chatrooms. Oh, but wait, you’re now against accountability of that sort?
Honest bigRichard, if someone gets caught by the police, there’s a high likelihood they were engaged in the activity the arresting officer is required to swear to in the arrest document. You can do the “give it to da’ Man” hip hop with BarryO, but it doesn’t make very good public policy. Da po-lice ain’t da problems bro… da conduct is. What is about liberals and wanting to bash da po-lice, da military, da authority.
Accountability is your new best boyfriend, eh?
I say go for it and if any gays get caught in those sting operations, let’s hold them accountable just like we do with hetero/breeder types… no special treatment just because they’re gay and (therefore the liberals claim) not in control of their base impulses.
You see bigRichard, like the Democrats of the 60s who thought blacks needed a govt Masta to make their decisions for them, gayLefties like you think all gaybrethern need liberals like you to tell them how to think, that it’s ok to act in anti-social ways because of deep seated resentment and repressed emotive discord… but there are lots of us –thinking, intelligent, moral gays– who are telling the collective liberal “you” to take a hike… just like blacks did in the 80s & 90s.
Accountability is a great tool. But you don’t really want that standard… you want excusability.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
DUMP/CharlesWilson offers: “To him, gays are evil and must be punished…but not him, because he’s a special kind of gay. A Republican gay. A Republican gay with money.”
Not at all, DUMP/CW/WetWilly. I’m gay and I’m not evil. My partner is gay and he’s not evil. My best friends are gay and they’re not evil. Many of our social friends –not all– are gay and they’re not evil.
Unlike you, I don’t think people of religion are evil.
Unlike you, I don’t think people who have acquired wealth are evil.
Unlike you, I don’t think gays who parent are evil and have “sold out” their community by trying to appear normal.
Unlike you, I don’t think all gays have to think like me or hold my political beliefs… you’re the gay guy who likes to repeal gay identity cards when someone “strays” from the GayBookOfVerses.
Now, unlike bigRichard, if a gay commits a crime, I don’t first inquire if they are Republican or not and then decide if they require immediate punishment… you want to do that, go for it. Gay GOPers tend to be less crime committing, more moral, more decent, more pro-society than gayLefties who trash the military, trash the police and trash anyone who questions a gay’s “right” to engage in public sex with the camera running.
posted by DUMP on
MM: “Gay GOPers tend to be less crime committing, more moral, more decent, more pro-society than gayLefties who trash the military, trash the police and trash anyone who questions a gay’s “right” to engage in public sex with the camera running.”
I’m going to assume you just made that up like all your other arguments. Don’t you get tired of typing the same illogical nonsense day after day? Honestly, I only come to this cesspool of a website to see what lies you and your partner in filth ND30 are spewing. Funny thing, it is always the same tired lies. You guys need to get better writers. Lame failures the both of you.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
I am not going to respond to most of MM’s nonsense, because really, if people are going to ignore all that I myself have written under my REAL NAME and instead judge me based on words that someone posting under a pseudonym put into my mouth, then let them misunderstand me.
But one especially absurd statement jumps out: “Now, unlike bigRichard, if a gay commits a crime, I don’t first inquire if they are Republican or not and then decide if they require immediate punishment.”
When in the world have I ever displayed such an attitude? In fact, although I am a Democrat, I have a lengthy record of non-partisan advocacy; I have volunteered for a Republican candidate; I have worked amicably as an activist with Capital Area Log Cabin; I wrote several articles for Log Cabin’s centrist think tank, the Liberty Education Forum; and I also wrote several articles for the conservative FrontPage Magazine, for which many leftists have condemned me (without showing any evidence that they bothered to read the articles in question). If that does not conclusively prove that I am not a knee-jerk anti-Republican, as you implied, then go ahead and make up something even more outlandish, since you obviously care not a fig about the truth of what you write.
And BTW, I specifically expressed my lack of sympathy for people who risk public sex and get caught. That MM turns this into my championing the right of gays to have public sex shows just how unscrupulous MM is. What, MM, is the point of such blatant dishonesty?
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
To be clear (since some around here go out of their way to distort others’ postings anyway): When I wrote, “I have worked amicably as an activist with Capital Area Log Cabin,” I did NOT mean that I have ever been “an activist with Capital Area Log Cabin,” but that as an activist (with the non-partisan GLAA) I have worked amicably with CALC.
As it happens, for the past year or two I have been a member of DC’s Gertrude Stein Democratic Club, which I never was before. I am not the most partisan person in those meetings, to be sure; in any case, my fair-mindedness and willingness to cross the aisle have been demonstrated many times. MM’s dishonesty and unscrupulousness have also been demonstrated many times.
The trouble with some people one encounters in online discussions is that they act as if everyone who disagrees with them must by definition embrace the singular, monolithic, opposite point of view–there being, in these people’s minds, two and only two possible viewpoints on anything. So, for example, if you question some position of theirs which you regard as extreme, they immediately conclude that you must take the position at the other extreme. Thus MM writes as if I have defended public gay sex when I have done no such thing; calls me a lefty when my published writings show me to be a longstanding critic of the left; and calls me anti-military when I have written in defense of gay men and women serving in the military. MM just makes stuff up. I cannot understand the point of that.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Northdallass said “But then again, remember the mentality of the gay community, which thinks that anything that would make public sex more difficult is “discrimination” — and that exposing children to adults having sex is an “educational experience”.”.
That might be the attitude of some gays but its not representative of the gay community. In contrast lets look at the Christian heterosexual community:
An evangelical preacher killed his wife several years ago and stuffed her body in a freezer after she caught him abusing their daughter, according to police and court documents.
Anthony Hopkins murdered his wife in 2004 after she caught him fucking their daughter, who would have been around 15 at the time. He then forced his daughter to help him hide her mother’s body in a freezer.
That’s pretty bad, but the capper is likely this, from a colleague who described Hopkins’s last service (the one after which he was arrested):
His message, she said, was about forgiveness and not passing judgment — and at one point, he turned to his seven children and asked them to forgive him his past, present and future.
Forgiveness. Not passing judgment. Isn’t that convenient?
But when you think about it, that’s what’s wrong with a lot of the religiously addled – they have this belief that they can get away with anything, because in the end their god will forgive them. You might have seen the bumper sticker that reads, Christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven.
Typical of Christians like Northdallass, doesn’t matter how heinous your act is, its all forgiven if you tell Jeebus you’re sorry.
posted by Bobby on
Arturo, prostitution isn’t legal in Las Vegas, you have to drive to Pahrump, NV, which is 45 minutes away. What those people where advertising was strip clubs, escorts and 1-900 numbers. Escorts are legal all over America because it’s not a crime to pay for for an escort, only if you want sex are you engaging in a criminal activity.
Also, I have no respect for anyone, gay or straight, that has sex in public. They deserve what they get. God forbid that we become like Denmark where they put condom dispensers in parks.
Anyone looking for sex, orgies, anonymous encounters, can find it through craiglist, private clubs, etc.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Here’s the link to that story.
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6348
posted by eugene on
televised sting operations targeting sexual misconduct is a pathetic programming choice. these programs feed neurotic fantasies of those who obviously have nothing better to do. and probably secretly are aroused by the subject matter.
posted by Richard II on
[I was tempted to be Richard – the African American, not Jewish one, or the South Park movie tagiline but this is shorter]
(1) Criminal arrests are, unless dealing with minors or a few other areas (i.e. a [private sex club or adult bookstore), public information. Now, if I ran a newspaper,
i would be rather cautious about doing what they — newspapers — did, but that is just me. If you don’t want the pubic finding out about it, maybe you should not be having sex in public.
(2) Private, when it comes to sex, means your bedroom or the bedroom of a motel or hotel. It may mean private property, within certain limits. However, most people here, probably, would not be upset with the ‘right’ of a private owner to prohibit such behavior.
Likewise, we live in a world of ’employment at will’. If an employeer things that an employee is guilty of, pretty much, anything they can fire them. Why not actually protest the employers?
It — sexual liberty — does not mean having sex at a public park, or a public restroom or — if you prefer — WC.
Clearly, the legal standards for defining public and private sex– and punishments for the former– need to be equal for gays and straights.
Also solication laws are stupid, unless the cop can prove that the sex was inteded to occur in public.
However, I have little patience for anyone who asserst a right to have sex in public places. Have sex at your home/apartment or at a motel/hotel or at a private sex club.
posted by Richard II on
I doubt that these people — arrested for having or attempting to have sex in public — were unable to afford a cheap motel.
Heck, if public parks and bathrooms are so appealing to people, why not make it the motiff of some private, adult sex club?
posted by Richard II on
(1) If you are solicating an adult for sex, it should only be a crime if the intent is to have the sex — not kissing or holding hands — in public.
(2) Adult, peaceful prostitution should be legal and regulated like any other business.
(3) I do not see what is wrong, per se, about giving out free (or low price) condoms or ‘feminnie products’ in certain public places.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
I remember watching an experiment in public displays of affection between same sex couples. Perhaps many of you saw it.
Both sets of couples were attractive and young people. Set up on park benches and outdoor cafe tables.
They held hands, put an arm over the should while seated. Pecked each other on the lips.
In one of those situations with the men…someone called 911. And an officer came up to the couple and told them to break it up.
Some people’s perception of threat, and public sex are VERY different. The homophobe’s mind in that regard can reach levels of ludicrousness.
Try and form a gay straight alliance club in school, that has specific, open and public guidelines becomes a ‘sex club’.
Try and hug someone of your same gender warmly, especially if you’re a man…and you might as well be having sex in front of the coffee house.
Try and inform the people in your workplace you’ve been with the same gender partner for 20 years and have three grown children, all of a sudden you’re talking about your sex life.
Since men are more likely to answer nature’s call more spontaneously without a toilet available, it’s not surprising most of the people nabbed seem to all be men.
I’m not naive…but it’s hard to have a conversation about this with homophobes unless you also bring up how much hyperbole and hysteria they are capable of.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
bigRichard offers: “If that does not conclusively prove that I am not a knee-jerk anti-Republican, as you implied, then go ahead and make up something even more outlandish, since you obviously care not a fig about the truth of what you write.”
Fair enough, bigRichard, let’s say -for the sake of argument- you aren’t the garden variety, typical gayLeft anti-GOPing gay liberal. We all have illusions… that can be our special one. I think, from your writings, you are a knee-jerk anti-GOPer… and your seeming support of LCR activities dovetails nicely into the timeframe when the LCRs were decidedly not pro-GOP either… when many gay GOPers thought the organization had been well co-opted by the gayLeft and gayDemocrats inside the beltway.
You complain “Thus MM writes as if I have defended public gay sex when I have done no such thing; calls me a lefty when my published writings show me to be a longstanding critic of the left; and calls me anti-military when I have written in defense of gay men and women serving in the military.”
BZZT, wrong-o bigRichard. Seems you’re a little more of knee jerk kind of guy than our illusions provide.
I didn’t say you were anti-military. So you’re wrong again and I wonder why you persist in trying to smear and tar people who comment at IGF with these baseless, unfounded double-talking, flip-flopping silliness from you bigRichard.
I asked YOU why liberals were anti-military and anti-police.
Your earlier position is indeed anti-police (and I’d add anti-social) in which you clearly state an animus toward sting operations that catch those engaged in public sex… you wrote that, bigRichard… not me. You write: “Well, THIS Richard does not approve of sting operations,” and earlier raised the red herring that overzealous vice cops might be to blame for these poor little innoncents getting all caught in a itty-bitty sting operation at a public park.
So, the next time you want to complain and not “not respond” to something IGF readers contend, try to be accurate in your smearing and distortions, bigRichard, ok?
And remember, before you climb up on your “I’m a liberal so I’m better than any of you” horse, try to keep in mind that not everyone has to agree with you and your special world view. Gilbert & Sullivan didn’t leave behind word that you should be the Grand Gay Poobah.
I think you’re wrong, dead wrong, on many policy issues you raise here. And I think you’re also wrong in your continued efforts to smear, minimize or isolate the opinions of those who don’t agree with you with this kind of immature nonsense:
“Naturally, all Steve has to do is raise the subject and MM and ND30 are off and running with their false generalizations.”
How about your false generalizations? Like this one (our mantra to gain illusionary space) “MM’s dishonesty and unscrupulousness have also been demonstrated many times.”
What a load of gayLeft crap, bigRichard. You keep proving to all here that your special kind of bipartisanship first involves cutting all opposing partisans off at the knees.
A little free advice: stick to policy issues, leave the sleazebag smearfest’ing to your alter-ego hack DUMP/CharlesWilson/WetWilly et al.
posted by Richard II on
Please do not try and confuse the issue at hand. There is a BIG difference between public sex — engaging in missionary, oral or anal sex — and public displays of affection — kissing or holding hands.
People — gay, straight or bi — should not engage in sex in public. That is not the same thing as public displays of affection or solication.
A public school has to allow a GSA club to exist — unless they ban all student clubs. Again, very different issue. If people were trying to have sex on school grounds, that would be like the public sex issue at hand.
Equal protection under the law is an important issue. If a public school allows student clubs, then it has to allow a GSA.
Talking about something is not the same thing as doing it. The fact that their may be a double standard in a private business when it comes to gay and straight families, does not make it ok for anyone to have sex in public.
And no, most of the men nabbed in a public park were not simply taking a leak because their was no bathroon nearby.
As for the apparent pissing match among a few posters here. It would seem that gay partisans — in both parties — can be uncivil and often do so in a passionate defense of their own political beliefs and affiliations.
Yet, in my brief time here I have seen plently of mud tossed around both ways and even at my way.
If we are going to have a serious debate about anything it would help if people did not ask totally inappropriate questions like, “why do all [conservatives or liberals] hate God, American, Apple Pie, military and the police?”
posted by arthur on
Call me old-fashioned, just keep it at home?we are gay; not sex addicts. And good god, don?t scare the horses.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Um, were all straight men blamed for the serial murders of women committed by Ted Bundy? No. Why? Because everyone understood that only Bundy was responsible for Bundy’s crimes……How about holding people responsible for their own actions, and sparing us the implausible scapegoating?
Yes; well, Richard, as is obvious, you have no problem with it when it’s your fellow gay and lesbian liberals doing it, so why should your statement to that effect be believed?
In any case, ND30’s claim that the gay community in general champions public sex is pathetic.
The problem here, Richard, is that your inability to condemn public sex by gay people leaves you with very little else in options; it’s pretty much down to personal attacks, diversionary attacks on heterosexuals and Christians, and then disingenuous statements in which you claim you have no sympathy for those who engage in public sex, but then smear the police officers, laws, and community members who punish them as “overzealous”.
Why are you so frightened of flatly condemning public sex?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
NDXXX responds to bigRichard with “The problem here, Richard, is that your inability to condemn public sex by gay people leaves you with very little else in options; it’s pretty much down to personal attacks, diversionary attacks on heterosexuals and Christians, and then disingenuous statements in which you claim you have no sympathy for those who engage in public sex, but then smear the police officers, laws, and community members who punish them as “overzealous”.”
Ding, ding, ding… give that man a prize for cutting through bigRichard’s BS.
posted by Patrick on
While MM and ND30 purport that they have a problem with public sex, they certainly have NO PROBLEM with the virtual mutual JO sessions they sometimes have on this site.
posted by Craig2 on
Down here, sex work is completely legal- public sex isn’t. Personally, I’ve never gone in for the latter, even in my multiple partner days, given my prissiness and the smelly and confined spaces public sex usually occurs in.
I do have some questions, though. Exactly who is public sex harming if it occurs at a time that most children are in bed, asleep, and not engaged in recreational play outside? Or in a remote public convenience that is in a secluded area?
Don’t the police have enough to do, like apprehending crystal meth manufacturers, dealers and distributors, to bother with such trivial offenses against public morality?
And are straight couples subjected to equivalent condemnation when they engage in similar activities ( I believe the colloquial term is “dogging?”)
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
posted by JimG on
Craig, you bring up some interesting points. Most sex in public places is usually not “public sex” or it certainly is not meant to be. For the most part the participants are hiding and trying to “do it” so that they don’t get caught.
I remember back in the early eighties at the beach in SF where the cops would come through with the spotlight and this was 10 at night where NO ONE could see what you were doing unless they had their head in through your car window.
So I wonder just how much this is about “morals and protecting children”.
And it seems to me that the outcry and the level of punishment levied against those found guilty of such misdeeds is a lot like taking the hammer to get rid of an ant.
It is also reprehensible that these people who are accused of committing these “crimes” are having their names published. They, too, are innocent until proven guilty and to publish their names, even if it is stated that they are only charged with the offense is just mean and vindictive.
posted by Richard on
Children do not need to see people — gay or straight — having sex in public places. Neither do adults.
Despite the efforts by some people here to try and confuse what is ‘public’ and ‘private’.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Hey Patrick, way to go… jumping in the gutter with DUMP/CharlesWilson.
Since there are soooooooo many handpuppets on the gayLeft here at IGF, I can imagine someone might be lead to think that our new “Patrick” is really just bigRichard (RJR) operating as a sockpuppet. The syntax, the use of the phrase “MM and ND30” in both their postings… interesting.
posted by Pat on
While MM and ND30 purport that they have a problem with public sex, they certainly have NO PROBLEM with the virtual mutual JO sessions they sometimes have on this site.
Patrick, there’s also similar comraderie and agreement among liberal commenters here. What’s wrong with that?
Honest bigRichard, if someone gets caught by the police, there’s a high likelihood they were engaged in the activity the arresting officer is required to swear to in the arrest document. You can do the “give it to da’ Man” hip hop with BarryO, but it doesn’t make very good public policy. Da po-lice ain’t da problems bro… da conduct is. What is about liberals and wanting to bash da po-lice, da military, da authority.
MichiganMatt, I agree that when someone is caught by the police there is a high likelihood that a crime was committed. But that’s not good enough when a sting catches innocent persons, or when names of persons are published on some perversion list when they haven’t had a chance to defend themselves in court.
I know first hand that policeman aren’t always nice. Over two months ago, I was pulled over and berated by an officer for the “crime” of trying twice avoiding an accident with this erratic, irrational individual. I’m still waiting for a resolution of the complaint I registered, which has gone through five offices.
I certainly hope that in a nation such as ours, that police are not above criticism.
posted by Patrick on
Camaraderie is one thing Pat….”Ding, ding, ding… give that man a prize for cutting through bigRichard’s BS.”-MM
but the way they Stroke each other is rather revolting.
MM – sometimes when you open your virtual sasshole I want to ask you if you can see if your prostate is enlarged. I am just calling it like I see it.
Did I offended your frail sensibilities?
posted by Bobby on
“televised sting operations targeting sexual misconduct is a pathetic programming choice.”
—Actually, the practice of humiliating criminals in public is a very old one and effective. Some people choose to follow the law out of principles, others do it out of fear of jail or public humiliation. Sting operations work because they trap the guilty and encourage non-offenders to stay away from trouble.
posted by Craig2 on
RichardG:
Absolutely, most men who have sex with men in ‘public’ lavatories don’t even identify as gay or bisexual. Often, they’re doing it because they want to have quick, convenient and minimal sex with other men, and these venues represent the best prospect for that. Often, they may find the consequences of disclosure devastating.
I repeat, this injures no-one, if it occurs in secluded areas and during the evening, so it’s usually up to police discretion to prosecute.
Isn’t prosecuting it a waste of police time and resources? Surely crystal meth concretely does harm people, and is sadly prevalent enough, especially in some rural areas, to be a policing priority?
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
posted by Bobby on
“Isn’t prosecuting it a waste of police time and resources?”
—It’s not different than stopping people from speeding, you’re doing it to prevent everyone else from driving like a maniac. If you allow public sex in one area, pretty soon it will become popular and you’ll find guys exposing themselves at all hours. Besides, police work is divided into many categories, there’s narcotics, burglary, homicide, transit, and whatever deals with public sex and other issues. The resources have already been allocated, this is certainly not a waste of money.
posted by BobN on
“God forbid that we become like Denmark where they put condom dispensers in parks.”
That could never happen here. The dispensers would be vandalized right away. Apparently, God works in mysterious ways… [eye-roll].
More seriously, I’m puzzled by all these comments about “people having sex in public”. The issue, as is apparent from the non-enforcement of decency laws in heterosexual “lovers’ leap” locations, is MEN having sex in public. It’s fine for a man and woman to have sex in a park, on the beach, parked in a car, etc. or, if law enforcement does show up, they’re asked to “move along”.
posted by BobN on
“It’s not different than stopping people from speeding”
Exactly! That’s why they’ll only arrest you for FAST sex!
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Patrick climbs into the gutter with this slimeball “Camaraderie is one thing Pat …. but the way they Stroke each other is rather revolting. MM – sometimes when you open your virtual sasshole I want to ask you if you can see if your prostate is enlarged. I am just calling it like I see it. Did I offended your frail sensibilities?”
No need to apologize “Patrick” –or whatever name you’re going by today… I’ve known gay conservatives who have the same kind of juvenile affection for trash-talking that you have seemingly been fast to acquire.
I think you were trying to lodge a complaint against sting operations? Oppps, my bad, that was bigRichard. You’re “Patrick”.
posted by DUMP on
mm: “I’ve known gay conservatives who have the same kind of juvenile affection for trash-talking that you have seemingly been fast to acquire.”
*Hands Matt a mirror*
Still waiting for proof of your claims of Rev Wright’s homophobia, Matt.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
DUMP/CharlesWilson… not a problem.
http://independentgayforum.com/news/show/31568.html#18185
Of course, don’t let reason and insurmountable evidence get in the way of your job as a partisan hack, DUMP.
BTW, DUMP, those lines you quote above are intended for your new gutter-buddy, Patrick. But they work for you, as well.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
RichardII asks: “As for the apparent pissing match among a few posters here. It would seem that gay partisans — in both parties — can be uncivil and often do so in a passionate defense of their own political beliefs and affiliations.”
Now, RichardII, are you still operating under the illusion that anyone here thinks you are anything but a gayDemocrat?
You gotta be joking, RichardII. I think that sheep’s wool slipped off the ol’ gayDemocrat wolf a few too many times for anyone here to think you can claim being an Independent or non-partisan.
Right?
And it’s perfectly appropriate to question bigRichard’s lofty and pretty words about being anti-police when it comes to public sex sting operations… just like it’s ok to question liberals when they SAY they support the troops but nothing in the liberal past can prove that fact. Support the troops, you HAVE to support the mission. The WOT is about preserving our American Way of Life and securing the Homeland; not about liberals feeling good and emoting sufficiently to gain European assent.
It’s perfectly ok to question liberals on their policy notions –wasn’t that what liberals have been saying in reverse whenever they try to undercut troop morale, or growing American support for the WOT, or try to consult with our enemies?
posted by DUMP on
Well Matt, I read your response and it is filled with your typical unsourced slander. Why are you unable to provide homophobic quotes from Rev Wright? If you have enough information to state (lie) that Rev Wright is a homophobe why are you unwilling to share it? You are lying, Matt. Everyone here know it. LULZ
posted by Richard II on
“Now, RichardII, are you still operating under the illusion that anyone here thinks you are anything but a gay Democrat?”
I am an Independent. What lies other people may chose to spin, is their own problem.
You are a gay partisan hack, who cares much more about promoting his party, then gay rights or — apparently — the United States.
posted by Patrick on
“You are a gay partisan hack, who cares much more about promoting his party, then gay rights or — apparently — the United States.”
More like a meat puppet than a hack(for a party with a base that barely tolerates his money).
posted by Bobby on
BobN, you said:
“public”. The issue, as is apparent from the non-enforcement of decency laws in heterosexual “lovers’ leap” locations,”
—Are you 100% sure that straight people never ever get in trouble for public sexual activity? I really doubt that. If a cop sees a man and a woman in a car having sex, he is free to assume that the woman is a prostitute and they’ll both be arrested.
Besides, they have the decency of having sex in a car at night. Where’s the decency of gays making passes at men in public bathrooms? Where’s the decency of gays having sex in the bushes?
Besides, why should we have any sympathy for gays who have sex in public? What good are they doing for our community? It is one thing to fight for free speech, the right to bear arms, the right to privacy, but I don’t see a right to have sex in public unless it’s your own backyard and your neighbors can’t see.
posted by BobN on
Bobby, my point, insofar as I have a point, is that law enforcement looks the other way in the case of Lovers’ leap locations. Or, if they don’t look the other way and DO enforce decency laws, it’s rarely done with the heavy-handed approach applied to gay men. When is the last time you heard of a police crackdown on straight couples, complete with arrests, mugshots, newspaper articles identifying the perps, etc.?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
DUMP, I’ve cited two specific sermons of Rev Wright’s for you as well as three of his more controversial articles/writings in TUCC’s magazine (which Wright was the “editor-in-chief” for 11 years) that contain more of his hatefilled, anti-gay, homophobic rantings.
That’s not good enough for you. That’s not proof enough for you because you can’t take off those gayLeft, gayDemocrat blinders even tho’ your man has tossed the Rev under the ObamaBus.
Did you read those articles? Did you view those videos before TUCC pulled them from the net? Frankly, one can understand why TUCC leaders would pull those videos and articles -they were very damning.
I really must take a mooment and encourage you –once again– to stop calling everyone a liar. It nearly got you banned from IGF once; the stunt has gotten you blocked at many other sites as well.
BTW, when are you going to admit your REAL identity, DUMP? A number of posters here have tagged you as the viciously antagonistic Charles Wilson due to your use of the same syntax, same phrases, same hatefilled angry gay words… time to quit calling everyone else a liar and come into the light, Charles Wilson.
Or is it the shame you feel from being banned and blocked and blacklisted at more than 10 sites for your hate-filled, unfounded personal attacks?
You almost got banned and deleted from the IGF blog until you changed your cyber name –once again. How many blocked names do you have now? 12? 13? 14? We’ve lost track.