That's not something to brag about since he's at best right for the wrong reasons. I'm sure no one needs to be told why knowing who your accuser could be a bad idea.
If you do agree, can you explain what you think happens to kids when they see people having sex? I'm sincerely curious.
Course, my solution would be to swing the pendulum to the opposite extreme, which isn't popular for some reason... Hey kids!! Uncle De Sade says....
The cops did that but when they asked for ID the actress acted belligerent and refused to show it. What should they have done at that point?
It is quite amusing as it seems to be the same people every time. And when there is more to the story that contradicts their false conclusions they tend to either disappear or argue that their initial misconception was somehow justified.
Why so they can go to their accuser's location and confront them? Good luck getting ANY information about crimes with that policy. Which is exactly what these cops were trying to do. Actually in many states you do need ID to vote as well as to do pretty much anything else like buy cigarettes,alcohal or open a checking account. So to recap you think no one should be forced to show ID to cops AND cops should divulge every single eye witness or "accuser" to potential suspects. Crimes would almost never be solved with those set of rules.
Lot of variables there. A toddler's initial reaction will be "Mommy, why is that man hurting that lady?" Now, if Mommy has explained the facts prior to this - at a level the child can understand - she can say something like "He's not hurting her; they're having fun," and answer the 100 questions that will follow. If Mommy's a prude, she'll yank the kid away and either issue a lecture about sin or say "Never mind! Get in the car!" and leave the kid with 100 unanswered questions and the potential for some very damaging ideas about sexuality. If the kid is old enough to understand what's taking place and has been given sufficient information not to think "that man's hurting that lady," Mom might (if it's her belief) say something along the line of "IMO, that's something that people should do in private" and be open to follow-up questions, in which case it's all good.
Anna you going to let your future kids watch porn? What are you going to do if some man is standing in his yard naked, not doing anything but standing, across form your house? Oh that's right... like any other American you're going to freak out and demand he be arrested so you but your kids specifically aren't messed up. Are you going to let your kids watch violent movies? Legal but I personally would not want my kid watching say SAW 1-whatever the fuck they are on now........ Every kid is different to be sure but it's still something they don't need to be dealing with until their older.
Thank you. So is any of those versions a crime perpetrated by the couple against the kid? It seems to me the only bad outcome hinges on a stance from the mother that will likely lead to that same outcome without the sex scene ever entering into that kid's life.
Specifically against the kid? No. But the laws are on the books, and people need to be aware of them. Part of the frisson of having sex in public is the risk of getting caught. So if you do get caught, don't whine about it.
That's one thing I hate about criminals or people doing things they know are wrong. You got caught. Man up and deal with it. You'd be amazed at the whiners in jail who cry over being in jail. You did the crime why are you crying? You can see this on Youtube with the sentence hearings for criminals. It's laughable. You killed two people why the hell are you crying that you got a life sentence?
A bad law is a bad law. Being convicted for violating it is not the same as being convicted for multiple murders.
I doubt he's saying they're equivalent. The thing you have to remember is that much of the U.S. was settled in large part by Puritans. Much of our law still reflects that.
The problem is that sex in public is only protected as free speech. But performance artists need to get permits. How can the cop tell whether she had a permit without seeing identification?
Hadn't thought of that, but wouldn't it be funny if part of the concern was "Hey, you people need a permit for that! You're cheating the county out of much-needed revenue!"?
True but that's not the point I'm making. I'm just saying it's funny to watch people who know they've done wrong then act outraged when they get called on it.
There may also be a public health angle. Sex in public is usually not a good idea, regardless of morals.
Is there a first world country on Earth in which sex in public would NOT get a visit from the authorities? This tangent is, to me, utterly ludicrous. Sex in public is vile and offensive to most people. This isn't even controversial.
Who has ever heard of a vile and offensive German? Nobody! Who has any proof there have ever been any vile and offensive Germans? No one! Seriously, though, sex in public would be fun if it weren't for all of those judging eyes. Perverted eyes I could handle, but judging eyes? No, because they judge.
Religious based revulsion of sex doesn't even make any fucking sense anymore. That's the sad part. It made sense, even if an evil kind of sense, in the ancient times, where every fuck had to make a kid, and every marriage was a political/financial arrangement between two fathers-in-law, and sanctified by a religious patriarch in a stupid fucking hat. It was totalitarian control of people, and eugenics, and politics. It's awful, but it has a logic. You take that, and every form of liberation from that, had to be branded as evil, and through the generations, indoctrination gave people a primal gut-reaction against sexual openness, because they really thought the fucking boogeyman was coming. It makes sense. And families like the Phelpses, large unenlightened miserable chunks of the middle east, it still makes sense, because they're still like that. Hell, even families like the Duggars, they put their creepy little Pat Boon-ish grins on, and they're non-violent about it, ehhh....that's the shit they believe though. But, if you're a modern person, doesn't go to church, doesn't read the Bible, is just a watered down Christmas-Christian, believes in women having control of their body, and of their money, believes in birth control, intellectually believes in there being nothing shameful about the human body....what's the problem? What's the fucking problem? It can only be leftover hangups from childhood bullshit. But, people don't like to be confronted with that. They give you a bunch of gut-reactions, they give you a bunch of self-justifying bullshit to evade cognitive dissonance, or they just clam up and run away like Dayton from an enlistment form. But, brute fact is, intellectually, there's nothing there. Nothing. Hangups, and fear. Cowardice. And the cowardice to even admit it's cowardice. Dissonance prevention. That's it. It's all you've got, prudes. It's all you've got. If your position had intellectual heft, you would have wielded it by now, folks. It's not coming. I ain't waiting for it.
It's not as if it's common, but sex in public is not in itself against the law here. Creating a public nuisance is, and sex in public can of course very likely lead to that. But you need to show that that's actually what happened. A year or two ago, there was the case of a couple who had snuck into a church, and were only found afterwards, quite prepared to admit what they did; this could not lead to a conviction, since they hand't been a nuisance to anyone. Over in flow's Munich thread, I said that the nude areas of the Englische Garten in Munich are not all that noteworthy. Considering the reactions in this thread, he might better check for himself what he finds worth noting. And I do know that sex in public isn't generally accepted, but it still seems to me to be a victimless crime -- many victimless crimes are generally condemned and illegal. That doesn't make those rules sane or productive, it just means that they exist. While I have no desire to see people mating in public, the idea is much less offensive to me that people getting raving drunk in public, and that happens regularly. There is no law that says I must never be offended. And of course, both sex and public can be vague terms. As for sex, I was once confronted by an elderly lady in New York who felt that the way my fiancée and I kissed on the street was offensive; that would never have occurred to anyone over here, but we learned our lesson. And as for public, the couple in this tsory were apparently in their car. That's not as private as things can be, but there is an element of "so don't look if it bothers you!" that comes to mind.
But how does it become a public nuisance? When it is observed. So from a practical standpoint, the law in Germany is the same.
Only if mere observation unfailingly leads to an actual nuisance, which would only be the case if conventions were similarly puritanical, which they're not. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who'd think that if a passer-by was watching a couple in a car getting it on, the indecency would be in the voyeur. But I'm not really that interested in whether the law is different in Germany, I only went into that because you asked. I'm much more interested in what the law should be, especially for those of us who agree that victimless crimes should not be considered crimes at all.
