Should fucking in public be legalised?
August 31st 2006 23:56
At the end of "Risky Business", Rebecca de Mornay takes the young Tom Cruise on a train, rides around the city, and fucks him.
Did you think they should be locked up?
The argument for legalising public fucking
Many (I among them) would reason as follows: "That couple in the bushes over there are just enjoying themselves. I can understand what their kick is, I can understand the urgency of the desire. It's a bit harsh that they're arrested, made to stand in court, fined, imprisoned. They didn't hurt anyone, and they didn't do anything immoral."
The essence of this thought is Mill's "harm principle" from On Liberty:
"The only principle for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
The argument against
You don't have to accept the harm principle in the first place.
But if you do, and if you're still against legalising fucking in public, what sort of harm do you think it causes?
Here's three candidates:
-- 1. Direct harm. Fucking in public might distract drivers and cause accidents. And it might be unhygienic, like public urination.
-- 2. Think about the children.
-- 3. Taking the mass out of the cathedral devalues the mass. It's less sacred, less secret, less mysterious. And taking fucking out of the bedroom devalues the fucking.
I personally don't find these three issues persuasive:
-- 1. Yes, there are times where it could cause direct harm. But aren't these about qualifying fucking in public, not banning it completely?
-- 2. Are children in fact psychologically harmed? After all, fucking is a natural act, and everyone's born to do it. Are children warped by seeing adults eating or sleeping?
-- 3. It's not clear that sex should be safe from being devalued. It's not clear that public fucking does devalue sex. And even if one concedes that public fucking would devalue sex and that sex shouldn't be devalued, it's not clear that changing people's attitudes counts as a violation of the harm principle.
There's more to be said about these arguments. But I want to skip ahead to what I think is the most interesting objection.
Offence
Some people will be offended by public fucking. Isn't there direct mental harm to these people?
The answer, I think, is yes. Mental distress should count as a violation of the harm principle. Mill would have disapproved of public fucking on this basis. "Again, there are many acts which, being directly injurious only to the agents themselves, ought not to be legally interdicted, but which, if done publicly, are a violation of good manners, and coming thus within the category of offences against others, may rightfully be prohibited. Of this kind are offences against decency".
(Most freedoms impinge on other freedoms. Sometimes in terms of directly affecting "freedom not to" -- "freedom not to see fucking in public". Sometimes in terms of changing the lived environment -- the introduction of automobiles gradually led to necessity to buy them; you were no longer free not to.)
So the question for fuckers in public is not so much whether it doesn't cause harm. It does. It's whether their interest outweighs the non-fuckers' interest.
And here's four reasons it might be thought to outweigh:
-- 1. Because the majority don't see anything wrong in it, and would be more offended by locking someone up for public fucking than by the act itself.
-- 2. Because being offended by public fucking is "silly" -- an illegitimate, unfair preference. If I'm offended by people wearing hats, do I have a right to stop people wearing hats?
-- 3. Because it is in the interests of society, in the long run, to allow freedom to offend. Perhaps the main reason is this: we must always hold ideas and practices open to revision. This is obvious in the case of ideas -- we shouldn't censor the atheists in a religious country, nor the religious in an atheist country. But isn't it also true of practices? If a practice that doesn't necessitate physical harm is banned, point blank, then we will never have the opportunity of experiencing it, testing it, and seeing whether it's good after all.
-- 4. Because the interest of others in not being offended does not outweigh the right of the individual to pursue their own happiness. Again, a quote from Mill: "Wherever the Puritans have been sufficiently powerful… they have endeavoured, with considerable success, to put down all public, and nearly all private, amusements: especially music, dancing, public games, or other assemblages for purposes of diversion, and the theatre…How will the remaining portion of the community like to have the amusements that shall be permitted to them regulated… Would they not, with considerable peremptoriness, desire these intrusively pious members of society to mind their own business? This is precisely what should be said to every government and every public, who have the pretension that no person shall enjoy any pleasure which they think wrong."
Final thought
What these arguments in effect amount to are not only arguments for the legalisation of fucking in public, but arguments against any offensive conduct laws whatsoever. Chas should not have been arrested for selling supporter kits to Bulldogs fans.
However, there are situations where freedoms of speech and action lead to violence. And, under these circumstances, perhaps restriction is justifiable. Perhaps anti-racial vilification laws would have been appropriate in 1930s Germany.
Returning to Mill one more time, he himself thought that, just as children should have their liberty limited until maturity, thus for an immature race. "Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement, and the means justified by actually effecting that end. Liberty, as a principle, has no application to any state of things anterior to the time when mankind have become capable of being improved by free and equal discussion. Until then, there is nothing for them but implicit obedience to an Akbar or a Charlemagne, if they are so fortunate as to find one."
But are we in such a state of barbarism?
References
John Bentley has also argued for legalisation of public fucking. I seem to remember (haven't read the article recently) that among his arguments is the idea that any repression of sexuality is undesirable, and a cause of harm to the individual. I wouldn't try to mount this argument myself, because I don't picture sexuality as a spring whose flow can be staunched. I rather think of it as created by one's social and legal environment.
There are some thoughts on problems with obscenity laws at Wikipedia.
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article John Stuart Mill.
The second picture came from this webpage and the third from this. They are used for the purposes of commentary.
Notes
-- Thursday 14 February 2008: -- Danny Frederick in a message to Chora (4/2/08) observes: "[D]oes [Mill's principle] mean that [] two lovebirds should be prevented from getting together because of the negative impact on [a third party's] feelings? No one outside of a madhouse would think so. The only way this sort of principle can work, it seems to me, is if it is stated in terms of rights: do whatever you like, so long as you do not infringe the rights of others. That then comprises: inflict what harms you like, so long as you do not infringe anyone's rights."
In fairness to Mill, his principle doesn't want to prevent all injury (have a look at the quote at the start of this article). But Frederick's comment is a useful reminder: (a) of how many of our actions have harmful effects; and (b) of how unuseful Mill's idea might be in practice -- for by itself it simply states the grounds on which one might purport to interfere with liberty, but it gives little guidance as to what sort of injury to others can be tolerated.
Did you think they should be locked up?
The argument for legalising public fucking
Many (I among them) would reason as follows: "That couple in the bushes over there are just enjoying themselves. I can understand what their kick is, I can understand the urgency of the desire. It's a bit harsh that they're arrested, made to stand in court, fined, imprisoned. They didn't hurt anyone, and they didn't do anything immoral."
The essence of this thought is Mill's "harm principle" from On Liberty:
"The only principle for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
The face of liberty
The argument against
You don't have to accept the harm principle in the first place.
But if you do, and if you're still against legalising fucking in public, what sort of harm do you think it causes?
Here's three candidates:
-- 1. Direct harm. Fucking in public might distract drivers and cause accidents. And it might be unhygienic, like public urination.
-- 2. Think about the children.
-- 3. Taking the mass out of the cathedral devalues the mass. It's less sacred, less secret, less mysterious. And taking fucking out of the bedroom devalues the fucking.
I personally don't find these three issues persuasive:
-- 1. Yes, there are times where it could cause direct harm. But aren't these about qualifying fucking in public, not banning it completely?
-- 2. Are children in fact psychologically harmed? After all, fucking is a natural act, and everyone's born to do it. Are children warped by seeing adults eating or sleeping?
-- 3. It's not clear that sex should be safe from being devalued. It's not clear that public fucking does devalue sex. And even if one concedes that public fucking would devalue sex and that sex shouldn't be devalued, it's not clear that changing people's attitudes counts as a violation of the harm principle.
There's more to be said about these arguments. But I want to skip ahead to what I think is the most interesting objection.
Offence
Some people will be offended by public fucking. Isn't there direct mental harm to these people?
The answer, I think, is yes. Mental distress should count as a violation of the harm principle. Mill would have disapproved of public fucking on this basis. "Again, there are many acts which, being directly injurious only to the agents themselves, ought not to be legally interdicted, but which, if done publicly, are a violation of good manners, and coming thus within the category of offences against others, may rightfully be prohibited. Of this kind are offences against decency".
(Most freedoms impinge on other freedoms. Sometimes in terms of directly affecting "freedom not to" -- "freedom not to see fucking in public". Sometimes in terms of changing the lived environment -- the introduction of automobiles gradually led to necessity to buy them; you were no longer free not to.)
So the question for fuckers in public is not so much whether it doesn't cause harm. It does. It's whether their interest outweighs the non-fuckers' interest.
And here's four reasons it might be thought to outweigh:
-- 1. Because the majority don't see anything wrong in it, and would be more offended by locking someone up for public fucking than by the act itself.
-- 2. Because being offended by public fucking is "silly" -- an illegitimate, unfair preference. If I'm offended by people wearing hats, do I have a right to stop people wearing hats?
A book that will corrupt the young
-- 4. Because the interest of others in not being offended does not outweigh the right of the individual to pursue their own happiness. Again, a quote from Mill: "Wherever the Puritans have been sufficiently powerful… they have endeavoured, with considerable success, to put down all public, and nearly all private, amusements: especially music, dancing, public games, or other assemblages for purposes of diversion, and the theatre…How will the remaining portion of the community like to have the amusements that shall be permitted to them regulated… Would they not, with considerable peremptoriness, desire these intrusively pious members of society to mind their own business? This is precisely what should be said to every government and every public, who have the pretension that no person shall enjoy any pleasure which they think wrong."
Final thought
An unnatural criminal outrage. Both heinous and utterly inappropriate.
What these arguments in effect amount to are not only arguments for the legalisation of fucking in public, but arguments against any offensive conduct laws whatsoever. Chas should not have been arrested for selling supporter kits to Bulldogs fans.
However, there are situations where freedoms of speech and action lead to violence. And, under these circumstances, perhaps restriction is justifiable. Perhaps anti-racial vilification laws would have been appropriate in 1930s Germany.
Returning to Mill one more time, he himself thought that, just as children should have their liberty limited until maturity, thus for an immature race. "Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement, and the means justified by actually effecting that end. Liberty, as a principle, has no application to any state of things anterior to the time when mankind have become capable of being improved by free and equal discussion. Until then, there is nothing for them but implicit obedience to an Akbar or a Charlemagne, if they are so fortunate as to find one."
But are we in such a state of barbarism?
References
John Bentley has also argued for legalisation of public fucking. I seem to remember (haven't read the article recently) that among his arguments is the idea that any repression of sexuality is undesirable, and a cause of harm to the individual. I wouldn't try to mount this argument myself, because I don't picture sexuality as a spring whose flow can be staunched. I rather think of it as created by one's social and legal environment.
There are some thoughts on problems with obscenity laws at Wikipedia.
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article John Stuart Mill.
The second picture came from this webpage and the third from this. They are used for the purposes of commentary.
Notes
-- Thursday 14 February 2008: -- Danny Frederick in a message to Chora (4/2/08) observes: "[D]oes [Mill's principle] mean that [] two lovebirds should be prevented from getting together because of the negative impact on [a third party's] feelings? No one outside of a madhouse would think so. The only way this sort of principle can work, it seems to me, is if it is stated in terms of rights: do whatever you like, so long as you do not infringe the rights of others. That then comprises: inflict what harms you like, so long as you do not infringe anyone's rights."
In fairness to Mill, his principle doesn't want to prevent all injury (have a look at the quote at the start of this article). But Frederick's comment is a useful reminder: (a) of how many of our actions have harmful effects; and (b) of how unuseful Mill's idea might be in practice -- for by itself it simply states the grounds on which one might purport to interfere with liberty, but it gives little guidance as to what sort of injury to others can be tolerated.
| 247 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Comment by Clare
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
I haven't read what John's written for a while.
I guess I'm thinking... I'm shy about public speaking, but this is no real reason that other people shouldn't step up to the podium.
Comment by Clare
Comment by Anonymous
I fuck in public all the time.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Fight the good fight.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Well, I have to admit I'm not secure on that point. I mean, you might almost sorta kinda persuade me.
With an example like gruesome news footage -- say, of the Vietnam war or of people falling out of World Trade Towers -- I think maybe people shouldn't be subjected to it involuntarily.
But I keep coming back to Mill-type examples. Spanish Roman Catholics were grossly offended by hearing any Protestant discourse. Protestants were grossly offended by hearing Islamic talk. And, for these types of examples, I'd want to say that the offence/mental distress was not a good reason to censor.
I don't know how I'd reconcile this...
Thanks for stuffing up my argument!
Comment by Justin
I'm studying political philosophy at the moment and should be reading Mill's "On Liberty" at the moment!
From Rosseau's point of view attaining to "the general will" it probably would not be considered appropriate and therefor not in the interests of the individual. As I understand it, though.
Only other thing I can add, and what you touched on, is of the social implications of it referring to children. It's considered OK and permissible and even obligatory to lie to children to protect them from certain things. Such would be for fucking in public. Would this give rise to devaluing sex in a way which becomes incidental, reactive and as publically displayed, unconcerning? From a socio-medical point of view this would inevitably lead to higher unwanted pregnancies, resurging STD's rates, strained complicated emotional issues and possibly detrimental to health and lifestyle.
Great topic.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
I'll defer to your knowledge of Rousseau (and of Freud). Haven't really read either.
Your think of the children topic is also a tricky one for me... I mean, personally, I think the consequences you mention -- STDs, emotional problems, unwanted pregnances -- are very unlikely. But I have to concede that the matter is an open one. That is, it's an empirical question, and can't really be decided from the armchair.
Similar problems are raised by pornography. Does pornography cause harmful attitudes to women? Well, you can't really decide that from the armchair either. You have to get out in the field and do some testing.
Comment by Justin
Sociology studies would be useful here to deduce if it's a good thing or not, but reflexively, sociology only studies us, so if we changed our opinion/idea then so too would the studies! Power to the people indeed.
Pornography (and a good topic in itself to write about) probably does cause harmful attitudes to women. If regulated preoperly it could minimise the attitude. On one hand it's wrapped up in sexual freedom/liberation of choosing your own destiny, getting paid for it and the control is moving more towards the subject rather than the company or employer. As far as I know.
But still, attitudes of some are always going to be tainted in a denigrating way towards women because of the practise..
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
I really don't know about pornography... It's my impression that "studies" (whatever they are) tend to be inconclusive.
If you're interested, Caroline West (from Sydney Uni) has written a good article on the whole topic.
Comment by JohnDoe
Film & TV on DVD
On the other hand, I dont think our cultural is in touch with nature or the natural order to the same degree, so I would not probably condone sex in public.
Just because I dont have a problem with it, I can certainly understand why in our hung up, sexually represssed, stigma riddled culture others would
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
One response to your comment is: If you agree that our culture is sexually repressed, stigma-riddled, etc, and if you think this is a bad thing, isn't it setting a bad precedent to encourage sexual repression and stigma?
Change has got to start somewhere.
Should gay people be kept out of sight to pander to the prejudices of the majority?
Comment by JohnDoe
Film & TV on DVD
A false perceived sexual ideal defines the majority (more than 50%) of the public.
Its all about a change of attitude that could just as easily see us living in the giant orgies of Ancient Rome.
The first step is not to make public sex legal. But rather to make public nudity legal. The human body is a beautiful thing that remains shrouded in mystery within our society. Violence is more accepted as human nature than walking around in your birthday suit.
I really dont think it would work, in a perfect world where people thought about others before themselves and had a sense of community, it might. But on this day, in this place, its along way off creating a positive
Comment by Anonymous
Come on people, we're talking civil liberties here!
Comment by BenP
Comment by RebeccaB
I must say that I agree with Clare. Sex should be kept private and a special experience between the people engaged in it. It's very depressing when you are having a great time with your partner and than you walk past a couple having sex in public and your partner suddenly ignores you while he's perving on the naked woman.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
BenP -- thanks for the comment! I think that the ideal political system, though an impossible one, is where you have perfect freedom -- freedom from government, laws, work, pressures of opinion. And, yep, freedom to fuck in public if you want to. To me, this seems quite obvious, though I know that it's not.
RebeccaB -- thanks for the feedback! I think you do have a point, but... Well, I guess what I'm searching for is how to arbitrate between the person who does value sex as much as you do, and the person who doesn't. What common ground can be found for persuading one or the other to change sides? In the worst case scenario, there might be no common ground...
I'm still searching anyway. And as to your partner suddenly ignoring you, my sexist attitude tends to be that guys and girls should be realists. Guys are going to look, and shouldn't pretend that they don't want to. Girls shouldn't expect guys to be something they're not. What do you reckon?
Non-BenP Anonymous (whose post seems to have disappeared now) -- thank you for taking the time to sign in and comment. You have said what a lot of people must be thinking. I suppose the two main things to say in reply are: (1) what's wrong with resorting to obscenity in order to gain attention? and (2) what's your own definition of philosophy?
Comment by Ross
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Firstly, it's Adrian (rather than Justin) who 's making this ridiculous argument (and I'm Adrian).
Secondly, when you write: "His argument are based on the fallacious assumption sexual intercourse is nothing but a pneumatic physical activity with no more moral significance than combing another's hair or massaging someone's shoulders."
-- I don't think my arguments need to assume this. I believe my arguments are compatible with your assumption, that sex is sacred.
And the reason is this. I can believe sex is sacred, but also believe that it should be up to the individual to make up their own minds on the matter.
It seems to me that you're arguing that since you hold particular beliefs, they should be imposed on other people -- and that's where we differ.
Comment by RebeccaB
To say that guys are just going to look is a fallacy. There is no reason why they have to look at other people when they can look at their own girlfriend. And to say that girls shouldn't expect guys to be something they're not, well I say that guys should learn to respect their girlfriend and not to constantly hurt her by doing something that they can control.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
What I mean is that girls shouldn't try to convince themselves that guys don't want to look. Ie one should take your partner as they are, rather than pretend that they're something they're not.
Comment by Anonymous
Hadn't you heard? Timing is of the essence!
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Responding to four ideas I'm teasing out from your message:
-- About love and lust, I think I'd want to say that a lot of lust does have self-control (people feel lust all the time without acting on it), and that some love does not (mad, passionate love might have no control).
-- I wouldn't want, also, to make self-control a necessary condition for respecting or not respecting something. I mean, I can respect iron will and discipline in itself, sure. But there's also something wonderful about mad, passionate, uncontrolled love.
-- Is self-control the essence of success? I'd be inclined to agree with you, though success surely comes about for many reasons, including pure luck and including lack of self-control as well.
-- The idea that one does better to keep all aspects of life in separate and traditional pockets (if I'm reading you right)... I think this is where I'd most disagree with you. If there's a time for everything, then isn't there a time for public sex as well?
Comment by Helen's House
I'm I'm glad people don't always act on lust. It's totally self-centred and really quite unsociable when you look at it closely - the imposition on someone else of personal requirement.
Love is never out of control. That doesn't mean it can't be mad, passionate etc. Just has to have the right circumstances which don't include exposing a woman to public viewing as a sex object.
As regards self-control and success - lack of self control is not the same as spontaneity. There's a world of difference. And luck is usually a consequence of something already set up. The physical laws of cause and effect are there in the psychological territory as well!
A time for public sex? A time for stealing? A time for murder? A time for hate? A time for lies? A time for child abuse? A time for unfaithfulness? A time for terrorism? A time for genocide? What else have you time for? I haven't that sort of time. I'm not trying to be rude to you here. Just putting the comment in context of where it might take you if you follow it to logical extremes.
There is definitely a time for clear boundaries.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Thank you again for your thoughtful comments! I want to respond to your ideas about lust and clear boundaries; I find these are the most thought-provoking ones.
-- When you use the word lust, do you use it with a capital L? Is it one of the deadly sins, so to speak? Or is it simply equivalent to sexual attraction? (Is there a difference?) And if the latter, are you dismissing all sexual attraction as a bad thing?
-- Regarding "time and a place for everything", I think it could be argued that there are extreme times for the evils you list. Are there not times when they are the lesser of two evils? For instance, war involves murder, war is an evil, but I think the Biblical passage the quote comes from mentions that there is a time to go to war.
But what I'm more interested in is what the phrase actually means. Does it simply mean that for every action, there is only a certain number of times and places where it may or should be taken? (So, for the action of having sex, the range of places excludes public venues.)
If this is what it means, there's two main questions I'd ask.
The first is on what basis the thought is justified. I mean, why should there be only a finite number of places and times for any action?
Secondly, how do you determine what the range of places and times is for any particular action? Are you suggesting, for instance, that this is simply a matter of custom?
Comment by Anonymous
First of all, if fucking in public is made legal, doesn't that mean public nudity shall be legalised as a consequence? I don't know about you, but I draw the line at giving people the freedom to strip bare and run around naked. Becuase of this, don't you think that the societies values will drop?
About children being offended, seriously, I don't want to explain to my 8 y/o brother why that man is sticking his pee pee into that woman just yet, for his own protection, learning about these things too soon may well cause problems when he grows up. Granted, at some point he will have to find out, and our biological make up tells us when this is, its when we hit puberty. Otherwise, why not just run through puberty while your still one year old?
Unforunately though, since society seems to be treating sex more and more as just a past-time or hobby like anything else as you show it, I suppose it has no sanctity anymore as an action between two people, and is now no more than just a physical interaction, penis in vagina, end of story so at the end of the day isn't it all about how you classify sex?
on a side note, assuming it is legalised, will a person have a right to watch the public display and masturbate? In the united states recently someone was masturbating over a woman on a subway train, got his picture on the internet and got arrested, but he went out of his way to do that. What if someone gets an erection from seeing two people having sex on a train? Does that give the fuckers a right to sue? I can see it in court 'oh, we were having sex on the train as is our legal right, then that guy got an erection because he was looking at us'.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Lots to say in reply!
Firstly, I wouldn't feel entirely comfortable if some guy followed me around and masturbated, and there are hygiene issues with public masturbation, but as long as it's kept sanitary, I couldn't consistently ban it.
Secondly, I personally don't find anything objectionable, per se, in nakedness. Male nudity is more confronting to me than female, and the female body more aesthetic than the male, but I don't think my own prejudices should be a reason for other people to cover up.
For what it's worth (I'm not sure what it amounts to), here's a thought from the John Bentley I cite in the article. He notes that, in Islamic countries, women must cover themselves completely, but if such a rule were enforced in our society, people would be up in arms, would view it as gross repression. Standards of dress change over time; what one generation views as obscene another views as perfectly natural. And the trend does seem to be towards a clothing optional society. Perhaps future generations will look with horror on our banning of public nudity.
Your comment about a possible correlation between nudity and public values is an important one. I'd agree with you that if nudity promoted violence and other crimes, that might be a reason to rethink allowing it. But where we might differ is in how plausible we think this is. I personally don't think it's plausible at all; I don't see the relation between amount of skin and crime. It's my impression that there are still values, and strong values, in societies where nudity is commonplace; in fact, I have the feeling that the rules of conduct in such societies are in some ways more rigid and repressive than ours.
Thirdly, I'd attempt to answer the question about children in a similar fashion. I personally don't think children need to be protected, or that any problems could be caused. But the question is an empirical one, so I can't presume to have a definite answer. I do suspect, though, that your eight-year-old brother already masturbates and already knows why that man is sticking his pee pee into that woman.
Fourthly, you write "so at the end of the day isn't it all about how you classify sex?" Well, I guess my basic position is that legalizing it gives people the opportunity to make up their own minds on the matter, whereas criminalizing it imposes a point of view. The same thing could be said with many practices that particular cultures ban -- eg eating pork.
I wouldn't want to make murder optional -- I wouldn't want to leave it to people to make up their own minds. But public sex just doesn't seem to me to directly harm anyone.
Comment by Anonymous
Well islamic society runs off a religion rather than acceptable beliefes people will come to through free thinking. I'm not saying this is entirely wrong, but its not entirely right either, but because of this difference you can't really (fairly) compare their dress-codes and fashion evolutions to ours.
I think nudity can in fact spark crime, to be specific, rape. I don't know exactly what goes on in the mind of a rapist but I think it will have something to do with physical attraction, so what better way than a fully naked woman ready for the taking? Throw in a couple of beers, narcotics etc, and the crime can easily happen. They aleady have rapes in parties, drinks are rife, heck, the women are dressed well enough, but it doesn't stop the man from taking her underwear off and raping them once they pass out, take their clothes off and its added insentive. Maybe the person won't mind strutting her stuff, but she also doesn't know of what might happen because of it.
In either case, in this society of ours, we need pockets. So next thing people will be sticking credit cards up their arses?
My 8y/o brother as I write this is playing a racing game while talking to the computer, like girls do with dolls. I don't see said girls stripping barby bare and getting her to give a blow job to her boyfriend (was it Kenny?). I seriously doubt he looks at women and masturbates in bed, maybe when he's 10 to 13 and has the physical capability to ejaculate he might start (as much as I doubt it).
Wouldn't you say that public sex harms a societies moral values? Wouldn't all these elements eventually lead to a wip lash of negativity as public sex starts opening up new moral gaps?
On top of that, lots of people find nudity in public offesnive, and perhaps this moral belief is no more than just an accepted norm, and perhaps you are correct in saying that sex is no more than a physical interaction between two beings, perhaps theres love involved, but even that intimacy shouldn't stop them from doing it in the public. I have to admit you are right though, it is no more than a physical interaction that doesn't harm anyone else. Yet, wouldn't you think, what seperates ourselves from Animals is that we have the ability to think for ourselves? Wear clothes? Hold moral values that we through our own free thinking have created? Whats the point of it all, our abiliity to think if its just going to take us down to behaving more and more like animals?
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
About your brother, I'm going to research this if I remember to.
You make a good point when you say that nudity could spark crime. I think I'd have to concede this.
But I'd also add that carrying Prada bags around, or driving sportscars, can spark crime, and this doesn't mean we should outlaw Prada bags and sportcars. We view it as up to the individual, in these sorts of cases, to take responsibility for risk.
Rapists will always blame their victims -- "She was wearing a short skirt. She was just asking for it." But surely we don't agree with the rapist and blame the victim? Surely we think that people should be free to dress in short skirts if they please?
And if we're going to allow revealing clothing, then why not allow nudity?
Credit cards: Nudists actually face this problem not infrequently. I think they carry their keys, cards, money, phones in pouches, wristbands, even gun holsters, or they designate a bag bitch. But I'm not suggesting that we make nudity compulsory! I just want to say that it should be optional… Some of the time anyway. I'd want there to be some restrictions.
Offence: You're right that some people find public sex and nudity offensive, and that this is a reason not to do it. But I'd argue that that interest is outweighed by other interests. (The last section of my article was about this.)
Animals: Not everything that animals do is wrong. Animals also eat and sleep, and animals have bonds of love and care. I think we should mimic animals when they're right, and ignore them when they're wrong. But couldn't public nudity and sex be among the times when they're right?
Will public sex harm a society's morals?
Well, it depends on what those morals are. I mean, there's all sorts of moral systems, right? There's religions. There's everyday cultural beliefs about shoulds and should nots. And there are ethical systems like utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, contract ethics.
Unless your moral system specifically rules out public sex (as religions might), I don't see why having sex in public makes you an immoral person, or makes other people immoral. Is the public fucker likely to be a thief or a murderer? And is there any reason you can't have public sex, and then go donate to charity, or protest against a war?
You suggest that we should hold moral values that we through our own free thinking have created. This is what distinguishes our secular society both from religious societies, and from non-human animals -- a capacity to reflect rationally, and come to a conclusion that's not based on dogma or tradition (like the religious society), or habit and instinct (like non-human animals).
But couldn't rational reflection lead you to allowing public nudity and public sex? I mean, all my claims are rational claims, right? -- they're based on argument, and not simply on assertion or tradition.
Comment by Cibbuano
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Comment by Cibbuano
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
Will it cause more crime? I think our society will always have the same amount of crime, regardless of what laws we pass.
After all, do Australian beaches cause crime? There are many women that sunbathe topless, and in that environment, it seems perfectly natural...
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
The beach is one environment. But I think there's plenty of dark alleys, etc. where wearing revealing clothes could be dangerous.
Of course, I wouldn't ban nudity because of the possible danger (it's up to the individual to take the risk), and I don't think that nudists themselves are more likely than other people to have been morally eroded into criminality.
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Certainly, my intention was partly to entertain. But even if the word "fucking" is sensationalistic, I don't think my treatment of the issue was. I spent hours and hours thinking about it and writing it; I usually spend a couple of hours on all my posts.
And what other taboo area could I have picked on that would test the limits of liberty without being open to the accusation "That's just smut"?
Perhaps I could invite you to expand on your views. What is your definition of philosophy? And is there not a philosophy of sex?
Comment by Anonymous
No, we shouldn't throw people in jail for having sex in public. People should have the decency not to subject other human beings to their interests and desires.
We live in world with laws and boundaries created to protect everyone, not just a few. Just because you can't have sex in public doesn't mean you're being denied the right to have sex.
If you want other people to view your sex life, get a web cam. That way only people who actually WANT and CHOOSE to watch are actually doing that.
Comment by RebeccaB
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Your comment is especially useful in its expression of a different position from the above posters -- that public sex should be legalised, but is undesirable.
Where you made my mind ramble to is:
Why do people avoid PDAs in general? I think you're right that they should take other people's possible offence and embarrassment into consideration, but I'm skeptical that they do. What stops them is shame, rather than any thoughts about subjecting other people to unwelcome sights.
Comment by Anonymous
Well, perhaps infants like the feeling of touching on their genitals, they also like being tickled on the stomach, I don't like to compare an infants laughter from tickling to some deeper sexual urge the infant has, wouldn't this just allow pedophiles reasons for their sick sexual desires?
True that wearing such and such that seems expensive may make you the target of crime, but to that end shouldn't we just reflect on the fact that sexual crimes aren't like other crimes. They go down to one of our most basic instincts to want to mate with another person, and its persuasive power is far more controlling than... say robbing a rolex wearing millionaire. It can cause a loss of self control, to try and deny that is denying of our basic thoughts, we as humans want sex probably more than anything else in the world. Its a very powreful desire, people lose control over it.
No one is offended by you wearing such and such. I don't mind to see someone decked out in the latest fashion, but I don't like seeing someone strutting his/her stuff, and lots of people see it as obscene, this is part of where our free thinking has led us, away from Animals, not towards. If we are going to, by our so-called free thinking, start thinking about behaving more and more like animals it completely defies the point of why we can call ourselves humans. Granted some animals do things humans do but its all in the basic idea of self survival, they do it out of instinct, they eat, they mate (in a variety of ways), and they do everything else neccesary to survive. Wearing clothes isn't one of them. Is it for humans? Well, yes, we'll get skin cancer from the sun if we didn't, or get sick from being exposed to other elements so we dress up. THis leads us to the fact that we are now human and have progressed so far, so now, do you expect us to start thinking of why we cant do things that for thousands of years we haven't done?
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Re pedophilia, I'll have to write another smut-not-real-philosophy post on this some time. Certainly there are interesting questions here, including how to fix age of consent, and including when children develop sexual desires. Personally, I think that you shouldn't make the wrongness of pedophilia dependent on whether children do have sexual desires. If this is your position, what if I could prove to you that children have sexual desires. Would you then think that pedophilia is permissible?
About clothing. Should J Lo be allowed to wear a dress like this? --
Because to me, the dress is not far short of nudity. And it's probably more erotic than nudity.
Should people be alllowed to walk down the street dressed in boob tubes and hot pants? How does one draw the line?
About animals... I honestly just think that what animals do and don't do is irrelevant. I mean, we should make up our own minds about what is good and bad, right and wrong, and I don't understand why the process of making up our minds should take what animals do into account. Sometimes the conclusions we come to will coincide with what animals do, and sometimes the conclusions will differ. But surely what animals do is irrelevant for the decision-making process itself?
Comment by Anonymous
Children don't have sexual desires, quite the oppossite, they start developing it at some point, but the only proof so far is infants gigling when you tickle them on their pubic regions, they are barely conscience of their own existence and will react physically to situations as their body on a basic level expects. Tickle, and laugh. Hell, maybe my 8y/o brother desires women, he also says 'yuck' out loud when he sees them half naked on TV, thats sure saying something abotu his desires.
I don't agree on someone wearing clothes nearing nudity, in fact I have far less sympathy for them if they are the victims of sexual crimes, like someone who leaves his wallet sitting openly on a seat next to him on a bus or train.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Just on the child sex issue...
You provoked my curiosity enough to make me do a cursory net search. Found among other things a Swedish study on childhood sexuality, and a Wikipedia article.
What I wanted was to identify what sexual behaviours start at what ages. But all of the studies seem to be very inconclusive -- partly because it's the sort of field that is ethically difficult to research. In particular, there was very little talk about specific ages.
My main impression is that most children are not that sexual until age 6, and they tend to get more sexual from age 8 onwards.
Two quotes from the Swedish paper:
"[A] study was carried out on the sexual behaviour of preschool children at nurseries in an average Swedish municipality (Larsson, 1994; Lindblad, Gustafsson, Larsson & Lundin, 1995). The staff caring for 251 children aged two to six of both sexes observed the children’s behaviour and then answered a questionnaire on the behaviours they had observed… A total of 6% of the children had at some time been seen to masturbate and this usually occurred during rests… Some other behaviours were very uncommon (< 1%), for example, children inserting objects in their own anus or vagina or that of another child, as well as attempting to touch the sexual organs of staff. Less than 3% of the children in the study had been observed initiating explicit sex play with other children, while 6% could be drawn into such games by another child. The conclusion of the study is that sexual behaviours described as common in children exposed to sexual abuse are uncommon in an ordinary preschool population."
"In an American study by Haugaard & Tilly (1988) 42% of the 1,700 students questioned of both sexes had had some sexual experience with another child before puberty. Kissing and hugging was most common as well as looking at each other’s sexual organs. Lamb & Coakley (1993) asked female students and found that 85% had been involved in sex play, often with some type of genital touching. Just under half had played with someone of the opposite sex and the experiences they remembered were usually from the age of about eight. The games normally took place together with a friend, who in the majority of cases was around the same age. A large number of the women also stated that the experience was arousing or exciting. A Swedish study for which only preliminary results are available so far (Larsson, Lindell & Svedin, in progress) asked 269 students in the final year of upper secondary school about their experience of sexuality before puberty. 83% of all respondents answered that they had had some form of sexual experience involving touching themselves, while almost as many, 82%, had taken part in such activities with one or more friends. The most common behaviour was exploring the sexual organs and self-stimulation. Together with friends the most common behaviours were love games involving kissing and hugging, talking about sex and looking at and examining each other’s sexual organs. When asked whether any adult had known about the game at the time, one in seven answered that this was the case while one in three were uncertain and just over half answered no. From age 11 onwards it was quite common among the boys to watch pornographic films or look at pornographic magazines together."
Comment by Cinico
Small Business Scope
Comment by Anonymous
If anything the research supports the view that it is premature exposure to sex that creates these behaviours within children, and is especially prevalent among ones who have been exposed to explicit sex.
Boys looking at pornographic material, well boys will be boys they always find trouble for themselves. Yes, they might find appeal within the pictures, but till there body has biologically hit that level where you can safely know they fully udnerstand the idea of sex both on a physical and psychological level which consequently coincides with their maturity at puberty, only then can you safely not damage a childs growth.
Some of the reasearch sounds rather silly, children attempting to grab the sexual organs of staff is ridiculous, we are tlaking about nursery school kids, these kids still put their toys in their mouths for crying out loud, so what if a care taker grabs a child and he grabs her breast? Its the same as if he would grab her nose, her etc. We don't do it mind you, for obvious reasons, and when kids do it its fine, they are just kids after all, are we to assume that if kids like to put chalk in their mouths they are going to develop a drug addiction when they grow up? Of course not, its just what they do, and its wrong for us to accuse them of being sexually persuasive.
Kissing, hugging etc between kids is probably fairly basic left over emotions from parents and perhaps to ahigher degree from the media they are exposed to. THey learn from their surroundings and are naturally curious, they see kissing on TV and they pick it up, and their natural curiosity can easily justify why they would like to look at each others unique parts even if it is in rare cases, and it is a far more just and rational explanation than saying they have sexual desires for each other, thats on a different level all together.
Comment by Anonymous
To word that better, people should have the decency not to subject others to their sex life without a choice, and in so that way sex in public would never be an issue.
Comment by Anonymous
I find it distasteful to see women walking around half naked, but nobody deserves to be assaulted based on their appearance, race, religion or any other factor.
Sexual assualt is a crime, that no woman or man should be scrutinized for if they are a victim of this. What you wear or don't wear does not provoke assault, it is not an allowance to do so and is in no one's right.
A violation of rights is a violation of rights regardless of appearance. We should all feel compassion for any human being who has had their rights disregarded.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Dear Cinico -- thank you for your kind words.
And I'd agree with you -- to me, the wrongness of pedophilia or child sex isn't contingent on whether children do or don't have sexual desires.
Dear Anon whom I've christened Jem -- I read you as making two points: that early exposure to sex might be detrimental, and that the research that purports to demonstrate sexual behaviours in prepubescent children might be inconclusive. But the fact is, that I'm just not placed to address these empirical questions, and don't really have anything to say to you about them. This is a cop out answer, but I don't mean, in saying this, to write off the importance of your points. They do go to the heart of the conversation.
All I can do, at this point, is to restate my position, not for the sake of persuasion, but for the sake of clarity. -- I think of sex as a natural thing, and therefore think seeing sex is undetrimental to a child; and I think of children as having some sort of embryonic sexuality from birth (sexuality doesn't appear from nowhere) so I'd expect "proto-sexual" behaviours of the kind the Swedish study describes.
Dear webcam Anon -- I'm going to blurt out something that might get me in a lot of trouble. I tend to agree with the other Anon that revealing clothes can be a causative factor, or that a wallet placed carelessly can be a causative factor. But causality isn't the same as responsibility. That is, I wouldn't assign any blame to the person wearing skimpy clothing.
Just to clarify your position, are you saying that public sex should remain illegal, but that the penalty should, at the most, be a fine or community service, etc?
Or are you saying that there should be no penalty, but that we should try to discourage public sex?
Comment by Cibbuano
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
There's a lot of arguments going on here, but I've only got one thing to say: Even if this post is 'smut', it's still a philisophical post, and a deeply moving one at that. The fact that it got so much attention shows how different people's views are on the subject.
The idea of what is 'smut' is, is definitely a philisophical one, in my mind.
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Comment by Cinico
Small Business Scope
Comment by Anonymous
Are you thinking now? Well then your a philosopher. Otherwise... meh.
Consequently if you want to be a professional philosopher you can always... get married.
No I didn't make that up, some guy said it... been dead for quite a while too...
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Anon -- thanks for that
Comment by ag
Eat French Bread
Fucking is lumped together with acts of rebellion (“sex and drugs and rock and roll") but there should be nothing rebellious about it. Where do we all think we came from?!
Our culture is very good at sexiness but has a long way to go before we can call ourselves sexually liberated or mature. The only reason we are all so obsessed with it (look at the amount of comments here!) is that it is swept under the rug, and I think it needs to come out of the rug and onto the streets.
PS. Also on the topic of freedom of speech, isn’t it funny how the Anonymous comments are always the most creepy / annoying? ("I think it should be compulsory! And I should get to film it!" / "this is not philosophy it's a smut topic to get ratings ... don't dignify it by calling it philosophy"). Maybe that's another topic for you - the philosophy of anonymity...
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Many liberation movements have grouped together sex and revolution -- not only will we get political freedom, there will also be a sexual paradise on earth. And there is an element here of appealing to a taste for anarchy. But I'd agree with you. There should be nothing particularly rebellious about sex. Our society is under the thrall of sex; advertising and media build it up into the definition of bliss; and maybe it needs to be brought down to earth again.
Philosophy of anonymity might be interesting to explore in relation to acting. The freedom you have under a mask. The use of acting to do things you couldn't get away with in ordinary life.
Comment by Leon
Music love fight for peace
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
I don't know how to interpret that Anon comment about "This post is not a philosophy post." I sort of imagine it said by a tight-lipped schoolteacher with a red pen in one hand.
I enjoyed reading your strong and empathetic words about provocative clothing, and I look forward to you dressing up in your own to take that supermarket walk you've been promising.
Comment by Sisi
Anyways, back to the original issue...I read somewhere that when Captain Cook went to Tahiti he reported that Tahitians had sex in public all the time. So do youse think he should have been outraged at that? (please note that this is not a rhetorical question...I don't know what his opinion was, just that he was surprised)
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Sisi and Leon -- can't believe you guys made it this far. You deserve medals for reading through all this crap!
I wouldn't have.
Orble message me a message with your snail mail addresses, and I'll send you a box of thank you chocolates.
Sisi, you know my answer ("Of course he shouldn't have been outraged; instead, he should have celebrated their enlightened liberty"), but I'm curious what the no-nudity and no-public-sex people will say.
Comment by Sisi
I'm generally a no-nudity and no-public-sex person but I do believe that tasteful nudity/sex in visual/performing arts is beautiful. As for the Tahitians, I don't think Captain Cook should have been outraged either...different cultures obviously have different sexual codes of conduct and although I don't believe Western culture is ready for legalised public nudity/sex, I do acknowledge that there are many cultures around the world that have, as you so eloquently put it, celebrate their enlightened liberty for a long time already
Comment by Sisi
Comment by Cinico
Small Business Scope
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Comment by Cinico
Small Business Scope
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Actually, I've got a rant on this subject. Was thinking about this in relation to the charge that this article is just ratings-orientated smut.
[Rant mode]
I think (I might be wrong) the rate of pay is something like 1c per 100 hits. So if you got 100,000 hits a day, that would amount to $10.
But how long would it take you to get 100,000 hits a day, and would the effort really justify the cash? I know that I personally spend hours writing each of most of my posts, let alone fiddling with images and layout. And I might be at one anal extreme, but I wouldn't be surprised if most people spend an hour or two a day on Orble, reading, writing comments, and what not.
So, really, there's little point in thinking about ratings, and I'm inclined to think that if one isn't reading and writing on Orble for love, one is deluding oneself.
[/Rant mode]
Comment by Ruby
If it was legalised, would the "thrill" be taken away?
Comment by Cinico
Small Business Scope
Completely off the topic of fucking in public...but I'll click on something for you!
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
1. Exhibitionists -- those who enjoy other people watching;
2. People who appreciate the convenience of it; and who might even prefer that other people don't see them;
3. And people who get some other kick out of fucking in public, maybe a change of scenery, or maybe, as you suggest, the thrill of the taboo, or the thrill of offending or shocking people.
Legalising it might to some extent remove the taboo (although there would still be, for some time, a social rather than a legal taboo). I myself don't think this is a strong reason against legalising sex in public, but it has some interesting applicability in other contexts.
There are people, for instance, who don't like the mainstreaming of kink and fetish clothing. They like the feeling of specialness -- being the only deviants on the block who are into the latex.
And there are members of the gay community who are against legalising gay marriages, because they don't want gay relationships to be subsumed under the conventional discourse.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
I think I know what you mean about it being easier to do other writing... Maybe a bit like being better able to instantly go into singing mode (without a warm up), when you've developed your instrument by practising every day. And maybe writing begets writing -- the ideas from one project flow over to another...
Another thought: I mentioned this in my bad habits entry, but my main motivation in being on Orble at all is to have some sort of impetus to do writing every day. So, fundamentally, I'm writing for me, rather than writing for a commission (I'd be lucky to get $10 per year I think), or writing for fans.
Comment by Anonymous
I do not believe sex should be made public.
And if you choose to have sex in public, be prepared to face the consequences. Simple as that. Good on you annonymous girls.
One more thing, it's all great to do research and post such debates but it's another thing to be involved with hands on approach. Don't be so narrow minded all the time and think outside the square. Many people don't.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Your comments about the gender divide are interesting. I think it's generally true that women are more conservatively moral than males. For instance, there are far fewer female criminals. And women are stereotypically thought to be more prudish, though this is changing (for instance, people have recently written about the "rise of raunch culture" among women).
A related issue is whether males and females might even have different ethics.
Some people claim that males search for ethical rules that are abstract and universal whereas females search for ethical solutions that are context-sensitive.
If this is true, I wonder how it plays out in terms of an issue like fucking in public. There's a case to be made for saying that the John Stuart Mill liberty approach is abstract, universal, masculine.
Comment by Questionable Content
I make a point of having sex in public where- and whenever I can. Which isn't often in any sense of the word; I've had some experience with it.
Re: Ruby's hypothetical - I think much of the rush that comes from public sex isn't the illegality of it, but the voyeuristic adrenaline surge. Amongst other surges, apparently.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Briliant article! -- thanks for the reference to it. Was there a sequel?
Comment by yoda76
The Tube Blog
I would disagree - it's not just offesive but potentially the cause of violence at the game. Very grey area.
As for doing it in public making it a "less special experience between two people" - not if both are of the same mind. The experience would only heighten their unity. If one was doing it to oblige the other - then yes, that's cheap...
Sorry if I've repeated someone else, but I'm at work and will need to come back to read the copious comments!
Comment by D. Armenta
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan
L.A.M.P.
If you're not sick of the subject, I'd just like to add a thought or two:
Socially, many people strive to keep society as self-regulated as possible. The less petty, micro-managing laws there are, the better for everyone, right?
The best way to stay self-regulated as a society is to establish a set of *public* manners that accommodates all of us, when we are sharing space together (in public)
As we can all see, fucking in public still offends a *lot* of people, for many different reasons.
While debating the validity of these various reasons can be amusing, I think we can all agree that trying to convert most people from their own established beliefs is akin to farting in a hurricane.
Therefore, from the point of view of this practical and pragmatic poster, it would best serve us all to observe good manners in public by keeping intimate and/or personal activities ( i.e. taking a dump, nosepicking, fighting with one's partner, changing diapers, or fucking) away from the view of all and sundry.
Human nature is what it is. If good manners go away, sooner or later laws will take their place..because we will never all agree about everything.
Best to keep it to yourself, mates!
Great post, Adrian.
Comment by D. Armenta
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan
L.A.M.P.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Thanks for the comment! And I agree with the remark that public sex needn't be less special.
About selling "supporters kits" to Bulldogs fans --
Well, look at it this way: the actions amounted to the allegation that Bulldogs fans are violent. But surely people should be allowed to say such things, in a free society?
What if it IS the case that Bulldogs fans are violent? Should your free speech be muzzled for fear of "offence"?
Should protesting be cracked down on, because their actions and ideas cause offence to the people they're protesting against?
Dear D Armenta,
Yep, still reading everything that gets posted (just don't always have time to write posts, let alone respond to comments).
Thanks for taking the trouble to write!
I suppose a couple of thoughts by way of reply.
-- Firstly, one of the buzzwords in political philosophy in the 80s was "citizenship". Kant once said that the problem of good government is solvable even for a race of devils. But people these days are skeptical, from all sorts of positions (Marxist positions, liberal positions, anarchic positions, etc).
Two big issues seem to be: (1) that over-legislation creates problems, is impractical, and is unsuited to certain sorts of subject matter (though a contrary view is the feminist position that laws should intrude into the family, because that's where people most need to be protected); and (2) that laws alone are insufficient to create a good society. Rather, any theory of government needs to be supplied with a theory of civic education (just as any individual theory of ethics needs to be supplied with a theory of virtues and character).
-- But are "civic virtues" the same thing as what you have in mind by manners? The debate in the 80s was about such things as tolerance, sense of community, health (if you have a fit population, you don't put as much strain on the medical system), environment...
Aren't "manners" more like arbitrary customs? And don't manners vary between societies? I'm told that in the Arab world there is something about not using the left hand when you eat food, because that's the hand that you wipe with.
Now, when you propose that good manners are an effective or desirable alternative to regulation, well... In response to the claim put in this general way, I guess I'd want to see the evidence first. You may well be right about particular manners. But, as a general claim, you make me think of societies with elaborate rules of conduct -- like many older societies, like older Asian societies and Western honour-code societies. And I think it's quite possible that many of these societies were more violent than our modern socieities. For instance, the elaborate rules about duelling in Europe, tended to encourage the practice, though the original intent was to weed it out.
-- But assuming that avoiding fucking in public does create better order, should we try to spread this custom?
Well, frankly I don't know.
But I'd add this thought: Is it desirable to enforce such a custom, and add punishments, of a social or legal kind?
I think one thing to bear in mind is the essentially arbitrary nature of many customs -- including the Arab prohibition against eating with the left hand, and including the custom that already does exist against fucking in public (for presumably one can find "primitive" societies that allow fucking in public; and one can find subcultures in this society that are fine with it).
If a custom is essentially arbitrary, how can one justify sanctions against those who refuse the custom? There may be better social order, yes. But wouldn't such a heavily conformist society be essentially unfair?
Comment by yoda76
The Tube Blog
Good to hear from you.
No, probably not - but that's not my point about the Bulldogs incident. It wasn't just a comment, it was bordering on, if not inciting violence. That's not on.
Comment by D. Armenta
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan
L.A.M.P.
"..but, as a general claim, you make me think of societies with elaborate rules of conduct -- like many older societies, like older Asian societies and Western honour-code societies. And I think it's quite possible that many of these societies were more violent than our modern socieities."
"-- But assuming that avoiding fucking in public does create better order, should we try to spread this custom?"
Well, in response to the first: I can think of many ethnic/religious societies with nonviolent beliefs that have just as elaborate rules of conduct. The Amish come to mind, Buddhists, certain Native American nations, Hindus..to name a few.
I think that in any established society, the members of that society generally agree upon what conduct is acceptable in public and what is not. If one did not agree with that society's views, IDEALLY one is certainly free to move elsewhere.
Which is more desirable--a society that says "We don't condone public fucking here. Fuck in private, or open up a private club where like-minded people can all fuck in front of each other--just don't do it in the open where we can all see you."
OR--a society that says "Fucking in public is against the law. If you fuck in public you will be arrested and incarcerated and fined. If you open a private club for fucking in public, you will be shut down and incarcerated and fined."
Establishing codes of social conduct that accommodate all, and respecting those codes, is the key to self-regulation. Continuing to flout the established codes of conduct, thereby disrespecting the rights of all but one's own self in the name of "personal freedom" has been proven in history repeatedly to have a bad end.
Those who are disrespected respond by lobbying to get laws passed to take the place of what was formerly an agreed-upon courtesy between social members. This reduces everyone to the lowest common denominator of lawbreakers, instead of the highest common denominator of a society that respects all of its members.
As for trying to "spread the custom" of not condoning public fucking..seems to me it's already in place. As we have seen, a large majority of societies frown upon public fucking, for many different reasons--whether the reasons are "stupid" or "archaic Puritan nonsense", et. al, is not germaine to this issue.
Unfair? No, I don't think so. In a society that doesn't condone public fucking--but hasn't yet been forced to pass laws against it-- one has the option to either take it indoors/out of sight, or go to a private club where it is allowed, or move to one of the "many" societies where public fucking is permissible.
For the record--I have traveled throughout most of Asia and some of Africa and the Middle East and South America and I have yet to see fucking in public as accepted. Perhaps those who have found such societies would share their knowledge?