Couple had sex on stage during concert
MrPepper11
Couple had sex on stage during concert
Asle Bentzen , Carin Pettersson og Hedda Flatø 07.07.04 09:31
KRISTIANSAND/OSLO (TV 2 Nettavisen): As Kristopher Schau and his band
Cumshots were in the middle of their concert; a young couple entered
the stage, stripped and had sex.
Controversial Kristopher Schau loves to shock his audience, and few
knew what was in store for them as they went to his concert at the
Quart music festival. In the middle of the concert, a young couple
entered the stage.
«How far are you willing to go to save the world?» asked the young
man, and without much ado, the couple pulled off their clothes.
Cumshots provided the background music as the couple had intercourse
right in front of the audience. A banner was raised on stage informing
the audience that the couple was having sex to save the rainforest.
After completing the intercourse, the couple received applause from
the audience and disappeared.
For the rainforest
The young couple, Tommy Hol Ellingsen, age 28, and Leona Johansson,
age 21, are members of the environmental organization «Fuck for
Forest.» They have sex in public in order to put focus on the
rainforest.
«Today's environmentalists have become more politicians than
idealists,» Ellingsen said to TV 2 Nettavisen. «We want to bring forth
the message with attitude.»
According to the organization's website, «"Fuck for forest" are
concerned youngsters, fighting to preserve the environment. We believe
it is possible to use people's need for sexuality as a way to raise
money for nature.»
Nobody wanted the money
Last time Ellingsen and Johansson had public sex, they managed to
collect NOK 100,000 (USD 14,677), but nobody wanted to take the money.
«The goal is to take over the entire commercial porn industry and
transfer all the money to protection of the environment,» Ellingsen
explained.
However, the Rainforest Foundation Norway is not thrilled by the way
the small organization has chosen to raise money.
«I can not see that this helps the work for the rainforest,» said Lars
Løvold, head of the Rainforest Foundation Norway, to TV 2 Nettavisen.
«Generally speaking, we accept donations, but if the money is coming
from illegal activity, from someone who abuse the rainforest or wish
to abuse our name, we say no thank-you. This may be the case here.»
Illegal
«We did not know of this beforehand,» said Espen Thoresen, media
contact of the Quart music festival, to TV 2 Nettavisen. «If we had
been informed, we would not have accepted it.»
No one reported the incident to the police; however, the police are
not depended on anyone filing a formal complaint. If the police
establish that something illegal took place, they can prosecute.
According to Karl Tore Berge, operational commanding officer, it is
definitely illegal to have sex on a public stage.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kris Baker
"MrPepper11" <MrPep...@go.com> wrote in message
news:57cfd534.04070...@posting.google.com...> Asle Bentzen , Carin Pettersson og Hedda Flatų 07.07.04 09:31
>
> KRISTIANSAND/OSLO (TV 2 Nettavisen): As Kristopher Schau and his band
> Cumshots were in the middle of their concert; a young couple entered
> the stage, stripped and had sex.
>
> Controversial Kristopher Schau loves to shock his audience, and few
> knew what was in store for them
Didn't know what was in store for them?
Hell, they went to a concert by the Cumshots!
Kris
Don't know what this has to do with True Crime
Dave C.
>
> KRISTIANSAND/OSLO (TV 2 Nettavisen): As Kristopher Schau and his band
> Cumshots were in the middle of their concert; a young couple entered
> the stage, stripped and had sex.
Finally a rock concert with some entertainment value. -Dave
circe
<kris....@prodigyy.net> wrote:
>
>"MrPepper11" <MrPep...@go.com> wrote in message
>news:57cfd534.04070...@posting.google.com...
>> http://pub.tv2.no/nettavisen/english/article250240.ece
>>
>> Couple had sex on stage during concert
>> Asle Bentzen , Carin Pettersson og Hedda Flatø 07.07.04 09:31
>>
>> KRISTIANSAND/OSLO (TV 2 Nettavisen): As Kristopher Schau and his band
>> Cumshots were in the middle of their concert; a young couple entered
>> the stage, stripped and had sex.
>>
>> Controversial Kristopher Schau loves to shock his audience, and few
>> knew what was in store for them
>
> Didn't know what was in store for them?
>
> Hell, they went to a concert by the Cumshots!
>
>Kris
>Don't know what this has to do with True Crime
>
Does Great White know about this? It probably beats pyrotechnics as a
crowd pleaser.
circe
Kris Baker
"circe" <ci...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:gl5pe0dee6mmo2tc0...@4ax.com...
If they're REALLY good, they could put out the fire.
Kris
circe
<kris....@prodigyy.net> wrote:
>
>"circe" <ci...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
>news:gl5pe0dee6mmo2tc0...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 21:19:49 GMT, "Kris Baker"
>> <kris....@prodigyy.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"MrPepper11" <MrPep...@go.com> wrote in message
>> >news:57cfd534.04070...@posting.google.com...
>> >> http://pub.tv2.no/nettavisen/english/article250240.ece
>> >>
>> >> Couple had sex on stage during concert
>> >> Asle Bentzen , Carin Pettersson og Hedda Flatø 07.07.04 09:31
>> >>
>> >> KRISTIANSAND/OSLO (TV 2 Nettavisen): As Kristopher Schau and his band
>> >> Cumshots were in the middle of their concert; a young couple entered
>> >> the stage, stripped and had sex.
>> >>
>> >> Controversial Kristopher Schau loves to shock his audience, and few
>> >> knew what was in store for them
>> >
>> > Didn't know what was in store for them?
>> >
>> > Hell, they went to a concert by the Cumshots!
>> >
>> >Kris
>> >Don't know what this has to do with True Crime
>>
>> Does Great White know about this? It probably beats pyrotechnics as a
>> crowd pleaser.
>>
>> circe
>
>If they're REALLY good, they could put out the fire.
>
>Kris
>
EEeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwww
circe
Kris Baker
Thank you. Thank you. (Bowing)
Kris
I love an occasional "EEeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwww"
werewolf
I agree. It shouldn't be a crime for married couples to fuck anywhere.
The state license marriage so how can it be "lewd behavior"?
Dave C.
> > Don't know what this has to do with True Crime
>
> I agree. It shouldn't be a crime for married couples to fuck anywhere.
> The state license marriage so how can it be "lewd behavior"?
Were the couple married? I didn't read that. They have different last
names, but that doesn't necessarily mean they aren't married. I think it's
crazy to call this lewd behavior, but my reasoning has nothing to do with
marriage. Sex is a natural act. In fact, it is the most natural thing
there is. Calling it lewd or criminal behavior seems bizarre in the
extreme, EVEN if it is done in public. You could argue that some sexual
behaviors are lewd and probably should be outlawed in public. But a male
and female having vaginal intercourse? There is nothing unusual or gross or
offensive about that at all. Even if done in public, there should be no law
against that. -Dave
Child
"Dave C." <mdu...@sff.net> wrote in message
news:2l4qdjF...@uni-berlin.de...
I think there should be a law against people pretending that getting their
rocks off on public sex is in any way a charitable thing, though.
Dave C.
> I think there should be a law against people pretending that getting their
> rocks off on public sex is in any way a charitable thing, though.
>
Hmmmmm . . . well, it does seem to be an inappropriate way to raise funds
for charity. I don't think it should be illegal, but you still gotta wonder
what they were thinking. :) -Dave
Michael Snyder
No way! It's charitable - to voyeurs!
Child
"Michael Snyder" <msn...@redhat.com> wrote in message
news:cck5ki$slf$1...@stan.redhat.com...
I am not a parent, as I know you are not, michael, but i imagine it would
not be charitable to my 10 year old kid.
Jim Justjim
If you let your 10 year old kid go see a band called the Cumshots then I
don't see you being to upset by them seeing people having sex on stage.
Profiler
http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2004/07/06/402500.html
or
http://ekstrabladet.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=255512#
(and on the right GALLERI: Sex på scenen)
btw. they got a fine of 10.000 Nkr each ...round 1200 $ ..oh well
d~
<kris....@prodigyy.net> wrote:
>
>"MrPepper11" <MrPep...@go.com> wrote in message
>news:57cfd534.04070...@posting.google.com...
>> http://pub.tv2.no/nettavisen/english/article250240.ece
>>
>> Couple had sex on stage during concert
>> Asle Bentzen , Carin Pettersson og Hedda Flatø 07.07.04 09:31
>>
>> KRISTIANSAND/OSLO (TV 2 Nettavisen): As Kristopher Schau and his band
>> Cumshots were in the middle of their concert; a young couple entered
>> the stage, stripped and had sex.
>>
>> Controversial Kristopher Schau loves to shock his audience, and few
>> knew what was in store for them
>
> Didn't know what was in store for them?
>
> Hell, they went to a concert by the Cumshots!
>
>Kris
>Don't know what this has to do with True Crime
I missed the original post - - so I'll hop in here. ;-)
Ah! Memories! Light the corners of my mind..... misty water colored
memories....
Back in the late mid eighties, my boyfriend was friends with most of
the members of (I kid you not) a band called "Fucking Shit Biscuits."
They were an AMAZING performance art / punk band in Minneapolis with a
sort of cult following.
ANYWAY, they were known for doing wild stuff during their shows and at
one point they asked if me and my boyfriend would be willing to have
sex on stage during one of there shows.
They were SO ahead of their time.....
d~ (After carefully considering, I politely declined.)
Michael Snyder
Do you let your 10 year old go to concerts with bands called Kumshot?
I think this was an adult venue.
Child
Dave C claims that people should be allowed to have sex whereever and
whenever they want to.
Dave C.
> > No way! It's charitable - to voyeurs!
>
>
> I am not a parent, as I know you are not, michael, but i imagine it would
> not be charitable to my 10 year old kid.
>
>
What's uncharitable is to raise a child in an environment where he/she grows
up believing that sex is bad, and something to be hidden and ashamed of,
when all children are in fact sexual beings from the time of
onception. -Dave
Dave C.
> Dave C claims that people should be allowed to have sex whereever and
> whenever they want to.
Yes, they should. We live in a very sexually repressed society. That is
not a -good- thing. I hear that sex in public is normal in France. If so,
the whole world should follow France's example, most especially including
the U.S. In countries where there is no minimum drinking age, there are
virtually NO problems caused by people (of any age) drinking. Is it
possible that there would be fewer sex-related crimes if we treated sex as
ummmm . . . NORMAL?!? Something to think about. Sex is natural. Why keep
it behind closed doors? Imagine if eating in public was illegal. But
eating is no more or less natural than sex. So YES . . . people should be
allowed to have sex wherever and whenever they want to. I'm not holding my
breath that it will ever be allowed in such a backward country as the U.S.,
though. -Dave
Child
Kids develop sexuality in their own time. Not having sex in front of them
wont' change that. Having sex in front of them will.
Child
> >
> > Dave C claims that people should be allowed to have sex whereever and
> > whenever they want to.
>
> Yes, they should. We live in a very sexually repressed society. That is
> not a -good- thing. I hear that sex in public is normal in France.
I have been to france and saw no one having sex.
Anyone else?
Robert N. Lee
> Yes, they should. We live in a very sexually repressed society. That is
> not a -good- thing. I hear that sex in public is normal in France.
Yes, and if you don't like a picture in the Louvre, you can rip it off the
wall and take a shit on it. I heard that, too.
--Robert
--
***
My Head Is Filled with Yeast
http://www.livejournal.com/users/spimby/
Robert N. Lee
> What's uncharitable is to raise a child in an environment where he/she
> grows up believing that sex is bad, and something to be hidden and
> ashamed of, when all children are in fact sexual beings from the time
> of onception.
Really, people fucking on stage with a band called Kumshot doesn't
particularly bother me. You're confusing, however, sexual repression with
modesty, which is not a negative trait or some kind of conditioned thing,
except when it's pathologically over or under-present.
Most people don't want to have sex or take dumps in front of other people
or have other people do it for them. Good for you if that's not how you
are, but please don't inflict your desire for public fucking on me.
Chocolic
"Dave C." <mdu...@sff.net> wrote in message
news:2l4qdjF...@uni-berlin.de...
Did you look at the link? It doesn't look like vaginal intercourse.
Some things should be private, that's what makes sex exciting
donchathink?
Chocolic
Michael Snyder
You know, I'm tempted to agree with you in spirit, but
many animals are also secretive about mating. And in
humans, even the female's estrous is concealed (where
in most other primates it's highlighted). Have to imagine
there's some evolutionary reason for it.
Socially speaking, a woman probably conceals who she
mates with because (1) if other men see that she's "sexually
receptive", they'll want some too, and (2) it gives her more
control over which man *thinks* he's the father of her baby.
Michael Snyder
"Chocolic" <chatt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qPoHc.218727$Gx4.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Oh, come on -- it's called rear entry, meaning entry *from* the rear,
not entry *into* the rear...
Chocolic
Chocolic
Karen O'Mara
> names, but that doesn't necessarily mean they aren't married. I think it's
> crazy to call this lewd behavior, but my reasoning has nothing to do with
> marriage. Sex is a natural act. In fact, it is the most natural thing
> there is. Calling it lewd or criminal behavior seems bizarre in the
> extreme, EVEN if it is done in public. You could argue that some sexual
> behaviors are lewd and probably should be outlawed in public. But a male
> and female having vaginal intercourse? There is nothing unusual or gross or
> offensive about that at all. Even if done in public, there should be no law
> against that. -Dave
Because it's not civilized. We live in a civilized society, and
society has evolved to the point where this behavior is not allowed
(the law).
Karen
Karen O'Mara
> Yes, they should. We live in a very sexually repressed society. That is
> not a -good- thing. I hear that sex in public is normal in France. If so,
> the whole world should follow France's example, most especially including
> the U.S. In countries where there is no minimum drinking age, there are
> virtually NO problems caused by people (of any age) drinking. Is it
> possible that there would be fewer sex-related crimes if we treated sex as
> ummmm . . . NORMAL?!? Something to think about. Sex is natural. Why keep
> it behind closed doors? Imagine if eating in public was illegal. But
> eating is no more or less natural than sex. So YES . . . people should be
> allowed to have sex wherever and whenever they want to. I'm not holding my
> breath that it will ever be allowed in such a backward country as the U.S.,
> though. -Dave
Sounds like your idea of France is the moon.
Karen
Karen O'Mara
> What's uncharitable is to raise a child in an environment where he/she grows
> up believing that sex is bad, and something to be hidden and ashamed of,
> when all children are in fact sexual beings from the time of
> onception. -Dave
You're all over the board with this subject. Nobody said anything to
anyone here including to kids that anything was bad.... where did you
get that?
How old are you, anyway?
Karen
Michael Snyder
"Karen O'Mara" <kso...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2d2a67aa.0407...@posting.google.com...
I don't see what it has to do with evolving. It just happens to be
against the law. Smoking pot is against the law, while drinking
alcohol and smoking tobacco are not. It's somewhat arbitrary, neh?
Dave C.
>
> Kids develop sexuality in their own time. Not having sex in front of them
> wont' change that. Having sex in front of them will.
>
>
No it won't. Kids will still develop sexuality in their own time. They
just won't grow up thinking that sex is bad. You seem to think that
ignorance of sex is a good thing. Logically, that is not correct. -Dave
Dave C.
> Really, people fucking on stage with a band called Kumshot doesn't
> particularly bother me. You're confusing, however, sexual repression with
> modesty, which is not a negative trait or some kind of conditioned thing,
> except when it's pathologically over or under-present.
>
> Most people don't want to have sex or take dumps in front of other people
> or have other people do it for them. Good for you if that's not how you
> are, but please don't inflict your desire for public fucking on me.
>
> --Robert
You've got this backward, Robert. If you want to have sex in your own
bedroom with the shades pulled and the door locked, fine. But why should
you dictate to me that that's the only appropriate place for me to do so?
As I wrote before, if we outlawed eating in public, would you agree with
that? Sex is natural, just like eating. Sex is necessary for survival of
the human species, just like eating. It's not logical that eating in public
is OK while sexual intercourse in public is a huge NO-NO. But if you choose
to eat in the privacy of your own dining room and choose to fuck in the
privacy of your own bedroom, that's A-OK with me. -Dave
Dave C.
You must have a really boring sex life. Hint . . . there's more than one
position for vaginal intercourse. :) -Dave
Dave C.
"> >
> Oh, well okay then, I didn't know that. :)
>
> Chocolic
>
Oh Come On!!! I think anybody older than 9 or 10 knows that, even in the
sexually repressed U.S. -Dave
Dave C.
> Because it's not civilized. We live in a civilized society, and
> society has evolved to the point where this behavior is not allowed
> (the law).
>
> Karen
How is fucking in public uncivilized? It could no more be uncivilized than
eating a hamburger in public. It may be ILLEGAL, but it could hardly be
called uncivilized. Uncivilized is the act of making a natural act
llegal. -Dave
Dave C.
> You're all over the board with this subject. Nobody said anything to
> anyone here including to kids that anything was bad.... where did you
> get that?
>
> How old are you, anyway?
>
> Karen
Karen - This may come as a real shock to you, but most people are under the
false impression that something is bad just because it is illegal. Oh, and
I'm old enough to know that bad does NOT equate to illegal. At least not in
all circumstances. Having sex is just as natural as eating, so it's not
logical to call having sex "bad", even if it's done in public. But do it in
public in many areas of the world, and you have done something illegal. I
don't think it's right to keep sex hidden and attach a taboo to it by making
sex in public illegal. -Dave
Robert N. Lee
> But why should
> you dictate to me that that's the only appropriate place for me to do
> so?
I haven't. Along with assuming that I only have sex with the shades
drawn and the door locked, you've read what I said as almost its direct
opposite. I don't give a fuck where you fuck, I just don't particularly
want you doing it in front of me. As the bulk of society agrees with me
on this point, you're stuck finding like-minded people to fuck in front
of. Which shouldn't be such a hardship, unless your particular kink
involves unwitting and embarrassed spectators, in which case, fuck you.
Certainly, don't whine about how I'm oppressing you because I don't want
you forcing your doubtless fun and exciting lifestyle on me.
Child
Who says we should make kids ignorant of sex?
you a NAMBLA member, BTW?
d~
Shitting is a natural act. so, people should poop in public?
which reminds me of the breast feeding debate (as it was compared to
shitting in public by someone here) - - I don't like people breast
feeding in front of me in public, but the majority seem to not mind so
folk do it.
I think sex in public is more akin to breast feeding in public than
eating in public. (Or shitting in public.) Just fewer people are
comfortable with public sexing than public nursing.
d~ (you should have compared sex in public to eating a hot dog in
public, or a taco. - - color me juvenile)
Michael Snyder
Most western governments and legislators...
Child
> Child wrote:
> > "Dave C." <mdu...@sff.net> wrote in message
> > news:2l87muF...@uni-berlin.de...
> >
> >>>
> >>>Kids develop sexuality in their own time. Not having sex in front of
> >
> > them
> >
> >>>wont' change that. Having sex in front of them will.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>No it won't. Kids will still develop sexuality in their own time.
They
> >>just won't grow up thinking that sex is bad. You seem to think that
> >>ignorance of sex is a good thing. Logically, that is not
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > Who says we should make kids ignorant of sex?
>
> Most western governments and legislators...
>
Yeh, maybe I shoulda been more specific. Who here says we should make kids
ignorant of sex?
Karen O'Mara
> Karen - This may come as a real shock to you, but most people are under the
> false impression that something is bad just because it is illegal. Oh, and
> I'm old enough to know that bad does NOT equate to illegal. At least not in
> all circumstances. Having sex is just as natural as eating, so it's not
> logical to call having sex "bad", even if it's done in public. But do it in
> public in many areas of the world, and you have done something illegal. I
> don't think it's right to keep sex hidden and attach a taboo to it by making
> sex in public illegal. -Dave
Pooping is natural, too, but you don't see too many people doing that in public.
Karen
Karen O'Mara
> I don't see what it has to do with evolving. It just happens to be
> against the law. Smoking pot is against the law, while drinking
> alcohol and smoking tobacco are not. It's somewhat arbitrary, neh?
Societal evolution.
Karen
Karen O'Mara
> How is fucking in public uncivilized? It could no more be uncivilized than
> eating a hamburger in public. It may be ILLEGAL, but it could hardly be
> called uncivilized. Uncivilized is the act of making a natural act
> llegal. -Dave
Dave, you need to go to charm school.
civ·i·lize ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sv-lz)
tr.v. civ·i·lized, civ·i·liz·ing, civ·i·liz·es
To raise from barbarism to an enlightened stage of development; bring
out of a primitive or savage state.
To educate in matters of culture and refinement; make more polished or
sophisticated.
Glek
There have been societies where public sex was not frowned on. In fact,
considering the lack of privacy most people have had throughout history, it
would have been difficult to avoid being seen by anyone, at least among the
poorer folk. It wasn't until multiroom houses, doors and locks became common-
-at least in some part of the world--that a sense of privacy began to
develop. Of course, religious views on modesty made their contribution as
well.
That said: call me repressed but I have no desire to see anybody rutting on
their front yard, thank you. If I want to see people doing it, I can go
online and watch them. Anyone who wants to engage in sex publicly, however,
should have no trouble finding like-minded people who share that enthusiasm.
Add a webcam, and maybe someday I'll be watching as well.
Recently, while taking an early morning walk, I passed this house that had a
man, half-covered by a blanket, laying on a couch on the porch. I thought the
wife had kicked him out and made him sleep there, but then I noticed he was
smoking a cigarette and talking to someone underneath him. He was
stretched across and talking to a blowsy looking woman. I'm not sure if I'm
glad or sorry I missed what may have happened earlier. ;)
Oh, about ten years ago, I was walking my dog one night, and came across a
car, interior lights on, that appeared to be empty but which was rocking back
and forth. Coward that I am, I did not look inside.
Robert N. Lee
@stan.redhat.com:
>> Who says we should make kids ignorant of sex?
>
> Most western governments and legislators...
Er...don't you mean most *Eastern* governments and legislators...? The West
includes all those liberal European countries where you can't really have
sex in public, and us, who may fight a lot about sex, but it's not the
Puritanical done deal Dave seems bound to cast it as.
Michael Snyder
There was a time when you did. The taboo against being seen pooping is
more of a public health / sanitation issue than it is a
harmful-to-children issue. It helps prevent people from pooping in
any but approved places. ;-)
Michael Snyder
Wellll... in the scientific sense (evolution == change), ok.
Not in the popular sense (evolution == improvement) though.
Michael Snyder
You two are going back and forth because of differing basic assumptions.
Karen, you believe that fucking in public is barbaric. Dave does not.
Arguing back and forth about what "civilized" means isn't going to get
anywhere.
Why don't you try explaining *why* it's barbaric (or harmful, or whatever).
Michael Snyder
Fine, then you probably won't go to a concert by a band called
"Cumshots".
> Anyone who wants to engage in sex publicly, however,
> should have no trouble finding like-minded people who share that enthusiasm.
Seems to me, that's exactly what took place here.
Do I not recall reading that the crowd cheered?
Michael Snyder
> Michael Snyder <msn...@redhat.com> wrote in news:ccn46f$2rb$1
> @stan.redhat.com:
>
>
>>>Who says we should make kids ignorant of sex?
>>
>>Most western governments and legislators...
>
>
> Er...don't you mean most *Eastern* governments and legislators...? The West
> includes all those liberal European countries where you can't really have
> sex in public, and us, who may fight a lot about sex, but it's not the
> Puritanical done deal Dave seems bound to cast it as.
I mean western. I attended grad school during the late 1980's,
when everyone knew what caused the spread of AIDS, and yet
parents would not allow sex education to include use of condoms,
and forbade the addition of condom machines to college restrooms.
In my interpretation, these people preferred that their children
should die rather than learn about safer sex.
Dave C.
>
Don't be stupid. Shitting in public would cause an obvious and dangerous
health hazard. Sanitary systems for disposal of human excrement exist for a
reason. -Dave
Dave C.
> > Pooping is natural, too, but you don't see too many people doing that in
public.
>
> There was a time when you did. The taboo against being seen pooping is
> more of a public health / sanitation issue than it is a
> harmful-to-children issue. It helps prevent people from pooping in
> any but approved places. ;-)
>
>
Thank You! While pooping is indeed natural, it also creates a health
hazard, which is the main reason it shouldn't be done in public. Pooping
can not be compared with having sex, because pooping in public will always
be dangerous, whereas sex in public is only (potentially) dangerous if you
are having having (unprotected) sex, and not dangerous to
on-participants. -Dave
Dave C.
> Karen, you believe that fucking in public is barbaric. Dave does not.
> Arguing back and forth about what "civilized" means isn't going to get
> anywhere.
>
> Why don't you try explaining *why* it's barbaric (or harmful, or
whatever).
>
Yeah, what he said!!! (this should be funny) :) -Dave
Dave C.
> car, interior lights on, that appeared to be empty but which was rocking
back
> and forth. Coward that I am, I did not look inside.
Good thing you didn't. I'll bet you'd have seen a hot looking young couple
screwing each other's brains out, and you'd have had nightmares about it for
years. :) -Dave (it wasn't a light blue Camry, was it? Oh, nevermind . .
. )
Robert N. Lee
@stan.redhat.com:
> I mean western. I attended grad school during the late 1980's,
> when everyone knew what caused the spread of AIDS, and yet
> parents would not allow sex education to include use of condoms,
> and forbade the addition of condom machines to college restrooms.
Well, you should have gone to the college I did, then, because there were
bowls of condoms available all over the place.
I still fail to see how this weighs more to you than vastly more
proscriptive Eastern standards regarding sex.
Michael Snyder
> Michael Snyder <msn...@redhat.com> wrote in news:ccn97u$35g$5
> @stan.redhat.com:
>
>
>>I mean western. I attended grad school during the late 1980's,
>>when everyone knew what caused the spread of AIDS, and yet
>>parents would not allow sex education to include use of condoms,
>>and forbade the addition of condom machines to college restrooms.
>
>
> Well, you should have gone to the college I did, then, because there were
> bowls of condoms available all over the place.
>
> I still fail to see how this weighs more to you than vastly more
> proscriptive Eastern standards regarding sex.
>
'Cause I'm not comparing east to west -- I'm commenting about
the west, because that's what I know about. I haven't spent
a great deal of time in the east.
Glek
Probably not, though it would be preferable to, say, Michael "Leather Lungs"
Bolton, among others.
> > Anyone who wants to engage in sex publicly, however,
>> should have no trouble finding like-minded people who share that
>> enthusiasm.
>
> Seems to me, that's exactly what took place here.
> Do I not recall reading that the crowd cheered?
Yep, which seems to support my contention that the taboo is a societal one
rather than a biologically based one.
I suspect that as social norms change and the influence of traditional mores
disappear, public nudity then public sexual displays will become more
acceptable in the coming decades, though it's doubtful either of us will be
around to witness much of it.
>
>
Michael Snyder
Or a big fire-engine-red Oldsmobile?
Glek
>>
>> Dave C claims that people should be allowed to have sex whereever and
>> whenever they want to.
>
> Yes, they should. We live in a very sexually repressed society. That is
> not a -good- thing. I hear that sex in public is normal in France. If so,
> the whole world should follow France's example, most especially including
> the U.S. In countries where there is no minimum drinking age, there are
> virtually NO problems caused by people (of any age) drinking. Is it
> possible that there would be fewer sex-related crimes if we treated sex as
> ummmm . . . NORMAL?!? Something to think about. Sex is natural. Why keep
> it behind closed doors? Imagine if eating in public was illegal. But
> eating is no more or less natural than sex. So YES . . . people should be
> allowed to have sex wherever and whenever they want to. I'm not holding my
> breath that it will ever be allowed in such a backward country as the U.S.,
> though. -Dave
>
>
>
Dave, I take it that if your kids asked you where babies came from, you would
be willing to give them a demonstration?
Glek
Actually, I was afraid one of them may have a gun within reach. (I live out
in the country, where guns and guts are what made this country and Charlton
Heston is president, if you believe the bumperstickers. Lots of handguns in
cars around here. Don't want to get shot at by some crazy naked guy.)
Glek
I've never gone hunting, but from what I've heard from guys who have, well,
bears aren't the only omnivores who shit in the woods.
Same goes for a lot of outdoor activities. Many people don't bother hiding
behind a bush or a tree either.
Dave C.
well,
> bears aren't the only omnivores who shit in the woods.
> Same goes for a lot of outdoor activities. Many people don't bother hiding
> behind a bush or a tree either.
And that's fine out in the middle of the woods where pooping doesn't create
a health hazard. -Dave
Dave C.
out
> in the country, where guns and guts are what made this country and
Charlton
> Heston is president, if you believe the bumperstickers. Lots of handguns
in
> cars around here. Don't want to get shot at by some crazy naked guy.)
If he was doing what you think he was doing, he wasn't thinking about THAT
gun. :)
Reminds me of basic training. You know . . .
"this is my weapon, this is my GUN
this is for fighting and this is . . .
Dave C.
> Yep, which seems to support my contention that the taboo is a societal one
> rather than a biologically based one.
> I suspect that as social norms change and the influence of traditional
mores
> disappear, public nudity then public sexual displays will become more
> acceptable in the coming decades, though it's doubtful either of us will
be
> around to witness much of it.
Makes me want to live to be 120. -Dave
Dave C.
would
> be willing to give them a demonstration?
Probably not. But I wouldn't cover their eyes or anything if we happened to
stumble on a couple having intercourse in a public place. For me to try to
hide it from them would send the exact OPPOSITE message that I would want
them to receive. There is nothing wrong with sex. If they witness it and
ask me about it, I will answer their questions honestly and not pull any
punches. Of course, if my kids saw it the first time, they'd have all the
answers already. -Dave
Michael Snyder
"Glek" <gle...@email.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9521CC646...@207.69.154.204...
Um, there's no biologically based taboo against *watching*, anyway...
The biologically based drives I was discussing would have only
acted on the woman, not the crowd. Probably not the man, either,
for that matter. By my own arguments, men should be less reluctant
to have sex in public than women.
> I suspect that as social norms change and the influence of traditional
mores
> disappear, public nudity then public sexual displays will become more
> acceptable in the coming decades, though it's doubtful either of us will
be
> around to witness much of it.
Not me anyway -- I'm supposed to be dead already. ;-|
Glek
Mmmmmm. Referring to your earlier argument: I think you were comparing humans
to monkeys, not to other apes. Apes do not have the striking coloration on
their genitals and butts that some monkeys do.
One argument for your contention that human males are biologically designed
to be more willing to have public sex is the fact that men have larger
penises for their body size than any other primate.
>> I suspect that as social norms change and the influence of traditional
> mores
>> disappear, public nudity then public sexual displays will become more
>> acceptable in the coming decades, though it's doubtful either of us will
> be
>> around to witness much of it.
>
> Not me anyway -- I'm supposed to be dead already. ;-|
>
>
By any chance, do you know the origins of the Beatle song, "She Said, She
Said"? ;)
http://www.iamthebeatles.com/article1008.html
Glek
>> Dave, I take it that if your kids asked you where babies came from, you
> would
>> be willing to give them a demonstration?
>
> Probably not.
How come? There is nothing wrong with sex. You wouldn't have any problem
eating in front of your kids, would you? If eating is just the same as having
sex....Do I detect a little bit of puritanical repression in you?
Karen O'Mara
> I haven't. Along with assuming that I only have sex with the shades
> drawn and the door locked, you've read what I said as almost its direct
> opposite. I don't give a fuck where you fuck, I just don't particularly
> want you doing it in front of me. As the bulk of society agrees with me
> on this point, you're stuck finding like-minded people to fuck in front
> of. Which shouldn't be such a hardship, unless your particular kink
> involves unwitting and embarrassed spectators, in which case, fuck you.
> Certainly, don't whine about how I'm oppressing you because I don't want
> you forcing your doubtless fun and exciting lifestyle on me.
I don't think he's doing it in public, or private, or any place at
all, except here, actually.
Karen
Karen O'Mara
> There have been societies where public sex was not frowned on. In fact,
> considering the lack of privacy most people have had throughout history, it
> would have been difficult to avoid being seen by anyone, at least among the
> poorer folk. It wasn't until multiroom houses, doors and locks became common-
> -at least in some part of the world--that a sense of privacy began to
> develop. Of course, religious views on modesty made their contribution as
> well.
Sex in a home with many people and lack of privacy is still not PUBLIC sex.
> That said: call me repressed but I have no desire to see anybody rutting on
> their front yard, thank you. If I want to see people doing it, I can go
> online and watch them. Anyone who wants to engage in sex publicly, however,
> should have no trouble finding like-minded people who share that enthusiasm.
> Add a webcam, and maybe someday I'll be watching as well.
> Recently, while taking an early morning walk, I passed this house that had a
> man, half-covered by a blanket, laying on a couch on the porch. I thought the
> wife had kicked him out and made him sleep there, but then I noticed he was
> smoking a cigarette and talking to someone underneath him. He was
> stretched across and talking to a blowsy looking woman. I'm not sure if I'm
> glad or sorry I missed what may have happened earlier. ;)
> Oh, about ten years ago, I was walking my dog one night, and came across a
> car, interior lights on, that appeared to be empty but which was rocking back
> and forth. Coward that I am, I did not look inside.
These are still private incidences....
Just keeping the apples with the apples and all.
Karen
Karen O'Mara
Child
"Dave C." <mdu...@sff.net> wrote in message
news:2l8shgF...@uni-berlin.de...
I have a friend who is raising some nice healthy boys - 9 and 10. They
don't like to see sex on television, or on a movie and think its gross.
Shes been open with them and positive about sex, and lets them see more
adult movies (sex but not violence) than I probably would. Dunno, think
until it becomes "good" to them, they think its "gross"
Chocolic
Not even to mention that it would be gross.
Chocolic
d~
Karen O'Mara
>
> You two are going back and forth because of differing basic assumptions.
> Karen, you believe that fucking in public is barbaric. Dave does not.
> Arguing back and forth about what "civilized" means isn't going to get
> anywhere.
>
> Why don't you try explaining *why* it's barbaric (or harmful, or whatever).
I think we would've gotten there without your help, but it's nice to
know we have a diplomat in the crowd.
Our society today is not barbaric. Maybe Dave should go back to the
Stone Age. I live in today. He wishes he does not. I don't know if he
lives on the moon, but I am done with him.
Karen
Karen O'Mara
> There was a time when you did. The taboo against being seen pooping is
> more of a public health / sanitation issue than it is a
> harmful-to-children issue. It helps prevent people from pooping in
> any but approved places. ;-)
What has 'there was a time when you did,' got to do with it?
(Why do you insist on comparing apples to oranges?)
Karen
Michael Snyder
"Karen O'Mara" <kso...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2d2a67aa.04071...@posting.google.com...
> Michael Snyder <msn...@redhat.com> wrote in message
news:<ccn8o5$35g$1...@stan.redhat.com>...
> > There was a time when you did. The taboo against being seen pooping is
> > more of a public health / sanitation issue than it is a
> > harmful-to-children issue. It helps prevent people from pooping in
> > any but approved places. ;-)
>
> What has 'there was a time when you did,' got to do with it?
Standards change, and are somewhat arbitrary.
> (Why do you insist on comparing apples to oranges?)
I didn't bring up pooping...
Robert N. Lee
@posting.google.com:
> I don't think he's doing it in public, or private, or any place at
> all, except here, actually.
Yeah, I kinda think the same thing, but I'm trying out being nice, for a
change.
--Robert
Glek
> Glek <gle...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:<Xns9521BC4BB...@207.69.154.205>...
>
>> There have been societies where public sex was not frowned on. In fact,
>> considering the lack of privacy most people have had throughout
>> history, it would have been difficult to avoid being seen by anyone, at
>> least among the poorer folk. It wasn't until multiroom houses, doors
>> and locks became common- -at least in some part of the world--that a
>> sense of privacy began to develop. Of course, religious views on
>> modesty made their contribution as well.
>
> Sex in a home with many people and lack of privacy is still not PUBLIC
> sex.
Well, then, neither is sex on a concert stage with lots of cheering paying
customers. Or a tumble behind high bushes where passers-by would be unlikely
to see you. Of course, one could argue endlessly about whether many
situations should be defined as public or private.
And what if the house is a one room shack or hut with no doors, which would
allow people going by look in and see everything happening?
>
>> That said: call me repressed but I have no desire to see anybody
>> rutting on their front yard, thank you. If I want to see people doing
>> it, I can go online and watch them. Anyone who wants to engage in sex
>> publicly, however, should have no trouble finding like-minded people
>> who share that enthusiasm. Add a webcam, and maybe someday I'll be
>> watching as well. Recently, while taking an early morning walk, I
>> passed this house that had a man, half-covered by a blanket, laying on
>> a couch on the porch. I thought the wife had kicked him out and made
>> him sleep there, but then I noticed he was smoking a cigarette and
>> talking to someone underneath him. He was stretched across and talking
>> to a blowsy looking woman. I'm not sure if I'm glad or sorry I missed
>> what may have happened earlier. ;) Oh, about ten years ago, I was
>> walking my dog one night, and came across a car, interior lights on,
>> that appeared to be empty but which was rocking back and forth. Coward
>> that I am, I did not look inside.
>
> These are still private incidences....
>
> Just keeping the apples with the apples and all.
>
> Karen
The couch was on the front porch, two feet from a sidewalk. The porch was a
slab of concrete with no sides around it offering a semblance of privacy.
Perhaps nothing went on earlier aside from smoking and talking, but I rather
doubt it. It didn't look as though the guy was wearing pants underneath that
blanket.
The car was parked in a residential area, and whatever was causing the car to
rock could have been viewed by any of the neighbors had they bothered to come
out at 10 at night.
A lot of people get a kick from having sex where they may be seen by passers-
by, and of course a lot of these people are arrested. It is a form of
exhibitionism. For me, people who are having sex where they are likely to be
seen by strangers, or could easily be seen by them without trespassing, are
engaging in public sex, perhaps not very public but public nonetheless.
As I said, it comes down to definitions.
Karen O'Mara
> I didn't bring up pooping...
not those apples!
Karen
Wild Monkshood
Glek wrote:
Having sex in public is one thing. Having sex while changing is another.
Having a Sex Change in Public is rather messy, not to mention downright
rude........
Wild (A cut above the rest.............) Monkshood
>
>
Michele317
>> > whenever they want to.
>>
>> Yes, they should. We live in a very sexually repressed society. That
>is
>> not a -good- thing. I hear that sex in public is normal in France.
>
>
>Anyone else?
been a few times; never saw any public sex.
Michele317
>> society has evolved to the point where this behavior is not allowed
>> (the law).
>>
>> Karen
>
>How is fucking in public uncivilized? It could no more be uncivilized than
>eating a hamburger in public. It may be ILLEGAL, but it could hardly be
>called uncivilized. Uncivilized is the act of making a natural act
>llegal. -Dave
it's a possibly disease-spreading act which i don't wish to observe. like
toenail clipping, like relieving oneself, like grooming oneself at a restaurant
table.
Kris Baker
"Michele317" <miche...@aol.combover> wrote in message
news:20040711150050...@mb-m01.aol.com...
I've been to France. Had sex ;)
Kris
Saw no public sex....what a joke