|
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I would probably leave. My issue is that I don't want to see other people engaging in sexual activity. I don't want to see some dude's junk when I'm trying to drink a beer and have a dance. I'll admit I would have less of a problem if the offenders were lesbians, but I would still consider it equallly as inappropriate. I'd just at least have something to enjoy looking at.
Why does your want to not see this trump their want to do it?
What is it about your want that makes it the "right" choice?
What is special about sexuality that gives one the moral right to suppress it?
@bold: Is this the whole truth? You don't ever watch - shall we say: NSFW - films/sketches/performance pieces?
You are offended when some movie features a sex scene?
Originally Posted by OngBonga
How does this apply in a club but not outside a school? Why do children have the right to not see this, but I don't?
I've already answered this.
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Outside of school = plainly against the law in a place where there is no way to say, "Everyone there was of sound mind, capable of choosing their own choices under our law, and everyone thought it was OK." If someone (a child) is subjected to this in our society, then you will have 0 luck convincing anyone that this should not be a criminal act.
In our society.
I'm neither saying this is how it should be nor is it what I think is best. This is just how it is.
The dissonance is because I think society's prudishness is dumb. If you ask me if I think it's OK to [public display of affection], then my answer is yes, I think you should have that right, but no society doesn't.
I don't think we do our adult selves any benefit by growing up in a society where sex is always what we're shown and delivered and sold, but never what we talk about. I'm (controversially) not in favor of shielding sexuality (or violence or any other unavoidable reality they will need to understand and deal with one day) from children. Society has trumped my opinion, but I think society is perfectly wrong on this one. Disclaimer: I don't have (nor will I ever have) kids.
My short answer is that, IMO, children don't have any right to not see it, and neither do you or I.
Society says otherwise, as do you.
I'm curious about why.
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Of course. This isn't about nudity, it's about sexual activity. If I see a naked dude walking down the street, so long as he wasn't displaying a rather proud erection, I'd find it amusing and assume he's a nudist. I respect people right to reject clothing, but I don't respect people's right to engage in oral sex in public.
Why does your disrespect entitle you to authority over them?
Originally Posted by OngBonga
No, you're smart enough to know that when I use the word "depressing", you can read the sentence and understand the context means something different than "becoming clincially depressed". And when I say "argue", by assuming it's negative, you are only demonstrating your lack of awareness of the diversity of the word.
Dude, you win. I said I was sorry about the depression thing.
I did think the other 2 things you stated were actual causes for depression, though, so there was ambiguity about the depth of your meaning. You're right that the context of ongie announcing he's depressed in the Rando thread is not likely.
To me, argue does imply that 2 people are in disagreement and trying to convince each other. If that's not what you meant, then I'm very glad we talked about it so that I know you don't think I'm trying to say my opinions are "right" or that I'm trying convince you to agree with me.
Words have plenty of meanings and sometimes there are subtleties in usage which are important to ferret out in order to achieve more fluent exchange if ideas.
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Of course. For me to think otherwise, the club should apply for a licence which would imply to its customers that it is not a "normal" establishment, that it would be unresonable to expect protection from witnessing sexual activity.
My question was whether or not you think it should be the case that a private setting of adults doing no harm to anyone and voluntarily participating in whatever are required to follow public laws.
My question is whether or not you support civil disobedience.
Originally Posted by OngBonga
"Stuff like this" = "sexual activity which has a high probability of being witnessed by persons who wouldn't expect to witness such behaviour"
Where is the line? I guess if stuff is going on under clothes, it's not public. Obviously I'm not saying people shouldn't be making out, or putting a hand on her arse while doing so. But when you pull down her knickers, or get a tit out and start sucking, you're crossing a line. That line, legally, would be the removing of clothing to expose sexual areas. If people are finding ways to pleasure one another without taking clothes off (or down), well who can be sure what's actually happening other than those engaging in such behaviour? That is probably happening in most clubs.
Seems rather arbitrary. Can you help me to see why your choice is not arbitrary?
Oh wait. You said legally. Is your choice perfectly in line with the legal one?
If not, then why did you bring up the law?
I want to know what you think the laws should be, not what the laws are.
Originally Posted by OngBonga
If you think it's ok for this behaviour to go on in nightclubs, then you're surely cool with men masturbating, homosexuals bumming, and lesbians scissoring. We can have gang bangs on the dancefloor, right? I've got no right to be prudish about such behaviour, I gave up that right when I entered an adult environment. Is that your position?
Yes. (in nightclubs /whoever doing whatever as long as they're consenting)
Yes. (gangbangs on dancefloors, but ewwww... The gangbang is not the dirtiest thing down there. Gangbangs in yards/parks is better. At least the dirtiness is actual dirt.)
No. You have every right to be prudish and offended. You never give up that right.
My position is that I don't understand why you claim that your desire to not witness sex in public has any bearing on another person's desire to have sex in public. My position is that I don't understand why - when you are offended by witnessing something and the people doing the something are offended by your demand that they stop what they're doing - you win the argument.
What is the moral keystone which favors your and society's stance? Why is it taken for granted that sex is bad and we should hide it? Our sexual organs are a significant portion of our anatomy. They are densely packed with nerves. We have a need, as all species do, to reproduce in order to survive.
My position is: Why have we allowed ourselves to be made to feel guilty about this central aspect of all life, not just human life?
My position is that no one has a right to not be offended.
|