Philosophy Now Forum

Richard: Some, perhaps a substantial majority, might regard it as a trait unworthy of an adult, rational human being. But even if that were so, should we legislate?[/quote]

Tom: NO!

Richard Baron wrote:

tbieter wrote:Hi Psychonaut,
What I don't understand is a person's desire to have sex in public? What are the possible motivations for such? Is it just exhibitionism, "a mental condition characterized by the compulsion to display one's genitals indecently in public"? The Oxford Modern English Dictionary

Perhaps it is that, or perhaps there is a feeling that such a public demonstration of love (or of lust) is in some way especially life-affirming, or perhaps it is something else.

But just suppose for a moment that it is pure exhibitionism. I think that we would still have to ask whether that was a trait, against the expression of which we should legislate. Some, perhaps a substantial majority, might regard it as a trait unworthy of an adult, rational human being. But even if that were so, should we legislate?

Hi Tom

What I don't understand is a person's desire to have sex in public? What are the possible motivations for such? Is it just exhibitionism,


AS: Well, my desire stems from the wonderful feeling of the outdoors and the spontaneity of sexuality. It has nothing to do with exhibitionism, which personally does not turn me on. I want the freedom to make love wherever I want. However, I do realize there are people in this world who would not want to stumble upon someone in a sexual encounter. That is why I propose having designated places for people who wish to have sex in public. I think it is reasonable to have "nude beach" type areas that are well designated with signs warning people who may not want to enter these areas. I think it is a fair way to begin and if/when those areas are "accepted" by society, more could be added later, until society could see that freedom is nothing to fear.

What I can't accept is any more limitations being put upon me (or should I say people like me.) I don't know if you realize what your laws are doing to my kind. It is almost like a fate worse than death. And I am not just talking about not being able to have sex in public. It's everything. The creative mind is bombarded with limitations and rules. It is stifling our society in ways I don't think you can begin to understand (not belittling you here...I am just saying that you don't hold these things such as individual freedom important enough to die for...I do) If you limit freedom, you limit innovation.

I feel smothered everyday by rules...and I do resent small things like not being able to go topless because I am female or wearing a seat belt....believe it or not...these two things mean the same thing to me....it's a restriction of my freedom. It's all to much, Tom.....I mean for people like me it is overwhelming. I hope I am getting my feelings across to you so you can see how something you see as so trivial and shallow is something I hold more important than life. This is no joking matter to me.

P.S. I want to add that I understand you have your freedom as well which is why I would only ask for a small place in which to practice my freedom. Surely you are reasonable enough to not want it all your way. Surely you are reasonable enough to know democracy only works through cooperation. Surely you are reasonable enough to want the freedom for all and not just a few.

tbieter wrote:Richard: Some, perhaps a substantial majority, might regard it as a trait unworthy of an adult, rational human being. But even if that were so, should we legislate?

Tom: NO!

Tom, I took your emphatic "no" to mean that you would not legislate against conduct which could be taken to be exhibitionistic. But Artisticsolution seems to think that you would not legislate to permit it. Or you could have meant that you would not legislate against sex in public on the ground that it was a form of exhibitionism, but that you would legislate against it on some other ground. Which is the correct interpretation, please?

Thanks.

What is your evidence that supports this statement? Does the statement include masturbation? ( Psychonaut: "I also assure you that, much as you fear everyone whacking off around you, most people are self-consciouss enough to avoid it.") (What does this mean - a moral residue?)

Finally, why do people want the legal right to offend others? It seems to me that one sense of civility suggests that just the opposite behavour is appropriate in public?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogging_(sexual_slang)

The reason for wanting the legal right to offend others is that offence is not rationally directed, and not someone about which discourse can be made.

There is already plentiful scope for offending others covered by the law, but it is only a very small minority whose tastes are covered in the law. The rest believe themselves, wrongly, to be in a minority, and the general language of discourse on such topics is also used to lead them to the belief that their tastes are 'immoral' or at least generally considered so.

This implied threat enforces silence, and the maintenance of a retarded status quo.

If the law wants to stop me from offending people (not setting out to offend people, but do acts that happen to offend people), and this is the sole justification for that particular law, then I can furnish it with a long list of things which offend me, and then they can go around enforcing that as well.

Except I'm not such a jackass as to expect not to be offended; my basis for civilisation.

hi as, "and I do resent small things like not being able to go topless because I am female or wearing a seat belt"

i agree, and i just have to share this story with you, lol, once i was driving down the road in a convertable with the (car)top down, only wearing my bikini because coming from the lake, right down mainstreet in town, and when i got to my destination i looked down and realized my entire bikini top had untied and come off, so i was unknowingly driving down mainstreet with my top off 1/2 naked, LOL! i was just enjoying driving in the sun getting into the music, etc. & the great day & time i was having that i didn't even notice!!!

in the culture i live in, especially while sitting at the stop lights, i can only imagine what people were thinking, ha ha

was really funny, my grand moment of exhibition

Help, my posts arent working?!

test.

To read Psychonaut's posts, click "Quote".

What is your evidence that supports this statement? Does the statement include masturbation? ( Psychonaut: "I also assure you that, much as you fear everyone whacking off around you, most people are self-consciouss enough to avoid it.") (What does this mean - a moral residue?)

Finally, why do people want the legal right to offend others? It seems to me that one sense of civility suggests that just the opposite behavour is appropriate in public?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogging_(sexual_slang)

The reason for wanting the legal right to offend others is that offence is not rationally directed, and not something about which discourse can be made.

There is already plentiful scope for offending others covered by the law, but it is only a very small minority whose tastes are covered in the law. The rest believe themselves, wrongly, to be in a minority, and the general language of discourse on such topics is also used to lead them to the belief that their tastes are 'immoral' or at least generally considered so.

This implied threat enforces silence, and the maintenance of a retarded status quo.

If the law wants to stop me from offending people (not as my intent, but as a result of my intent), and this is the sole justification for that particular law, then I can furnish it with a long list of things which offend me, and then they can go around enforcing that as well.

Except, I'm not such a jackass as to expect not to be offended; my basis for civilisation.

P.S. Apparently what screwed around with it was adding URL tags to my link above. Lord knows why, but it doesn't seem able to properly process the underscores.

bus2bondi wrote: in the culture i live in, especially while sitting at the stop lights, i can only imagine what people were thinking, ha ha

was really funny, my grand moment of exhibition

LOL! I bet you were saying to yourself...well no wonder I felt so comfortable, happy and free! I could get used to this shit....

LOL! , i've often wanted to go to a place of a different culture & mindset with a hot climate, where i could walk around 1/2 naked & free.

Richard,

I would not legislate against or in favor of public sex acts. Period! But, I surely would not encourage such acts, which is what Mill's Harm Principle promotes. I favor convention, or Dalrymple's 'prejudice" as regulative cultural principles.

I cherish individual freedom. I don't think modernity promotes individual freedom. I miss the eccentric. (In my lost library, I had a wonderful book entitled "The British Eccentric" - fascinating people) For example, I used to occasionally see a group of young teen-age girls. All except one would be dressed about the same. The one would be dressed radically different. She was an eccentric, in dress, at the time. And she was a "free spirit". they used to fascinate me, but I don't see tham anymore. Now all I see are Brittany Spears clones. I also think that the feminist emphasis on work and career has in part caused the loss of the female "free spirit". Sorry for the digression.

Richard Baron wrote:

tbieter wrote:Richard: Some, perhaps a substantial majority, might regard it as a trait unworthy of an adult, rational human being. But even if that were so, should we legislate?

Tom: NO!

Tom, I took your emphatic "no" to mean that you would not legislate against conduct which could be taken to be exhibitionistic. But Artisticsolution seems to think that you would not legislate to permit it. Or you could have meant that you would not legislate against sex in public on the ground that it was a form of exhibitionism, but that you would legislate against it on some other ground. Which is the correct interpretation, please?

Thanks.

Hi AS,

AS: "I want the freedom to make love wherever I want."

Tom: I guess I'm just an old foggy now. Maybe I shouldn't be in this conversation.

I just remembered an incident from my married youth. We were on a family camping vacation in North Dakota just outside the Teddy Roosevelt National Park. I gave the kids money for treats after they tired of the swimming pool. Their mother and I wanted to bicycle in the Park 12 miles to the picnic grounds (to see wild life on the way - I saw a badger). Upon arrival, it was quiet, just the sounds of Nature, with no other people. A beautiful grassy area. I suddenly got the urge - and we did it on the grass, buck naked. I was a Rough Rider, like Teddy!

Technically, it was a public sex act. Some buffalow were probably watching. Anyway, its now a great memory - so I understand your position.

Tom

P.S. You sound like a girl who is a "free spirit", girls who used to fascinate me and, who I fear, are a rarety now.

artisticsolution wrote:Hi Tom

What I don't understand is a person's desire to have sex in public? What are the possible motivations for such? Is it just exhibitionism,


AS: Well, my desire stems from the wonderful feeling of the outdoors and the spontaneity of sexuality. It has nothing to do with exhibitionism, which personally does not turn me on. I want the freedom to make love wherever I want. However, I do realize there are people in this world who would not want to stumble upon someone in a sexual encounter. That is why I propose having designated places for people who wish to have sex in public. I think it is reasonable to have "nude beach" type areas that are well designated with signs warning people who may not want to enter these areas. I think it is a fair way to begin and if/when those areas are "accepted" by society, more could be added later, until society could see that freedom is nothing to fear.

What I can't accept is any more limitations being put upon me (or should I say people like me.) I don't know if you realize what your laws are doing to my kind. It is almost like a fate worse than death. And I am not just talking about not being able to have sex in public. It's everything. The creative mind is bombarded with limitations and rules. It is stifling our society in ways I don't think you can begin to understand (not belittling you here...I am just saying that you don't hold these things such as individual freedom important enough to die for...I do) If you limit freedom, you limit innovation.

I feel smothered everyday by rules...and I do resent small things like not being able to go topless because I am female or wearing a seat belt....believe it or not...these two things mean the same thing to me....it's a restriction of my freedom. It's all to much, Tom.....I mean for people like me it is overwhelming. I hope I am getting my feelings across to you so you can see how something you see as so trivial and shallow is something I hold more important than life. This is no joking matter to me.

P.S. I want to add that I understand you have your freedom as well which is why I would only ask for a small place in which to practice my freedom. Surely you are reasonable enough to not want it all your way. Surely you are reasonable enough to know democracy only works through cooperation. Surely you are reasonable enough to want the freedom for all and not just a few.

tbieter wrote: I would not legislate against or in favor of public sex acts. Period! But, I surely would not encourage such acts, which is what Mill's Harm Principle promotes. I favor convention, or Dalrymple's 'prejudice" as regulative cultural principles.

Hi Tom

Thanks very much for the clarification. I do believe that we are in agreement, at least as to what should be on the statute book. We can both harmlessly express our different preferences, and leave it to others to decide whether to take any notice.

Peace and eccentricity!

Hi Richard,

Yes, we are in agreement. Laws and rules, while generally necessary, are stifling, as ArtisticSolution so eloquently states. [As you know, I have a great interest in the little known notion and practice of "rule departure"]

Regarding people watching, when you read what she wrote above don't you just want to immediately take her to lunch and get her talking and just listen to her? That is the urge I had when I first read her post. I like to watch and listen to people. Except for Sartre: "Hell is other people".

Finally, this morning I finished reading Ray Monk's How to Read Wittgenstein. A useful book for me. I'm interested in W's notion of "imponderable evidence" mentioned by Monk in the last chapter. Next I'll read the Tractus, then Monk's biography, The Duty of Genius.

Tom

Finally, this morning I finished reading Ray Monk's How to Read Wittgenstein. A useful book for me. I'm interested in W's notion of "imponderable evidence" mentioned by Monk in the last chapter. Next I'll read the Tractus, then Monk's biography, The Duty of Genius.

The Duty of Genius

is one the finest books I've ever read. I can't recommend it highly enough.