Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 12:53:44 PM

Login with username, password and session length

The Fight or Fellate Reflex: Great Excuses

Started by jutl, August 07, 2007, 10:36:24 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Shoulders?-Stomach!

Quoteand there was nothing but other black guys around in the park

It's just struck me that he must've been in an extremely boring park.

P.S- Another republican was caught looking for gay sex last week, after a history of right-wing family values type lecturing.

Mister Six

Quote from: Ciarán on August 08, 2007, 04:23:17 PMThe copper was party to the "crime", he accomodated it. He's equally the architect of the man's downfall. But he's seen to have upheld the law and done some good for society.

I can understand your frustration at the message that "gays = urrr, dirty bummers hanging about in the toilets", but this is going a bit far. The policeman was solicited for paid sex by a city official. If it had been a straight guy trying to shag a disguised policewoman, would you still be as outraged?

And even if you would be, you shouldn't conflate the issue of casual homophobia with the issue of legalising prostitution.

Ciarán

Quote from: Mister Six on September 04, 2007, 08:54:26 PM
I can understand your frustration at the message that "gays = urrr, dirty bummers hanging about in the toilets", but this is going a bit far. The policeman was solicited for paid sex by a city official. If it had been a straight guy trying to shag a disguised policewoman, would you still be as outraged?

And even if you would be, you shouldn't conflate the issue of casual homophobia with the issue of legalising prostitution.

At the risk of opening a can of worms...

I think in some cases it's right to turn a blind eye to law-breaking. The policeman in this case didn't, and that's sort of understandable. (Although I have problems with this case because it seems to involve entrapment.) I'm not into this zero-tolerance attitude to crime.

SetToStun

Quote from: Ciarán on August 08, 2007, 04:23:17 PM
What if enough people dislike it? What if there's good reason to dislike it? I'm not talking about sweeping the law to one side. I'm talking about challenging it. I'm saying the injustice here isn't that some politican gets his kicks by approaching fellas in public toilets - it's that such action is considered lewd, uncomely (pardon the pun), unbefitting a "respectable" man. Gay people have been discriminated for centuries, and outcome of that is things like cottaging. A bloke can't just approach any other bloke as one might a girl - becuase it still causes offence, he might run the risk of a queerbashing or of insults etc. And many gay men are not "out" and are driven to flirt by different means etc. The specific law in the case referred to reflects this inequality and also entrenches it further in society.

And this is where I think we have a difference of opinion. I'm not homophobic (I was when I was a teenager but that's long since passed), but then again neither am I arguing for different standards. I'm going to ask you a couple of questions now, just to make sure we're not at cross-purposes.

1. Do you believe that it's perfectly OK for a man (or woman) to approach a man (who may not be a male prostitute or even (if applicable) gay) in a public place and solicit paid-for sex? Do you not think it likely to be deeply offensive to that approached man to be implicitly accused of being a whore? And what if that man were your father, brother or son?

2. Do you believe that it's perfectly OK for a man (or woman) to approach a woman (who may not be a female prostitute or even (if applicable) gay) in a public place and solicit paid-for sex? Do you not think it likely to be deeply offensive to that approached woman to be implicitly accused of being a whore? And what if that woman were your mother, sister or daughter?

If you think both cases are completely fine and there's no problem at all with either, then you can honestly argue for all forms of soliciting (between adults) to be perfectly legal and no harm done. If you see one as being OK and one not, then you have a problem. And If you say "no" to both, then the law as it stands is probably not too shabby.

There's a reason soliciting's not allowed: the vast majority of people would - rightly or wrongly - be dreadfully offended to be branded a whore; a commodity to be bought for a stranger's sexual gratification.

Ciarán

Quote from: SetToStun on September 05, 2007, 04:32:11 PM
1. Do you believe that it's perfectly OK for a man (or woman) to approach a man (who may not be a male prostitute or even (if applicable) gay) in a public place and solicit paid-for sex?

Given the circumstances which led to this gay code coming about, yes I think it's ok. We can't just remove the act from its context. Gay people are driven to a sort of "underground" (i.e. gay bars, contact magazines) just so they can go about their flirting. Some people aren't "out" about their sexuality and for them cottaging might be an option. Of course, "straight" men and "curious" men try cottaging from time to time too. It's a part of underground gay culture.

QuoteDo you not think it likely to be deeply offensive to that approached man to be implicitly accused of being a whore?

Not offensive, no. It might be intimidating or embarrassing. It happened to me once, I wrote about it here - I'll see if I can find the post in a sec.

QuoteAnd what if that man were your father, brother or son?

It's up to them how they respond, it doesn't really alter my position on it though.

Quote2. Do you believe that it's perfectly OK for a man (or woman) to approach a woman (who may not be a female prostitute or even (if applicable) gay) in a public place and solicit paid-for sex?

Not necessarily, no. so I'm guilty of a double-standard? Possibly, but put it this way. Sexual relationships between people of opposite genders haven't historically been frowned upon in the way that homosexual sexual encounters have been. Homosexual sex was officially "illegal" in Ireland until 1993 for example. So the standards are different, if we're comparing the experiences of gay people and straight people in our society.

QuoteDo you not think it likely to be deeply offensive to that approached woman to be implicitly accused of being a whore?

Again, I wouldn't take offence at it, no. I don't despise prostitutes or their actions. I try to understand why they end up doing what they do. I don't think they're in it for the sex, put it that way. A female prostitute once grabbed at me on the street and flashed her tits at me in an attempt to get me to aherm..."avail of her services". I was with two friends at the time and it happened in broad daylight. The prostitute was obviously strung out on something, she was in a really bad way physically. I wasn't offended, I was a bit saddened and shocked by it though.

QuoteAnd what if that woman were your mother, sister or daughter?

If one of them were a prostitute? I'd be shocked, I'd wonder what on earth they were doing it for etc. Luckily, they're not prostitutes, as far as I know, but you do try to put yourself in other people's shoes in these cases don't you?

QuoteIf you think both cases are completely fine and there's no problem at all with either, then you can honestly argue for all forms of soliciting (between adults) to be perfectly legal and no harm done. If you see one as being OK and one not, then you have a problem. And If you say "no" to both, then the law as it stands is probably not too shabby.

Well by that criteria I think I fall into the "then you have a problem" category. I do have a problem with prostitution and with the legislation against it - I think it's a very difficult moral problem. Suppose you go to a club tonight and pull, you buy a few drinks for a girl, you both get a bit pissed and go back to yours for a shag. And maybe one of you or both of you regret it the next day. Is that ok? It's consenting adults (presuming you're not both incapable of consenting), you have an agreement, you are both happy with the arrangement, you get your kicks - is that not as bad as soliciting sex?

QuoteThere's a reason soliciting's not allowed: the vast majority of people would - rightly or wrongly - be dreadfully offended to be branded a whore; a commodity to be bought for a stranger's sexual gratification.

Is that a good enough reason to prohibit it? Don't people also consider the circumstances which lead people to resort to prostitution? And with or without law, hasn't it always existed in some form or other? So what good does the law do?

SetToStun

Stop it! Stopitstopitstopit! Stop answering questions you want me to have asked and answer the ones I actually did ask. I gave you two identical questions with only the genders changed and you answered them as if one was about solicitation and one about prostitution!

Fuck it, that's it. You win by attrition. Have an internet.

daisy11

Quote from: SetToStun on September 06, 2007, 09:41:36 AM
Stop it! Stopitstopitstopit! Stop answering questions you want me to have asked and answer the ones I actually did ask. I gave you two identical questions with only the genders changed and you answered them as if one was about solicitation and one about prostitution!

Fuck it, that's it. You win by attrition. Have an internet.

No, he wins a free cottaging experience in any public convenience but let me know which one you choose as I don't want to be sending in little boys I'm taking to a museum or cinema or park and they insist that they "want to use the grown-up boy's toilets".  So keep it private and quiet please, preferably in your own home.  Or after dark if you really must use a toilet.
Sorry, I don't mean to sound a prude.  Personally I don't care whatever anyone wishes to sexually perform on another adult as long as it is consensual, but some people can really be very selfish and inconsiderate.

alan nagsworth

I'm afraid I agree with daisy11 here. I couldn't give two shits what people get upto as long as it doesn't concern me in any way. I don't wanna see it, hear it... I don't even wanna smell the friction of the flesh and poo of a rigorous arse-pumping. Incidentally my name is Joe Public.

Mr. Analytical

Quote from: Ciarán on September 05, 2007, 06:11:14 PM
Given the circumstances which led to this gay code coming about, yes I think it's ok. We can't just remove the act from its context. Gay people are driven to a sort of "underground" (i.e. gay bars, contact magazines) just so they can go about their flirting. Some people aren't "out" about their sexuality and for them cottaging might be an option. Of course, "straight" men and "curious" men try cottaging from time to time too. It's a part of underground gay culture.

I think gay men can flirt with whomever they wish.

If a gay man flirts with me he'll get a very similar reaction to if he were to flirt with a gay man who didn't fancy him.  Nothing's forcing him to go into a public lavatory.  So it's not as if gay men have been driven out of polite society and the only way they're able to find potential partners is in motorway laybys.  That's not the case at all.

There is an underground gay culture in the sense that there are men both gay, bi and well... any port in a storm horny, who are willing to engage in sex with pretty much anonymous partners.  This is where the bushes in Russell Square and porn cinemas come into it.

This politician being dragged through the mud is entirely negative against the second set of activities, but not the first.  Unless you want to argue that cottaging is an integral part of gay sexuality, you're going to have trouble logically arguing that what's going on is anti-gay, as opposed to anti-gays-who-cottage.

Indeed, there are some gay rights activists who argue that cottaging is a natural expression of gay sexuality and that any attempt to legally "protect" the straight population from these activities is inherently homophobic and I'm not sure it is really.  I think it's anti-stupid gay bloke more than anti-gay.  Aren't there supposed to be ways to "show your interest" other than making lude gestures and pushing money under the partition?

Ciarán

#39
Quote from: SetToStun on September 06, 2007, 09:41:36 AM
Stop it! Stopitstopitstopit! Stop answering questions you want me to have asked and answer the ones I actually did ask. I gave you two identical questions with only the genders changed...

That makes them non-identical questions. It's NOT comparing like with like, that's the point here. There's a reason why cottaging isn't a feature of "heterosexual culture" (for want of a better phrase).

Just to clarify, if you walk up to just any man or woman on the street and try to solicit them for sex, of course you'd be barmy and you might cause offence or get yourself into trouble. But we're talking about something that happened in a public toilet - there's a code involved there, that's an entirely different matter. The context is important. To pretend otherwise is just silly.

Ciarán

Quote from: Mr. Analytical on September 06, 2007, 10:22:29 AM
I think gay men can flirt with whomever they wish.

If a gay man flirts with me he'll get a very similar reaction to if he were to flirt with a gay man who didn't fancy him.  Nothing's forcing him to go into a public lavatory.  So it's not as if gay men have been driven out of polite society and the only way they're able to find potential partners is in motorway laybys.  That's not the case at all.

But queer-bashing still goes on. It's not the done thing, let's be honest, for a fella to chat up another in just any old pub without having some inkling that that person is gay. There are signs, codes and so on, but they're not 100% certainties, and coming on to a straight man might cause offence. Blokes can be a bit funny about that sort of thing.

QuoteThis politician being dragged through the mud is entirely negative against the second set of activities, but not the first.  Unless you want to argue that cottaging is an integral part of gay sexuality, you're going to have trouble logically arguing that what's going on is anti-gay, as opposed to anti-gays-who-cottage.

It's an integral part of gay culture.

QuoteAren't there supposed to be ways to "show your interest" other than making lude gestures and pushing money under the partition?

You know it's the attitude "but it's all so sordid" that you get in so-called "polite" society that irritates me. Homosexuality has been decriminalised but there's still an air of "but I don't want them doing it in public" about it. It's the old attitude "I'm not homophobic, whatever filth gay people get up to in their own homes is up to them, I mean if they enjoy sticking things up their arse that's their look-out..." And we think homophobia has gone away...

daisy11

Quote from: Ciarán on September 06, 2007, 11:09:46 AM
But queer-bashing still goes on. It's not the done thing, let's be honest, for a fella to chat up another in just any old pub without having some inkling that that person is gay. There are signs, codes and so on, but they're not 100% certainties, and coming on to a straight man might cause offence. Blokes can be a bit funny about that sort of thing.

It's an integral part of gay culture.

You know it's the attitude "but it's all so sordid" that you get in so-called "polite" society that irritates me. Homosexuality has been decriminalised but there's still an air of "but I don't want them doing it in public" about it. It's the old attitude "I'm not homophobic, whatever filth gay people get up to in their own homes is up to them, I mean if they enjoy sticking things up their arse that's their look-out..." And we think homophobia has gone away...

Ciaran, I don't want to come across anyone bonking, buggering, or fellating (couldn't think of a b-word for it) in public places, whether they are gay, straight or bi. 

Ciarán

Quote from: daisy11 on September 06, 2007, 11:32:34 AM
Ciaran, I don't want to come across....

Aaaaahhh! See what I've done there? "Come across"! Literally, eh? EH? (Sorry...)

Quote...anyone bonking, buggering, or fellating (couldn't think of a b-word for it)...

Blow-jobbing!

Quote...in public places, whether they are gay, straight or bi. 

But it'd be happenning in a cubicle in a public toilet, probably when the coast is clear and there's no-one else around. It's discreet enough, I think.

daisy11

Quote from: Ciarán on September 06, 2007, 11:37:24 AM
Aaaaahhh! See what I've done there? "Come across"! Literally, eh? EH? (Sorry...)

Blow-jobbing!


A ridiculous term for the act.

And most cubicles in public toilets that you use always lock or are sound-proofed, or have doors do they.  We are not dogs, although we are animals with urges but what makes us different from the lower animals is the ability to control the urges, in this case, until you're in a suitable place.
I realise that the thrill of being caught and in a public place is part of the attraction for cottaging perhaps, but then keep it until after dark, or in the toilets of clubs.

(Where's my newly ordered Daily Mail ...)

Ciarán

Quote from: daisy11 on September 06, 2007, 11:45:54 AM
And most cubicles in public toilets that you use always lock or are sound-proofed, or have doors do they. 

I've never been aware that a sexual act has gone on in an adjacent cubicle to mine anytime I've used a public toilet.

QuoteWe are not dogs, although we are animals with urges but what makes us different from the lower animals is the ability to control the urges, in this case, until you're in a suitable place.

That's repression isn't it? Sometimes we lose control of our urges. The politician whose actions prompted this thread will probably know all about that.

daisy11

Enough arguing from me. I hope you've been adding to your superb music collection Ciaran.  I'm off to oscillations.

Hypodeemic Nerdle

Quote from: Mr. Analytical on September 06, 2007, 10:22:29 AMIndeed, there are some gay rights activists who argue that cottaging is a natural expression of gay sexuality and that any attempt to legally "protect" the straight population from these activities is inherently homophobic and I'm not sure it is really.
It is when the activities of two or more men risk a prison sentence & are classed as "gross indecency", yet the behaviour of a man & a woman risks no more than a fine of up to £100.

Mister Six

Quote from: Ciarán on September 05, 2007, 03:50:53 PMI think in some cases it's right to turn a blind eye to law-breaking. The policeman in this case didn't, and that's sort of understandable. (Although I have problems with this case because it seems to involve entrapment.) I'm not into this zero-tolerance attitude to crime.

It's only entrapment if the police officer instigates the crime (ie. asking someone to buy some drugs for them). If they offer the opportunity to commit the crime and the target takes that opportunity of their own volition, it's not entrapment.

Mister Six

Quote from: Ciarán on September 06, 2007, 10:57:58 AMJust to clarify, if you walk up to just any man or woman on the street and try to solicit them for sex, of course you'd be barmy and you might cause offence or get yourself into trouble. But we're talking about something that happened in a public toilet - there's a code involved there, that's an entirely different matter. The context is important. To pretend otherwise is just silly.

So you think prostitution laws should be lifted for male-on-male solicitation occurring in common cottaging areas such as toilets?

If a gay man wants to go out and get laid he can go to a gay club. There's thousands out there these days. Or he can try dating agencies, or blind dates or parties or whatever. It's not the 1950s any more. While queer-bashing and homophobia are still present, gays don't have to lurk in toilets to get their jollies.

Nor do they have to pay for sex, which is actually the point of this. He wasn't arrested for being a gay man trying to pull another gay man, he was arrested for being a person trying to solicit sex for money from another person. To say that this is homophobic is absurd. There are plenty of female undercover (fnarr) officers out there trying to attract punters to arrest.

Saucer51

Loved that politician's excuse. It's even better - and less plausible - than Senator Agsby's one of suffering from Prestadidwicks Congenia.

A female colleague of mine used to work in a certain country that took gender apartheid to the extreme. One day she was walking through a street in one of the cities, dressed in the mandatory national costume when a local man went past and grabbed her tits. She threw him off, berated (not fellated) him and he fled. Later she discovered from other ex-pats and locals alike that this particular street was where men and women came to fraternise. The country's laws were so strict that courtship was driven underground, leading to animalistic lunges and sleazy assignations in certain areas. Naturally everyone and no-one knew about this particular road where it all went on. It strikes me as terribly sad when people are forced to expose themselves to danger, sleaze and prosecution just to carry out what nature has programmed us to do.

Mister Six


Saucer51

Quote from: Mister Six on September 09, 2007, 11:48:43 AM
Come on, tell us the name of the country!

I'll tell you when I'm absolutely sure you're not a lorry driver.

Ciarán

Quote from: Mister Six on September 09, 2007, 12:01:46 AM
So you think prostitution laws should be lifted for male-on-male solicitation occurring in common cottaging areas such as toilets?

No, not necessarily. But the punishment for being caught shouldn't be harsh. As far as I'm concerned it's about as much of a nuisance as taping songs of the radio is. Yes, it's illegal, and perhaps it should stay that way - but it's often acceptable to turbn a blind eye to these things. And I don't think those people who do break the law in these cases have anything to feel guilty about.

QuoteIf a gay man wants to go out and get laid he can go to a gay club. There's thousands out there these days. Or he can try dating agencies, or blind dates or parties or whatever. It's not the 1950s any more. While queer-bashing and homophobia are still present, gays don't have to lurk in toilets to get their jollies.

You're assuming all gay men are "out". There are married men who battle daily with their sexual feelings, they can't just pop into the local gay bar to give the old homosexuality a try out. There are plenty of single men also who are unsure of their sexuality, they may even to outsiders appear to be homophobic. To be seen going into a gay bar at all, is something many men are fearful of.

QuoteNor do they have to pay for sex, which is actually the point of this. He wasn't arrested for being a gay man trying to pull another gay man, he was arrested for being a person trying to solicit sex for money from another person. To say that this is homophobic is absurd. There are plenty of female undercover (fnarr) officers out there trying to attract punters to arrest.

You mean it'd be perfectly ok if the sex were being given away for free? As I remember George Michael was charged with "lewd conduct" in a similar case.

I'm not satsfied with the law regarding prostitution - and I am not arguing that it should all be legalised. But nor should it be imagined that it will ever just go away. It exists for a number of reasons; poverty, sexual frustration, etc.

Pogue Mahone

#53
Quote from: Ciarán on September 09, 2007, 05:36:40 PM
You're assuming all gay men are "out". There are married men who battle daily with their sexual feelings, they can't just pop into the local gay bar to give the old homosexuality a try out. There are plenty of single men also who are unsure of their sexuality, they may even to outsiders appear to be homophobic. To be seen going into a gay bar at all, is something many men are fearful of.

Should it be the obligation of the state or law-makers to accommodate this fear? Fair enough, we may feel sympathy, but I don't see why such a private problem should necessarily be anyone else's concern.

Ciarán

Quote from: Pogue Mahone on September 09, 2007, 06:13:38 PM
Should it be the obligation of the state or law-makers to accommodate this fear? I don't see why such a private problem should necessarily be anyone elses concern.

It's up to people who can identify this problem with regard to law (i.e. that it cannot completely take these wider problems into account), to question and criticise the law, to show up its failings. I don't think it's a simple case of accommodating the problem, more a question of challenging the law.

I don't agree that these are merely "private" concerns. If they were they wouldn't need to be subject to restriction at all. The law prohibits both the private exchange of money between two adults who consent to have sex, and engagement in sexual activity in public areas.


I seem to recal from a Bill Hicks routine (or 'The' Bill Hicks routine) about the Rodney King beating in the states years ago. Didn't one of the police officers come up with a 'Magic Baton' theroy to explain away the repeated beatings? Perhaps it was all for comedic effect...

Mister Six

Quote from: Ciarán on September 09, 2007, 05:36:40 PM
No, not necessarily. But the punishment for being caught shouldn't be harsh. As far as I'm concerned it's about as much of a nuisance as taping songs of the radio is. Yes, it's illegal, and perhaps it should stay that way - but it's often acceptable to turbn a blind eye to these things. And I don't think those people who do break the law in these cases have anything to feel guilty about.

So you feel that male-on-male solicitation of sex in cottaging areas should have a less harsh sentence than male-on-male solicitation elsewhere or male-on-female solicitation anywhere? Not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to figure out your feelings on prostitution.

QuoteYou're assuming all gay men are "out". There are married men who battle daily with their sexual feelings, they can't just pop into the local gay bar to give the old homosexuality a try out. There are plenty of single men also who are unsure of their sexuality, they may even to outsiders appear to be homophobic. To be seen going into a gay bar at all, is something many men are fearful of.

So try personal ads, or something like that.

I mean, some men who pay for female prostitutes have crippling social inadequacies, or have facial disfigurements, or are otherwise unable to easily find a sexual partner. Should they face less stiff fines or imprisonment?

Should I be let off stealing cars because I really need the cash to buy an engagement ring?

QuoteYou mean it'd be perfectly ok if the sex were being given away for free?

Well, yes. If two guys meet in a toilet and want to wander off for a shag then that's surely perfectly fine? The problem - in this case and in general - is that if one of them is paying for the sex then it's moved into an area that, rightly or not, is illegal. I don't think that prostitution laws should be relaxed just because the punter can't get a shag anywhere else. It's political correctness gone mad! etc.

I am, however, in favour of legalised prostitution across the board.

Ciarán

Quote from: Mister Six on September 09, 2007, 11:28:11 PM
So you feel that male-on-male solicitation of sex in cottaging areas should have a less harsh sentence than male-on-male solicitation elsewhere or male-on-female solicitation anywhere? Not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to figure out your feelings on prostitution.

I'm not sure that would be an adequate measure, but the law regarding prostitution is always itself inadequate. I think this would be obvious to most people.

QuoteSo try personal ads, or something like that.

Gay people shouldn't have to hide their sexuality away in this manner in the first place. Yes people are becoming a bit more tolerant, but it's not a finished project.

QuoteI mean, some men who pay for female prostitutes have crippling social inadequacies, or have facial disfigurements, or are otherwise unable to easily find a sexual partner. Should they face less stiff fines or imprisonment?

These things need to be taken into account - we need to think about why prostitution exists in the first place. I personally think poverty is to blame for women getting involved in it, but violence plays an important role too. I'm not sure we'll ever completely eradicate rape, but I don't advocate decriminalising it. We need to understand why it happens and attempt to get rid of the circumstances which accommodate it.

QuoteShould I be let off stealing cars because I really need the cash to buy an engagement ring?

I see where you're going with this. No you shouldn't be "let off". But put it this way - what makes a person virtuous - the fact that they adhere to the law? I'd say that's never enough.

QuoteWell, yes. If two guys meet in a toilet and want to wander off for a shag then that's surely perfectly fine?

If they indulge in sexual activity in the corner of a dark park somewhere, or in a toilet cubicle, it's "lewd behaviour" and as someone pointed out above, incurs a harsher punishment than would be given to a heterosexual couple.

QuoteThe problem - in this case and in general - is that if one of them is paying for the sex then it's moved into an area that, rightly or not, is illegal.

To be honest that wasn't what prompted me to start posting in this thread, it was more that I felt people's sense of injustice was misdirected. I don't think the politician in the case is just "bang to rights" in a way we should revel in. I felt sort of sorry for him, despite his horrible political views, his stupid explanation and so on. But I'm a bit of a hippy. ;-)

QuoteI don't think that prostitution laws should be relaxed just because the punter can't get a shag anywhere else. It's political correctness gone mad! etc.

I am, however, in favour of legalised prostitution across the board.

Are you joking now?