PDA

View Full Version : Audience members have oral sex at XXX stage show


howard
Apr 24, 2003, 12:53 PM
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_773830.html

reminded me of the repressed sex thread...

anyway who cares about this...like the guy said, its what everyone in the theatre wanted...

look at the last line...
"It does not make a difference if it was a member of the cast or a member of the audience who was involved. Sex in public is an offence."

next thing you know talking about sex will be offensive..and then sex itself...for christ sake its a natural thing that we need to do to survive.! people are so weird about it.

applemacdude
Apr 24, 2003, 01:10 PM
LOL!!!!! Having oral sex in public....now i've heard it all. hahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahaha:)

vniow
Apr 24, 2003, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by applemacdude
Having oral sex in public....now i've heard it all.


Oooohh no you haven't.

chewbaccapits
Apr 24, 2003, 02:14 PM
Enlighten us vniow.....BTW, why did they do the "act" there...The article wasn't to clear if the production itself required it or if it was some stunt to get people to come to the production.

Chef Ramen
Apr 24, 2003, 02:22 PM
do they have thsese things in the states?

billyboy
Apr 24, 2003, 02:59 PM
As some bright spark commented last night on a UK radio broadcast, "Hard core sex should be restricted to behind closed doors - mine."

The report I heard said there was hard core film playing in the background, there was humour, and simulated sex aplenty both on stage between actors and later between actors and "plants" in the audience who stripped off and trotted up for a right simulated go on stage.

The only section of the show that swerved slightly beyond what is readily on display in any red light district was a piece that contained sexual violence. This parting shot was apparently the only part of a weak plot that even slightly challenged the audience of consenting adults, all of whom were there perfectly well aware they were to see the most explicit theatrical sex show ever within the bounds of British law.

jrv3034
Apr 24, 2003, 04:21 PM
Nice 'tar, Vniow. :eek: :D

mcrain
Apr 24, 2003, 04:22 PM
Does this remind anyone else about the comment the other day from the current Republican majority leader about homosexual activities?

MacFan25
Apr 24, 2003, 04:27 PM
I can't believe that those people had sex in the theatre! :eek:

vniow
Apr 24, 2003, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by chewbaccapits
Enlighten us vniow....

http://www.flipsidemovies.com/salo.html

Originally posted by jrv3034
Nice 'tar, Vniow. :eek: :D

Thanx.

Originally posted by mcrain
Does this remind anyone else about the comment the other day from the current Republican majority leader about homosexual activities?

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25219

Originally posted by MacFan25
I can't believe that those people had sex in the theatre! :eek:

No suprise to me really, I mean when you go to a show like that, the whole idea is well....to get horny so people having sex in the aisles isn't entirely unexpected....

wdlove
Apr 24, 2003, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by mcrain
Does this remind anyone else about the comment the other day from the current Republican majority leader about homosexual activities?

He's not the Senate Majority Leader. Senator Rick Santorium, R is from PA. He was not making a connection with homosexuality as the media reported, its a case of the biased media. He was merely reporting on the law. That if the Supreme Court were to strike down the law in Texas, then it could affect laws such as sodomy in other states.

howard
Apr 24, 2003, 05:22 PM
vniow:

No suprise to me really, I mean when you go to a show like that, the whole idea is well....to get horny so people having sex in the aisles isn't entirely unexpected....

there you go...vniow i knew you'd understand

wdlove
Apr 24, 2003, 05:29 PM
How about oral sex in QuickTime, "American Pie 3" tailer. :p

http://www2.filmweb.no/trailer/article.jhtml?articleID=21057&visTrailer=true&felt=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.filmweb.no%2Ftrailere%2Fuip%2FUIP20030291%2F2.mov

vniow
Apr 24, 2003, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by howard
there you go...vniow i knew you'd understand


But that doesn't make it legal though, I mean, I don't mind at all and these sort of shows are right up my alley, but according to the article it was illegal to do what they did:

A Home Office spokeswoman said: "It does not make a difference if it was a member of the cast or a member of the audience who was involved. Sex in public is an offence."

But if you read eariler on they weren't actually having sex, the man was wearing a strap-on:

The London Evening Standard reported a man in the audience was given oral sex by one of the actresses, although the company, La Fura Dels Baus, later confirmed the man had been a "plant" who used a prosthesis to fake the sex act.

So then things get a little more gray...

howard
Apr 24, 2003, 06:38 PM
i don't see why i should be illegal if its ok with the audience...you know? i mean i can understand why sex in the middle of the town square is illegal but if its a theatre show where that is the point of going...then who cares? now this isn't really up my alley...but
"i may not agree with what you have to say but i will fight to the death for your right to say it"...voltaire

wdlove
Apr 24, 2003, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by mcrain
Does this remind anyone else about the comment the other day from the current Republican majority leader about homosexual activities?

THE THOUGHT-POLICE VERSUS SANTORUM: As the highest ranking Catholic in the U.S. Senate, Rick Santorum (R-PA) was bound to be a target of America's seething Left. Santorum's offending comment about sodomy pertained to the constitutionality of the government regulating private, consensual conduct. The same sentiment has been expressed by Supreme Court justices like Byron White, constitutional scholars, and respected columnists. The legal reasoning goes like this: if the Court rules that a "privacy" right protects adult conduct behind closed doors, then how does it distinguish laws prohibiting other private adult behavior such as bigamy or bestiality? The sodomy laws in question (which apply to heterosexual and homesexuals alike) are silly and should be repealed by the states that still have such criminal statutes on their books. But the issue of whether the laws are wise is separate from whether the laws are constitutional. Most Christians, and certainly all Catholics, who take their faith seriously would be barred from public life if today's thought police are allowed to push Santorum out of his leadership role. Santorum should make the legal versus prudential distinctions here clear. The elitist Left is always shouting about being "censored" by intolerant conservatives, yet the truth is that some of the most intolerant people on the scene today are those who demand that anyone in public life adopt their views on controversial social and moral issues--or else.

A lawyers review of the situation, Laura Ingraham.

Echinda
Apr 24, 2003, 07:56 PM
Sorry to participate in a threadjacking but:

Laura Ingraham may or may not be a lawyer, but she is a right-wing talk show host. No point in being disingenuous with your sources. No one will take you seriously if you make lame attempts to hide their biases.

As for the show - I see no problem with consenting adults getting up to whatever they want behind closed doors. Can't see why the state should care.

D*I*S_Frontman
Apr 24, 2003, 07:58 PM
I have not read the full text of Santorum's comments. If they are indeed about the Constitutionality of such laws, then he has a point, and most certainly such a distinction would be lost on or ignored by the PC left.

If that was not clear, he should make it so. If it was not his intention, I'm sure the Republicans would have shown him the door as quickly as they did to Lott.

Trent Lott's comments were boneheaded and insensitive for no other reason than to find SOMETHING to compliment SC's ancient senator on. Lousy reason to give credibility to segregation politics.

Santorum's comments, if pertaining to law as WDLOVE has suggested, is not worthy of such a witchhunt, IMHO. But with a victorious war, a looming tax cut, and a leadership vacuum yet to be filled in the Democratic party, our more left-leaning friends have to seize every tactical advantage they can find, which we can hardly blame them for. Santorum and anyone like him should guard their observations more carefully and make sure that FOX news is at every press conference they do, if only to maintain a modicum of balance in the reporting.

zimv20
Apr 24, 2003, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by D*I*S_Frontman
I have not read the full text of Santorum's comments. If they are indeed about the Constitutionality of such laws, then he has a point

they go beyond that. some of the interview can be found in this thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25219)

QCassidy352
Apr 24, 2003, 08:40 PM
Originally posted by vniow
But that doesn't make it legal though, I mean, I don't mind at all and these sort of shows are right up my alley, but according to the article it was illegal to do what they did:

But if you read eariler on they weren't actually having sex, the man was wearing a strap-on:

So then things get a little more gray...

I think there were two separate incidents. Here's what the article says:
--
"The London Evening Standard reported a man in the audience was given oral sex by one of the actresses, although the company, La Fura Dels Baus, later confirmed the man had been a 'plant' who used a prosthesis to fake the sex act.

However, on Wednesday night during the performance a woman, who later gave her name as Mistress Poppy, 33, moved into the aisle and performed a sex act with a man.

After the show she insisted she had no connection with the theatre company and that she was a 'professional dominatrix' and porn actress. She said: 'I've done this sort of thing before, in porn films and live sex shows, and I would have loved to go up on stage and have full sex there too.'

Her sexual partner also denied he was taking part in a pre-planned exercise. The 29-year-old German man, who would only give his name as Michael, said: 'Everyone in the audience wanted to do what I did.'"
--
Seems like the first time was an actress and a "plant" in the audience wearing a strap on. The second time, though, the article seems to say that it was two audience member and it was for real.
It also seems to me that a case could be made that a privately owned theater which is not open to the public but only to paying guests might not be "public" in the same way that a park is. But that would be a tricky one.

Further: much as I also hate to participate in a thread-jacking, here is the quote from Santorum:

"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything."

It does seem to me that he is making a legal point, not a judgmental one. The above quote is saying that preventing the government from banning one thing implies that it cannot ban a similar thing. Legally, this may or may not be true (the Supreme Court has done stranger things), but whether the legal analysis is accurate or not, it is still a legal and not moral analysis. He *is* equating homosexual behavior to these other acts, but that's a fair *legal* comparison to make, given how these acts are treated under the law.

EDIT:
Ah, I did not see zim's post when I posted. I stand by what I said regarding the quote I gave. However, if you read the rest of what Santorum said, the senator does go well beyond the legal analysis I quoted above.

lmalave
Apr 24, 2003, 08:57 PM
Originally posted by wdlove
THE THOUGHT-POLICE VERSUS SANTORUM: As the highest ranking Catholic in the U.S. Senate, Rick Santorum (R-PA) was bound to be a target of America's seething Left. Santorum's offending comment about sodomy pertained to the constitutionality of the government regulating private, consensual conduct. The same sentiment has been expressed by Supreme Court justices like Byron White, constitutional scholars, and respected columnists. The legal reasoning goes like this: if the Court rules that a "privacy" right protects adult conduct behind closed doors, then how does it distinguish laws prohibiting other private adult behavior such as bigamy or bestiality? The sodomy laws in question (which apply to heterosexual and homesexuals alike) are silly and should be repealed by the states that still have such criminal statutes on their books. But the issue of whether the laws are wise is separate from whether the laws are constitutional. Most Christians, and certainly all Catholics, who take their faith seriously would be barred from public life if today's thought police are allowed to push Santorum out of his leadership role. Santorum should make the legal versus prudential distinctions here clear. The elitist Left is always shouting about being "censored" by intolerant conservatives, yet the truth is that some of the most intolerant people on the scene today are those who demand that anyone in public life adopt their views on controversial social and moral issues--or else.

A lawyers review of the situation, Laura Ingraham.

The argument above is as confused as Santorum's. The overwhelming majority of Catholic Priest Abuse cases involved minors: that is statutory rape, not "consensual". And I don't think you could reasonably argue that bestiality is consensual - it's clearly animal cruelty at best.

Adultery is breach of the legal contract of marriage, but should only be a civil matter (when the betrayed spouse files for divorce, for example).

But consensual acts between two adults in the privacy of their own home? It's chilling to think that the government will claim the right to regulate any activity that occurs in the privacy of my own home.

And I totally reject the notion that "live and let live" is somehow intolerant because the actions I perform in my own home might offend someone and is thus insensitive of their beliefs. I tolerate any actions that people do in their own homes, as long as they're not hurting anybody. That's tolerance. It's circular reasoning to say that intolerance of intolerance is intolerance. Jeez, it made my head spin just thinking about it.

vniow
Apr 24, 2003, 09:53 PM
Originally posted by QCassidy352
I think there were two separate incidents. Here's what the article says:


Ah, I see, thanx for the clarification.

humantech
Apr 24, 2003, 10:00 PM
Looks like theres a freedom of speech issue colliding with an issue here of someones views being taken as as intolerant. I think I'll go on the record here as saying he has every right to say what he said and stay in office if he isnt voted out. Also, he has every right to pursue his beliefs. Just like those who are in open disagreement with him. One thing I have to respect about the guy is he's honest. He's made his thoughts known. To everyone who starts to put him in the little box where his comments about his personal beliefs about homosexuality seem to indicate he also is racist, and believes only in sex for procreation, please drop that age old sterotype. People can dislike turkey and love chicken if you catch my drift. So that it cant be misconstrued, I'll clarify. People are not easily defined. This man is the equivalent of a straight man "out of the closet"- Why is that any less acceptable in this country ( and this forum) where we hear so much talk about "individual freedom" and " Tolerance of each others beliefs.
What he is saying has genuine legal ramifications, and his personal beliefs all rolled into one. Seems straight forward to me. His opinion. His right. Free country. Just as its your right to be critical of it.
Lets put the thing to a vote in his district and see if he stays in office, shall we? If he is ever in a position to take this particular subject before the supreme court, lets put it before the people.
Thats what this country is about. By the way. I believe I should be able to have consensual relations of any type I like in my house ( in private) and believe in public I should on occasion get my freak on ( and hopefully not end up in the slammer for it). I would vote him down in this issue. But I respect that he isnt a fair weather politician, filling the air with his appeasement of peoples egos by telling us things we want to hear. I would seriously consider voting for someone like this, with the courage to be honest. just like ROSIE AND ELLEN ( and Charleston Heston, Tom Selleck, Willie Nelson and all the other Free thinkers! :-)
My 2 cents

zimv20
Apr 24, 2003, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by humantech
To everyone who starts to put him in the little box where his comments about his personal beliefs about homosexuality seem to indicate he also is racist


racist?

anyway, i appreciate your appreciation for him to speak his mind under the protection of the 1st amendment. in fact, i agree w/ you. but i'll point out that while he's enjoying the freedoms granted under one bill of right, he's speaking out against the freedoms granted under another.

D*I*S_Frontman
Apr 24, 2003, 10:41 PM
Thanks for posting the links to get me to the actual interview.

What he SEEMS to be saying is that States can legislate different standards of morality and should be allowed to do so without federal government interference. He suggests that if New York wants legalized abortion but does not want sodomy laws, that is New York's call to make, not the Supreme Court. He is thereby inferring that other States should have the rights to maintain different standards for social conduct.

The problem is that he expressed this in a ridiculously clumsy way and mixed a poorly phrased commentary on homosexual tendencies vs. homosexual behavior. From what I can gather he was trying to express the increasingly common Christian view that a) homosexuality in some people may be a predisposed psychological condition but also that b) a predisposition towards a certain behavior does not in and of itself condone the practice of same behavior. I suppose by mentioning bestiality and other sexually deviant behavior he is by implication referring to homosexuality in the same light, i.e., as sexually deviant behavior. That will not exactly win him a lot of friends on the left.

I think his legal claims are justified in the sense that States should be able to set their own standards of what they consider "decency." If enough homosexuals in Texas want that sodomy law repealed, they can get it removed through the state legislature--poof! Gone.

Unforunately, many progressives on the left do not have the patience to convince the populace of their positions and have laws changed. It is much easier to file a case in federal court and play the victim card, thereby bypassing the legislative process altogether.

Anyway, I think Santorum put his foot in his mouth big-time and did his party little good with his ill-conceived ramblings. Maybe he DOES need a lesson in tact by being excused from overt party leadership for a while.

zimv20
Apr 24, 2003, 11:07 PM
Originally posted by D*I*S_Frontman


Unforunately, many progressives on the left do not have the patience to convince the populace of their positions and have laws changed. It is much easier to file a case in federal court and play the victim card, thereby bypassing the legislative process altogether.


i'd never heard that before. can you provide some evidence, please?

lmalave
Apr 24, 2003, 11:10 PM
Originally posted by D*I*S_Frontman
Thanks for posting the links to get me to the actual interview.

What he SEEMS to be saying is that States can legislate different standards of morality and should be allowed to do so without federal government interference. He suggests that if New York wants legalized abortion but does not want sodomy laws, that is New York's call to make, not the Supreme Court. He is thereby inferring that other States should have the rights to maintain different standards for social conduct.

The problem is that he expressed this in a ridiculously clumsy way and mixed a poorly phrased commentary on homosexual tendencies vs. homosexual behavior. From what I can gather he was trying to express the increasingly common Christian view that a) homosexuality in some people may be a predisposed psychological condition but also that b) a predisposition towards a certain behavior does not in and of itself condone the practice of same behavior. I suppose by mentioning bestiality and other sexually deviant behavior he is by implication referring to homosexuality in the same light, i.e., as sexually deviant behavior. That will not exactly win him a lot of friends on the left.

I think his legal claims are justified in the sense that States should be able to set their own standards of what they consider "decency." If enough homosexuals in Texas want that sodomy law repealed, they can get it removed through the state legislature--poof! Gone.

Unforunately, many progressives on the left do not have the patience to convince the populace of their positions and have laws changed. It is much easier to file a case in federal court and play the victim card, thereby bypassing the legislative process altogether.

Anyway, I think Santorum put his foot in his mouth big-time and did his party little good with his ill-conceived ramblings. Maybe he DOES need a lesson in tact by being excused from overt party leadership for a while.

I think the important part of the interview was carefully worded and only had tangentially to do with homosexuality and sodomy. His basic presmise is that the right to privacy is not guaranteed by the Constitution and that the government had the right to regulate consensual acts carried out in the privacy of one's own home, because they damage the fabric of society. I don't think the right to privacy is an issue to be left to the states. It is exactly the type of fundamental issue of rights that needs to be resolved at the federal level.

voicegy
Apr 24, 2003, 11:45 PM
An unedited section of the Associated Press interview, taped April 7, with Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.

SANTORUM: "I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions."

This is an argument as old as the hills and has recently found a new vogue. This man would deny my natural-born orientation to consumate my love for another man. "It's OK if you're THAT WAY, I mean, some of my best friends are homosexual...just don't do anything with it, or you'll be..." (fined, thrown in jail, stoned to death, etc.)

I'll deny NO ONE their freedom of speech. But when they're in positions of real power, this kind of drek makes me sick to my stomach. Funny thing is, when people in political power or any other type of power start spouting off on these types of issues, they usually have something to hide...just use your imagination.

zimv20
Apr 25, 2003, 12:01 AM
"i have no problem with black people. i mean, if that's who they are, i accept that. i have a problem with black people _acts_. i have absolutely nothing against people who are black. if that's their orientation, then i accept that. the question is, do you act upon those orientations? so it's not the black person, it's the black person's actions."

wow, that gets pretty ugly when you pick a different minority group. anyone still want to defend the senator?

D*I*S_Frontman
Apr 25, 2003, 07:30 AM
The prime example of completely altering the laws of the land without any legislative initiative would be Roe vs. Wade.

I don't want this to turn into an abortion debate. Both sides have very entrenched views and the likelihood of converting someone is remote at best. But HOW abortion on demand became the de facto law of the land is my point.

There was no real attempt to pass a federal statute assuring the right to abortion on demand (like there was for Civil Rights, for example). I don't recall a huge campaign to change all of the State laws either. No, the tactic was to use the courts to legislate it from the bench.

The Supreme Court decided the matter, and suddenly all State laws to the contrary were nullified. Keep in mind that the Supreme Court's track record on these types of issues is spotty. The Dred Scott decision, for example, settled the matter of the rights of African Americans held as slaves--they were considered the property of their owners and therefore not endowed with the rights of citizenship and legal agency in disputes with their owners. Obviously the wrong call.

With an issue of such weighty moral and ethical consequences (the deepest intrusion into someone's privacy and reproductive rights vs. the willful destruction of innocent human life), society should make the call, not the courts. Abortion rights advocates should pull for a constitutional amendment to secure the right of reproductive self-determination at the expense of the human rights of the fetus. The problem is that it would never pass. I suppose the contrary is also true--abortion foes should try the same thing, a sanctity of human life amendment, but it too would fail.

Different regions hold differing views on the subject and there is no national consensus. Is this not the perfect example for allowing individual States to legislate this? Too late for that now.

lmalave
Apr 25, 2003, 08:59 AM
Originally posted by D*I*S_Frontman
The prime example of completely altering the laws of the land without any legislative initiative would be Roe vs. Wade.

I don't want this to turn into an abortion debate. Both sides have very entrenched views and the likelihood of converting someone is remote at best. But HOW abortion on demand became the de facto law of the land is my point.

There was no real attempt to pass a federal statute assuring the right to abortion on demand (like there was for Civil Rights, for example). I don't recall a huge campaign to change all of the State laws either. No, the tactic was to use the courts to legislate it from the bench.

The Supreme Court decided the matter, and suddenly all State laws to the contrary were nullified. Keep in mind that the Supreme Court's track record on these types of issues is spotty. The Dred Scott decision, for example, settled the matter of the rights of African Americans held as slaves--they were considered the property of their owners and therefore not endowed with the rights of citizenship and legal agency in disputes with their owners. Obviously the wrong call.

With an issue of such weighty moral and ethical consequences (the deepest intrusion into someone's privacy and reproductive rights vs. the willful destruction of innocent human life), society should make the call, not the courts. Abortion rights advocates should pull for a constitutional amendment to secure the right of reproductive self-determination at the expense of the human rights of the fetus. The problem is that it would never pass. I suppose the contrary is also true--abortion foes should try the same thing, a sanctity of human life amendment, but it too would fail.

Different regions hold differing views on the subject and there is no national consensus. Is this not the perfect example for allowing individual States to legislate this? Too late for that now.

Abortion is a fundamentally different issue than consensual acts between two adults in the privacy of their own home. The abortion debate rests on the fact that a 3rd party, the fetus, is being hurt. Leaving that question aside (since I also don't want this to turn into an abortion debate), who is being hurt when two adults engage in consensual acts in the privacy of their own home? I find it chilling that government could abolish the right to privacy and claim the sweeping right to regulate any actions inside my home.

The supreme court is there to judge on the boundaries of what the government can and cannot do. To me, the right to privacy should be an even more sacred right than the right of free speech, and I think it's right and proper for the courts to judge to what degree government can interfere with this fundamental right.

iAlan
Apr 25, 2003, 09:46 AM
Interesting production...and side show!!

zimv20
Apr 25, 2003, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by lmalave
I find it chilling that government could abolish the right to privacy and claim the sweeping right to regulate any actions inside my home.


it doesn't even have to apply to sex. maybe people are watching too much TV. or not enough. or what about that guy who sits down when he pees -- THAT'S not right!

lady, you wash your hands every three minutes -- we're having you committed. and YOU -- you STAND when you hear that national anthem, motherf*****!

herr_neumann
Apr 25, 2003, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by wdlove
He's not the Senate Majority Leader. Senator Rick Santorium, R is from PA. He was not making a connection with homosexuality as the media reported, its a case of the biased media. He was merely reporting on the law. That if the Supreme Court were to strike down the law in Texas, then it could affect laws such as sodomy in other states.

Yeah, that liberial baised media owned by six large conservative corporations (bertelsman, General Electric, Disney, AOL Time Warner, NewsCorp, and Viacom, you want a source for this, read Media Monopoly by Ben Bagdikian)
Those damn liberals. How dare they run the news. I mean Rupert Murdoch is entirely left wing, damn flag waiving hippie....
Hopefully you get the point here. The media is not liberial (in the US). And I am not a liberial either nor am I a conservative. Both of those damn groups love to be divisive, and it is kind of funny that they almost sound alike.

D*I*S_Frontman
Apr 25, 2003, 06:14 PM
I'm not quite sure everyone understands my position. I DO NOT think laws specifically regarding personal conduct in one's home are necessarily a good idea. When other parties are being harmed (incest, etc.) that's one thing, but if two consenting homosexuals want to engage in sodomy in their own home, that hardly exerts any real or perceived threat on society. Dumb law--should be repealed ASAP.

The question is really how you do it. Even in conservative Texas, the very obvious argument could be made to the public that a law like this maintains a bad precedent--that government does not belong in people's personal lives, unless the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are unnecessarily being denied to a citizen through said conduct. This is why we can censor child pornography without fear of ruining the rights to a free press and self-expression--child porn inherently harms children in its acquisition.

To a religious conservative, the thought of a liberal, coercive government which could monitor or outlaw the reading of Scripture or the sincere practice of Christian faith and espousal of its moral teachings should be unacceptable. As detestable as they might find sodomy, removing the government's watchful eye on personal conduct is really more important in the long run.

So I say start a grass-roots movement in Texas, make your case, and change the law legislatively, the way it is supposed to be changed. Do that in every state that still has such laws on the books.

And getting back to the original point of this thread, namely the portrayal of live sex acts (real or staged)--as long as it can't be viewed from a public vantage point and the establishment has posted graphic warnings as to the content of the show outside the facility (in case a quaint family thinks it is merely a neon-clad Denny's from outside and stumbles in unwittingly)...it's a tough call. Municipalities might want to limit the proximity of such places to several thousand feet from churches, schools, or residential areas... and perhaps deny or limit liquor licenses due to the additional vulnerability of the "performers" to the drunken wiles of rowdy clients... and as offensive as I personally would find the show... I suppose it should not be squashed by the civil authorities altogether. I mean, how much more societally damaging is it than a run-of-the-mill lap dance? All demean women as mere sex toys and men as mere uncontrollable lust hounds.

Christians despise these kinds of activities, but the Christian faith is one of the heart and mind, not of the sword. Winning people through the gospel and selfless charity are its means of spreading its moral code, not governmental coercion. Or at least they should be. After all, an obscenity or sodomy law becomes moot if people voluntarily abstain from those practices due to their religious convictions. Therefore it is a far greater danger to have laws limiting personal behavior strictly on the basis of a specific worldview on the books--it represents a greater danger to Christian liberty than isolated cases of live lewd sex acts or the personal conduct of consenting homosexuals.

I still waffle back and forth on this, BTW, so I certainly don't claim to have all the answers. I am just trying to comprehend all of the questions...

D*I*S_Frontman
Apr 25, 2003, 06:39 PM
Disney conservative? By what neo-Maoist perspective could Disney EVER be viewed as "conservative?"

It sounds like the evil spectre of the "right wing conspiracy" is rising again...

Here's your right wing media conspiracy. Network and cable news organizations have been left-slanting for decades until recently. FOX News comes out a few years ago with a moderately conservative slant--and CRUSHES the competition Neilson-wise. That populist goofball O'Reilly who NO ONE HEARD OF has a show that got 5X the ratings as DONAHUE's show, even with the latter's name recognition (which let to the yanking of his show).

Just to keep from sliding into complete irrelevance, CNN's reporting and news magazines have become more conservative. The networks have tried to hold on, but get this--CBS ratings actually went DOWN during a WAR!?! Cable outlets spiked in viewship, lead by FOX News.

The agonizing truth is that a major portion of the American public is politically conservative--and are sick of the traditional left bias to the news. And while the media have an overall left bias, its #1 priority is to make ratings, i.e., money. As long as America votes with their "clickers," news will remain more conservative.

It is presumptuous to say that the media is manipulating the public opinion. Lately it seems like things are the other way around...!

Sorry. Rupert Murdoch is not stroking a white longhaired cat muttering "yes... yes... everything is preceeding according to plan...!"

Sheesh. And conservatives get labeled "conspiracy theorists."

herr_neumann
Apr 25, 2003, 09:45 PM
Originally posted by D*I*S_Frontman
Disney conservative? By what neo-Maoist perspective could Disney EVER be viewed as "conservative?"

It sounds like the evil spectre of the "right wing conspiracy" is rising again...

Here's your right wing media conspiracy. Network and cable news organizations have been left-slanting for decades until recently. FOX News comes out a few years ago with a moderately conservative slant--and CRUSHES the competition Neilson-wise. That populist goofball O'Reilly who NO ONE HEARD OF has a show that got 5X the ratings as DONAHUE's show, even with the latter's name recognition (which let to the yanking of his show).

Just to keep from sliding into complete irrelevance, CNN's reporting and news magazines have become more conservative. The networks have tried to hold on, but get this--CBS ratings actually went DOWN during a WAR!?! Cable outlets spiked in viewship, lead by FOX News.

The agonizing truth is that a major portion of the American public is politically conservative--and are sick of the traditional left bias to the news. And while the media have an overall left bias, its #1 priority is to make ratings, i.e., money. As long as America votes with their "clickers," news will remain more conservative.

It is presumptuous to say that the media is manipulating the public opinion. Lately it seems like things are the other way around...!

Sorry. Rupert Murdoch is not stroking a white longhaired cat muttering "yes... yes... everything is preceeding according to plan...!"

Sheesh. And conservatives get labeled "conspiracy theorists."


If you actually believe this it is scary and the reason the rest of the world thinks us americans are idiots. Yes profit is there motivation, but this is acheived through monopolization and information conrtol. If you think anything else you have a lot to learn. This is no conspiacy theory. Read up on the subject a bit and you can see the lovely comments these "non conservatives" are saying. Dont bother replying to me until you at least read the bagdikian work. Suprisingly, I got to read it as a result of a class I took that was taught by a hard core conservative.

BaghdadBob
Apr 25, 2003, 10:19 PM
Originally posted by wdlove
How about oral sex in QuickTime, "American Pie 3" tailer. :p

http://www2.filmweb.no/trailer/article.jhtml?articleID=21057&visTrailer=true&felt=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.filmweb.no%2Ftrailere%2Fuip%2FUIP20030291%2F2.mov

You know, women stop crawling under the table and blowing you in a public restaraunt as soon as you get married...

Seriously, though, I love sex as much or more than the next guy, but I do find the devaluation of it at the point that we are progressing to a little disturbing.

As far as the theatre incident goes...well, if it were a socially acceptable environment I have to admit I might find a little wide-open public sex to be not all that bad...don't think I could just sit there and take a BJ though, that would be unnerving...

spicyapple
Mar 12, 2007, 09:45 AM
anyway who cares about this...like the guy said, its what everyone in the theatre wanted...

look at the last line...
"It does not make a difference if it was a member of the cast or a member of the audience who was involved. Sex in public is an offence."

When I was in Pattaya in the beginning of this year, our tour guides suggested to our group that we attend some of the fine sex shows in Thailand. Apparently, the government is banning them next year, so this was our only opportunity to experience a bit of Thailand.

So I didn't know what to expect in these "sex shows" but kept an open mind. Our package pays for 5 sex shows over the course of three nights.

The first night, we went to Model Club, basically real girls strutting on stage baring all. I sat near the front and the girls would pick guys from the audience and perform lap dances and strip off their clothes. It was fun to watch the guys squirm. They did all manner of stuff, including simulated orgies and bjs.

Second night, we went to a show that had female performers doing cunning stunts with their stunning [you know]. Swallowing razor blades, using it as an aviary, shooting out goldfishes, writing and all assortment of stunts. They ended the show with a guy/girl sex session in various positions. Most of the girls looked drunk on stage or high, yet to be expected if they perform in front of an audience 8-10 times a night.

The third and fourth shows are a bit of a blur, but it involved kathoeys performing circus stunts in the nude. One of the shows featured men with large penises banging on drums. They invited female audience members to hold their instruments and kick a few bass notes. Another show had a person in a huge full-body penis suit who would squirt the audience with liquid.

The final show featured kathoeys. They would perform live sex on stage, even having intercourse while going from one spot in the audience to the next! This gave the audience a real, close-up view. They were even invited to fondle their breasts, etc. I could see it all happening from where I was sitting, which was near the top rows.

They ended the show with a 3-person orgy with one guy having anal sex with a kathoey. But not ordinary anal sex, the guy would do whole body spins, contortions, etc while "fully clutched".

Overall, I would not attend these shows again, but they were cheap and when going with a group of people, it's actually quite fun. It just got boring after the third show.

Our tour group comprised mainly of Russians and Germans.

yg17
Mar 12, 2007, 10:07 AM
This thread is nearly 4 years old ;)

jimN
Mar 12, 2007, 11:12 AM
But it gives me a chance to point out that I went to the triple x thing way back in 2003 when it was open in London (strangely the girl I was with was the one to get tickets). It was thoroughly unerotic, appeared to have a plot along the lines of, if you force a girl to have sex ultimately she'll enjoy it so is that wrong and we, and a lot of other people, left early. There was nothing clever or exciting about the show (other than the way they cleverly circumvented legislation on public sex acts - the Vice squad had checked the whole thing out I seem to recall), and it was just tasteless and stupid. If you want to see live sex go to Thailand or Amsterdam where clearly no one dresses it up as something it isn't.

RedTomato
Mar 12, 2007, 03:22 PM
The third and fourth shows are a bit of a blur, but it involved kathoeys...

You lost me there so I looked up what that was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathoey

Quite interesting, especially as I did feminist theory a long time ago. Kathoeys certainly weren't widely known in my time. Interesting contrast to western notions of transgendering.

kildraik
Mar 13, 2007, 12:43 AM
I can't believe that those people had sex in the theatre! :eek:

You'd be surprised how common this is in modern teenage culture. It's everywhere, all the time, no matter what. It's most common in "teen based" movies, such as Jackass, Horror films, and Action films, usually in sexual parts of the film.

This is from what I've observed. Next time you have a theatre packed full of teens and low 20's kiddos, and every seat is filled, I can quarentee you that if you stand up in the middle of the film you'll see somebody in a seat is missing... but they'll still be there. The person next to them, just by their expressions, can confirm that.

Chundles
Mar 13, 2007, 12:55 AM
Ah bugger it. I thought the title was an invitation. :mad:

Counterfit
Mar 13, 2007, 04:07 AM
Ah bugger it. I thought the title was an invitation. :mad:

You would. :p


But was there really a pressing need to bring this thread back?

quigleybc
Mar 13, 2007, 10:33 AM
i remember oral sex.....sigh....:(