Audience members have oral sex at XXX stage show

[howard]

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]

LOL!!!!! Having oral sex in public....now i've heard it all. hahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahaha

[vniow]

Originally posted by applemacdude
Having oral sex in public....now i've heard it all.

Oooohh no you haven't.

[chewbaccapits]

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]

do they have thsese things in the states?

[billyboy]

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]

Nice 'tar, Vniow.

[mcrain]

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

[MacFan25]

I can't believe that those people had sex in the theatre!

[vniow]

Originally posted by chewbaccapits
Enlighten us vniow....

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

Originally posted by jrv3034
Nice 'tar, Vniow.

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/showthre...threadid=25219

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

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]

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]

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]

How about oral sex in QuickTime, "American Pie 3" tailer.

http://www2.filmweb.no/trailer/artic...030291%2F2.mov

[vniow]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[QCassidy352]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.