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.
