Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Audience members have oral sex at XXX stage show
- Thread starter howard
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Re: Ok, now I've read it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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?
wow, that gets pretty ugly when you pick a different minority group. anyone still want to defend the senator?
Example
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.
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.
Re: Example
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.
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.
Re: Re: Example
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*****!
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*****!
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.
Clarification
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...
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...
Disney?
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."
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."
Re: Disney?
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.
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.
Originally posted by wdlove
How about oral sex in QuickTime, "American Pie 3" tailer.
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...
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.
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.
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.
I can't believe that those people had sex in the theatre!
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.
Ah bugger it. I thought the title was an invitation.
You would.
But was there really a pressing need to bring this thread back?
