Is sex public or private?

why should sex be kept behind doors, why can't people have sex in parks, (out of the way)?

some people even frown if you have sex in your own home

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have no problem with people having sex in parks. My husband and I have. But we made sure we were far far FAR away from anyone. And I certainly wouldn't complain if I was seen. I wouldn't tell people "if you don't like seeing me, don't walk there" Its arrogant.

I shared a duplex with an older couple once. My bedroom was just wide enough to fit a bed in there a certain way. If I turned it, I couldn't open the door. My headboard butted up against their living room wall. They complained every time I had sex. They didn't complain to me, they complained to the landlord, who was a bit hostile about it. I removed the headboard and went to a mattress on the floor. They still complained. I moved.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

some people are hard to please,

------------------------------------

but sex is a beautiful thing and people shouldn't shy away from it like they do, its almost has though they are affraid to even think about sex.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

or they call those who have a healthy sex life (with their husband no less) whores. Is it a pride thing? Is it a jealous thing?

I don't want to see others having sex in public places, so I hope they are considerate enough of others to find a distant off the path locale. And they certainly can't whine if they get caught and people are horrified by what they see. I mean, there are some people you just don't want to see.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

uke:

 

my point exactly people are horrified, but dont they have sex aswell?

yeah sure find a out of the way place, dont complain if you get seen (i know i dont) but also if people do see you just let them walk on by!

 

Yes, sex is beautiful and natural, but there is a proper way of things to observe.​

No, I don't think sex in public is necessarily demeaning and degrading, but in any "civilized" society, there should be some adequate excuse at least, for such public or lewd behavior. I've heard claim that married people at least, can't go without sex for more than 4 days. Oh really? Then hadn't we "overlook" certain sex that goes on, at night in refugee camps? I imagine we can't exactly blame the refugees, for lack of adequate housing arrangements? I've read that babies were conceived on the Mayflower, and back then, weren't sailing ships way too crowded for there to be any true place of privacy?

The main problem with sex in public, is that humans already are a bit "oversexed" shall we say, and so sexual urges are "contagious." Adam & Eve discovered after they had sinned in the Garden of Eden, having partaken of the forbidden fruit, that they were naked. Their "child-like" innocence was lost. Feeling "exposed," God gave them animal skins to cover themselves. Humans have had to wear clothes ever since. I believe public nudity is appropriate, in only a few to-be-expected settings. Lockerrooms and communal showers. Understandable in such places, the lack of clothing. Also the doctor's exam office and such.

I wouldn't necessarily mind walking past a human opposite-sex couple enjoying sex, except that usually that's so bizarre, that one may feel compelled to report it, because they are obviously "perverts," or because children may be around, you get the idea. But for a mother to breastfeed in public? That's a whole another issue, with I support, because I'm pro-life, it's common to breastfeed in public in developing countries still more pronatalist than us, and they frown upon American attitudes that claim that breastfeeding is "sexual" when they say it isn't.

Yeah, I think we are much too uptight about the nature and beauty of sex, when we get all "embarrassed" to see the animals at the zoo "doing it." It would be inappropriate to evacuate everybody away and give the animals their privacy. No, that's normal animal behavior, to be expected. Besides, so many animals don't even get to "enjoy it" like humans. Animals often are so quick, you blink your eyes almost, and it's over. Too much utilitarian for-reproduction only, it would seem.

And it seems that so many people have forgotten what it may have been like for our ancestors, who better respected the natural flow of human life unhindered, than we do today. Families often were quite large, while homes were small. Now what happens, and still does, in homes where the entire family lives in only 1 or 2 rooms? Probably, the sexual activity of the parents, is no secret from the children. Generally I don't think children should watch parents having sex, but when homes are so small, I really don't see how it's avoidable. Procreation is so vital to future generations being able to experience life, that the natural need for procreation easily trumps having full privacy for sex. Parents should continue to procreate naturally, even in "overcrowded" homes or communities. So I don't have a problem with parents continuing in sex, when their child has "walked in" on them, or enjoying sex in the motel room or tent, when they "think" their children may be asleep. For there's not simply just privacy, but "virtual privacy" as well. If I hear the neighbors having sex, I am not obligated to violate their privacy, and run my mouth about it. I understand that "everybody does it," and people should have their proper place for sex. Especially if we expect them to refrain from doing it in public.

Just like how I would expect people to have respect for society, and not just have sex "anywhere," I would also want them to have sex somewhere appropriate, so that future generations can come alive and be born. We have many obligations to society and to our God, and life-giving procreative sex, is among them.

 

Sex in parks? Maybe, but only to a reasonable pro-family, pro-society point.​

Gee, with a screenname like that, I have to wonder if you are trying to tempt me or trick me?

Actually, I don't see why people couldn't have procreative sex, in parks, if truly as you say, "out of the way." But can that reasonably be assured, on a planet that naturally gains more and more human population year-by-year? Perhaps it's getting just a bit more difficult, to actually get away from so many other people, reliably for long. Sure, why not have sex on the beach at night, alone, nobody around? I'm fine with that. But if you have that idea, might somebody else have that idea as well? Now sure, maybe they each have their own end of the beach, and are mostly unaware of each other. But still, don't leave evidence of the deed. Who wouldn't be disgusted to enjoy their parks, and find condoms and condom wrappers strewn all around? That's not family-friendly either. Curious rumors of newlyweds "doing it" out on the beach, or in the park, presuming probably enough privacy, wouldn't alarm me near as much, as finding "evidence" of the deed. Understandably, people being so crude as to "leave evidence" would likely soon lead to a crackdown and arrests for "public indecency."

Nor do I like condoms anyway, as that suggests sex other than the monogamous more moral sort. If people feel some need to "do it" out in the open air of nature, for any wildlife that may happen along to see, sure it could be "erotic" or "different" or whatever, then that's all the more reason they should do it naturally, allowing a baby to possibly be conceived. If there is claim to be "spontaneous" sex between husband and wife, maybe horny newlyweds, then we shouldn't expect to find anti-life "precautions," nasty shoddy contraceptives "preparation" for the deed? Maybe they are having difficulty conceiving, and wanting to try something "different." But don't be selfish about it, and seek to hinder the natural flow of life, or why can't society also be less understanding, and "clamp down" upon what we suspect may be going on but might otherwise be able to "overlook" somewhat?

Of course the flipside of excusing people doing it "out of the way," would seem to be, if you spy a couple having sex in a place that they might have thought to have been reasonably secluded, just walk on by, don't pay them any mind, don't interfere. It would be impolite to gawk, and disturb their baby-making. I don't see that people can reasonably expect to have it both ways. If it is thought to be moral enough, then respect people and don't try to get them in trouble, for what you yourself might think yourself to have moral right to do. Be fair and respectful.

One huge reason I do not believe in population "control" nor "birth control" for humans, is out of deep respect for the dignity and sacredness of each and every human life. Thus, we have no moral right nor basis to try to impose some "control" upon our naturally-rising numbers. There's way too many ways to better ACCOMODATE human population growth, that there's no reasonable expectation nor basis to ask that people go against nature to "limit" how many children they bear, contrary to the natural proper interest of more and more people being able to experience life.

Here's another example, many people may not have given much thought to. What about National Parks, where people commonly go camping? Families often go together, and if they set up a tent or an RV, aren't they sleeping together? A rather "appropriate" place for sex then. Just remember to set the RV support stabilizers before turning in for bed. Should be no excuse for that old joke, "If it's a rocking, don't come a-knocking," if an RV has the equipment to prevent such telltale signs?

Some people frown upon having sex even in your own homes? Who would those freaks be? The neighborhood busybody or puritan freak, out with their binoculars, to make sure that everybody suitably covers their windows before enjoying sex? Come on, if you're gazing into people's homes with binoculars or telescopes, then those people being spied upon, obviously can't be responsible for what might be seen. It's not like they are out "doing it" on their lawn, for everybody to see.

 

Wonder why they are so jealous, or so "uptight" about what "everybody does?"​

Well if a married couple lives together, then why should it be considered anything other than the "natural music" of life? If I have family to visit me, or I visit them, and I happen to hear them "doing it" at night, I consider it my obligation to "ignore" or "overlook" it. Actually, I would consider it hopefully, to be a sign of a healthy marriage, that they are still so attracted to each other. (I've never noticed that, BTW.)

Why should people be so disturbed about sex, or what supposedly "everybody does?" It's a very natural and beautiful thing, in its proper place. I hardly think that married couples need be blamed, for the sometimes "cramped" living conditions humans sometimes face. If actual privacy lacks, why can't we fall back on "virtual privacy" instead, in which we respect certain "understandable" moral behaviors, out of respect for the dignity, immense value, and sacredness of each and every human life?

I had no objection to hearing a neighbor obviously having sex, through my thin apartment wall, before I was able to move on and upgrade to a house. Other than that I knew she wasn't married. I never talked about it, mentioning any names. What do you expect on a planet of 6.7 billion people and growing? I don't reasonably expect that humans having sex, can reasonably always be kept completely private. So why can't a little "virtual privacy" do?