"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Winston had been married once, to a woman named Katherine. It had been a party approved marriage but he had soon found life with her impossible. The fact that she did not have a single original thought and simply functioned as a party mouthpiece was bad enough. But what had been truly unbearable was the sex. Winston would not have minded remaining celibate, but Katherine insisted they go through the process at fixed intervals to “fulfill their duty to the Party” by producing a child. And each time, it was clear to Winston that she hated the act and was merely submitting passively. When no children appeared they parted with Party approval and mutual relief. -- 1984 Part 1, Chapter 6
This article underlines the clash between two wings of conservatism: the libertarian and the social conservative.
Is it any wonder they're attracted to this area....? Some jokes just write themselves.
Yea right. Turned on a tv lately? America is the almost the top sex crazed society in the industrialized world save for a few sex hovels in Europe. It's all there is to live for one would think judging from outward appearances.
Maybe, but to believe there would be an end to murders if that's all the police covered is beyond silly.
...a man responded to the advances of a topless woman.
...
The park was the site of a police crackdown on gay men using the park for sex.
That had to one very dedicated lady cop.
Using a topless woman as bait to catch gay men? Does “gay” again mean “happy” and not “homosexual”?
Why can’t people (police and extension thereof) just learn to mind their own business?
Yeah, right. And Juan MeCain is a Conservative.
The problem is homosexual men and their culture of random, anonymous butt sex in our public toilets, in our parks, and on our beaches.
The problem is not strippers in a private club where minors are not allowed.
The entrapment of the Ohio man is an outrageous injustice that the American people should not tolerate!
So is the treatment of the man who urinated in public! One of the jokes circulating on the internet right now is "The world's your urinal," speaking of men. What man hasn't urinated in forests, behind trees, etc., in a presumption of privacy? There's a well known photograph of Al Gore.
And as for intrusion into the bedrooms of consenting adults, that too is outrageous!
I'd much rather put up with the sleazy sex shops than this kind of government intrusion, liberty, and interference with the persuit of happiness.
Bill Clinton is a slob. But, unseemly as it was, his affair with Monica warranted nothing more than disapproval in my opinion. I objected to intimidation of witnesses, obstruction of justice, and perjury, and I considered the allegations of rape and sexual assault to be credible enough for a serious investigation and possible prosecution. I also objected to so powerful a man's using his position to prevent such an investigation and prosecution. However--Monica was a consenting adult--so was Bill--if the affair had not lead to the things to which I objected, I would have shrugged it off. Most people would have.
People should NOT shrug off the injustices committed agains the Ohio man, the Tennessee man, men--or women--who urinate i private with a minimum assumption of privacy, and consenting adults who engage in sex in privacy.
I’m puzzled by the “Bedroom Cops” addition to the title, when almost all the examples in the article involve sexual activity or nudity in public.
Please find a bathroom, Mr. Stossel. It’s not that hard - most ladies manage it all day long.
We do and should continue to have laws preventing sex and nudity in public places. The laws aren’t the problem. The fact the police in the cases mentioned were overzealous in trying to nab potential suspects is the problem.
ping
A sentiment I've seen expressed on this site from time to time (though thankfully, not too much on this thread).
Most of us fear the Global Warming movement because we know it can lead to tremendously expanded government power. After all, according to the greenies, nearly every aspect of your life affects your "carbon footprint." Where you eat, where you work, where you live, etc. Since conservatives are supposed to stand for individual liberty and limited government, they rightly view Al Gore and his ilk with a lot of suspicion.
And yet government regulation of private, consensual behavior for the sake of "protecting morality" or "community standards"- concepts MUCH broader than Global Warming - doesn't seem to bother some conservatives a whit.