San Francisco event promotes masturbation

Star-Ledger (in print only) ^ | 5.4.03

[Bars4Bill]

More than 100 men and women gathered in famously liberal San Francisco this weekend for what organizers said was the city's second annual public "Masturbate-a-Thon."

Organizers said they have taken the event "from the sheets to the streets," offering volunteers

[billorites]

I can't remember whether I saw that sign at Club Med or Sandals.

[tuna_battle_slight_return]

"To the strains of soothing new-age music, the men and women — a number of them couples — were shown into rooms for men, women or both."

It's ALWAYS NEW AGE music! LOL

[WorkingClassFilth]

"Another Democrat cultural event."

Correction - this must have been a Democratic fund raiser because they all paid money to do collectively what they do ideologically.

[Jeff Gordon]

They can hold this event, but will anyone come?

[ewing]

Rim shot!

[breakem]

Kevin, I have explained this to you many times before, but you refuse to acknowlege. There is a difference between acknowleging the right to do something and supporting or defending the behavior. A few years ago I said I may not like who you marry and I may think it's a bad idea, but you have the right to make the mistake.

You can believe in legalizing drugs without being a drug user or thinking it's a good thing, you can believe that people have the right to be promiscuous, or to be homosexual withour doing those things yourself.

This is what freedom means to me.

I can tell you many other ways that California has gone downhill, but let me ask you, should we have put adulterers, homosexuals, and promiscuous people in jail to have a cleaner society? That is what I think you are implying.

[Kevin Curry]

I can tell you many other ways that California has gone downhill, but let me ask you, should we have put adulterers, homosexuals, and promiscuous people in jail to have a cleaner society?

There is no such creature as a "homosexual" or an "adulterer" etc. So, no I don't believe in imposing punitive action for fictitious creatures.

On the other hand, there is vile behavior called adultery, sodomy, pederasty, bestiality etc. Healthy and vigrous societies have lawsy had laws against such behavior.

Edmund Burke was the first true conservative and he would have said yes, such laws are wise and good. These laws developed over centuries and even millennia, not because someone had some trendy, fashionable, fascist idea to have government peek into bedroom windows, but because such laws reflected a shared hard-won wisdom that such behavior is fundamentally detrimental to society. In our country these laws have only been cast off wholesale in the past 35-40 years and the result is the current sexual sewer conditions--public, not merely private--in California.

There is a place for such laws. SCOTUS should keep its buttinski nose out of it. Let California die of moral rot and sexual permissivness. Let other states choose life, if that is the will of their people.

[Jorge]

You defend obscenity. When I call you on it, you become emotional.

I challenge you to show me one post where I have defended obsenity. You can't.

The majority of obsenities we see on these boards are posted by you, Polycarp and a few other misfits.
You're just upset that most of us don't spend day after day obsessed with your favorite topics of sodomy, public masturbation, anal sex and excrement etc.
We'll glady leave that to you, Polycrap and friends.

[Kevin Curry]

Again, its your obsession George. We're just standing firm against it and that enrages you.

[breakem]

I see, human rights are subject to the vote of the majority. We should put adulterers and homos and others in jail.

You're a real piece of work. What country are you posting from? You really need to find a theocracy somewhere, for your own mental health. This freedom thing seems to be against your religion.

[breakem]

He's "standing firm" against it. ROTFLMAO!

[Kevin Curry]

We should put adulterers and homos and others in jail.

Oh, I don't think so. There is no such creature as an adulterer or a "homo." Do you dispute this?

[#3Fan]

California pre-1967 or thereabouts, had sodomy (and other sexual perversion) statutes on the books that were enforced as well as they could reasonably be enforced, as was true in all 50 states. Although no one was harassed in their homes by "bedroom police," the citizens generally understood and accepted that sodomy was a vile act.

But like I said, why have a law if you're not going to enforce it. If a person knows that an act of sodomy will be occurring on Saturday night at 9 PM at his neighbor's house and wants to tell the police so they can stop it, don't the police have the obligation to surveil and arrest the suspects? You're wanting laws just for appearances. What's the point? I don't think it's right just to pick and choose who gets arrested and let all the others go scot-free. If the police suspect anyone of breaking the law and are receiving complaints, then they should attempt to make an arrest. Otherwise it's not worth the effort to keep the law on the books.

There were no public masturbation events,...

Pubic masterbation should be illegal, it's not in a private setting.

...abortion claimed a tiny fraction of the lives that are now disposed of and flushed down the abortion mill toilets,...

I don't see the direct connection between abortion and private gay activity.

...and AIDS, anal gonorrhea, hepatitis B, and other sodomy-related diseases were unheard of.

This is where you may have a point. If you believe that it's OK to give up freedoms and get the government to surveil the bedroom to keep these diseases under control, then that is your judgment call, just as I believe that it's OK to arrest hard drug users to keep crime sprees down. But I don't think the cost to freedom is worth keeping these diseases down. A lot of the people getting these diseases are getting them because of their decisions. A free society will have it's hurts, and and my opinion, having the government monitor people's bedrooms is a worse cure than the hurts private gay activity is doing to society.

The taxpayer was not being flogged to pay for wretched irresponsible sexual promiscuity.

So you're willing to let the government in the bedroom to save taxes. I don't think this cost to freedom and privacy is worth it.

The "sexual revolution" of the 1960s and 19970s changed all that and California became the model state for the sexual permissiveness that you defend. Now, among other things, California families are subjected to public mass masturbation events.

These should be illegal. I don't live in California, I guess if Californians want public mass masterbation events, then that's their choice. If they don't, then they should make it illegal and force the cops to make arrests. I know my little town here in Illinois would never allow this to take place on the courthouse square.

You say you don't support these things, but these things flow directly from the attitude that you have. Therefore, you support them in a very real and powerful sense.

I know my attitude toward freedom does cause hurt to society. My attitude that leisure drives should not be illegal is probably causing more car wrecks. My attitude that candles should not be illegal is probably causing more fires. My attitude that the government should not be monitoring private bedrooms is probably causing more disease to spread. But these are the many costs of freedom. I believe these costs don't outweigh the freedoms that cause them.

[Kevin Curry]

Where are you speaking from? The Sodom Francisco Jerk-a-Thon?

[supercat]

We should put adulterers and homos and others in jail.

Per Mosaic law, for a man to sleep with another man's wife was punishable by death for both; likewise for a man who slept with another man 'as with a woman'. The idea that such acts should be punished severely is hardly a new one (the idea of applying punishments to married men who sleep with unmarried women, or to women who sleep with each other, is probably somewhat newer).

[Kevin Curry]

My attitude that the government should not be monitoring private bedrooms

Where is this happening in the US? Please substantiate this.

[breakem]

Nitpiking does not address the issue.

[Jorge]

He's "standing firm" against it. ROTFLMAO!

I'm laughing so hard I'm crying!

Does KC even read this stuff before he hits the "post" button? LOL

[breakem]

I forget which article of the constitution contains the Mosaic law? Isn't that in the same book where you could sell the women folk in the family into slavery of kill them if they got out of line. Please, stop.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

When did you move?