Posted on 07/23/2008 1:54:04 AM PDT by goldstategop
In a desolate public park in Columbus, Ohio, a man responded to the advances of a topless woman. She asked him to "show me yours." When he did, police officers arrested him. Columbus law says her being topless is OK; exposing his genitalia is not.
Why did cops hide in the shadows to arrest a man no one but they could see?
On last week's "20/20", Dr. Marty Klein pointed out that the police weren't protecting children.
"There were no children anywhere in sight. In fact, there were no adults anywhere in sight."
Klein says it's part of "America's War on Sex."
"American society attempts to restrict what adults can do, what adults can see ... more than any other industrial country."
Ken Giles was jogging in a park in Johnson City, Tenn., when, as he put it, "nature called." He went off the trail to go take care of business. Then an undercover agent "put the badge in my face and told me that I was under arrest. I just thought I was in trouble for urinating in public."
It was much more humiliating than that. The park was the site of a police crackdown on gay men using the park for sex. But the police went beyond arrests. Before anyone was convicted, they posted the names, addresses and photos of the men.
Giles's wife saw his picture on the news. Then his employer fired him. "When I lost my job ... my wife was so upset that she had a ... a major heart attack."
Another man named by the police killed himself.
Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council says he has no sympathy for such sex offenders. "There's not a presumption of confidentiality when you're arrested and charged," he told me.
It's intrusive enough when police arrest someone in a public place, but worse when the police turn their sights indoors, to places where people choose to be exposed to sex.
Chippendales, the male burlesque show, has toured the country for years. Their show is not as racy as you might think. The men dance, show off their bodies and flirt with some women in the audience. There's no nudity.
Chippendales never had a problem with authorities -- until it came to Lubbock, Texas. Ten minutes before their show, the police told the dancers, "Don't ever simulate a sex act."
The dancers did their usual show and then ventured out into the crowd. The police then shut down the show and took the dancers to jail.
The crowd was angry. "City council sucks!" the audience shouted.
Mayor David Miller told me, "In the judgment of our police officers that night, they violated one portion or more of [the city's] ordinance."
What were the police protecting willing adult customers from?
"From these types of activities spilling over into their neighborhood."
Within a week of the Chippendales arrest, three murders occurred in Lubbock. Wouldn't those police officers have been better used elsewhere?
Some states have laws that creep right into the bedroom. In Alabama, legislators banned the sale of sex toys. That upset Dave Smith, whose wife owns Pleasures, "Your One Stop Romance Shop."
"In the state of Alabama I can buy a gun. I can carry it in my pocket. ... But if I buy this [sex toy], someone could get arrested!" Smith said.
The ACLU helped challenge the law. But an appeals court ruled that the politicians have a "legitimate legislative interest in discouraging prurient interests in autonomous sex" -- in other words, masturbation -- because that may be "detrimental to the health and morality of the State."
Oddly, Pleasures is still in business because the law makes an exception if a sex toy is sold for a medical purpose. To buy a vibrator, customers need only answer yes to a questionnaire asking things like, "Have difficulty having an orgasm?"
I asked the Family Research Council's Sprigg whom the government protects when it closes down sex shops.
"The government is protecting actually the people who patronize those shops because I don't think it's in their interest to use pornography and sex toys."
Give me a break.
Answers! We don't need no stink Answers!
....................../´¯/) ....................,/¯../ .................../..../ ............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸ ........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\ ........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...') .........\.................'...../ ..........''...\.......... _.·´ ............\..............( ..............\.............\...
Bingo, a voice of reason.
Then I guess you really don't mean what you advocate.
It really depends. Urinating on the street is one thing, but stopping in a park, presumably out of sight, to pee behind a tree? If that makes one a sex offender, then the large majority of men fall into that category.
being a pedophile is a crime. Consensual sex between two adults is not.
I didn’t say anything about his being a sex offender - I just said it’s gross, and I don’t care how many guys do it, it’s still gross. Might as well give up toilet-training altogether and let them crap in the streets like in India.
Yeah? Well, maybe in order to make it, you can put a cork in it, but a guy has to be humongously equiped befor he can tie a knot in it.
It's a fundamental right of every man to pee in the woods, and spell our names in the snow. And in the oceans, too. Think about that next time you're in the water and a guy is standing near you with an absent-minded look on his face :-)
Obviously this is a sensitive subject for males.
You got that right — I have a particular aversion to anything that will force me to pee in my pants if a bush is available to get behind to pee out of sight of others. I think it is downright stupid law enforcement.
It’s unfortunate that homosexual cruising in public places has become such a problem - a problem that few jurisdictions are willing to address openly. If it weren’t for that, there wouldn’t be cops behind every tree watching guys who just have to piddle.
Btw, it’s not as if women have a valve switch. Tampons are for menstruation, which if men experienced that, I assume the streets would be an abbatoir.
Men are just filthy minded, uncontrolable flashing beasts. Who like nothing better than peeing all over public places. There. Is that better?
You have posted to me several times on this thread and as yet, nothing of substance. At FR, attacking me is the same as a compliment.
And it is not just me.
You attack many on the thread.
And it is not just this thread.
Looking you up "in the forum" shows that you do the same thing on every thread.
Back when I was a cab driver I knew a few hookers - some were regular customers. I’d pick them up at home and drop them at their work sites, taking them home in the morning.
I never steered customers their way.
In one neighborhood I’d let one set in my cab while waiting for a call if the weather was cold and wet. We’d talk until I had a call or she spotted a possible John. Guess I’m jus a nice guy.
Yep, but it happens in some ones bedroom.
Are you or are you not for unlimited immigration?
Are You opposed to building a border fence?
Do you oppose sanctuary cities.
Would you vote for Joe Arpio?
These are all yes or no questions, answer any one of them.
Your question about sanctuary cities is unanswerable because the phrase sanctuary city is a feel good term that means nothing. But let me provide you some understanding.
During the Great Irish Immigration, those cities where those immigrants located developed a number of policies to deal with the problems of the immigrants. And a major component of these policies was how law enforcement would deal with those immigrants.
And those policies became successful, and solved many of the problems. And those policies became widely accepted. They are taught in City Management 101 and Law Enforcement 101.
So, if you were to rephrase you question and ask me if I support those policies, the answer would be yes.
Another of you questions about "unlimited immigration" is just plain ass dumb. Due to the demographic realities, the US will have to import significant amounts of labor. This could be new citizens, guest workers, illegals, or some combination there-of. And eventually, Congress will tip and they will reform immigration policies so that the illegal component of immigration will be minimal. If you were to try to measure this level of immigration required, you could say that the US will have to maintain a population growth rate of about 0.90%. Or, you could say that the US will have to keep the worker to retiree ratio above 3:1.
As for that fence you mentioned, the GOPers and Dems agreed in 2005 to build the fence that the BP and the BP union wanted. And I support that. But, many Texans are irritated that those landowners with stranded property probably won't receive adequate compensation.
As for Joe, I would have to know who he is running against.
Yes they are, and you managed to avoid every one of them.
Google Joe, learn something.
Your question about sanctuary cities is unanswerable because the phrase sanctuary city is a feel good term that means nothing. But let me provide you some understanding.
No would be the correct response, unless of course you favor them, then you should just pontificate on the chance that readers won't understand your true position.
Bug off I don't have time for you.
If you look at the history of you and I cross-posting, the way it always works it that you come along after the fact and try to start something. Maybe you should be the one to bug off. Or, since the thread was about your latent tendencies, maybe I should have said bugger off.
Probably more in your neighborhood than mine.
Talking with you is fruitless, you never answer a question period.
I am against open borders.
I am against unlimited Immigration.
I am disappointed in Nafta to the point of rejecting it.
I am for assimilation, not balkinization.
I do not equate Islam with Christianity.
I do not understand why white educated Europeans wait for years to immigrate.
I don't understand how Sanctuary Cities can violate law with impunity.
I don't understand why illegals are not required to speak English to gain legal status.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.