Skip to comments.Swingers branch out [Private sex acts OK, judge rules]
Posted on 07/05/2003 4:05:06 AM PDT by Lorenb420
MONTREAL -- Swingers clubs will spring up across Canada because of a judge ruling their activities are not necessarily illegal, the head of a swingers group said yesterday. Municipal court Judge Denis Boisvert found five people guilty of swinging-related offences, but decided "contemporary Canadian society tolerates swinging and swingers clubs if the sexual acts take place in private."
Jean Hamel, president of the 8,000-member Quebec Swingers Association, said Boisvert's ruling will have national significance.
"I don't think more clubs will open in Quebec but I think it will open doors for other places in Canada, like Toronto."
Judge Boisvert found a man and his daughter guilty on two counts each of running a bawdy-house. Three other people were convicted of being present in a bawdy-house.
At the heart of the ruling was the notion of public sex versus private sex.
"If the sexual acts take place in public, even among consenting adults, that is no longer swinging, but an orgy," he wrote. "And Canadians do not tolerate orgies or other Canadians participating in orgies."
Oh Canada--where men are sometimes men and sheep are scared.
In the strictest Roman tradition, it's not an orgy unless food is served.
The first issue is that it is illegal to grow, posses, sell, or use grass. It doesn't matter where it's done, it's still illegal, whether it's on your own private property or not. On the other hand, as we've seen now, sex between two consenting adults, in the privacy of their home has been ruled legal. Sex is not illegal between 2 consenting adults: But the crime of prostitution seems to be the exchange of something of value for sexual acts. The key is that those acts are NOT illegal, if there's no exchange. So that brings up the question, if you're on a date, and you pay for the lady's dinner, movie, or whatever, and you "get lucky," should that be illegal as prostitution? You've given her something of value, and gotten sex in return. Or how about when a husband gives his wife a valuable gift, like a diamond ring? If she "rewards" him, why is this OK, while a man who gives a prostitute the same ring, or something else of value committing a crime? It would seem that Does the fact that they're married make giving gifts to a wife OK, but to someone else that you have sex with a crime? If so, that would effectively grant the state the right of licensing and sanctioning sex between two consenting adults, which given this ruling, the state can't do.
I guess I just wanted to get some other ideas on this. It seems to me that this latest SCOTUS ruling has really opened up a pandoras box on this issue and others.
PS The reason that I bring this up is that in the Kansas City area, there's a massive crackdown going on with prostitution, and it's been in the papers and on the TV news. Two weeks ago, they made more than 100 arrests.
As much as the defenders of this decision deny it, it does open up a lot of other challenges.
Prostitution can be tacitly legislated since it is a commerical transaction.
Not so incest. There is a current case in California where a 17 year old boy is being charged with a felony count of incest for having sex with his 22 year old sister (who has not been charged). She got pregnant but miscarried the child so that is not an issue in the charge.
The people who supported the reduction of sentencing against members of the same sex who commit acts of statutory rape (or child molestation) (they thought 17 years sentencing was extreme for a homosexual act committed by an 18 year old on a 14 year old) have been silent on thi consensual incest case.
If a person grows the marijuana at home (indoors) and smokes it at home (indoors), and does not traffic in his stash, I don't know if the states or feds can legislate against it anymore (as long as there is no commerce). After all it is the act of a consenting adult in the privacy of his or her own home.
Don't expect to see these other laws dropped as quickly as all of the sodomy laws were. Other sex laws will remain to be challenged as will drug laws, and other privacy laws.
Even the states that are trying to outlaw tobacco smoking at home (under the guise of child abuse) don't seem to feel threatened by the Supreme Court's stance on privacy.
Think that the Court's recognition of privacy will keep the doctors from sharing medical information with the pharmecutical companies or police?
A: She'd have to write too many thank you notes.
A: "Stop, Daddy. Yer mashin' mah cigarettes."
" . . . I'm Soooooooooo drunk . . . "
" . . . I'm Soooooooooo drunk . . . "
Unless she's a redhead in which case it's "Next!"
Well, maybe not... In order to skirt the laws (unsuccessfuly), it seems that prostitutes designate their payments as gifts, saying that the "gift" is a token of appreciation for their time. As such, if it really is a "gift," then according to the tax codes, it is NEVER taxable income, and the "gift giver" is only subject to paying a gift tax if the total annual "gift" exceeds $11,000 to this one individual. As such, I believe that there may be some validity to the assertion that it is not a commercial transaction, any more than when a boyfriend gives his girlfriend a diamond pendant or earrings, and she thanks him in a private and personal manner. It could be considered a gift in the truest sense of the word. Technically, the prostitute is not forced or in any way compelled to provide the "gift giver" with sex.
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.