There’s a park in Amsterdam with an “adults only“ section where people can have public sex in a secluded area

lemme guess, Vondelpark?

Im not a public/outdoor sex gay, but whatever floats your boat

[quote]wouldn’t it make more sense just to give adults a “proper” space to do that?

No. Just because many adults are prone to degenerate and deviant behavior doesn't mean the government should help to facilitate it. Public parks are funded by taxpayers. Frankly, I wouldn't want my money going to that type of mess.

^ Now, to clarify, if some big wig wants to by a piece of land and it's a private business running that sort of thing, I don't care. No one is forcing me to patronize the park and give them my money. By all means, do you in a private business. But if my taxes are going toward anything, that's not it. I'd rather it go toward financial literacy/education programs in urban communities to help pave a path toward financial independence which, subsequently, can spill over into better economic development for the overall community and its residents. That's a better use of taxpayer money.

R3/R4 I find it kind of strange how Europeans, South Americans, etc do this kind of thing all the time in secluded areas and think nothing of it, and Americans act like it’s the worst crime in the world. I wonder what causes such a different opinion.

WARNING: Our park has hard wood and beavers. WATCH FOR: sticky, wet and prophylactic leftovers.

Because Americans are hypocritical as hell about sex.

Because we can't have nice things.

You live in a country where you can't say "gay" in the classroom...you think you'll be able to have public sex in cordoned off area? Good luck with that!

Very good question, r5, considering the deeply restrictive history of both regions due to Catholicism. The Latin Church, in particular, was responsible for The Crusades, ffs. So, I don't know what happened.

All I know is that, personally, I don't agree with it, but I also don't agree that consenting adults should be "prohibited" from engaging in sexual activity that I, personally, fine deviant. I don't see why brothels and such aren't legal across the board, here. I may not agree with it in practice, and find it gross, but what a private business does has no affect on me if I'm not patronizing such an establishment. Also, the taxes that could be imposed on such businesses, could actually help the overall economy.

But, yeah, I have no idea when Europe and Latin America took a 180 on these practices. God knows they were literally murdering people for daring to have premarital sex. Especially if they were women.

^ *find

R9 Good point. I actually read about a legal case where two gay men were charged with “lewd conduct“ for having sex in a secluded area of a park late at night when no one was around. The crazy thing is that the prosecutors were doing all kinds of investigations and surveying the area, trying to prove that someone “could have“ seen them if they had been there. I think eventually they dropped the charges, but shouldn’t they be focusing on going after murderers and rapists and embezzlers? Not least because straight people do this kind of shit all the time and no one cares.

Keep it to yourself op you sick ass

The US is so conservative and puritan. I won’t be surprised if Republicans try to make sodomy illegal again.

spontaneous and anonymous is more fun

Please don’t encourage more bad behavior by the homeless. That situation is already out of control in the United States.

Americans are too religious, judgemental and inherently conservative

In the US we have sex clubs. As with everything else, here you have to pay for it. Pay, pay, pay.

The Hague has one too and won a lawsuit once to keep the straight folks with kids away

[quote]lemme guess, Vondelpark?

I think it's Oeverlanden park

Here’s my take. American culture is loaded with hypocrisy. My guess would be that there are lots of Americans who don’t really care about this kind of thing, and may even fantasize about doing something like that. But they would never admit that to anyone else, because that’s not the “proper” response. The “proper“ American response is to pretend that you’re disgusted by it and uphold the pearl clutching.

This is dumb. Public sex isn't thrilling if it's in a section that is secluded and designated as an official sex location. Like isn't the point that you have to sneak around, watch out for cops or passersby, and get off as fast as possible?

R22. No. The goal isn’t to break the law. The goal is the thrill of outdoor sex. And in fact, in most western democracies, sex in public is only a crime if it’s in a place where you can be seen. Moreover, it’s largery that way in the US too, although the cops are overzealous.

See, Putin and I were right about the West. Russia is going all the way to the Atlantic.

This is a country where a conservative Republican from Louisiana is caught having an affair with an Arab woman who turns him on because she is an ex-jihadist.

Too many sexually fucked-up hypocrites.

It was pretty much the same in Brussels back in the 2ks (not sure about the last ten years). I was doing consulting work for a big Insurance company and one day I came back to my hotel walking instead of riding in a colleague's car and I crossed a park and noticed that there was a lot of action going on there still in the daylight. I came back a couple of hours later and action was going all over the place. But then you could see there was the police. So I just quietly discussed with another guy and he told me the police was there *not* to disturb the action but to protect the gays from homophobic actions that must have happened years earlier. Oh and it was Brussels Park (Parc de Bruxelles) very close to the palace.

I never had sex on the spot though because it was too ingrained in me that I could get in trouble, but that was okay as the guys loved coming back to my hotel, the Conrad, which was about 15 minutes away walking from the Park and was, seemingly the best hotel you could stay in in Brussels. Once I got hooked to that local customs, that's when I started to show up a bit late at work...

[quote] But if my taxes are going toward anything, that's not it. I'd rather it go toward financial literacy/education programs in urban communities to help pave a path toward financial independence which, subsequently, can spill over into better economic development for the overall community and its residents.

Gawd, you're a pretentious twat.

Why, r27? Because I actually care about my community and people becoming more economically self-sufficient and prosperous? I flat out said private businesses can do whatever the hell they want with this. But if money is coming out of a check I busted my ass to earn, it damn-well better be going toward something of substance. I don't consider creating "safe spaces" for adults to get their freak on a priority worth public investment when we have so many more holes to fill in the public sector; many of them literal holes...in the streets...fucking up tires and shit.

Grow up.

Yes r28, all of those pretentious twat things.

And I suspect you fill your own holes out of necessity.

^ said "fill holes". Hehe.

Aw, boo hoo, r29. Some people don't want to force-fund your extra-curricular activities that contribute fuck all to society as a whole. Stay mad about it.

R28’s response is quintessentially American. Acting all uppity and prudish and pretending to care about “moral” things.

Actually R28, the government maintains public parks anyway. The only difference is that maybe in some circumstances, a section would be cordoned off for adults only. It’s not like they would be building all new parks just for sex. I’m not sure why you think it would cost the taxpayers more money.

It’s only fun when you’re not supposed to.

Duh.

If it’s a special place where you can’t get “caught”, it won’t be exciting.

But yeah, consenting adults and all that.

[quote]a section would be cordoned off for adults only.

[quote]I’m not sure why you think it would cost the taxpayers more money.

I'm genuinely interested to hear your idea of how more money wouldn't be needed to afford the added security and other barriers necessary for this newly built cordon in an already existing park. Anytime something is added in a park, it costs money. How would you avoid the additional tax burden?

R3/R35 Considering how you keep talking about taxes, I’m assuming that you’re a Republican. So I have to be very careful how I answer this question. The obvious answer would be to legalize and tax the bullshit shouldn’t be criminalized anyway, like marijuana possession and so on. But I’m sure you would have a “moral“ problem with that too.

Part of the thrill is anticipating a couple of big, hot burly cops will smack you around, and then bend you over a park bench before handcufffing you and locking you away in their dungeon for naughty park perverts.

r36, see my replies at r4 and r10. You're suggesting a privatization and a business tax. I don't see a problem with that.

[quote]Public parks are funded by taxpayers. Frankly, I wouldn't want my money going to that type of mess.

Well I don't want my tax dollars going to baseball fields or playgrounds, since they interest me even less than sex parks. *shrug*

The “I don’t want my taxes to go to…….” is such a bullshit argument it’s not even funny. Everyone pays taxes. No one has control over how their tax dollars are spent. Yes honey, I’m sure that if 0.0018% of your tax dollars go to something you don’t like, it’s just going to destroy your precious little life.

[quote]the added security and other barriers necessary for this newly built cordon in an already existing park

It's not anything 'fancy' like that. They just put up some signs to indicate there's a cruising spot. There's no security or an area that's cordoned off

[quote] I'm genuinely interested to hear your idea of how more money wouldn't be needed to afford the added security and other barriers necessary for this newly built cordon in an already existing park.

Your adding things.

Added security? No one said anything about that.

Other barriers? How about a sign: “Adults Only beyond this point.” Done.

Newly built cordon? No, an existing area, such as in the back where you have to pass the aforementioned sign.

And a state , R25, who elected a diaper-fetishist Republican US Senator. Not that I care if he did or not unless he was, uh, fragrantly adjacent to me.

You’re right. It’s the rank hypocrisy of saying one thing publicly (no kinks! no deviations from their religiously defended views on sexual behavior!) and doing another.

My concern re: cruising parks is that lack of oversight would likely lead to more gay-bashing and publicity now that everyone on earth has a video camera in their pocket.

That's not the same thing r39. I don't have an interest in those activities either. But it doesn't bother me that my tax dollars fund it because I don't, personally, find it to be morally repugnant behavior. I, 100%, don't want my money funding degeneracy and I am not going to apologize for that. If a private business owner wants to build a place like that for adults, I don't care. I have a choice whether or not to support the business. Its existence in the public sector deprives me of that choice. Thus, I believe it should be reserved for the private sector.

I said what I said.

[quote] I said what I said.

Go back to Twitter, you old fool.

R44. “Morally repugnant behavior.” You know who says things like this? People who get caught tapping their foot in public restrooms.

[quote]Go back to Twitter, you old fool.

Imagine being this upset because someone doesn't want to fund avenues to play out your weird-ass sexual proclivities.

[quote]You know who says things like this? People who get caught tapping their foot in public restrooms.

M'kay. Cool story.

You can't possibly be this dumb, R44. Troll elsewhere.

[quote]It's not anything 'fancy' like that. They just put up some signs to indicate there's a cruising spot. [bold]There's no security or an area that's cordoned off.[/bold]

I can see that attracting a lot of problems for anyone who uses those areas. I think someone up-thread mentioned the increased likelihood of gay bashing, mugging, or unwanted filming of participants with camera phones. Unless, of course, one's argument is that anyone who uses such places should expect such violations and "have it coming" if ever they decide to take such risks.

A private-owned business could hire security to ensure the safety of those who use the area, like a bouncer at a strip club. And, again, the business tax could enrich the local economy overall.

The U.S. is too prudish to allow any of that. Besides, trash and thugs abound, and it would not be safe. Preventing crimes of robbery, vandalism, assault & rape, etc., is weak.

R18- At least HERE one does not have to pay to find a place to take a leak unlike Europe. EVERYTHING else there is socialized except for bathrooms/toilets/ lavatories- what ever word you prefer.

Also, having an area of an already existing park cordoned off does seem to imply that an area, once accessible to all, including children, would then be replaced/off limits. So, you'd be removing something that was once for families, and replacing it with an area for sexual activity. I'm sure that would definitely go over smoothly with those "pesky prudes" you're so worried about.

You have to be willing to compromise somewhere if you truly want something like this to exist in the states. I think a compromise can be met that satisfies all parties if this sort of activity is, first, decriminalized, thus allowing it to exist within the private sector which is safer for all involved.

Good luck getting it decriminalized, though. That's a whole other conversation.

Ve have ze sex in America?

[quote] At least HERE one does not have to pay to find a place to take a leak unlike Europe.

You obviously never visited NYC.

Switzerland has this too, in Zurich there's a park on an island in the river (easily accesible by bridge), a wooded area of which is set aside for outdoor fun. Needless to say I went several times while I was there, one time I was busy in a group of naked guys when a cop turned up - no issue with what we were doing, just that one of the guys had a dog which he'd leashed to a nearby tree and his dog licence had expired!

I wish the English speaking West was as matter of fact about these things

Public sex trolls could be a gold mine for some clever capitalist! Open some private garden as an "adults only" space, and post disclaimers on the gates warning outdoor-sex-loving participants that they may be filmed.

Put up motion-activated cameras and webcams, make a fortune from amateur exhibitionist porn.

If only r3/r4 were that concerned about "my taxes" going to fight wars in the Middle East and corporate welfare.

Making an official "adults only" public space probably won't cut down on public sex.

Too many people who like public sex don't think it's exciting unless they're shocking the prudes, or driving the vanilla out of "their" territory. Make it safe and legal, and it's just more vanilla.

[quote]If only [R3]/[R4] were that concerned about "my taxes" going to fight wars in the Middle East and corporate welfare.

Straw man much? I don't want my tax dollars funding that bullshit, either. But...that's not the current topic of discussion, now, is it, princess?

Keep making shit up to argue against because you the fact that not everyone thinks public sex is appropriate has your knickers in a knot.

True, r58. But there are many who may benefit from it who aren't exhibitionists. Just like Chaturbate exists, but somehow, you still can't seem to avoid the old perverts exposing themselves on Omegle.

It can continue to be criminalized if it's taking place in "non-desginated areas" similar to how it's illegal in most locations to walk down the street with an open liquor container or have one in your vehicle when it's in motion, even if you weren't even drinking. That's how regulations work.

Jeez, r59, for someone who finds this whole subject “repulsive,” you’re sure spending a lot of time in this thread.

R59, I just think you need to be fucked. You sound like someone who’s not getting laid and doesn’t want anyone else to have fun.

Loosen up a bit, up there and down there, too!

What an asinine take r61. Talking about an act you find disgusting is not nearly the same thing as actively engaging in said act.

And I've stated repeatedly in this thread that I don't care if consenting adults partake in it, but that there should be regulations set in place so that it can be done safely, and it shouldn't come out of the government's budget. You're being unreasonable.

Making it legal and safe takes away all the fun. Anonymous sex in public is supposed to be dirty and a little dangerous. That's part of the thrill. Don't sanitize it like so much else in gay life has been mainstreamed and sanitized.

[quote]Making it legal and safe takes away all the fun.

Sounds like a personal problem. ¯|_(ツ)_/¯

Aren't there wild water buffalo in that park, now?

[quote]Aren't there wild water buffalos in that park, now?

Scottish Highland cows

Thank you, R64, for backing me up.

R62 Isn’t that the case with most republicans? Bill O’Reilly loved to rant about sexual immorality until it came out that he was sexually harassing all of his female coworkers. How much do you want to bet this guy has an annual subscription to Carnal Plus?

I doubt European politicians give a fuck about sexual freedom. But they often do know how to prioritise public resources (time and money) when it comes to policing and law enforcement. This model (supervised park) provides for public safety but also focuses and guides the behaviour so people who aren't into it don't have to put up with it, or at least as much.

Shit, forget public parks. American cops will bust guys in bathhouses and porno theaters. I mean, can you imagine how upset your grandmother would be if she were in a porno theater and saw some guy jerk off?

[quote]How much do you want to bet this guy has an annual subscription to Carnal Plus?

Actually, I've had the unfortunate, and violating experience of a man exposing himself to me in public while at work. Those are the type of people who probably wouldn't take advantage of a legalized and regulated public sex park, anyway, because they get off on violating other people. They're sick and twisted.

I assume, those are the ones giving the most push-back to my proposition that such venues should be privatized and regulated. The fact that you're still mad at someone saying it shouldn't be banned outright but regulated a la alcohol and marijuana dispensaries is just bizarre.

72 So in one sentence, you say that you see nothing wrong with it if it’s “privatized,” and then you talk out of the other side of your mouth saying that anyone who would want to partake in anything like that is a degenerate. So it’s not “perverted” as long as it fits into a Republican business plan. Got it. If you’re interested, there’s a homeless mother of three around the corner if you’d like to stomp on her.

[quote]So in one sentence, you say that you see nothing wrong with it if it’s “privatized,”

You are mistaken. I never said I see nothing wrong with it [bold]if[/bold] it's privatized. I said that I see nothing wrong with it being privatized and regulated.

[quote]anyone who would want to partake in anything like that is a degenerate.

And I stand by that statement. I feel the same way about sex clubs, strip clubs, etc. Those are private businesses, however. And private businesses have every right to operate how they please (as long as it's legal) and one can choose to patronize it or not. Once again, I'm not for my tax dollars going to some bullshit. This, to me, qualifies as said bullshit.

The U.S. still has a very puritan streak to it. It's only in the last couple of decades we've managed to throw a lot of it off. That said I recall one of the areas in the city I once lived in there were two spots one right around the State House and then off on the eastern side a park that was also pretty big cruising spot. One day I'm at work and a guy asked me if there was anything that could be done about that cruising spot. He told me the cops didn't even bother and I explained that without that he pretty much only had an option of signs warning people.

I always hear that straight people do it just as much. Really? If one of those water buffalo got mad it could really ruin a sweet bucolic orgy. Do they cordon the area off with velvet rope, police tape or repurposed fetish gear?

Yeah, some straight people get off on having sex in public view, and of course they don't see a problem with making out in public.

But the closest thing that straight people have to "cruising spots" were the mid-20th-century places where straight teens who had cars would go to do the sticky things they couldn't do at home.

Back then they were called lover’s lanes.

You could stop at five or six stores