NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/bristol/somerset/7492680.stm

There, found a link that didn't involve the Daily Mail. BBC good enough for you?

Some gays are claiming that removing the bushes is discriminatory, because they use the bushes to hide behind when they're having sex.

Now, point of fact, it's illegal for anyone to have sex outdoors (get a room) in that location. So the law doesn't appear discriminatory.

Why should the local majority be prevented from trimming the verge? If the trimming is intended to prevent an activity that is already illegal for anyone regardless of sexual orientation, how is that discriminatory?

Why can't these people shag in their cars, or get a room?

I thought they needed George W. Bush to snog.

I thought they needed George W. Bush to snog.

He can only cover so many.

*lol

There's always some, isn't there?

Now, I know that, despite illegality, dogging and sex in parks is a rather lively sub-scene in the homosexual community. I think it's kind of cute how these people apparently aren't even AWARE that they're breaking any laws...

Why can't these people shag in their cars, or get a room?
Because the gays who have anonymous sex in such locations (or, for example, in airport bathrooms) are mostly self-hating closet cases who cannot handle their sexuality and haven't realized yet that they can have a perfectly normal happy life if only they'd stop hiding to have meaningless sex and get a real relationship instead.

Bad apples everywhere, folks...

Because the gays who have anonymous sex in such locations (or, for example, in airport bathrooms) are mostly self-hating closet cases who cannot handle their sexuality and haven't realized yet that they can have a perfectly normal happy life if only they'd stop hiding to have meaningless sex and get a real relationship instead.

So why are they in the closet? Especially nowadays? That's the part that doesn't make sense to me.

I detest it when some members of minority groups are almost asking me to hate them by doing this, despite my egalitarian nature. It's just attention-seeking; by pretending to suffer, these people get sympathy, while embarassing all the decent gay people out there who are respectful enough to get a room.

So why are they in the closet? Especially nowadays? That's the part that doesn't make sense to me.

You haven't heard of this little thing called "morality" have you? That and "religion" - something about homosexuality, according to Leviticus, being a sin. Some religious types cling to these outdated ideas and enforce their morality on the majority.

You haven't heard of this little thing called "morality" have you? That and "religion" - something about homosexuality, according to Leviticus, being a sin. Some religious types cling to these outdated ideas and enforce their morality on the majority.

How so?

I see plenty of openly gay people every day. Where is this enforcement you speak of?

So why are they in the closet? Especially nowadays? That's the part that doesn't make sense to me.

These are mostly older gay men who grew up being told they were sinful, mentally ill or criminals.

You won't find many trendy gay men in their twenties in places like these. But for those who have 50+ years of self-hating indoctrination and taboo, waking up to the fact that they don't have to hide anymore doesn't come that easily. Old habits die hard, if you will.

There's a few issues with this.

firstly, there are some people gay, bi and straight that like having sex in public spaces. Frankly I'm too old and the consequences of getting caught mean that its not my thing but each to their own. I take the view that if people are making an effort to make sure that they are not visible to others and tidy up after themselves, I have no objection to it.

secondly, there is an assumption that all men who engage in sex in cruising grounds are gay. That isn't the case. A significant number fall into the category of "men who have sex with men" i.e. straight blokes that identify as straight, are emotionally attached to women, predominently have sex with women but sometimes fancy a blow job off another bloke. suggesting that they are "self hating gays" isn't very helpful and often isn't true. Being gay isn't just about the type of sex people have - there is a whole culture, lifestyle and community too that a significant number of the MSM guys don't engage with and don't want to sign up to because it isn't their world and doesn't reflect their lives. A lot of those blokes are happy with their lives and don't want to change things.

thirdly, there are a cluster of gay guys who occasionally wander into the bushes cos its fun and they want some no strings fun. culturally its traditional and has been happening since the year dot. I often think that straights may be happier and get into less messy relationships if they had the same options.

How so?

I see plenty of openly gay people every day. Where is this enforcement you speak of?

Shame and indoctrination are powerful tools, as Ska ha pointed out.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/bristol/somerset/7492680.stm

There, found a link that didn't involve the Daily Mail. BBC good enough for you?

Some gays are claiming that removing the bushes is discriminatory, because they use the bushes to hide behind when they're having sex.


Reminds me of neofascist former mayor of Treviso (mayor-sheriff, he liked to style himself). He had all benches removed from the squares, roads and public parks of Treviso "so homies and niggars can't sleep on them".

:p we italians really have a taste for horrible politicians.

Anyway, can't people just use their own bloody house, or a bloody hotel room, or their bloody car if they want to go at it? Also tents are comfortable enough, I can say.
Also the bushes aren't for gay people only! This is discrimination against the heterosexuals, wtf!

ewwwwww

no there is no need to provide a special place for a certain group to have sex in public.

Because the gays who have anonymous sex in such locations (or, for example, in airport bathrooms) are mostly self-hating closet cases who cannot handle their sexuality and haven't realized yet that they can have a perfectly normal happy life if only they'd stop hiding to have meaningless sex and get a real relationship instead.

What a load of sanctimonious, neo-moralist bullshit.

ewwwwww

no there is no need to provide a special place for a certain group to have sex in public.
Sex in the bushes is by very definition not sex in public.

no there is no need to provide a special place for a certain group to have sex in public.
Dogging is by no means a gay-only phenomenon.

Sex in the bushes is by very definition not sex in public.

In Italy it is, by legal definition - even sex in a car is, provided that the car's windows weren't shielded by something. Anyway you get punished only if someone else can see - of course, so a think bush might be effective in shielding the happy couple from the public sight.

Anyway: bushes => thorns. sex <= at least partial nudity. thorns+nudity=OUCH!!!:(

Sex in the bushes is by very definition not sex in public.

yes it is.

Sex in the bushes is by very definition not sex in public.
... Oh yes it is.

Dogging is by no means a gay-only phenomenon.

supposing that that means "sex in the bushes" i wasnt suggesting that it was.

but they are being asked to reconsider this "anti-dogging" measure because it discriminates against the sexual practices of a particular group.

there is no need to accomodate anyone's desire for sex in public.

there is no need to accomodate anyone's desire for sex in public.
Why not?

Sex in the great outdoors is rather fun. I'd prefer somewhere a bit more out of the way than a city park, but I don't see why I should be stopped from having sex with a loving partner outside of my home; provided we're not swinging our bits in front of the kiddies, etc.

Why not?

I'd prefer somewhere a bit more out of the way than a city park

The downs is really out of the way, it's massive. It's about a quarter of a mile from my house, and the local students go up there in the middle of the night and shine torches on gay couples and jump into the bushes.

... Oh yes it is.
No it isn't.

yes it is.
No, it really isn't.

Sex in the bushes is sex outdoors. Sex in public implies there is a public to watch. If you're hidden in the bushes people can't see. Not sex in public.

Are you more likely to get caught in a public park, despite bushes, than you are to be caught in your own home? Probably. Are you having sex in front of everybody with all the world to see? No.

Sex in public implies there is a public to watch.
So if I have sex in the middle of the high street, but there's nobody around to watch, it isn't in public?

Seems a bit of a weird distinction.

No it isn't.
If you're hidden in the bushes people can't see.
The bushes on the downs don't hide much, in the day you can see right in to them, so you could probably see into them with a torch.

Why not?

Sex in the great outdoors is rather fun. I'd prefer somewhere a bit more out of the way than a city park, but I don't see why I should be stopped from having sex with a loving partner outside of my home; provided we're not swinging our bits in front of the kiddies, etc.

because the general public has decided that they would rather not have to risk finding you and who knows how many others having sex without any way of reclaiming the area for non-sexual use.

which is not the point of the thread eh?

No it isn't.


No, it really isn't.

Sex in the bushes is sex outdoors. Sex in public implies there is a public to watch. If you're hidden in the bushes people can't see. Not sex in public.

Are you more likely to get caught in a public park, despite bushes, than you are to be caught in your own home? Probably. Are you having sex in front of everybody with all the world to see? No.

no

public is a space where anyone can go at any time. as opposed to a space where you control who can be there, like your own home or a rented room.

So if I have sex in the middle of the high street, but there's nobody around to watch, it isn't in public?

Seems a bit of a weird distinction.

If you do it in an empty alley, it's not sex in public.

Sex outdoors =/= sex in public.

Sex in public is an offense about showing yourself engaging in sexual activities in front of people unwilling and unconsenting to watch you.


no

public is a space where anyone can go at any time. as opposed to a space where you control who can be there, like your own home or a rented room.
Sex in a public space is not sex in public.

If you do it in an empty alley, it's not sex in public.

Sex outdoors =/= sex in public.

Sex in public is an offense about showing yourself engaging in sexual activities in front of people unwilling and unconsenting to watch you.



Sex in a public space is not sex in public.

yeah it is.

because the general public has decided that they would rather not have to risk finding you and who knows how many others having sex without any way of reclaiming the area for non-sexual use.
So is it simply sex in particular places you object to, or sex outside a private home you object to?

Because you sounded as if you were objecting to the latter above, and I see no reason why I should be prevented from having sex in a quiet place in the great outdoors.

I'm really quite ashamed at NS right now...

its already page 3 and there has been not one lewd remark about gay men loving bushes :(

So is it simply sex in particular places you object to, or sex outside a private home you object to?

Because you sounded as if you were objecting to the latter above, and I see no reason why I should be prevented from having sex in a quiet place in the great outdoors.

i dont care where you have sex as long as you understand that you might end up arrested if you do it in the wrong place.

i have no idea if its illegal to have sex in the middle of a national forest where there are no other people for 100 miles around.

its kinda like that tree falling in the woods, if there is no one to see you, you wont be arrested. if there is, you have done it in the wrong place and if you get arrested, you deserved it.

What about sex on your back porch? Yeah! It's private property but out in the open; possibly in full view if you only have a chain link fence. So it's fine. As according to this thread, it's NOT public.

yeah it is.


Disorderly Conduct

Indecent acts

173. (1) Every one who wilfully does an indecent act

(a) in a public place in the presence of one or more persons, or

(b) in any place, with intent thereby to insult or offend any person,

is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Article 173, part V of the criminal code disagrees with you.

I choose to side with the CCC.


What about sex on your back porch? Yeah! It's private property but out in the open; possibly in full view if you only have a chain link fence. So it's fine. As according to this thread, it's NOT public.
I believe the above clarifies the very obvious problems you just pointed out with the very inaccurate statements offered by the other posters.

Article 173, part V of the criminal code disagrees with you.

I choose to side with the CCC.

I believe the above clarifies the very obvious problems you just pointed out with the very inaccurate statements offered by the other posters.

While I side with you and agree, you know full well that the general retort will be that X poster is not a Canuck therefore the law doesn't apply to this debate... etcetera.

Yes it does. I didn't see that until after I made my post. However, you know that the posters here will still disregard your citation of Canadian decency laws.

While I side with you and agree, you know full well that the general retort will be that X poster is not a Canuck therefore the law doesn't apply to this debate... etcetera.

It does not change the fact that sex in public view is not the same as sex in a public place.

Article 173, part V of the criminal code disagrees with you.

I choose to side with the CCC.



I believe the above clarifies the very obvious problems you just pointed out with the very inaccurate statements offered by the other posters.

i dont know why you are trying so hard to split hairs. (and i think you have lost track of what point you were making in other posts)

sex in the park is pretty much illegal wherever you are. the concept of the OP that someone thinks that bushes should be maintained so that gay men can have sex in them is creepy at best.

It does not change the fact that sex in public view is not the same as sex in a public place.

No it doesn't. I'm not saying it does. I'm just saying that some posters here will ignore the triple C.

What about sex on your back porch? Yeah! It's private property but out in the open; possibly in full view if you only have a chain link fence. So it's fine. As according to this thread, it's NOT public.

it falls under the same kind of lewd behavior laws that prevents you from jerking off in your front window.

it falls under the same kind of lewd behavior laws that prevents you from jerking off in your front window.

It's not my fault if I can't afford curtains and it is the only room in my house. :p

It's not my fault if I can't afford curtains and it is the only room in my house. :p

you could at least turn around.

i dont know why you are trying so hard to split hairs. (and i think you have lost track of what point you were making in other posts)

No, I haven't. The distinction I am trying to impress upon you and the others is very important.

Having sex late at night in the bushes of a public park, out of immediate eyesight with nobody around to peek, is certainly creepy and saddening, but not worthy of a criminal offense nor of social condemnation.

Having sex in broad daylight in the same park, under no cover, while you know there are people looking who do not want to see that, is not only creepy, but also extremely disrespectful, potentially traumatizing, and certainly worthy of being a criminal offense and social condemnation.
i
sex in the park is pretty much illegal wherever you are. the concept of the OP that someone thinks that bushes should be maintained so that gay men can have sex in them is creepy at best.

Again, it's not illegal as long as you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. I know quite a good many friends who have had sex outdoors, regardless of sexual orientation, and liked it a lot. None of them were actually trying to be offensive or looking forward to being caught.

Sex outside is not wrong as long as you have privacy. Sex without privacy in full view of everyone is wrong.

Do not bundle the two activities together and then throw a blanket statement condemning it. The gay men referred to in the OP were not having sex in plain view, otherwise they would have apprehended and jailed or fined accordingly.

The downs isn't even a park, it's an open public space with no fences and right by some houses. It's almost like someone having sex in your garden.

Having sex late at night in the bushes of a public park, out of immediate eyesight with nobody around to peek, is certainly creepy and saddening...
Why is this necessarily the case?

Late night dalliances with a partner in the bushes are rather fun. True, if you're only having sex in bushes, or are doing so out of a sense of embarrassment, rather than for the thrill of the act, it might be considered saddening.

But when was kinky sex 'creepy'?

Late night dalliances with a partner in the bushes are rather fun. True, if you're only having sex in bushes, or are doing so out of a sense of embarrassment, rather than for the thrill of the act, it might be considered saddening.

But when was kinky sex 'creepy'?
Well, it's precisely because most men who frequent these kind of place on regular basis do so because they go to get anonymous sex since they lived most of their life hiding who they are and resorting to schemes like this to have any sex life at all.

A great many of them live in denial, are often unhappily married with a wife and children and either deny being gay at all or feel guilty about not being able to stop themselves and be faithful to their wife.

I've worked (volunteer work) with these populations for several years now, and some of my co-workers have been around for over 20 years. Mostly we try to make sure they have condoms handy and know how to practice safe sex (anonymous tryst like that being generally very risky behaviour STD-wise) and/or help them come out of the closet and stop feeling guilty of being about being attracted by members of the same sex if they are so disposed.

Well, it's precisely because most men who frequent these kind of place on regular basis do so because they go to get anonymous sex...
When did we start to talk exclusively about gay men?

Once again, why is sex, late at night, unseen, in a public park, necessarily "creepy and saddening"?

When did we start to talk exclusively about gay men?

Once again, why is sex, late at night, unseen, in a public park, necessarily "creepy and saddening"?
We didn't, you missed where I was trying to get. Allow me to reword:

I find saddening the thought of anyone who would have, as only means of a sex life, anonymous sex late at night in a public park because they are afraid of living their sexuality in the open.

As for the creepy part, it's an empty park late at night. There are all manners of ants and squirrels just waiting for an opportunity to crawl up your orifices or lunge for your tender crotch-organs.

I find saddening the thought of anyone who would have, as only means of a sex life, anonymous sex late at night in a public park because they are afraid of living their sexuality in the open.

That is your own projection.

That is your own projection.

It's pretty lame if you ask me.

That is your own projection.

Of course, 6 years of volunteer work with people in NPOs who deal with this on a daily basis, as well as an occurrence similar to this one about men having sex encounters in a park no farther than to the other side of the river does not mean I know anything about what I'm talking about.

And let's not talk about the personal experience I have with helping a particular man come to terms with his sexual orientation and guide him through his coming out, as well as making him realize he could have an entirely more fulfilling life by listening to his heart and setting out to find a real partner instead of some stranger in the backwoods.

I'm sure you know better.

Now, point of fact, it's illegal for anyone to have sex outdoors (get a room) in that location.

I don't know where this comes from. It's not in the article.

Sex outdoors is certainly not illegal. They might commit an offence if someone sees them, but then avoiding that would seem to be the very point of these bushes.

I find saddening the thought of anyone who would have, as only means of a sex life, anonymous sex late at night in a public park because they are afraid of living their sexuality in the open.
That would be rather sad, but I doubt the vast majority of gay doggers are anything lie this.

As for the creepy part, it's an empty park late at night. There are all manners of ants and squirrels just waiting for an opportunity to crawl up your orifices or lunge for your tender crotch-organs.
Aww, half the fun!

Plus, sex under the stars is wonderful.

Of course, 6 years of volunteer work with people in NPOs who deal with this on a daily basis, as well as an occurrence similar to this one about men having sex encounters in a park no farther than to the other side of the river does not mean I know anything about what I'm talking about.

And let's not talk about the personal experience I have with helping a particular man come to terms with his sexual orientation and guide him through his coming out, as well as making him realize he could have an entirely more fulfilling life by listening to his heart and setting out to find a real partner instead of some stranger in the backwoods.

I'm sure you know better.

Oh, look at me all floored (à même le plancher, minou!) by your little anecdotes that you try to use to justify a gross and moralistic generalisation, whose only success seems to have been in having warmed the cockles of your puritan heart and cajoled your tight ass.

And yes, I do know better. That you can remain assured of. That's why I'm calling you on your nonsense.

That would be rather sad, but I doubt the vast majority of gay doggers are anything lie this.

There's a very real social phenomenon going on. It's of the same vein as other anonymous gay meeting places, like some highway stations or public bathrooms (reminds me of an American politician, that. I Forget his name).

I wouldn't even be concerned about issues like this if all it was about was a few kinky people wanting to have a little outdoor session once every little while just for the kick of it.


Oh, look at me all floored (à même le plancher, minou!) by your little anecdotes that you try to use to justify a gross and moralistic generalisation, whose only success seems to have been in having warmed the cockles of your puritan heart and cajoled your tight ass.

And yes, I do know better. That you can remain assured of. That's why I'm calling you on your nonsense.
This post, as usual, is as empty of actual substance as it is full of pyrotechnic attempts to draw the reader's attention away from the void of its content.

Deny the very real fact that (too) many older men seek anonymous gay sex due to their fear (real or perceived according to location) of homophobia and social pressure if you will. Plugging your ears and shouting "LA LA LA can't hear you" and accusing me of being a moralizing prick for admitting there's something wrong there will neither make me lose any sleep, nor help those men any.

Who knows, maybe you're of good faith and perhaps there are no such phenomenon in your beloved Sweden; however, those problematics exist here in Québec city, and according to the OP, elsewhere in the world as well.

So if I have sex in the middle of the high street, but there's nobody around to watch, it isn't in public?
Now you've got John Lennon singing in my head:
"Why don't we do it in the road......... why don't we do it in the road...... No-one will be watching us, WHY don't we do it in the road?"

This post, as usual, is as empty of actual substance as it is full of pyrotechnic attempts to draw the reader's attention away from the void of its content.

Pretend away all your little servility, do! I'd hate to let a perfectly good quisling such as yourself realise what he is doing before it's too late and the comeuppance is inevitable. Why would I deny myself the schadenfreude of that?

Deny the very real fact that (too) many older men seek anonymous gay sex due to their fear (real or perceived according to location) of homophobia and social pressure if you will.

Why thank you for the permission, I will indeed deny your simplistic "explanations". For you see, I know better than that. I know that it isn't that simple, that people's actions are far more complex you seem capable of realising, and that your victimising complex is insulting to the people you try to project it on, not to mention that it really shows what a limited life experience and social sphere you have.

Plugging your ears and shouting "LA LA LA can't hear you" and accusing me of being a moralizing prick for admitting there's something wrong there will neither make me lose any sleep, nor help those men any.

Oh, thank you, Mother Theresa, for wanting to help these people! Because they must be in need of help! Because a moralist such as yourself denigrates them by claiming that they do, as the little victims you like to reduce them to. My, my - the world certainly hasn't seen enough of your "helpful" ilk "saving" the "needy"...

Who knows, maybe you're of good faith and perhaps there are no such phenomenon in your beloved Sweden; however, those problematics exist here in Québec city, and according to the OP, elsewhere in the world as well.

Again, "problematics" is nothing but your own projection born of a lack of life experience and preoccupation with ingratiation.

For you see, I know better than that.
Hah ha ha. As always, your trolling amuses me to no end.

Come see me when you're serious. Or after getting a master's in social science and working 20 years in a HIV-prevention NPO working specifically with the kind of clientèle that frequents parks and other public anonymous meeting places.

Whichever comes first.

Hah ha ha. As always, your trolling amuses me to no end.

As does your house niggerism me.

Come see me when you're serious. Or after getting a master's in social science and working 20 years in a HIV-prevention NPO working specifically with the kind of clientèle that frequents parks and other public anonymous meeting places.

Whichever comes first.

All in all, as close to a realisation of your own ignorance as you will come. That's OK. As I said, I'll love the schadenfreude once you realise what you're doing, even if I do credit you too much when I think that you may at some point in time do that. Missionaries, especially those natives converted into the cause, "saving" those who "need salvation" seldom do...

Who says they're having sex?

Scrub clearance work on Bristol Downs has raised concerns among some gay men who use the area for sex, the city council has said.Ah, says the city council...

Plans to clear the overgrown landscape follow consultations three years ago, when some Downs users complained about "inappropriate sexual activity".Ah... right. Sex, then? Or "complaints" from "some Downs users" about "inappropriate sexual activity"?

Seriously, what is it? Can't stand the gays making out?

A meeting of the Bristol Downs Committee on Monday was told: "Concerns were expressed by the city council's lesbian, gay and bisexual group that this action was potentially discriminating against gay and bisexual men whose activities on this part of the Downs were objected to by other members of the local community and Downs users.""Activities"... okay. Sex? Yes? No?

"The general public are unhappy about people taking part in lewd behaviour in public spaces, whether it's between men and women or people of the same sex," he said.Right, right... the "general public" is concerned about "lewd behavior."

Still doesn't specify, from any reliable source, that gay people are actually having sex out there. Based on the language in the article, we might just as well conclude that a bunch of conservative homophobes are annoyed that homosexuals use it as a (relatively) safe space to meet, hang out, kiss, make out... some of which might, to an uptight crowd, be "lewd" or "objectionable"... but not necessarily illegal.

I'm not saying that is necessarily what is going on. What I am saying is insufficient information to draw a conclusion.

And if it is the case that conservatives are simply trying to drive out a safe space for a homosexual hangout, I say it very much is discriminatory.

But more importantly, let's not leap to conclusions just because the city council says so.

[For that matter, the word "sex" wasn't even in a quotation from city council. For all we know, that's just how some editor decided to subhead the article.]

Who says they're having sex?

Ah, says the city council...

Ah... right. Sex, then? Or "complaints" from "some Downs users" about "inappropriate sexual activity"?

Seriously, what is it? Can't stand the gays making out?

"Activities"... okay. Sex? Yes? No?

Right, right... the "general public" is concerned about "lewd behavior."

Still doesn't specify, from any reliable source, that gay people are actually having sex out there. Based on the language in the article, we might just as well conclude that a bunch of conservative homophobes are annoyed that homosexuals use it as a (relatively) safe space to meet, hang out, kiss, make out... some of which might, to an uptight crowd, be "lewd" or "objectionable"... but not necessarily illegal.

I'm not saying that is necessarily what is going on. What I am saying is insufficient information to draw a conclusion.

And if it is the case that conservatives are simply trying to drive out a safe space for a homosexual hangout, I say it very much is discriminatory.

But more importantly, let's not leap to conclusions just because the city council says so.

[For that matter, the word "sex" wasn't even in a quotation from city council. For all we know, that's just how some editor decided to subhead the article.]


then there wont be any problem in removing the bushes. gay people have as much right to smooch in the park as anyone else does. they dont need bushes as a shield.

Ah... right. Sex, then? Or "complaints" from "some Downs users" about "inappropriate sexual activity"?


Why should there be any meaningful difference?


Seriously, what is it? Can't stand the gays making out?


Be realistic, do you honestly think that its even remotely likely that gays are only sneaking around behind bushes to make out? Especially considering how popular cultural phenomenons like dogging and cottaging are? Why is there any reason to doubt the claims from the complainers about it being 'sexual' behaviour?

ewwwwww

no there is no need to provide a special place for a certain group to have sex in public.

Well, if we did specifically provide a place and say "you can have public sex HERE but not elsewhere." maybe people who like to engage in public sex would be less likely to do so in the local park instead.

then there wont be any problem in removing the bushes. gay people have as much right to smooch in the park as anyone else does. they dont need bushes as a shield.They also have as much right to sit down for a picnic, but maybe they like to do it in the shade.

If they are not engaging in illegal behavior, then the question of discrimination comes down to whether the bushes being removed constitutes a special burden for the gay community--particularly if they are being removed as a special response to usage by that community.

The issue would be exactly the same, and just as discriminatory, if they were having picnics.

Personally, if they ARE engaging in illegal sexual behavior, I wonder why the police haven't simply cracked down on their lawbreaking. One has to wonder why the city has to resort to creative landscaping to handle the crime wave. :rolleyes:

Why should there be any meaningful difference?Why should there be? Or why may there be in fact?

As to the latter, we have to take the statements of the complainants as biased unless corroborated independently. Maybe a police report indicating that illegal sexual activity had occurred.

As it is, we don't have any indictments, we don't have any arrests, we don't actually have any real evidence of the purported crime wave at all. We have a bunch of complaints the response to which is, apparently, a hedge-trimmer rather than a jail cell.

Be realistic, do you honestly think that its even remotely likely that gays are only sneaking around behind bushes to make out?Depending on the town? Absolutely.

Especially considering how popular cultural phenomenons like dogging and cottaging are?How popular are they, exactly? Do you know the definition of a "media scare"?

Why is there any reason to doubt the claims from the complainers about it being 'sexual' behavior?They are a biased source. There is every reason to doubt their claims.

Why is there any reason to doubt claims from the gay community that their activities are entirely innocent? The exact same reason: we have to consider them biased.

They also have as much right to sit down for a picnic, but maybe they like to do it in the shade.

If they are not engaging in illegal behavior, then the question of discrimination comes down to whether the bushes being removed constitutes a special burden for the gay community--particularly if they are being removed particularly as a response to usage by that community.

The issue would be exactly the same, and just as discriminatory, if they were having picnics.

Personally, if they ARE engaging in illegal sexual behavior, I wonder why the police haven't simply cracked down on their lawbreaking. One has to wonder why the city has to resort to creative landscaping to handle the crime wave. :rolleyes:

because they ARE engaging in illegal behavior but the police (perhaps) have no resources to patrol for sex infractions when there are serious crimes being committed at night.

that doesnt mean that the neighbors should have to put up with it. if cutting down bushes doesnt ruin the character of the area and will eliminate public sex, then its a good alternative to spending police resources on sex patrols.

because they ARE engaging in illegal behavior but the police (perhaps) have no resources to patrol for sex infractions when there are serious crimes being committed at night.A possibility, indeed.

But that is a conclusion to which you have leaped, NOT an explanation offered by the article.

That's been my point all along: given insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion, why are you so eager to take sides?

As I've said before, if people really are engaging in illegal activities then this does not appear to be discrimination. If they are not, then it would appear to be discriminatory. But nothing whatsoever in the article posted confirmed that anyone was doing anything illegal. It only said that people had "complained" about them.

A possibility, indeed.

But that is a conclusion to which you have leaped, NOT an explanation offered by the article.

That's been my point all along: given insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion, why are you so eager to take sides?

As I've said before, if people really are engaging in illegal activities then this does not appear to be discrimination. If they are not, then it would appear to be discriminatory. But nothing whatsoever in the article posted confirmed that anyone was doing anything illegal. It only said that people had "complained" about them.

because no one should have to put up with public sex in the neighborhood.

because no one should have to put up with public sex in the neighborhood.The point keeps flying at you... but another swing, another miss.

Yes, no one should have to put up with public sex in the neighborhood.

But why do you take their complaints at face-value?

Isn't it possible--just possible--that what bothers them so much is the gays hanging around... whatever it is they happen to be doing?

I guess you've never run into the type that considers two men holding hands "inappropriate sexual activity." I have.

The point keeps flying at you... but another swing, another miss.

Yes, no one should have to put up with public sex in the neighborhood.

But why do you take their complaints at face-value?

Isn't it possible--just possible--that what bothers them so much is the gays hanging around... whatever it is they happen to be doing?

I guess you've never run into the type that considers two men holding hands "inappropriate sexual activity." I have.

IF the men are not having sex, removing the bushes will not make any difference.

if the men ARE using the bushes as some kind of sex screen (i dont really understand the draw of bushes) then they will go away.

in any case, removing the bushes will discourage everyone no matter what their sexuality from having sex in this public space. so as long as removing the bushes isnt otherwise detrimental to the neighborhood, its a good measure.

IF the men are not having sex, removing the bushes will not make any difference.IF the men are not having sex and people are STILL complaining, don't you think EVERY bit of privacy might make a difference???

IF the men are not having sex and people are STILL complaining, don't you think EVERY bit of privacy might make a difference???

i think that if the men are not engaging in illegal activities then they need to keep right on doing what they are doing and make sure that the assholes who would stop them from it get an eyeful.

i think that if the men are not engaging in illegal activities then they need to keep right on doing what they are doing and make sure that the assholes who would stop them from it get an eyeful.Might be my choice, too. But we're not the ones dealing with it, are we?

The fact is, it's a special place for them. Assuming arguendo that nothing illegal is going on, your argument has broken down to, "Well, it shouldn't be."

That's like telling the birders that they shouldn't care if the forest is plowed... after all, it's so much easier to see birds at the zoo.

:rolleyes:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/bristol/somerset/7492680.stm

There, found a link that didn't involve the Daily Mail. BBC good enough for you?

Some gays are claiming that removing the bushes is discriminatory, because they use the bushes to hide behind when they're having sex.

Now, point of fact, it's illegal for anyone to have sex outdoors (get a room) in that location. So the law doesn't appear discriminatory.

Why should the local majority be prevented from trimming the verge? If the trimming is intended to prevent an activity that is already illegal for anyone regardless of sexual orientation, how is that discriminatory?

Why can't these people shag in their cars, or get a room?

I thought snog meant making out.

Now you've got John Lennon singing in my head:
"Why don't we do it in the road......... why don't we do it in the road...... No-one will be watching us, WHY don't we do it in the road?"

Paul McCartney.

Depending on the town? Absolutely.



They don't need to hide, there are plenty of open gays in Bristol.

Because the gays who have anonymous sex in such locations (or, for example, in airport bathrooms) are mostly self-hating closet cases who cannot handle their sexuality and haven't realized yet that they can have a perfectly normal happy life if only they'd stop hiding to have meaningless sex and get a real relationship instead.

This is pretty offensive right here.

* It's baseless. Your "mostly self-hating closet cases" bit is unsupported by anything other than your own bias.
* It's an attempt at broad-ranging dismissal of the people as "self-hating."
* The entire "self hating" accusation, which gets thrown around a lot, tends to be aimed at people who are indeed hated - by the person throwing the phrase around.
* You're also assuming, again without basis, that having sex in the bushes means you don't have a "real relationship" and "can't handle their own sexuality." Plainly false - it's you who can't handle their sexuality, and there are plenty of committed, sincere, non "self hating" people who fuck in buses, trains, streets, fish tanks and anywhere else they feel like. Part of being able to handle sexuality is being able and unafraid to express it wherever you want without letting - well, let's be honest, without letting people like cast them down in a self-righteous tirade.

I detest it when some members of minority groups are almost asking me to hate them by doing this

I detest it when people use any excuse to justify their hatred of minority groups. And then blame the objects of their hatred, for their own choice to be hateful. Why do I detest it? One, it's dishonest. Two, it blames the victim. Three, it shirks responsibility for one's own actions and thoughts. Four, it's unreasonable.

This is pretty offensive right here.

* It's baseless. Your "mostly self-hating closet cases" bit is unsupported by anything other than your own bias.
* It's an attempt at broad-ranging dismissal of the people as "self-hating."
* The entire "self hating" accusation, which gets thrown around a lot, tends to be aimed at people who are indeed hated - by the person throwing the phrase around.
* You're also assuming, again without basis, that having sex in the bushes means you don't have a "real relationship" and "can't handle their own sexuality." Plainly false - it's you who can't handle their sexuality, and there are plenty of committed, sincere, non "self hating" people who fuck in buses, trains, streets, fish tanks and anywhere else they feel like. Part of being able to handle sexuality is being able and unafraid to express it wherever you want without letting - well, let's be honest, without letting people like cast them down in a self-righteous tirade.

I detest it when people use any excuse to justify their hatred of minority groups. And then blame the objects of their hatred, for their own choice to be hateful. Why do I detest it? One, it's dishonest. Two, it blames the victim. Three, it shirks responsibility for one's own actions and thoughts. Four, it's unreasonable.

Quoted for truth. Bravo! You summarised both these posters very accurately. You win an interweb of your choice.

there are plenty of committed, sincere, non "self hating" people who fuck in buses, trains, streets, fish tanks

Try as I might, I can't work out how anyone could do that in a fish tank. :p

Bush Needs Gays To Snog!


Try as I might, I can't work out how anyone could do that in a fish tank That's why you aren't a gay.

They don't need to hide, there are plenty of open gays in Bristol.Who are you to tell them they don't "need" to? They feel they do.

"All the other gays are doing just fine, what's your problem?"

Pathetic.

I can understand the distasteful practice of using public parks, public restrooms, sex in the middle of the street, being against the law.

However, I don't know about where you are, here in the Southeastern United States, there are very few places for gay men to go and meet. 'Cruisin' as it's called is going to a particular location for the expressed purpose of meeting an anonymous stranger to have sex with. Outside of that, they have the internet, which is getting more and more retarted, and the gay clubs, most of which suck.

I know that men get in the mood quite often, but sex behind the bushes? I mean, I am gay, I don't use public parks, or gay bookstores. I find that whole practice rather distasteful.

I agree it should be banned, but banning it only makes people want to do it more.

Hiya folks,
Openly bisexual here, names shadow for those that have met me living on the streets of austin. You see my inherint issue isnt so much that i choose to fuck in bushes. Quite frankly while i was living on the streets as a gutter rat or punk or whatever else you may like to call me. I didnt really much have a choice in the matter as to where i could fuck as most of the hotels i could afford on my 50 bucks a day doing day labor were entirely occupied by the worst kind of drug addicted scum on the planets surface. givin that or saving my money using it for food and cigaretes and new clothes occasionally and to go fuck in the bushes. which do you suppose i chose. And no im by no means a self hating half fag. And yes i have had plenty of meaningful relationships with guys that i have had lots and lots of sex in the parks train stations bussmalls and quite frankly any damn where i pleased to fuck. BTW just as a side note we already have plenty of outdoor spaces elected for the public display of fags fucking. One being Ibiza just as a whole. The other that i am sure we can all at least have recognition of Palm springs, CA. Nevermind bathouses and brothels. Public access public display simple as that. Not sure who posted it earlier but as far as lewd comment involving gays and bushes. I aswell am disapontied in NS for not making the connection sooner. You guys have really got to lighten up. As far as the "gay culture" and i use the term loosely. Its for the most part a slap in the face for folks like me that dont wear armani or gucci and who want to make their way to market or liquor store during gay pride festival. I find the idea of gay culture to be a good idea at some point. Perhaps a healthy dose of compassion might not do the populace of the druggy circut boys some good aswell. However i reserve my own compassion for those well deserving and generally speaking they have to show me that they are prepared to do something with it in the firstplace. way off subject but hey at least im not afraid to say my piece without eviscerating every other poster that i happen to disagree with. So long and short of it leave the damn bushes alone until the are used by stupid fucks to create a public danger, meth lab, distillery, or just plain used as a squat for a really rude and not enviromentally concerned nor aware bum. As far as the public sex scene goes i love fucking outside myself and there is no moral thumbprint associated with it. to think so is truly ignorant as we at one point long long ago WE ALL LIVED OUTSIDE ANY DAMN WAY!!!! We are no less cave men now than we were a bilion or so years ago we just happen to have nicer caves that are more tightly packed together and reallty quite frankly i dont much care for the construction. I guess thats really all i have to offer on the subject proceed with the evisceration if you must but really really think about it before you do. One more thing i know my spelling is the horrible no need to remind me.

Thanks All
Shadow/Cardilux