Great… another one who likes to turn topical questions into personal remarks:
Of course you are free to ignore my replies, or disagree with them. But making personal remarks that I must be either lacking comprehension or acting in bad faith strikes me as both unnecessary and disingenuous.
But why do you suppose that they always do it covertly? If there was a salon on 5th Avenue or Haight called “Orgazmz” (or some such obvious thing), do you think it would be popular? It’s not as if sex and masturbation are obscure, unpopular activities.
Personally, what interests me about topics like this is how they demonstrate weird contradictions in people’s attitudes about sexuality. There seems to be such a strong polarization between secrecy/exhibitionism. And people seem to take it so strongly for granted, that even asking them about the reasoning behind it is framed as being weird.
When I was in college someone who grew up in an Arab nation asked me what X-ing meant on a sign, His cultural upbriging did not involve the use of X to mean cross, as he was Muslim and that is a very culturally influenced use of X.
Thing is, he never once thought someone was pulling one over on him whenever he didn’t understand that sign, but he did admit it took him years to be humble enough to ask someone.
And he asked someone whose answer he would accept. Good faith is not rocket science.
Its covert because if I see you masturbating in public I will call the police on you. You do not have the right to assert your sexuality on me without my express consent. Your body can be communal all you want but I have not agreed to be part of that “commune”.
Edit to add: now, if we were in a sex club or some such bawdy-house, obviously I would not call the police, because being in a place like that I would understand I was going to “see some things” - consent would have been given just by entering the premises.
Of course, that sounds fair enough. But if you are not part of that commune, then why would what they do communally concern you? How would witnessing it be asserted on you more than seeing somebody wearing what you would never wear, or eating what you would never eat? Is seeing a commune eating broccoli somehow forcing you to experience the broccoli that you are not eating?
What puzzles me about public sexuality is there is lots of stuff in public which I don’t like, but I don’t take it personally because it is not directed at me specifically. Many insist that public nudity and/or sex are just “somehow different”, but never explain how or why this would be the case. How is this “asserting” on people any more than seeing them exhibit a Duchamp painting? Or smelling their coffee? Or hearing their awful pop music? (Seriously, I get squicked by most pop music, but everybody tells me that if I don’t like it is my problem!)
Well, yes, that’s what I was getting at above when I asked you about why the sexual aspects of some massage parlours tend to be secret. If people offered such service openly - instead of euphemistically, in sketchy areas - wouldn’t it be popular? If it’s such a common activity, it seems insane that some vague “community standards” would really prohibit it. A city where people don’t have sex or masturbate seems unlikely, so I find it hard to credit.
If you want to start your own masturbation based community, please, feel free. But do try to do so outside of existing city limits, as likely the existing communities will not be receptive to your masturbation free for all.
Having been exposed to more than a few “public masturbators” I can say with conviction that they were doing it “at me specifically” - it was a sexually aggressive intimidating act meant to demean and humiliate.
Want to rub one out where no one can see you? Feel free, don’t care, have at er.
Want to rub one out while on the bus or sitting on a park bench or while staring right at me? You’re going to get arrested and likely I’ll yell at you.
No, I am not. It makes perfect sense that people would require consent for sexual activity that they themself are engaged in. But why would they seek consent for other people’s sex acts which they aren’t personally participating in? How is sexuality demonstrably different from any other activity which happens to take place around me?
I was not talking about myself. I am interested in society, and how those who comprise it rationalize their customs. It seems rather conflicted with issues such as this where people get quite emotional and insist that the “certain distinctions” are really crucial - yet there tends top be a strong push away from willingness to discuss the underlying social concepts.
No, why do you ask? I am interested in how it functionally works. I explicitly asked how and why they interpret it as a violation. Or am I not supposed to know that? Would you prefer that I nod my head instead and passively “yup yup” everything people say, instead of being interested enough to actually ask them about it? I think I know @Missy_Pants at least well enough to know that they have genuine reasons for feeling the way they do. And I would hope that if they didn’t want to answer, they would tell me for themselves that it wasn’t my concern.
Surely you should explain to me in detail your justification for your feelings, how dare you think of public masturbation as a power play or consent challenge. How dare you be so selfish missy
Do you think that interpersonal power games and denial of consent have any place in healthy sexuality? I don’t. But I think also think that healthy activity isn’t usually forcibly hidden, either. This is why I asked earlier why so many polarize sexuality completely between secrecy and exhibitionism. Where is the sensible middle-ground which some might expect to exist?
No, I am trying to (perhaps in vain, it seems) discuss a social topic which factors deeply into how people relate to each other. If it is relevant to everybody (“this society”, you say), then why should we not discuss it? Or do you feel that I am “wrong” for finding it of a different significance than you might? I argued upthread for inclusion of women and non-binary people, yet you tell me and others here that I am participating in victimization which isn’t to be discussed openly?
Have you considered a job with the Feds? I am told that secret courts are “in” this year…
again, your failure to recognize that there are more than two possibilitis here is not a failure of my imagination.
it appears to be a failed argument technique by which I might jsutify my outrage at your violations of a social contract you recognize but do not respect.
I hear you. But what I am interested in is what are the criteria which make such sex “participatory”, compared to anything else one is likely to experience. Doesn’t where this line is drawn have a lot to do with people’s obligations to each other? IF you are comfortable discussing it - what makes sex different? Compared to other examples I asked about of people in public. People need consent to feed somebody food also, but I have not encountered anybody complaining about the consent of other people’s eating. Or blasting music, or flashing video billboards, or any number of other socially and memetically-impinging experiences. So, it seems to me that the implication is that sex is somehow different. How it is different is what I am trying to understand.
There you go! So people must have been able to discuss the topic in order for the legislation to happen.
Yes, as it so happens. As a social issue, of course it does concern me. But I have no reason to assume that it concerns me any more or less than it does anybody else.
