Comments on: A “Right” to public sex?

By: Coyote Too

Coyote Too — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:39:39 +0000

I tend to think pushing for a “right” to public sex is a bit much, but having tents just seems to cheapen it all. I guess it’s one of those things I feel fall into the “take your chances and live with the consequences” category. Then again, from here in Massachusetts, it all seems a bit surreal. I’ve not yet had a chance to go Folsom, but I clearly remember my reaction when I first saw photos of the fair.

“Shit. They’re doing stuff in public there that isn’t even legal to do in my own bedroom in Massachusetts!”

So, from the land of “there’s no such thing as consenting to BDSM; in public OR at home it’s prosecutable abuse”… best wishes and have fun!

By: Kat

Kat — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 20:47:59 +0000

Exactly. I mean, I can understand if they decide one day to OPEN their mind and attend an event, with the intention of expanding thier horizons. Even if they were to get there and come across something that suddenly squicks them, they would not make such a noise about it unless they are the type that point fingers at everyone else but themselves.

However, the people that complain about stuff like this at Folsom, WHEN IT HAS BEEN THIS WAY FOR YEARS AND YEARS, seem to have no constructive intention behind going to the event.

I guess everyone needs something to complain about. The squeakiest wheel gets the most grease and all that jazz. :-/

By: pixiepop

pixiepop — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 01:45:28 +0000

While one of the things I do absolutely love about Folsom is the “Freedom” on the streets .. I think tents are just way wrong. Sure, we see the occasional public display of sex, that is to be somewhat expected, its part of the fun for the voyeurs and exhibitionist, and part of the lifestyle scene. And we know thats all those little portapotties are really being used for … but, Folsom is not about coming together for public sex and putting tents up to support; even encourage it, I think takes away from what Folsom IS about, which is to promote/support diversity within the leather/alternative lifestyle community.
.-= pixiepop´s most recent blog moment of Zen on the net was…Have you been naughty or nice?? Come tell Santa Fet about it! =-.

By: Sascha

Sascha — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 01:06:12 +0000

I don’t really know how I feel about it either. On the one hand, it’s Folsom. I get the impression that the tents were suggested as a way to contain the public sex that would inevitably happen.

On the other hand, the editorial has a point that this shouldn’t be settled in city hall. It’s for the Folsom organizers to deal with.
.-= Sascha´s most recent blog moment of Zen on the net was…Choices! =-.

By: mollena

mollena — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 23:36:55 +0000

I think, now that I've mulled it what bothers me is that this woudl best be handled within the parameters of the organizers taking care of business without involving public debate. Unless there is a public health issue (which this may well be, in which case the department of health ought to be involved in the discussion as to whether encouraging pubic sex has a possible public health component) letting the organizers of Folsom decide, amongst themselves, what the best course of action would be seems fair. I don't necessarily like it, but some shit is best left among those who can contextualize it. .-= mollena´s most recent blog moment of Zen on the net was...A “Right” to public sex? =-.

By: mollena

mollena — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 23:17:07 +0000

The other thing is, the vocal minority wouldn’t BE at Folsom in the first place, right? Te hypothetical “save the children!” “you are destroying this country” drumbeat is totally moot when the event IS COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY, contained, and none of your business if yo don’t want it to be.
.-= mollena´s most recent blog moment of Zen on the net was…A “Right” to public sex? =-.

By: Lil

Lil — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 23:04:19 +0000

Ordinarily I’m mightily against public (in the non-kink-identified gathering sense of the word) sex. Play in the park or on the beach or a blowjob cruising along the highway might be all the more exciting for the risk of being seen, or *because* you will be seen.. Doesn’t give us the right to involve another person non-consensually in our play though.

But at folsom? Seriously? .. I would be all upset and pouty if I *didn’t* get to see some kinky dirty getdowns. A person’d hafta be blind or stoopid to not expect what goes on – they make a growed-up choice to be there or not.

By: Kat

Kat — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 19:39:48 +0000

When it comes to Folsom and this debacle, it reminds me of other “non-PC events” that got wussified when a couple loud mouths showed up at said event, knowing what it entailed. They decided to go to the event knowing the premise and complain, rather than expending less negative energy by simply WALKING AWAY. Its like the person on the net who slams me for my ugly image when they always had the option to either a) not click or b) click the back button and be done with it. They choose neither and it seems that the poster of the content is expected to react/change things.