Iconic Greek church bans foreign weddings after newly wed couple simulate sex in its grounds.

by Syl Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:31 pm

First topic message reminder :

Its the most beautiful picturesque place to marry...my friends son married there, we have visited it a few times, its a magical place set on a beautiful island.
Now because of the antics of two disrespectful Brits...all foreign weddings have been cancelled, leaving hundreds of couples who have already booked their weddings in the lurch.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/chapel-on-greek-island-rhodes-bans-foreign-weddings-after-british-couples-sex-photo/ar-AAtnPuA?ocid=spartandhp

Iconic Greek church bans foreign weddings after newly wed couple simulate sex in its grounds. - Page 3 AAtnN3x

Iconic Greek church bans foreign weddings after newly wed couple simulate sex in its grounds. - Page 3 AAtnN3x

"Rhodes' famous St Pauls Chapel has reportedly banned foreigners from getting married there, after a photo of a British couple simulating a sex act went viral.

Newlyweds Carly and Matthew Lunn stunted up the picture and posted it on Facebook, shortly after they were married.
But while their friends and family saw the funny side, after it was shared multiple times it came to the attention of the religious authorities responsible for the chapel who were said to be "outraged" by the image.

Bishop Kyrillos of Rhodes then took the decision to ban foreigners from getting married at the picturesque location, leaving the fate of thousands of couples hanging in the balance. A number have already cancelled to make alternative plans for their big day.
We are Greek and we cherish our traditions and the sanctity of our religious sites,” community leader Giorgos Eleftheriou told The Times: “We cannot allow this disgusting behaviour to prevail.”

Mr Eleftheriou, who performed the couple’s ceremony, added: “Shame on those two for the damage they have done. Would they have done the same in their homeland; in front of a British chapel, a Jewish temple, a Muslim mosque?
“I have hundreds of soon-to-be brides from Britain and all over the world calling me today in tears because of this decision. It’s a huge damper on our society here. We are one of the most famous wedding destinations in the world and we are booked solid through to 2021.”

by Guest Wed Oct 18, 2017 5:00 pm

Vintage wrote:Reasoned views? Didge you appear to be getting confused just because people prefer their intimate moments to be private doesn't mean they are conditioned to think sex is shameful or dirty. There's a big and obvious difference but then you already know that but ignore just about anything that doesn't fit your agenda, same old narcissism, same old boring, same old thread spoiler, so I'm off to watch paint dry for a while.

But that is your choice to do in private. Where you seem to be under your own illusions, people have to be the same as you. It clearly means they think its dirty and shameful, as why else would they think it needs to be done in private?

I am not saying you cannot have sex in private, that is your choice, just as it should be if two conscenting adults want to have sex in public.

Its not exactly hurting you is it and more to the point, why are you even watching?

As that is the reality here, as all you have to do is look away.

Clearly some here are not being honest and are secretly looking.

I wonder why

lol!

by HoratioTarr Wed Oct 18, 2017 5:02 pm

Didge wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:

I think too the point being missed here is that a lot of people find sex closely tied to love and affection. And to them, sex is special and private, something only they share. Lust is another thing, and the reason people watch porn. And everyone knows how destructive porn can be if children are exposed to it, or it's taken too far.

The very fact that the majority of people don't want to have sex in public speaks volumes. It's not about being sexually repressed or conditioned. It's about self respect. There are certain moral laws that are there for a reason, because over time something caused us, as human beings rather than animals, to create them. Laws can't truly define human behaviour, they merely reflect the experiences that define them and the cultural agreement as to what our behaviour should be for the greater good of all.

That is a fair point at last, but basically irrelvant, as its going down a slippery road, that then sex is only okay
through love. When it ignores ther actual raw passions of people when they get carried away with sex.

Again you go onto what people believe and thus make a poor view. People have been conditioned to believe its wrong, when you said there is nothing wrong with sex. So if sex in public happens, it is as natural as can be. Its only because its made to be viewed as dirty, that people look upon this with distain.

What moral laws and what self respect?
So in the Middle East, do you want me to go on about views they have on self respect and decency, where women have to cover up? Its down this line of thinking that we see problems where people view sex as indecent.

So again there is no moral absolutes, only what people perceive to be right and wrong, that is forever changing.

Masturbation is normal but how many people want to watch that taking place on the street, and in front of their kids? You can't just have a blanket law here for public sex. If you allow it, in an open and obvious way, that opens the door wide for all manner of perversions that need a tight lid.

Would you allow the woman you loved to show the public her most intimate parts? Perhaps you think that shagging in public would revise the cheers you got on that bus and the 'Jack the Lad' way it stroked your ego? The reality is most people would find it offensive, sad and degrading.

It's all very well waxing lyrical about how such a beautiful thing as sex should be shared in public with all and sundry. The brutal truth is it would attract and nurture the worst in human nature, and encourage rape and molestation. Women have a bad enough time running the guantlet of sexism without men thinking it's ok to fuck them in public too.

by Guest Wed Oct 18, 2017 5:07 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
Didge wrote:

That is a fair point at last, but basically irrelvant, as its going down a slippery road, that then sex is only okay
through love. When it ignores ther actual raw passions of people when they get carried away with sex.

Again you go onto what people believe and thus make a poor view. People have been conditioned to believe its wrong, when you said there is nothing wrong with sex. So if sex in public happens, it is as natural as can be. Its only because its made to be viewed as dirty, that people look upon this with distain.

What moral laws and what self respect?
So in the Middle East, do you want me to go on about views they have on self respect and decency, where women have to cover up? Its down this line of thinking that we see problems where people view sex as indecent.

So again there is no moral absolutes, only what people perceive to be right and wrong, that is forever changing.

Masturbation is normal but how many people want to watch that taking place on the street, and in front of their kids? You can't just have a blanket law here for public sex. If you allow it, in an open and obvious way, that opens the door wide for all manner of perversions that need a tight lid.

Would you allow the woman you loved to show the public her most intimate parts? Perhaps you think that shagging in public would revise the cheers you got on that bus and the 'Jack the Lad' way it stroked your ego? The reality is most people would find it offensive, sad and degrading.

It's all very well waxing lyrical about how such a beautiful thing as sex should be shared in public with all and sundry. The brutal truth is it would attract and nurture the worst in human nature, and encourage rape and molestation. Women have a bad enough time running the guantlet of sexism without men thinking it's ok to fuck them in public too.

So do you need to watch when it happens, or are you secretly transfixed to watch someone wanking?
Again kids walk in on their parents having sex and I do not see any ending up with therapy because of this.

I mean do you sit and watch a dog having a dump?
Of course not, but for some reason you seem to be offended that two people might be having sex.
You do not have to watch do you?

The last paragraph was born from sheer smotions and based on complete gobbledygook.
So now sex is only beautiful to you, in private, where all species have sex in public and its as natural as can be.

To claim it encourages rape, shows you have no coneption of what causes rape.
To turn this into something sexist, shows your desperation here.
Which is a right insult, judging by how many have judged women so derogativelly on this thread.

by Guest Wed Oct 18, 2017 5:11 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
Didge wrote:

That is a fair point at last, but basically irrelvant, as its going down a slippery road, that then sex is only okay
through love. When it ignores ther actual raw passions of people when they get carried away with sex.

Again you go onto what people believe and thus make a poor view. People have been conditioned to believe its wrong, when you said there is nothing wrong with sex. So if sex in public happens, it is as natural as can be. Its only because its made to be viewed as dirty, that people look upon this with distain.

What moral laws and what self respect?
So in the Middle East, do you want me to go on about views they have on self respect and decency, where women have to cover up? Its down this line of thinking that we see problems where people view sex as indecent.

So again there is no moral absolutes, only what people perceive to be right and wrong, that is forever changing.

Masturbation is normal but how many people want to watch that taking place on the street, and in front of their kids? You can't just have a blanket law here for public sex. If you allow it, in an open and obvious way, that opens the door wide for all manner of perversions that need a tight lid.

Would you allow the woman you loved to show the public her most intimate parts? Perhaps you think that shagging in public would revise the cheers you got on that bus and the 'Jack the Lad' way it stroked your ego? The reality is most people would find it offensive, sad and degrading.

It's all very well waxing lyrical about how such a beautiful thing as sex should be shared in public with all and sundry. The brutal truth is it would attract and nurture the worst in human nature, and encourage rape and molestation. Women have a bad enough time running the guantlet of sexism without men thinking it's ok to fuck them in public too.

you kidding?

didge already made it plain that he was perfectly ok with his missus and/or his daughters giving away freebie flange fumblings outside the Twat and Trumpet on any given night. It means they're liberated doncha know.

I'm surprised you would expect anything else from him tbh

by HoratioTarr Wed Oct 18, 2017 5:13 pm

Didge wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:

Masturbation is normal but how many people want to watch that taking place on the street, and in front of their kids? You can't just have a blanket law here for public sex. If you allow it, in an open and obvious way, that opens the door wide for all manner of perversions that need a tight lid.

Would you allow the woman you loved to show the public her most intimate parts? Perhaps you think that shagging in public would revise the cheers you got on that bus and the 'Jack the Lad' way it stroked your ego? The reality is most people would find it offensive, sad and degrading.

It's all very well waxing lyrical about how such a beautiful thing as sex should be shared in public with all and sundry. The brutal truth is it would attract and nurture the worst in human nature, and encourage rape and molestation. Women have a bad enough time running the guantlet of sexism without men thinking it's ok to fuck them in public too.

So do you need to watch when it happens, or are you secretly transfixed to watch someone wanking?
Again kids walk in on their parents having sex and I do not see any ending up with therapy because of this.

I mean do you sit and watch a dog having a dump?
Of course not, but for some reason you seem to be offended that two people might be having sex.
You do not have to watch do you?

The last paragraph was born from sheer smotions and based on complete gobbledygook.
So now sex is only beautiful to you, in private, where all species have sex in public and its as natural as can be.

To claim it encourages rape, shows you have no coneption of what causes rape.
To turn this into something sexist, shows your desperation here.
Which is a right insult, judging by how many have judged women so derogativelly on this thread.

Ok, let's make this simple for you.

Do you think for one moment that a couple having sex in public won't be someone's porn?

by Guest Wed Oct 18, 2017 5:17 pm

many years ago hubby and I were explaining to our kids about punch and judy shows that we used to go and watch when we were young cos they phased them out and our kids never got to see them

anyhoos a couple of days later he came home early from work with a disney video for the kids and a certain glint in his eye

we plonked the kids down stuck the video on and disappeared upstairs.

we were both in full swing when the door suddenly opened quietly and a little voice screeched out ''Thaaats the way to do it''

we both cracked up and poor hubby deflated like a pricked balloon

Iconic Greek church bans foreign weddings after newly wed couple simulate sex in its grounds. - Page 3 3489511464

Iconic Greek church bans foreign weddings after newly wed couple simulate sex in its grounds. - Page 3 3489511464

::::

by Guest Wed Oct 18, 2017 5:21 pm

Original Quill wrote:
gelico wrote:

he didn't even have a decent pair of pants on. I bet they were yesterdays skiddies

I'm still on about short sleeves under a tux. Is there nothing sacred?

oh I know, what can you do with someone like that? way past any kind of redemption

by Guest Wed Oct 18, 2017 5:22 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
Didge wrote:

So do you need to watch when it happens, or are you secretly transfixed to watch someone wanking?
Again kids walk in on their parents having sex and I do not see any ending up with therapy because of this.

I mean do you sit and watch a dog having a dump?
Of course not, but for some reason you seem to be offended that two people might be having sex.
You do not have to watch do you?

The last paragraph was born from sheer smotions and based on complete gobbledygook.
So now sex is only beautiful to you, in private, where all species have sex in public and its as natural as can be.

To claim it encourages rape, shows you have no coneption of what causes rape.
To turn this into something sexist, shows your desperation here.
Which is a right insult, judging by how many have judged women so derogativelly on this thread.

Ok, let's make this simple for you.

Do you think for one moment that a couple having sex in public won't be someone's porn?

Who cares if it is?

In this day and age, they do so knowingly this could happen.

So what would that matter to you?

by Guest Wed Oct 18, 2017 5:25 pm

gelico wrote:many years ago hubby and I were explaining to our kids about punch and judy shows that we used to go and watch when we were young cos they phased them out and our kids never got to see them

anyhoos a couple of days later he came home early from work with a disney video for the kids and a certain glint in his eye

we plonked the kids down stuck the video on and disappeared upstairs.

we were both in full swing when the door suddenly opened quietly and a little voice screeched out ''Thaaats the way to do it''

we both cracked up and poor hubby deflated like a pricked balloon

::::

Great story

by Guest Wed Oct 18, 2017 5:27 pm

gelico wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:

Masturbation is normal but how many people want to watch that taking place on the street, and in front of their kids? You can't just have a blanket law here for public sex. If you allow it, in an open and obvious way, that opens the door wide for all manner of perversions that need a tight lid.

Would you allow the woman you loved to show the public her most intimate parts? Perhaps you think that shagging in public would revise the cheers you got on that bus and the 'Jack the Lad' way it stroked your ego? The reality is most people would find it offensive, sad and degrading.

It's all very well waxing lyrical about how such a beautiful thing as sex should be shared in public with all and sundry. The brutal truth is it would attract and nurture the worst in human nature, and encourage rape and molestation. Women have a bad enough time running the guantlet of sexism without men thinking it's ok to fuck them in public too.

you kidding?

didge already made it plain that he was perfectly ok with his missus and/or his daughters giving away freebie flange fumblings outside the Twat and Trumpet on any given night. It means they're liberated doncha know.

I'm surprised you would expect anything else from him tbh

So you are saying I should control women then and not allow them to decide what they want or not?

How backward do you think you are sounding Gelico, when this is exactly what sadly happens to many women?

Where some even are murdered due to not being allowed to choose what they want.

Talk about backing the view of mysognitic men to control their wivies and daughters

What next, are you going to back the view of parents disowning their children if they do not follow their beliefs?

by Guest Wed Oct 18, 2017 5:44 pm

Didge wrote:
gelico wrote:

you kidding?

didge already made it plain that he was perfectly ok with his missus and/or his daughters giving away freebie flange fumblings outside the Twat and Trumpet on any given night. It means they're liberated doncha know.

I'm surprised you would expect anything else from him tbh

So you are saying I should control women then and not allow them to decide what they want or not?

How backward do you think you are sounding Gelico, when this is exactly what sadly happens to many women?

Where some even are murdered due to not being allowed to choose what they want.

Talk about backing the view of mysognitic men to control their wivies and daughters

What next, are you going to back the view of parents disowning their children if they do not follow their beliefs?

it has nothing to do with control nor mysogyny nor disowning anyone and certainly not murder. why on earth do you have to go to such extremes?

you completely miss as ususal

just about having a little respect for yourself and your partner

by Guest Wed Oct 18, 2017 5:49 pm

gelico wrote:
Didge wrote:

So you are saying I should control women then and not allow them to decide what they want or not?

How backward do you think you are sounding Gelico, when this is exactly what sadly happens to many women?

Where some even are murdered due to not being allowed to choose what they want.

Talk about backing the view of mysognitic men to control their wivies and daughters

What next, are you going to back the view of parents disowning their children if they do not follow their beliefs?

it has nothing to do with control nor mysogyny nor disowning anyone and certainly not murder. why on earth do you have to go to such extremes?

you completely miss as ususal

just about having a little respect for yourself and your partner

Ah we are back to what you view in regards to respect.

Not what the people you just stated actually feel

You base this on yourself, thinking that you are respectful, thinking I should not be happy for my own family based on what they might hypothetically choose to do. If anything its you that needs to grow up here.

Just because you disagree is where problems start.

People are unhappy by some invented offense and then people are disowned and even worse killed.

So it has everything to do with beliefs and how parents, partners try to control the beliefs of others.

Considering the way you and others have viewed people because you simple disagree with them having public sex, says more about what is wrong with many of you here, than anything else.

As it causes none of you or anyone else, any harm what so ever.

by Syl Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:42 pm

I get the feeling that everyone here has a normal fulfilling sex life.....apart from Didge who gets his kicks from writing about how he wishes the world was. Laughing

The fact is no man wants to see his woman starring in the next porn sensation video on the internet, and no woman wants to know her man gets more excited with an audience than he does making love privately to her.

The ones that do favour this are either in it for the money or are seeking something that's sadly lacking in their life....imo.

by Syl Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:45 pm

eddie wrote:I'm not against sex in public. There are certain places I wouldn't choose to do it, but a beaten path off the dirt track is good.

I don't oppose the photo in the OP either, as I've said. I can pretty old-fashioned when it comes to some things but I think too many people make a big old hoo-ha about sex.

I have never minding a bit of alfresco romance either......as you say, you find a place that ensures privacy.

The pic in the OP is wrong on so many levels.
It was in a holy place ...it was a wedding not an orgy, and there were several children watching.

by Syl Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:01 pm

The groom obviously makes a habit of stripping off in public. This was on the same holiday.

Iconic Greek church bans foreign weddings after newly wed couple simulate sex in its grounds. - Page 3 45621DC000000578-0-Pranker_Matthew_Lunn_the_groom_pictured_in_a_sex_act_with_his_ne-m-50_1508147716917

Iconic Greek church bans foreign weddings after newly wed couple simulate sex in its grounds. - Page 3 45621DC000000578-0-Pranker_Matthew_Lunn_the_groom_pictured_in_a_sex_act_with_his_ne-m-50_1508147716917

The police were involved one night when some of the wedding party stripped off and ran through a bar filled with families. They are also said to have left bars without paying for drinks and causing damage.

Nice people. Rolling Eyes

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4984594/Bride-performed-sex-act-wedding-photo-mortified.html

The remarks after the story are interesting to read.

by Guest Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:04 pm

Syl wrote:I get the feeling that everyone here has a normal fulfilling sex life.....apart from Didge who gets his kicks from writing about how he wishes the world was.

The fact is no man wants to see his woman starring in the next porn sensation video on the internet, and no woman wants to know her man gets more excited with an audience than he does making love privately to her.

The ones that do favour this are either in it for the money or are seeking something that's sadly lacking in their life....imo.

1) lol how amusing that yet again all you can do is think about me on a personal nature.
Is that is what gets your kicks, then please enjoy them syl.

2) No man? So this is about the perceived view of some men. It shows you know hardly any men in the real world. It also shows you have no idea what people like.

3) All I have seen is many posters here use this as the start point for what they love to do best, slag off people based on some warped moral pedestal. Coming out with crap things like respect, decency. All poor beliefs, that have seen countless women subjucated with and still today having such perceived views forced on them.

So I am sure you think you are funny and others may think you are too. Personally I think you are nothing more than some coward on a forum who judges and slags people who have no effect on you or anyone else what so ever. Who cannot answer you back. It provides you with some mentally induced orgasim. You get your pleasures from slating people who cannot answer you back.

It really is the perfect way for some people and is kind of like any craving

by Syl Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:20 pm

Didge wrote:
Syl wrote:I get the feeling that everyone here has a normal fulfilling sex life.....apart from Didge who gets his kicks from writing about how he wishes the world was.

The fact is no man wants to see his woman starring in the next porn sensation video on the internet, and no woman wants to know her man gets more excited with an audience than he does making love privately to her.

The ones that do favour this are either in it for the money or are seeking something that's sadly lacking in their life....imo.

1) lol how amusing that yet again all you can do is think about me on a personal nature.
Is that is what gets your kicks, then please enjoy them syl.

2) No man? So this is about the perceived view of some men. It shows you know hardly any men in the real world. It also shows you have no idea what people like.

3) All I have seen is many posters here use this as the start point for what they love to do best, slag off people based on some warped moral pedestal. Coming out with crap things like respect, decency. All poor beliefs, that have seen countless women subjucated with and still today having such perceived views forced on them.

So I am sure you think you are funny and others may think you are too. Personally I think you are nothing more than some coward on a forum who judges and slags people who have no effect on you or anyone else what so ever. Who cannot answer you back. It provides you with some mentally induced orgasim. You get your pleasures from slating people who cannot answer you back.

It really is the perfect way for some people and is kind of like any craving

Everyone can answer me back if they join the forum, we are all on an even playing field.

You think respect and decency are worthless....I think you are full of hot air.
You demand more respect than anyone else here....everyone has to agree with you and your opinions, if they don't they are idiots in your eyes....you want respect but you don't return it, therefore you don't get it.

The only cowards I see on this thread are the people in the OP....ruining the weddings of hundreds of innocent people, costing them up to forty thousand pounds a couple in cancelled plans. then whinging that they only did it for a joke and to show off their cheeky humour.

And these are the chavy useless plebs you support. Rolling Eyes

by Miffs2 Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:27 pm

Well my opinion is their behaviour was disgraceful. Doesn't mean I have deep rooted sexual issues or any other issues. Doesn't mean I'm scared of sex or any other such crap.

All it means is I have self respect. I also have respect for the people of that church. I am at a loss really as to why Didge thinks it's acceptable. It's got nothing to do with being liberated etc.
After all the ultimate liberation is to have respect for yourself and for others.

by Guest Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:31 pm

Syl wrote:
Didge wrote:

1) lol how amusing that yet again all you can do is think about me on a personal nature.
Is that is what gets your kicks, then please enjoy them syl.

2) No man? So this is about the perceived view of some men. It shows you know hardly any men in the real world. It also shows you have no idea what people like.

3) All I have seen is many posters here use this as the start point for what they love to do best, slag off people based on some warped moral pedestal. Coming out with crap things like respect, decency. All poor beliefs, that have seen countless women subjucated with and still today having such perceived views forced on them.

So I am sure you think you are funny and others may think you are too. Personally I think you are nothing more than some coward on a forum who judges and slags people who have no effect on you or anyone else what so ever. Who cannot answer you back. It provides you with some mentally induced orgasim. You get your pleasures from slating people who cannot answer you back.

It really is the perfect way for some people and is kind of like any craving

Everyone can answer me back if they join the forum, we are all on an even playing field.

You think respect and decency are worthless....I think you are full of hot air.
You demand more respect than anyone else here....everyone has to agree with you and your opinions, if they don't they are idiots in your eyes....you want respect but you don't return it, therefore you don't get it.

The only cowards I see on this thread are the people in the OP....ruining the weddings of hundreds of innocent people, costing them up to forty thousand pounds a couple in cancelled plans. then whinging that they only did it for a joke and to show off their cheeky humour.

And these are the chavy useless plebs you support.

1) But many of these people you speak of are not on the forum and lets face facts. If you saw someone in public having sex, you want not say boo to them. No doubt you would be more interested in getting on your phone as quickly as possible though. To tell everyone you know, how disgusted you were to see this.

2) Respect and decency are worthless. When used to force views on others. You see it happen around the world still today. Where sadly people are still seen as indecent. Just look at how homosexuals are viewed by some. Look at how some Muslim men and women view western women. All contrived around what they see as decency and respect. Look at where some are forcee to marry, claimed to be done out of respect to the family. Hence why you and others are the problem. Where you wish to maintain daft laws that criminalize people based unpon a supposed offense. Where again it neither harms you or anyone else.

3) I mean look at how you classify people who had sex in the open, as chavy, which is what some religious people class women how they dress. But you cannot see how such views on decency and respect. Are just the views drummed into you by people who had the same done onto them. Where in fact it does not teach you to respect people but view them with distain. Making you and others the problem.

I really do pity people like you that are unable to think why you are so backward in thinking here. Its this same absurd views on deceny and respect, that still see countless people suffer by such daft perceived views. Others think others should act a certain way.

Showing there is nothing actually decent about that at all.

by Guest Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:31 pm

Miffs2 wrote:Well my opinion is their behaviour was disgraceful. Doesn't mean I have deep rooted sexual issues or any other issues. Doesn't mean I'm scared of sex or any other such crap.

All it means is I have self respect. I also have respect for the people of that church. I am at a loss really as to why Didge thinks it's acceptable. It's got nothing to do with being liberated etc.
After all the ultimate liberation is to have respect for yourself and for others.

I know. We can all enjoy sex and all enjoy a bit of al fresco sex but that doesn't mean making a total exhibition of yourself and you have to respect other people in that

If i decide to visit my nearby park to eat my lunch and enjoy the wildlife and the warm weather I dont particularly want to see arses bobbing up and down, hearing screams of orgasm and some old perv jizzing up over it as I'm trying to enjoy my cheese and pickle sandwich, thanks very much

strange how decency, self respect, respect for others around you and a moral compass are seen as warped and oppressive

by Syl Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:32 pm

Miffs2 wrote:Well my opinion is their behaviour was disgraceful. Doesn't mean I have deep rooted sexual issues or any other issues. Doesn't mean I'm scared of sex or any other such crap.

All it means is I have self respect. I also have respect for the people of that church. I am at a loss really as to why Didge thinks it's acceptable. It's got nothing to do with being liberated etc.
After all the ultimate liberation is to have respect for yourself and for others.

True...and you have to respect yourself before you can respect anyone else.
Do some people think respect is old fashioned now? Its the very basis of how you treat yourself and other people.

by Guest Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:33 pm

Miffs2 wrote:Well my opinion is their behaviour was disgraceful. Doesn't mean I have deep rooted sexual issues or any other issues. Doesn't mean I'm scared of sex or any other such crap.

All it means is I have self respect. I also have respect for the people of that church. I am at a loss really as to why Didge thinks it's acceptable. It's got nothing to do with being liberated etc.
After all the ultimate liberation is to have respect for yourself and for others.

Same answers to you

1) But many of these people you speak of are not on the forum and lets face facts. If you saw someone in public having sex, you want not say boo to them. No doubt you would be more interested in getting on your phone as quickly as possible though. To tell everyone you know, how disgusted you were to see this.

2) Respect and decency are worthless. When used to force views on others. You see it happen around the world still today. Where sadly people are still seen as indecent. Just look at how homosexuals are viewed by some. Look at how some Muslim men and women view western women. All contrived around what they see as decency and respect. Look at where some are forcee to marry, claimed to be done out of respect to the family. Hence why you and others are the problem. Where you wish to maintain daft laws that criminalize people based unpon a supposed offense. Where again it neither harms you or anyone else.

3) I mean look at how you classify people who had sex in the open, as chavy, which is what some religious people class women how they dress. But you cannot see how such views on decency and respect. Are just the views drummed into you by people who had the same done onto them. Where in fact it does not teach you to respect people but view them with distain. Making you and others the problem.

I really do pity people like you that are unable to think why you are so backward in thinking here. Its this same absurd views on deceny and respect, that still see countless people suffer by such daft perceived views. Others think others should act a certain way.

Showing there is nothing actually decent about that at all.

by Guest Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:35 pm

remember some comedy bloke saying that when he sees people kissing in public he walks right up to them and stands about an inch away just staring straight at them....when they stop and say ''er, do you mind?'' he just grins and says ''no, i dont mind at all''

lol!

by HoratioTarr Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:47 pm

gelico wrote:many years ago hubby and I were explaining to our kids about punch and judy shows that we used to go and watch when we were young cos they phased them out and our kids never got to see them

anyhoos a couple of days later he came home early from work with a disney video for the kids and a certain glint in his eye

we plonked the kids down stuck the video on and disappeared upstairs.

we were both in full swing when the door suddenly opened quietly and a little voice screeched out ''Thaaats the way to do it''

we both cracked up and poor hubby deflated like a pricked balloon

::::

by Syl Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:48 pm

Didge wrote:
Syl wrote:

Everyone can answer me back if they join the forum, we are all on an even playing field.

You think respect and decency are worthless....I think you are full of hot air.
You demand more respect than anyone else here....everyone has to agree with you and your opinions, if they don't they are idiots in your eyes....you want respect but you don't return it, therefore you don't get it.

The only cowards I see on this thread are the people in the OP....ruining the weddings of hundreds of innocent people, costing them up to forty thousand pounds a couple in cancelled plans. then whinging that they only did it for a joke and to show off their cheeky humour.

And these are the chavy useless plebs you support.

1) But many of these people you speak of are not on the forum and lets face facts. If you saw someone in public having sex, you want not say boo to them. No doubt you would be more interested in getting on your phone as quickly as possible though. To tell everyone you know, how disgusted you were to see this.

I don't have a mobile, and it would depend on where they were or who could see them whether I said anything or not.

2) Respect and decency are worthless. When used to force views on others. You see it happen around the world still today. Where sadly people are still seen as indecent. Just look at how homosexuals are viewed by some. Look at how some Muslim men and women view western women. All contrived around what they see as decency and respect. Look at where some are forcee to marry, claimed to be done out of respect to the family. Hence why you and others are the problem. Where you wish to maintain daft laws that criminalize people based unpon a supposed offense. Where again it neither harms you or anyone else.

Its BECAUSE people have had no respect and decency for other human beings that homosexuality, Muslim women, women in general in many parts of the world, have been so badly treated.

3) I mean look at how you classify people who had sex in the open, as chavy, which is what some religious people class women how they dress. But you cannot see how such views on decency and respect. Are just the views drummed into you by people who had the same done onto them. Where in fact it does not teach you to respect people but view them with distain. Making you and others the problem.

Nothing wrong with having sex al fresco....its when its performed foisting it on the unsuspecting public it becomes indecent, imoral and chavy.....and illegal.

I really do pity people like you that are unable to think why you are so backward in thinking here. Its this same absurd views on deceny and respect, that still see countless people suffer by such daft perceived views. Others think others should act a certain way.

Showing there is nothing actually decent about that at all.

I think, as I said, you are full of hot air.
Anyone who has children, a partner, loving parents and friends, would realise that respect and decency are at the very core of how to treat a person....without that you are, imo unable to love.

by Guest Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:55 pm

Syl wrote:I don't have a mobile, and it would depend on where they were or who could see them whether I said anything or not.
Didge wrote:So you never contact anyone, including on here then?
I smell something

Its BECAUSE people have had no respect and decency for other human beings that homosexuality, Muslim women, women in general in many parts of the world, have been so badly treated.
Didge wrote:And you are doing the exact same thing here based off the same poor principle. Based on a perceived view around respect and decency

Nothing wrong with having sex al fresco....its when its performed foisting it on the unsuspecting public it becomes indecent, imoral and chavy.....and illegal.
Didge wrote:Which does not effect you in the slightest if people do have sex in public and thus you want to criminalize something based on a perceived offense. Something again that does not effect you in any shape or form

I think, as I said, you are full of hot air.
Anyone who has children, a partner, loving parents and friends, would realise that respect and decency are at the very core of how to treat a person....without that you are, imo unable to love.

Is that why you are treating this couple with distain and being quite hateful towards them in your views?
Simple because they had public sex.
I really see no decency and respect coming from you there at all.
Is that what you call being decent, by being hateful?
I love how you continually think you are the bench mark for what people think.

by HoratioTarr Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:57 pm

Didge wrote:
Syl wrote:I don't have a mobile, and it would depend on where they were or who could see them whether I said anything or not.

Its BECAUSE people have had no respect and decency for other human beings that homosexuality, Muslim women, women in general in many parts of the world, have been so badly treated.

Nothing wrong with having sex al fresco....its when its performed foisting it on the unsuspecting public it becomes indecent, imoral and chavy.....and illegal.

I think, as I said, you are full of hot air.
Anyone who has children, a partner, loving parents and friends, would realise that respect and decency are at the very core of how to treat a person....without that you are, imo unable to love.

Is that why you are treating this couple with distain and being quite hateful towards them in your views?
Simple because they had public sex.
I really see no decency and respect coming from you there at all.
Is that what you call being decent, by being hateful?
I love how you continually think you are the bench mark for what people think.

You go Dogging at the weekends, don't you? Come on...fess up!

by Guest Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:59 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
Didge wrote:

Is that why you are treating this couple with distain and being quite hateful towards them in your views?
Simple because they had public sex.
I really see no decency and respect coming from you there at all.
Is that what you call being decent, by being hateful?
I love how you continually think you are the bench mark for what people think.

You go Dogging at the weekends, don't you? Come on...fess up!

Ah back to my private life.

To answer your question, no I don't

Anything else?

by HoratioTarr Wed Oct 18, 2017 8:55 pm

Didge wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:

You go Dogging at the weekends, don't you? Come on...fess up!

Ah back to my private life.

To answer your question, no I don't

Anything else?

That pimple on your tongue can only get bigger!

by Guest Wed Oct 18, 2017 8:56 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
Didge wrote:

Ah back to my private life.

To answer your question, no I don't

Anything else?

That pimple on your tongue can only get bigger!

Anything else?

by Tommy Monk Wed Oct 18, 2017 9:12 pm

'...Couple filmed in Scarborough pizza takeaway are convicted of outraging public decency...'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-41649812

I have no idea what Didge is waffling on about by his claiming that it is somehow ok for people to go around having sex (and engaging in serious sexual acts) in public places and in full view of the general public etc...!?

by Guest Wed Oct 18, 2017 9:14 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:'...Couple filmed in Scarborough pizza takeaway are convicted of outraging public decency...'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-41649812

I have no idea what Didge is waffling on about by his claiming that it is somehow ok for people to go around having sex (and engaging in serious sexual acts) in public places and in full view of the general public etc...!?

Did you see the absurd sentence they were given today?

If you have no idea, I suggest you read back as to why.

Its a criminal act based on a perceived offense.

You know kind of like how in some countries you are unable to be critical of a religion

by Tommy Monk Wed Oct 18, 2017 9:25 pm

It was a conviction for criminal offence...

While OP couple have not faced criminal charges...

So... what's your point...?

by Guest Wed Oct 18, 2017 9:27 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:It was a conviction for criminal offence...

While OP couple have not faced criminal charges...

So... what's your point...?

What did you fail to understand?

If you have no idea, I suggest you read back as to why.

Its a criminal act based on a perceived offense.

You know kind of like how in some countries you are unable to be critical of a religion

by Tommy Monk Wed Oct 18, 2017 9:33 pm

'...Its a criminal act based on a perceived offense...'

lol!

Can you tell us about any criminal acts that aren't based on perceived offences...!!!???

What a twat...!

Laughing

by Guest Wed Oct 18, 2017 9:34 pm

Ah so all Tommy can do is make insults.

There is a stack of my views over all pages Tommy

Let me know which ones you want to counter.

Also you can have a read if you like

https://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/features/Outdoor-Sex-Please-%E2%80%93-We%E2%80%99re-British

by Tommy Monk Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:10 pm

Can you tell us about any criminal acts that aren't based on perceived offences...!!!???

And... there was a case recently where a police man in a helicopter surveillance unit was involved in a prosecution involving a couple who could be seen having sex, by him through the helicopter camera...

Only this was a case of the policeman being prosecuted for filming the couple who were on their own private property...!

Can you understand the difference of where people who are basically doing the same sexual thing, are treated differently depending on whether they are doing it privately, or whether they are doing it in a distinct overt way that is a blatant display in a public area...!?

by Guest Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:15 pm

lol, cannot stop laughing at Tommy not grasping something.

The Policeman was invading on somebody's privacy

Where the couple and here is a case example based on a perceived offense of offending people. Which they were convicted on.

Again cases that are not a perceived offense taken is cases like murder.

Cases that are a perceived offense taken is like where in certain countries where they have Blasphemy.

So can you not see how and why something is classed illegally in this country?

You need to read my link that tells you what is legal or not and even then its very subjective

Let me know when you have

by Tommy Monk Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:03 pm

Wrong Dodge... the sex couple were swingers and were friends of the helicopter copper who filmed them, and they agreed to him that they would be out there having sex and for him to film them from helicopter...!!!

You mentioned 'invasion of privacy'... but if it is an offence and 'invasion of privacy' to watch a couple who are privately having sex... then it must also be true that it is an offence and an 'invasion of privacy' against regular members of the public who are in regular public places, to have a couple out there and overtly having sex in full display of the rest of the general public, and thereby forcing their sexual acts onto the eyes of the passing public against their will, and this is effectively an 'invasion of their privacy'... as they have the right to not be subjected to such observable acts in the going about in normal regular every day society...

by Guest Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:47 am

Ah so it was a misuse of Police time, and it was about the privacy of other people they filmed hence why you failed to provide the link. So you are caught out lying again. He may have known the couple he filmed having sex, but did not know the others he filmed did he?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/18/brazen-couple-put-show-police-helicopter-crew-filmed-sex-acts/

You never read anything properly, do you Tommy.. Cool

Second show me the law that says its an invasion of privacy, as you claim on public sex?

In your own time

I love it when you make idiotic claims, that is not backed in any law.

It completely shows you continually lie and have not got a clue what you are talking about.

The reason its not true as you failed to provide a link in the first case and you second, do not understand what the couple caught having sex were convicted on.

Poor Tommy feels offended that he might see conscenting couple engaged in having sex. Is this down to jealousy by any chance Tommy? Cool

Or is it you are a snowflake. Thus on the preceived offense you have taken seeing a conscenting couple engaged in something very natural, sex?

I also know you never read the link

The term “outdoor sex”, or “public sex” as police forces more commonly refer to it, covers a multitude of activities, and potential charges. Contrary to popular belief, the British are not that prudish regarding their sexual activities. Outdoor sex appears to be more commonplace than one might think. It may be the arrival of social media, or simply the digital age in general, which has allowed for some to “reach out” and be more experimental, but that is perhaps a subject for another article.

This piece will consider whether public sex, which covers more than one activity, is morally repugnant, or simply an activity that those who do not engage in it do not understand. The police do not necessarily criminalize all outdoor sex, but do impose restrictions. This article will also draw on experiences from the general public, through web site forums, and examine the attitude of the authorities.

Legislation
Legislation which could be relied upon includes the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (SOA), s.66 (exposure), s.67 (voyeurism), s.71 (sexual activity in a public lavatory) and, albeit in brief, the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA) (outraging public decency).

The law does not criminalize the practise of public sex per se; each case is considered on its merits. If a couple are caught having sex – for example, in public in broad daylight, where they could be stumbled upon relatively easily – then they may be arrested for “outraging public decency”, contrary to CJA 2003. On the other hand, if it’s late, the couple are in a dark alley and the only likely observers would be others looking to do the same, then it is unlikely they would face a charge.

It could be argued that s.4A of the Public Order Act 1986 has a role to play; however this concerns itself more with “intentional harassment, alarm or distress”, which may be relevant to exhibitionism, as the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary provides the following definition:

“1: (disapproving) behaviour that is intended to make people notice or admire you. 2: (psychology) the mental condition that makes sb want to show their sexual organs in public.”

This element is arguably subjective, as pointed out by a user at the site nudist-resorts.org:

“the term exhibitionist is rather subjective, and judgmental, in that it is a matter of interpretation of behavior by others.”

The “Naked Rambler”, Stephen Gough, sees his nudity as a right, and his intention is not to shock or make it sexual. As part of what the BBC calls “the UK’s oddest legal stand-off”, Mr Gough was only recently released from prison for continued acts of nudity in public. He has spent some six years imprisoned, on and off. But nudism and exhibitionism are acts of baring one’s soul, and are not sexual in nature. If you present yourself naked in public to shock, expect to be arrested.

Each police force has policy guidelines to ensure those looking to spice up their sex life are not unfairly criminalized. It appears it comes down to common-sense policing.
Dyfed Powys Police provides in its “Policing Public Sex Locations Policy”:

“A public sex location is defined as any public place to which individuals resort for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity. This includes public lavatories and other open spaces, such as, for example, parks or wastelands.”

Human rights are taken into account, ensuring those who in engage in public sex are not demonized. Kent Police provides in its “Managing Public Sex Environments”:

“Fundamental to this is Kent’s responsibility to protect and uphold the human rights of all citizens and ensure our policing responses are legal, justifiable, necessary, accountable and proportionate and ensure that public safety is given primacy at all times.”

To an extent then, public sexual activity can be considered protected by human rights law, as long as those activities do not breach others’ rights. Dyfed Powys Police accepts that public sex does occur, and takes the view that, if it is practised in an area where the general public are not likely to witness it, a hands-off policy should be adopted. It is right to say there are some who will consider public sex a nuisance, but the definition of nuisance is subjective and somewhat broad.

Nothing New
Sex in the great outdoors is not a new phenomenon. In 1928, D.H. Lawrence wrote about a working-class man romping with an upper-class woman in the fields. It was happening then, and surely before such activity was ever recorded. D.H. Lawrence’s description of a couple romping in a field sounds romantic, not seedy (forgive the pun). Some, it would seem, become aroused when alone with their partner in the great outdoors, as if it were an aphrodisiac. The topic itself makes regular forum headlines. Cosmopolitan has one such thread, in which a user, in response to where she ought to do it and not get caught, wrote:

“Yeah the woods and stuff like that sound good, however so far I’ve only seen him on nights out so we can’t really make it to a wood/the countryside – So far it’s been in like secluded (to a certain extent) lanes/courtyards, do you think this is risky? Classy I know.

Dogging
“Dogging” refers to a practice whereby like-minded people meet in isolated locations, usually country car parks, lay-bys and so on, simply to watch others have sexual intercourse and, at times, join in. It is a relatively new phenomenon, and the name itself derives from those, usually men, who use the cover of walking their dogs to conceal their real intentions should they get caught.

SOA 2003, s.66, Exposure
If an innocent person were to witness an act of dogging, and saw genitalia, the perpetrators may be arrested and charged with indecent exposure. However, s.66(1)(a) of the SOA 2003 provides that “he intentionally exposes his genitals, and (b) he intends that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress” (emphasis added), which, in fairness, is not the intention. It would be unfortunate if someone were to unintentionally see the act, and hence most doggers make the effort to practise in secluded areas.
However, consider the family driving throughout the night to catch a flight. They need to pull over to drink some coffee. The interior lights go on (flicking the interior light is one of the signals doggers use) and there is movement. The potential here is an awful thought. Children may witness dogging activities, and this is where public sex could be an issue. However, the mens rea is “intentional”, and it is unlikely this element would be satisfied; thus the likelihood of an arrest is minimal.

Section 67, Voyeurism
Dogging and voyeurism do not, per se, go hand in hand. Strangers are often encouraged to observe. This could be interpreted as commissioning an offence of voyeurism per s.67(1)(a) of the SOA 2003; however, s.67(1)(b) provides “he knows that the other person does not consent to being observed for his sexual gratification” (emphasis added). As doggers encourage others, it would be unlikely a prosecution could satisfy this element. By virtue of the very activity, intrinsically it would suggest any that join thereafter, have the consent of the very person commissioning their input.

Some enjoy, indeed encourage, other men to have penetrative sex with their wife, and vice versa. Such a practice is not confined to any particular sexual orientation and some women also enjoy observing their husband being penetrated by other, unknown men.

Section 71, Sexual Activity in a Public Lavatory
Cottaging is slang for the practice whereby homosexual men engage in “sexual activity in a public lavatory”, contrary to s.71 of the SOA 2003. Famously, or infamously, depending on one’s view, George Michael was charged with cottaging in 2008.

The term originates from the appearance of public lavatories in the Victorian era. Since the 1960s men have frequented some lavatories in the hope others are there for the same reason. To save the embarrassment of mistaken intention, some lavatories feature “glory holes” – holes drilled in the wall allowing access to the neighbouring lavatory. A signal of one kind or another would be made under the toilet door, and, if reciprocated, one man would insert his penis in the hole and receive oral sex. Many have fallen foul of the law due to cottaging, including high-profile individuals (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottaging, “timeline of historic events”, not all verified).

Cruising
Cruising (walking or driving) in the hope of finding a sexual partner at random is not in itself an offence. However the act that then follows, depending on where it takes place and at what time, could attract a charge. In the late 1990s, MP Ron Davies was mugged at knifepoint after a late-night stroll through Clapham Common. His intentions while at Clapham Common were the subject of speculation. Attractive as Clapham Common is, it is also synonymous with gay cruising. In the “noughties”, Mr Davies was later reported to have frequented dogging areas. Cruising can be dangerous, and police have a genuine concern that men put themselves at great risk when approaching strangers for random acts of sex.

Conclusion
My position is that sex outdoors is not morally repugnant, and, if anything, legislation could be said to favour heterosexual over male homosexual activity outdoors. Outdoor sex is not illegal per se, but cottaging, which is practised by homosexual men outdoors, is. If Britain were to adopt the EU gender-neutral lavatory, the law could be better tested as to its application.

Legislation is in place to protect the vulnerable and punish criminal activity. Police forces appear better informed and thus have a greater understanding regarding who is having sex outdoors, where and why.
Criminalizing sexual activity because it is not considered the norm benefits no one, and is a waste of precious and depleting police resources. It must be borne heavily in mind: different things turn different people on, as a user in a Cosmopolitan forum threadasserts:

“We did it once in the office where he used to work ... I did a course he was running and it was SUCH a turn on seeing him in work-mode.

Thrilling, I’m sure. As they say, whatever turns you on. But best not introduce a “bring your partner to court day”. Above all, stay safe and play within the law.

https://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/features/Outdoor-Sex-Please-%E2%80%93-We%E2%80%99re-British

by Tommy Monk Thu Oct 19, 2017 5:49 pm

Didge wrote:lol, cannot stop laughing at Tommy not grasping something.

The Policeman was invading on somebody's privacy

Where the couple and here is a case example based on a perceived offense of offending people. Which they were convicted on.

Again cases that are not a perceived offense taken is cases like murder.

Cases that are a perceived offense taken is like where in certain countries where they have Blasphemy.

So can you not see how and why something is classed illegally in this country?

You need to read my link that tells you what is legal or not and even then its very subjective

Let me know when you have

You started going on about 'invasion of privacy' Dodge...!

lol!

by Guest Thu Oct 19, 2017 5:52 pm

Which as seen it was and why you clearly were either lying or stupid on the case.

Now run along Tiny Tommy... Laughing

by Tommy Monk Thu Oct 19, 2017 6:45 pm

Neither, Dodge...!

by Guest Thu Oct 19, 2017 6:47 pm

Oh you were either one or the other.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/18/brazen-couple-put-show-police-helicopter-crew-filmed-sex-acts/

by Tommy Monk Thu Oct 19, 2017 6:59 pm

No... you're just missing the points again...

Never mind...!