Our restrictions on sexual activity as defined by the Criminal Code seem to be mainly defined by:
1. Community standards of decency
2. Community standards of morality
3. Public and private places
On the first topic - community standards of decency - we all want to be protected from being offended in public. I don't want to walk past a storefront in a shopping mall and see somebody defecating behind the glass window.
I suspect most people would feel the same.
We seem rightly or wrongly to treat the sex act the same way.
It is probably a good idea to arrange that some sexual acts and certain types of nudity should not be on casual display to passers-by and only have their place out of public view and that's probably a public consensus too.
On the second topic, morality I think that morality has no place in our legal system. It is part of the religious establishment and membership of a religion is voluntary. Also interpretations of morality are highly personal and subjective. They vary from person to person. In my humble opinion George W Bush is the height of immorality vastly more than Bill Clinton for all his philandering.
I think our police force should not have 'morality squads'. It is going too far to try to police morality.
On the third topic a private club versus a public place.
Now when a group deems that it is indecent for consenting adults to engage in sexual acts in a private club, what they are really saying is that one group of people might find it offensive that another group of people might want to engage in sex parties in private.
Then the first group wants to prescribe appropriate behavior for the second group.
This is where I have a problem with the criminal code where it deals with bawdy house regulations and indecency. It seems to be an attempt to restrict sexual behaviour of consenting adults who want to engage in activities in private settings.
So what is a private place? If a club has signs outside clearly stating that it is a private members only club and if they ask for a membership and proof of over 18 and if the membership requires signing a waiver that you will not be offended by sexual acts being on display then that should be enough to separate it from a public place.
Our criminal code seems to need an overhaul so that it still protects the public from outright offensive behaviour in public while leaving consenting adults to partake in whatever lewd and depraved sexual activity they desire either in small or large groups but in private.
1. I would propose redefining a public place as one where a member of the general public might wander through. All private members only clubs would be exempt from this as would be privately organized parties. Strip clubs might be required to require memberships (free or otherwise) to allow certain practices to go on.
Escort and massage establishments might need some waiver to be signed by the client accepting that status of the establishment as a private sex parlor.
Also a privately owned house and a privately rented appartment or hotel room should be deemed a private place (members of the public cannot wander through).
It should also be a relatively simple matter to temporarily designate a public place as a private place. (For example a marquee at a fair).
2. Morality is a highly subjective value and has a strong religious overtone and should not be part of the criminal code.
3. Indecency regulations should only apply to the protection of the casual observer from being grossly offended in a public place.
Restrictions should be limited to things that most people would not like to be displayed in front of their house or in front of their children:
Examples:
If people engage in sexual penetration or oral sex in a public place in my view and if they continue to do so after I protest then I can press charges.
If people display their genitals in a way that I find offensive and if they continue to do so after I protest then I can press charges.
Here's hoping we can move towards a more ethical, more decent but more sex-friendly society.
1. Community standards of decency
2. Community standards of morality
3. Public and private places
On the first topic - community standards of decency - we all want to be protected from being offended in public. I don't want to walk past a storefront in a shopping mall and see somebody defecating behind the glass window.
I suspect most people would feel the same.
We seem rightly or wrongly to treat the sex act the same way.
It is probably a good idea to arrange that some sexual acts and certain types of nudity should not be on casual display to passers-by and only have their place out of public view and that's probably a public consensus too.
On the second topic, morality I think that morality has no place in our legal system. It is part of the religious establishment and membership of a religion is voluntary. Also interpretations of morality are highly personal and subjective. They vary from person to person. In my humble opinion George W Bush is the height of immorality vastly more than Bill Clinton for all his philandering.
I think our police force should not have 'morality squads'. It is going too far to try to police morality.
On the third topic a private club versus a public place.
Now when a group deems that it is indecent for consenting adults to engage in sexual acts in a private club, what they are really saying is that one group of people might find it offensive that another group of people might want to engage in sex parties in private.
Then the first group wants to prescribe appropriate behavior for the second group.
This is where I have a problem with the criminal code where it deals with bawdy house regulations and indecency. It seems to be an attempt to restrict sexual behaviour of consenting adults who want to engage in activities in private settings.
So what is a private place? If a club has signs outside clearly stating that it is a private members only club and if they ask for a membership and proof of over 18 and if the membership requires signing a waiver that you will not be offended by sexual acts being on display then that should be enough to separate it from a public place.
Our criminal code seems to need an overhaul so that it still protects the public from outright offensive behaviour in public while leaving consenting adults to partake in whatever lewd and depraved sexual activity they desire either in small or large groups but in private.
1. I would propose redefining a public place as one where a member of the general public might wander through. All private members only clubs would be exempt from this as would be privately organized parties. Strip clubs might be required to require memberships (free or otherwise) to allow certain practices to go on.
Escort and massage establishments might need some waiver to be signed by the client accepting that status of the establishment as a private sex parlor.
Also a privately owned house and a privately rented appartment or hotel room should be deemed a private place (members of the public cannot wander through).
It should also be a relatively simple matter to temporarily designate a public place as a private place. (For example a marquee at a fair).
2. Morality is a highly subjective value and has a strong religious overtone and should not be part of the criminal code.
3. Indecency regulations should only apply to the protection of the casual observer from being grossly offended in a public place.
Restrictions should be limited to things that most people would not like to be displayed in front of their house or in front of their children:
Examples:
If people engage in sexual penetration or oral sex in a public place in my view and if they continue to do so after I protest then I can press charges.
If people display their genitals in a way that I find offensive and if they continue to do so after I protest then I can press charges.
Here's hoping we can move towards a more ethical, more decent but more sex-friendly society.
