↑ Where would you draw the line on this? Where do public displays of affection become an imposition? Especially since the term is rather subjective. Is kissing an imposition? Is a male and female not but two males is? Hand holding? Caressing? Is caressing certain body parts like the face or leg fine, but others like the buttocks or breast/chest an imposition? Is it alright to caress the male chest, but not the female chest? We let each community set its own standards, of course. --------------------- I have a question... Do people who show public displays of affection seek crowded places or do they still show their affection one to another in non crowded public places as well? Because I know of some males who like to show public displays of their 'package goods' in public places using subtleties such as 'tight' shorts/pants or loose legged shorts with no underbriefs.
In the past people had sex for procreation. That is what it meant for. With women rights should including responsibilities, but clearly that's not the case. The whole victim bs because a woman claim she was raped because she regretting having sex. The metoo hash tag is one annoying thing. As a man I have to the right to refuse to be a walking dildo for women. There are plenty of guys like me that refuse to have sex with women because they are no longer truth worthy.
In other words, is the idea of being watched while having 'sex' a part of their turn on? Kind of like video taping your sexual encounter with a smart phone and then posting it up online?
You are seriously clueless if you think that sex was only used for procreation in the past. History is ripe with men and woman having affairs for no other reason that a desire for the person and the enjoyment of the act.
Do your research why do think a lot of marriages are arranged by the parents? People did not marry for love they married for survival. It is different now.
Wealth. A lot of ranged marriages were also about wealth, not survival. And power in some cases. Regardless, within those arranged marriages, especially after the male had conceived an "heir and a spare" it was not uncommon for him, and even the lady depending upon the class, to have outside lovers for the purpose of sex.
I don't want to see new freedoms established for raping or drugging to have sex, nor a right to self-actualize the privy parts in public, nor a freedom to have sex with animals -- for the poor animals' sake.
A right to something does not mean one can violate another's right. Rights refer to that which government is not supposed to make illegal, nor what one can interfere with as a third party. So looking at sex: I have a right to sex. I don't have the right to force anyone to have it with me. The government, due to my right, cannot prevent me from having sex. You, due to my right, cannot prevent me from having sex with someone else who is willing. I'm not sure where some people get the idea that a right is all encompassing and means no restrictions.
Yes, they do. The question is do they have a right to not inform someone of the potential danger they are exposing them to? While related, they are separate issues and rights.
So AIDS patients have the right to have sex with you? Would you let a gay guy bop you in the butt if he wore a condom
Wow! A lot of incorrect conflating going on right there. First you seem to be placing an automatic connection of if he is gay then he has AIDS. The second seems to be on my orientation. So let go over this step by step. Yes a person who has AIDS does indeed have the right to have sex with any willing partner. That does not, however, mean that they has the right to expose said partner to danger uninformed. The potential partner, once informed that the person has AIDS, has the right to choose whether or not to risk getting AIDS. Being straight, and without significant monetary compensation, I wouldn't be having sex with a gay guy, a bi guy or even a straight guy. I'm also sure you were implying that said gay guy has AIDS, but here are plenty who do not. If fact more gay men do not have AIDS, than have it. So you should really be more explicit with that. More accurately would be to ask me if I would have sex with a woman who had AIDS, if I was wearing a condom. And I might take that risk depending upon circumstances. Certainly not as a one night stand or having only known her for a short time. Same would go for another STI as well. Would I let her bop me in the arse with a strap-on? Well same conditions. There needs to be a level of trust and relationships with a person before I do anything sexual with them.
Translation: I just got my arse handed to me, with no decent rebuttal so I will go with ad hoc instead.
