You wrote, “So, for instance, the couple having sex on the train…I assume it was actual copulation…that deserves a serious fine but no criminal record unless it becomes a habit…” Ms. Craig might have been satisfied being assured that she would not encounter such a thing again in a public area. But, she may have had every expectation that the law would be enforced. The article states, “Under the Sexual Offences [sic] Act anyone who takes part in ‘dogging’, where couples meet for sex in car parks, and cottaging, where men meet for sex in public lavatories, face arrest for outraging public decency, voyeurism and exposure.” Instead, Ms. Craig was told to take a different route in the future! I think it would be fair to say that she is entitled a bit of outrage as SHE was not the one violating the law.

I was walking on the beach at around 6AM in Fort Lauderdale about 7 years ago when I saw that one of the most beautiful young full figured woman I had ever seen had clearly broken away from a nearby club with a big brawny bouncer after the club closed. What followed was better than any porn movie because this woman was too beautiful to be a porn actress (many of whom are gross). She was literally the girl next door who just happened to find a bouncer attractive.

They had sex on a picnic table enclosed by some palm trees and I just stood there mesmerized and watched. It made it all the more fascinating to know that they had probably just met and found each other irresistably good looking.

I couldn’t get bitter about the envy I felt. Sure I still wish it had been me and not him there. Bitterness and vindictiveness is what those would feel who would want them arrested, especially since no children could be expected to be anywhere near there at that hour.

If a cop had come along, he probably would have been mesmerized as well.

She was that good looking.

Mr. Cunningham, I think these people have already [voluntarily] made their activities quite public. Idiot.

1) an AfghaniTaliban who wants them beheaded or United Arab Emirates judge who wants them jailed for 10 years

2) an American Taliban who wants them permanently on the sex offender list never to get a job again and never allowed near schools and always phoned by vigilante jackasses…or

3) just a concerned citizen of the UK who wants them to have to spend a night in jail or a 400 pound fine so they know not to ever do that “unacceptable” stuff again…without having had their lives destroyed in the process of learning a lesson.

Do you understand the difference and how, therefore, the statement “that is unacceptable” means very little in the context of current world politics?

It is on this general topic that American men are in the process of letting the Republican Party destroy itself if it doesn’t wise up and stop obsessing about punishing sexuality too harshly, especially heterosexuality.

I am sick and tired, as a Republican, of the anti-sex religious police and the old busybody selfstyled “Christian” and Marxist feminists who are furious with men their own age for not being sexually interested in them anymore.

We all hear stories of couples joining “the mile high club” and we laugh and congrat people who succeeded in doing that without getting caught and embarrassed. The last thing we ever want to hear is how a couple got caught and both ended up on a sex offender list in the US with their lives destroyed and job and house gone.

So, for instance, the couple having sex on the train…I assume it was actual copulation…that deserves a serious fine but no criminal record unless it becomes a habit…but what if it was just kissing and fondling and some busybody got envious? Then they could have been innocent of normal heterosexual behavior. You cannot trust busybodies half the time.

I mean seriously…we all think that we would never do that…but that is because it would be a wild fantasy to a man for a gorgeous woman on a train to suddenly get horny and want the guy next to her to put his and up her skirt. What if that actually happened? Statistics show that even most married men would partake of much of what the woman wanted to do.

I was on a mostly empty train making out with a college coed when I was 24 and the older conductor said twice “that is disgusting” to us. What? Because I had my hand discretely up her skirt with no other passengers in view? Only he noticed (because he was a pervert who craned his neck to view) and it would have been because he was envious if he had turned us in somehow to law enforcement. Maybe these days, so many years later, he would have done so. The USA is probably a dangerous place to live now (I do not live there anymore).

I still resent the time I was making out with a woman on a closed off balcony above a party and a guard interrupted us and told us to leave the balcony and locked it closed. He was envious. I resent that to this day.

Republicans must not obsess about this or the party will be destroyed. I talked to a lot of young people this summer who all told me they would vote against the Republicans because of a perceived anti-sex attitude. The Republicans need to drop 100% of their sexually related platform issues in order to ever win again. Obviously, there is nothing wrong with Republicans in isolated communities demanding that the local police at least punish such offenders as the above doggers in an appropriate non-permanent manner.

I would say “this is unacceptable” just like anyone else looking at the above story. But the concept of punishment might differ wildly.

I thought Papercuts was a Libertarian website. Lewd public behavior should be dealt with if others are seeing it, but not enough to ruin anyone’s life. Getting caught should be embarrassing and cause red faced people to be ashamed if there is something to be ashamed about. That is all.

Gays should not have privileges where heteros do not.

Gays already can still meet each other online without having to show their HIV status but heterosexuals, according to the US IMBRA law, now have to undergo extensive background checks just to be allowed to talk to a foreign woman online.

This “gays are more important than you” attitude is getting out of hand.

And, yes, the liberals are mostly responsible for this…but the conservatives, even when in power, enabled all this to happen by letting the liberals handle social policy in return for agreements on war-making in the Middle East…or actively encouraging tougher laws on heterosexuals and leaving gays out of the laws in order to get the liberals to agree on the laws.

A perfect example would be the IMBRA law in the US. Republicans were ecstatic at getting a law that forces all men to be background checked just for using a dating site to meet women. But in order to get the Democrats to vote for it, they had to exclude gays and minorities from getting caught in the net (dating sites for blacks or gays or religious people were hypocrtically exempted from the law).

So IMBRA only affects white heterosexual single males who aren’t religious freaks….precisely the one group in America that has zero representation in Congress.

Another major point is that too many so-called conservatives, at least in the USA, would want these gay men and that heterosexual couple to have THEIR LIVES PERMANENTLY DESTROYED by going on a sex offender registry for the above.

This sheer hatred and vindictiveness is entirely un-Christian and I will do everything in my power to make sure such people never get political office again.

So I can read this and think “I hope the liberals keep gaining seats in the US and the UK parliaments” .
Let people deal with this themselves via firecrackers or sicking their dogs on doggers. Make the couple on the train pay a fine of 250 Pounds. That is all that needs to be done.