Gay Porn Movie Filmed At Occupy Oakland

[red states rule]

Just when I thought the hippies could not get any lower in the filth - they went lower

BTW total number of porn films shot at Tea Party rallies remains at 0




The porn industry has been in a rut ever since the Internet starting offering amauteur sex for free. Now everyone’s looking for the next big, flashy hook: 3-D porn? Virtual porn? Snuff films?

Well, that last one might not be too far from the mark: New York-based porn company Dirty Boy Video (http://www.dirtyboyvideo.com/) has just released “Occupy My Throat (http://gawker.com/5862012/someone-filmed-a-gay-porn-movie-during-occupy-oakland),” a homoerotic caper through the tents of Oakland’s Occupation. (Hopefully, the stars escaped unscathed during the police raid.)
But now Dirty Boy Video is expanding their repertoire back on their home turf. Remember Brendan Watts, the protester who lost his virginity (http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/protester-brandon-watts-pitch-a-tent-zuccotti-park-bloody-face-day-action-article-1.979573) in Zuccotti before having his head bashed in and pants pulled off (http://www.observer.com/2011/11/protester-brandon-watts-dragged-by-nypd-during-zuccotti-park-fight-slideshow/) by the NYPD during OWS’ Day of Action?

The men behind Dirty Boy are reaching out to Mr. Watts (http://thesword.com/wow-hes-hot.html), writing an open letter appealing to his sense of social injustice as a reason why he should star in their porno:

http://www.observer.com/2011/11/new-york-gay-porn-director-films-in-oakland-reaches-out-to-bloodied-pantsless-zuccotti-protester/

[Noir]

Isn't it a bit obvious that if people are camped in tents, especially if they are their with girlfriends/boyfrinds etc that they are going to be having sex at some point?

The fact that (it being america lol) some porn king has seen it as a chance to make money/push eyeballs to their site ain't surprising.

I mean what exactly is wrong here?

[red states rule]

Isn't it a bit obvious that if people are camped in tents, especially if they are their with girlfriends/boyfrinds etc that they are going to be having sex at some point?

The fact that (it being america lol) some porn king has seen it as a chance to make money/push eyeballs to their site ain't surprising.

I mean what exactly is wrong here?


In your world Noir, probably nothing

But considering the hippies are screwing over those of working and paying the taxes that are being used to pay for the mess they leaving behind - it is logical for them to make a porn movie

Maybe Bill Clinton wil go see it and write the review for SCREW magazine

[DragonStryk72]

Hey. you're the one that complained they should get jobs. Porn is a growth industry.

[red states rule]

Hey. you're the one that complained they should get jobs. Porn is a growth industry.

Obama may even slip them some stimulus money

[Gunny]

Isn't it a bit obvious that if people are camped in tents, especially if they are their with girlfriends/boyfrinds etc that they are going to be having sex at some point?

The fact that (it being america lol) some porn king has seen it as a chance to make money/push eyeballs to their site ain't surprising.

I mean what exactly is wrong here?

What is "wrong" here? Besides the "gay" and "porn"? I suppose nothing if you have no sense of self-worth.

[red states rule]

What is "wrong" here? Besides the "gay" and "porn"? I suppose nothing if you have no sense of self-worth.

Those traites are resume enhancements on the left Gunny

[Gunny]

Those traites are resume enhancements on the left Gunny

Don't forget a t-shirt proclaiming "We Support the Troops ... Just Not the War". :cuckoo:

[red states rule]

Don't forget a t-shirt proclaiming "We Support the Troops ... Just Not the War". :cuckoo:

and "We want the troops brought home - and put on trial"

[Gunny]

and "We want the troops brought home - and put on trial"

Sure. But they can't have a church, by God. The atheists are insulted. Because we KNOW they are forced to go to the base chapel. ANd lame argument #1 for the day yesterday was listening to some atheist bitch whine about a cross on a chapel and her reasoning? Jews meet in the rec center ... yada, yada, yada. But it's NOT a war on Christianity. It being okay that a mosque exists, and jews are free to worship. You just can't have a cross if you're Christian.

Jokes on her from MY standpoint. Baptists consider such symbols graven images. The blatant, obvious hypocrisy is what annoys me. And the fact yet another fringe-element whining minority is allowed to force its will on the majority.

[red states rule]

Sure. But they can't have a church, by God. The atheists are insulted. Because we KNOW they are forced to go to the base chapel. ANd lame argument #1 for the day yesterday was listening to some atheist bitch whine about a cross on a chapel and her reasoning? Jews meet in the rec center ... yada, yada, yada. But it's NOT a war on Christianity. It being okay that a mosque exists, and jews are free to worship. You just can't have a cross if you're Christian.

Jokes on her from MY standpoint. Baptists consider such symbols graven images. The blatant, obvious hypocrisy is what annoys me. And the fact yet another fringe-element whining minority is allowed to force its will on the majority.

These are the same libs who rant how buring the US flag is "free speech" but burning a cross should be banned

[Gunny]

These are the same libs who rant how buring the US flag is "free speech" but burning a cross should be banned

I think catering to the tyranny of the whining minority should be banned. I'm about sick of these pu$$ies.

[red states rule]

I think catering to the tyranny of the whining minority should be banned. I'm about sick of these pu$$ies.

Rush Limbaugh has these quiz and it sums up the liberal mindset




Did you believe Bill Clinton when he said, "I did not have sex with that woman, not a single time, ever. I never asked anybody to lie." Did you believe Bill Clinton?

Did you believe Bob Torricelli when he denied all the things he had to leave the Senate for?

Did you believe David Axelrod when he said Obama and Blagojevich discussed his Senate replacement? Did you believe Obama's Axelrod when he said he misspoke about Obama and Blagojevich having that discussion?

Did you believe the reporter at the Quincy TV station when she reported that the day after the election, Obama spoke with Blagojevich? Did you believe the Quincy TV CBS reporter when she said, "Nope, that didn't happen"?

Did you know that that TV station has taken down all stories, that website has been scrubbed, there is no evidence -- I happen to have the cached websites, but they have scrubbed that whole story. Did you believe Jesse Jackson, Jr., when he said he met with Blagojevich for 90 minutes and pay-to-play never came up?


Now, if you answered yes to all five, you are a liberal for life, or you are a Drive-By journalist.

If you answered "yes" to two or three of these questions, you are a moderate, and there remains hope for you if you remain a regular attendee at classes here at the Limbaugh Institute.

If you answered "no" to all five you are grounded in reality and are thus cursed because you will be forever hounded, frustrated, and driven to near insanity by the gullible, who did pass this test.

One more question. When Obama promised hope, when Obama promised change, when Obama said the sea levels would stop rising, when Obama said things will get better, did he mean it, or did he misspeak?

http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/How_Gullible_Are_You

[Gunny]

Rush Limbaugh has these quiz and it sums up the liberal mindset

"Did you believe" with "Obama" following is NO! every time.

[red states rule]

"Did you believe" with "Obama" following is NO! every time.

How about the ones who would answer YES to all the questions?

People like Virgil, Gabby, PB, BP, WindSong, and other libs. It would be comic relief to watch these people on Electon night 2012. If you think they are nuts now, wait until they sit and watch Obama get fired by the voters

They will need serious professional help and it will not be covered under Obamacare since it will be promply repealed by the R's

[Noir]

What is "wrong" here? Besides the "gay" and "porn"? I suppose nothing if you have no sense of self-worth.

The "gay" bit is a matter of personal choice. If two gay men/women wana consent to sex that's those business.
Same for the "porn" bit. If that's what someone wants to do with their life, fair enough, it's their body and their choice.

[Gunny]

The "gay" bit is a matter of personal choice. If two gay men/women wana consent to sex that's those business.
Same for the "porn" bit. If that's what someone wants to do with their life, fair enough, it's their body and their choice.

Doesn't make it anything but a biologically abnormal act, no matter how you try to paint it.

Let me get your dumb ass squared away though ... I don't care if your pump Johnny in the butt, nor do I care if you beat your crank off watching women be humiliated .... that's your business and I won't come to your house and tell you what to do.

Fact is, it makes you a loser, IMO. Since you're allowed to express the retarded crap that comes off your keyboard, feel free to allow me to introduce a little sanity with the same freedom.

[Noir]

Doesn't make it anything but a biologically abnormal act, no matter how you try to paint it.

Let me get your dumb ass squared away though ... I don't care if your pump Johnny in the butt, nor do I care if you beat your crank off watching women be humiliated .... that's your business and I won't come to your house and tell you what to do.

Fact is, it makes you a loser, IMO. Since you're allowed to express the retarded crap that comes off your keyboard, feel free to allow me to introduce a little sanity with the same freedom.



Doesn't make it anything but a biologically abnormal act, no matter how you try to paint it.

Let me get your dumb ass squared away though ... I don't care if your pump Johnny in the butt, nor do I care if you beat your crank off watching women be humiliated .... that's your business and I won't come to your house and tell you what to do.

Fact is, it makes you a loser, IMO. Since you're allowed to express the retarded crap that comes off your keyboard, feel free to allow me to introduce a little sanity with the same freedom.

You could argue anything except unprotected hetrosexual sex, doggy style as a biologically abnormal act. Such is life. But in any case there has been nothing wrong done in the OP between consenting adults.

[Shadow]

Just when I thought the hippies could not get any lower in the filth - they went lower

BTW total number of porn films shot at Tea Party rallies remains at 0

Just the thought of a bunch of filthy,smelly,lice infested losers having sex makes me want to gag. What's even worse is that there is a market for this crap apparently. People are just gross.:puke:

[red states rule]

Just the thought of a bunch of filthy,smelly,lice infested losers having sex makes me want to gag. What's even worse is that there is a market for this crap apparently. People are just gross.:puke:

Where do you think the next generation of libs will come from? Worse yet, these are the people who will be running things when we are retired

[Gunny]

You could argue anything except unprotected hetrosexual sex, doggy style as a biologically abnormal act. Such is life. But in any case there has been nothing wrong done in the OP between consenting adults.

You're wasting your time, loser. Disgusting and/or acceptable are what they are. Euro-dorks like you need to go re-find your balls. You know ... those things that made you men in the past?

[Abbey Marie]

Filming sex on the street is Ok in Noir's world? Sad.

[Noir]

Filming sex on the street is Ok in Noir's world? Sad.

From what i understood they were having sex in tents, not in the street.

[Gunny]

From what i understood they were having sex in tents, not in the street.

And? You're STILL okay with people living like animals and acting like them. That's what this boils down to. All in the name of demanding what others have earned and they have not.

"Sure ... I'd like to just lay up and f*ck and let someone else pay my bills because they should since they go out and earn more than I don't".

Give yourself a rest.

[Noir]

And? You're STILL okay with people living like animals and acting like them. That's what this boils down to. All in the name of demanding what others have earned and they have not.

"Sure ... I'd like to just lay up and f*ck and let someone else pay my bills because they should since they go out and earn more than I don't".

Give yourself a rest.

I'm okay with people having sex in tents. If you're not then camping holidays with your misses can't be too fun =P

[Gunny]

I'm okay with people having sex in tents. If you're not then camping holidays with your misses can't be too fun =P

Try playing semantics with someone else, huh? People having sex in tents has NOTHING to do with this filthy, OWS crowd and you know it.

I wouldn't disrespect MY woman in such a filthy manner as to even be included in the list of idiots. If we're having "sex in a tent", we're going to the mountains, just the two of us, and what we do or don't do isn't going to be reported in the daily rag nor used as some political tool.

If living like a pig is your idea of making a political statement, then you've got issues. But then, we know that ... don't we?

[red states rule]

From what i understood they were having sex in tents, not in the street.

Oh brother, that is a lame ass response worthy of Bill Clinton

Lame ass attempt to avoid the real issue here. The hippies are further showing what a disgusting bunch of trash they really are

[Noir]

Try playing semantics with someone else, huh? People having sex in tents has NOTHING to do with this filthy, OWS crowd and you know it.

I wouldn't disrespect MY woman in such a filthy manner as to even be included in the list of idiots. If we're having "sex in a tent", we're going to the mountains, just the two of us, and what we do or don't do isn't going to be reported in the daily rag nor used as some political tool.

If living like a pig is your idea of making a political statement, then you've got issues. But then, we know that ... don't we?

It's not semantics. There's a big difference between having sex on the street and having sex in a tent.

If its not for you, fair enough, no one is forcing anyone to do anything they don't want to do. But they have the right to have sex in the privacy of they own tent, and they also have the right to film it if they want and distribute it. You may not like it, but that doesn't make it a news worthy story.

And save your insults for someone else please (:

[Gunny]

It's not semantics. There's a big difference between having sex on the street and having sex in a tent.

If its not for you, fair enough, no one is forcing anyone to do anything they don't want to do. But they have the right to have sex in the privacy of they own tent, and they also have the right to film it if they want and distribute it. You may not like it, but that doesn't make it a news worthy story.

And save your insults for someone else please (:

Nah. You're nothing BUT word games.

You might want to check the laws, junior. They don't have the right to have a tent where they do to begin with, much less whatever they choose to do in it.

Regardless, the "rights" you choose to bestow on these dirtbags, they're STILL filthy pigs and you are one as well for supporting their disgusting public behavior.

[Noir]

Nah. You're nothing BUT word games.

You might want to check the laws, junior. They don't have the right to have a tent where they do to begin with, much less whatever they choose to do in it.

Regardless, the "rights" you choose to bestow on these dirtbags, they're STILL filthy pigs and you are one as well for supporting their disgusting public behavior.

Not word games. There's a big difference in having sex in an open public place and having sex in a walled, private area.

[Gunny]

Not word games. There's a big difference in having sex in an open public place and having sex in a walled, private area.

Get a clue. They are in an open public place. Trying to use the tent as semantics is bullshit. They're in a public area. Get over it.

[jimnyc]

I'm okay with people having sex in tents. If you're not then camping holidays with your misses can't be too fun =P

BIG difference between adults having sex in tents while on vacation - and adults having sex in a tent in PUBLIC areas. And even worse when it's being filmed. This type of activity should not be happening within public areas. That's like 2 adults having sex in a port-a-potty on the street, but saying it's no big deal because it's a closed toilet and it's private.

[Noir]

Get a clue. They are in an open public place. Trying to use the tent as semantics is bullshit. They're in a public area. Get over it.

They are in an enclosed private place in a public place. Yet again i'd point to camping/caravan holidays as an obvious example were its seemingly acceptable to do so, no?

[Noir]

BIG difference between adults having sex in tents while on vacation - and adults having sex in a tent in PUBLIC areas. And even worse when it's being filmed. This type of activity should not be happening within public areas. That's like 2 adults having sex in a port-a-potty on the street, but saying it's no big deal because it's a closed toilet and it's private.

But they do not own the port-a-potty. They do own the tents, until such a time as the police remove them.

[Gunny]

They are in an enclosed private place in a public place. Yet again i'd point to camping/caravan holidays as an obvious example were its seemingly acceptable to do so, no?

Like I said ... you're trying to play semantics. Better go find yourself a 1st grader.

"A private place in a public place" ... Bullshit. They are in a public place on publicly owned land.

It's NEVER acceptable to be a disgusting pig, regardless the season.

[jimnyc]

But they do not own the port-a-potty. They do own the tents, until such a time as the police remove them.

Ok then, say a van parked in front of a store, or city hall, or in a park. It's enclosed BUT they are having sex in a public place, even if in an enclosed space they own. AND they are filming it. We have homes, hotels, motels and other such places for intimacy to take place. Just because the small space you are in belongs to you, that doesn't mean its ok to have sex wherever that may be, and possibly for a profit and definitely for film. It's wrong no matter how you slice it, and no matter who owns the tent. Looking the other way or giving the thumbs up for such behavior is exactly why today's society is going further down the drain. It's called self respect, and more and more of today's youth are proving that not only do they not have any, they don't even know what it is.

[jimnyc]

Like I said ... you're trying to play semantics. Better go find yourself a 1st grader.

"A private place in a public place" ... Bullshit. They are in a public place on publicly owned land.

It's NEVER acceptable to be a disgusting pig, regardless the season.

And just because they got away with it doesn't make it legal. I will almost guarantee you that having sex in public like that, whether in a tent or not, is against the law.

[Noir]

Ok then, say a van parked in front of a store, or city hall, or in a park. It's enclosed BUT they are having sex in a public place, even if in an enclosed space they own. AND they are filming it. We have homes, hotels, motels and other such places for intimacy to take place. Just because the small space you are in belongs to you, that doesn't mean its ok to have sex wherever that may be, and possibly for a profit and definitely for film. It's wrong no matter how you slice it, and no matter who owns the tent. Looking the other way or giving the thumbs up for such behavior is exactly why today's society is going further down the drain. It's called self respect, and more and more of today's youth are proving that not only do they not have any, they don't even know what it is.

Whats wrong with having sex in a van? I mean its not to my personal taste, but i wouldn't care if i walked by a dozen 'sex vans' in a day, aslong as i can't see (or indeed hear) what they are up to then whatever they are getting up to is in no way interfering with my life.

And self respect is an impossible slant to have, saying 'we shouldn't do that because of self respect' is just as good an argument against having sex in tents as it is for giving/recieving oral sex anywhere (and indeed i'm sure that before my time there where people arguing just that)

as an aside, i'ma assume every parked van i see today is a sex van, may brighten up a rainy day =P

[jimnyc]

Whats wrong with having sex in a van? I mean its not to my personal taste, but i wouldn't care if i walked by a dozen 'sex vans' in a day, along as i can't see (or indeed hear) what they are up to then whatever they are getting up to is in no way interfering with my life.

And self respect is an impossible slant to have, saying 'we shouldn't do that because of self respect' is just as good an argument against having sex in tents as it is for giving/recieving oral sex anywhere (and indeed i'm sure that before my time there where people arguing just that)

as an aside, i'ma assume every parked van i see today is a sex van, may brighten up a rainy day =P

What's wrong is that it's illegal, unless the van is on their own property, in which case then it would just be a lack of class.

[Noir]

What's wrong is that it's illegal, unless the van is on their own property, in which case then it would just be a lack of class.

Yeah its illegal if the public know, i mean, if there were people having sex in a van with windows, or they where screaming the carpark out then obviously thats illegal, but if they are doing it in such a way that no-one else out in the public space would know then there's nothing wrong. Because the offence itself requires other people to be bothered.

[jimnyc]

Yeah its illegal if the public know, i mean, if there were people having sex in a van with windows, or they where screaming the carpark out then obviously thats illegal, but if they are doing it in such a way that no-one else out in the public space would know then there's nothing wrong. Because the offence itself requires other people to be bothered.

Nope, hiding a crime with curtains or tinted windows, or a zipper on a tent, doesn't make it legal or less of a crime. It simply means your crime is not being seen and you have a lot less chance of being caught or prosecuted. But it does nothing towards making it right, appropriate or legal, at least here in the US.

[red states rule]

I am sure the parents of these parasites are soooo proud and will buy a copy of the movie to play for company

[Noir]

Nope, hiding a crime with curtains or tinted windows, or a zipper on a tent, doesn't make it legal or less of a crime. It simply means your crime is not being seen and you have a lot less chance of being caught or prosecuted. But it does nothing towards making it right, appropriate or legal, at least here in the US.

But the point is that it's only a crime if it's wittnesed by the public.

In the same way (but in reverse) you could not have sex in your house (legally) infront of an uncurtained window were anyone walking up and down the street could see. Because the issue is not so much doing something on private property, as it is doing it in privacy.

[Abbey Marie]

But they do not own the port-a-potty. They do own the tents, until such a time as the police remove them.

I also own my front lawn, my deck and my roof. You ok with people having sex anywhere as long as they own it? That argument isn't going to hold up.

[Noir]

I also own my front lawn, my deck and my roof. You ok with people having sex anywhere as long as they own it? That argument isn't going to hold up.

If youd read my posts (especially my last one) you'd already know the answer to this question.

[Abbey Marie]

If youd read my posts (especially my last one) you'd already know the answer to this question.

Saw that after I posted. You seemed to take a different view from the post I quoted.

[Noir]

Saw that after I posted. You seemed to take a different view from the post I quoted.

Mkay, I'll spell it out lol.

You need to be both in your own house/tent/van etc *and* be out of public view.

No doing it in public toilets, or a cinema, no doing it in your house/lawn etc where anyone could see.

But *do* do it somewhere private, where you will not bother other people who do not want to be bothered. And if you *do* bother other people with it, then no matter where you are, then you are in the wrong.

Simple.

[Gunny]

But the point is that it's only a crime if it's wittnesed by the public.

In the same way (but in reverse) you could not have sex in your house (legally) infront of an uncurtained window were anyone walking up and down the street could see. Because the issue is not so much doing something on private property, as it is doing it in privacy.

Wrong. It's a crime to have sex in a public place. What you're saying is it's only a crime if you get caught. So's murder. No sale.

[Noir]

Wrong. It's a crime to have sex in a public place. What you're saying is it's only a crime if you get caught. So's murder. No sale.

Nope, murder is a crime even if you don't get caught because not all parties are willing to consent to it. ie someone is being bothered against their will (in that case, bothered into death)

And in any case my point is more along the lines of 'what is wrong' as as pose to 'what is legal' as any fule know; All that is right is not legal and all that is wrong is not illegal.

In such situations apply common sense and do as I said about in reply to abbey, have sex somewhere private and do your best (even if you're in your own house) to ensure you don't bother other people. And if at any point you do then you are in the wring and you are responsible. Simple.

[ConHog]

Doesn't make it anything but a biologically abnormal act, no matter how you try to paint it.

Let me get your dumb ass squared away though ... I don't care if your pump Johnny in the butt, nor do I care if you beat your crank off watching women be humiliated .... that's your business and I won't come to your house and tell you what to do.

Fact is, it makes you a loser, IMO. Since you're allowed to express the retarded crap that comes off your keyboard, feel free to allow me to introduce a little sanity with the same freedom.

Gonna disagree with you here Gunny. If I'm doing a legal activity that you don't enjoy it doesn't make me a loser. It just means I enjoy things you don't. Again I will refer to my friend, he's gay, I think it's gross, but he's no loser.

As for the gay porn. Disgusting, but who cares? Long as my kids don't see it.

[ConHog]

Wrong. It's a crime to have sex in a public place. What you're saying is it's only a crime if you get caught. So's murder. No sale.

Not quite correct Gunny. Murder is illegal of course whether there are witnesses or not. A lewd act in pubic is not actually illegal unless someone witnessed it. Let's start with the very simplest of lewd acts. Urinating in public and compare that to murder.

If a body is found, of course an investigation is began and if you murdered that person presumably the police will do their best to find you. However if piss or shit is found in public the police don't investigate to figure out who's piss or urine it is; because it's a non crime.

Stepping up to sex in public. You could write a book about having sex on the stairs leading to the Lincoln Monument and be confident that if no one saw you doing it you would NEVER be prosecuted. Try killing someone on the steps of the Lincoln Monument and getting away with it.

Be that as it may, how gross if these people were having gay sex in public view, BUT I would feel the same way if they had been having straight sex in public view. Have some decency and keep that shit private.

[Abbey Marie]

I disagree. If you do it in public, no matter how careful you think you are being, you cannot know if you are going to be observed.

And I would further argue that if you have all the comings and goings (no pun intended) of a camera crew at your tent, there's little doubt people will know what is going on. Which is almost as disgusting as seeing it happen firsthand.

[Abbey Marie]

Not quite correct Gunny. Murder is illegal of course whether there are witnesses or not. A lewd act in pubic is not actually illegal unless someone witnessed it. Let's start with the very simplest of lewd acts. Urinating in public and compare that to murder.

If a body is found, of course an investigation is began and if you murdered that person presumably the police will do their best to find you. However if piss or shit is found in public the police don't investigate to figure out who's piss or urine it is; because it's a non crime.

Stepping up to sex in public. You could write a book about having sex on the stairs leading to the Lincoln Monument and be confident that if no one saw you doing it you would NEVER be prosecuted. Try killing someone on the steps of the Lincoln Monument and getting away with it.

Be that as it may, how gross if these people were having gay sex in public view, BUT I would feel the same way if they had been having straight sex in public view. Have some decency and keep that shit private.

Certainly applies well to gay sex. :puke:

[ConHog]

I disagree. If you do it in public, no matter how careful you think you are being, you cannot know if you are going to be observed.

And I would further argue that if you have all the comings and goings (no pun intended) of a camera crew at your tent, there's little doubt people will know what is going on. Which is almost as disgusting as seeing it happen firsthand.

well, see if they were all inside a tent how does anyone even know what was going on. Maybe someone just assumed they were making a gay porn. I don't know. If it was out in the public, then that is another matter entirely. However with today's technology someone could be inside a tent having gay sex ,or straight sex, and be recording it with their cell phone and selling that as porn. IF however it was a real production, then that crosses into another area. Did they have a permit for doing so?

Also, most of these Occupy idiots are in fact camping on private property. If I'm fucking my wife on private property and someone happens to see me from the road or whatever, no prosecuting attorney is going to pursue that case. It's my property and I certainly have the right to do what I want on it. Commercial lots being different of course.

[Noir]

well, see if they were all inside a tent how does anyone even know what was going on. Maybe someone just assumed they were making a gay porn. I don't know. If it was out in the public, then that is another matter entirely. However with today's technology someone could be inside a tent having gay sex ,or straight sex, and be recording it with their cell phone and selling that as porn. IF however it was a real production, then that crosses into another area. Did they have a permit for doing so?

Spot on!
As for 'camera crew going in and out etc' don't under-estimate high quality hand heldcams. Like my iPhone 4S records to full 1080p High Definition, and it's not even a dedicated camera. One handheld camera no bigger than a bag of potato chips would be all that would be needed, not a whole crew + equipment abbey.


Also, most of these Occupy idiots are in fact camping on private property. If I'm fucking my wife on private property and someone happens to see me from the road or whatever, no prosecuting attorney is going to pursue that case. It's my property and I certainly have the right to do what I want on it. Commercial lots being different of course.

Depends with the private property thing on a few different levels. Like my house is on the turn in to about 30 other properties. I'd say it'd be illegal for me to press my misses up against the glass of the windows to which any passerby, by car or foot, could see.

[ConHog]

Spot on!
As for 'camera crew going in and out etc' don't under-estimate high quality hand heldcams. Like my iPhone 4S records to full 1080p High Definition, and it's not even a dedicated camera. One handheld camera no bigger than a bag of potato chips would be all that would be needed, not a whole crew + equipment abbey.



Depends with the private property thing on a few different levels. Like my house is on the turn in to about 30 other properties. I'd say it'd be illegal for me to press my misses up against the glass of the windows to which any passerby, by car or foot, could see.

Technically illegal? Yes. Likely to be prosecuted ? No.

[Noir]

Technically illegal? Yes. Likely to be prosecuted ? No.

I'd say repeated offences would lead to prosecution.

[jimnyc]

Not quite correct Gunny. Murder is illegal of course whether there are witnesses or not. A lewd act in pubic is not actually illegal unless someone witnessed it. Let's start with the very simplest of lewd acts. Urinating in public and compare that to murder.

If a body is found, of course an investigation is began and if you murdered that person presumably the police will do their best to find you. However if piss or shit is found in public the police don't investigate to figure out who's piss or urine it is; because it's a non crime.

Stepping up to sex in public. You could write a book about having sex on the stairs leading to the Lincoln Monument and be confident that if no one saw you doing it you would NEVER be prosecuted. Try killing someone on the steps of the Lincoln Monument and getting away with it.

Be that as it may, how gross if these people were having gay sex in public view, BUT I would feel the same way if they had been having straight sex in public view. Have some decency and keep that shit private.


well, see if they were all inside a tent how does anyone even know what was going on. Maybe someone just assumed they were making a gay porn. I don't know. If it was out in the public, then that is another matter entirely. However with today's technology someone could be inside a tent having gay sex ,or straight sex, and be recording it with their cell phone and selling that as porn. IF however it was a real production, then that crosses into another area. Did they have a permit for doing so?

Also, most of these Occupy idiots are in fact camping on private property. If I'm fucking my wife on private property and someone happens to see me from the road or whatever, no prosecuting attorney is going to pursue that case. It's my property and I certainly have the right to do what I want on it. Commercial lots being different of course.


Spot on!
As for 'camera crew going in and out etc' don't under-estimate high quality hand heldcams. Like my iPhone 4S records to full 1080p High Definition, and it's not even a dedicated camera. One handheld camera no bigger than a bag of potato chips would be all that would be needed, not a whole crew + equipment abbey.



Depends with the private property thing on a few different levels. Like my house is on the turn in to about 30 other properties. I'd say it'd be illegal for me to press my misses up against the glass of the windows to which any passerby, by car or foot, could see.


Look at the text of most public indecency laws. Here is one for example:

(1) A person commits the crime of public indecency if while in, or in view of, a public place the person performs:


(a) An act of sexual intercourse;

(b) An act of deviate sexual intercourse; or
(c) An act of exposing the genitals of the person with the intent of arousing the sexual desire of the person or another person.



Read section (1), the bolded portion as one statement, as the "or" isn't necessary.

Hiding your actions does not make it legal, sorry guys.

[Noir]

Read section (1), the bolded portion as one statement, as the "or" isn't necessary.

Hiding your actions does not make it legal, sorry guys.

As I've said in the thread the legality is not a barometer of rightness and wrongness.

There are plenty of things that are illegal that I'd consider fine to be done, what is the wrongness in two people, consenting to sex, aslong as no one else is aware of it because they are doing it privately? Who exactly is the law protecting there?

[jimnyc]

As I've said in the thread the legality is not a barometer of rightness and wrongness.

There are plenty of things that are illegal that I'd consider fine to be done, what is the wrongness in two people, consenting to sex, aslong as no one else is aware of it because they are doing it privately? Who exactly is the law protecting there?

Because they are in proximity of people that don't want to see queers going at it in public or hear them through the ever so thick tent walls (or any couples going at it for that fact)? The laws are there to protect society from people who think having gay sex in tents, in major public cities, is OK. Maybe out in the country on a public road in the back of a van - but not downtown in a major city.

[ConHog]

Because they are in proximity of people that don't want to see queers going at it in public or hear them through the ever so thick tent walls (or any couples going at it for that fact)? The laws are there to protect society from people who think having gay sex in tents, in major public cities, is OK. Maybe out in the country on a public road in the back of a van - but not downtown in a major city.

I didn't say it wasn't illegal Jim, I said it was unlikely to be prosecuted. Oh and the law doesn't differentiate between gay sex and straight sex when it comes to sex in public, that's just message board sensationalism.

[jimnyc]

I didn't say it wasn't illegal Jim, I said it was unlikely to be prosecuted. Oh and the law doesn't differentiate between gay sex and straight sex when it comes to sex in public, that's just message board sensationalism.

This is what you said earlier. I believe "not actually illegal" implies you said it wasn't illegal to me! And I mentioned both sexes in the post you quoted, so there was no sensationalism other than in YOUR reply!


A lewd act in pubic is not actually illegal unless someone witnessed it.

[Noir]

Because they are in proximity of people that don't want to see queers going at it in public or hear them through the ever so thick tent walls (or any couples going at it for that fact)? The laws are there to protect society from people who think having gay sex in tents, in major public cities, is OK. Maybe out in the country on a public road in the back of a van - but not downtown in a major city.

And as I've said several times in this thread; IF people nearby did hear/see something they could of reported it and the people having sex would of been in the wrong because they were not discreet enough about having their fun.*

As far as I can see no one complained at the time, and were it not for this Porn Site making a fuss about it then there would be nothing to discuss.*

In the simplest possible terms. If two people consent to sex, in a private environment, then they can do whatever the hell the like as far as I'm concerned, however, if it in anyway interferes with my life then they are in the wrong. If I am never aware of their antics, then I've nothing to be bothered about.*

But honestly, you guys should see the likes of Sweden, I had a friend there last year who witnessed a full on Amerture porn scene take place on a bus. And at the end, when the guy 'arrived' the people on the bus gave a round of applause lol.*

[jimnyc]

And as I've said several times in this thread; IF people nearby did hear/see something they could of reported it and the people having sex would of been in the wrong because they were not discreet enough about having their fun.*

As far as I can see no one complained at the time, and were it not for this Porn Site making a fuss about it then there would be nothing to discuss.*

In the simplest possible terms. If two people consent to sex, in a private environment, then they can do whatever the hell the like as far as I'm concerned, however, if it in anyway interferes with my life then they are in the wrong. If I am never aware of their antics, then I've nothing to be bothered about.*

But honestly, you guys should see the likes of Sweden, I had a friend there last year who witnessed a full on Amerture porn scene take place on a bus. And at the end, when the guy 'arrived' the people on the bus gave a round of applause lol.*

But it was found out about and it is now being discussed. And not being aware of it at the time doesn't make it any more legal or less disgusting. We can argue opinions all day long, but the fact of the matter is that it was just another illegal activity found to be taking place within the ranks of the occupiers. Similar to the amount of drugs going on. They aren't harming others, and likely aren't being prosecuted or witnessed by the public, and might be only taking place in their tents - but it's still illegal.

[LuvRPgrl]

Obama may even slip them some stimulus money

that also lends itself to a porn movie title, STIMULUS FOR BILL, ERR FEDERAL LAW

[LuvRPgrl]

You could argue anything except unprotected hetrosexual sex, doggy style as a biologically abnormal act. Such is life. But in any case there has been nothing wrong done in the OP between consenting adults.

Nope, but there is in the shower room of Penn State
You go gays, ! Pump up the asses of our little boys!

[LuvRPgrl]

They are in an enclosed private place in a public place. Yet again i'd point to camping/caravan holidays as an obvious example were its seemingly acceptable to do so, no?

so, if you live right next to a park, we could set up tents and start having non stop sex right outside your kids bedroom window? dont forget, loud and dirty language is part of the sex

The difference is that one area is set aside specifially for camping, but the park in the city isnt.

[Noir]

so, if you live right next to a park, we could set up tents and start having non stop sex right outside your kids bedroom window? dont forget, loud and dirty language is part of the sex

The difference is that one area is set aside specifially for camping, but the park in the city isnt.

Have you bothered reading my posts? If you were loud/noisy/obviously having sex then i could complain and you'd be in the wrong. However, if you were not emptying your wifes lungs to orgasmic delights, and for all i or anyone else knew you were in there reading a book, then thats fine.

[LuvRPgrl]

I disagree. If you do it in public, no matter how careful you think you are being, you cannot know if you are going to be observed.

And I would further argue that if you have all the comings and goings (no pun intended) of a camera crew at your tent, there's little doubt people will know what is going on. Which is almost as disgusting as seeing it happen firsthand.

actually, the chance of getting caught is precisely why alot of people do it in public

[LuvRPgrl]

Have you bothered reading my posts? If you were loud/noisy/obviously having sex then i could complain and you'd be in the wrong. However, if you were not emptying your wifes lungs to orgasmic delights, and for all i or anyone else knew you were in there reading a book, then thats fine.

apparently you havent heard of the American "freedom of speech" text in our constitution

and it is a bother to read every word of every post of yours, especially when you often repeat things over and over.

[Kathianne]

apparently you havent heard of the American "freedom of speech" text in our constitution

and it is a bother to read every word of every post of yours, especially when you often repeat things over and over.

Actually it's not Noir that is repeating and throwing out new strawmen all over the place. He's been consistent.

[LuvRPgrl]

Actually it's not Noir that is repeating and throwing out new strawmen all over the place. He's been consistent.

Post #63 "And as I've said several times in this thread;"
Post #33 he also states that what he is about to post, he has already posted it in this thread,
and he said it in at least one other post.
So, yea, he has been consistent, consistently repeating himself.
l
Im not completely opposed to what you are saying Noir, I think you are putting up a good arguement .

[LuvRPgrl]

Not quite correct Gunny. Murder is illegal of course whether there are witnesses or not. A lewd act in pubic is not actually illegal unless someone witnessed it.. not true.


If a body is found, of course an investigation is began and if you murdered that person presumably the police will do their best to find you. However if piss or shit is found in public the police don't investigate to figure out who's piss or urine it is; because it's a non crime...
nope, the reason is because murder is a felony, the other a much lesser crime, not to mention finding the perp who crapped in public is almost impossible


Stepping up to sex in public. You could write a book about having sex on the stairs leading to the Lincoln Monument and be confident that if no one saw you doing it you would NEVER be prosecuted. .l
because you could simply deny having done it.


.

Be that as it may, how gross if these people were having gay sex in public view, BUT I would feel the same way if they had been having straight sex in public view. Have some decency and keep that shit private.

[LuvRPgrl]

I didn't say it wasn't illegal Jim, I said it was unlikely to be prosecuted. Oh and the law doesn't differentiate between gay sex and straight sex when it comes to sex in public, that's just message board sensationalism..
ahhh, but you did.
Dont you bother reading your own posts?

[Kathianne]

Post #63 "And as I've said several times in this thread;"
Post #33 he also states that what he is about to post, he has already posted it in this thread,
and he said it in at least one other post.
So, yea, he has been consistent, consistently repeating himself.
l
Im not completely opposed to what you are saying Noir, I think you are putting up a good arguement .

In each case, he was responding to those that were focusing on the homosexuality issue or legality issue. In all cases he responded that if 'concealed' 'non-obtrusive' they would likely not be charged. He also addressed the issue of 'owning the property' vs camping out on private property. Same rationale, if one owns the property-say a house and proceeds to have sex of any sort, where the public would be viewing it, it also breaks the law. I may be wrong, I think it was CH that disagreed, but the argument reminded me of this poor man's experience:

http://reason.com/blog/2009/10/21/naked-coffee-guy-update

[LuvRPgrl]

In each case, he was responding to those that were focusing on the homosexuality issue or legality issue. In all cases he responded that if 'concealed' 'non-obtrusive' they would likely not be charged. He also addressed the issue of 'owning the property' vs camping out on private property. Same rationale, if one owns the property-say a house and proceeds to have sex of any sort, where the public would be viewing it, it also breaks the law. I may be wrong, I think it was CH that disagreed, but the argument reminded me of this poor man's experience:

http://reason.com/blog/2009/10/21/naked-coffee-guy-update

oh heck, I know what he was saying, and he is being consistent, but when I start reading something he has already posted, FOR WHATEVER REASON, my eyes get blurry

[Kathianne]

oh heck, I know what he was saying, and he is being consistent, but when I start reading something he has already posted, FOR WHATEVER REASON, my eyes get blurry

I understand. I feel the same when I read all the repeats of those that are so smart, know all the answers, and have the big, well you know.

The problem is the reader's, not the poster's.

[Abbey Marie]

Mkay, I'll spell it out lol.

You need to be both in your own house/tent/van etc *and* be out of public view.

No doing it in public toilets, or a cinema, no doing it in your house/lawn etc where anyone could see.

But *do* do it somewhere private, where you will not bother other people who do not want to be bothered. And if you *do* bother other people with it, then no matter where you are, then you are in the wrong.

Simple.

Your comment "But they do not own the port-a-potty. They do own the tents, until such a time as the police remove them" directly indicates that you think ownership of the property being used makes the difference. No conditions were appended to that statement. You changed tack when that didn't work to the "own it and be private" argument.

No need to "spell it out". I was responding to what you actually posted; not to what you may or may not have been thinking in your head.

[LuvRPgrl]

I understand. I feel the same when I read all the repeats of those that are so smart, know all the answers, and have the big, well you know.

The problem is the reader's, not the poster's.


hahah, very clever :lol:

I actually would have preferred nobody read that thread other than the guy who thinks his is bigger than mine:laugh:

[Kathianne]

hahah, very clever :lol:

I actually would have preferred nobody read that thread other than the guy who thinks his is bigger than mine:laugh:

May I suggest both of you count to 20 before writing a post. Then counting to 60 before hitting, submit?

[Noir]

Your comment "But they do not own the port-a-potty. They do own the tents, until such a time as the police remove them" directly indicates that you think ownership of the property being used makes the difference. No conditions were appended to that statement. You changed tack when that didn't work to the "own it and be private" argument.

No need to "spell it out". I was responding to what you actually posted; not to what you may or may not have been thinking in your head.

Yeah and before that comment (which was a one line comment to a questioned posed by Jim) i'd already spent some posts saying that it was important to note that what was happening was happening out of the public view in a tent.

I said it had to be private area (like a tent), then Jim mentioned port-a-pottys, ​then i replied by saying their had to be a private ownership interest too.

[LuvRPgrl]

May I suggest both of you count to 20 before writing a post. Then counting to 60 before hitting, submit?

:laugh2:

well,I know I can count that high, but as for...............opppps, I'm counting now.............:laugh2:

[ConHog]

In each case, he was responding to those that were focusing on the homosexuality issue or legality issue. In all cases he responded that if 'concealed' 'non-obtrusive' they would likely not be charged. He also addressed the issue of 'owning the property' vs camping out on private property. Same rationale, if one owns the property-say a house and proceeds to have sex of any sort, where the public would be viewing it, it also breaks the law. I may be wrong, I think it was CH that disagreed, but the argument reminded me of this poor man's experience:

http://reason.com/blog/2009/10/21/naked-coffee-guy-update

I simply misspoke. Of course it would still be illegal. Just not likely that anyone would be prosecuted for having sex on their own property.

[ConHog]

hahah, very clever :lol:

I actually would have preferred nobody read that thread other than the guy who thinks his is bigger than mine:laugh:

I would like to clarify that at no point did I say that I think my junk is bigger than yours.

[LuvRPgrl]

I would like to clarify that at no point did I say that I think my junk is bigger than yours.

there you go again, having to get in the last word

[Noir]

there you go again, having to get in the last word

Talk about black calling the kettle pot

xD

[ConHog]

there you go again, having to get in the last word

Am I wrong? Did I in fact ever suggest that my opinion is that my junk is bigger than yours?


some facts in fact don't rely on opinions.

[LuvRPgrl]

Talk about black calling the kettle pot

xD
. uh, you do speak english dont you? What the hell does that mean????

[LuvRPgrl]

Am I wrong? Did I in fact ever suggest that my opinion is that my junk is bigger than yours?


some facts in fact don't rely on opinions. .
yes, you are wrong, cuz you are missing the entire point.

[red states rule]

Not quite correct Gunny. Murder is illegal of course whether there are witnesses or not. A lewd act in pubic is not actually illegal unless someone witnessed it. Let's start with the very simplest of lewd acts. Urinating in public and compare that to murder.

If a body is found, of course an investigation is began and if you murdered that person presumably the police will do their best to find you. However if piss or shit is found in public the police don't investigate to figure out who's piss or urine it is; because it's a non crime.

Stepping up to sex in public. You could write a book about having sex on the stairs leading to the Lincoln Monument and be confident that if no one saw you doing it you would NEVER be prosecuted. Try killing someone on the steps of the Lincoln Monument and getting away with it.

Be that as it may, how gross if these people were having gay sex in public view, BUT I would feel the same way if they had been having straight sex in public view. Have some decency and keep that shit private.

Now you are an attorney!

What a diverse member we have here. Is there anything you are not an expert on CH?

[Gunny]

Ok then, say a van parked in front of a store, or city hall, or in a park. It's enclosed BUT they are having sex in a public place, even if in an enclosed space they own. AND they are filming it. We have homes, hotels, motels and other such places for intimacy to take place. Just because the small space you are in belongs to you, that doesn't mean its ok to have sex wherever that may be, and possibly for a profit and definitely for film. It's wrong no matter how you slice it, and no matter who owns the tent. Looking the other way or giving the thumbs up for such behavior is exactly why today's society is going further down the drain. It's called self respect, and more and more of today's youth are proving that not only do they not have any, they don't even know what it is.

Morals aside, he's trying to argue the legality when it is in fact illegal, "enclosed" or not.

[Gunny]

And just because they got away with it doesn't make it legal. I will almost guarantee you that having sex in public like that, whether in a tent or not, is against the law.

Agreed.

[Noir]

Morals aside, he's trying to argue the legality when it is in fact illegal, "enclosed" or not.

What I was saying what that if you do it in such a way that no I one around you knows it's happening, then you are not doing anything wrong IMO (though by the letter of the law it would be illegal.

[Gunny]

Whats wrong with having sex in a van? I mean its not to my personal taste, but i wouldn't care if i walked by a dozen 'sex vans' in a day, aslong as i can't see (or indeed hear) what they are up to then whatever they are getting up to is in no way interfering with my life.

And self respect is an impossible slant to have, saying 'we shouldn't do that because of self respect' is just as good an argument against having sex in tents as it is for giving/recieving oral sex anywhere (and indeed i'm sure that before my time there where people arguing just that)

as an aside, i'ma assume every parked van i see today is a sex van, may brighten up a rainy day =P

The four bolded words about says it all for you.

Your second little paragraph is just wannabe-intellectual gibberish. Self-respect isn't obvious. That you have none IS.

[Gunny]

Yeah its illegal if the public know, i mean, if there were people having sex in a van with windows, or they where screaming the carpark out then obviously thats illegal, but if they are doing it in such a way that no-one else out in the public space would know then there's nothing wrong. Because the offence itself requires other people to be bothered.

NO douche noodle ... it's illegal if it's on public property.

[Gunny]

What I was saying what that if you do it in such a way that no I one around you knows it's happening, then you are not doing anything wrong IMO (though by the letter of the law it would be illegal.

What you're saying is what I already said you meant but just won't spit it out ...

It's okay as long as you don't get caught. Again, so's murder, by your reasoning.

It's illegal because there are laws against it. Period. You're wrong. You've had your ass more served in this thread than that turkey last Thursday to 3 ravenous boys. Give yourself a rest.

[Abbey Marie]

What I was saying what that if you do it in such a way that no I one around you knows it's happening, then you are not doing anything wrong IMO (though by the letter of the law it would be illegal.


It defies logic that people wouldn't figure out what was going on with a film crew buzzing around a tent, with lighting, sound equipment, etc. Their very presence would attract lots of attention. So, ownership of the tent, and the act itself being shielded from view, haven't done much good.

Btw, thanks for the charming little story from Sweden. It supports my belief that attitudes such as yours will eventually send our country down the tubes culturally and morally.

[Noir]

It defies logic people wouldn't figure out what was going on with a film crew buzzing around a tent, with lighting, sound equipment, etc. Their very presence would attract lots of attention. So, ownership of the tent, and the act itself being shielded from view, haven't done much good.

Btw, thanks for the charming little story from Sweden. It supports my belief that attitudes such as yours will eventually send our country down the tubes culturally and morally.

Why do you not read my posts? Do you know of there was a 'crew' involved? With lighting and sound equipment or are you just guessing?
If I wanted I could shoot full 1080p high definition porn on my iPhone. Heck if I have a 5 dollar iMovie App I could then even edit and publish it from the phone.

I don't know anything about this porn company, if they sell just to the Internet or make DVDs, if they shoot as amateur professionals etc. and the only way to know would be to watch a movie of theirs and that doesnt interest me in the slightest.

But dont assume they need lighting rigs, boom mics and half a dozen crew. A dedicated handheld camera would be more than enough in a decently lit tent. Never mind the fact that an iPhone alone would be enough.

[Abbey Marie]

Why do you not read my posts? Do you know of there was a 'crew' involved? With lighting and sound equipment or are you just guessing?
If I wanted I could shoot full 1080p high definition porn on my iPhone. Heck if I have a 5 dollar iMovie App I could then even edit and publish it from the phone.

I don't know anything about this porn company, if they sell just to the Internet or make DVDs, if they shoot as amateur professionals etc. and the only way to know would be to watch a movie of theirs and that doesnt interest me in the slightest.

But dont assume they need lighting rigs, boom mics and half a dozen crew. A dedicated handheld camera would be more than enough in a decently lit tent. Never mind the fact that an iPhone alone would be enough.

Why do you assume they don't have such equipment?
Oh, wait, because it fits your attempts to downplay the crap-esque nature of this behavior.

I'll tell you what, Noir, you can put lipstick on a pig, and even stick it in a tent, but it still smells, sounds and acts like a pig. Big, fat, porking pigs.

[Noir]

What you're saying is what I already said you meant but just won't spit it out ...

It's okay as long as you don't get caught. Again, so's murder, by your reasoning.

It's illegal because there are laws against it. Period. You're wrong. You've had your ass more served in this thread than that turkey last Thursday to 3 ravenous boys. Give yourself a rest.

Both murder and public indency are illegal even if not 'caught'

But public indency is not 'wrong' if not caught because no member of the public has been subject to indecency.

Murder is still 'wrong' even if not caught because some poor chap has been killed.

It's a very simple concept.

[Noir]

Why do you assume they don't have such equipment? Oh, wait, because it fits your attempts to downplay the crap-esque nature of this behavior. I'll tell you what, Noir, you can put lipstick on a pig, and even stick it in a tent, but it still smells, sounds and acts like a pig. Big, fat, porking pigs.I'm saying *I DONT KNOW* and nor do you. They may of used two dozen crew, RED HD cameras and a lightening rig that would put a broadway musical to shame. You're (two) posts were made suggesting that there *was* a big crew, camera, lights, sound etc my replies were merely saying that there didn't *have* to be a crew, *not* that there wasn't.

[Gunny]

Why do you not read my posts? Do you know of there was a 'crew' involved? With lighting and sound equipment or are you just guessing?
If I wanted I could shoot full 1080p high definition porn on my iPhone. Heck if I have a 5 dollar iMovie App I could then even edit and publish it from the phone.

I don't know anything about this porn company, if they sell just to the Internet or make DVDs, if they shoot as amateur professionals etc. and the only way to know would be to watch a movie of theirs and that doesnt interest me in the slightest.

But dont assume they need lighting rigs, boom mics and half a dozen crew. A dedicated handheld camera would be more than enough in a decently lit tent. Never mind the fact that an iPhone alone would be enough.

Your posts get read. Why do you not get the part where you're wrong?

[Gunny]

Both murder and public indency are illegal even if not 'caught'

But public indency is not 'wrong' if not caught because no member of the public has been subject to indecency.

Murder is still 'wrong' even if not caught because some poor chap has been killed.

It's a very simple concept.

Dude, you are dumb. You just contradicted yourself. Oh wait ... that's the norm for you. Your post is perfect example of intellectually dishonest semantics.

[jimnyc]

Both murder and public indency are illegal even if not 'caught'

But public indency is not 'wrong' if not caught because no member of the public has been subject to indecency.

Murder is still 'wrong' even if not caught because some poor chap has been killed.

It's a very simple concept.

Public indecency IS wrong even if not caught. Why? Because you're still breaking the law. It's a very simple concept!

[logroller]

Public indecency IS wrong even if not caught. Why? Because you're still breaking the law. It's a very simple concept!

Sounds a bit like the old question - if a tree falls down in the forest, and there's nobody around, does it make a sound?
Who cares!?!

[Gunny]

Sounds a bit like the old question - if a tree falls down in the forest, and there's nobody around, does it make a sound?
Who cares!?!

Irrelevant. The tree didn't fall in the forest and nobody heard it. The OWS chumps made sure everyone heard it. Your argument is OBE.

[jimnyc]

Sounds a bit like the old question - if a tree falls down in the forest, and there's nobody around, does it make a sound?
Who cares!?!

Agreed, but the difference being is that one is legal and the other isn't. We have rock solid good laws in our nation and laws that are kind of lame. But, as individuals, we don't get to just go through life ignoring those we don't like or thinking the acts are legal because there are no witnesses. And quite frankly, I'm not even as upset about the letter of the law, as I am with the fact that these "occupiers" are no more than parks filled with filth.

[Gunny]

Agreed, but the difference being is that one is legal and the other isn't. We have rock solid good laws in our nation and laws that are kind of lame. But, as individuals, we don't get to just go through life ignoring those we don't like or thinking the acts are legal because there are no witnesses. And quite frankly, I'm not even as upset about the letter of the law, as I am with the fact that these "occupiers" are no more than parks filled with filth.

They're attention-whoring scumbags who feel entitled to what others have earned. In their down-time, they want to act like the ignorant animals they are.

[logroller]

Irrelevant. The tree didn't fall in the forest and nobody heard it. The OWS chumps made sure everyone heard it. Your argument is OBE.
Well gunny, I heard it debate policy, not OWS, so who's a chump?

Agreed, but the difference being is that one is legal and the other isn't. We have rock solid good laws in our nation and laws that are kind of lame. But, as individuals, we don't get to just go through life ignoring those we don't like or thinking the acts are legal because there are no witnesses. And quite frankly, I'm not even as upset about the letter of the law, as I am with the fact that these "occupiers" are no more than parks filled with filth.
Look I understand, but absent any victim, im not overly concerned, personally. It strikes me as a parody on the movement, so the people who shpuld be upset are the other protestors, not the general public. Imagine if there were a tea party themed porno- teabaggers gone wild :laugh2:


They're attention-whoring scumbags who feel entitled to what others have earned. In their down-time, they want to act like the ignorant animals they are. they're free to be so, just don't give 'em attn and theyll STFU. They could be telling everybody the world is flat, until someone is harmed, no crime IMO.

[LuvRPgrl]

I'm saying *I DONT KNOW* and nor do you. They may of used two dozen crew, RED HD cameras and a lightening rig that would put a broadway musical to shame. You're (two) posts were made suggesting that there *was* a big crew, camera, lights, sound etc my replies were merely saying that there didn't *have* to be a crew, *not* that there wasn't.

uh, u dont really believe they filmed it on a cell phone do you?
and we do know what kind of equipment the porn industry uses

[LuvRPgrl]

Both murder and public indency are illegal even if not 'caught'

But public indency is not 'wrong' if not caught because no member of the public has been subject to indecency.

Murder is still 'wrong' even if not caught because some poor chap has been killed.

It's a very simple concept.

Im assuming you mean illegal instead of wrong.
So, please show me in the criminal code where it says public in decency is illegal, but only if you get caught.
People have been arrested based on evidence left at a SCENE where public sex has taken place.

[Gunny]

Well gunny, I heard it debate policy, not OWS, so who's a chump?

Look I understand, but absent any victim, im not overly concerned, personally. It strikes me as a parody on the movement, so the people who shpuld be upset are the other protestors, not the general public. Imagine if there were a tea party themed porno- teabaggers gone wild :laugh2:

they're free to be so, just don't give 'em attn and theyll STFU. They could be telling everybody the world is flat, until someone is harmed, no crime IMO.

Please try to make some form of sense out of your first sentence.

Hey, if you want to defend scumbag, loser behavior ... knock yourself out. Just admit to it, unlike that fuckwit noir who won't just admit he's defending scumbag, loser behavior. If you think like that I'd say yop don't have kids. If you do. I feel sorry for them. They're behind the 8-ball leadership and integrity-wise from the get-go.

[logroller]

Please try to make some form of sense out of your first sentence.

Hey, if you want to defend scumbag, loser behavior ... knock yourself out. Just admit to it, unlike that fuckwit noir who won't just admit he's defending scumbag, loser behavior. If you think like that I'd say yop don't have kids. If you do. I feel sorry for them. They're behind the 8-ball leadership and integrity-wise from the get-go.

Sorry if i was unclear. Id meant that the entire ows movement is predicated by parody- that somehow loitering is protesting- its a gimmick- 'occupy my throat' is an extension of that same (false) logic. I don't defend them, nor do I feel the need to condemn them- their idiocy speaks for itself and doing anything more than dismissing them only gives them reason to continue.

And yes, I have kids; I thank you for your concern, and do my best to provide guidance and teach them to reason for themselves. They may make more mistakes than if I simply demanded a given course, but I can assure you they won't be blindly allegiant.

[Noir]

Public indecency IS wrong even if not caught. Why? Because you're still breaking the law. It's a very simple concept!

Breaking the law isn't always wrong.

It all comes done to common sense.

[Noir]

uh, u dont really believe they filmed it on a cell phone do you?
and we do know what kind of equipment the porn industry uses

I don't know if they did or not. But i know they could of.

Like its not going to be amazing quality, nothing you could put in a blockbuster million dollar film and screen in cinemas...oh wait, you've heard of th avengers movie, yes? Did you know some scenes for that movie were shot on an iPhone? They were even included in the movie trailer. Try and spot which -
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/xuR3wSKeNOc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>

Like i said, they may or may not of used a iPhone or some other small handheld camera, i don't know, the point is that that is all they would need to shoot a high definition movie with one.

[jimnyc]

Breaking the law isn't always wrong.

It all comes done to common sense.

Common sense tells us to obey the laws. Why do you feel it's ok to break some laws and not others? If laws are "dumb" or not meant to be laws, shouldn't people work to have them updated/removed rather than just ignoring them while breaking them? And then when the next guy breaks a different law, with the same reasoning, is he "right" too? And then who gets to decide ultimately which laws are ok to break and which we should abide by? What a confusing matter we have on our hands when we start breaking laws we FEEL are wrong.

[logroller]

Breaking the law isn't always wrong.

It all comes done to common sense.

Common sense is a product of reason- something the ows movement lacks! Google STAR technique. Situation: crony capitalism. Result: gay porn. Please explain to me how the task and action are common sense.

[Noir]

Common sense tells us to obey the laws. Why do you feel it's ok to break some laws and not others? If laws are "dumb" or not meant to be laws, shouldn't people work to have them updated/removed rather than just ignoring them while breaking them? And then when the next guy breaks a different law, with the same reasoning, is he "right" too? And then who gets to decide ultimately which laws are ok to break and which we should abide by? What a confusing matter we have on our hands when we start breaking laws we FEEL are wrong.

Okay, lemme give an example, over here (not sure if its in the US too, probably is) its illegal for someone to smoke at the workplace. Unless its outside. To protect other workers from passive smoking.

Most of the people i work with smoke, and at the end of the night, when we have pulled the shutters and are cleaning, they will light up and smoke as they clean.

Is it illegal? Yes. Is it wrong? No. I'm happy enough to consent to them smoking and as i'm the only other party concerned thats fine. However, if i did have a problem with it, then it would be both wrong and illegal for them to light up.

In the same way, these people having sex in tents are doing nothing wrong if everyones happy and consenting and they are going about it in a reasonable manor. However, if someone overhears it outside the tent, or if one of their tent buddies isn't too happy about it, then they are in the wrong.

[Abbey Marie]

Common sense is a product of reason- something the ows movement lacks! Google STAR technique. Situation: crony capitalism. Result: gay porn. Please explain to me how the task and action are common sense.

Get a bunch of liberals together, let alone anarchists, and you will eventually see every aberration under the sun. It's the nature of the beast to look for a place to "express themselves" amorally. See: Any gay pride parade.

[logroller]

Okay, lemme give an example, over here (not sure if its in the US too, probably is) its illegal for someone to smoke at the workplace. Unless its outside. To protect other workers from passive smoking.

Most of the people i work with smoke, and at the end of the night, when we have pulled the shutters and are cleaning, they will light up and smoke as they clean.

Is it illegal? Yes. Is it wrong? No. I'm happy enough to consent to them smoking and as i'm the only other party concerned thats fine. However, if i did have a problem with it, then it would be both wrong and illegal for them to light up.

In the same way, these people having sex in tents are doing nothing wrong if everyones happy and consenting and they are going about it in a reasonable manor. However, if someone overhears it outside the tent, or if one of their tent buddies isn't too happy about it, then they are in the wrong.

The chemicals in second hand smoke remain- so yea it is wrong. Bad example noir. The legality of these people screwing in tents is contingent on the legality of their tenting. I was under the impression they are protesting what they believe to be illegitimate government action- Are they protesting laws against sex in tents?

[Noir]

The chemicals in second hand smoke remain- so yea it is wrong. Bad example noir. The legality of these people screwing in tents is contingent on the legality of their tenting. I was under the impression they are protesting what they believe to be illegitimate government action- Are they protesting laws against sex in tents?

Exceot its not a bad example, the law is in place to protect *me* when *I* consent to my co-worker smoking what they are doing is not wrong. It would be even more obvious on nights when i'm not there and both the women will be smoking. Or is that also wrong loll

[jimnyc]

Okay, lemme give an example, over here (not sure if its in the US too, probably is) its illegal for someone to smoke at the workplace. Unless its outside. To protect other workers from passive smoking.

Most of the people i work with smoke, and at the end of the night, when we have pulled the shutters and are cleaning, they will light up and smoke as they clean.

Is it illegal? Yes. Is it wrong? No. I'm happy enough to consent to them smoking and as i'm the only other party concerned thats fine. However, if i did have a problem with it, then it would be both wrong and illegal for them to light up.

In the same way, these people having sex in tents are doing nothing wrong if everyones happy and consenting and they are going about it in a reasonable manor. However, if someone overhears it outside the tent, or if one of their tent buddies isn't too happy about it, then they are in the wrong.

This would be a company policy issue here in the US and not a legal issue. Many companies, if not all, prohibit smoking on company property here. Some even forbid an employee from smoking on their own time. Adhere to the rules of your employer or seek employment elsewhere. But anyway, if you lit up within the company at night, you will be fired. You might get away with at at times because no one saw it, but it's still against company policy and you have no recourse if busted. And just like the legal discussion, I also side with the employer here as being "right". It is THEIR property and the cover of night doesn't give one the right to go against the employers rules, just as cover doesn't give someone the right to break the law.

I know your point has been all along that some laws are dumb and the acts harm no one. But I would rather see people using their brains to have laws taken off the books, or policies being changed, rather than thumbing their noses at laws and policies and doing as they please. Just another in a very long list of reasons as to why society is going downhill.

[logroller]

Exceot its not a bad example, the law is in place to protect *me* when *I* consent to my co-worker smoking what they are doing is not wrong. It would be even more obvious on nights when i'm not there and both the women will be smoking. Or is that also wrong loll

Please show me where in public anti-smoking law there is exemption for an individual to consent to others breaking the law.
As smoking in a public place isnt a misdemeanor offense, but rather an infraction, such rulings are issued by judges in accordance with the specifics of the law and precedence. Youll have a hard time finding a judgement which holds a private individual can, by consent, nullify a public law. In criminal cases (misdemeanor or felony), as can be the case with public indecency, a jury can nullify a public law they deem wrong or unjust. AntiSmoking law is not so eligible. So unless you can show me precedence and/or legal statute that says ignorance of the law is grounds for nullfication--your example is a bad one. Simply stating otherwise doesn't change that

[Jeff]

Yeah its illegal if the public know, i mean, if there were people having sex in a van with windows, or they where screaming the carpark out then obviously thats illegal, but if they are doing it in such a way that no-one else out in the public space would know then there's nothing wrong. Because the offence itself requires other people to be bothered.

I didn't read no further into this thread than this but Noir if you and your partner are having sex quietly enough that it couldn't be heard threw a piece of canvass or even threw the walls of a van your doing something wrong buddy :rolleyes:

I have to agree that this is disgusting and very inappropriate ( and illegal I am sure ) to be doing in public and yes if I can hear it it is in public


And lets not forget the title of this thread GAY porn , if a man could be quiet while someone shoves something the size of a corn cob in his butt he isn't right from the get go , but then again we knew that before this thread was started

[logroller]

I didn't read no further into this thread than this but Noir if you and your partner are having sex quietly enough that it couldn't be heard threw a piece of canvass or even threw the walls of a van your doing something wrong buddy :rolleyes:

I have to agree that this is disgusting and very inappropriate ( and illegal I am sure ) to be doing in public and yes if I can hear it it is in public


And lets not forget the title of this thread GAY porn , if a man could be quiet while someone shoves something the size of a corn cob in his butt he isn't right from the get go , but then again we knew that before this thread was started

If its inside a tent, and no one in public sees it, only hears it, then its merely a noise violation. A tent is clearly form of shelter, and would be considered a private space. I think gunnys point about the tents not being legally set up is the most credible argument.

[jimnyc]

If its inside a tent, and no one in public sees it, only hears it, then its merely a noise violation. A tent is clearly form of shelter, and would be considered a private space. I think gunnys point about the tents not being legally set up is the most credible argument.

Nope, still public indecency, read the text of the law I quoted earlier. Whether in view of the public, or just in a public place, it's indecency. Not being caught or hiding behind tent walls or the back of a van while in public, only hides your crime but it is still illegal.

[jimnyc]

If its inside a tent, and no one in public sees it, only hears it, then its merely a noise violation. A tent is clearly form of shelter, and would be considered a private space. I think gunnys point about the tents not being legally set up is the most credible argument.

Here's the text I posted earlier, and is about on every states books on the land:


Look at the text of most public indecency laws. Here is one for example:

(1) A person commits the crime of public indecency if while in, or in view of, a public place the person performs:


(a) An act of sexual intercourse;

(b) An act of deviate sexual intercourse; or
(c) An act of exposing the genitals of the person with the intent of arousing the sexual desire of the person or another person.

Read the bold portions, and exclude the "in view of" portion which is an OR addition, which is not necessary.

[logroller]

Here's the text I posted earlier, and is about on every states books on the land:



Read the bold portions, and exclude the "in view of" portion which is an OR addition, which is not necessary.
Those laws refer to a public space. The court rulings I found held that there is reasonable expectation of privacy in a tent, even on public land.I'll quote them if you wish, but I tend to agree. For example, when I tent camp I sleep with a loaded firearm, whereas if I were still considered to be in public, I could not legally do this. For that matter, one may be forbidden to sleep in public, as it may be considered loitering. That's been my point, as Gunny stipulated, that if they are camping illegally, then no expectation of privacy exists. If they are camping legally, then privacy expectations allow for such behavior.

[logroller]

 To determine whether a warrantless search violates the Fourth Amendment, we must ask two questions:  “[F]irst, has the individual manifested a subjective expectation of privacy in the object of the challenged search?   Second, is society willing to recognize that expectation as reasonable?”   California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207, 211, 106 S.Ct. 1809, 90 L.Ed.2d 210 (1986) (citing Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 360-61, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967) (Harlan, J., concurring)).   Only if both the subjective and objective tests are met can we find that a Fourth Amendment interest has been violated...http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1153615.html

To answer the first question, if the windows and door are closed, inhibiting the public view-- I'd say the individual has manifested a subjective expectation of privacy.


Sandoval's expectation of privacy was also objectively reasonable.   In LaDuke v. Nelson, 762 F.2d 1318, 1326 n. 11, 1332 n. 19 (9th Cir.1985), we held that a person can have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in a tent on private property.   In Gooch, 6 F.3d at 677, we extended that holding to find a reasonable expectation of privacy in a tent on a public campground.   Here, the tent was located on BLM land, not on a public campground, and it is unclear whether Sandoval had permission to be there. However, we do not believe the reasonableness of Sandoval's expectation of privacy turns on whether he had permission to camp on public land. Such a distinction would mean that a camper who overstayed his permit in a public campground would lose his Fourth Amendment rights, while his neighbor, whose permit had not expired, would retain those rights.

To the second question, consider the ramifications were it not socially recognized. -- since my wife and I have had sex in our tent while camping, were someone to hear us, we'd have committed an act of public indecency and when convicted, we'd be required to register as sex offenders-- for having sex with our spouse where somebody in public could merely hear us. I'm not saying its not offensive or rude, that it should be a socially acceptable norm; but it's no more rude or inappropriate than having loud sex in a hotel room-- should that be illegal too? What about an apartment with a shared wall? A house with poorly insulated walls or an open window with shades drawn? Seems to me that opining a tent has no expectation of privacy presents a clear danger of a slippery slope, an over-reach of legal authority...the court rulings affirm this.

[ConHog]

Breaking the law isn't always wrong.

It all comes done to common sense.

Point of order. Jim didn't say breaking the law was always wrong, he said public indecency is always wrong. Would you argue that sometimes public indecency is okay?

By they way to Jim, would you argue that if you were in a city park in your tent fucking your wife and no one outside knew what was going on that you were in the wrong?


I just feel like both sides are maybe pushing an agenda here. And probably not on purpose.

[jimnyc]

Point of order. Jim didn't say breaking the law was always wrong, he said public indecency is always wrong. Would you argue that sometimes public indecency is okay?

By they way to Jim, would you argue that if you were in a city park in your tent fucking your wife and no one outside knew what was going on that you were in the wrong?


I just feel like both sides are maybe pushing an agenda here. And probably not on purpose.

Speaking strictly about what I think is wrong or right? I wouldn't call the cops on someone doing so in a tent, in an area that is obviously their own. But in downtown Oakland? Whether they have an expectation of privacy or not, it's wrong in my book, and again, shows a huge lack of self respect. NO woman I have ever dated, or married, would ever have slept with me in a public setting, even if behind a closed tent sleeve, or behind the tinted windows or curtains of a van.

[jimnyc]

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1153615.html

To answer the first question, if the windows and door are closed, inhibiting the public view-- I'd say the individual has manifested a subjective expectation of privacy.



To the second question, consider the ramifications were it not socially recognized. -- since my wife and I have had sex in our tent while camping, were someone to hear us, we'd have committed an act of public indecency and when convicted, we'd be required to register as sex offenders-- for having sex with our spouse where somebody in public could merely hear us. I'm not saying its not offensive or rude, that it should be a socially acceptable norm; but it's no more rude or inappropriate than having loud sex in a hotel room-- should that be illegal too? What about an apartment with a shared wall? A house with poorly insulated walls or an open window with shades drawn? Seems to me that opining a tent has no expectation of privacy presents a clear danger of a slippery slope, an over-reach of legal authority...the court rulings affirm this.

Yeap, read up more on this myself last night, and not surprisingly in California, the laws are a bit different than elsewhere. Basically short of poking someone in the head with your weiner, all else is OK.

I retract my statement and admit I was likely wrong about the legalities. I won't retract my statements about right and wrong though. Camping is likely different as you'll be in the woods and/or on private property - and the same goes for someone hearing you within a hotel room, an apartment or other private places. The complaint from me stems from individuals doing so on public property. They probably could have got it on, and taped their abnormal, deviant sex from a motel room for $40 or sprung for a few more at a hotel. They CHOSE to do so like animals, merely feet from others in a public setting, whether they were quiet about it or not.

[Abbey Marie]

If its inside a tent, and no one in public sees it, only hears it, then its merely a noise violation. A tent is clearly form of shelter, and would be considered a private space. I think gunnys point about the tents not being legally set up is the most credible argument.

Well, I am no expert on gay porn, or any porn for that matter, but it stands to reason that making certain types of "noise" is a key part of the action.

[LuvRPgrl]

so an iphone has enough memory to film a full length feature movie?

I don't know if they did or not. But i know they could of.

Like its not going to be amazing quality, nothing you could put in a blockbuster million dollar film and screen in cinemas...oh wait, you've heard of th avengers movie, yes? Did you know some scenes for that movie were shot on an iPhone? They were even included in the movie trailer. Try and spot which -
<IFRAME height=315 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/xuR3wSKeNOc" frameBorder=0 width=560 allowfullscreen=""></IFRAME>

Like i said, they may or may not of used a iPhone or some other small handheld camera, i don't know, the point is that that is all they would need to shoot a high definition movie with one.

[LuvRPgrl]

what happens when someone outs you guys, then the govt fines the co. the supervisor over you guys loses his job, the owner goes broke, ok, that last one is aq little over the top, but I know for a fact that snitches are everywhere and quite often its so called friends who are breaking the rules right along side of you, so you never know who might snitch.


Okay, lemme give an example, over here (not sure if its in the US too, probably is) its illegal for someone to smoke at the workplace. Unless its outside. To protect other workers from passive smoking.

Most of the people i work with smoke, and at the end of the night, when we have pulled the shutters and are cleaning, they will light up and smoke as they clean.

Is it illegal? Yes. Is it wrong? No. I'm happy enough to consent to them smoking and as i'm the only other party concerned thats fine. However, if i did have a problem with it, then it would be both wrong and illegal for them to light up.

In the same way, these people having sex in tents are doing nothing wrong if everyones happy and consenting and they are going about it in a reasonable manor. However, if someone overhears it outside the tent, or if one of their tent buddies isn't too happy about it, then they are in the wrong.

[Noir]

so an iphone has enough memory to film a full length feature movie?

No. Dear Blesses. The cinematographer for the movie said *SOME* scenes of it were shot on the iPhone, indeed here is his quote


The beauty of photography or cinema is that you make every choice based on the content at hand,...On 'The Avengers,' I did a couple of shots on the iPhone and they are in the movie. In fact, they are in the trailer!

[LuvRPgrl]

I didn't read no further into this thread than this but Noir if you and your partner are having sex quietly enough that it couldn't be heard threw a piece of canvass or even threw the walls of a van your doing something wrong buddy :rolleyes:



well, ;you know, one guy giving another a blow job isnt very noisy at all....

OK OK OK, just kidding NOIR,,,,I know you prefer taking it up the ass.....

OK OK OK, SERIOIUSLY THIS TIME, ONLY JOKING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!

[LuvRPgrl]

No. Dear Blesses. The cinematographer for the movie said *SOME* scenes of it were shot on the iPhone, indeed here is his quote

YEA, ;you missed the point. How can they film the whole porn movie without enough memory?

[Noir]

YEA, ;you missed the point. How can they film the whole porn movie without enough memory?

And iphone 4S uses about 10.4 GB per hour of 1080P video recorded. so using a 32 or 64 GB model you could easily shot 3 hours or 6 hours respectively. I'd say it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume the porn flick is less that 3 hours long.

Just to restate incase its lost in the convo; i'm not saying it was recorded on an iPhone, just that it easily could have been.

[ConHog]

YEA, ;you missed the point. How can they film the whole porn movie without enough memory?

Do what? According to Jim most internet porn videos average about 10 minutes in length. Easily handled by the latest portable devices.

[LuvRPgrl]

And iphone 4S uses about 10.4 GB per hour of 1080P video recorded. so using a 32 or 64 GB model you could easily shot 3 hours or 6 hours respectively. I'd say it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume the porn flick is less that 3 hours long.

Just to restate incase its lost in the convo; i'm not saying it was recorded on an iPhone, just that it easily could have been.

but you said it doesnt have enough memory.

[LuvRPgrl]

Do what? According to Jim most internet porn videos average about 10 minutes in length. Easily handled by the latest portable devices.

those are exerpts from the full length movies on disc at the porn stores.

[jimnyc]

Do what? According to Jim most internet porn videos average about 10 minutes in length. Easily handled by the latest portable devices.

No need for more than 10 mins of porn, IF you're doing it right! LOL


those are exerpts from the full length movies on disc at the porn stores.

Stores? People still pay for porn? :laugh:

[Kathianne]

Sort of related to the thread about, "He's just not that into you." I'll never get the male fascination with porn. :laugh2:

[logroller]

Well, I am no expert on gay porn, or any porn for that matter, but it stands to reason that making certain types of "noise" is a key part of the action.


Porn or not-- If they can colorize B&W movies, I'd guess they can add sound too.

[Noir]

but you said it doesnt have enough memory.

You quoted a post of me talking about the Avengers movie, and asked if they could shoot a whole feature length movie on an iPhone. Assuming you where talking about what you quoted (the avengers movie) i said no.

However, if you were talking about a porn movie, the iPhone would be able to record either 1.5 hours, 3 hours or 6 hours of 1080p HD video. (depending on which model (16, 32, 64 GB) was used) hope that clears it up.

[jimnyc]

Iphones taping porn. People having sex in public. People having sex in vans. People being quiet in order to have sex in tents which are in public downtown parks. People broadcasting their sexcapades that took place on public property.

I can honestly say that it's quite possible that these events are legal in California. But debating the wrong and right of these actions is funny. I can't see how anyone would NOT find these actions objectionable, or at the very least to be extremely distasteful (whether gay sex or hetero). Would all of you find it to be "OK" or "right" if we found out some politicians were involved in such behavior in public? Other state or town leaders? Would you demand a politician step down if learned of this behavior? Why do we find these types of actions offensive when an upstanding citizen or "leader" or politician does them - but it's not a problem when it's others?

[ConHog]

Sort of related to the thread about, "He's just not that into you." I'll never get the male fascination with porn. :laugh2:

Personally I think porn is stupid and about as unsexy as naked people can be. Don't watch it at all.

[LuvRPgrl]

No need for more than 10 mins of porn, IF you're doing it right! LOL



Stores? People still pay for porn? :laugh:

Yea, massively, not that I would know....:laugh:

[LuvRPgrl]

Sort of related to the thread about, "He's just not that into you." I'll never get the male fascination with porn. :laugh2:

and we cant understand why women arent.

[logroller]

Iphones taping porn. People having sex in public. People having sex in vans. People being quiet in order to have sex in tents which are in public downtown parks. People broadcasting their sexcapades that took place on public property.

I can honestly say that it's quite possible that these events are legal in California. But debating the wrong and right of these actions is funny. I can't see how anyone would NOT find these actions objectionable, or at the very least to be extremely distasteful (whether gay sex or hetero). Would all of you find it to be "OK" or "right" if we found out some politicians were involved in such behavior in public? Other state or town leaders? Would you demand a politician step down if learned of this behavior? Why do we find these types of actions offensive when an upstanding citizen or "leader" or politician does them - but it's not a problem when it's others?

Personally, I find the living conditions of the Occupy sites objectionable, so debating the legality of filming porn there just seems moot.