My earliest encounters were in the forest preserve, but you could walk far into the woods where it would be impossible to get caught. I still say, most people will probably never see what’s going on. A-Z made a good point about the police targeting primarily gay locations. That’s just not right. I think there’s a whole lot of sex going on in parks all the time. We just don’t see it.
As a teenager, without a car or disposable income, nor the permission of my parents or hers to “fool around” in our bedrooms, you will then condemn me as a perv for otherwise normal sexual behavior, hidden in the woods from public view, simply because the property upon which the activity occurred was community owned?
Seems downright prudish to me.
I acknowledge the behavior was illegal, and if caught, subject to punishment. But worthy of targeted enforcement? Come on…
Hey, it’s the City’s park, if they get the urge to dedicate manpower and money to go around busting bush bangers, we can always take it up at the next council meeting or election. But the law is the law is the law.
And it’s not like you’ll die if you don’t get of, AZ. Ok, It may feel like it 
But the example does not work well as a test of latent heterocentrism, since it involves an actual illegal activity, and many people will take either the strict legalistic or the “victimless crime” POV on those who meet for a shag in the shrubbery, whatever their genders.
Can an otherwise tolerant, with-it person have subconscious triggers for differential condict towards gays? Sure! But they also have them about their next-door neighbor. Or fat kids. Or Republicans. It’s unreasonable to expect otherwise, human psyches are complex.
Guinastasia please don’t take this badly, it is intended as a bit of humour.
Why should some peeps ruin it for everyone? (By peeps I mean people walking dogs off lead in a public park-regardless of their dog’s breed!)
I mean, why should I have to stay away from a park because I don’t want to see any one walking their dog off lead? I have a right to go to that park-if it’s a public park, most likely it’s funded by taxes.
As the old saying goes-GET A CAT !!!
It’s all down to social mores, some parks should be dog free, some should have free dogs. At the moment much of US seems to me to be very uptight about consensual sex occuring anywhere but the bed room.
Cheers, Bippy
And I’m not one that believes that just because something is illegal that people shouldn’t do it. Some laws are made to be broken. I don’t particularly want to watch a couple strangers going at it, but that doesn’t mean they can’t use discretion in finding a spot where they’re unlikely to be observed by others.
But my point was that the word “homophobe” is supposed to have a specific meaning beyond just hating homosexuals. It may get misused, and you may not even agree that such a thing exists, but I think that’s what it means.
[hijack] No, because a phobia is a mental disorder that interferes with your life. The term “homophobia” is the moral equivalent of the good old days when homosexuality was labelled a disease. Just as it is immoral to demonize gays as being sick in the head (when really they’re just gay), it is immoral to demonize someone as being sick in the head for thinking homosexuality is “wrong” (because that’s the way they were raised).
The fact that the word “homophobia” exists so prominently in popular culture says more about the low character of those seeking to unburden homosexuals from oppression than it does about those who wish to maintain that burden in place. To put another way, those using the term “homophobia” are generally just as bigoted as those who think “faggots” are going against “nature”. [/hijack]
no car, no money, no way to support a baby. Maybe not a perv, but not smart for having sex. Maybe it’s good that a cop might have stopped you from having sex in public. I’d call it downright prudent
For the record, my use of the term “homophobia” would fall under the definition of someone who “applies prejudicial or stereotypical judgements against homosexuals without a rational basis”, which I think is a reasonably common use of the term.
I strict constructionist analysis of the term may yield “irrational fear of homosexuals or homosexuality”, but that was not my usage, and I don’t generally think that such a definition applies to most usage of the term.
And finally, any suggestion that homophobia “contained an implication that the homophobe has latent homosexual feelings that manifest themselves as hostility” is beyond anything I’ve ever heard of, and certainly not contained in my usage.
Arguing against the common use of the term seems about as viable as the “cracker” versus “hacker” arguments. Be that as it may, if someone would like to apply specific definitions for use in this thread, I will be happy to use different terms.
And for greck, I never suggested intercourse. For the most part, my outdoor teenage experiences would best be described as heavy petting, but I was lucky enough to get my first blowjob out there. STDs were a risk, granted, but pregnancy was not. And quite clearly, pregnancy isn’t a risk that homosexuals have to worry about.
If you’re going to be labelling people with the suffix “phobia”, then you should be consistent with what the word means. The fact that the person who coined “homophobia” was a fascist, and the fact that common usage supports that bigoted coinage, does not release you from your obligation to not label people as crazy for having a view you disagree with. If someone is raised to hate gays, or is taught that his god thinks it’s evil, then there is nothing irrational or illogical about that hatred/disapproval/whatever. If you are raised to have value X, then you perfectly rational to have that value as part of your moral code. Value X may be irrational, e.g. children shouldn’t sleep in their parents’ bed, but you’re not irrational for having it.
I would suggest an alternative term such as “misohomo”. If we allow that “homo” is short for homosexual, then that is exactly the term we’re looking for.
js_africanus, tell me, what do “photophobia” and “hydrophobia” mean?
Sometimes you can’t divine the meaning of a word by mindlessly deapplying word formation rules.
Like I said, ‘straight supremacist’ is an excellent replacement for the outdated and inaccurate term ‘homophobe.’ It completely removes the connotation of mental illness.
MrVisible: And replaces it with a connotation of totalitarism. Barely an improvement, if you’re one of them. 
I agree with the verdict against either anyone having sex in a public place in a country where such activity is prohibited, be it homosexual or heterosexual.
But I don’t agree with an entrapment sting for this sort of offence.
Entrapment for a drug dealer, entrapment for a paedophile, entrapment for a thief - whatever. But public indecency to me is a very minor offence, causing limited harm (if any). So I totally disagree with both jail terms on those grounds.
I would think that in most prostitution scenarios, the transfer of cash would precede the dropping of pants. Am I off base here?
If I’m not, then it would seem that a prostitution bust would precede any incidence of indecent exposure, in sex-for-money encounters.
But enough about prostitution. I assume that’s not what the OP’s about, but rather about men cruising for sex with other men not yet of their acquaintance.
This is different from the ‘going off into the bushes with your SO to have sex’ scenario that some posters have brought up, as couples seeking a private place to have sex will likely be trying hard not to expose themselves to strangers.
While the gays in parks are apparently signalling interest by deliberately exposing themselves to strangers.
I don’t think gay men doing the public park cruising signal interest by exposure. It’s a lot more subtle than that.
As a lesbian, I can see JimB’s example illustrating a possible heterosexist “double standard” (and I can tell you about entrapment history from the 50’s through the 80’s that would curl your hairs), but I think other scenarios might be more telling-- for instance, how do you feel about gay folks having pictures of their partners at work? Bringing their partners to work events? Gay colleagues talking about their weekend dates? Would you take a gay friend home to meet the parents? Does same-sex flirting squick you out so badly you can’t go into gay establishments?
I haven’t lurked about here long, but I do get the impression that SDMB is a lot more enlightened than a good chunk of the world about these issues, anyway.
Good question. I see that hydrophobia is nothing serious at all. What’s a little rabies between friends. And having to avoid sunlight and having to wear sun glasses indoors certainly isn’t a disorder that affects a person’s day-to-day living.
So, what was your point again? A phobia is a disorder requiring medical attention or phychological attention? Gosh, I know a guy who was raised to think that his god dislikes homosexuals. Should I send him to a doctor or a shrink?
Phobias impair a person. Thinking that being gay is bad because some stupid religious book (allegedly) says so does not impair anyone. You can still get your meat from the gay butcher, you just think that he stands a good chance of going to hell.
For what it’s worth, I don’t agree with entrapment and stings, either.
However, I don’t have much sympathy if someone has sex in a public place and gets caught.
js_africanus: my point is that neither of them is a “phobia”; hydrophobia has nothing to do with fear and photophobia is a hypersensitivity, not a phobia.
Wow Guin, you’re seriously against this sex-in-public-places lark, aren’t you? How many times have you said that now? Five? Six? I’ve lost count.
It is possible to do so without being caught, you know. I think I could introduce you to not a few people who can testify to that. If people take care then personally I say good luck to 'em. Just don’t leave any detritus around (hey, litter is litter and I can’t stand it) and make sure you really are discrete enough that nobody ever knows.
Lots of people get caught short and need to take a leak in the woods from time to time as well. They creep behind a tree that is well off the path. But that is also illegal. Perhaps we should set up piss-stings too, hmn? Dirty bleeders.
Frankly, I’d recommend that everybody tries sex in the open at least once in their lives. It’s a pretty unique experience.
pan