Just when you thought it was safe to masturbate in the privacy of your own home...

along comes the Canadian government. (I’m sure the US isn’t far behind.)

Re: Prostitution Charge Mulled for Live Net Porn

Geez! Does the gov’t really have enough time on its hands to worry about this? Or are they concerned about lost revenues because they’re not collecting GST?

I can give plenty of examples of similar or more overt situations that aren’t considered prostitution:[ul][li]Lap dances in strip clubs. I know at least Montreal has them. This not considered prostitution because there’s a few pieces of cloth between bodies (briefs, pants, and thong) and no penetration[/li][li]Nude models post pictures on web pages. Users pay for access to see them. This not considered prostitution because there is a time delay, i.e., it’s not live.[/li][li]Pay-per-view porno movies. Also not prostitution because it’s not live.[/li][li]Woman has sex with a man after he buys her an expensive rock and promises to support her until one of them dies. This is not prostitution; this is marriage[/ul][/li]
<small>I first started this in the BBQ, but it kind of evolved into a debate topic.</small>


The word is no. I am therefore going anyway.

Whew! For a minute there, I was afraid I was gonna turn up on video … :eek:

Prostitution, broadly defined, is the exchange of sex for money. There’s no proof that the director on the other end of the Net connection is engaging in any activity other than watching. Is phone sex illegal in Canada? The principle is exactly the same, as I see it.


–Da Cap’n
“Playin’ solitaire 'til dawn
With a deck of fifty-one.”

Housewife Charged in Sex-For-Security Scam

The Onion is not a real paper!
Although last week’s headline: Mars Lander Staggers Into NASA Headquarters Drunk, Broke
had me in stitches.


Then we’ll turn our tommy guns
on the screaming ravaged nuns
and the peoples voice will be the only sound.
-P. Sky

How do you figure? It’s printed on real wood pulp (well, obviously not the electronic version)isn’t it?

Sheesh, next you’ll be saying MAD isn’t a real magazine . . .

-andros-

Well, I think one could argue that broadcasting your intimate acts over the internet would not fall under a protection of “privacy.”

I mean, you can legally have sex with your spouse in the privacy of your house, but you’d be arrested were the mood to strike you at an amusement park. In fact, IIRC there was a case where a woman was arrested for putting on a…ahem… show every night in her subdivision, with the shades up and the lights on. Much to the chagrin of pubescent boys, the court ruled that this did not fall under the right to privacy.

PunditLisa said:

If that’s the case, I’m amazed that there are any men outside of prison today.

Lord knows I’d have spent all of high school in a maximum security prison for repeated fantasizing.

Just being a wise ass. Don’t mind me.


JMCJ

Winner of the Mr. & Mrs. Polycarp Award for Literalizing Cliches for knowing an actual atheist in a foxhole.

I offer yet another questionable example of legal stupidity and the mindlessness of the general, self-righteous citizenry when coupled with law enforcement eager to get in good with the religious minority.

There was a couple who lived in a big city, like New York, who also lived in an apartment several stories above the ground. They liked to spice up their sex life now and then with impromptu acts of sizzling passion performed in often odd spots in their own home. One day they chose to ravish each other thoroughly in the kitchen of their comfortable apartment, in the day time, with the doors locked ** but the blinds over the window open **. It was a nice day for a good and thorough screw, being clear and cool, with no rain nor much in the way of clouds and they were far above the ground, with the right to privacy such a station incurs.

They enjoyed each other on the table, which was clean, against the wall, on the floor and on the cabinet top, by the sink and did nothing kinky or harmful and spent their energies in passionate shudders, locked in hot embrace. Then they went about their daily business, no doubt much satisfied and a bit tired.

Unbeknownst to them, in the apartment building across the way and a level higher Mr. and Mrs. Glass-of-pure-milk-only resided with their two children, who were just below the age of 12 (if I recall right),and are boys and who were filled with the eager curiosity that most boys have during that time and no doubt already somewhat concerned with their wankers between their own little legs, though not sure what they were for, aside from giving them strange and delightful feelings from time to time.

These two children glanced out the window and, with some effort managed to spot the couple across the way having passionate sex – which took good eyes for the boys to peer into a window at least 80 feet away and into a room that was a bit darker than the outside and to make out what the partially dressed couple was doing. But, then, they were full of the good and honest MILK that, no doubt, the Glass-of-pure-milk-onlys, consumed by the gallon, righteously disdaining any harder beverage, like soda pop or, (horrors) alcohol.

Being good little, nosey tots, they promptly informed their parents of the unassuming little sex scene going on across the street. Their folks arrived and, also with good eyes, peered at the intimate display of pounding passion and portrayal of penile propensity with prodigious pleasure being proudly presented for all to view – who might take the time. Suitably horrified, Mr. Milk grabbed up his video camera (which all Americans seem to have growing from one fist these days) zeroed in on the sexy, sizzling scene across the way and began to record the signs of sin and depravity, of rampant erection and grinding loins, of passionate pounding and gritty grabbing – including using his ZOOM ability to get closer still, to better document what the happy couple was committing there, in broad daylight.

Eventually, the passionate pair discovered the persistent peeper and prudently pulled the blinds closed. Mr. Milk paraded down to his local law enforcement agency with the sinful tape of licentious lust and had the couple arrested by the LAW, who would have had to view the tape to determine if a crime had been actually committed. (Now, knowing police officers as I do, they would have enjoyed the tape then would have let the whole thing drop as the perpetrators were in their own home, far above the street and bothering no one. But, Mr. Milk would have had to insist that since HE could see their act, that they were committing a lewd and lascivious act in public, which is against the law.) The happy couple was arrested for committing a lewd and lascivious act, bonded out and obtained a lawyer.

Eventually, they were convicted of the crime, much to the delight of the press who made a minor public splash of it all across the nation with ‘tastefully’ censored copies of the film. It was determined that IF Mr. Milk and his holier than thou family could SEE the ACT, then the act was public. No action was brought against Mr. Milk for invasion of privacy, illegal recording of a sexual act or being just a damn pain in the ass neighbor.

The Passionate Pair were fined and it was all forgotten, but the question of civil liberties remains in that, apparently, a neighbor has the right to film one in the privacy of ones own home ignoring the right to privacy or the simple, common sense of closing their own frigging blinds if they don’t want to watch a good fuck.

If the government does not have the right to peer into your private life – so long as you are not committing any criminal act, I guess the public has the right to do so and to judge what is offensive to them, personally, and make you pay for it.

The moral? Keep your shades drawn when you have hot sex and, if recorded in the act by anyone like Mr. Milk, when you bail yourself out of jail, pay Vito $500 and have him go over and politely inform Mr. Milk to mind his own business by carefully breaking a leg or two.

Think about it. I used to live in an apartment that was old and through the echo chamber of the attic – which had no dividing wall, could clearly hear the couple next door enjoying themselves if I happened to have my closet door open. (They provided me with much entertainment until the moved. I even brought friends over to sit and listen and make comments.)

Technically, if you and your sexual partner are happily screwing each other and can be even heard by a neighbor – you can be arrested. If your blinds are not closed all of the way and someone can, with a little effort, peer in and see you playing hide the Salami, you can be arrested.

buncha shit, ain’t it?

This is way off the OP, but I’ve gotta get my $.02 in on Sentinel’s post. What a load of shit! I can sympathize with the couple. Hubby and I got thrown out of the first apartment we had together for fucking too loud. The minister who lived below us complained to our landlord about it and she ousted us. I have never been so embarrassed in my life. Until I realized how funny it was. She also told me that another neighbor heard hubby say “bad words” in the parking lot.

We had friends over the night she evicted us, and they all got a real charge out of it


Careful with that axe, Eugene.

"Among the evidence presented Monday was a videotape of police Detective Rob Nichol linking up to the Web site named The SinBin to contact a young woman who then stripped and rubbed her body with oil.

Geez! Does the gov’t really have enough time on its hands to worry about this? Or are they concerned about lost revenues because they’re not collecting GST?"

That’s why the govt does it, so police like Detective Rob Nichol get to watch strippers as part of their job.

Ya know, I’m very proud of my gov’t for a lot of things, but this isn’t really one of them.

$15 a month, PLUS $5 a minute?!! DAMN! I just don’t know if I could err perform under such pressure knowing that every minute cost $5.


I am the user formerly known as puffington.

[hijack]

I saw the thread title and thought it was about inertiacakes and ketchup bottles. Phew!

[/hijack]