All this is strangely fascinating. In Crystal Palace, South London, almosy anything goes, but there’s a local council by-law making it illegal to perform lewd acts on the concrete dinosuars in Crystal Palace Park… ( I only did it once, Guv’nor!)
So, performing lewd acts in Crystal Palace Park without using the dinosaurs as sex aids is perfectly legal? The London Borough of Bromley is surprisingly permissive.
No.
Well, yes, but no.
It’s true that common law states typically criminalize things like “crimes against nature,” without further defining the elements of the crime, so that a person simply reading the law might be unaware of what conduct is prohibited.
But the common law has developed elements to these crimes, and they are not now arbitrary or unknowable. “Crime against nature” encompassed acts that have been defined for hundreds of years. (See, e.g., 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries 216). It includes oral sex, that is, the mouth of one person and the genitals of another.
Notice that your link does not cite to any Virginia law suporting this claim.
In fact, it is untrue. There is no Virginia law prohibiting sex with the lights on.
Sure, but given the (largely inherent) rare application of such laws, it’s pretty hard to draw any clear conclusions about exactly what each jurisdiction meant to outlaw, even if the common law has filled in the gaps.
Not since January 2003. Story here.
Sloppy bj post…
That’s how it used to be in Spain, although we’re not a common law location (mostly Civil Law, with a few areas being Foral Law). Nowadays I understand that so long as it’s consensual, done between consenting-age people and not in a location where it’s expressly forbidden (in general, I do not recommend doing it in a place which would not be considered private), it’s all good.
Having sex in public (which would include those not-so-secluded locations teenagers without access to beds use) used to be illegal under “exhibitionism”: that’s not illegal any more but it’s still likely to bring some Authority to ask you to please take it someplace, willya? Or worse, a non-Authority pissed-off little old lady, the kind whose handbag seems to be lined with some sort of titanium-lead alloy.
“Public displays of affection, including kissing and holding hands, could lead to arrest if deemed to be offensive.”
You should always know your destination. That said in most countries private acts are unlikely to be prosecuted, after all they really don’t keep tabs on you 24/7 and if they are then you have bigger worries.
South African law used to contain a common-law* crime of “commission of an unnatural sexual offence”, which was defined in a remarkably self-referential way as “the unlawful and intentional commission of an unnatural sexual act by one person with another person”. In theory it encompassed every sex act except hetero vaginal intercourse, but in practice since at least the mid-20th century was applied only to gay men. It was struck down as unconstitutional in 1998, along with the common-law crime of sodomy, which referred specifically to male-male anal sex.
Thankfully, the law relating to sexual offences was placed on a completely statutory basis in 2007, and made gender-neutral, orientation-neutral and, um, orifice-neutral.
- “Common law” in this sense referring to pre-Napoleonic Roman-Dutch law with an admixture of some English law.
Its means simply “sex we have not thought of, but we know we will dislike when we see it”.
It can be useful incidentally. In India and Pakistan the old unnatural acts section was employed quite successfully against child abusers as it was open ended and could encompass many many acts. It is still used this way in India, but less so in Pakistan since 2000 when a High Court decision held that rape and normal “causing hurt” sections could be employed as well.
I was deployed all over the Middle East and Central Asia. When I retired, I contracted in the GCC states. I had my wife over on extended visits.
We traveled for a weekend to Dubai, Bahrain, Kuwait and I worked out of Qatar.
She wore regular western clothing in all of those countries, wearing a top that left her shoulders out, not low cut though. No problem. She wore shorts, no problem.
We walked arm in arm, even with my arm around her middle or shoulders and vice versa. No problem. We even gave a peck kiss at times. We walked holding hands. No problems.
But then, consider what the Arabs saw, a 51 year old woman and a 50 year old man with a white beard. If anything, we saw smiles to see a couple so comfortable with each other.
Now, had we tried examining one another’s tonsils or something absurd like that, it would most likely be a different story. Frankly, WE don’t like seeing that in public either.
As for in private, Muslim nations typically leave pleasure matters between husband and wife alone, as the Quran is quite generous regarding a married couple giving one another pleasure and emphasizes it.
Arabs also HATE when when a man looks at their wives, you can GUESS how they’re respond to a bedroom’s privacy being invaded, even by the police with cameras. It’d trigger a reaction that makes Arab Spring look like a game show!
The ONLY couples I am aware of that were arrested in Dubai, Kuwait and Qatar were unmarried couples inspecting each other’s tonsils in a public venue.
In short, your bedroom is going to be private. If they want to make a political point, they’ll do that someplace else with someone who is screwing up, like staggering down the street after they leave the hotel bar. Or the idiot who gets into a bar fight.
Or the moron who picks up a prostitute.
In short, they don’t care what goes on between consenting adults in private, indeed, one GCC state is rather famous for its homosexual and bisexual men throughout the GCC. Even though such things are illegal…
But then, part of my security evaluation for installation security was reading the Quran and learning the various sect’s version of Hadith. Were they to try something that silly with me, it would backfire horribly, ESPECIALLY in a Sharia court.
Consider this from the linguistic and sociological standpoint. Remember the “Arabian Harem”, where the “women were stored”? Actually, it was a Turkish thing, during the Ottoman Empire, with the royalty, for concubines, but I digress…
Haram: Arabic, meaning forbidden. In this context above, forbidden for any man not of the family to enter. For, in that area, the woman could remove her hijab (modesty dress).
For the average Arab, that is inside of their abode and even the yard, if they have one.
We were graced as trusted to be permitted into some Arab homes, where the women did remove their hijab and behaved at home with us as family. Indeed, one trusted me to take his wife and children to the store when he was at work and the reverse true, and HE is a Saudi. But then, we rather adopted him, as he worked on the base with me, in a different department and rather disliked many of the other contractors, as I did. We hung out and became friends and adopted his new family, as he had just married a Romanian girl.
His parents visited on vacation and adopted US family. We are now proud grandparents of two Saudi children. And they’re well aware that we’re Christian. I even joked with him when he announced it, “THAT would be messed up, if something happened to your family, for two Christians to raise Muslim children.”
He remarked, “Because, out of all people, I know that YOU would.”
People are people. Their culture defines their comfort zone. Good courtesy grants someone the respect for their beliefs and comfort zone, so long as they do not interfere with you with yours.
Grant that and the mutual respect due another human and you can get away with MANY gaffs, as long as you promptly apologize.
Ah ha! A Local! Well as you know the Park is divided between five London Councils: Lewisham, Bromley, Southwark, Lambeth and Croydon. I’m not sure where the dividing lines are in the park, but it could be that certain concrete dinosaurs come under one council and others under another!
So shagging a Pterodactyl may be ok, but not the Icthyosaur!
Perhaps i’ll just go and have a beer in the Black Sheep (and that’s not a euphamism!)
Hence they named their city Bang-Kok.
Gee, I never woulda seen that one … coming. 
I regret to inform you that the link you’ve so graciously provided is no longer active.
Moderator Note
As they often are in threads this old, which is one reason we prefer they not be bumped except for good reason. I’m going to close this one.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator