Well, you may have pinpointed the problem right there!!
Still? They cut down all the shrubbery in Russell Square over a year ago to prevent this sort of thing from going on. Unsurprisingly, a little “action group” sprang up to, yes, defend their right to have sex in public.
George Michael’s song notwithstanding, I’m siding with the OP. I don’t care whether you’re gay, straight, or just in there by yourself with a rubber glove, a bottle of Astroglide and a copy of the latest Williams-Sonoma catalog; there ain’t no “right” to public sex for anyone.
Wouldn’t have it any other way…
<Homer>
Mmmmm…housewares…
</Homer>
Um, jayjay…you do realize that’s not what they mean by a “melon baller”, don’t you?
Since the Nurse has not responded to her page, I’ll answer this one.
As a fellow Twin Citian, I can say that yes, Nurse Carmen was referring to Loring Park.
Well, I didn’t think you’d be excusing them, either, Esprix. I just hate when ANYONE yells DISCRIMINATION! at the drop of a hat-when it’s so obviously NOT discrimination.
Ah, Loring Park…
Happy days, happy days. Nights, actually.
Although I was never aware of much…er…activity…going on during daylight or even early evening hours (I lived about six blocks south, on Nicollet and Franklin). Most of the stuff going on there was well after dark. And again, if your children are spending time in Loring-fucking-Park at midnight, their witness of public sex should really be the least of your worries…
Although I do remember being rousted from the steps of the park office by city police once, around 3AM. (Quiet, you! I was just sitting there…then…)
Apology accepted, and thank you. I assumed it was a misread, but I just wanted to be sure.
Esprix
Just in case anyone’s misread me, I am not defending them either. They sound like gigantic morons who once heard that police action against gay sex in bathrooms can be discriminatory practice (as I’ve tried to explain, it can be, although I’m fairly sure it usually isn’t) without understanding the theory behind that, and jumped on it in a particularly idiotic attempt to excuse their behaviour. Nobody has any right to screw in public areas and should be prepared to face the music if/when they do get caught.
My point was that if the police come looking for me because I’m a gay man having sex in public, rather than simply a person having sex in public, whether or not my actions were right or wrong (and I’ll be the first to admit I’ve broken the law) I have been discriminated against. These two jerks don’t sound like they have been discriminated against in the slightest, but this does not mean it doesn’t happen.
Heh, in 1954 they did the same thing to Mount Royal Park. The mountain looked so ugly afterward they called it Mont Chauve (“Mount Bald”).
They put the trees back later. Nighttime liaisons continued unabated. Another victory for slanking and shrubbery!
Well, yeah, police looking specifically for gay people to bust on some charge-that’s discrimination.
It just cracks me up when they said they had a RIGHT to have sex there. Da’hell?
Like I said-they have us much right to have sex in a store bathroom as I have a right to go over to their house and answer nature’s call in their bed.