What law am I breaking?

[teemingONE]

When I have sex in my car?

Or on an airplane?

Or in a movie theater?

Or in a dressing room?

Are they all the same law?

[astro]

@teemingONE

When I have sex in my car?

Or on an airplane?

Or in a movie theater?

Or in a dressing room?

Are they all the same law?

You’re scaring the children and horses.

[CynicalGabe]

public indecency and/or lewdness. It depends on your jurisdiction and skill level.

[Otto]

In Wisconsin, you would be guilty of public fornication:

944.15(1)
(1) In this section, “in public” means in a place where or in a manner such that the person knows or has reason to know that his or her conduct is observable by or in the presence of persons other than the person with whom he or she is having sexual intercourse.

944.15(2)
(2) Whoever has sexual intercourse in public is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

[teemingONE]

So if I’m in a pretty secluded area, and whatever happens in my car, I’m not breaking any laws?

What if the movie theater is completely empty?

[Rico]

<mod>

You know, we could go into what ifs all night.

Question answered. Thread closed.

</mod>

[Rico]

<mod>

I’m the first to admit when I was wrong. Reopened.

Just keep the answers factual, folks. If it veers off I’ll have to move you to GD.

And for those of you who think I should keep the jackboots off after midnight, well, it’s not midnight here yet! BWAA HAA HAA!

Chalk it up to being a newbie, guys.

</mod>

[Eleusis]

Thanks Rico.

You’re right - there is an underlying debate - but there are factual-type questions here first

What can you be charged with, and under what circumstances?

One would assume that a closed and locked bathroom on an airplane is different than an open movie theater.

[Gary_T]

@teemingONE

So if I’m in a pretty secluded area, and whatever happens in my car, I’m not breaking any laws?

What if the movie theater is completely empty?

Perhaps you missed this part of the Wisconsin statute above: “…knows or has reason to know that his or her conduct is observable by or in the presence of persons…”

I would say that if it’s reasonable to expect that someone acting legally (the burglar who busts into your bedroom doesn’t count) could see it, it’s a violation. People do occasionally walk or drive through secluded areas (you’re there, aren’t you?). People do look into car windows. People do walk into movie theaters, and projectionists have a view from their booth windows. Now practically speaking, unless someone does see it, you’re not going to get cited, but that doesn’t mean the law wasn’t broken.

[Bricker]

@Otto

In Wisconsin, you would be guilty of public fornication:

Does this law, by its plain language, forbid threesomes?

[Otto]

@Bricker

Does this law, by its plain language, forbid threesomes?

I would say no, since it exempts the person with whom one is having sexual intercourse. Since each person is a participant, each is “the person with whom he or she is having sexual intercourse.”

In looking at the annotations to another section of the statute, 944.20 “Lewd and Lacivious Behavior,” there is case law which states:

“Publicly” is susceptible to a construction that will avoid the question of constitutional overbreadth, by limiting the application of the statute to constitutionally permissible goals of protecting children from exposure to obscenity and preventing assaults on the sensibilities of unwilling adults in public. Reichenberger v. Warren, 319 F. Supp. 1237 (1970).

I would argue based on this case that if one is participating in a threesome one is not an “unwiling adult” and claiming that your partners are violating 944.15 by having sex in your presence is an overbroard interpretation of the statute.

If one or more of the parties in the threesome is married, however, everyone’s guilty of violating 944.16, Adultery. Class I felony.

[vetbridge]

@teemingONE

So if I’m in a pretty secluded area, and whatever happens in my car, I’m not breaking any laws?

What if the movie theater is completely empty?

If a tree falls in the forest. . .

[gigi]

@Gary T

Perhaps you missed this part of the Wisconsin statute above: “…knows or has reason to know that his or her conduct is observable by or in the presence of persons…”

I would say that if it’s reasonable to expect that someone acting legally (the burglar who busts into your bedroom doesn’t count) could see it, it’s a violation. People do occasionally walk or drive through secluded areas (you’re there, aren’t you?). People do look into car windows. People do walk into movie theaters, and projectionists have a view from their booth windows. Now practically speaking, unless someone does see it, you’re not going to get cited, but that doesn’t mean the law wasn’t broken.

What about “observed” as in hearing the activity, as in the case of the mile-high club?

[Gary_T]

@gigi

What about “observed” as in hearing the activity, as in the case of the mile-high club?

I’m not a law expert, but “observed” is essentially synonymous with “perceived” (i.e., not limited to seeing), so I would expect behavior that was heard would qualify. However, in seeing the act, one can generally be certain of what the behavior is. In hearing the sounds of the act, it’s not always clear if the sounds are indeed coming from said act or merely being imitated, so I would expect that without corroborative evidence it wouldn’t be enough to prevail in court.

[A.R.Cane]

“What about “observed” as in hearing the activity, as in the case of the mile-high club?”

Only if you’re Superman/girl/boy, or have a pair of those “X-ray” glasses that used to be advertised in comic books.

[SmartAleq]

@Gary T

I’m not a law expert, but “observed” is essentially synonymous with “perceived” (i.e., not limited to seeing), so I would expect behavior that was heard would qualify. However, in seeing the act, one can generally be certain of what the behavior is. In hearing the sounds of the act, it’s not always clear if the sounds are indeed coming from said act or merely being imitated, so I would expect that without corroborative evidence it wouldn’t be enough to prevail in court.

Is it illegal then to simulate sex very realistically? Is it more illegal to actually have sex in public without anything being actually visible (say, with a woman sitting across a man’s lap, she wearing a voluminous skirt which covers them both and he has his pants on but unzipped) than it is to be nearly naked and behaving as though you were having sex but not actually physically engaged?

[Valgard]

If the vehicle is in motion you might be facing reckless driving or “operating a vehicle in an unsafe manner” charges.

[flight]

@Otto

I would argue based on this case that if one is participating in a threesome one is not an “unwiling adult” and claiming that your partners are violating 944.15 by having sex in your presence is an overbroard interpretation of the statute.

In fact, it would seem to allow for consensual public sex, such as in a large private party for example.

[David_Simmons]

@Valgard

If the vehicle is in motion you might be facing reckless driving or “operating a vehicle in an unsafe manner” charges.

And the observer could be charged with disturbing the piece. Slinks off stage amid a shower of garbage.

[Electronic_Chaos]

The real question is, what jurisdiction would it fall under in an airplane? Federal law, right? Are there any federal laws covering public indecency? What about on an international flight?