Watched the bbc2 program on the licenced brothel last night. Think it has been on before. It was a quite interesting program, full of all the arguements and expectations without all the cheap thrills. It showed the flipside to the role, where the girls are not all drugies or beaten up by a pimp. Some were really clever and well balanced in their outlook. It just occurred to me that if we ever had it licenced in the uk, whether the morally uptight folk would tear it down and kill the notion? One VERY young looking 21yr old on the program openly said she attracted the types and that it was better for them to get off with her than to snatch some kid?
It would be a very interesting point to have an amnesty on the law in a few area's, and see if the crime rates for sexual offences drops? It is a difficult subject, but just wondered if any of the fella's WOULD openly pay for sex on the proviso that they have a real frustration and were not gods gift to chatting up women within a days timescale to release this tension?
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Nevada whorehouse
i watch that program to i dont no if it was me but there was just something not right about the two people running it plus that one that realy look young she look realy wierd aswell but the tall leggy blonde mmmmm i would pay for some of that any day she had a realy nice body dam get a grip cant stop thinking about her better go to work than masterbating lol o and when the woman who ran it with her husband thought that she was so good about deepthroating the best i think she said sheesh wat she think she is the only woman who can do that any i am off to work laterz! bye! :eeek:
The blonde one, I think she was called Hayley, really worried me. Call it female intuition but there was something seriously wrong there.
Did anyone else notice that how the programme focussed on so few of the girls yet there were obviously far more in the background?
The theme of the programme was interesting though, I wonder if we have finally got past the 70's, feminist inspired paranoia of all men who pay for sex being degenerates or faliures or both and all women who sell being desperate druggies?
Did anyone else notice that how the programme focussed on so few of the girls yet there were obviously far more in the background?
The theme of the programme was interesting though, I wonder if we have finally got past the 70's, feminist inspired paranoia of all men who pay for sex being degenerates or faliures or both and all women who sell being desperate druggies?
Hi all I have been watching the programme.
I spent 3 weeks last year in Las Vegas Nevada and Los Angeles California and drove past the infamous Chicken ranch but did not partake in a leg or breast
This system works and the brothel is in the middle of the desert on the way to Death Valley.
Not my idea of fun but could be for somebody relieving frustration.
All the places I go to where there are legal brothels there is less sex crime FACT.
If a man has relieved himself he will not need to or molest.
I am for legalised brothel areas in England.
This will allow the girls and punters legal and health protection but will then give the police the power to clamp down outside of these areas.
In London alone there is a very active prostistute market and if it was legalised it would help everybody including law enforcement.
We really do need to enter the real world sometimes after all it is only people doing what comes naturally. Why suppress it?
Be safe out there.
Sandie
I spent 3 weeks last year in Las Vegas Nevada and Los Angeles California and drove past the infamous Chicken ranch but did not partake in a leg or breast
This system works and the brothel is in the middle of the desert on the way to Death Valley.
Not my idea of fun but could be for somebody relieving frustration.
All the places I go to where there are legal brothels there is less sex crime FACT.
If a man has relieved himself he will not need to or molest.
I am for legalised brothel areas in England.
This will allow the girls and punters legal and health protection but will then give the police the power to clamp down outside of these areas.
In London alone there is a very active prostistute market and if it was legalised it would help everybody including law enforcement.
We really do need to enter the real world sometimes after all it is only people doing what comes naturally. Why suppress it?
Be safe out there.
Sandie
I think the woman called hayley was the one who was strutting about showing off to the camera's all the time? If it rang true the madam said she had been shot in the ear by her ex husband who thought he had killed her then shot himself dead. A sad time. I thought she seemed very intelligent and quite open, but I think some deep mental issues with her personality. The youngish one was as she said purely in it to get some easy money for her and her husband for a home, due to being out of places to stop. The thing that sort of made me open eyed was the one who popped in with the bikini on, having got a young sailor 'partying'...it was said she hoped to 'work' about 14 plus that night...! I guess it sort of makes you think...if you are number 14 that is? The redhead with the old guy was sad. I appreciate his issues but he must surely have understood she was only playing out his fantasy and his pleasure with the big bucks. I did feel sorry for the guy who had problems with his disability in the stroke to the head. He put the issue square and to the point, and for folk like that it has to be some help. I think if nothing else it has to be good for the likes of the physically disabled, the widower who is in his later years who needs some relief and the likes, because it is often hard enough for we who class ourselves as normal to click on a night out?
A deeper subject that will be addressed sometime by some government? They already have some 'area's' set aside for prostitution, and all we need now is a screening process and some legality? Which is the strongest moral code to prostitution...the richeous or the need? guess it is upto the majority of the common people...?
A deeper subject that will be addressed sometime by some government? They already have some 'area's' set aside for prostitution, and all we need now is a screening process and some legality? Which is the strongest moral code to prostitution...the richeous or the need? guess it is upto the majority of the common people...?
morning but i got to disagree with u there sandie about less men will if they legalise brothals it is something in the brain that makes a man do it it has nothing to do with the stuff u said its prbably liken to a diesease or watever happens to them in there childhood years i bet if u did a progaramme on y men the majority will say something happen in there childhood years anyway back to the program wat about the bloke who just liked to kiss wat a wierdo he was i thought he was on drugs or something and the prostitue was contradicting herself all the time anyway back to work 
bye!
bye! Quote by Mandy_1964
Indeed. isn't about sex at all, it's about violence and non-consensuality.
Mandy
As a guy, if you get really hacked off with a guy, you feel like beating him up. That's not an option with a women, so 's an (equally illegal) alternative.
I did once get so upset with a woman that I actually started imagining her - it took several months to get me to that state, and I'm glad to say that I almost instantly realised that it was a pretty sick thing even to imagine.
But I can confirm that it wasn't sexy in the slightest - the motivation was to get my own back in the cruelest possible way. I switched to imagining ever more painful ways to murder her instead, which is, I believe, more socially acceptable.
Needless to say, I didn't carry out any of my plans. Ignoring her worked much better...
M.
One thing struck me about the programme as I recall - the women were accorded a certain amount of respect by their clients: they were providing good customer service and so their clients were happy. It didn't strike me as a biased view on the part of the film makers - it's not Theroux's style to give a rosy glow usually.
Have to agree - legalise prostitution and everybody benefits in terms of health, falling crime rates and legislation.
Sappho's two pennorth for today!
Love to all xx
Have to agree - legalise prostitution and everybody benefits in terms of health, falling crime rates and legislation.
Sappho's two pennorth for today!
Love to all xx
Sex God
Mfromr, your opinion is misguided at best, or at least mis-educated 
. Many men do take out their anger on women by beating them up - take domestic violent as a good example. Further, studies show that both men and women take their frustrations out on members of both sexes by using physical aggression (in a variety of situations).
As Mandy1964 says, isn't so much about sex, it's a about violence. Indeed, sometimes people commit sex crimes because they are pissed off with their victim, have some grudge against them or whatever. However, this type of violence DOES NOT just happen to women. There is some evidence to suggest that male rapes are fueled by grudges, revenge, personal hatred etc just as much as female rapes are - just take prison as a prime example. Just because male isn't discussed like female is doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
On a different point, Methodman is right that will still happen if brothels are legalised because it is caused by different motivations than purely seeking sex. Personally, I would like to see brothels legalised then hookers can pay taxes like the rest of us :twisted:
. Many men do take out their anger on women by beating them up - take domestic violent as a good example. Further, studies show that both men and women take their frustrations out on members of both sexes by using physical aggression (in a variety of situations). As Mandy1964 says, isn't so much about sex, it's a about violence. Indeed, sometimes people commit sex crimes because they are pissed off with their victim, have some grudge against them or whatever. However, this type of violence DOES NOT just happen to women. There is some evidence to suggest that male rapes are fueled by grudges, revenge, personal hatred etc just as much as female rapes are - just take prison as a prime example. Just because male isn't discussed like female is doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
On a different point, Methodman is right that will still happen if brothels are legalised because it is caused by different motivations than purely seeking sex. Personally, I would like to see brothels legalised then hookers can pay taxes like the rest of us :twisted:
Quote by bluexxx
Mfromr, your opinion is misguided at best, or at least mis-educated
As Mandy1964 says, isn't so much about sex, it's a about violence.
...
OK, stop right there. Just one question. Did you actually read my post all the way through before responding to it?
No, I thought not. If you had, you would have realised that the whole post was supporting the argument that is an act of violence, and not of sex.
Just to make it clear, I totally agree with all the points you made in your post. I just object to being portrayed as on the opposite side to such a reasonable position...
Sex God
I did read your post all the way through, but I thought it unfair to respond to your personal admission of violent fantasies on a public forum, but if you would like to further that discussion by PM, I'm all ears.
I responded particularly to your less personalised first paragraph in a way that I felt was appropriate for a public forum. Although this paragraph was less personalised, yes, I appreciate that this is your personal view of the types of violence that are perceived as appropriate for men and women.
You said:
"As a guy, if you get really hacked off with a guy, you feel like beating him up. That's not an option with a women, so 's an (equally illegal) alternative"
I was pointing out that this particular view, although one which a lot of folks endorse, is inaccurate, namely because men often beat up women, and men commonly get .
Like I said, the rest of what you said seemed very personalised and not something I didn't feel I could comment on in public. Perhpas I could say that a lot of people fantasise about doing horrid things to people they don't like, the nature of which probably does reflect what people perceive (rightly or wrongly) as an "appropriate" type of violence for the gender of the person they hate. What people don't tend to do is admit these violent fantasies. I think that what you said in the latter part of your post was honest (perhaps brutally so) and one that is contraversial for more reasons than you probably realised when you wrote it.
Anyway, I meant no offence to you, I was just responding in a factual way to a post that could have offended some people.
I responded particularly to your less personalised first paragraph in a way that I felt was appropriate for a public forum. Although this paragraph was less personalised, yes, I appreciate that this is your personal view of the types of violence that are perceived as appropriate for men and women.
You said:
"As a guy, if you get really hacked off with a guy, you feel like beating him up. That's not an option with a women, so 's an (equally illegal) alternative"
I was pointing out that this particular view, although one which a lot of folks endorse, is inaccurate, namely because men often beat up women, and men commonly get .
Like I said, the rest of what you said seemed very personalised and not something I didn't feel I could comment on in public. Perhpas I could say that a lot of people fantasise about doing horrid things to people they don't like, the nature of which probably does reflect what people perceive (rightly or wrongly) as an "appropriate" type of violence for the gender of the person they hate. What people don't tend to do is admit these violent fantasies. I think that what you said in the latter part of your post was honest (perhaps brutally so) and one that is contraversial for more reasons than you probably realised when you wrote it.
Anyway, I meant no offence to you, I was just responding in a factual way to a post that could have offended some people.
first of all to even have the idea of a woman in your head is a bit sick two things in my book respect if someone shows u respect man or women then u show respect u never hit a woman now matter wat she has done here ends this mornings lesson i bet the punctuality and spelling people will be out soon so a quick move to the left and i am off beep beep 
To
I was going to say something like:
But it had already been said. No, I don't think about beating a guy up when I get really hacked off with him. I used to, back in my youth when I saw violence as recreational. But that was not because I was hacked off with him, it was because I was looking for a fight.
And to all the other stuff about brothels -
If brothels were not only legalised, but free. Would I go there rather than meet people on Swinging Heaven. - Nope!
If there is such a thriving trade is prostitution now, how much of an impact would it really have on the number of people visiting protitutes?
We are not talking about creating a new trade - we are talking about legalising an existing one!
Would legalised protitution affect the levels of sex crime? I don't know. But it would be interesting to see how many sex offenders have used protitutes. It did not stop them from offending then - why would it stop them if it was legal. Would the legalisation of prostitutions decrease the the amount of pleasure that a sex offender gets from visiting them, how much of the pleasure in visiting a protitute derived from the sex, and how much derived from the illegality? Might it make them more prone to offend if they do not get that extra kick from doing sexual that is illegal? Again - I don't know.
secondly u never hit a woman now matter wat she has done/quote] What about going further and saying, you never hit a man, no matter what he has done? When is any form of violence justified except in self defence - and then the level of violence is not dicated by the sex of the person, but by what is reasonable in order to defend yourself. I am sure Methodman did not mean he would allow himself to be beaten to death just because it was a woman beating him up.
Germany has a much more relaxed approach to protitution. Someone tell me if I am right in saying they are licensed? - There is also a thriving underground un-licensed prostitution market. Is there more illegal prostitution in London than Hamburg? And is there less police time spent on policing prostitution in Germany than the UK? What about the licensing checks? Would the industry pay for that, and would that mean that prices up and so generate the demand for a cheaper, underground, illegal market?
Personally, I think legalising prostitution would just mean we had legalised prostitution. Any other impact would be short term and of minimal scope. There would be only one group who really benefited - and that would be the prostitutes.
And I am all for legalising prostitution for that reason only.
Did I miss anything?
lhk
Kat
As a guy, if you get really hacked off with a guy, you feel like beating him up. That's not an option with a women, so 's an (equally illegal) alternative.
I was going to say something like:
men often beat up women, and men commonly get .
But it had already been said. No, I don't think about beating a guy up when I get really hacked off with him. I used to, back in my youth when I saw violence as recreational. But that was not because I was hacked off with him, it was because I was looking for a fight.
And to all the other stuff about brothels -
If brothels were not only legalised, but free. Would I go there rather than meet people on Swinging Heaven. - Nope!
If there is such a thriving trade is prostitution now, how much of an impact would it really have on the number of people visiting protitutes?
We are not talking about creating a new trade - we are talking about legalising an existing one!
Would legalised protitution affect the levels of sex crime? I don't know. But it would be interesting to see how many sex offenders have used protitutes. It did not stop them from offending then - why would it stop them if it was legal. Would the legalisation of prostitutions decrease the the amount of pleasure that a sex offender gets from visiting them, how much of the pleasure in visiting a protitute derived from the sex, and how much derived from the illegality? Might it make them more prone to offend if they do not get that extra kick from doing sexual that is illegal? Again - I don't know.
secondly u never hit a woman now matter wat she has done/quote] What about going further and saying, you never hit a man, no matter what he has done? When is any form of violence justified except in self defence - and then the level of violence is not dicated by the sex of the person, but by what is reasonable in order to defend yourself. I am sure Methodman did not mean he would allow himself to be beaten to death just because it was a woman beating him up.
Germany has a much more relaxed approach to protitution. Someone tell me if I am right in saying they are licensed? - There is also a thriving underground un-licensed prostitution market. Is there more illegal prostitution in London than Hamburg? And is there less police time spent on policing prostitution in Germany than the UK? What about the licensing checks? Would the industry pay for that, and would that mean that prices up and so generate the demand for a cheaper, underground, illegal market?
Personally, I think legalising prostitution would just mean we had legalised prostitution. Any other impact would be short term and of minimal scope. There would be only one group who really benefited - and that would be the prostitutes.
And I am all for legalising prostitution for that reason only.
Did I miss anything?
lhk
Kat
Quote by bluexxx
I think that what you said in the latter part of your post was honest (perhaps brutally so) and one that is contraversial for more reasons than you probably realised when you wrote it.
Anyway, I meant no offence to you, I was just responding in a factual way to a post that could have offended some people.
Blue,
I'm sorry I got upset with your response. I didn't mean to trivialise violence against women in any way. What I should probably have said is something along the lines of "for some men at least, non-sexual violence offends their sense of honour, but yet they seem willing to consider as a more acceptable alternative". I certainly didn't mean to condone that view, or portray it as acceptable. I must say that when writing my post, I had never for one moment assumed that anyone reading it could have had to deal with suggestions that violence against women does not exist or is not a problem, and for that reason I was a bit glib on the subject. This thread has been an education in that sense, and a somewhat shocking one.
The post was as you say, meant to be honest. I actually find it hard to believe that there is a single person reading this list who hasn't "dreamt" about commiting a non-consensual violent act (whether sexual or not) against someone at some point in their life. I've deliberately not used the word "fantasy" because that has a implication of sexual arrousal, that I made clear was not relevant in this case. What matters is how you react to that impulse - in my case I realised it was a sick response, and discarded it.
Why did I own up to this? Because I wanted to back up the point that isn't sexy, and I don't see any point on denying that all of us occasionally have sick thoughts. And because I hoped to encourage other people to honestly examine their own emotions.
I think if you knew me, you'd think that I was probably one of the least likely guys to indulge in actual that you'd ever met, and you'd be right (I hope!).
To move on to the subject of domination inspired sexual fantasies, I'm totally out of my area of expertise here as they simply don't turn me on. However, I doubt that there's a link between such fantasies and genuine - I would imagine what really turns a dominant person on is that the submissive is willing to consent to such treatment. I'd be happy to be educated on that subject too.
Mark.
Sex God
Mark,
We seem to have sorted our previous misunderstandings out
The only thing I would add to your previous post really is that violence against anyone, male or female (or indeed of a non-human animal) should not be trivialised. The vast majority of folks would agree that violence against women is wrong. If you are male, hitting women is pretty much (unless you are a wife-beater or some other form of loony-tune
). However, many people are much more accepting of violence against men, whether that violence is a sexual offence or a physical assault. But why shouldn't people see violence against men as serious as violence against women? What are the reasons within society that make people think that male victims of violent crimes are not seriously affected by victimisation? The point is - they are as seriously affected by violent crime as women are. In a civilised society, violence should be considered wrong whoever the target. Self defence is the only situation where vioelnce should be condoned, and if people behaved themselves even this wouldn't be needed. But, alas, if that were the case I would have no chance to test out my martial arts skills :twisted:
We seem to have sorted our previous misunderstandings out
The only thing I would add to your previous post really is that violence against anyone, male or female (or indeed of a non-human animal) should not be trivialised. The vast majority of folks would agree that violence against women is wrong. If you are male, hitting women is pretty much (unless you are a wife-beater or some other form of loony-tune
). However, many people are much more accepting of violence against men, whether that violence is a sexual offence or a physical assault. But why shouldn't people see violence against men as serious as violence against women? What are the reasons within society that make people think that male victims of violent crimes are not seriously affected by victimisation? The point is - they are as seriously affected by violent crime as women are. In a civilised society, violence should be considered wrong whoever the target. Self defence is the only situation where vioelnce should be condoned, and if people behaved themselves even this wouldn't be needed. But, alas, if that were the case I would have no chance to test out my martial arts skills :twisted: 
Sex God
I think the reason for the different views of violence towards men as opposed women is VERY deep rooted indeed. I agree with absolutely everything that blue has said and I do think that attitudes in the law on this matter are changing, albeit very slowly.
The fact is that most of our legal code (and therefore our moral upbringing) is medieval in origin and although laws are frequently revised and redrafted the basic premise hasn't altered.
At the time the earlier laws were introduced all men were armed (the gentry with swords, the 'lower' classes with knives etc.) and fighting - whether in battles, duels or even skirmishes - was part of manhood. Women, on the other hand, were set on a pedestal and were to be respected and protected at all times. THAT is why violence against women is such a terrible .
Of course, society is not structured like that now but both the law and our moral attitutdes tend to lag behind reality. Only when everyone (or at least the vast majority) is as enlightened as blue - and most others in this forum - will these changes in attitudes be truly reflected.
The very fact that we are all communicating via a slightly underground site with pseudonyms etc. is proof that our views and morals would not be universally accepted by society. However, the huge number of people joining on a regular basis also proves how widespread such views are.
The late (and unlamented) methodkid of course missed the point when he said "there is more than sex". For me, this site is NOT purely about sex. It is about making friends, having respect for each other, tolerating other people's lifestyles and fantasies - even if they do not match your own - and also understanding yourself. Of course, if you meet people who share those views and values and who can also communicate intelligently and coherently then there will inevitably be an attraction and a bond is bound to form. In such cases the possible progression to a sexual relationship is entirely natural. Such thought processes and complexities are not within reach of people like methodkid (and I am NOT being patronising, just making an observation) and this forum is not the place for them - yet. Give them time.
Sorry - that was all rather heavy :confused2: but very well intentioned. I did warn you that I tend to go on a bit!!
The fact is that most of our legal code (and therefore our moral upbringing) is medieval in origin and although laws are frequently revised and redrafted the basic premise hasn't altered.
At the time the earlier laws were introduced all men were armed (the gentry with swords, the 'lower' classes with knives etc.) and fighting - whether in battles, duels or even skirmishes - was part of manhood. Women, on the other hand, were set on a pedestal and were to be respected and protected at all times. THAT is why violence against women is such a terrible .
Of course, society is not structured like that now but both the law and our moral attitutdes tend to lag behind reality. Only when everyone (or at least the vast majority) is as enlightened as blue - and most others in this forum - will these changes in attitudes be truly reflected.
The very fact that we are all communicating via a slightly underground site with pseudonyms etc. is proof that our views and morals would not be universally accepted by society. However, the huge number of people joining on a regular basis also proves how widespread such views are.
The late (and unlamented) methodkid of course missed the point when he said "there is more than sex". For me, this site is NOT purely about sex. It is about making friends, having respect for each other, tolerating other people's lifestyles and fantasies - even if they do not match your own - and also understanding yourself. Of course, if you meet people who share those views and values and who can also communicate intelligently and coherently then there will inevitably be an attraction and a bond is bound to form. In such cases the possible progression to a sexual relationship is entirely natural. Such thought processes and complexities are not within reach of people like methodkid (and I am NOT being patronising, just making an observation) and this forum is not the place for them - yet. Give them time.
Sorry - that was all rather heavy :confused2: but very well intentioned. I did warn you that I tend to go on a bit!!
Firstly, I absolutely concur with Blue's, Mark's and Will's views expressed herein, and whilst the subject is a serious one it's good to see it being discussed so cogently.
Going back to another point of Will's -
In a sense women as members of society have actually lost the respect (for want of a better word) attributed to them when they were equals in society before the Romans and the Dark Ages. In the cause of survival and defence women were not just female chattels or objects of devotion but sword-women, warriors and fighters. Boudicca is the obvious example but there were also the legendary Amazons, not to mention the feisty females of the Bible such as Judith. Jean d'Arc and Pope Joan in that sense were 1500 years out of time in that sense, but still fell victims to the male establishment.
This isn't intended to be a feminist issue by any means, but the very taboos we live by were initiated and set in stone by an invariably male and Christian establishment. What a shame that the very which is under discussion didn't stretch to both sexes.
The discussion has centred upon physical violence of whatever form. Surely mental and emotional violence is just as valid and, I would suggest, more widespread yet less acknowledged.
One last point:
One does hope so!
Going back to another point of Will's -
At the time the earlier laws were introduced all men were armed (the gentry with swords, the 'lower' classes with knives etc.) and fighting - whether in battles, duels or even skirmishes - was part of manhood. Women, on the other hand, were set on a pedestal and were to be respected and protected at all times. THAT is why violence against women is such a terrible .
In a sense women as members of society have actually lost the respect (for want of a better word) attributed to them when they were equals in society before the Romans and the Dark Ages. In the cause of survival and defence women were not just female chattels or objects of devotion but sword-women, warriors and fighters. Boudicca is the obvious example but there were also the legendary Amazons, not to mention the feisty females of the Bible such as Judith. Jean d'Arc and Pope Joan in that sense were 1500 years out of time in that sense, but still fell victims to the male establishment.
This isn't intended to be a feminist issue by any means, but the very taboos we live by were initiated and set in stone by an invariably male and Christian establishment. What a shame that the very which is under discussion didn't stretch to both sexes.
The discussion has centred upon physical violence of whatever form. Surely mental and emotional violence is just as valid and, I would suggest, more widespread yet less acknowledged.
One last point:
Of course, if you meet people who share those views and values and who can also communicate intelligently and coherently then there will inevitably be an attraction and a bond is bound to form. In such cases the possible progression to a sexual relationship is entirely natural.
One does hope so!
Sex God
Sapho is right, in Celtic law, women had much more equal status and it was the Romans and (I am sad to admit) Christianity that brought about the change. I very nearly mentioned Boudicca in my post but decided it might only confuse matters so I am very grateful to Sappho for making the point.
I won't add to this as I have already gone on for quite long enough.
However, it is nice to see serious and well thought out discussions on here as well as the very entertaining ones.
I won't add to this as I have already gone on for quite long enough.
However, it is nice to see serious and well thought out discussions on here as well as the very entertaining ones.
Sex God
Indeed, and well said Will and Sappho 8) - what an educated bunch of pervs we are :twisted:
Christian puritan laws indeed . We only have to look at the law in relation to the age of consent for proof that legal change is very slow, and still based on "traditional" views of "morality". It was only in 2000 that we got an equal age of consent for gay men. But alas, sex between men in law is still not equal to that of heterosexual or lesbian sex. Men can only have sex with other men in private. Although everyone is legally obliged to refrain from having their jollies in public, what is deemed public for gay men is much more strictly defined in law. Private for gay men means, not only do they need to be in a place where "innocent" bystanders won't see them, but also that they only do it in twosomes. Legally, a man still cannot have sex with another man if another person is present :shock: - even if that other person is willing to watch 
. Therefore, for people like me who like to watch a bit of man-on-man now and again :twisted: , it means that the guys who perform for me are technically criminals. How sad is that??? Yes, guys, gay male threesomes are illegal, and MMF threesomes are illegal if the guys play with each other too. GRRRRRRR :x :x :x
Oh well, we can't have everything, can we!
Christian puritan laws indeed
. We only have to look at the law in relation to the age of consent for proof that legal change is very slow, and still based on "traditional" views of "morality". It was only in 2000 that we got an equal age of consent for gay men. But alas, sex between men in law is still not equal to that of heterosexual or lesbian sex. Men can only have sex with other men in private. Although everyone is legally obliged to refrain from having their jollies in public, what is deemed public for gay men is much more strictly defined in law. Private for gay men means, not only do they need to be in a place where "innocent" bystanders won't see them, but also that they only do it in twosomes. Legally, a man still cannot have sex with another man if another person is present :shock: - even if that other person is willing to watch . Therefore, for people like me who like to watch a bit of man-on-man now and again :twisted: , it means that the guys who perform for me are technically criminals. How sad is that??? Yes, guys, gay male threesomes are illegal, and MMF threesomes are illegal if the guys play with each other too. GRRRRRRR :x :x :x Oh well, we can't have everything, can we!
Sex God
I'm logging off and going to bed too - now, how dodgy does that look to the "lurkers"?
