The Ethics Of Public Sex

This piece was originally published on the Blowfish Blog.

Is public sex ethical?

Be forewarned: This isn’t one of those pieces where I gas on about some sexual topic that I already hold a strong opinion about. This is one of those pieces where I gas on about a sexual topic that I haven’t figured out yet; where I try to figure out what I think and where I stand by writing about it. So if I get this wrong, please accept my apologies in advance.

Carracci_Le_Satyre_et_la_Nymphe
My initial reaction to the question I myself am posing is that public sex is at least borderline unethical. I think it creates a troubling situation where consent is concerned: you’re making other people be voyeurs in your sex life, when they haven’t consented to be. Even if you’re in a public place where you hope not to be seen but might well be, where you’re trying to be hidden but part of the excitement is the fear of getting caught… I’d say much the same thing. You’re deliberately taking the risk of getting caught — in other words, of forcing other people to be involved in your sex life. This was the essence of my earlier piece about how parents should deal with their kids being sexual and masturbating: I said that you could be a sex-positive parent, and still teach your kids to keep their sexuality private, since not everyone wants to see them masturbate.

But I realize that this is a complex question. And like many complex questions, it’s complicated by one simple question: Where do you draw the line?

Not everyone has the same standards of sexual privacy. The standards for what constitutes appropriate public sexual expression, and what constitutes a violation of other people’s right to not participate in your sex life, vary tremendously from person to person, and from situation to situation, and from culture to culture. (And, of course, they change over time.)

Folsom
Examples. You might be fine watching your best friend grope her boyfriend; your English professor might not be. You might be fine watching your best friend grope her boyfriend; you might be less fine watching your father or your sister grope theirs. An outfit that would get you shunned in Salt Lake City might not even raise an eyebrow in Miami… and in some societies, it’s considered a grotesque and indeed illegal breach of sexual privacy for women to wear pants. You might reasonably get squicked seeing a couple necking at, say, a law school graduation or an honorary dinner for the retiring president of the company. But at the Folsom Street Fair, if you see someone giving a spanking or a blowjob in broad daylight? In my opinion, you have no right to be upset. If you didn’t want to see that, then what were you doing at the Folsom Street Fair?

But I’m not just going to punt this question to “be appropriate for the context.” I’m not just going to say that you have to be culturally sensitive and do as the Romans do. I think that’s a cop-out. I think cultures that forbid women to wear pants are misogynist and oppressive and fucked up beyond belief, and I will stand by that position firmly and passionately. As a matter of practicality, I’m not going to wear pants in those countries… but as a matter of moral principle, I’m not going to accept that they have the right to make or enforce those laws.

Burqa_Afghanistan_01
Which leads me to my next point. The stricture against public sex can and does get used as a serious form of political oppression. It gets used to restrain women, to silence queers and other sexual minorities, to censor sexual information. In the bad old days, gays and lesbians could be arrested for public lewdness simply for kissing or holding hands. (In fact, same-sex public displays of affection are still often treated as inherently sexual, when equivalent opposite-sex displays aren’t.) Countries that force women to wear burqas are countries that treat women as disgusting fonts of sexual sin and shame. Some people consider the very act of writing about sex for public consumption, or selling books about sex in a public bookstore, to be a breach of public decency, a violation of their right to never have to encounter sexual ideas that they don’t approve of. The idea that “you shouldn’t express your sexuality in any way that other people find invasive” can all too easily translate as “you shouldn’t express your sexuality in any way.” Period.

But I still don’t like SM couples giving spankings at dinner parties. I still don’t like it when people I don’t know very well tell me graphic details about their sex lives. (Unless they’re at porn readings, of course, or are writing to me for advice.) I still don’t like opening my front door at midnight to take out the garbage, and finding a couple fucking on my front steps. It feels like a violation: like I’m being made to participate in their sex lives, without having been asked.

So what’s the difference?

I’m tempted to say that the difference is motivation. Are you being publicly sexual to make a political or artistic point, to point out society’s hypocrisies and inconsistencies about sex and to try to shift sexual mores? Or are you just doing it for a forbidden erotic thrill, or because you don’t have the patience to get a room? I’m tempted to say that if it’s the former, then mazeltov; if it’s the latter, then get a room already.

London_Gay_Pride_1.JPG
But there’s not always a clear, bright line between the two. What if the cultural more you’re trying to shift is the one against dry-humping in public for fun? The difference is often in the eye of the beholder: a gay couple passionately kissing at the Pride Parade may see themselves as expressing their pride and their love, and yet may be seen by a homophobic right-winger as deliberately flaunting their sexuality in a flagrant act of exhibitionism and seduction. And I’m not sure it makes much difference anyway. Am I going to be any happier with the couple fucking on my doorstep if I think they’re doing it as an act of erotic political rebellion? Not really.

So I’m not sure where I’m going here. It seems like there should be a line, or at least some principle that would help us figure out where that line is under which circumstances. I don’t expect that we’d all always agree about how this principle should be applied — even the clearest ethical principles are complex and have shades of gray in practice — but at least we could agree on what the principle is.

But uncharacteristically, I’m drawing a blank. I’m starting to wonder if this desire for sexual privacy is one of those deeply-rooted, “hard-wired by millennia of evolution” moral principles that got shoved into our social-animal brains hundreds of thousands of years ago when were living in extended-family tribes. I’m starting to wonder if the desire for sexual privacy is irrational at its core… and that therefore any attempt to find a rational guiding principle behind it is just going to be a back-formation: not a genuine understanding of the core of the principle, but simply an attempt to rationalize a belief that’s already in place.

I dunno. I’m coming up blank on this one.

Thoughts?

{advertisement}
The Ethics Of Public Sex
{advertisement}

32 thoughts on “The Ethics Of Public Sex

  1. 1

    Great post, and lots of valid questions. I’ve got a question for you – what’s your take on a sex club? If I go to the sex club, I think the consent to be an exhibitionist and/or a voyeur is kind of implicit with the price of entry.
    But I totally agree with you about people keeping it in their pants at Grandma’s retirement brunch.
    What about sex in the parking lot, though? If you’re at the club grinding up on some hotty, wouldn’t it be better to go fuck in the car than it would be to go at it on the dance floor?

  2. 2

    Greta, I think the reason this is drawing such a blank for you is that it is evolutionary, but it’s also conflicting. That’s one of the nasty things about how natural selection works. It doesn’t know that it shouldn’t give us conflicting morals.
    On the one hand, we have a drive to have sex in private. For males, we don’t want any competitors. Frankly, we’re kind of vulnerable while we’re fucking, and potential rivals are bad to have around. Furthermore, women tend to like men who are faithful, and if other women see a man fucking someone, there’s no doubt about who they’re fucking.
    For women, it’s kind of the same thing. One of the things that makes humans very unusual in the animal kingdom is menstruation, which means concealed ovulation and constant sexual availability. This has led to a very socially oriented sexual morality — that is, sex is often used for social purposes as much or more than reproductive. Women who openly have sex with multiple men often start wars. Just ask Helen. It’s in a woman’s best interest to keep any and all suitors unaware of each other.
    On the other hand, sex is social. In most pre-industrial cultures — in other words, in trapped populations — most everybody knows who’s supposed to be sleeping with whom, and there are a lot of social conventions that go along with coming of age, taking a wife, conquering rivals, accepting concubines, etc, etc, etc. We humans are natural voyeurs, and a lot of our social structure revolves around sexual activity.
    So I think the answer to your question is that there’s no answer to your question. There isn’t a line because each culture really is different, and both sides of the coin — privacy and exhibitionism — are ingrained parts of human nature.

  3. 3

    I’ve got a question for you – what’s your take on a sex club? If I go to the sex club, I think the consent to be an exhibitionist and/or a voyeur is kind of implicit with the price of entry.

    What about sex in the parking lot, though? If you’re at the club grinding up on some hotty, wouldn’t it be better to go fuck in the car than it would be to go at it on the dance floor?

    Uh, wait, if you’re going to go out to the parking lot rather than do it on the dance floor, why did you go to the sex club?

  4. 4

    It’s the same issue as television and radio in my opinion: if you don’t like what you’re seeing and hearing, stop looking and listening to it.

  5. 5

    I think that the line comes when you are forcing someone to see or imagine an overtly sexual act. You can shut a book if it’s too graphic for your taste. You can turn your mind to other things when you see two men kissing in the street (unless you happen to be a Republican anti-gay senator, in which case you’re gonna get all hot.) But if someone is having sex on the sidewalk outside of your house, or in a bathroom where you’re trying to, you know, take a piss–then you have crossed the line into unethical.

  6. 6

    Great post! I have always taken the tact that if you don’t like don’t look and if you want privacy don’t fuck in public. In the end I have a choice not to look. If there were no strictures against public sex it would not have the thrill. If I were to walk outside and see people fucking on my lawn I would be annoyed that they were on my lawn. If they were on the sidewalk I would take note and move on.

  7. 7

    Perhaps it’s the question of lesser evils.
    Making people uncomfortable is bad. Restricting people’s actions is bad. We need to find the balance that’s least bad.
    Asking women to wear veils imposes a large discomfort. Telling men that they might see an unveiled woman causes a minor discomfort, at worst.
    Prohibiting blatant exhibitionism is a minor restriction.

    This is why I feel that things are situation dependent.
    The kind of PDA that’s acceptable in front of liberal grownups is different from the kind of PDA that’s acceptable in a family restaurant.
    One situation is likely to cause a lot less discomfort than the other.

  8. 8

    I agree with you and your confusion on this one. I almost feel like this is one of those questions where we can’t expect to find a simple algorithm, but rather by contemplating it we’re better equipped to come up with a good idea of what is appropriate under which circumstances.

  9. 9

    Very thought provoking indeed. My initial gut reaction was to tend toward considering it *not* unethical. But your questions and hypotheticals have shown me how complex and situationally relative this matter is.
    Which reminds me. Have to watch Prof Michael Sandel’s latest ethics 101 episode (http://justiceharvard.org/)

  10. 10

    I think an important point is equality. The big problem with opposing gay people kissing is that it’s generally perfectly acceptable for straight couples to kiss – so it doesn’t matter what their intent is, given that we live in a society where public kissing is acceptable.
    Similarly with rules in some countries about what women are allowed to wear – they’re specifically restrictions on women, as opposed to being rules for people in general.
    Now having said that, there are some people who do disagree with the consensus on what is allowed – the most obvious example might be naturists, and I think there we might look at what their intent is. But I feel that the most common examples of people being unfairly told they can’t do something in public are cases where there is an inequality.

  11. 11

    You say do you not want to be maked participate in other peoples sex life, but G-D see everything, so he always is participate in other peoples sex life! Do you think you are higher than G-D?

  12. 12

    Personally, Lily, I don’t care what the editors of Gentleman’s Digest think about my sex life, and I’m frankly a little disturbed that they have cameras watching me everywhere I go.
    More seriously: Hammbydamnit, are you sure you’re not propogating pseudoscience there? A lot of what you’re saying sounds like the stuff coming from the less scientifically rigorous sectors of evo psych. Just because something is a *plausible* evolutionary explanation doesn’t make it the *actual* explanation.
    And anyways, I always thought the story was that Helen was kidnapped, not that she had an affair.

  13. 14

    It is basically a perceived use of the genitals that has everyone nervous. Consider the nudist colony. Even there public sex is not allowed (except in some private clubs maybe). But then so is pissing and shitting on the grounds. Everyone has problems dealing with certain genital actions. Where is the line drawn? In early polynisia nudity and breast feeding were OK – but public sex and defecating are not allowed (ya I know there are health problems with one). In lands were clothes were a necessity (with the help of religions that preach self hate) nudity was not allowed and sex is BAD in any case so public sex is DEVIL stuff. At the extreme end you get the islamic tent.
    I also live by the ‘don’t like it-don’t look’ theory but it is more then looking it is the knowing that it is being done and those filled with self-hate can’t stand to know much less see.

  14. 15

    I regret to say that my opinions on this subject amount to little more than gut feeling as well, but I think it has a lot to do with trust. Involving someone in your sex life generally involves a level of trust, no matter how that involvement manifests itself.
    Personally, and I suspect (with little reason) that many others feel this way, I don’t like being undeservedly trusted. I think it’s simmilar to being told a secret against your will. You are forced to either hold the burden of secrecy on someone else’s behalf or betray that person. You’re forced to choose a side, and it’s unfair for a complete stranger to ask that of you.

  15. 16

    The confusion stems from attempting to apply the same standards on radically different communities. One might as well attempt to impose the same religion – or none at all – upon everyone on Earth. It can’t happen!
    What follows is my understanding of the conundrum and not a defense of it. Take it for what you might think it worth.
    Because communities are widely separated in many ways for all practical purposes, they evolve differing standards of acceptable behavior. Many of these differences are understandable and logical, but then some differences are not. For instance, look at the debate over Roman Polanski’s rape of a thirteen-year-old girl. The law and most community standards insist that what he did was illegal, yet he has a very vocal community insisting just as strongly that his genius outweighs his accepting the consequences of that act, one that would face the rest of us with life in prison being the receiving object of similar desires from our roommates. There is no middle ground here, no meeting of the minds. Each group can only go off to their own corners and establish their own rules and not impose them on anyone else who exists outside of their jurisdiction.
    Just as with most other areas of the law (which we are all subjected to despite our ignorance of their existence), one is best served by doing what is decried above – doing as the local Romans do when in that particular Rome. There is no other way to avoid exceeding local standards and be forced into having to face the local (hanging) judge.

  16. 17

    I think you may be mixing evolved concepts with social ones here. If you don’t like rivals, you have one of three solutions, without all the social BS added on – a) drive off the rival, b) do it in secret, or c) do it more often, to attempt to “bribe” them into paying the most attention to you instead. You tend to see all these strategies applied in different cases among primates, but (b) is almost ***universally*** used in cases where the partner is from a rival troop, and that troop would react quite badly to the invasion. Same goes for most other social species, including meerkats. I would say that, for humans, this social unacceptability has become codified so strongly into the social system that public acts *automatically* trigger a multitude of reactions to it. You are:
    1. Doing it with someone the group may not know/approve of.
    2. Doing it in the face of rivals.
    3. Putting others in the position of **seeing you** as a rival, on some level, since you are getting it, while they are not.
    And so on. It pushes **lots** of buttons, ranging from class issues, to group issues, to rivalry issues, to “why can they get by with it when I can’t?” issues, and so on. Our *gut* reaction is probably a mix of these basics, but its all mucked up in a huge mess of social rules we have banging around in our heads, like, “You don’t do that sort of thing in public.”, which are pure fictions, invented to enforce the other rules, the primary one of which, historically, as been, “mine, mine, mine!”, so you can’t have any. And which has driven nearly every rule from early biblical time, to fairly recently, as an attempt to “own” someone.
    If you can’t pin down a reaction, I would say that the odds are good that its because its **not** an evolved behavior, but one derived, indirectly, from ones that where, and all the rules and social norms we heap on top have distorted the original so badly that we can’t see where the lines are, or even **what** they are.
    In short. No, its not unethical, and the reasons it makes people uncomfortable has, at its core, a lot to do with reactions that have nothing to directly do with the *rules* they bring up to explain why they reacted. Like.. Having an aversion to Bananas, not because you don’t like banana, but because you hate ice cream, and your first exposure to bananas was on a banana split. You can’t pin down what the problem is, or even if there is one, because the public sex *isn’t* the issue you are actually reacting to, its just what we project it on, due to 50 other social cues, some of which may even involve things like peeing in public, nudity in general, or just, “Don’t pick your nose in public either, so sex is vis a vie much worse.”
    That would be my take on it. I also think that nudists banning such things is rather stupid. Though, I can see how it would attract people that got into it “just for that”, which would undermine the point of the movement, and that is likely the key reason for the ban in the first place. That and, being sane about one aspect of human nature doesn’t mean you can’t promote ideas that make you a complete twit about others. lol

  17. 18

    This is one of those “Your right to swing you arm ends at my nose” kind of collisions. It’s complicated even more by the question of how much of an imposition it is to see things you dislike in the first place.
    Regarding exhibitionism in particular (where people watching is part of the thrill), I’ve heard it criticized in terms of consent. You’re involving the audience in your sex life, without negotiating up front. Kinky no-no.
    But in general, it’s an interesting question. I agree that the rules at least ought to be consistent, but they’re just plain situational.
    I remember helping maintain a perimeter around a rather intense scene at the Folsom St. Fair (not very “deep” emotionally, but there was an impressive amount of blood), and a number of the bystanders were somewhat perturbed by the sight. (Or at least they said they were as they watched raptly.) I privately cackled with merciless glee, because they just waded through three solid blocks of parading perverts in full regalia; one thing they had was forewarning.
    An interesting example of this hitting the news was Jack Davis’s infamous 50th birthday party in 1997.

  18. 19

    I have thoroughly enjoyed your blog for a while now. And I super-duper enjoy that you posted on a topic that you are still investigating. It shows confidence and willingness to evaluate. Kudos! (Plus it’s neat to see the wheels turn.)
    It sounds like proximity (combined with explicit or implied consent) is the key factor here. If a sexual activity (a straight couple having plain ol’ penis in vag sex) were to happen at a festival where activities like that were common place and you had attended knowing that, you would be a-ok. If this couple continues the fun randomly two months later on your doorstep, ‘Houston, we have a problemo’.
    I think that pretty much follows with books. If a book is titled ‘Erotic Stories’, ‘Porn Through the Ages’, ‘Lick Me…You Know Where’ and filed in the adult section of the bookstore. Perfect! If ‘Beavers are fun!’ has photos of beavers with clits and not beavers with teeth and is filed in the children’s section, not gonna fly.
    The gray area is where we put on (or take off!) our big girl panties and make a decision. I’d say that is a judgment call that most people should be able to make.
    My two cents! 😀

  19. 20

    Jen R., first I must tell you thanks for saying my questioning is interesting! People often tell me are my questionings a little bit dim, so happy to meet you!
    Reason why I wanted to know whether Gospodina Christina think that she is higher than G-D is because people often tell me that athiest think they are higher than G-D. Because of this therefore I am interest in her opinion.
    Personally, I think public sexual behavior ok, because this how I earn my livinghood!

  20. 21

    Maybe this is just about manners?
    If you want to get watched being sexual in public, there are two possibilities: you think that the people who watch you will be happier and hornier because of it–or you think they won’t be happy, but you’re teaching them some kind of lesson.
    If the latter, is your reason for coercing this person really so important and valid? Does your unwilling watcher DESERVE to have it rubbed in their face?
    Individual sexuality is fenced by idiosyncratic disgust and delight. It’s rude as hell to demand that everyone dig on what you groove on.
    It’s boorish and childish and INTOLERANT to shock and offend just because you think some people would be better off from you shocking and offending them.
    Your mama should have taught you better manners.
    With that said, I’d really be happy if I went to take the trash out and there was a hot couple fucking in my driveway.

  21. 22

    Hmm. Not sure I can agree with the consent concept. We consent, because its common place, to watch people eat in ways we don’t like, things that absolutely disgust us, and/or in combinations we don’t like, and, for the most part, even allow for the fact that, if we have a cultural phobia, we either a) don’t eat in such places, or b) ignore the fact that they are eating something taboo to us. The same could be said about how people dress, including in clashing colors, if they are color blind, etc. We allow for these things, because we *expect* that other people will have other views, and its not (well, most of us don’t think it is) our place to *demand* they do things where, how and when *we* want.
    Sex is about the closest to taboo as you can get, and still be something you have no choice but to have anyway. There was an episode of Enterprise that had a situation with an alien species who where deeply offended by the crew eating in public (they considered it almost the same thing as mating in public).
    So, the question is.. If it was common enough that people saw it more, would they ignore it, the same way I ignore someone eating, while taking and spitting crumbs out of their mouth, or at least, just move someplace else, so they don’t have to be offended by it, is this somehow **too great** an imposition, unlike bad eating, or eating pork in front of someone offended by doing so? That is the core issue. And, as Greta should well know, sex in most human society, and in some ways, almost more in the US, is so twisted up in a pretzel if BS and gibberish, and fears, and misinformation, etc., you are asking the wrong people why this is a fuzzy subject, since we have all the same baggage, and the same list of *reasons* for presuming a problem exists. lol

  22. 23

    Greta, one reason I read your blog is that you so often write with confidence about subjects I had barely though about. Now you’re placing the shoe on the other foot, so to speak–my first reaction is, thank you for the trust!
    A couple of reactions: 1) I think you are spot-on with the example of cultures that forbid women to wear pants with the force of law. I would add that those cultures both see women as inherently sinful temptresses and see men as animals with no self control. (I am not in any way saying the two are equivalent insults! There is no argument that women get the worst of it in such societies.)
    2) Leaving that part aside, I think that context is the ONE thing that matters, as numerous examples above show. Think of the congresscritter who wanted to ban “Schindler’s List” because of a scene with nude women. Most of the time, I really like looking at nude women, but that scene is about as sexy as [insert the thing you least want to see].

  23. 24

    @ Porno Lily: an atheist doesn’t think of herself as “higher than God” in the same way that you don’t think of yourself as superior to the Tooth Fairy.

  24. 25

    My two cents worth:
    Bonobo’s are the living primate species most closely related to us. If you’ve never seen one in a zoo, there’s a good reason for that. They like to have sex, lots of it, and they look sooo human in the way they do it! Imagine how that would go down with a visiting school group!
    We’re really not that different, biologically speaking, from Bonobo’s. So, there’s no biological reason to find viewing public sex as offensive in any way. It’s just cultural. So you have to simply abide by the laws of the culture in which you reside. Simple?

  25. 26

    i think you’ve got to back up a bit and clarify the definition of “public” sex.
    let me throw out a few personal examples.
    1. the ex and i went to a movie theater and brought a small vibrator, which we used to bring me to orgasm during the middle of the film. i was quiet, but made some sounds. i doubt anyone saw us in the dark theatre or thought the sounds i was making were unrelated to the movie.
    2. i’ve worked as a stripper and was paid to do so. but patrons had to pay and show ID to get in.
    3. during a gay rights protest, my partner and i mimed very “extreme” sexual positions and practices smack dab in front of a group of counter-protesters. there was no skin-to-skin contact, but it was obvious what we were suggesting with our bodies.
    just trying to complicate things. personally, i’m for public sex, mainly because i don’t believe there is anything wrong or harmful about consenting adults having sex. but i’m with the above and agree that Manners also play a role. when i want to be well mannered with a group of people who don’t share my views on sex, i refrain from public sex acts.

  26. 27

    As a practical rule, I agree with your initial assessment — you’re pulling them into your scene as observers, and that’s not cool.
    As far as underlying issues — no, I don’t think it’s universal. I’d say it’s essentially a question of “manners”. The sight of people having sex is instinctively attention-grabbing, so saying “if you don’t like it, don’t look” is simply disingenuous. The word “tacky” comes to mind — something that’s tacky in the social sense is something that catches at your attention like sticky glue catches at your fingertips. In our society (indeed, in most modern societies), that sort of attention grab is frowned upon, as at least uncouth and sometimes a serious social offense.
    Also, contexts like the Folsom Street Fair (or the Rainbow Gathering, or Mardi Gras/Carnivale), are not really relevant to the general discussion — these are not part of normal society, they are “liminal spaces” where certain social constraints are explicitly relaxed.

  27. 28

    People nowadays are getting immoral, they don’t care about other people who are watching with them having sex in public and that’s being immorality. Embarrassment for them is nothing they don’t care what other people say towards them it’s just the call of sexual immorality.

  28. 29

    The right to exist supersedes the right to control what is observed. People don’t have to look, but they have a right to look if they want to. I find the idea of people being forced to wear clothes they don’t really want to especially in the summer to be overly prudish and controlling. Personally I would prefer it if everyone had to wear ladies_full_brief_panties and have them showing as I do in photographs, but I don’t try to tell others what to do and like to hear what they think. Discussion is good, but stifling minorities rights is not. As far as public spankings go, public whippings and humiliation while secured in stocks publicly used to be commonplace. Crowds of people would gather to watch. In the instance you mentioned of an SM couple doing a spanking scene at a dinner party, you might be surprised how many vanilla people with suppressed frustrations have urges to join in once the spanking starts. You are so right about how overboard prudes go in trying to censor everything they themselves can’t identify with. Absolutely anything, whether it’s just a kiss, an educational book or class, artwork or anything else that doesn’t match their own prudish narrow minded values is a target of their censorship efforts. One person’s immorality is another’s spice or lifestyle. prohibiting or banning unpopular things inevitably hurts those who are in the minority and leads down the path of totalitarianism. People don’t have to watch and there are a lot more reactions than simply like or dislike. The world is not all black or white, either or. Some people think that they have the right to control whatever is within their ability to view or even beyond including the nature of other people’s existence. In my view that is megalomanic. The world does not revolve around the observer. The observer is but a very small part of the universe.

  29. 30

    You’ve probably already read it, but an interesting perspective on the evolution of human sexuality can be found in a book called ‘Why is sex fun?’ by Jared Diamond.
    I’d highly recommend it.

  30. Ken
    31

    You a good point there Greta and I agree with you that it really creates a troubling situation where consent is concerned. But there are other people really don’t mind if they do it in public and i can’t judge them. Well, I like this post very interesting Greta. I hope we could get in touch each other. Thanks!

  31. Ken
    32

    Hi Greta,
    Thanks for approving my comment. I really like your write-ups, you did it well. I hope I could get some good feed backs from you that we can discuss it. (personal email address deleted – GC)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *