I cannot believe I just read this post at the Bilerico blog which is based in Indianapolis. The author of this post goes by the name of “Father Tony”, who professes to be a Roman Catholic priest who has been on an extended vacation from that vocation for many years. I bet many an altar boy are glad he’s on vacation.
He wrote today the following:
Public Sex Parks Save Lives and Balance Budgets
Men who wish to have sex with men anonymously, casually or with NSA (no strings attached) constitute an underserved market and a prickly social problem. These men are single, partnered, married, polyamorous, on vacation, from out-of-town, on the down low, young, old, good citizens, criminals and every other descriptive imaginable. Above all, they are horny, and this sometimes drives them to have sex in public places such as parks, highway rest areas, moonlit beaches, restrooms, adult video arcades and to jeopardize their safety via online hook-ups.
By not providing a safe and reasonable public outlet for casual, anonymous and NSA gay sex, we make guilty those men who, while answering a natural, perpetual and eternal urge, risk losing their reputations and sometimes their lives.
By not providing a safe and reasonable public outlet for casual, anonymous and NSA gay sex, we make guilty those men who, while answering a natural, perpetual and eternal urge, risk losing their reputations and sometimes their lives.
I’ll get to the “providing a public outlet” point in a moment. If they’re stupid enough to risk their lives and reputations by engaging in this activity by lurking in parks, public places, or hooking up online with anonymous strangers, that’s their problem, not mine and yours. As for providing a public outlet, hasn’t he ever heard of “your bedroom”, or how about, “get a room?”
Father Tony has a different opinion, and yes, his following statement is really one sentence.
Because all the police crack-downs and sting operations, and all the media exposures and outings and public humiliations and career/marriage wrecking persecutions, and reinforced concrete/metal stall dividers in public restrooms, and surveillance cameras, and mean-spirited church ladies writing down license plate numbers and murderous thieving hook-ups and hysterical legislative prohibitions and the overarching spread of untraceable social disease have not been able to make even the slightest dent in this type of behavior, perhaps you will join me in concluding that it is time for us to accept the premise of this type of sexual need and to furnish safe circumstances that will facilitate it in a socially acceptable and healthier way.
Sorry Father Tony, I don’t think you’ll be getting much public support for this idea, aside from the predators lurking in the parks. Tony, (he’s really no longer a priest), has visions of municipally operated “gay sex parks.”
Here is what I envision. There ought to be municipally owned and operated (or licensed) “male sex parks”. They ought to be located in commercial areas that have nearby discreet parking options. These parks ought to be roughly one quarter of an acre in size and securely walled with one metal-detecting entrance/exit where admission is paid and personal possessions and/or clothing are checked. There should be some shelter from rain, some benches and some trees and sturdy landscaping. There should be toilets without walls because in this type of venue, there is no reason for privacy and also because building separate stalls would only encourage drug use and unsafe sex. There should be dispensers stocked with condoms, lube and hand sanitizer.
These facilities should be staffed by municipal employees who monitor the behavior of the attendees. They would be highly trained safer-sex rangers who would be skilled in the management of male sexual interaction. They would expel those who cause trouble or attempt unsafe sex.
Safe-sex rangers? Municipal employees? I think he may have written this after consuming far to much Dandelion wine.
[...]
Consider the inordinate amounts of public resources spent chasing this type of behavior and processing offenders. I would suggest that most of the offenders are no less noble as citizens than were our ancestors who drank illegally during Prohibition. [full post here]
There you have it.
I’m kind of speechless right now.
If you find this article informative? Consider donating any amount you choose.
No related posts.
Entries (RSS)
I think that anybody who doesn’t have enough self control to wait until they get to a private area to have sex should be banned from society at large.
Go ahead with his proposal. but don’t give it state funding, let the perverts pay for it themselves. And make sure the area is well advertised for what it is, and not easily accesible to people who accidently wander in unaware of the freaks there. Make sure no children are allowed, unless accompanied by a parental guardian who signs a form stating that instructing his children on how to be sexual perverts is part of his religious upbrining (we can’t discriminate against religion.)
Now, what do you have? You have a freaking swinger’s club which any of these freaks could simply choose to hold in their own home. Of course, while each of them thinks of themselves as normal, they realize that everyone else in the group is a loon, and that’s why they’d never invite the other freak to their own house.
Somebody needs to give these freaks the Walter Reuther-Cucumber treatment until they shut the f*** up!
Phil:
I’d MUCH rather ban RAPISTS, DRUG DEALERS, and VIOLENT FELONS from society (anyone for REALLY late-term abortions for THOSE perps?), but I see your point regarding public venues for these pervs.
Keep it at home…where it needs to be…OR…move to ANIOTHER COUNTRY where THEIR morality is in even WORSE condition than ours, and go do your nasties THERE.
(Maybe Chavez will take you in?)
But that’s just “my” opinion…
I realize this nit-wit thrives on being “controversial”, but his idea is much more laughable than controversial. It’s a pretty safe bet that the overwhelming majority of Americans don’t feel the need to furnish (at taxpayers expense no less) a specific “pud-pulling” zone for those who cannot wait until arriving at home to to affect some sort of orgasmic relief, be it homosexual or heterosexual.
Morons (like this guy) certainly don’t help foster any kind of acceptance or understanding of the gay community. Instead they freak people out with outlandish rhetoric and behavior.
Trust me dude, most of us don’t give a flying fark what you like to do with your own d&^k, we just really don’t want to watch.
Go home and “have it” then STFU about it.
Yeah, I guess after throwing all those “freaks” in my first comment I might have given the wrong idea. I have three friends (that I know of) who are gay, and that’s not a problem with me. The problem is people who want to do things in public that should be done in private. If the freaks have other friends who want to watch or join in the freakshow, that’s their right. But it is not their right to force me to view it or even to listen to them talk about it.