text:
EXCLUSIVE: Gay Couple Arrested On Atlantis Events Cruise Tell Their Side Of The Story
Controversy ensued in March when gay couple Dennis Mayer and John Hart were caught having sex on the balcony of their stateroom aboard an Atlantis Events cruise in Dominica. After being arrested, pleading guilty to indecent exposure, and being judged by the media and Internet, Mayer and Hart (above) reached out to Queerty to share their side of the story.
Here it is, in their own words:
Let's set the record straight. We're not addressing this to bash or tell people to boycott Atlantis Events. We're not suing anyone nor are we looking for fifteen minutes of fame. I can think of far better ways and in a much better light if that were the case. We simply went on what should have been the vacation of a lifetime but instead, it turned out to be a very frightful nightmare. When you have these types of incidents, people just want to talk about the salacious details.
So let's talk about it: Yes, we were having sex on the balcony. We were fucking.
There, I said it.
The complaints came from Dominica dock workers, who were offended. I'm sure if it had been a naked women they would have continued to stare and most likely would have commented on her breasts.
This is something that we could not previously address or admit to. Many have taken this as an opportunity to attack our character and integrity. We were originally charged with "buggery," which is equivalent to sodomy. However, the charge was later reduced to indecent exposure, a lesser-inclusive charge. We were represented by counsel who had advised us not to speak or admit to anything we were not being charged with.
Had we been found guilty of buggery, we were facing a prison sentence of up to 14 years in a Third World country. We have never denied our responsibility for our indiscretion. We entered a guilt plea to the charge of indecent exposure. The Magistrate excepted our guilty plea, set a fine in the matter and then released us from custody. In addition, we were expatriated and deported from their country at our own expense.
The media and others have reported we were engaged in sex in front of women, children and out in the city streets. That is simply not true. We were on the privacy of our stateroom balcony as the ship was being moored into port. You can see it in the infamous photo that Queerty published, which we are neither offended or ashamed by. If so many were reported being offended, then why take photos or videos and continue to watch us in the first place? Apparently, many did to their sheer enjoyment of what they were viewing.
The complaints came from Dominica dock workers, who were offended. I'm sure if it had been a naked women they would have continued to stare and most likely would have commented on her breasts.
It was also reported that fellow passengers on board complained, which we find hard to believe because most passengers on board are doing the same thing we were. Albeit, not in port or on their balcony, but when the ship is out at sea. They are out there with their partners or some hookup at the nightly circuit party or under the cloak of darkness on their hands and knees on the "13th" deck, looking for a dick to put into their mouth or up their ass.
That is why people go on these types of cruises. Let's not kid ourselves: the promoter and CEO of Atlantis Events, Rich Campbell, markets these cruises and events with sex, with advertisement taglines like "Anything Goes" picturing scantly clad men promoting the circuit-party lifestyle.
Let's get back to what my partner of 17 years (a fact that was not reported) and I were doing: This was not some hookup the way it was portrayed. We were on vacation enjoying the company of each other and not putting on a show for anyone. When you pay the kind of money to have a Sky Suite, you have an expectation of some level of privacy. We were six stories up and approximately 150 to 200 yards from where the ship was anchored.
The real question is not what we were doing on our balcony, but why is one of the largest promoters of gay cruises and events taking folks from the LGBT community to these countries with laws against homosexuals on their books? Why are they financially supporting these countries? These countries have laws against consenting adult gay men and women who engage in intimate contact and in some cases just for the existence of their sexual orientation.
We are not ungrateful people. We are very thankful for the help known and unknown to us by Atlantis Events, CEO Rich Campbell and others. At the same time, he was also throwing us under the bus with his press releases and comments on Facebook.
I'm also disappointed with myself for not trusting my own instincts when I agreed to let Campbell handle the situation with a Third World government. I asked Campbell prior to us being taken into custody and escorted off the ship to contact the U.S. Embassy on our behalf and inform them that two Americans were being arrested and taken from the ship against their will. Campbell asked that we not involve the U.S. government and let him handle the situation. It was not until the Dominica government backed out of their original agreement to just interview us and, once we were in their custody, that the American Embassy was later contacted.
It should also be made clear that there were no Atlantis Events or Celebrity Cruise line attorneys there to assist us, which had been reported. There were some ancillary staff with us during the first few hours of us being detained but they were basically there to report and inform Campbell and the ship's captain of the status of the situation. When the cruise sailed away at 6pm, so did they.
We hired our own local gay-friendly attorney on Dominica. It was the law offices of Norde and Lambert Chambers who worked diligently on our behalf. They advised us and secured our release from custody.
It was reported that Atlantis Events paid our legal fees, court fines and airfare to return to US territory, but that is totally false. We paid all of our expenses. Dominica media published a photograph of us being escorted by the police to a local bank so we could purchase their currency with our credit card to pay for our fines, etc. However, Campbell did give us some consideration while we spent two days in San Juan, Puerto Rico, after our release, which we appreciated.
When you have these types of incidents or even the article that Queerty published, you are going to have detractors and supporters. Everyone has the right to their own opinions and we are the first to support their right. I personally believe that had we been a heterosexual couple, the incident would not have been blown out of proportion to such a degree. There have been many egregious, horrendous and obnoxious acts perpetrated by reportedly gay people other than us having sex on our private balcony.
And as for the two haters who contacted our local media to give their statements with their ignorant statements [like] "they ruined our vacation," "they give gay people a bad name," "they got what they deserved." We don't recall them being detained or arrested or locked up in a holding cell when the ship that they were on sailed away without them. All they did was add to an existing lack of integrity and their credibility. Both the haters and supporters couldn't wait to search the Internet in the privacy of their home to locate pictures of the two gay American men having sex on the balcony of a cruise ship. The hypocrisy is reprehensible.
So what have we learned from this misadventure? Don't trust the travel company to lookout for your safety and your best interest. Do your own research of the countries' laws that you plan to visit. Most importantly, should something like this happen to you, act as your own advocate. Do what is in your best interest. Don't leave it up to others and settle for the outcome, make the best outcome for yourself. I did what was right for my partner and my own safety. We can't say that we have any regrets. We went on vacation and a lack of better judgement placed us in a bad situation. We did what we needed to do to get back to our own country and our lives.
Just like anyone else would have done had they found themselves in our shoes.
Dennis & John
Agreed- the main question that still needs to be answered is why Atlantis is going to anti-gay ports of call.
Just go away. You're an embarrasment.
"We were on the privacy of our stateroom balcony as the ship was being moored into port." On your stateroom balcony IN BROAD DAYLIGHT AND IN PORT you big doofus! Quit blaming others for your lack of judgment and fucking on your balcony for everyone to see. Get a life and get a room.
Just own up and shut up…. you are lucky that both got off on indecent exposure, if you had opened your mouth and admitted that you were on the balcony fucking you might have been charged with buggery and gotten a longer time. If it is was hetrosexual couple yes there might have been cheering but the couple would have been still arrested.
I have had sex in public and got caught and i knew that i should not have but took responsibility without a BUT.. the couple seems to take responsibility but, there is always a "but", which negates the previous thought.
The real story is so much better. And, yes, dockworkers in most ports I've visited keep telephoto lenses and binoculars to deliberately scope out females on cruise ships. Some take bets. As for the cruise line's response, they are in it only for the money.
@lotusmoon: no actually the question is why are they so dumb? I've got news for you…if you fucked from the same spot while in any american port you would have been arrested there too. ever here of the ugly american?…well you are the reason such an expression exists
Whatev' dudes…first you say you were not..now you actually admit it. Again…whatev'!
Can you say "Grody"?
Puhleeze…..whatever rationalizations you have for your public sexcapade, you should keep them to yourselves.
Like others have said, you DO give gay people a bad name. By continuing to draw attention to yourselves, and claiming that your actions are somehow acceptable, you are doing the entire gay community a disservice.
Just shut up and go away.
and as to privacy…while you are on your exposed balcony and you look out and see 50 people the amazing thing is…they can see you too and the people on shore did not pay for your anything goes cruise. fuck all you want when you are out at sea but in port…really…you can not bee that dumb
While I completely agree that it's reprehensible that homosexual acts are illegal in many countries, the two of you exercised incredibly poor decision making skills. At this point I would drop the matter and allow the story to recede into the oblivion of the internet as it will be replaced by many other stories about many other people who also make bad decisions.
But, you should count yourself lucky. Do you even realize that in some jurisdictions in the US, you could have been convicted of a crime that would require you to register as a sex offender? Truthfully, I see y'all as being very lucky. I'm sure the experience was traumatic and frightening and I doubt you did it with the intention of harming anyone and believe some of it was motivated by "shock value". But, still…
You've emerged relatively unscathed, especially when you consider what could have happened. Oh and if you don't already – – – keep the blinds at your house closed for Chrissake.
I wish the two of you the best and hopefully your next 17 years together are uneventful.
I love how the only thing they actually claim they learned from this is to not go to non-gay friendly destinations. While that is a great lesson to learn, the country in question actually went pretty damn easy on them.
Maybe what they should have learned is not to fuck in public. Inside the room is alright, on the balcony in port is not.
LOL. just LOL.
They didn't list the one thing THEY SHOULD HAVE LEARNED AND DIDN'T ——– DISCRETION! ——-Maybe they need to go do it again and sit in jail until they GET IT. Thx for the big smear in the most historical election year of gay American's lives…you owe the gay community apologies forever……u dizzy dorks. Now STFU.
A balcony on a docked cruise ship is not private and it's silly to claim it is. That said, what they did didn't hurt anyone and doesn't make them bad people, just not very situationally aware. I'm glad they made it home safe and sound; things could have gone much worse.
It is just a fallacy that straight people would most likely have been arrested as well. The whole case for invalidating sodomy laws is that even when they did not specifically say gay and lesbian, they were disproportionately used to imprison gay men.
Third World Government!! again LOL
Oh get down off the cross and fuck off you whiny little shitstain. You're a gross embarrassment.
OMG – these two are clueless idiots and got less than what they deserved. And no dude, I got no pleasure seeing your sex picture, kind of made me sick and pity you. Own what you did wrong, quit whining, and just go away.
While I am sure it was a very traumatic experience, plenty of people go on Atlantis cruises without having orgies or sex with random hookups. Lots of people go for the ability to spend a week in an all-gay environment, which is truly amazing. I'm not going to claim that there isn't hooking up going on, I don't think misrepresenting what happens on Atlantis cruises is a good way to answer your critics.
I worked day, afternoon and night as a bartender during an Atlantis cruise for 10 days in South America, made a few thousands in tips and never got the money at all. LOL they are assholes people don't be fooled
Sorry, what you did was tacky, inappropriate, and you got what you deserved.
The "anything goes" atmosphere may be true on the ship at night or under cover of darkness, but you were going it during daylight in the port. Who cares if you were in the sky suite or the cheapest room, that is irrelevant.
I agree that the gay community shouldn't support the economies of these countries with anti-gay laws. So, I suggest you take your own advice by assessing the itinerary of the cruise you are scheduled to take and spend your money accordingly.
Klassy boys.
You guys miss the point: don't have sex in public.
Never say never. I feel like I've just met the couple who'd give credibility to Larry Craig's 'wide stance' explanation.
Meanwhile at websites for straight men http://www.menshealth.com/sex-women/top-10-public-sex-spots
bottom line: if you wanna fuck in public, http://www.outinpublic.com they new videos
@MJ: i meant to put NEED in there
Some people here have no spine. No one is asking whether or not the punishment for their original charge of sodomy for 14 years is just. No one is asking whether or not being detained and having to face trial for this crap is just. The integrity of the gay community is at question when we don't question the right people. If the only thing you care about is whether or not this gay couple did something wrong, then you have to reorganize your priorities because this third world country just proved why it's still 3rd world and maybe some of you belong there. Idiots.
They're still talking about this?
So they're not only liars but attention whores as well? Charming…
True that better discretion could have been practiced but it also goes to show that people who expose (double emphasis, the naked couple and the on-lookers/picture takers) others lives or actions like they did (nothing personal) don't have much of a life them self
The whole story is THEY LIED..they had full sex IN PUBLIC.
They are attention whores like Dustin Lance BareBlack and Andrew Sullivan…now they are representatives for the gay community, gross.
They still don't think it was wrong to FUCK in public view.
It doesn't matter if you were docked in the most pro gay country in the world, its not appropriate to have sex in full public view.
I would report anyone having sex like that gay or straight and would be offended by either.
You dolts don't even think you were wrong.
You both are a disgrace to gays everywhere.
You and your antics give our community a bad name.
Shame on you both.
What they did was really dumb, but they do make a good point… don't trust others to act in your best interest. Thanks for sharing your side of the story.
Oh, barf.
But that daddy is hot.
Wow! Dennis and John are a pair of idiots who just don't get it! They had sex in public and got caught! Why is this so hard for them to understand that they are not victims but perpetrators? I know it had to suck to deal with a legal system that despises gays but they brought it on themselves. Since they are being so candid they should just admit that they are the kind of gays who like to participate in risky sexual behavior like having sex in public places and that they enjoy the attention. Why else would they write a letter using the language that they used?
I just decided that I have way to much studying to do to worry about these clowns. Dennis and John, go away! Thanks.
p.s. You do at least raise a good question about the cruise line supporting the industry of an anti-gay country however, the US isn't so pro-gay itself!
The moral of this story, as witnessed by that piece in Men's Health Magazine (or Desperate To Be Straight Men's Health Magazine) is that if you're straight and doing the dirty out there where others can see, it's a wink and pat on the butt (and I've seen this kind of action take place a lot, by the way) but if you're queer and do it, you're a loser, crazy, an attention whore, stupid, worthless, but you'll have lots of extremely superior guys condemning you because they'd never do anything like this . . . duh, sure.
""The real question is not what we were doing on our balcony, but why is one of the largest promoters of gay cruises and events taking folks from the LGBT community to these countries with laws against homosexuals on their books? Why are they financially supporting these countries?""
That is an absolutely valid question.
Sounds like these two guys are angling for a career in porn. I give it a few months before they launch a website and shoot themselves having sex in public places. They are obviously starved for attention.
The problem here isn't that these two men were having sex in public – they plead guilty to that charge and have admitted it was a stupid decision that is entirely their fault.
The problem is that they were in a country that has anti-sodomy laws, and they were having anal sex, for which they could have been jailed for 14 years. I am no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that if a Dominica police officer happened to be on board that boat and happened to see any other gay couple having anal-sex, EVEN IF IT WAS IN A PRIVATE PLACE, that gay couple would also face 14 years in prison.
To put it in perspective, this means that there's a good chance a lot of other people aboard that ship that day committed the same crime as Dennis Mayer and John Hart that carried the same consequences, the difference being Dennis and John were stupid enough to get caught.
Given the extreme sentences for having gay sex in Dominca, Atlantis Events should make these laws known to all passengers, especially because sex is branded by Atlantis Events as common, normal and expected. It also brings up the question: Why even is Atlantis Events bringing a boat load of anal-sex-having men to a country where anal sex can lead to 14 year sentences?
this just bears out the old adage about a picture being worth a thousand words
Honestly: STOP WHINING! Why should Atlantis Cruises look out for you or pay anything? Why should the Government of Dominica? Yes, it sucks that Atlantis Cruises goes to countries that have anti sodomy laws but most countries in the Caribbean have laws like those. If you have enough money to get a Sky Suite, doesthat mean you have more money than sense? Get a life….
Aside from the horrifically bad writing displayed in this article — what the fuck does "I can think of far better ways and in a much better light if that were the case" mean? — these two are full of shit.
For one thing, boys, you lied — and not just while your Dominican ordeal was happening. After your return to the U.S., you told the Associated Press that you were neither fucking nor completely nude on your balcony. Now, long after photos proving otherwise came to light, you're finally admitting what we all knew to be true. Too late. Your credibility is shot.
Second, your speculation that Dominican dockworkers would have reacted differently to a naked woman on the balcony is immaterial, as is your helpful reminder that other people on Atlantis cruises engage in sex as well. Because guess what: YOU WERE FUCKING. ON YOUR BALCONY. FACING PORT. IN BROAD DAYLIGHT. Had you been doing that anywhere in the United States (New York City and Palm Springs included), you might have very well faced the same consequences. It's called public indecency, and one need not be a prude to know it's stupid and reckless.
Finally, and most importantly, you continue to play the victims when you have nobody to blame for your ordeal but yourselves. Is Dominica a homophobic country? Sure. So is the United States (see North Carolina's vote to ban marriage equality and the Virginia legislature's refusal to confirm a gay judge, to take just two examples from the last two weeks). Does that mean we shouldn't vacation in the United States? No. It means there's a lot of work to be done, both here and in places like Dominica, to show our haters that we are just like them; that we are good, decent, law-abiding people who have respect for ourselves and others.
And boys… fucking on a balcony is not the way to do that.
I agree with most of the people here, you two knew EXACTLY what you were doing. In the picture it looks like you're looking directly at the camera. It is people like you two who drag us backward in our fight for even the simplest of rights. You basically dared them to arrest you, well you got your wish and had to be bailed out. Man up and quit acting like you're innocent. Stop whining you got caught.
More of our community equating Gay Rights with being a giant whore.
I am truly amazed at the majority of these comments. Let he who has never had sex in a park, in a bar, a club, at a party, etc. throw the first stone.
Since when is gay rights about having unbridled sex in public? Gay rights is simply about rights. It isn't – and shouldn't be – about breaking existing standards of public decency in society.
What I find really awful about some gay men is that they use the gay rights notion as an excuse to indulge themselves in a way that is clearly in breach of public decency standards.
You're right. I always have sex in public and when I get caught I blame homophobia on the cops. Not my stupidity.
@Alexi3: Umm I haven't So there And even if I would it wouldn;t be in BROAD DAYLIGHT
@Rey: +1
Seriously, these guys came out in the media in the past and lied. They really are the kind of people who behave in the way that hate groups would like to make the world think we all do. Gay, straight, or whatever, they deserved the fine that they got and are lucky that they were not prosecuted by the, granted horrible, actual buggery law in place in that country. Thanks for the bad PR, idiots.
Lol these people. There is no defense to the fact that they were having sex on their balcony in the middle of the day AT PORT. No matter where the port was, no matter if it were a women and men on shore would have laughed about it, no matter who were the patrons of that cruise, no matter anything, they can't defend their actions or act like it wasn't as big of a deal as it was. They seriously couldn't just do that while out at sea or maybe not at all? Ugh. And yes, maybe if it were a heterosexual couple it would not have been blown up as it was, but take some RESPONSIBILITY for yourself and your life and don't do something that is considered taboo in various places throughout the world in public in the middle of the day. These guys are so immature and DO give gay people a bad name.
The older guys is super hot, I'd have him fuck me on a balcony any day of the week :)
@Alexi3: I have never had sex in a park, bar, club, party, etc. so I'm throwing stones. Just because I'm gay and reading a gay website doesn't mean I fall into the stereotype you are assuming everyone here contributes to.
Not even an ending….."if there is anyone we offended we're sorry"…..what a self absorbed couple of sick pranksters.
A:) Why would someone continue watching if they found it offensive…?
B:) Alot of the ppl blogging here sound as if they are jealous…
C:) It FEELS good when you get the chance to do it. ESPECIALLY if you are in a
COMMITTED relationship.
D:) If "C" above does not apply then, F-off and enjoy YOUR OWN relationship if U
have one……..NO ONE WAS HURT! (Just homophobes and jealous ppl…..)
"So what have we learned from this misadventure? Don't trust the travel company to lookout for your safety and your best interest."
Funny how you guys don't actually admit that what you were doing – fucking in broad daylight where people can see you – was wrong. It's got nothing to do with "third world governments" (you really love highighting that fact don't you? You didn't complain when you paid to actually go on a cruise ship there though…), had you done the same in a "first world" country (as you'd probably define them) you STILL would've been charged with public indecency. You should make your own research of where you're going to be, ESPECIALLY if it's not in a country you're familiar with. You paid for your own consequences – serves you right. This, to me, is just and fair, and I'm gay too and guess what – had that been me, I would've charged you of public indecency as well. The fact that your partner and you have been together for years doesn't add or take out anything from the story – you're both guilty, as consensual ADULTS. Funny how you don't even think how others might have taken this story… I'm done.
I am torn…although the adults that witnessed and reported this incident need to get a life, when these two saw that they were pulling into port, they should have assumed that their tryst might be viewed by someone who did not want to see it. Sure, these voyeurs could have looked away, but these two had the option of doing it where others would not have to make that choice.
Why is Atlantis going to bigoted countries? Maybe us tourists need to do our own homework and not purchase tickets for these places either.
@BigBlowJob: A. ANYONE would watch, come on. And I'm glad they did and took pictures, as a proof against these two men when they came out and denied everything…
B. Jealous of what? Of their own acts or of the just consequences they had in return? Well, this is an open forum so we're just putting our two cents in.
C. Sex feels good, of course it does, whether you're in a committed relationship or not… But having sex in broad daylight while other people are watching, while you're in a homophobic country….well, you're just asking for it.
D. Homophobia is not a card gays can pull out as soon as something goes wrong. Homophobia is real, and trust me – real victims of real homophobia would feel offended if this was called an act of homophobia, when actually it's just them getting what they deserve for what they did. Public indecency is punishable by the law, and gays aren't exempt from it either.
@Alexi3: Throwing.
Anything goes? You're in port, in another country with their own laws, and representing a boatload of gays. They're probably already talking about the cruise upon it's arrival and then you go and get fucked on the balcony? Great idea, I'm glad you got busted. This proves these circuit cruises are a fucking wreck.
You commenters are a sad lot: Eeewww they had SEX in PUBLIC. Aww thats SOO awful. They deserved to be jailed… I would report them etc etc
Grow up and calm down. Sex is (now take a deep breath) N A T U R A L
Once you start wanting to punish people for having sex you are thinking along the same lines as those Mullahs who want to hang gay men, or the Emirates officials who imprison gay men.
Dont you see that it is only the circumstances and the punishment meted out that differs. Its a slippery slope. Who gets to say what should be punished and what the punishment should be? Do you get to choose, do the mullahs or…?
Having sex in public is BAD TASTE and inappropriate. That can be explained without putting people in jail. Dont throw stones. It feels good to throw them because you get to assert your own moral superiority. But if you look deep inside you all have your own short comings. Were you always faithful to your bf? Were you always a true friend? Did you never do anything stupid. You know you did. Dont be anxious to punish and put people to jail. Do you really thing the world will be a nicer place for it?
@Aye Emm: said…
"Honestly: STOP WHINING! Why should Atlantis Cruises look out for you or pay anything? Why should the Government of Dominica? Yes, it sucks that Atlantis Cruises goes to countries that have anti sodomy laws but most countries in the Caribbean have laws like those."
When Atlantis Cruises TELLS them not to contact the Embassy and that THEY will take care of it…then they have just taken responsibility for it.
As for MOST countries in the Caribbian having laws like that….not exactly the case?
Being gay is legal in Anguilla, Aruba, Bahamas, British Virgin Islands, The Caymen Islands, Cuba, Curacao, Guadalupe, Hati, Martinique, Monserrat, Puerto Rico, St. Maarten, Turks and Caicos, U.S. Virgin Islands,
I get your point but they have a HELL of a lot of options.
Oh my! I never saw that photo and now I am shocked that these "morons" would have sex on a balcony in sight of people. I work and travel all over the world and have a partner in Thailand that has traveled with me to countries that are less than gay friendly. We are ambassadors of the gay community wherever we travel and conduct ourselves with thought and consideration of others rights and laws. I would hope that gay travelers would assume the responsibility for their actions and not expect a gay themed tour agency to provide an umbrella of safety to relieve individuals of their responsibilities as representatives of our community.
@Alexi3: um I don't
Children were in port and witnessed this behavior.
Shows how racist these men are.
They wouldn't have sex in front of white-American children; but, poor black children in the third world don't' matter.
Thats racist fucking behavior.
Oh and heres some homework to the morally superior gays:
Can you even explain why sex is gross in public or why what they did was wrong? Is sex gross or does it become gross when it is seen? Is it gross if accidentally seen?
Can you even explain that or are you just applyong the same puritan conservative morality that you cry about when you are denied your rights because of sex that others deem sinful (because the conservative christians dont mind your same sex attraction as long as you stay celibate, so it is the sex they worry about…)
Disgusting (and ignorant) gay trash.
Gay rights = freedom to be a giant whore? Nope.
They have a valid complaint that a gay cruise goes to anti-gay countries.
After they book tickets on that cruise, though, they just look like idiots.
@Martin: Some people just don't want to see it, whether it be because the people are unattractive or because for whatever reason they are grossed out/annoyed/non-tolerating of it. Not to mention children shouldn't really be seeing something like that regardless, and who knows if there were kids around. Personally I would have thought it was funny, but who am I to judge what others don't want to see (and I'm talking sex in general, not homo sex specifically)? This is something that can easily be done behind closed doors, and no matter where you are in the world it is more often than not a law to be kept behind closed doors. If you want to go fuck in public go to some free spirited nudist colony, or at the very least don't do it on a balcony in the middle of the day at a port. You're complaining about "morally superior gays" yet you're acting pretty high and mighty yourself. Also, why is a gay person who doesn't necessarily condone public sex acts "morally superior" ….basically getting at that all gays are fundamentally wanting to have and enjoy public sex and the ones who don't are uptight. Ok….
@lotusmoon: Would that include North Carolina as well?
@Michael: Ok great comment. What should happen to those whores then since they have no rights in your opinion? How do you define whore??
People come here to take part in a public stoning like in muslim country, only here the stones are not real, the principle is exactly the same. There must be lots of things you are ashamed of since you appearantly badly need to manifest your moral superiority. It doesnt exactly spell C O N F I D E NT
@Martin: Martin get a clue. These whores deserve what they got. People don't want other people having sex infront of them without their consent. They did this for attention. These old men, could have gone indoors and none of this would have happened. They wanted to be seen, that's how they get their kicks. I have no sympathy for them. If that's puritanical, then so be it.
I'm not defending their actions. I'm attacking anyone who believes they've done no harm or never behaved in a way they later wished they hadn't. Why does it make so many people so happy to deride another's mistakes and misfortune? That is what amazes me. Although I don't why it should, I read the same loveless comments all the time. We want the world to try and empathize with us and we can't even manage a measure for each other.
@Basch: Kust because you dont like to see people do something does that mean they should be thrown in jail? Thats what people are demanding here or wishing for.
Just be warned that this kind of thinking is a negation of the tolerance which is the foundation of LGBT rights.
Public sex is bad taste but then have the captain tell them to stop
these two sleazy douche-bags need to disappear!
@pedro: But then you must agree with the authorities in Dubai who jailed to men for touching each other. They thought it was gross in Dubai…
There is no difference, no one can explain the difference…
(I do agree the classier thing to dowould have been to go inside for sex, thats what i do…)
Ill leave it here though
Only men and women f**k so this is just a crazy story. When you act like animals that's how you get treated.
@Basch: Exactly. well said.
Sex either gay or straight is inappropriate or gross in public.
Its just plain nasty.
Children could be around..have some class.
@Martin: Do you know anything about strict Islamic countries?
I bet that a woman would be treated even more harshly than a gay man would.
Educate your idiotic self.
@Martin: why don't you do a social experiment and go around having sex in public
you can come back in 5-10 with the results, and trust me i'll wait
No. 47 · I won't grow up wrote, "I agree with most of the people here, you two knew EXACTLY what you were doing. In the picture it looks like you're looking directly at the camera."
While they undoubtedly knew exactly what they were doing – having sex on the balcony according to their recent statemet – they were not looking directly at the camera: if you look at the picture, one of the two's face could not be seen at all and for the other one, you can clearly see the side of his nose. He was looking away from the ship but not towards the camera – at least not directly towards it – and either a telephoto lens or other long-focal-length lens was used or the picture was enlarged and cropped, so the camera was some distance off. And given what they now admit they were doing, I really don't think they noticed much of anything beyond certain physical sensations in a portion of their anatomies well below the eyes.
They weren't treated the same as a straight couple would have been treated, averaged over all possible outcomes – if they were a straight couple, it is far more likely in comparison that the dock workers who apparently reported them would have simply watched and enjoyed the show, viewing the "free porn" as a fringe benefit. I.e., the risk of being arrested for doing the same thing is higher for a gay couple than a straight couple because the chances of being reported are higher.
@Jinxed: I agree.
@Dennis and John: What about an apology to–at the very least–your fellow cruisers whose overall vacation experience was tarnished by your selfish and irresponsible actions?! We all suffered disgrace by our loose association to you two. We had to say "yes, I was on 'that cruise' over and over and over when we got home. NOT the way I wanted to describe my vacation.
It's hard to believe in this day and age two grown men would engage in public buggery and admit it to the world. Their poor families and the humiliation they must feel.
Re No. 56 · Basch : "@Alexi3: I have never had sex in a park, bar, club, party, etc. so I'm throwing stones. Just because I'm gay and reading a gay website doesn't mean I fall into the stereotype you are assuming everyone here contributes to."
… I think Alexi's point was that the pair might actually survive the stoning, due to an insufficient number of stones being lobbed, if the number of people throwing the stones was restricted to those who never misbehaved in that way. After all, we live in a country where one's "first time" is traditionally in a car parked in a hopefully isolated area (that is, for the ones who wait until they are old enough to drive).
Sex at a gay bar that is about as "public" as it should get, sex in daylight with people around not cool. They were attention whoring and got what they wanted – attention
and I said it before and I'll say it again these guys are NOT CUTE. Eww
To the authors: clearly your piece was written in haste because it does nothing to excuse your actions, mollify the gays who are seemingly humiliated by association, or take away from the fact that you guys rightfully got dinged in a foreign country for doing something stupid. Own it instead of bitching about it. Further, please stop recycling the refrain that you would not have been arrested if you were a straight couple. So what? This isn't about gay rights vis a vis a set of heteronormative laws. It is about a couple committing an illegal act in public and paying for it. It isn't about a cruiseship that has every right to expect adults to act like adults anywhere, nor how you got caught in a racket. Luckily, no one will care and your names will disappear into oblivion if you would just, as you mentioned, get on with your lives. BTW — please don't make a porn video in an attempt to capitalize on this misadventure. Thanks.
I've been on 3 Atlantis cruises, and no, they are not marketed to be a floating orgy. Do some people party and hook up? Sure, as would any cruise with a majority of single people.
I have an amazing time of dinners and shows and sightseeing, and mostly meeting amazing groups of men from all over the country. 95% of those passengers aren't exploring the sex elements you describe. (And sure, I've stumbled across those late night decks… and enjoyed myself with no apologies.) But that is NOT what Atlantis cruises are offering. You guys made a really stupid and selfish decision, and paid the price.
Bahahahahahaha. They got busted doing something illegal. Case closed. move on. Bye.
Wow. They are both brain dead!
@Martin: Thank you. Finally a sense of proportion.
I look at it another way. Gay culture has always been more casual about sex than straight culture. These kinds of mistakes happen occassionally because we're not ashamed of sex, or of ourselves.
But I have to laugh at the Puritans here. Oh Mary! Clutch the pearls! They we're pounding the beef in broad daylight! And without a chaperone! It simply isn't done and gives me the vapors!
It's like a 2012 version of Aunt Pittypat.
These two are about as gracious as porcupines in a balloon factory.
They did this to push the envelope and give a big "fuck you" to the laws of the port they were in. From their pix they are obviously loaded drug addicts. A drug drenched juvenile game that ended in disaster and all they can do is moan about how they were mistreated criminals. No mention that they have stained the gay community permanently with their knee jerk school boy pre-meditated antics. Get lost loosers, your 15 mins of illegal fuck-fame just expired. And we are all paying the price.
I was on this cruise. These men have changed their story on numerous times since this whole thing began. Dominica is not an intolerant or homophobic port at all. There is not one organization nationally or internationally that rates this island as negative for LGBT minorities. I personally live in NYC, even here, in easily one of the most gay friendly places in the US, any form of public nudity or sexual act is an arrestible offense. It is also worth noting that in this particular port, the ship is pulled up parallel to basically "main street"…. so this idea that the couple keeps touting that we were not "in public view" is absolitely not true. From a deck higher than the one they were seen on, I could identify people I knew on the dock by they faces easily.
Also this endless deflection that these two men are trying to pull about a "gay company putting money in the pockets of non-gay friendly countries". I hate to make both these gentlemen and other aware of this… but most countries and ports of call on EARTH have mixed feelings about homosexuals. I personally have made the choice to travel the world in order to SEE and ABSORB other cultures and ways of life… not to CHANGE them. Further more, these men live in California… a state is far from leading the banner in civil rights right now. But they still live there, year round, paying taxes into a state system which discriminates against them consistently. To be blunt, if an LGBT person only ever traveled to ports of call that are 100% evolved on this topic… we'd never be able to embark from a U.S. port… or really any port outside of handful of european countries.
We live in country that no longer places personal responsibility over personal entitlement. And our community has gotten into the dangerous and counter productive behaviour of crying "homophobia" anytime a gay man breaks a law… forgetting that you're still a grown ass person… breaking a law.
Enough already. why not channel all this energy you seem to have into getting some rights for gays in your own state of California instead of continueing to bitch about the vacation that YOU ruined for yourself.
First, you are a disgrace to the gay community. Here we are fighting to show the world that our relationships are dignified and should be treated equally, and you go and act like dogs or wild animals, having anal intercourse in broad daylight on your balcony. Disgusting. Whether hetero observers might have been less or more offended by a hetero coupling is irrelevant. You behaved in a vile manner. You deserved to be arrested.
You also lied about having sex, making it sound like your arrest was the result of pure homophobia. You manipulated us. In fact, your lawyer told the court that you were basically out on the balcony in the nude to enjoy the beautiful sunshine. Lies.
Second, I read that one of you is a "retired" public worker in his early 50s. I am sure that the taxpayers are delighted to see their money spent to pay for your hedonism. This is why San Diego, Detroit and Pittsburgh are insolvent: greedy, grasping public employees who live like trust fund babies for 30-40 years on the taxpayer-guaranteed dime. The best, and only, argument in favor of DOMA is that you won't be able to pass on your pension to your outdoor sex partner, thereby extending the legalized larceny you perpetrate on the taxpayer.
Here's a thought: since you live a life of taxpayer-guaranteed leisure, why not use the time to actually help the gay and lesbian community. Volunteer. Donate time and money. Be a role model for gay youth. Do something other than f*ck and party and whine.
@WillBFair: You are a warped perv. The vast majority of people – probably 99% – do not do what these clowns did. The whole world is populated with Puritans? Having boundaries and respecting others means being ashamed? No, it is you who lack perspective. You are a dinosaur from an era that is now dead. Thank god.
Willbfair& Martin,
I disagree in that this is a legal issue, not a moral one. If someone doesn't like a law change it, then we can apply the moral factor while renegotiating the law. I can take sex in or out of public, I really have no moral issue with it as long as it's LEGAL. I do have a legal issue when people break laws, no matter who or where they are. "When in Rome" ……. like it and obey the laws or get out. These two could have been run up the pike in America just a few short years ago.
If I read one more retort from the moral-relativist set of the gay community who claims that showing restraint and decency is somehow "clutching your pearls", I'm going to flip out. We can be gay and still have morals, decency, and dignity. What is wrong with you people?
Yes, sex is natural. Yes, the human body is natural. Yes, gay love is natural. Blah, blah, blah. Shut up. No one has the "right" to public sex. You people are the reason the Christian right hates us. Grow up!
Here's the tough love that our community doesn't seem to want to get. We *ARE* different from straight people. Homosexuality, though natural, is *NOT* the norm. We are different from heterosexuals, but not less-than. We are trying to convince them that though we are different, we deserve to live a life that entitles us to the same rights that they have. But those rights come with responsibilities.
As Jon Stewart recently said "Frontal lobes Activate!!"
"We don't come from a world or country that prosecutes people for being gay," Dennis Mayer
"When we arrived in Dominica, we walked out onto our balcony naked," John Hart
"I was never informed that any of my activities that I do as a gay man were illegal there," Dennis Mayer
"We also trust that Atlantis.. would not take a ship of 2000 gay people to a port where we are hated," John Hart
"It just goes to show that in this world, hatred and bigotry exist," Dennis Mayer
This is why you guys are COMPLETE ASSHOLES!!
You waved the homophobia flag until the pictures surfaced.
You played the homophobia victim card when YOU were the guilty party who got let off VERY EASILY!!!
You are far worse than "The Boy Who Cried Wolf".
You are "The Daddy and Daddy's Boy Who Claimed the Wolf Discriminated Against Them".
Shame on you both.
And not for being gay or for having gay sex.
But for being whiney lying little pussies when you got caught.
Go put in a fresh tampon you ASSHOLES!!!!
@reality: Well said.
I am so heartened by the fact that almost everyone here is on the same page. WillBFair and Martin are a dying breed who desperately wish that it was still 1977. They are part of a generation of urban gay males who created a loveless subculture based on assembly-line, commercialized sex. This subculture created a lot of loneliness, helped spread a lot of disease and hurt a lot of gay people. They will never admit that this subculture was a large-scale human catastrophe. I am so glad that it is over and that the losers who created it are relegated to posting ridiculous comments in defense of these 2 Atlantis clowns.
I really don't wanna see anyone have sex in public, gay or straight.
I am also impressed with mostly everyone here. I understand that overt sexuality was an identity for the 1970's-1980's gays, when the community was fighting for visibility, but our culture teeters ever more close to the line of being a constant gay minstrel show.
We want something else. We want real lives, not fake adolescent fantasies of constant sexual conquest. Sex is beautiful and great and wonderful. Fine, we got that out of our systems. Now, can we start to grow as a community?
I wish there was a forum for people who want something else from our community.
If you disagree with Atlantis for going to ports-of-call in countries with anti-sodomy laws, then don't book an Atlantis cruise!
WOW I'm a little surprised to see such viciousness from most of you.. while I agree it was not a sensible decision to be seen having sex in public I think the boys will have learned a lesson and no doubt will not do it again I imagine they got carried away on a fun and energetic cruise.. maybe it was a fetish for them c'mon we all have fetishes (maybe not so public) but when caught and penalised it sets an example and lesson to others so lets not be attacking these guys so harshly they didn't murder anyone and though it seems they may not be scoffing humble pie in this interview I can't really blame them for putting on a brave and somewhat defensive face since they have been scolded and torn to shreds by way to many, as for giving America a bad name LOL please! that is the least if even on the list of what has ever given America a bad name it is just the measure of your venom to say such ridiculous things the very fact that most of you are Gay and are possibly on those cruises gives America a Bad name in Dominica and other countries with draconian laws and human oppression. Having read about this frightening event I am very very surprised that such a big gay and lesbian cruise company would visit ports that are hostile towards our way of life.. I'm baffled at that!! myself and friends have been planning to come over from Australia to embark on an Atlantis event but since learning of this very weird prospect of being brought to homophobic countries I'll be thinking twice about Atlantis Events as that kind of itinerary set by The management is flirting with disaster.. as I said I'm still quite shocked and grapple with the thought that they visit such places.. but anyway good luck to you boys I hope your next 17 years WILL BE eventful but not frightening or damaging x
@WillBFair: LOL
Nobody wins. Atlantis looks like a bunch of apologists who will go anywhere and say anything to make a buck – and these two come off like narcissistic lunkheads looking for notoriety (not because they were horny and had sex – but for doing it in a very risky place and then whining about the fallout).
The good news is that I reject the idea that this somehow reflects badly "on the gay community" – there were thousands of guys on that ship who went to town, enjoyed the day, interacted with the locals and had a great time.
This was two idiots out of a couple of thousand – something straight people can identify with as well.
All is well men.
From the headline, I expected some revelation that I didn't know about, or information that would shed light on the circumstances. But there is nothing– its' just a long whiny commentary that they are shocked, Shocked! that breaking the law results in consequences.
Nowhere in this diatribe is there an explanation of why they lied to the press after they were released. They said that they were not having sex, and now that the photos are out, they admit the truth, but fail to explain why they lied in the first place. Can you gives us your "side of the story" as to why you lied to us all? AFterall, public sex is so wonderful! No reason to lie about it, right? But lie you did, because before the photographic evidence you didn't think it was good to admit that you had public sex. But once you the evidence proved that you did, now you change your story — now it's all about how public sex is a GOOD thing, and you have a right to violate laws you disagree with! Can you please gives us your "side of the story" on why you change your tune?
Your excuse is that if a straight couple were having sex, it would not have resulted in an arrest. Furthermore, you make the wholly unsupported claim that dock workers and townspeople who think it's great.
Do you guys have ANY evidence that this is true? You come off as whiny privileged assholes "We were just doing the same thing straight people might do!" The "he did it too" argument is a loser when you are 5 years old, and when you are an adult, it just makes you look like you don't want to take responsibility for your own actions. You have no evidence that straight people engage in public sex anywhere on cruise lines anywhere, and even if you did, it's certainly no excuse to break the law. Some people commit murders — that's no excuse for you do it.
I've been on cruises and I don't see straight people naked and having public sex anywhere. I don't see that in homophobic ports of call, or the most gay friendly. And no — not everyone thinks that your body is so hot and a turn on that we exalt in seeing you having sex. Get over yourselves! If I want to see sex, I have plenty of options on my computer, thank you, and I don't need you to do it.
Reading the hystrionics of the flyover country queens squealing with indignation in the comments is sad, and further evidence that many gay men will be self-oppressed long after all the 'phobes are dead and gone.
Those of us who have been in love, and in a long-term relationship for a long time (these gents have been together 17 years) understand what it's like to have the spirit move you. And when two people are in love and the spirit moves them, they'll often make love.
In the back of a car. On a quiet beach. On a ridge overlooking the city.
Doesn't matter if you're straight or gay, happens all the time.
That some would demand these two guys be subject to mandatory intrusive rectal exams, torture, and 14 years in prison for making love on their balcony a half mile from the nearest spectator (who required a high-powered telephoto lens to see them) is a symptom of how closeted and self-loathing so many of us truly are.
You think that pretending to be sexless, getting anonymous hookups with torso and dick shots on the internet, and bashing people in long term relationships will make the local homophobe with the wife who has never had an orgasm in 30 years of marriage "respect" you? Ha! You don't even respect yourself.
And yes, I know that flyover country has lots of f-ed up laws, targeting people who don't live a modern day Handmaiden's Tale. But you don't have cruise lines selling Tuscaloosa as some exotic gay destination.
Finally, you know all those "private" photos of yourselves that you post on hookup sites — where you can have cheap, tawdry anonymous hookups while pretending the anti-gay neighbors "respect" you because you aren't "publicly gay?" Those are illegal too. Santorum talked about enforcing that law.
Imagine the outcry and the hypocrisy when some FBI agents start IDing people with naughty photos on hookup sites, and drag your "deserving of respect" ass into prison for a 5 or 10 year felony sentence. Think it can't happen? Sure it can… and your complicity in cheering on the treatment of these men only makes it more likely it will happen to you, too, eventually.
@johnconroy5 I doubt that the boys will have learned anything. They make a point of saying "my partner of 17 years." I wouldn't brag. 17 years and they still can't come up with one good set of common sense?!? American "rights" won't buy you a cup of coffee outside of our soil. And, as someone mentioned, they wouldn't have gotten off so easy had they done this in an American port. They had to pay for their own costs. BooHoo
Just go away and STFU, both of you.
@johnconroy5: Bad grammar and run-on sentences are not what we gays want to be associated with, either.
"they wouldn't have gotten off so easy had they done this in an American port"
Perhaps in some flyover country shithole, they'd have been in trouble, but in most ports, two guys having sex on the balcony of their ship a half mile from the beach — requiring a telephoto high-powered lens to see them — wouldn't have resulted in anything happening at all. Certainly not 14 years in prison for "buggery," being tortured in jail, and being forced to undergo a mandatory invasive exam.
@Jinxed: When in Iran you should do as the Iranians do then? Because in Iran the legal situation is that they HANG people including teenagers for having gay sex but I see that you are ok with that as it is a legal question not a moral one…
Allow me to congratulate you on your first class thinking. It was thinking like that gaves us the gas chambers and countless atrocities during WWII. After the war the nazis who followed Hitler even based their defense on in Nuremberg.
@Martin: VERY WELL PUT MY FRIEND, AGGRESSION IS NOT BECOMING OF ANYONE ESPECIALLY HIDING IN A BLOG DOING IT.
"Allow me to congratulate you on your first class thinking. It was thinking like that gaves us the gas chambers and countless atrocities during WWII."
Yep. There was even a class of Jews who denounced their fellow Jews to "gain respect with the Reich," called capos. Unfortunately, the great closeted middle of American gay society is filled with such capos. They're angry and outraged at people in an openly gay relationship who live without inhibition, fear and self-loathing, so they cheer on their destruction at the hands of the very same people who later destroy the capo himself.
It's a sad mental illness. :-(
@Shaking my head (both of them): Well said my point exactly.
@Shaking my head (both of them):
You are undoubtedly an old, gay troll.
17 years of "Two Looking for a Third" does not make a stable, loving relationship. That worked for the Queer Nation crowd, but we want something else.
Here, again, the perverted, sex-positive, moral-relativists of the gay community will try to defend the acts of these idiots and deflect from the truth by saying the following:
1. "If you are offended by the acts of these, your gay brothers, you are a homophobe."
2. "If you are offended by the public sex act of your gay brothers, you are a judgmental, jealous queen who probably has a bad body."
3. "Posting photos of yourself on a sex site that is password protected is exactly the same as having sex out in the open. They are, in fact, the very same thing."
4. "Gay men who are dismayed by the behavior of other gay men and talk about 'morals' are hypocrites and hate themselves."
This is a load of crap. Stop pushing your retro narrative. The Crisco Disco is over.
It is the first time I comment on Queerty. However, I found your article pretty shocking and insulting. I find it arrogant that you make such a strong point on "Third World Country," and the fact that you paid a lot of money to go on that cruise.
Although I agree that countries should not have laws against homosexuals in their books, this is far from being something that only occurs in "Third World Countries." Just look at North Carolina, and many other States with similar or worse laws.
True, a cruise should probably not visit those ports. However, customers do not seem to mind, do they? – I mean, if you couldn't do a bit of research, I wouldn't expect others to do so. It seems like the priority was to travel to places where "Anything Goes," and with that same arrogance you took the decision to have sex in a balcony. You paid a lot of that room? Sure. Does that give you the right to have more privacy? Sure. Does that give you the right to have sex in a balcony? I don't think so. The fact that you thought that you could do anything in a "Third World Country" doesn't mean that it actually works like that in the real world.
You decided not to call the American Embassy? Yes. They gave you advice and you took it. You must have had your reasons, too. As an adult, you should learn how to take responsibility for your own actions, and not just blame others for the decisions you made.
There is no order and discipline in the f–got world……they live like apes in a pink jungle……they must be regulated…..they have lost control of their tinkerbelle urges…..disgusting h-mo freaks
@Jones: Is that all you are here for Jones to attack others?.. that's unfortunate :-( I do hope people are nice to you even if you are not nice to them as that will be the more progressive nature of decent people, I try to see the nice nature in others including you so I won't call you names or attack you I'll just thank you for paying attention to my original message and for also pointing out my illegitimate grammar however I would like to say that you speak for yourself not a whole community as you sharply pointed out "we gays". Hope your having a good evening
when gay people have something diffucult to say…..they write responses in a peculiar way….oviously you 'back" the sissies that serve….. jumping on each other with a lot of nerve….surely you were pleased with the airport qu-er…that leaped on his sissy and made it quite clear….the f–gots are out of the closet right now…and straining to be seen while taking a bow …….disgusting pansies are ruining the marines…..leaping like mid-city ghetto queens
"You are undoubtedly an old, gay troll."
35, if you must know. But the hatred of the queer capo knows no bounds, alas. You'll slam everyone older than 29, but as you pass into your forties and fifties yourself — alone — the hookups decrease and your hatred of your fellow queer man will magnify ever higher.
"The Crisco Disco is over."
More sex negativity. Your anonymous internet hookups with torso photos aren't any more valid than some gay guy who came of age in the 70s.
@johnconroy5: shut up sissy…..or go get a kleenex and wipe that snot of your f–got face while cry…….
@reality: Dude, you are awesome. I really couldn't express it any better myself. You are too good to be commenting on Queerty.
The only thing I disagree with is that the "overt sexuality" of the 1970s was the result of a noble effort to raise visibility. You're being way too generous. If one of these guys showed up at a 1976 Gay Pride Parade, then he succeeded in raising visibility. It doesn't add anything for him to show up to the same parade in assless chaps, or in a jock strap, or to go to a commercial sex outlet afterwards. That is pure hedonism and exhibitionism. They were living selfishly in the moment, not giving a damn about the long term or about gay youth who would inherit nothing but bars and bathhouses. The result was that they hurt themselves, they hurt the next few generations that came after them and their "visibility" turned off a lot of straight people who might have supported us if they didn't associate us with anonymous, loveless hookups.
It didn't have to be that way, but now thankfully, that subculture is passing away and things are getting better.
@Shaking my head (both of them):
Actually, Sean Hayes, I usually date older men, and I mean that I date them; not hook up with them anonymously like your generation did.
I "slam" everyone who is holding our community back with their inability to see beyond their own selfish, childish desires.
I'm not sex-negative. I'm just not a pervert and a moral relativist. Boundaries and restraint and dignity and morals are a good thing.
Sounds like someone isn't enjoying watching their more temperate and dignified friends pair off and start real lives. We can't all troll the rest stop bathroom with you and the Queer Nation crowd forever. Some of us want to have a real relationship that doesn't involve "guest stars" recruited from manhunt.
These guys symbolize everything that is still wrong with our community.
@reality: @Dan: I have a fact for you too to think about: the countries with the most rights for gays are also the countries that have the most relaxed attittude to consensual sex between adults. Denmark legalised pornography in 1963, did others follow?? In 1987 Denmark introduced civil partnerships with full rights except adoption and church marriage. Adoption came last year. Weddings before the altar in the lutheran Church of Denmark will come in june.
Not one Western European country i can think of would put these men in prison for what they did, certainly not those with extensive gay rights and high tolerance like Sweden, Netherlands, UK, Denmark, Norway or Germany
You know, there is a link between relaxed attitude to sex acts and relaxed attitude to sexual minorities and most people here are helping provide the answer to why gay rights and attitude to gays became one of the hottest topics in your coming presidential election, instead of something you attained long ago…
The age difference between you two is kinda creepy. You've been together for 17 years? The one on the left looks mid 50s and the one on the right looks mid 30s. The relationship must've been rocky at the start. I mean, what did you talk about? What did you possibly have in common?
But yea, sex in plain view of non consenting individuals is wrong – gay or straight. It's obvious this was your eff-u to their entire nation. I'd even go as far as to say you knew their intolerance of gays and did that as to spit on their way of life. There's other ways of doing that instead of shoving that right in their faces.
Oh, and nice attempt on slamming the cruise's 'cruising' culture – I guess you trumped them, eh.
"living selfishly in the moment, not giving a damn about the long term"
Oy vey. More ageism.
Those guys in the 70s and 80s faced HIV (and 2/3 of their friends dying), were beaten and arrested for their sexual orientation, faced mainstream-approved job loss, and couldn't live as themselves outside of tiny ghettoes in the largest US cities.
The marriage equality, adoption and ENDA struggle of today is a pale shadow in comparison, and we wouldn't be where we are today without the Larry Kramers and such of that era.
Unfortunately, one thing has survived from that day to the present, and that would be the unhealthy and self-destructive Peter Pan youth fetishism. A great deal of the commentary on this couple (who have doubtlessly been in a relationship for a period far longer than virtually all of their critics — most of whom have likely not even had one last for 17 months) focuses on their ages and physical appearance. The "meat market" that was supposedly marking the worst of the past queer eras is alive and well in those who claim to have rejected it.
"The age difference between you two is kinda creepy."
Funny. Your neighbor in St. Louis thinks that the gender similarity of you and your boyfriend is also kinda creepy.
what they should have learned is do not have sex in plain view of the public in any country. idiots!!!
"Gay men cannot understand nuance."
More self-loathing. Very revealing.
Hey Dennis and John,
I blame the cruise line. Only for choosing ports that are not gay-friendly. Why should we support ports and cities that will not support us. I blame you two for the rest. Just suck it up and take it up the ass! Oh wait……but please. The original report from Dennis to the AP, a retired deputy sheriff, none the less, was that "we were arrested in Dominica because we are gay, and that they were not having sex on the balcony, but were partially clothed. They told us that they did not like us, and they did not like gay people". Now, being a retired police officer I am sure you have seen your share of indecent exposure vs blatant fucking in public! You two are extremely lucky you got off with what you did, and just leave it at that. You state in this "explanation" that many have taken this opportunity to attack your character and integrity. You also state that media reported you were having sex in front of women, children, and out in the city streets. If the media did report this, the only lie they told was "out in the city streets". You also say you were on the privacy of your own stateroom balcony as the ship was being moored into port. Moored into port yes, privacy….NO! It does not take a rocket scientist to see that the picture linked above was taken when your ship was VERY close to being docked. By the look of the closeness of the lifeboat, if this had truly been taken with a zoom lens, and you were far enough from the dock to not have been seen by women or children on the dock, the background where you two were located would have been much more blurry. I mean, I am no professional photographer, but that looks like a pic I could have taken with my iPhone. Nonetheless, I am a gay man in my late 40's and have lived long enough to know not to do something so arrogant and stupid. You thought you would get away with it, and you didnt! We are supposed to be taking steps forward for our cause and to make it easier on the younger generation of gays by leading by appropriate examples…..you have taken us in the wrong direction Officer!
@Shaking my head (both of them):
The marriage equality, adoption and ENDA struggle of today is a pale shadow in comparison, and we wouldn't be where we are today without the Larry Kramers and such of that era.
You are a dummy. How did you get to be your age and be so bad at arguing?
Pumpkin, Larry Kramer would agree with Dan and I. Larry Kramer was horrified by the behavior of gay men during the AIDS crisis. He started GMHC and then when he told his peers to stop barebacking and stop going to bathhouses they destroyed him, forced him out of his own organization that he founded, and exiled him from the community. What a tolerant bunch, huh?
Why don't you read, or something, before you try to act like you're some gay historian?
Thanks for playing. Next?
@Martin: In your own way, you are a lot like our adversaries in the Christian Right. They think that if you let gays get married, then man-on-dog marriage must follow. If you allow gay sex to be legal, then child rape will be next. You on the other hand, think that if we set down some boundaries, establish some norms of behavior, that the next stop is the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Guess what? We can think rationally and make distinctions. Sex is great. That doesn't mean that we should accept people having sex anywhere and everywhere. We can support a prohibition on sex in public spaces and reject any suggestion that private sex be criminalized. The vast majority of people have no problem making these distinctions. But you and the two Atlantis clowns do.
And BTW, don't draft the Danes or the Dutch to support your warped view of sex. The Netherlands and Denmark are magnificent societies and are indeed liberal in their sex laws. And they are very open in depicting sex on TV. But the vast majority of Danes and Dutch and Norwegians and Swedes would never have sex on an open balcony in broad daylight. It would be seen as an act lacking in dignity and a disrespectful act to one's neighbors. In all of the countries that you mention, public sex can get you arrested. If you don't believe me, by all means go to Tivoli Gardens in Copenhagen and have anal sex or stop by the Damrak in Amsterdam at noon and start blowing someone. Or recreate the actions of these clowns: go rent a hotel room in Paris or Berlin or any West European city – six stories up – and then have anal sex on the balcony in the middle of the day. See what happens, you deluded fool.
They won't accept this conduct any more than the Dominicans will.
"You are a dummy. How did you get to be your age and be so bad at arguing?"
Followed up by…
"Larry Kramer would agree with Dan and I."
Larry Kramer would agree with "Dan and ME." (Dummy). ;-)
And how did Larry Kramer end up with HIV, anyway? Blood transfusion?
Unlikely. He contracted it through promiscous sexual conduct, whereas safer conduct includes two seronegative individuals in a mutually monogamous relationship.
The irony is that these two gents being condemned in your hystrionics are in a monogamous relationship, while the vast majority of their critics are likely indulging in regular anonymous encounters. So long as "people cannot see," it's okay — closeted self-destruction over fearless, healthy relationships, I guess.
"if we set down some boundaries, establish some norms of behavior"
Alrighty then, Senator Santorum!
@Shaking my head (both of them):
Hey, Dummy, here's a direct quote from Larry's 2004 speech, The Tragedy of Today's Gays: "Just as it hard to get worked up about a middle-aged man with brains who sero-converts. You want to kill yourself. Go kill yourself. I'm sorry. It takes hard work to behave like an adult. It takes discipline. You want it to be simple. It isn't simple. Yes it is. Grow up. Behave responsibly. Fight for your rights. Take care of yourself and each other. These are the answers. It takes courage to live. Are you living? Not so I can see it. Gay people are all but invisible to me now. I wish you weren't. But you are. And I look real hard."
Sounds like he's very much in agreement with Dan and MEEEEEE even today. And, go ahead and knock my grammar on a message board. I'm still smarter than you any day of the week and twice as much on Sunday.
The irony is that these two gents being condemned in your hystrionics are in a monogamous relationship, while the vast majority of their critics are likely indulging in regular anonymous encounters. So long as "people cannot see," it's okay — closeted self-destruction over fearless, healthy relationships, I guess.
I assume you have some sort of proof that these guys are monogamous? Or, do you consider "Two Looking for a Third"-ads on manhunt to be monogamy?
I think Dan pretty much napalmed your "argument", if I hadn't eviscerated it completely already. Do you want to continue being proven wrong, or shall we call it a night?
And please, folks, you might be a queen, but dispense with the royal "we." You speak only for yourself.
"Sounds like he's very much in agreement with Dan and MEEEEEE even today."
Doubt it.
"I assume you have some sort of proof that these guys are monogamous?"
I take them at their word. I do know that it's likely that the vast majority of their critics have probably never been in a meaningful long term romantic relationship.
"shall we call it a night"
You're entitled to continue to declare that sex is yucky and icky and needs to be regulated, ala Rick Santorum, and I'm entitled to continue mocking your assertion that your position in that regard is somehow blessed by Larry Kramer himself.
(I'll also take extra chuckles in reflecting on how many of the earnest, wide-eyed "moralist" homos on here will be hooking up with a stranger this upcoming weekend… it's not "immoral" if it's on the down-low, right? It's only icky and deserving of torture/imprisonment when you're public and unashamed. Yikes.)
@Shaking my head (both of them): You don't like ageism. But the 70s subculture, with its focus on sex, inevitably glorified looks and thus promoted ageism. The best way to destroy ageism is to dismantle forever the obnoxious sex-obsessed urban gay subculture that was concocted in the 1970s.
What gall of you to use HIV to turn these people into heroes. Their subculture created the conditions that made that pandemic possible. What would have happened if your average gay San Franciscan in 1976-1980 had, say, 4 or 5 partners a year instead of scores if not hundreds of partners? AIDS would have hit, but it would have been a much more localized outbreak, not a pandemic infecting hundreds of thousands of people before they knew it. Just one more price that was paid for your warped vision of sex.
All of the shit that the anti-gay side uses to demean and demonize gay people – disease rates, depression rates, suicide rates, substance abuse rates – all of it is shit that emanates from that toxic subculture. I am not saying that the subculture causes all of these ill health outcomes, but it contributes massively.
When you go out of the subculture, when you go to Nebraska or Kansas, the rates of disease, depression, suicide, and substance abuse go down. Think about that. These are homophobic areas with fewer support networks for gay people. Homophobia and lack of support is bad for gay health outcomes, so you would expect the stats to get worse. But in spite of the homophobia in places like Nebraska and Kansas, you are on average less likely to get an STI, less likely to be depressed or addicted and less likely to contemplate suicide in Lincoln or Topeka than in the Castro or Chelsea. What does it say about a subculture that the farther you get from it, the healthier you are and the closer you are to it, the sicker you are likely to be? That's not a community; that's a human catastrophe.
It shouldn't be this way. SF and NYC and LA should offer the best community, a community based on love and respect, and thus have the healthiest gay guys in the USA. And the Millennial generation will make this happen where the 70s generation completely failed.
@Shaking my head (both of them):
And please, folks, you might be a queen, but dispense with the royal "we." You speak only for yourself.
TRANSLATION: "I am out of straw-man arguments and sex-positive jargon to throw at you, peppered with gay history name dropping. Now, I will try to just be a semantic troll so I can feel better about the fact that I got my ass handed to me in the comment section of a gay blog. I am 35 years old."
Thankya much.
Technically what they were doing was sodomy, it meets the definition of it. So they should have been charged with that, and here's a little help for people who go on international cruises, learn the damn laws of the countries you're going to! I mean not all the laws, but you know the big ones regarding things like sex, PDA, and the like! Just because you can do "__________" in the US doesn't mean you can do it in other countries, especially when they're developing nations! Do you're own homework about where the cruise is going, and if they're going to anti-gay countries/ports, then don't support them! Don't just mindlessly think, "Oh well this is Atlantis, they're gay friendly!" no business is friendly. The only thing a business is friendly to is their bottom line.
@Jinxed: Yes, but people are reacting to the morality of it, not the legality. That's obvious from the tone of the comments.
So they did something stupid and got caught. Big deal. No one was harmed. No one else lost a dime. And while sex is gushing from every movie, tv station, and blog site, what they did causes these overamped reactions? Please.
What's with these log cabin gays posting on a liberal gay site?
"You don't like ageism. But the 70s subculture, with its focus on sex, inevitably glorified looks and thus promoted ageism."
Well, I'm glad to be a 30-something in 2012, where gay culture today focuses on love, romance and who you are inside! Thank goddess for people like you who are making it happen!
(And yes, I am being veddy, veddy sarcastic).
"I got my ass handed to me"
Hey. That's sexual and therefore, as you note, completely icky (and should be illegal).
As you noted earlier, sexuality is disgusting, perverted and something to be ashamed of, so talking about your ass is similarly disgusting, perverted, and something to be ashamed of. Please knock it off, you crisco-disco hedonist!
"Technically what they were doing was sodomy, it meets the definition of it. So they should have been charged with that"
Tell you what. Why don't we charge YOU with that. The laws are still on the books in 35 states (most likely including yours), except for the intervention of the Supreme Court. They're just one court-ruling away from reinstating them.
Would you happily accept a prison term and registered sex offender status for consensual sex with another adult of the same gender?
@Shaking my head (both of them):
You're entitled to continue to declare that sex is yucky and icky and needs to be regulated, ala Rick Santorum, and I'm entitled to continue mocking your assertion that your position in that regard is somehow blessed by Larry Kramer himself.
Idiot, did you not see the direct quote from Larry Kramer? Please practice reading comprehension. You're the dummy that brought him up and you don't even know his positions. You are really quite hilarious.
Let's be clear. I DON'T THINK SEX IS YUCKY, ICKY, OR IMMORAL. I never said that. Dan never said that. You really don't know how to read. I can't argue with the illiterate.
It is illegal to have sex in public in our own country. No one, certainly not me, is proposing additional regulations. My positions on the subject are in no way similar to Rick Santorum's. This is what you moral relativists do to distract from the reality that the facts are not on your side and your argument is baseless.
I am shocked that you are this unintelligent. Well, not really. More sad than shocked.
"did you not see the direct quote from Larry Kramer"
Sure. I also saw the direct quote from Rick Santorum beneath it… then I realized it was actually you simply channeling the former Senator. You're very good at it — eerily so.
Sure you do. You even use "sex-positive" as an epithet, like all good little Republicans who want to "set limits" on other people based on their own bizarre self-repressive expressionist tendencies.
@Shaking my head (both of them):
Sure. I also saw the direct quote from Rick Santorum beneath it… then I realized it was actually you simply channeling the former Senator. You're very good at it — eerily so.
You are stupid. You can't formulate an argument and back it up with FACTS, so now you're just spouting off nonsense like a little baby because you got totally DESTROYED. Way to act like a child.
@Reality: I think you are wasting your time on this one. He is in his own imaginary world.
However, I have enjoyed immensely reading your contribution here. Please come back and comment frequently. You single-handedly raise the Queerty commenter IQ by 20 points. And if you should ever find that forum you mentioned, let me know cuz I'd join in a heartbeat.
Yeah, epithets and ad hominems raise the quality of discourse tenfold, especially when it's two separate "people" posting "support" from each other from the same PC. :)
@Dan: Get real. You think the millenial generation is less ageist, and less obsessed with looks and bodies? And your evidence is a Kansas town where most of the gay people have left? That's rich.
Of course gay culture has a lot of problems, having to do with self hatred, which comes from having grown up in oppressive environments. But your attempt to pin it on the 70s looks like evidence of your own ageism. I guess you might be looksist also but just won't admit it.
I'm from the 70s, and I've fought for 35 years to stop the spread of hiv, and get people to treat the unattractive like human beings. What have you done?
@Shaking my head (both of them):
Sure you do. You even use "sex-positive" as an epithet, like all good little Republicans who want to "set limits" on other people based on their own bizarre self-repressive expressionist tendencies.
I used "sex-positive" as an epithet because the concept has been taken by loonies like you, who give real liberals like me a bad name, and changed it into some moral relativist contraption in which every behavior is "OK" because we don't want to "hurt people's feelings."
Is that clear enough for you? Quit while you're ahead. Or, well, actually, quit before you look even more daft than you already do.
I love the part where they mention that a sky suite should, perhaps, allow them a little more privacy….wow.
Talk about an overweening sense of entitlement and gross denial for their actions.
Carry on Dennis and John, like a gay version of the Benny Hill Show. How about Russia. Try fucking your brains out in downtown Moscow and let us know how it goes.
@Shaking my head (both of them):
Yeah, epithets and ad hominems raise the quality of discourse tenfold, especially when it's two separate "people" posting "support" from each other from the same PC. :)
Oh, cute, now you're accusing me of being 2 people on this board because none of your arguments make any kind of sense, huh?
That's just special. You're really grasping for straws here. Very becoming.
Way to underscore that whole "agree with me or you're a homophobe gay republican" thing you keep passing off as "tolerance".
If you read their statement carefully, they claim that their balcony was 6 stories up and 150 to 200 yards from where the ship was anchored (what that means is not clear – was the distance to the area where people boarded or left the ship or was it to something else such as an anchor at the bow or stern).
The implication was that, while they were having sex outside, they believed (erroneously) that they were far enough away so as to not be noticed.
While Queerty showed the picture, nobody has given any technical information about it such as the focal length of the lens and what the focal length of a normal lens (one whose field of view matches that of the human eye) is for the camera that was used. For a 35 mm camera (35 mm refers to the width of the film) a normal lens is a 50 mm lens. For a digital camera, it depends on the sensor. If the image was enlarged and cropped, that would be important to know as well. That information would allow one to determine if their implied statement, that they thought they would not be noticed, was a reasonable assumption on their part. It can help distinguish between being unexpectedly observed (perhaps with the aid of some magnification) versus being an exhibitionist.
I might add that one thing I find curious about many of the comments regarding how terrible it is to have sex when other can see it is the number of movies showing scenes in which people are having sex. If people really didn't want to see this, those movies would lose money and Hollywood, always sensitive to the bottom line, would not show any sexual activity in films. One can argue as to whether the people commenting are hypocrites or simply atypical of the American public, but the comments aren't consistent with what people actually believe as determined by how they spend their money.
Fucking in plain view and being of either persuasion is nuts, guys! That is the kinda stuff the Santorum crowd loves to bitch about. Thanks so much.
If you read the statement carefully, they claim they were having sex on their balcony. That's public sex. Public sex is….wait for it….illegal in our own country. Oh no! Facts! Watch out! They hurt! Ouch! Stop hitting me, facts! No fair!
Movies are performances in a construct that is framed by intention, a story, and a camera, which places the action of sex at a distance from the audience under the auspices of a narrative. Sex in the movies is not the same as two gay guys having sex on the balcony of their cruise ship. One of these things is an element of a film; the other is breaking the law. Care to try to spin that one again? Here's a tip. Don't try. These guys were wrong, and you apologists only look more outlandish by trying to make this somehow ok by talking about camera lenses or distances or any of that nonsense.
Shut up. You don't know how to argue based on facts.
while it might be true that if one of you was a woman this might be a different story, it does not excuse your behavior. What are you 12? You both look old enough to know better. To blame the cruise line or the country you were GUESTS in is no excuse…you knew where you were going and you should have known what to expect when you got there. If you are going to be the kind of guys who make us all look bad and cant keep your dick in your pants you might want to do your homework next time before embarking on a cruise where your overt sexual practices might be better embraced. you are both immature and should be ashamed.
These guys are idiots and get what they deserve. Even if they had done this in the United States they would have been arrested. These guys are also media whores.
These fools might want to blame the dock workers or claim that if they were a man and a woman nobody would have cared but that's not true. These men give gay men and all LGBT people a bad name. Larry Kramer as someone else mentioned does the same thing since he's a professional complainer.
I have nothing against HIV+ people but people who intentionally bareback or do it raw should know by now that they're doing high risk sex and playing with fire when it comes to getting infected with HIV, getting another strain of HIV if they're poz, or infecting someone else with HIV or another strain of HIV if they're already HIV+.
@B: Shut up, B. Go back to defending Dharun Ravi. No one takes you seriously.
What a bunch of losers. Own up that you were WRONG, no sympathy here.
No. 170 · Dan (resorting to trash talk) lied by saying, "@B: Shut up, B. Go back to defending Dharun Ravi." The lie, of course, is that I never defended him. Rather, I commented on what you needed to show proof beyond a reasonable doubt, plus pointing out what the New Jersey law made criminal. Dan probably objects to me pointing out that the D.A. was lucky to get Ravi convicted on a bias charge because the data (a statement by an alternate juror that he would not have convicted Ravi on the bias charges) allows one to estimate the probability of a conviction on those charges. You have a number of jurors + alternate jurors, all with roughly equal probabilities of being the ones chosen to be on the jury, so it is easy to compute the probability that with a random selection, this particular guy would have ended up on the actual jury.
Dan, like others who are incapable of thinking for themselves, is the sort who starts spewing when he sees a statement for which they have no rational reply.
These idiots showed about as much judgment in writing this "exclusive" account as they did when they decided to have sex in public. While you may have been in a homophobic "third world" country, you had an opportunity to show them that gay couples are friendly, fun and nothing to be afraid of. Instead, you decided to have sex on your balcony in full view of anyone at the port. What great ambassadors you are. What is more disturbing to me, however, is that you chose to keep this story alive by appearing on U.S. news programs (including KTLA in Los Angeles) to complain about how you were wrongly accused. Well, it turns out that there were photos and you were lying. All you did was make this a national story and reinforce stereotypes about gay behavior. Way to go guys! By the way, I am in Palm Springs all the time and can't wait to see Dennis and his mail order bride in public. I will be the one (or one of the many) laughing hysterically at you!
@reality: Agreed. Hi-five!
B, please do the following:
1. Take the fees that your clients stupidly pay you and rent the Sky Suite on an Atlantis vessel.
2. Get fracked on the balcony in front of Dominican dockworkers. (N.B.: You might have to pay someone to frack you; you won't be able to rely on your charisma or intelligence to draw a partner.)
3. After you get arrested, use your superior legal acumen to get acquitted. Argue to the court that there are sex scenes in movies, therefore sex in public in broad daylight can't be indecent. Demand your right to public sex under the Dominican constitution.
4. Impress the world with your superior lawyering skills. Maybe Ravi will hire you for his appeal.
No. 166 · reality wrote, "@B: If you read the statement carefully, they claim they were having sex on their balcony. That's public sex."
It is only "public sex" if close enough to be observed from where people might reasonably be expected to be. They thought (erroneously) that they were far enough away, or so they appear to claim, and thus were simply having sex outside. Now, you can reasonably not believe their statements, but their credibility is a different issue.
Suppose two people are 2/3 the way up this thing – http://www.google.com/imgres?q=El+capitan&hl=en&client=ubuntu&hs=qpE&sa=X&channel=fs&biw=951&bih=837&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&tbnid=QKBMWMTKrpRnpM:&imgrefurl=http://www.boston.com/community/photos/raw/2008/09/el_capitan.html&docid=TtC-lJz7Xf8wQM&imgurl=http://www.boston.com/community/photos/raw/El_Capitan.jpg&w=500&h=357&ei=d4i0T86DAsewiQL_yLHvAQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=114&vpy=317&dur=1443&hovh=190&hovw=266&tx=173&ty=90&sig=101878474983771468063&page=1&tbnh=144&tbnw=214&start=0&ndsp=17&ved=1t:429,r:4,s:0,i:82 – and having sex. They are technically visible to the public, but to anyone on the ground they would look like a couple of tiny dots unless viewed through a telescope or something equivalent. Would you call that "public sex"? Well, no – they would have had every reason to think they would not be seen. The same is true if two people wander off some distance into the woods and away from any trail. It's not the same as doing it on a city street in front of the local Starbucks.
No. 175 · Dan wrote, "B, please do the following: …" Dan, why don't you do the following: get some professional help so you can learn to act like an adult.
I might add that you are using some of the same sort of statements that some idiot calling himself Steve used in comments on a different article. It wouldn't surprise me if you are actually the same person.
You might also surprise us and explain if you have any objections to asking about technical information regarding how an image was produced, since it is relevant in determining if these guys knew they would be seen or not.
At sea, that balcony might well be considered private. In port, it's not by any stretch of rationality.
Sorry B. I am not Steve. I guess that makes 2 people here who think you are a dumbass.
@Dan: "The best way to destroy ageism is to dismantle forever the obnoxious sex-obsessed urban gay subculture that was concocted in the 1970s."
I see that you do in fact have other items on your agenda than stoning two thoughtless probably drunk gay guys for their indiscression. Yes lets "dismantle it". Lets use legislation, bulldozers and the police. Lets put the adherents of the lifestyle of SODOMA in prison and throw away the key, flogging in the public square for lesser offences. You are talking along the same lines of the mullahs.
Is it really that rosy in small town America? Then why do the gay teens kill themselves there? Why are they bullied? Is it the promise of quick sex that draws gay people to the cities??
What you dont understand is that because you dont understand everything and cannot know all, you should be careful about visiting punishment on everyone not confirming to your bias. If you are not, then others might do just the same to you, if you break their norms or rules.
That is what TOLERANCE means in practice, and as long as man is like wolf to his fellow man then there will endless pain and suffering. You idiots think your brand of morality is "fair" guess what so did everyone who voted for DOMA
And before you start making any assumptions about me then im 34 and have a bf for 4 years. I even have 2 children so stop making absurd conjectures about ppl idiots
No. 179 · Dan wrote, "Sorry B. I am not Steve. I guess that makes 2 people here who think you are a dumbass." Even if you are telling the truth about who you are, which I have no reason to believe, one would then conclude that you read Steve's garbage and are simply parroting it because you lack the ability to think for yourself.
Face it. There are a few very narrow minded people who trash talk on Queerty whenever anyone wants to see statements backed up with facts. You are obviously one of them.
@reality: "real liberals like" you!!! ROFL. Darling, real liberals have brain and dont loose themselves in stoning frenzies over moral "crimes". Real liberals are concerned with promoting tolerance not setting its limits…
I guess you have a lot of reading to do yet little boy…
Someone's revising history. Larry Kramer was not for gay men being less promiscuous and that's not why he started GMHC. He started GMHC because of HIV/AIDS, and GMHC promoted safer sex.
No. 178 · Hyhybt wrote, "At sea, that balcony might well be considered private. In port, it's not by any stretch of rationality."
That depends on how the ship is docked and where the balcony is on the ship. The longest cruise ships are over 1000 feet long. While not the case in this incident, if a ship is perpendicular to the shore and there is not anything adjacent to it, someone on a balcony 6 stories up and at the far end of the ship could appear as a tiny dot unless a telescope was used.
A satellite image indicates that dock was configured so the ship was parallel to the shore, but several hundred feet away from it.
@B: That the photo exists and that people on land saw what was happening is ample proof that it wasn't a private place.
@B: But yes, if the ship were turned the other way around and there was nothing else over there (say, another ship) then that could be private even in port. Too bad they weren't booked on the other side of the ship.
@Martin: Martin, it would be better for our conversation if you would read what I actually write and respond to that rather than stuff you make up. I don't support sodomy laws, using bulldozers or any of the other nonsense you spewed. I do support gay people creating a healthy community based on love and respect and not on large numbers of loveless sexual encounters. You are truly blind if you can't see the damage that a sex-based urban gay subculture has done.
I never said that rural areas were rosy. I said just the opposite, if you would read. There is greater homophobia there. But the appalling thing is that, despite the increased homophobia in rural areas and small towns, you are on average more likely to be depressed and addicted in Chelsea than in Small Town USA. That doesn't mean that Small Town USA is rosy or that there aren't depressed/addicted/suicidal people there. It means that the gay male subculture in places like Chelsea, despite the reduced homophobia, is objectively worse.
It should be just the opposite. The more connected a gay person is with a large gay community, the better his health outcomes should be, reflecting the stronger and broader support networks and reduced homophobia. So why isn't there a positive correlation? Because the hedonists who created these gay urban enclaves in the 1970s centered their "community" around bars and hookups and tea rooms and bathhouses and street cruising. In fact, they never really created a genuine community. They created a commercialized sex arena whose chief by-products are loneliness, depression, and disease.
This has gradually improved over time. The 80s subculture was a bit better than the 70s and the 90s a bit better than the 80s. But we are past baby steps. We need to do it right so that a life in a gay neighborhood correlates with happiness and health. The Millennials may not be perfect, but they'll get the job done. When gays look back on this 100 years from now, the Millennials will be the real heroes and the 1970s/80s generation – folks like these 2 Atlantis clowns – will be, shall we say, not heroes.
After years of lobbying by international organizations (e.g. the Commonwealth of Nations), first-world democracies, and the tourism industry, Caribbean nations have slowly but steady been reforming their Sodomy laws. Sadly, LGBT communities in these nations still suffer the effects of widespread and often state-tolerated discrimination.
Thanks to these two "victims", Sodomy law reform will probably be put on hold in the islands for the foreseeable future. Way to go, ladies!
With all the opportunities for group action on an Atlantis cruise, you'd think these guys would have had their fix before docking. As far as I'm concerned, they got of (hehe) easily.
This should have been a mea culpa. Instead it is two idiots talking about how they were violated. Dude, you screwed on a balcony and got away with it with basically a slap on the hand. Please.
@Dan: You seem to have a lot of faith in the Millennials. Don't hold your breath. Half of them think that barebacking is cool and that HIV is manageable condition not to be worried about.
Totally agree, they made a mistake, end of story, but some of the comments made by supposedly gay or gay friendly people on this site, about two of our own, is actually supporting the homophobic agenda. As for the drug accusations & the 'age' references, comments like that about our own kind have given the gay community a bad name for many many years, bitchy, nasty, self righteous queens, who are no better than the 'closets' or the 'homophobes' they continue to ridicule.
Dennis & John….HUGE OOPS.!! George Michael sang, 'lets go outside', not sure if thats what he meant tho. I hope this all goes away soon for both of you.
Judging by these comments, I'm guessing that you are wishing now that you had just kept your mouths shut!
This letter was written in the first person, as in I, I, I, yet it was signed by both, whom is speaking? I'm guessing the older one, the former cop. This clown is definitely a Palm Springs republican. He takes no responsibility for their actions and virtually no mention to playing the gay card on local Palm Springs TV when they denied they were fucking on the balcony. Gotta love his spinning the idea that those of us who don't support their ignorance and irresponsibility as 'haters. This guy should be working for Fox News!
Give it time, these gays are going to become the Kardashians of the gay community, as in they aren't going to go away, they will capitalize on this. Probably working on some lame LOGO reality show at this very moment and this letter is nothing more then pre-publicity. Reichen must be pissed that it didn't occur to him to go on an Atlantis Cruise and fuck on the balcony.
We as a community have come a long way with regard to the perception of engaging in sex, responsibly, not that it is anyone's business, but it has been used against us for decades. The behavior of this couple and their arrogance in refusing to own the consequences, reflects on us all.
@Dan: Your kind of "healthy community" do you know thats what Hitler wanted too. You are just too plain ignorant to understand the totalitarian implications in what you say. Besides your rant about the evil 70′ is hilarious.
You think you have the right to tell people how to live their lives. Guess what you dont actually. Mind your own business and try to be pleasant to other people instead of throwing stones. You think you are better at telling other people what to do because you have the right intentions. So did Lenin, Hitler and Mao and so do all the conservative religious people.
Its not tolerance you are peddling around here. Its your brand of moralising…
You are right about one thing though that many people have lost sight of the things in life that give life meaning. But stoning these two sad people isnt helping change that. I would never go on a cruise like that. It just makes you forget the reality of your life for a week. Its plain hedonism
What a couple of freaks….total embarrassment to most gay men. Certainly not what a responsible adult would do. But what really gets me is how you have the gall to point blame on your total lack of irresponsibility. You 2 are amazingly stupid.
Palm Springs resident who is embarrassed to even have you in the area.
So many irrelevant arguments, so little time!
Why are we supposed to be impressed that they've been "together" for 17 years? However that's defined, at least in a glorified roommate sense, since they live in California where everything is perfect except that marriage is illegal, ha ha – well at least they don't live in "flyover" country like Iowa where it's legal.
Casual sex, even anonymous sex: it's hard to see why the subject was even brought up here, since they've known each other for 17 years. It has nothing to do with public sex, or an exhibitionist fetish.
Why does anyone here assume they're monogamous? Why does anyone assume they're NOT monogamous? What does that have to do with anything? They'd probably lie about that anyway, since we know the retired police officer is rather casual about perjury.
Nor do we know their HIV status, which is irrelevant to this case or to the issue of public sex or exhibitionism in general. It's a novel theory that most HIV infections are acquired on balconies instead of simply by barebacking in the privacy of bedrooms. For all we know they're both long-term poz and doing well, or long-term sero-discordant and doing well. But again, they'd probably lie about that too, depending on what story they thought might play better.
Why assume that any gay guy annoyed at these two is having slutty anonymous sex? (just not in public). If anything, I might assume most (if not all) of them are the monogamous, puritanical, married types. Again, not really relevant.
The age difference – well, I suppose one might think the older guy would have a little more sense. But otherwise, irrelevant.
Moored, In, On a Port-of-Call. Blah blah blah…. It was silly, stupid and selfish. In my opinion the only proper response would have been to write a letter in a remorseful tone.
In 2009 I was a RESIDENT of PALM SPRINGS, CA & a VICTIM of a CON MAN. This Con had victimized several men before me and is a 2 time convicted FELON. The PSPD refused to take my complaint… for 2 years. I went to every news outlet, LGBT resource, THE ADVOCATE, On-line site… nobody would help. Even though this was a known Felon nobody in the PS, CA or L.A., CA community would help.
I can't say more because this is not over yet. My point is … This stupidity gets more lines of print and acknowledgement than it is worth. Two men hurting themselves rather than ONE PREDATOR hurting many other men.
Women's Lib came of age in the 70's. When will the LGBT community come of age? Violence and Predatory actions against each other will not be tolerated?????
In reading some of the comments, it looks like the consensus is, "it's okay to be gay, just make sure you do that under cover of darkness where no one can ever see you."
Isn't that what we are fighting against here in the US, the need to be shameful of who we are and who we have sex with? True, I do not plan to have sex on a balcony any time soon, but if I do I would like to receive the same treatment as a heterosexual couple caught in the same situation.
1) they were stupid to do that while the ship was docked
2) they were on the balcony which is everything but a private space
3) I don't find the fucking on a balcony or on a public space sickening (this is for several commentors) but their act was really irresponsible because it's different to have public sex and have sex with a public
4) they are right in saying that them being gay plays a role. Do not fool ourselves: nobody would have complained if they had been a straight couple. While I agree on their foolish behavior I cannot help being angry at the fact that gays are still treated differently than straights.
@Joseph: Really? Seriously? You read all 197 comments and the conclusion you came to was that it's ok to be gay, just do the sex part where no one can see you? Actually, that currently is the general consensus of modern society, that being when it comes to sex between adults, keep it private, and THAT is exactly what got these two clowns didn't do and what got them into trouble. As for whatever your delusional understanding is regarding what we are fighting for here in the US, we DEFINITELY do not want these guys to be our poster boys for civil rights and marriage equality.
Lastly, the tone of this letter screams law enforcement intimidation, thus my previous post alluding to the assumption that it was the ex-cop that wrote it. Whenever accused of inappropriate behavior, those in law enforcement IMMEDIATELY go into the in your face denial, intimidation and taking the focus off themselves, which is exactly what was done in this statement. If either had learned anything from the experience, the statement would have been a single paragraph, accepting responsibility and acknowledging the embarrassment that it led to for themselves, Atlantis and the gay community.
@Alexi3: The difference is that when you do something you feel bad about or wish you would not have done, you take the blame and deem never to do it again. The couple in this case refuses to take any blame, they blame everyone from Dominica to Atlantis to Queerty Readers, but they absolutely refuse to believe they are at all at fault in this situation when if they had not fucked in public this incident would have never happened.
@wdcguy: Also, they can apologize to Atlantis. Atlantis should be suing them for loss of revenue. I can not be the only person that was thinking about an Atlantis cruise, saw this story and decided to reconsider. If they would not have been acting irresponsibly, Atlantis would not have been tarnished due to their actions. Long after they are forgotten, this will still remain a blemish on Atlantis.
Right on. I can't believe some of the thinking on this thread. I don't understand why gay men resist growing up so fervently. Then we turn around and demand rights, ignoring any responsibility.
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. We are different from straight people. That's not a bad thing, but some people haven't understood that our differences are not bad, yet.
The reality is, this couple did a stupid thing. The granular detail refuting everything, and protesting way too much, suggests that they are in denial. Regardless of their advanced age, they are completely childish. The only reason that any other childish men would support them is because of typical gay solidarity.
"There, I said it."
Well, it's not what you said originally. I believe you said you two were just walking around on your balcony. There, that's what everyone was arguing about originally. You said you were arrested purely for being gay.
They have a point to call out Atlantis for taking a cruise to a spot with antigay laws, though I live in a state with many LGBT freedoms and I can assure you fucking outside isn't one of them.
Spontaneous sex and/or fucking outdoors is a beautiful thing, and I don't have prudishness or sex shame. That being said, this was bad judgement on their part.
And what's made it a thousand times worse is that nasty letter, dripping with entitlement that they aren't entitled to, calling out all the people responsible for their shame – except for, you know, THEMSELVES.
OWN YOUR SHIT, PEOPLE. Learn from your errors and don't blame others for your actions. For fuck's sake, grow up!
"Privacy" of a "publicly" viewed balcony, Really! I am sure if you were doing it in central park you would also be arrested if you were straight or gay, guess NYC is also third world in their eyes. Agreed, not the couple I would want as our poster child.
@Joseph: You misstated the consensus. Let me rephrase it for you. "It's OK to be who you are, just don't assume that everybody enjoys watching two middle-aged guys having sex in a public space.".
What a couple of low-life, disgusting tools.
@MinNC: Right On, MinNC!!
I have traveled on Atlantis 9 times. I have traveled alone in many countries as well. I have been in some no gay friendly places too. Who can blame Atlantis for taking us to Dominica? Really? 2000 people had a great time in Dominica and 2 idiots used bad judgement and should be happy they only spent 1 night in jail. cry cry cry.
We can be ourselves and let it all out on the ship at the right times, but when we are in port and in other countries we need to remain HUMAN!
I am ashamed these two guys live here in Palm Springs.
"Excepted"? Whatever, idiots. Crawl back in your K hole you PsOS.
@Daez: Atlantis has lost no revenue due to this matter, if anything the free publicity has been invaluable. I can assure you that all the clowns that screamed boycott have not nor never would have gone on an Atlantis Cruise. The boycott would be as effective as all the gays in West Hollywood boycotting Huggies diapers. BTW, some of the better screaming rants that were left on voice mail at Atlantis were recorded by Reservations Staff and they are HILARIOUS.
@Alexi3: thrown!
You should have done your homework, not the cruise company. When I vacation regardless of where I'm going, I am aware of the acceptances level of any country, state, city and businesses that I plan on spending time and money. You must never forget that when you leave the United States, you do not have any rights or protection and acceptance as you would have in the U.S. face it guys, you fucked up.
First of all, own your mistakes. You were having sex, why lie about it? As well, it may be a valid criticism of Atlantis that they bring their business to island that have discriminatory laws. But then as a person paying Atlantis, it also falls on you to NOT support them by refusing to go on the cruise if it is stopping somewhere with hateful laws.
I'm not even going to get into the rationale for these guys doing this…I'll leave that to othrs to debate. But I will say this, the action of these two men do not say anything about the broader gay community. I'm shocked that so many people seem to think this gives us (as the gay community) a bad name.
Does Newt Gingrich's 3 marriages say anything about straight people? No. But it does say a lot about him.
The same applies here.
after 17 years their lucky to still have a sex drive for each other. wish i could afford a f*king cruise.
They made a mistake, its not a big deal. I am sure that no one who reads this site has ever fooled around in public… Oh right sure you have. I hope they choose not to read these trashy hate filled comments.
after 17 years their lucky to still have a sex drive for each other. wish i could afford a f*$ing cruise.
Good grief. What is so wrong with sex in public, for fuck's sake?
I agree that it was foolish for them to do what they did, but why are Atlantis Events taking passengers to anti-gay destination? With a few exceptions Most of the Caribbean is extremely homophobic!
@Lukes: On public sex: sickening, no. Inappropriate, yes. Illegal just about everywhere: also yes.
@Pete: They aren't lying about it now; "we were fucking" is about as clear as you can get. But it's probably not a good idea to admit that until after you're out of the country where you could go to prison for years for doing that.
Why is it illegal…..cuz women run a higher risk of getting raped as yes we are animals, and most humans are buuuutt ugly. The law sounds quite reasonable.
I'm shocked porn company hasn't extended an offer to redo the scene. Remember the guy that slept with Clay Aitken and Tim from the University of Hawaii. They both did films.
Model – Allen A
@Shaking my head (both of them): Thanks, this is great!
@Joseph: This is good too!
Don't you have to have character and integrity for someone to attack it?
@Basch: Precisely! Never done those things myself, though a high school girlfriend REALLY wanted me to do her in a park. Anyway, there is also a big difference between the things that this gentleman mentioned and having sex on a balcony in front of thousands of mixed people.
Idiots should have known better doing it during the day – their "show" for everyone just backfired
Three words to sum up and hopefully end this absurd story. Crystal. Meth. Florida.
Accpet responsibility Guys you broke the law so stop your bitching already and deal with it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No. 185 · Hyhybt wrote, "@B: That the photo exists and that people on land saw what was happening is ample proof that it wasn't a private place."
Aside from missing the point – you seemed to realize it in No 186 – the photo is really not proof of very much besides them being on the balcony with their clothes off and being next to each other. You need a picture that was not cropped and that was taken with a normal lens (defined as one with a focal length such that the picture is close to what one would see with a human eye with its field of view) to determine to what extent they would be noticed. If potential viewers were sufficiently far away, they'd really see one or two "dots" on the balcony and would not be able to tell much unless they used a telescope or something equivalent. Unfortunately, the information needed to properly evaluate the picture is missing.
Also, the witnesses in general are not all that credible. The best one was a gay guy who saw the incident while boarding a tour bus and reported it on Queerty. But he said he thought they were doing one thing and then thought they were doing something else after someone else made a suggestion. That indicates that the couple were probably far enough away that they were not all that easy to see – otherwise everyone's first impression would have been the same. I wouldn't trust the locals, mainly because their culture is homophobic and that could affect their perceptions. The article claims the complaints came from dock workers but we have no idea of where those workers were and what they could see from their position. Was it everything or just above the waist, with them assuming that there was sex going on? They might have complained if a couple was just hugging.
While the two characters in question obviously screwed up, I don't think the evidence shows that they were exhibitionists. It is more likely that they thought erroneously that they would not be noticed or seen, or maybe didn't notice much of anything around them. Of course, you can expect a few Queerty commenters to blow up at hearing that – they obviously want to demonize these guys and don't want to hear any suggestion that the situation may be somewhat different from what they imagine.
Sorry guys, I don't care what kind of cruise it was you were promting indicent exposure in public during daylight hours for other people to see. It may have been an all gay cruise, but it was not an all gay country, island or the land of OZ. Let's be real, this is why so many people are so fucked up and against gay people. Everyone does not want to see straight or gay people having sex in public. It was a dumb thing to do and you should have been inside your state room. There really isn't any justification for youe behavior. What if there were kids that saw that?
oh boo hoo. You were having sex in public. Gay or anti-gay, public sex is illegal in any country. As for the rest of the whiners, it's readily available knowledge as to which countries are anti-gay. Do your homework. This company is providing a service which clearly its clients are demanding. And gee, if they weren't fucking in plain view, nothing would have happened.
Deserve what you get.
@reality: "THE ONLY REGULATIONS I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IMPOSED ON SEX BETWEEN TWO ADULTS IS NO SEX IN PUBLIC, WHICH IS ALREADY A LAW IN OUR COUNTRY. OTHER THAN THAT, GO BUCK WILD AT YOUR OWN RISK."
Who gets hurt by public sex?
So sorry for you guys…and a bit turned on by the thought of it ;-) I hope it is ending in a good way, legally, etc. I can't help but wonder about your desire for danger and exhibitionism that led to this decision. I know we would love that idea of doing it in public but in open view without camouflage cover? But we're more cautious in our "danger" sex.
Everyone makes judgment calls that are questionable so peoples' criticisms are unwarranted. And the detractors are just the voices of normality that try to drag people down into their own quagmire of unmet expectations.
We're also an older/younger couple and once had to leave thru a different exit at a movie theater bc we were fooling around at a Johnny Depp 'Pirates' movie and some lady reported us. The thrill makes it more exciting. I'd be tempted to do what you guys did but we'd do it at night without a moon and no lights on. I don't know what would have happened if that security guard would have found us…
@B: Are you really that stupid? Several pictures of the ship docked at the Dominican port exist and it is quite clear the idea of height and distance do not offer any privacy for the baclonies on this ship.
ALthough the picture of the two men may look like a hug, be real and accept that in person their movement would certainly be identified as intercourse by most anyone who has ever seen humping or done it themselves.
Any idea or defense of privacy is ludicrous and it's quite clear these men knew exactly what they were doing. One of these guys is (was) a cop or in law enforcement. He knew this was wrong in any jurisdiction based on the legality of making this a public act. Not to mention the act itself even in private, is illegal in this particular jurisdiction.
Of course, knowing this, and then doing it anyway and then causing this incident to become a statement on LGBT rights instead of a statement on civilized behavior in public is what slows our equality and because we take offense to it, doesn't make us haters.
@reality: "I have never fooled around in public. My mother raised me right."
Argument ad mommy.
So who gets hurt by public sex? What's so awful about sex that it has laws against it, but public apple eating doesn't?
1. Don't want gay marriage? Don't get one.
2. Don't want public sex? Don't do it.
Dennis Meyer: bitch please — you loved the attention you got while buggering your boo in Dominica and love this attention now. What you did here is like Kim Kardashian authoring an exclusive on perez hilton about how she suffered emotionally when her "unauthorized" video was released and then! providing a link to the video in the same column. You are something else!
Why does someone have to be hurt in order for it to be indecent or inappropriate? Again, the Crisco Disco is over. Grow up.
Regardless of your lengthy "defense", what you did is indefensible. You were guests in a foreign country, and as such, should have acted as good guests instead of irresponsible jerks who gave not only gay people but also Americans in general one more bad mark on our world-wide reputation. If you don't have better sense, then please stay home.
@reality: So we should make *laws* that actually hurt people (arrest, record, prison, fine, humiliation, firing) for actions that don't hurt anyone because Mommy subjectively taught you they are "indecent" (whatever that means)?
Isn't that precisely the (lack of) argument the Santorum side uses? It's always been this way, thus it should be now and forever.
These guys are trash, send em away
@Adam: One should always be uneasy when in agreement with those who want to go further using the same line… They came for the ___, but I didn't speak out, etc.
If you don't stand up for these guys because it's ridiculous that consensual behavior is illegal, then do it for self-preservation. It may be you they come for next.
@Andy: They won't come after me because my bf and I don't f in public… its common sence, they deserved everything they got. Nobody is responsible for their legal fees and transportation back home but themselves. The cruise line could have chosen more gay friendly countries, but when traveling to foreign countries you need to respect their rules, the world is not a giant bath house!
@Andy: There are right times and places for everything, and, aside from things like breathing, wrong times and places for them as well. Why is it an unreasonable burden not to have sex just anywhere you feel like it, regardless of other people around? (Or, more likely, BECAUSE those other people are there and you like showing off and annoying them.)
(And a movie theater? Really? Why? It couldn't have been for comfort or atmosphere, and at the least it's far worse to others who have, after all, paid to watch the MOVIE than a cell phone going off.)
@Hyhybt: Unreasonable burden? Yeah, don't act too gay, it'll upset the Republicans whose mommies have taught 'em right. Why are the gays shoving it down my throat?!?!
I agree that public sex can be a nuisance, but let's not pretend it's treated the same way as other annoyances. Can you name anyone arrested for talking on a cell phone?
@Hyhybt – Do you enjoy living on that perfect perch casting out judgments upon the masses? I don't think God is hiring.
Come on, in a movie theater where there were zero people within 15 seats of us. This lady was at the very end aisle. It was not packed and who hasn't felt frisky in public? All we did was have a hand down the pants. You would do well at loosening that frigid plug you're wearing and expand your sexual imagination ;-)
1. What is so difficult about not having sex in public? Explain to me the infringement on one's civil rights.
2. Stop trying to compare gay people who criticize the actions of stupid, embarrassing gay people "Santorum" or "homophobic". You look like an idiot who doesn't know how to argue based on facts. Plenty of people on this thread agree that these dudes are embarrassing to the gay community.
3. Stop using Holocaust imagery to justify your warped values. Being gay and being pro-gay rights does not mean we are pro-indecency. We can be gay and decent. It's insulting that you would compare the persecution of the HOLOCAUST with gay men calling out gay garbage on a gay blog. You are WRONG.
I know it flies in your face that more and more gay men want to get off of the circuit party train, but they do. They want real lives with real relationships and people like you are mad that you're going to have less selection of fuck buddies to grow old having disconnected sex with. We want something else.
This is a noble and intelligent response to all the negative media this couple received.
I'm glad they were honest and forthcoming that they were indeed having sex…
It's still sad that Atlantis events was so passive in their efforts, to represent this couple; when they in fact instigate this kind of lascivious environment and attitude.
Lets hope this does not detract gay couples from traveling on such cruises, but rather take precautions to be more guarded when out of their home turf.
After all, its a shame to spend all that money on the "vacation of a lifetime", all to end on a bad note and have to be deported back home.
James. :-)
There must be order …..the fruits are loose…..infection of the military with sissy marines jumping and slobbering is an abomination…..what the f–k tootsies?…..you can't be lillie pickers in high heels with unifroms and go around acting like chimps….mother f–k…get control over yourselves fools
Not noble, unintelligent.
Take home from all of this? DON'T BE TACKY.
You f–gots are some two faced, double standard, one eyed jack mother f–kers…..what about that g d–m sissy in marine uniform that leaped on his gay at that airport?…that's the same "media whore" sh-t you pansies are all talkin about here on this motha f–kin website……… you sissies get excited and start acting like a bunch startled apes in the rainforest
@flyoverit – Feel better now by showing us what an X&@*# you are? Now go kick a dog, push a kid off his tricycle and feel better about who you are.
If I had sex on my balcony in LA during the day, I'd be arrested.
But with that said, gay cruises shouldn't go to homaphobic countries. Kissing and holding hands in public is ok, I'm a little scared if there's laws against that.
In the end, you guys were wrong. No defense. But still kinky after 17 years…sweetness, congrats to you both.
@ Reality– I was referring to the above said article.
They received so much criticism for their stupidity that people failed to overlook that they were on a GAY cruise which prompted them to this kind of debauchery. Nonetheless they were probably still running high from the party drugs they were doing, this kind of atmosphere evoked this risky business… The original article seemed blown out of proportion backed with heresay, "witnesses" and two blurry photos. SMH…. this case wouldn't have survived the time, for a daytime judge tv show review.
I think its sad that the gay community rushes to throw the first stone, when they have some demons in their own closest– especially when it comes to public sexual acts.
Lets keep it moving, and let these people get on with their lives for christ sakes.
You know what they say about people living in glass houses….
It is strange and remiss of the travel agency/cruise company that they didn't warn the vacationers about local customs and appropriate conduct given that this was a cruise for gay men. You'd've thought they might give them a stern reminder about not exposing themselves. It would be like a western woman going to Pakistan on holiday and wandering around in a skimpy dress – it would be regarded as forbidden (obviously having sex is rather more serious but you see my point).
Having said that, I am straight but surprised at the prudishness and hostility of most of the comments on here. I have caught straight people having sex in public; I didn't run to the police! I looked away. Yes, this couple made a mistake but jeez, they didn't commit murder!
@kae: thank you!! this is exactly what I'm saying…
Something in this original story was not completely revealed to the readers, and it turned the perpetrators into big time exhibitionist and just gay, dirty whores….
Shame on you prude gay men, who think you have so much "class". Nice to know the "Mean girls" hierarchy of judgement still thrives.
You two, are a couple of douche bags, pure & simple. I do agree that gay charters should not visit hostile ports of call. That being said, you two morons were well instructed on what proper behavior to display. You decided to put on a little sex show for all the world to see! I for one & some others felt you SHOULD have been busted for "buggery". It is an antiquated law, for sure, but when in a foreign country you NEED to follow the local laws. You have no sympathy from me & others.."Ya want sympathy, Blanch? Well you can find it in the dictionary..Between sucicide & syphilis!"
@Andy: "Act too gay?" Public sex has NOTHING to do with being gay.
I oppose the laws banning gay sex, but I have no pity for these two men who think they should inflict their sexual practices on unwilling eyes. When you intentionally do things like that in full view of the public you are attempting to disturb or shock others. Your goal is to cause distress or discomfort to others. The hilarity is that these buttwipes then turn around and scream that the cruise line is somehow at fault. Apparently these morons do not realize that even where there are no laws against gay sex there are still laws about public sex. Of course, one of the great sad things about exhibitionists, is that is seems to always be the wrong ones showing off.
As for the stupid remarks about the cruise line choosing ports that are friendlier, clearly they are not considering that the laws in the Caribbean means you need to conduct the cruise in an entirely different part of the world. If you are too lazy to pick cruises that reflect your own values, why make others endure your choices. Anyone can easily avoid those ports, cruises are not mandatory. You choose to buy tickets. You are responsible. Take responsibility for your own decisions. These two buttwipes decided the world wants to watch them (and I see no reason it would, even I wouldn't want to see them and I don't mind good erotica) and then blame the cruise ship for the consequences of their own stupidity. Similarly, when you buy tickets to cruise to certain ports YOU are responsible for picking those ports, not the cruise line. You could have bought a different cruise. Some whining and take responsibility.
Actually, the Atlantis Cruise crowd are the mean girls. They are the age-ist, lookist circuit queens who enjoy making everyone else feel less-than. The very act that these two were caught in suggests the same. "We're so hot, who could be offended by us hot guys having sex?" Grow up.
We, who find this behavior embarrassing are not prudish gay men. Nice try. We're gay men with VALUES, morals, decency, and substance. I love that you idiots always try to make gay men who don't want to live in a bathhouse or by the hanky code are somehow "jealous, desperate, ugly prudes." Try again. We don't want that retro gay life.
As for the culpability of the cruise line in "warning" passengers about the laws of countries they go to, GROW UP. YOU'RE AN ADULT. DO YOU OWN RESEARCH ON WHAT COUNTRIES YOU'RE VISITING, IDIOT. Have some common sense.
As for "letting these people get on with their lives", we were all happy to do that when we saw the photos that actually proved that they were lying in the first place about their behavior. Then, they decided to grace us with their smarmy presence again on queerty. I'm sure most of the commenters here would love to forget these two pieces of garbage ever existed!
What I find most mystifying here is all the gay guys who are so sure that heterosexuals do this all the time. I live near the beach in one of the most liberal US states, and I've NEVER seen heteros doing it in public. Some of you must really be on the lookout for hetero f*cking! Are you guys sure you're really gay? :)
Even if straights do this much (which I doubt), outside of cars anyway, so what? Let us know when they follow the analogy presented here and want to redefine exhibitionist sex as part of "straight identity." That'll be interesting.
@reality: You're proposing that public sex stay/be illegal. You are wanting to arrest, jail, convict, fine, imprison people not because they're harming others but because it's "indecent," a circular definition if ever. You're wanting harm to people who don't harm others. That's precisely right-wing stuff, so the comparisons are quite fitting.
If you don't want public sex, don't do it. I don't but as it's not causing me any harm, I don't want harm done to those. You do because Mommy told you public gay sex is bad and such individuals need punishment like jail time and getting fired from their jobs, etc.
@Hyhybt: The arguments used against gays holding hands, going to the prom together, or marrying are the same exact ones used against semi-public gay sex.
No, idiot, I didn't say that and I'm not going to even dignify your ridiculous comment with a response.
@Andy: Which is only relevant *after* you prove that the two things are alike.
@the other Greg: Here's an example of straight couple having sex on their balcony last year (In NZ). They were visible to office building and the streets. You'll notice the main reaction to this was giggling and no arrests were made.
Oh, I get it, this is supposed to make us think this kind of behavior is OK and should be encouraged? Get a life.
@James: @reality: It hasn't been just the prudes blasting this couple, and the sluts defending them.
A lot of the defenses of Dennis & John here have followed a disturbing recent tone in Queerty comments.
There is often a mawkish, cloying assumption that gay male relationships are so fragile, so difficult to do, so rare – kind of like unicorns! – that we all must support ANY demonstration (no matter how outrageous) of gay male couples in lo-o-ove!
The funny thing is, when this story first broke – without much detail to begin with – a lot of readers just assumed that these two were NOT boyfriends and had met on the cruise. This assumption led to comments that skewed in an entirely different direction.
Also, dummy, the man in this case was found out and fined. Suck on this:
Fairy men….listen f–gots ………………you must put this into proper perspective, h-mos……..you freaks are animals anyway so why object to a couple of wussys bustin their balls on each other…..as long as they weren't in uniform of the armed forces, f–k it….let the dogs f–k
@reality: I made no commentary. I responded to the other greg, NOT YOU, because he seemed to think public sex amongst straight people is rare. I'm just showing it happens and this is the reaction. The fact that after the video went viral, the police felt the need to fine the couple doesn't negate the fact that there was no extreme overreaction when it happened. The fact you felt the need to call me a name is more about your anger and rage issues than anything I've presented here.
You're adding editorial details to that story that are not there.
What they did is not a crime here in England.
A friend of mine has been caught in a park by a policemen who thereafter said sorry and went away, this is because the police in England is in the park to protect the gays while they have sex, certainly not to arrest them.
What a starving difference with so many american bigots.
Next time if you want to feel free and have sex without be considered a criminal come to Europe guys :-)
WOW…I don't know whether to caption a lot of the posts here as "RAGING BULL" or "RAGING HYPOCRISY." Yes, I think if you fuck on the patio of your room on the "Sky Deck" of a cruise ship, you are asking for all kinds of trouble. But from articles I've read about porn trends (since I have an interest in the biz even if I am not a part of it any longer), what seems to be "hot" nowadays? Sex-in-public sites. Spycamming…candid shots of sunbathers, surfers and other unsuspecting subjects taken without their knowledge. Most of you need to get off your high frickin' horses and deal with whatever effed-up guilt issues you have, because you all know the truth…you LIKE TO WATCH. And if you'd seen these two going at it through YOUR binoculars, you probably would've kept on watching, too…even as you made the calls to report them. And they DO have a point…a straight couple banging in broad daylight would've gotten more consideration, especially if the woman was attractive. They did what they did, they copped to it, they paid the price, end of story. But what's more disgusting than anything they did, is the holier-than-thou attitudes of a lot of posters here. Oh, Mary, puh-LEASE.
No. 242 · RB arrogantly wrote, "@B: Are you really that stupid? Several pictures of the ship docked at the Dominican port exist and it is quite clear the idea of height and distance do not offer any privacy for the baclonies on this ship."
The stupid guy is really RB, who didn't think to check a google map and satellite view of the area. The dock is T shaped, with the ship a couple of hundred feet from shore. The picture Queerty showed of them was shot diagonally, indicating that their balcony was
probably not aligned with the portion of the dock perpendicular to the shore. Anyone on that portion of the dock would be looking somewhat towards the sun (not directly at it) and the guys on the boat were in the shade. If their cabin was 400 feet from the center of the ship, 60 feet above the dock and the person who took the picture was 200 feet from the ship, then they would have been viewed from a distance of 451 feet.
The fact is that we don't know the location from which the picture Queerty showed was taken, and we don't know where the people who reported them were.
As to your claim, "ALthough the picture of the two men may look like a hug, be real and accept that in person their movement would certainly be identified as intercourse by most anyone who has ever seen humping or done it themselves," I was referring to passengers in general, not these two guys specifically. Suppose two guys were listening to some music (which would not be heard at a distance) and were dancing to it. From a sufficient distance, it could look like humping, especially if that is what someone expected to see.
Then you showed you can't follow a discussion by saying, "Any idea or defense of privacy is ludicrous and it's quite clear these men knew exactly what they were doing." Really? Did it occur to you that two horny guys might not have a clue as to their surroundings as they started to do it? They could, after all, have been going out on their balcony while the ship was at sea and simply repeated that without noticing that they were now in port. A 'dumb' mistake? Sure, but doing something that in retrospect was kind of dumb does not make them exhibitionists.
@Sam Glass Jr.: AMEN!!!
I couldn't have said it any better…
For a moment there, I thought we had time traveled back to 1952….
Heaven forbid these guys would have been minorities. Who knows what mockery and "disdain" would have arisen from the masses.
"Dennis Jay Mayer, 53, of Palm Springs said he has no doubt they were arrested in Dominica because they were gay. Police said it was because they were seen having sex in public on the balcony of their ship cabin. Mayer said they were not having sex, but were 'partially clothed'."
Dennis, you are a liar.
That's funny, I always feel like I'm in 1975 when I read the writing of the likes of you and its not a good feeling.
Gentlefolk; Let's end this overwanking solipsism. As for the public sex argument, this is a social construct enabled by our evolving from living in wattle huts or tents to finally having the ability to afford space for privacy. Unless, of course, you're 15-16 living in the middle of nowhere, when the woods and the barn's hayloft became opportune locations. Obviously some people have never been to the Rambles in Central Park, Griffith Park in LA, Vondelpark in Amsterdam, or the rest stops on I-95 in the southern states, as well as though provided specifically in certain European transportation systems. Nor was promiscuity the reason for the HIV/AIDS pandemic. There were just as many sex clubs(Plato's Retreat, Adam and Eve, Playboy, etc.)for hetero activity as same sex in ceertain areas. A disease has very little concern for social niceties except to take advantage of them. Blaming the victim is ludicrous.
As for those who choose to comment on the individual's ignorance of local laws, their change of tune in terms of fact( wait until you have a boyfriend threatened with stoning in Oman), and their physical appearance or alleged wealth, give it a break. Your concerns reveal more about yourself than make any relevant comment or argument.If this is the way we treat our own, no wonder eguality, not tolerance, is not being achieved. Rights are for all, not just those we agree with.
And yes, I'm really oldand ugly. Sort of a Jurassic queer activist since I was a hippie in the 60's, but I revel in our history, both the flamboyance of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, and the "got your six" of the Marines(At least if my buddy was gay, I knew he was watching my ass!lulz), to the current attempt by many to be "normal" domestic families, etc. So let's keep a peerspective that allows for some reasonable comprehension. No, we really shouldn't "scare the horses" if we can help it, but I'm queer, here, and damned if you don't like it.
For the record I am actually 26 years old, and I tend to believe that I have a general grasp of how the world works. I'm able to make intelligent and conscientious decisions, and in turn make educated comments (unlike yourself), which evoke other readers such as yourself to have so much hatred. I don't understand what "reality" you seem to be living, but you need to brush up on some choice vocabulary words, and broaden your narrow scope of how things should work. This article is meant to be a catalyst for conversation, and help to evoke changes and positive buzz (or perhaps just left-fielded opinions) amongst the LGBT community. Please stop being so negative, it doesn't look good on you… yes even through the interwebs of the internet.
@Andy: "Argument ad mommy."
It is astonishing how many narrow-minded conservatives there are in the gay community. And apparently they are all on here. I am quite sure that if the Republican party were pro-gay but in other respects had the same narrow-minded policies as they do today (on e.g., the rights of minorities, workers, immigrants, the non-rich 99%, etc.), there would be more gay Republicans than Democrats here in the U.S. Did previous generations fight so hard for sexual freedoms and liberation from prejudice just so we could all become prisoners of our own device?
You obviously haven't read this entire thread. None of your comments are educated, for the record. I'm not trying to be "narrow minded" as you attempt to say, but thanks for proving, again, my point that gay men cant take self-criticism. You can go back to grindr, now.
Oh, great. Here come the moral relativists, back to claim "civil rights violations" against any and all who don't agree that "public sex is a human right." You're not even real liberals; real liberals make sense. You're just a bunch of childish gay trash trolls, who can't understand why people would be embarrassed by your behavior.
If everyone doesn't agree with your warped values, you automatically label them "republican". Grow up.
No. 268 · the other Greg wrote, "Even if straights do this much (which I doubt), outside of cars anyway, so what? Let us know when they follow the analogy presented here and want to redefine exhibitionist sex as part of "straight identity.""
The problem is the assumption of exhibitionism. Here's one way it could have happened: after a night with some "frolicking", they wake up still horny. The older of the two grabs his boyfriend around the waist, and drags him out on the balcony (so both are facing away from the shore), and over to the partition. They start doing it. In flagrante delicto, the older of the two doesn't notice where they are due to what he is doing and the other doesn't notice for pretty much the same reason, plus his head being up against a partition. The fact that they are in port only dawns on them after the deed is done.
Now, if this tableau appeared in a gay movie, everyone would simply laugh at it (the camera would zoom out from a closeup of them, finally showing the ship and a bunch of people on the dock). So, why is the reaction so different here?
Re No. 239 · Andy, who quipped "Argument ad mommy."
It's "argumentum ad matrem" in proper Latin. (I'm imagining the scene from The Life of Brian where John Cleese, playing a centurion, makes Brian write "Romans go home" in grammatically correct Latin – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIAdHEwiAy8 ).
@reality: Everyone… we have an internet troll on our hands.
anything you say, can and WILL be used against you.
We don't have "warped values", we just don't live in the backwoods of Redneck America. We have evolved into seeing and appreciating different points of views. Even if they differ from your pioused logic.
Thank you, you can go back to your Hungry Man Tv dinner, and beer drinking now.
As we get more and more off topic, from the Original Article…..
Absolutely pathetic. The issue isn't sexual liberty, the issue is whether one has the right to be a self-indulgent, selfish asshole who becomes a public nuisance because one can't resist fucking in broad daylight in a foreign country with its own customs and laws. You can't go to a foreign country and decide what laws you will or won't obey and then expect sympathy when you fall foul of the penal code, especially if your behaviour would've landed you in trouble in your home country.
The ignorant 'third world' nonsense elsewhere just shows how absolutely braindead those arguing in support of these two twats really are.
Bollocks, you can still be charged with indecent exposure if you're caught fucking someone!
I am expecting a press conference with Gloria Allred shortly
You can't cure stupid.
Shhh. The adults are talking.
@Raymond Saint-Pierre: "Obviously some people have never been to the Rambles in Central Park, Griffith Park in LA, Vondelpark in Amsterdam…"
I've been to all of those and had a great time, at night! Not all semi-public sex is exhibitionist sex.
@B: That's an interesting scenario and defense. (But not one they've claimed, yet – maybe that's next.) Were they too drug-addled, from the previous night, at 11:30 in the morning, even to figure out they were now IN PORT and no longer at sea? That's what you're implying, right? Well I guess it's possible.
@reality: Oh my God, get over yourself. I think the stick up your ass is hindering the blood from flowing to your brain, so you can think logically…
No. 290 · FelixWood wrote, "The ignorant 'third world' nonsense elsewhere just shows how absolutely braindead those arguing in support of these two twats really are."
Dominica deserves criticism for its sodomy law, which is what the 'third world' comments are about. It's not about prohibiting sex in public (the only issue in that regard is whether gays are treated differently than straights).
I'll refer interested readers to http://zeenews.india.com/news/world/repeal-laws-that-criminalise-same-sex-relationshi_776061.html which mentions that "Expressing distress over the discrimination meted out to lesbian and gay people, UN chief Ban Ki-moon has asked countries to repeal laws that criminalise same sex relationships."
@reality: Yes, you did:
If public sex is illegal, then yes, you want gay men who engage in public sex to be arrested, jailed, convicted, fined or sent to prison. That's what illegal means.
Also, did Mommy teach you to call people idiots and forget what you said a few hours ago?
@Hyhybt: They are similar because you want to make consensual acts that don't harm others illegal.
Again, no one has said why public sex should be treated any more harshly than not washing your hands or farting loudly. Especially when public sex acts are more semi-public anyways, far away.
@the other Greg: Except they're both counted as the same, if you're caught.
@Andy: Please stop talking.
@reality: Sorry, kid, you're getting your ass handed to you so let's try again:
Do you or do you not want public sex to be illegal? If it's illegal there must be some repercussion, otherwise it's not illegal. How much should the fine be? Do repeated offenders go to prison? For how long? Would there be reparative therapy offered for chronic abusers? What defines public? Is a public park at noon or midnight treated the same way? What if a bush obscures genitalia? etc
Also, could you tell us why public sex deserves more sanctions than not washing hands or farting in public both of which can be rather annoying?
I'm not getting my ass handed to me. Your logic makes no sense, so I have been ignoring you. I usually do that to trolls like you who are no longer making sense, or never made sense in the first place.
Public sex is already illegal in our country. If these trash trolls did this on a balcony in any city in the US and were caught, they might face any number of repercussions.
If your goal in commenting on this thread is to make public sex legal, why don't you write to your senator and tell him or her why sex in public is a human right.
Good luck.
"So what have we learned from this misadventure?" That's the part I most wanted to read in the letter. Surprise, nothing like "we shouldn't have sex in public". I agree, if it had been a straight couple, probably nothing. But where is the personal responsibility when you're on an open balcony, facing the dock, in front of a glass enclosure?
"We were on the privacy of our stateroom balcony as the ship was being moored into port." No you weren't. There was nothing private about that balcony. And saying others were doing it while at sea, well, what's wrong with that. They were doing it "while at sea". Does this couple not see the difference? While they're so busy making statement blaming the cruise line for their situation, can't they man up and simply say they screwed up?
Again, leaving aside the issue of these two guys I really have to question why Gay cruise companies are going to anti-gay nations?????
Yeah what they did was wrong and they acknowledged that. I think the issue that they are trying to raise is that the reason the ship was boarded and the reason they were arrested was not that they were having sex in public and eventually the lesser charge of indecent exposure the issue is that the ship was borded and they were originally charged and arrested for "buggering". Which leads me to believe that if it was a straight couple it would have been indecent exposure which carries a fine and the military police would not have bothered boarding the ship and arresting the couple. Because it was men having sex they took the drastic measure of charging them with "buggering" which could carry a sentence of 14 years in prison not indecent exposure sex in pulbic. They were 6 stories up and about 200 yards away from where the ship was docked I'm sure any people they saw looked like ants to them and they assumed they would look like ants to anyone who would be standing far enough back to see onto their balcony.
No, the issue they are trying to raise is their own lack of responsibility.
@Andy: "Except they're both counted as the same, if you're caught." Not really. Another poster here mentioned London, where the police refrain from busting gays in those situations (nighttime, parks, semi-public) and concentrate on protecting them from bashing. Park sex is probably still illegal though, technically.
In the U.S., Boston (Fens) is very similar. Gay rights defenders since the '70s have concentrated on getting the police to act non-abusively and to protect gays from bashings. They didn't try to repeal the laws on public sex in their entirety, all over the city and area, out of some misguided libertarian perfectionism. THAT is an utterly new argument and one that, I have to admit, I had never heard anyone make until this ridiculous Atlantis situation came up.
You take an extreme position on public sex, apparently anywhere and everywhere (?), which it seems to me would much more trouble to enact than the little trouble it would prevent. Repealing all the laws against public sex would be a herculean task almost anywhere in the U.S. But you want us meddling with the laws of every foreign country in the hemisphere too. For someone who obviously sees yourself as a non-meddler, you've certainly set out a tremendous amount of work for yourself! Good luck with all that.
Larry Kramer was kicked out of GMHC since he's batshit crazy, is a professional complainer, and will even sabotouge his OWN groups that he's made.
As for these idiots they got what they deserved. They can pull the "If it was a man and a woman having sex nobody would have cared" BS but these guys do not represent the LGBT community at all or even all gay men.
Good for you for speaking up. I cant imagine what you both went through and wouldn't wish it on anyone. And forget all the bitches in these comments. A straight couple would not be charged, and Atlantis needs to not be bringing money into homophobic places. everyone has sex and if no one was hurt who's business is it….especially when your on vacation! You obviously wouldn't do this in your hometown on daily basis and vacation is to let loosel. .
@WillBFair-"Gay culture has always been more casual about sex than straight culture." No that is NOT true. I'd say they're about the same. I'm not sure how old you are but I remember the sexual revolution and before HIV/AIDS even hets were having sex in public and still do, and hets still are into swinging and open about their sexuality.
@Dwayne: Yeah, forget about laws and decency. You're on vacation!
@B: Hey B, you friggin' moron! That's an awesome depiction of how it "might have happened." But you forgot to have Dharun Ravi showing up at their Sky Suite looking for a book.
I don't know what mental illness afflicts you that you cannot deal with events as they actually happened but instead feel the need to victimize readers of this website with your endless speculative prattle about how things might have happened. You are becoming a bore. And that is not a good thing, considering you don't have looks to fall back on.
@reality: Most of us who've ever been to Palm Springs at any point have been there when we were on vacation.
And probably everyone here will agree that Palm Springs is more gay-friendly than Dominica is.
So I think next time any of us go on vacation, we should all fuck in the middle of downtown Palm Springs at noon.
To anyone who's kind of shy, I suggest looking for whatever place all those straight women take their boyfriends to fuck in public with at noon. This will be a good test of Andy's and Dwayne's theories.
@reality: So why did you say that you don't want gay men going to prison over public sex? That's precisely what happens now, except public sex means semi-public at night (far away from people) and always consensual.
It's sad to see so many gays on the side of authorities because Mommy Dearest told them to find public sex so yucky.
Can you tell us why public sex deserves prison but not washing hands and farting does not? They're all annoyances, no?
Queen please. tell us something we didn't know. there has been a picture of what you both were doing in that balcony for a long time and we knew y'all were not having a drink out there:
Stop baling others for what YOU guys created. Like someone already said, it is not the fact that Dominica is anti-gay, it is the fact that you would have been arrested in California had you been doing the same thing under the same circumstances.
@the other Greg: Not every place is progressive London. There are plenty of stings on gays in the US who get solicited by cops that get treated under sodomy or indecency laws: http://equalitymatters.org/print/blog/201108080012
Why are gays so eager to join the pro-authority side? Why is public sex treated so much worse than farting or talking on cell phone or a plethora of mildly annoying things that happen in a city?
Can someone answer that?
@Lindoro Almaviva: Can you tell us who was hurt by some small figures in the distance humping against each other? Feel free to make a list or estimate a dollar amount in damages.
"The real question is not what we were doing on our balcony…"
Ummmmm, yes it is. You are officially in public view and should have known better. Whatever you want to do in your bedroom is between you and God, but when you decide to have sex outdoors, you're now risking possible criminal action.
All I can say is you can thank the Good Lord you weren't charged with buggery/sodomy.
On a side note, you do ask a good question: why take LGBT to countries that are not gay-friendly?
@Will: It was wrong? Who did they wrong? reality's Mommy? Christers? The baby Jesus. I want a list of those wronged or dollar amount of damages.
Dominica deserves criticism for its criminalisation of same sex sexual activity of its nationals, not for idiot tourists who are hijacking a serious issue as justification for them being a public nuisance. The sodomy law is irrelevant in this case, I have no sympathy for a couple of foreign dickheads who didn't have the common sense to think that perhaps having sex in public wasn't a good idea (especially in a foreign country whose customs and laws you are not familiar with).
@FelixWood: That uppity Rosa Parks had no good common sense either.
And yes, the comparison is entirely valid. Those against this ants-in-the-distance sex are foaming at the mouth just the same as old timey racists about uppity blacks lacking common sense.
If the sex act occurs in view of people who have not consented to witness them, there is an intrusion and it should rightly be regulated through the law.
Yeah, Rosa Parks had no good common sense either.
And yes, the comparison is entirely valid. Those against this ants-in-the-distance frolicking are foaming at the mouth just the same as old timey Southerners about their lessers lacking common sense.
@FelixWood: Well, well! Let's arrest fatties, public farters, and the uglies. Did I consent to see them *coughing* out loud? That can actually spread diseases to me… and make me vomit uncontrollably.
Again: what's the difference between the yuckiness of public burping/farting/hacking coughing and "public" sex hundreds of feet away?
And don't get me started with nose pickers, women who don't cover their slutty ankles, and those who don't take their hats off in a building. Arrest them all! Reality's Mommy does not approve!
Do you think there should be laws against public urination and defecation?
Now you're comparing these gay pieces of garbage to Rosa Parks? You're an idiot on top of being insane. Public sex is not a civil right. Go back to your cave or bathhouse or the 1970's.
@Andy: Of course I'm aware of that – see again my comments about Boston – but you really think abolishing the public sex laws everywhere in the U.S., AND in homophobic Caribbean countries as well, will be easier than just getting the police to stop the stings? Really? Why?
"Why is public sex treated so much worse than farting or talking on cell phone or a plethora of mildly annoying things that happen in a city?" Because of kids, of course. That's why London and Boston decided not to enforce those laws late at night in a few parks in gay neighborhoods, which seems a sensible compromise to those of us who are not loony-tune libertarian extremist nitwits.
Why do you think the best, or maybe the only (?) solution is to get ALL the laws on public sex abolished entirely? And you seem to think it will be so easy! And in Dominica too! What a weirdly over-complicated way of addressing the problem.
I have this image of you making grilled cheese sandwiches using a clothing iron and a radiator. Maybe it's possible to do it, but who cares?
The reason why your comparisons fall flat is because there is no legal regulation on picking one's nose or covering one's ankles. Sexual activity – both the participation and the viewing – is regulated. There is an age of consent to participate, and there is age restrictions of viewing sexual material. It's not exactly rocket science!
No. 295 · the other Greg wrote, "@B: That's an interesting scenario and defense. (But not one they've claimed, yet – maybe that's next.)"
It's not a defense, Greg – I was simply illustrating that their behavior could be explained by them being completely unaware of their surroundings for a few minutes – exhibitionism is not the only plausible explanation. It's not like that would get
them off if arrested for indecent exposure or public sex, nor do they deserve any sympathy for being arrested per se, although I think they should have been allowed to simply post bail and leave with the ship, maybe agreeing to stay on the ship while it was in port (while avoiding the use of their balcony).
People do "dumb" things all the time. Here's an example of inattentiveness due to cell phone use – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umRXAkZ8Xo0 – that makes it pretty obvious that people sometimes really do tune out their surroundings.
Re No. 313 where trash-talking Steven (who was possibly posting as Dan as well) once again showed that he should say anything in public without parental supervision: Steven needs to get some professional help, not only for his obsession with me but to help him learn how to act like an adult.
No. 322 · FelixWood wrote, "@B: Dominica deserves criticism for its criminalisation of same sex sexual activity of its nationals, not for idiot tourists who are hijacking a serious issue as justification for them being a public nuisance. The sodomy law is irrelevant in this case,"
But it is not irrelevant in this case. According to http://dominicanewsonline.com/news/homepage/news/general/update-gay-cruise-ship-docks-in-dominica-two-passengers-arrested-for-buggery-indecent-exposure/ the two were initially charged with "buggery" and that charge was subsequently reduced to indecent exposure, for which they were merely fined and kicked out of the country. If there was no "buggery" charge to start with, they possibly would have been able to post bail and stay on their cruise (just like you do with a traffic ticket where you can pay a fine but don't have to appear in court to do it).
If they were simply fined and allowed to leave, it wouldn't have been a story that got so much press coverage.
@B: I don't know about other countries… but setting that aside, bail doesn't make sense in this case at all. Bail is to ensure you show up for court later. It's often denied when there's a high flight risk… such as, say, being from a foreign country with travel back there already booked.
Jesus, 332 comments already?
Apparently this is the most pressing issue of our times.
@the other Greg: This isnt about "the sluts defending" the couple moron! This is about cool voices of reason calling for reflection to the angry mob who are stoning these two guys for their indecency, the age age difference and their perceived ugliness.
As I am fortunately not alone in pointing out public sex might be annoying but as it is basically natural, wanting to put people to prison for it is prudish and the urge to punish public sex comes from the exact same place as the right wing religious bigotry which is causing so much harm to sexual minorities
Further not one prude is able to explain WHY public sex must be punished except one says his mom said so. Well hooray! Great argument. The rest just says its gross. So is picking your nose or farting, guys.
Tolerance comes from a different place. It begins with the realisation that no one knows all there is to know, and that our judgements are therefore likely to be flawed. That means we should reserve them for instances where the harm is real.
Contrary to what the prudes seem to think then sexuality is one of those things that give vitality and freshness to life. Formal education must to some extent tame expression of libido through sexual channels because it needs to use that energy to produce the schooling. If the energy was left to flow free as sex then nothing would be learnt.
This does entail a drying out of the individual and you guys are dry bordering on neurotic.
As is common to people who have been molested, you seek to reproduce the hurt that has happened to you and therefore demand the disiccation of everyone else.
@lotusmoon: Not sure why everyone is kvetching over the fact that Atlantis visits anti-gay islands. Before purhcasing a ticket, you know where the boat is going to stop. It isn't news when you arrive on the ship. It is common knowledge that a lot of Caribbean island countries are NOT gay friendly so for gays to keep asking why Atlantis goes there and for gays to keep spending money to go there, I don't understand. If you do not want to go to these countries, DO NOT book a reservation.
In my 60 years of being gay, I have never seen such cohesive thinking in the gay community as I have seen on this event. I am amazed to see personal responsibility may still be alive. When I first saw the interview with these 2 irresponsible fools, my thinking was here we go, get out the hankies and sob for these 2 helpless victims. Not the case. 356 comments and almost 99% agree that what was done was not only damaging to gays, but a slap in the face of personal responsibility. I live in Palm Springs which happens to be a gay tolerant city. Maybe these 2 freaks get away with public bathroom sex here and expected everyone to join the party on the cruise, and found their pink balloon got popped abruptly. The gay community has to tolerate embarrassment by fools like this and then live within straights as we are viewed as deviants thanks to this negative publicity. This just reaffirms to myself as to why I am not proud to be gay. I like it that way.
This is such an irresponsible response from "Dennis and John". What they feel and write continues to embarrass me as a gay man and an embarrassmen for most gays. After this ordeal, you two continue to not take responsiblity and non adherence to basic human decency. This culture of "I want to put or have my dicks everywhere and anywhere but when I get in trouble, it's everyone else's fault" is captured so well in this letter from Dennis and John. I wish they would just shut up so everyone can start to forget them and focus on winning gay rights. They drag the whole gay right movement down and backwards.
This isnt about "the sluts defending" the couple moron! This is about cool voices of reason calling for reflection to the angry mob who are stoning these two guys for their indecency, the age age difference and their perceived ugliness.
As I am fortunately not alone in pointing out public sex might be annoying but as it is basically natural, wanting to put people to prison for it is prudish and the urge to punish public sex comes from the exact same place as the right wing religious bigotry which is causing so much harm to sexual minorities
Martin, if you didn't notice, you're not necessarily alone in your ridiculous views, but you are in the minority. Post after post by gay commenters on this thread are disgusted and embarrassed by the actions of these two morons.
I find it arrogant and annoying that you and your ilk would turn around and tell us that we're "prudes" or compare us to the republican party because we don't share your studied view that public sex is somehow a basic "right". Some people here thought they should go to prison, though I am not one of them. The embarrassment, revulsion, and humiliation are plenty punishment enough for these two trolls.
Further not one prude is able to explain WHY public sex must be punished except one says his mom said so. Well hooray! Great argument. The rest just says its gross. So is picking your nose or farting, guys.
Tolerance comes from a different place. It begins with the realisation that no one knows all there is to know, and that our judgements are therefore likely to be flawed. That means we should reserve them for instances where the harm is real.
Why is an explanation necessary? The "slut-defenders" haven't provided an explanation as to why our current laws against public sex are such a harmful infringement on your "civil rights". And, for the record, I didn't say my mom said public sex was wrong, I said my mother raised me right, which she did. My family raised me to be a person of integrity, decency, and reason. Reasoning skills important piece that you lack.
As is common to people who have been molested, you seek to reproduce the hurt that has happened to you and therefore demand the disiccation of everyone else.
Your final sentence here is disgusting. You're assuming that we are all damaged people who want to ruin the "fun" of those who wish to have public sex. How sad that having morals, showing restraint, and being decent is compared to post traumatic stress from being abused, or worse being a republican or a self-loathing gay! You're disgusting.
We're not trying to reproduce any hurt. If anyone is doing that, it's you and the retro sex activists from the 1970's who can't grow up and realize that we're adults. We're fighting for equality and trying to show people we're not deviants. But you people don't want the free love party to stop. AIDS wasn't enough? So we were persecuted for being gay, made to hide out, made to hide ourselves, and even though "gay" is everywhere now and we are more open than ever before, that is not enough for you. People not only have to accept us, but validate our sexual practices in public? Get a life.
You have no morals and you make the rest of us look horrible. Go ahead, have sex in public in any major city of your choice. In fact, do it in the gayest of cities and see what happens. I can guarantee people will be offended. You're going to tell them that they are wrong? Their feelings are wrong? What a selfish and childish way to live.
@Ron: I love you.
@the other Greg: Kids see public sex and _____? Do they explode? Think of the children, yet another right-winger line.
Are you really trying this line of argument? So it's ok to have sex in front of kids? And spare me the "Sex is everywhere in advertising. In the UK people have sex on TV all the time" bullshit. There's a difference between sexy ads and some British nudity and actual public sex in front of kids.
You are warped. You'll do anything to make your own warped sexual proclivities the norm, won't you? You need to feel good about yourself, so you're trying to make the rest of us feel like we're "puritans". I am so sick of that argument. I am gay, not a sexual predator. There is a difference.
@FelixWood: Sure. Why not nose pickers too?
@FelixWood: Yes, but why aren't there regulations? Because we're uptight about sex and not nose picking.
@Martin: "Further not one prude is able to explain WHY public sex must be punished except one says his mom said so."
And when you point out that this means he supports arresting gay men for something he's admitted does not really harm anyone, he denies it then refuses to answer.
@reality: If someone has to be arrested, what is the huge harm that was done to the kids? Will they turn the dreaded gay? And what if it's heteros? Will that negatively influence them in any way? I imagine kids aren't harmed by seeing casual sex far off in the distance than when they might see it between animals on a farm or zoo.
After 300 posts, lots of moral outrage (now I'm a sexual predator for asking a question), but I don't see any actual harm that's been done to anyone.
So you would be happy to fuck someone in front of a child?
And if you're happy for them to watch, are you happy for the child to participate if the child is willing?
@reality: "The "slut-defenders" haven't provided an explanation as to why our current laws against public sex are such a harmful infringement on your "civil rights""
Sending people to jail seems to encroach on their civil rights, no?
Not if you commit a crime.
@reality: Your compulsury dislike of sexuality that doesnt conform to your notions of decency, and your hatred of people who disagree with your morality are very suggestive psychologically. Ill leave that aside, and limit myself to say that while it is difficult to debate with people who feel no need to base conclusions on arguments ill give arguments for my point. If nothing else for the benefit of others
Being a minority doesnt mean we are wrong. Less than 1% understand Einsteins theories of relativity yet they are not wrong darling…
Carl Jung said the following about this precise issue
"It is undoubtedly true that instinctuality conflicts with our moral views most frequently and most conspicuously in the realm of sex. The conflict between infantile instinctuality and ethics can never be avoided. It is, it seems to me, the sine qua non of psychic energy. While we are all agreed that murder, stealing, and ruthlessness of any kind are obviously inadmissible, there is nevertheless what we call a "sexual question." We hear nothing of a murder question or a rage question; social reform is never invoked against those who wreak their bad tempers on their fellow men. Yet these things are all examples of instinctual behaviour, and the necessity for their suppression seems to us self-evident. Only in regard to sex do we feel the need of a question mark. This points to a doubt-the doubt whether our existing moral concepts and the legal institutions founded on them are really adequate and suited to their purpose. No intelligent person will deny that in this field opinion is sharply divided. Indeed, there would be no problem at all if public opinion were united about it. It is obviously a reaction against a too rigorous morality. It is not simply an outbreak of primitive instinctuality; such outbreaks, as we know, have never yet bothered themselves with moral laws and moral problems. There are, rather, serious misgivings as to whether our existing moral views have dealt fairly with the nature of sex. From this doubt there naturally arises a legitimate interest in any attempt to understand the nature of sex more truly and deeply, and this interest is answered not only by Freudian psychology but by numerous other researches of the kind. The special emphasis, therefore, that Freud has laid on sex could be taken as a more or less conscious answer to the question of the hour, and conversely, the acceptance that Freud has found with the public proves how well-timed his answer was.
The conflict between ethics and sex today is not just a colli-
sion between instinctuality and morality, but a struggle to give an instinct its rightful place in our lives, and to recognize in this instinct a power which seeks expression and evidently may not be trifled with, and therefore cannot be made to fit in with our well-meaning moral laws. Sexuality is not mere instinctuality; it is an indisputably creative power that is not only the basic cause of our individual lives, but a very serious factor in our psychic life as well. Today we know only too well the grave consequences that sexual disturbances can bring in their train. We could call sexuality the spokesman of the instincts, which is why from the spiritual standpoint sex is the chief antagonist, not because sexual indulgence is in itself more immoral than excessive eating and drinking, avarice, tyranny, and other extravagances, but because the spirit senses in sexuality a counterpart equal and indeed akin to itself. For just as the spirit would press sexuality, like every other instinct, into its service, so sexuality has an ancient claim upon the spirit, which it once-in procreation, pregnancy, birth, and childhood-contained within itself, and whose passion the spirit can never dispense with in its creations. Where would the spirit be if it had no peer among the instincts to oppose it? It would be nothing but an empty form. A reasonable regard for the other instincts has become for us a self-evident necessity, but with sex it is different. For us sex is still problematical, which means that on this point we have not reached a degree of consciousness that would enable us to do full justice to the instinct without appreciable moral injury." Jung col works vol 8
Much of the misery in modern society originates exactly from your mothers notion of "whats right". You do in fact reproduce hurt and you are too goddamn stupid to realize it…
No. 332 · Hyhybt wrote, "@B: I don't know about other countries… but setting that aside, bail doesn't make sense in this case at all. Bail is to ensure you show up for court later." For minor offenses (e.g., a traffic ticket) your bail is the amount of the fine and if you pay it and don't show up in court, you forfeit the bail and a guilty plea is automatically entered. Here's a citation illustrating how it works: http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=88403 .
Without the buggery charge (over a decade in jail if convicted but subsequently dropped), and given that the outcome was simply a fine plus deportation, handling it like a traffic ticket would have made sense and the case would not have gotten the attention it has. The fine would have been justified as the result of a stupid mistake (perhaps due to not paying attention), just as we fine people for running red lights when it was a random error and occurred a split second after the yellow right turned red (there is short period where the lights are red in all directions, so cross traffic would not yet have started to move).
You seem to think there should be no legal regulation of sexual activity because it demonstrates we are 'uptight' about it. Do you think adults should be able to have sex with children if the children are willing participants?
You missed my point entirely, to fit your own ridiculous world view.
Here's the sad fact of life for you: What these guys did was against the law. They got caught and then cried "discrimination". Most of the commenters here feel that while Dominica might be unfriendly to gays, they were not discriminated against. Their gayness was not proven to be the reason for their arrest. Their naked bodies engaged in sex were the reason for their arrest. Might they have been mistreated after being arrested? No one knows for sure, but probably, however, that is not the issue at hand. We know well that Dominica is unfriendly to gays, why would we assume that two men arrested for public sex would be treated like warmly-welcomed guests?
They were caught having sex in the open. If they did it in NYC and got caught, they'd be registering as sex offenders now. None of your pie in the sky fantasies about some utopian society in which everything we do is ok no matter what are reality.
You can say whatever you want about people who are against the association of gay rights with inappropriate sexual behavior (like having sex in public), but reality is on our side. It's illegal. Don't like it? Move to a place where it's legal or write to your senator.
Stop hurting the gay rights movement by continuing the flawed 1970's narrative that being ok with gay people means being ok with behavior that is illegal.
FYI: Andy expressed his support for nonconsensual sex in a comment to a Queerty story about Travolta allegedly giving a BJ to a nonconsenting man. Andy, you are truly a sick man. I'd go so far as to say that you are dangerous. At best, you are amoral. The best thing that we can do is listen carefully to your moral advice and public policy recommendations and then do the exact opposite.
By Andy's impenetrable "logic," obviously there should be no punishment for a flasher exposing himself to a child (never mind an adult) on the bus or subway. That's not actual sex, and since Andy doesn't think a real sex act should be punished either, there's obviously nothing society should do. We couldn't send a flasher to jail for even one night (as in Dominica), the poor guy, since sending people to jail encroaches on their civil rights.
Additionally, kids should be allowed access to all the pornography they want, since after all, porn is not real-life sex either.
And if the flasher is exposing himself to adults, well, they should just look away – where's the actual harm, and you know, if the adults look at it "too long," obviously they're hypocrites who secretly want to do it too, or have done it in the past (and were probably molested too, as Martin points out).
But this part of the logic does NOT apply to kids, who are always totally unharmed by any such totally natural sight. They can just watch and be delighted! It's not like they're gonna explode or anything.
Well I'm glad we've got all that worked out.
Is this the highest list of comments ever? Seems these two yumyums have made quite a…. hmm ….. splash? I do so wish these ding dongs would have fallen overboard while "in the act".
Write on.
Martin is rather uncongeiled with regard to respect for others via social norms. I know a guy who licked his plate at the dinner table during a dinner party. He was asked to leave.
The issue of child sex is quite similar to public sex in that neither are really about children or public. Child sex is in some states defined as having sex with a physically mature 17-year-old while public means ants-in-the-background sex or sex at night with no one else (but the busybody cops) around. The two men weren't having public sex in the middle of anywhere. They were off in the distance.
The hypocrisy and needless extra attention to possibly annoying public sex vs possibly annoying everything else is what I'm highlighting here. You can't tell me that public sex is more annoying than lots of stuff no one gets arrested for or for which there aren't even laws. By all means, make public nuisances illegal but the standard should be more than "I was raised the right way by Momma." You know, maybe consider the actual *harm* to anyone like people who go 45 mph on the hour and text. No, public sex doesn't cause that much harm to any bystanders? Or not and just continue with old morality because that's the way we've done things.
Why are people freaking about public sex far away on a balcony? If I had to pick much more public sex in the middle of the park at noon and people coming to work sick spreading cold and flu, I'd much rather be intruded upon by public sex. Public sex can be sick, but the chance I actually get sick from it is zero unless STDs spread telepathically.
@the other Greg: Nope, read above.
No. 350 · reality wrote, "@Martin: … . Their gayness was not proven to be the reason for their arrest."
In fact they were arrested for "buggery", which would apply if they did what they did inside their room with the curtains drawn, although it would be hard to find reasonable grounds for an arrest in that case. The "buggery" charge was subsequently reduced to indecent exposure and that was what they plead guilty to.
While they might have been arrested for something in any case (but if they were straight, there's a smaller chance that anyone would have filed a complaint), they were in fact arrested for gay sex.
There is no way anyone can claim they were treated equally with straight couples – a straight couple arrested for having sex on that same balcony would not have been looking at a potential 14 years in prison. With a buggery charge as a threat, they were basically coerced into a guilty plea – far more so than a straight couple would have been.
Because of that coercion, they could not make the same argument a straight couple would be able to make such as being so far away from anyone that they believed they would not be seen and thus did not have any intent to violate a law against public sex (whether it would be accepted or not is a separate question).
@Steven: 1) I questioned the entire premise of the Travolta claim by asking how someone could get a blow job and stay asleep, at least for a while. 2) Also, how many guys would be horrified by an unplanned blow job from a girl? Not saying giving an unwanted blow job either way is okay, but people's perceptions sure reveal their homophobia at times like these. Try reading with context and not moral outrage.
@B: Word of advice, don't go to law school. You have no reasoning skills.
@B: Amm…the anti buggery laws apply to heterosexual sex as well. It has actually mostly been used in straight sex cases where a man rapes a child in the butt. It is a law that has mostly been invoked in child abuse cases, which is probably why no one bothered to charge them under that law. That and—well I think they just couldn't be bothered. So yes, a straight couple butt fucking on a balcony would face the same predicament.
And what is this crap about a forced guilty plea? They were guilty you dummy—everyone saw!
While everyone is free to live as badly as they choose to, Im not really prepared to let ignorance and prejudice stand unopposed.
Im not after "the pie in the sky" or a revival of those 70'es which seem to be any good prude's worst nightmare. Im saying that persecuting the expression of sexuality is unhealthy. Sucking up to the religious conservatives and begging them for gay rights after having internalized the same values that twisted these people into hateful bastards isnt really a great way to go about getting acceptance for gay people.
Gay people have a significantly higher risk for depression and suicide. If we want to address that problem we need to look for things that enrich lives not empoverish them. Your idea of the decent almost heteronormative gay man who seemlessly blends into society is a fiction, not least because being gay involves coming to terms with being different. We are not heteros. We cant do it. Being different means adapting in a good way to this different situation. Emulating heteros on their premises means living the lie everyone wants to believe in, even yourself. This is possible up to a point, but in the long run people break. Look at John Travolta.
Sex is possibly a source of enjoyment. Lets treat it like that and educate people who are a nuisance on how to behave using words not prison
Your argument is dreadfully muddled – most legal systems adopt a Millian conception and divide activities into three categories – 1) where harm, or the imminent threat of harm is caused to another. 2) where there is a direct offence that is harm-like in character – something offensive impinges on the activities of non consenting people in a way that jeopardises their enjoyment of life. 3) where there is no direct impact on the lives of non consenting people, although they may feel upset, offended or shocked by what they imagine to be occurring.
You seem to agree, along with the rest of the world, that 1) should be legally regulated, but you seem to think that's the only type of harm that exists. But the second type is also legally regulated in the USA. I don't need to demolish your house and set your bed on fire to impinge on your enjoyment of life in your home. Check out Aldred's Case – nobody has the "right to maintain a structure upon his own land, which, by reason disgusting smells, loud and unusual, thick smoke, noxious vapours, the jarring of machinery, or the unwarrantable collection of flies, renders the occupancy of adjoining property dangerous, intolerable or even uncomfortable to its tenants."
For a nuisance to be legal regulated, three conditions must be satisfied – causation (I cause something bad to happen to you or your property), imposition (you do not consent to my nuisance) and primary objects of disgust (as opposed to projective disgust aimed at a class of people considered to be filthy or contaminating).
The law extends this concept of private nuisance to public nuisance where the impact is to the public at large, rather than a private property or individual. Public urination and defecation are considered a public nuisance, as are public masturbation and public sexual activity, particularly where there is the danger of sexual secretions (primary objects of disgust) are imposed unwillingly on bystanders.
I fail to see how not fucking in full view of a dock full of people is going to lead to depression and anxiety, unless you have serious psychological issues that need addressing.
The fact that you even ask how Conaway would have reacted had a woman blown him shows that you are morally warped. Do you understand that it is entirely up to him whether he wants to be blown by women and not men, women and men, specific individuals, or no one at all? It is up to him and no one else. Not you. He was straight and married, so he may well have reacted differently if his wife had been blowing him rather than a man. Or he might have objected just the same. It doesn't matter and it isn't "homophobia" for him to object to someone performing a sex act on him against his will. Just as it isn't "homophobia" for people to want to use public spaces without being subjected to sex scenes. It is common space, not your space.
You seem to have no regard for other people. You view them as things to be used for pleasure or obstacles to pleasure if they should object. This is the mindset of a sex offender. It is the beginning of a path that is going to lead to a bad ending for you. You think that you can dress this up in the lingo of gay rights or sexual revolution, but if even the commenters here at Queerty aren't buying it, you can be sure that the world at large won't buy it either. If you act out on what you are saying here, it isn't going to end well for you.
@FelixWood: I have never defended public sex, I do not believe public sex is necessarily prerequisite to a fulfilling life, HOWEVER treating sexual "offenses" that are quite harmless, like "buggery" for instance as a disaster and demanding harsh punishment for the perpetrators are expressions of a sexual morality that is twisted and harmful.
Tricking gay men to accept public indecency by using hunky police officers in tank tops working under cover is another. How do you think that feels for a gay man? These officers are working diligently to combat this exact problem. It was mentioned here on queerty. But who is beyond temptation?
Im worried about the hateful attitude to sex, "Its ok to have sex but only when done like this or like that"
Human sexuality is endlessly diverse. Not everything appeals to you, but as long as its consensual between adults it cant do much harm
@Steven: Like i said not all things are decided democratically, 99% dont understand the theories of relativity. That makes them ignorant or misguided, not right.
Some people have brain enough to recognize reason when they see it. You dont but it doesnt mean the effort was wasted
No. 358 · "reality" made a fool of himself by resorting to argumentum ad hominem (really, primarily trash talking), thus showing that he is the one without "reasoning skills".
No. 359 · z wrote, "@B: Amm…the anti buggery laws apply to heterosexual sex as well."
While I could have been a bit clearer to keep nit pickers away, the fact is that the most common heterosexual sex act is vaginal intercourse. It shouldn't be necessary to spell that out. "z" is trying a red herring to avoid the issue – that straight couples would be treated differently due to the definition of "buggery". I might add too that vaginal intercourse can occur "doggie style", so their position as seen by witnesses hundreds of feet away is not going to be sufficient for a buggery conviction in any case.
The buggery laws also have zero to do with children regardless of what 'z' claims – other laws cover child abuse, with very long sentences, and do a better job of it.
As to 'z' claiming, "And what is this crap about a forced guilty plea? They were guilty you dummy—everyone saw!", 'z' apparently doesn't understand that what everyone saw is irrelevant. The plea was forced because of the threat of charging them with buggery (and as a result a long prison sentence if convicted), something a straight couple would not face. In case 'z' needs a refresher, you can plead innocent when in reality you are guilty – that happens all the time. Interesting that a guy who uses words like "dummy" doesn't know that. It just goes to show that he probably knows he does not have a valid argument.
If they had decided to plead innocent, one argument they could have tried was that they were not naked, but were wearing g-strings that were nearly flesh colored (it would obviously help to have some available) – and that the photo did not have a high enough resolution to rule that out with the witnesses too far as way to tell the difference. Who knows – the judge might buy it or just let them off for providing the most amusing excuse he's heard during the last month.
@Martin: "…and demanding harsh punishment for the perpetrators are expressions of a sexual morality that is twisted and harmful."
Well come on. Who here has been doing that? Most Queerty commenters have always seemed to agree that the modest fine and the ONE night in jail (oh the horror!) these Atlantis guys got was appropriate.
That goes for the 3 or 4 previous, lengthy comment threads on the subject also. Look 'em up, it's entertaining reading.
If they HAD gotten a 14 year sentence, or even a month I suppose, would there be near-unanimity on Queerty that the sentence was inhumanly harsh, anti-gay and insane? Sure.
@B: By contrast, Andy and Martin throw around heated metaphors like "stoning" to describe what the supposed "prudes" here want to do. And Martin made the libelous charge that anyone who disagrees with you guys must have been molested! So much for "argumentum ad hominem."
I gave them the benefit of the doubt, but those 2 JERKS deserves to be ostracized. Are they that stupid? I don't know how they can even show their face in Palm Springs. They definitely are PERSONAS NON GRATA.
They're trash.
You all need to get your asses off your high horses. I am from New Orleans and see the thousands of you who come to our lovely little city for Mardi Gras, Halloween and Southern Decadence and fuck your brains out it in the street, on the balconies and in the bars. Those are not locals doing all the fucking. Was it the right thing for them to do? Turns out, not so much! Probably thought it was a good idea in the heat of the moment. Just like all of you when you come to New Orleans. But does it make them bad people? No! Not saying they are not. Never met 'em. But do they give ME a bad name? Of course not. That is just stupid and only a self-loathing homophobic gay man would think that. Jeez Louise folks, lighten up!
Re No. 367 · the other Greg – while there are a lot of people resorting to argumentum ad hominem, I don't have the time to criticize all of them. I'm just concentrating on the ones trying it against me personally.
I have no objections to them being fined. A night in jail seems excessive, primarily because it meant the ship left without them. I would have preferred letting them post bail (e.g., like you do to pay a traffic ticket without showing up in court) and maybe being told that they were not welcome and should stay on the ship. That would have made the point that they screwed up obvious to them, but wouldn't have disrupted their vacation to the point of ending it nor left them stuck with the added expense of airfare. They were fined and deported. If they paid the same fine and stayed on the ship, they would have been out of the country even faster.
The main objection I have to Dominica is the buggery law – such laws can be abused, and historically have been used to persecute minorities. International organizations (e.g., the U.N. Human Rights Council) are calling for such laws to be repealed. I would hope that agreeing with the U.N. Human Rights Council would be considered a rather mainstream opinion.
Two fucking asswipes, these two.
@Martin: "Sucking up to the religious conservatives and begging them for gay rights after having internalized the same values that twisted these people into hateful bastards isnt really a great way to go about getting acceptance for gay people."
Quote of the Week!
@FelixWood: I appreciate the legal briefing, but why aren't nose pickers and sick-at-work people arrested? Is it because we have an unhealthy obsession about the evils of sex? That's my only point. The quality and quantity of responses here prove this. It's as if George W. Bush is back in power and wants to kill all gays. But rather, everyone is getting flustered over two gays having sex off in the distance. Apparently, I'm a sex offender to some for thinking that public sex is not The Worst Thing Ever.
Also, you didn't quite answer the original question, "Who's Harmed?" There are plenty of Christers who would genuinely feel just as much disgust towards gays just existing as reality and his mother. Does their outrage matter?
@Steven: Thanks for the continued moral outrage. I neither said nor meant what you're interpreting I said. But then again I'm a sex offender who likes having sex with infants, so what do I know?
@FunMe: They killed two busloads of senior citizens. They are awful people indeed. They harmed billions.
@lotusmoon: Why does Atlantis Events take the gay cruise to anti-gay countries? Maybe because Sodom and Gomorra is no longer an option.
Is there anything more tragic than a 40-something queen trying to look 14?
What a gross couple of dudes.
Do you think it's wrong for adults to have sex in the same room as a child?
"Also, you didn't quite answer the original question, "Who's Harmed?" There are plenty of Christers who would genuinely feel just as much disgust towards gays just existing as reality and his mother. Does their outrage matter?"
And you clearly didn't read what I wrote. I'll quote myself again here.
"For a nuisance to be legal regulated, three conditions must be satisfied – causation (I cause something bad to happen to you or your property), imposition (you do not consent to my nuisance) and primary objects of disgust (as opposed to projective disgust aimed at a class of people considered to be filthy or contaminating)."
You're attempting to bolster your argument by positing all who disagree with public sex acts as homophobes or extreme conservatives. Even you must be aware this is not the case. Projective disgust aimed at a class of people (gays) is not sufficient reason for legal regulation in public nuisance laws.
You keep mentioning the distance as an important factor – at what distance do you think it would have been acceptable for the authorities to apply penal sanctions against these two individuals? Do you think they should have been able to have sex in a crowded dock surrounded by people?
No. 378 · FelixWood wrote, "@Andy: You keep mentioning the distance as an important factor – at what distance do you think it would have been acceptable for the authorities to apply penal sanctions against these two individuals?"
The maximum distance beyond which sanctions should not apply is about 72 meters: with excellent vision, a human eye can resolve a 25 mm wide penis if its angular extent is 0.02 degrees. 0.02 degrees is .000349066 radians, so if you divide that into 0.025 meters, you get just under 72 meters. I.e., beyond about 72 meters, you would not be able to see an erect penis given the resolution of the human eye.
Citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye#Visual_acuity for the visual acuity of a human eye.
This assumes that the penis is the offending anatomical feature. If you prefer that some other anatomical feature should not be discernible, it is easy to adjust the numbers accordingly.
@FelixWood: Lots of parents do and I'm not aware of such infants/children growing horns and becoming serial killers, so not necessarily. I don't think I'd be comfortable in close proximity having sex (with others watching) or seeing others have sex, but I don't see the huge harm that everyone else is screaming about.
@rick: "Is there anything more tragic than a 40-something queen trying to look 14?"
Yes: people who are judgmental about how others look. And how do they look 14? They both have facial hair and bland shirts! Haters gonna hate.
"You're attempting to bolster your argument by positing all who disagree with public sex acts as homophobes or extreme conservatives. Even you must be aware this is not the case. Projective disgust aimed at a class of people (gays) is not sufficient reason for legal regulation in public nuisance laws."
The charge of homophobia is warranted because of the double standards. No one is clamoring for arrests of nose pickers, heterosexuals who do similar, and people who come to work sick to spread their disease around. Take sodomy laws that were enforced against same-sex couples a lot more frequently. Sodomy laws are of course completely ridiculous. Public nuisance laws aren't always ridiculous, but the double standard of cracking down harder on the dreaded gays is unfair.
"You keep mentioning the distance as an important factor – at what distance do you think it would have been acceptable for the authorities to apply penal sanctions against these two individuals? Do you think they should have been able to have sex in a crowded dock surrounded by people?"
I don't know exactly, because I'm immune to moral panics. If they're too loud or throwing their condoms around, then cite them as if for loud music or littering. But to just crack down harder on evil sex for the sake of continuing outdated morality is a double standard, my only point in all this.
@B: Erect penises are evil and must be punished!
This whole proximity issue shows that sex is viewed as this evil thing and must be as far away as possible, lest the person contract a disease like open-mindedness or voting for third parties.
Why do we view knowing that people are having sex (not louder than a radio for example) as inherently worthy of legal action?
"When you pay the kind of money to have a Sky Suite, you have an expectation of some level of privacy. We were six stories up and approximately 150 to 200 yards from where the ship was anchored."
Please allow me to translate as I am a recovering resident of West Hollywood, Chelsea and South Beach and am fluent in the language of the Pretentious Gay.
"Our shipboard occupation of the Leona Helmsley Suite puts us above the little people — and the law — in all Caribbean nations. We can therefore fornicate, sodomize each other, and do anything else we so choose, as long as our body fat is below 10% and we are fashionably coiffed, perfectly lit, and well hung.
"As for the those in steerage… should they break the same archaic law, feel free to ship them back to their jobs busing tables in P-Town and bagging groceries on Fire Island."
Clearly this over-Botoxed muscle-bitch and his much-younger low-rent rent-boy have entitlement issues. I say they should have had to walk the plank.
Dirty white dogs go have sex on the streets in america, not other places.
You should have been put in jail right away.
Whine, whine, whine. Fact: Their "private" balcony was in view of people on the dock when they were having sex. Don't want to get arrested? Don't expose yourself.
I feel no sympathy for them after reading their statement. Did they not know they were going to Domenica? Did they not know about its laws? Whose fault is their ignorance? Their own, frankly.
I just don't see how I'm supposed to feel sorry for people who got themselves arrested in a foreign country by having sex in view of the public, and had to bear the expense of getting back home. Dock workers are still members of the public.
Was their anti-gay crap going on as part of this? Sure, I'll believe that's not only possible, but even likely. Does it in any way excuse their actions or make them martyrs? Not in the least.
Common sense should have informed them that just because an exposed balcony is "private", that doesn't negate that they were exposed. Doesn't matter how much money they spent or how high up they were.
I am really surprised by all the people throwing stones here! Sure… these guys got carried away. I once saw some horrible scene involving a cherry and old guys ass at southern decadence in New Orleans. Tacky…SURE! However… they are completely right to call out that being trolly, on a cruise marketed as trolly, resulting in 14 yrs in prison is fucked up! In the states that would result in a night in jail and a fine… which is appropriate. I do not think that these guys having fun and having a moment of stupid should get all this "how dare you do this to the gay movement" crap. Straight people leave babies in cars, shoot unarmed black kids, and show their tits for beads…. So, I do not think a couple getting stupid and fuckin up should be responsible for the gay movement! Every gay I know has a "what the fuck was I thinking" moment! Let's focus on the real problem here folks. Do not hold others to a standard we do not hold ourselves…. unless you have been completely perfect in your life….
My impression of them is not that they got carried away but they thought they could get away with it because they are whites in a non white nation.
A lot of gay white men have an extreme sense of priviledge not just in the UNited states ( for eg in the San Fransisco gay district:Castro, where black patrons where repeated harassed and humiliated by gay white men and gay white buisness owners until a human rights complain was filled against them.
No one should in this day and age have this kind of hatred, least of all gay men!
@Elloreigh: I'm sorry. I didn't know that this story was all about how you feel and how much we're supposed to appease your feelings of sympathy or apathy. Douche bag.
The laws are unjust and from the stone age. Admittedly, we had them on the books in the last decade as well, but it just goes to show where we've moved to in such a short amount of time. Looks like Dominica needs to get it's ass in gear and people like you are standing in the way, egging them on.
Sadly, these 2 palm springs republicans will never pay any real consequences for this sad spectacle.
They don't even seem particularly embarrassed by their actions either.
I say let these 2 drink drink/meth their way to early debilitating strokes.
Perhaps this might have been a more appropriate letter:
Let's set the record straight. We're writing this letter in a passive-aggressive attempt to get people to boycott Atlantis Events without actually calling for a boycott of Atlantis Events. After meeting with numerous attorneys who told us that we do not have a case, we have decided that we're not suing anyone. Instead, we are looking to extend our fifteen minutes of fame. While I can think of far better ways to achieve this fame, we are just a couple of low lifes from Palm Springs so this is the only way that we can make it. We simply went on what should have been the vacation of a lifetime but instead, it turned out to be a very frightful nightmare. When you have these types of incidents, people just want to talk about the salacious details. We know this from experience.
So let's talk about it: Yes, we were having sex on the balcony. We were fucking.
Yes, we know that we denied it earlier. We were lying to all of you. Get over it.
The complaints came from Dominica dock workers, who were offended. Others complained as well (including fellow passengers) but who cares about them.
This is something that we could not previously address or admit to, so, instead of remaining silent about the whole thing, we chose to go on TV and lie to everyone by telling them that all we did was go out on our balcony naked. While many have taken this as an opportunity to attack our character and integrity, we don't know what those words mean. We were originally charged with "buggery," which is equivalent to sodomy. However, the charge was later reduced to indecent exposure, a lesser-inclusive charge. We were represented by counsel who had advised us not to speak or admit to anything we were not being charged with. That's why we went on television to repeat our false story that all we did was step on to our balcony naked.
Yes, we were having sex on the balcony. We were fucking.
Had we been found guilty of buggery, we were facing a prison sentence of up to 14 years in a Third World country. Except for all of the times that we denied what really happened and tried to blame Atlantis Events for our arrest, we have never denied our responsibility for our indiscretion. We entered a guilt plea to the charge of indecent exposure. The Magistrate excepted our guilty plea, set a fine in the matter and then released us from custody. In addition, we were expatriated and deported from their country at our own expense. This should have been paid for by the government.
The media and others have reported we were engaged in sex in front of women, children and out in the city streets. That is simply not true – well, the city streets part is not true, the rest of it is. We were on the privacy of our glass enclosed stateroom balcony as the ship was being moored into port. You can see it in the infamous photo that Queerty published, which we are neither offended or ashamed by (although we should be). If so many were reported being offended, then why take photos or videos and continue to watch us in the first place? Apparently, many did to their sheer enjoyment of what they were viewing. That or for the simple purpose of documenting what we were doing.
It was also reported that fellow passengers on board complained, which we find hard to believe because most passengers on board are doing the same thing we were. Albeit, not in port or on their balcony, but in their rooms with the curtains closed. They are out there with their partners or some hookup at the nightly circuit party or under the cloak of darkness on their hands and knees on the "13th" deck, looking for a dick to put into their mouth or up their ass. What I am trying to say is that there was not one person on that cruise that was not constantly involved in public sex so absolutely no one had the right or the moral aurhority to criticize us. That makes perfect sense, doesn't it??
That is why people go on these types of cruises. Let's not kid ourselves: the promoter and CEO of Atlantis Events, Rich Campbell, markets these cruises and events with sex, with advertisement taglines like "Anything Goes" picturing scantly clad men promoting the circuit-party lifestyle. (Just igonore all of the photos of people enjoying themselves at the port cities.) That's why we signed up so we can't imagine that anyone would go on a cruise for any other reason. People certainly did not sign up just to have a good time without engaging in public sex.
Let's get back to what my partner of 17 years (a fact that was not reported except for all of the times that it was) and I were doing: This was not some hookup the way it was portrayed. We were on vacation enjoying the company of each other and not putting on a show for anyone who wasn't on the dock. When you pay the kind of money to have a Sky Suite, you have an expectation of some level of privacy – especially when you are outside on the glass enclosed balcony in full view of the dock. People who can't afford a sky suite should not be looking at us in the first place – especially if they are from a third world country. We are Americans after all. We were six stories up (albeit in the lowest level of rooms with balconies on the ship and completely visible from the dock) and approximately 150 to 200 yards from where the ship was anchored (that or right at the dock, we aren't good with distances) so it made perfect sense to go outside and have sex in public. Get it?
The real question that we want people to focus on instead of why we decided to have sex in public is why is one of the largest promoters of gay cruises and events taking folks from the LGBT community to these countries with laws against homosexuals on their books? We are US citizens and no such laws exist there. Why are they financially supporting these countries? These countries have laws against consenting adult gay men and women who engage in intimate contact and in some cases just for the existence of their sexual orientation. They also have laws against having sex in public which is barbaric.
We are not ungrateful people. In fact we are very grating. We are very thankful for the help known and unknown to us by Atlantis Events, CEO Rich Campbell and others. At the same time, he was also throwing us under the bus by commenting truthfully on the events.
I'm also disappointed with myself for not trusting my own instincts when I agreed to let Campbell handle the situation with a Third World government. You can already tell that I have great instincts – like my instinct to have sex in public. I asked Campbell prior to us being taken into custody and escorted off the ship to contact the U.S. Embassy on our behalf and inform them that two Americans were being arrested and taken from the ship against their will. Campbell asked that we not involve the U.S. government and let him handle the situation. It was not until the Dominica government backed out of their original agreement to just interview us and, once we were in their custody, that the American Embassy was later contacted.
It should also be made clear that there were no Atlantis Events or Celebrity Cruise line attorneys there to assist us, which had been reported. You see, I expected them to pay for my defense because it was their fault that I got arrested for having sex in public. There were some ancillary staff with us during the first few hours of us being detained but they were basically there to report and inform Campbell and the ship's captain of the status of the situation. I expected them to break me out of jail. When the cruise sailed away at 6pm, so did they.
We hired our own local gay-friendly attorney on Dominica with our own money that we could have used to rent another very expensive sky suite. It was the law offices of Norde and Lambert Chambers who worked diligently on our behalf. They advised us and secured our release from custody for a charge that had nothing to do with being gay and everything to do with fucking in public.
It was reported by almost nobody that Atlantis Events paid our legal fees, court fines and airfare to return to US territory, but that is totally false. We paid all of our expenses. Dominica media published a photograph of us being escorted by the police to a local bank so we could purchase their currency with our credit card to pay for our fines, etc. However, Campbell did give us some consideration while we spent two days in San Juan, Puerto Rico, after our release, which we appreciated.
When you have these types of incidents or even the article that Queerty published, you are going to have detractors and supporters. Everyone has the right to their own opinions and we are the first to support their right. I personally believe that had we been a heterosexual couple, the incident would not have been blown out of proportion to such a degree. I also personally believe that our decision to run to the media and give numerous interviews had nothing to do with the story being reported by the media.
There have been many egregious, horrendous and obnoxious acts perpetrated by reportedly gay people other than us having sex on our private balcony. Things like murder and rape which never get reported.
And as for the two haters who contacted our local media to give their statements with their ignorant statements [like] "they ruined our vacation," "they give gay people a bad name," "they got what they deserved," don't expect me to finish this sentence properly as I am a former cop. We don't recall them being detained or arrested or locked up in a holding cell when the ship that they were on sailed away without them. All they did was add to an existing lack of integrity and their credibility. We know that because we are both integral and incredible. Both the haters and supporters couldn't wait to search the Internet in the privacy of their home to locate pictures of the two gay American men having sex on the balcony of a cruise ship. They should have searched for these photos in the privacy of their glass-enclosed sky suite balconies instead. The hypocrisy is both reprehensible and non-existent.
So what have we learned from this misadventure? Don't take any responsibility for your own actions. Blame others and try to distract people by throwing out red herrings. It works better than you would think. We went on vacation and a lack of better judgement placed us in a bad situation. We did what we needed to do to get back to our own country and on television.
Just like anyone else would have done had they been as stupid as we were.
@W. E. HOward: Funniest comment here, thanks! When steerage trash like me and my bf get a cheap motel room, we also "have an expectation of some level of privacy" – we close the drapes. I guess money changes everything, even the definition of "privacy."
@Phoenix28: Gee, I didn't realize the ENTIRE city of New Orleans was a wild public sex zone. :) It's not, of course, it's not the whole place, or even the whole French Quarter, but essentially just a few blocks of Bourbon St. and that's about it, and really only a few times a year. And still, correct me if I'm wrong, it's probably technically illegal, the law hasn't been formally rewritten. There's just the expectation and tradition that it's okay sometimes.
If Palm Springs or NYC or Dominica or Andy's apparently wild home town wants to do that, OR abolish the law entirely, great. But they haven't done that, have they?
Maybe this isn't where Andy is coming from, but abolishing public sex laws seems to me one of those extreme Ayn Rand-type libertarian utopian nonsense projects, like "getting the government out of the marriage business," that is never gonna happen in real life and is pretty pointless to discuss, albeit amusing.
@PeteP: Damn – I stand corrected. #390 is the funniest comment here! And maybe the funniest thing ever on Queerty. Thanks!
@the other Greg: Thanks!!
These guys are nasty! They are a total embarrassment not only to themselves; but to the entire LGBT community, and American citizens who visit other countries.
Hey Dennis and John,
Seems to be the consensus here that you were either……..
A-Idiots for not realizing that "the privacy of your stateroom balcony" was non existent, even "When you pay the (that) kind of money to have a Sky Suite"
B- Idiots for thinking that you could get away with sex in public. Expecting the general public of Dominica, including many children, to share in the "sheer enjoyment of what they were viewing."
But we could forgive that…at least I could. We all get crazy on vacation especially on a Gay Cruisy Cruise!!!!
It's your claims ON THE NEWS that you were discriminated against simply because you were homosexuals that shows what complete, utter, douchebag, asshole scumbag. lying, deluded, entitled and just plain old stupid fucking idiots you both are at heart.
I'm sure you will find some Crisco Discoers who will accept what you want us all to believe.
But most of us would NEVER do such a stupid thing and are appalled that you would expect us to have your back in this situation.
When you claim homophobic discrimination, it gets our attention. Well done!!
Now reap what you have sown you STUPID, FUCKING, PATHETIC, ASSHOLES!!
You are a true disgrace to the LGBT Community.
Own that!!
Paul T.
And to Daddy's Boy. If Daddy talked you into doing this and has now made you the laughing stock of the gay community. You might want to consider if he is a smart and considerate Daddy.
HAAAAAAAAAA! That is fucking hilarious. Congrats.
I'd also like to take a stab at translating this letter:
"Let's set the record straight. We're the two tragic slobs that were caught boinking on a balcony in plain view of everyone. We're writing this letter (well, I, the former gay cop who would like to get any and all of your manhunt/adam4adam screen names ASAP) because we're hoping to get some kind of Falcon Exclusive contract, but we'll probably just end up on TIM or something even more horrible, to cash in on our gross behavior. We also are writing this to blame everything on someone else because we have no values or integrity.
So let's talk about it: Yes, we were having sex on the balcony. We were fucking. I love writing that because it makes me feel like I'm a famous sex object. You've all spent, like, 5 minutes looking at me on the internet, right? That's pretty famous. It feels good, you know, to finally have that approval since I'm a 5'6 retired cop.
There, I said it.
The complaints came from people who could see that we were naked men fucking in a clearly visible area and that we were clearly looking out to see if anyone was looking at us. You can see me looking out like a sly, sexy tiger in the pictures here on Queerty. I'm a stud, in case you didn't know.
Yeah, that's right. That guy I'm diddling? He's 12, count 'em, TWELVE years younger than me. When we met, he was 24, I was 36. That is HOT! I am a cop!
Anyway, because of some legal mumbo jumbo, we lied about everything and acted like we were some sort of prisoners of war. Really, though, we were two guys who got caught having sex in public view. We sort of had to twist things, but kind of not really, but sort of yeah, since we might have had to face a prison term of 14 years. God forbid we should face the consequences of our actions. I'm a cop, I should know that if I did this in Palm Springs, where I live with my HOT YOUNGER LOVER, we'd both have to register as sex offenders, but whatever! Do YOU look this good in a tank top? Do you look this masc/musc? I doubt it.
Anyway, how can I now distract you from the fact that we did something wrong? Hmm, here goes, I'll just throw out some words that sound good:
1. Third World Country
2. Sky Box or Sky Suite or Sky Villa, whatever
3. Anti-gay vacation destinations!
4. Some kind of math regarding how far away we were from the doc and the hypotenuse of the doc and our naked bodies and some camera lens, I dunno, sounds good.
Cool, well, thanks for reading this letter and hopefully you'll all feel the same way that I do, that gay rights mean that we can have sex in public all the time and even in front of kids. Yeah. So awesome. Also, I am so angry that Atlantis Cruises did nothing to bail us out since their tricky advertising basically told me that I'd be able to be a disgusting pig from venereal hell on this cruise, which is really romantic for me and my partner of 17 years.
And all of you gay assholes who are saying that I am embarrassing and a disgrace to the LGBT community, I just want you to know that I think you're jealous that you can't take your shirt off and feel comfortable doing it, so you're mad at me and my boyfriend! Whatever haterz! We're hot! That's what matters in this community, so tough for you, uglies! Ha Ha Ha!
We remain ever gross and molesty,
Dennis & John"
@Phoenix28: Thanks for going exactly where I had planned on going with this. I can't say that I completely condone what they did or where they did it, but the way people are eagerly gathering up stones to throw makes me wonder: how many of you upright, moral citizens have posted picks of yourselves blowing someone at Mardi Gras, Southern Decadence or the Folsom Street Fair in SF? Or had pictures posted OF you doing something nasty and public…where in some part there are actually KIDS and FAMILIES present? Be careful how big, hard and frequently the stones you throw are…lest you happen to shatter your OWN windows.
When I remove all the smoke and mirrors and am left with:
–Where is Self Respect
–Where is the respect for 2000 other passengers & visitors to Dominica (of which I was one)
–Where is respect for the law (enhanced by the fact the act was committed by a retired law enforcement officer)
–and maybe most importantly…..Where is/was PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY? A bad decision was made resulting in legal consequences. None of which was caused by anyone other than the couple themselves. This "we Fucked" now I said it "BUT" metality is irreprehensible and shows even deeper disregard for personal accountability. You did it, you broke the law, you got caught, you paid the price….no if's and's or but's about it!
You're taking up for these desert dwelling douchebags?
Perhaps they'll thank you personally the next time the three of you are at the White Party.
You obviously move in the same self obsessed circles.
@Vin D. Boner: WOW – I guess you were talking to me, right? Out of your ass? Because if you knew me or could see a photograph of me, you'd know that these guys are members of a club that I would more than likely be laughed out of. Repeatedly. I wouldn't DREAM of looking for an invite to a White, Black, Red, Blue, Green or even Turquoise Party in my mailbox anytime soon. I'm just asking the logical question: Everyone's piling on about how disgusting and gross and irresponsible they were with what they did, and then trying to make excuses about it. George Michael got caught. AT A REST STOP, literally with his dick in his hand and one in his mouth, and I don't think he got a third of the vitriol these guys got. So now we're what, the Sex Police? Are we going to start going after queens who frequent rest stops, too? Public bathrooms? Cruisers in the park after midnight? Back-road blowjobs? Please. Everyone's acting like these two represent everything that destroys the 'image' of decent, tax-paying homos, when we know damn well the reality is far, far different…
Idiots. Clearly didn't learn anything. They're an embarrassment to the gay community, and I'm personally ashamed of them.
I'm ready to start going after those people anytime. I think George Michael is a pig. Grow up.
@reality: "Grow up." Just the kind of witty, pithy retort I expected. Oh, and good luck on "going after those people anytime." Maybe when you vote Mitt Romney into office you'll get your wish – after all, you DO sound like the kind who would vote to have their own rights taken away for the sake of 'being right'.
@SamGlassJr (comment #402):
You should really do your research before you open your pie hole on such matters.
FYI regarding the George Michael case:
He wasn't busted "with his dick in his hand and one in his mouth." He was jerking off in response to an undercover cop he thought was coming onto him. It's not like he was having a wank out in the open where the general public could be exposed to such horrors.
One other factual error… George Michael wasn't busted "AT A REST STOP" (emphasis yours). He was arrested in a men's room… in a small park in one of the posher areas of Beverly Hills. Did he ever say or infer publicly that people who use such locations for their carnal pleasure should be exempt from punishment (as in "When you pay the kind of money to have a Sky Suite, you have an expectation of some level of privacy.")? I think not.
This famous British citizen's case was processed by the American justice system, just like anybody else's would have been. Unlike your Circuit Boy friends, Michael didn't get special treatment in the form of a plea-bargain; he pleaded no contest to the crime of which he was convicted. Not once did he piss or moan about being victimized by provincial Yank laws. He paid his $810 fine and performed his 80 hours of community service at a local AIDS charity without incident — or argument… merely a public statement for the first time that he was a gay man: "I feel stupid and I feel reckless and weak for having allowed my sexuality to be exposed this way, but I don't feel any shame whatsoever."
But there's a difference between not feeling shame, and feeling entitled. That's what separates Michael from the aging Palm Springs boy-toys who got busted for flaunting their anal skills in front of a foreign crowd.
Wanna go to a bath house and have sex with your partner in front of an audience – or even indiscriminate sex with someone you've never met? Have at it. Hell, I might even want to watch or partake. But don't do it outside the front door of Flex or Slammer where passers-by who don't necessarily share your views on sexuality or exhibitionism, and then expect people to be especially tolerant. Would you want to walk down the sidewalk on your block and find a convertible BMW with the top down, with a heterosexual couple engaging in coitus? Ew.
Your boys are way out of line, soliciting and expecting any kind of empathy from a community that's fights a daily battle not to be stereotyped as immoral, oversexed perverts who want to shove their sexuality down the throats of complete strangers.
Why do you assume that because I have morals and values that I'm a republican? That's pretty sad, but expected. "Agree with me or you're just as bad as those who oppress me."
Good luck with that.
WOW, Vin D. Boner (and I have to laugh at someone using THAT as their handle telling ME to "grow up") and 'reality' – I guess I should feel flattered that you think of me as some steroidal muscle hump going to White Parties and Circuit Parties and rimming guys like these at the drop of a hat. FYI? The guys in THIS story and the guys you attribute to being my 'co-horts' are the very same ones who laughed at me and called me "pathetic" because I was never good-looking, muscular or WHITE enough to ever be a part of their little cliques. (Oh yeah..didn't see THAT one coming, did ya?) So where are all those guys now? DEAD. And truth be told? I couldn't be happier. So I am not try to assault anyone because they happen to have some kind of "moral fiber" in their character diet. But the sheer hypocrisy of queens who 'tsk-tsk' over guys like this, when the cum is still dripping from the corners of their mouths from the father-of-three they just finished sucking off at the Hwy. 57 rest stop? THAT'S even more disgusting. If you aren't that kind of person? Bully for you. If you don't have any of those experiences in your past? Give yourself a pat on the back. But smug superiority doesn't become you, honey. It only makes you look more like Rick Perry…
You sound like a very angry person, which I can usually respect, but nothing you say makes any kind of sense.
Stop trying to compare gay men with values to republicans. It makes you look like a troll.
No. 387 · double standards wrote, "( for eg in the San Fransisco gay district:Castro, where black patrons where repeated harassed and humiliated by gay white men and gay white buisness owners until a human rights complain was filled against them.)
This incident – the human rights complaint – involved one bar, and "gay white men" who worked at the bar testified in the human rights commission hearings in favor of the black patrons.
The owner denied there was any racism. One guy who worked as a doorman said he was told not to let (something like) "those people" in and thought it referred to blacks. I had talked to him when he wasn't working due to both of us knowing the same person and he seemed like a reasonable person – he was taking classes as I recall and working at the bar to pay for his education.
One of the problems is that a term like "those people" is ambiguous – the owner may be thinking "drug dealer", looking at stereotyped "drug dealer" clothing, while the employee may interpret "those people" to refer to a racial group – when your sample size is a single individual who happens to be black but who looks like a drug dealer to the bar owner, the owner and the employee can interpret the statement differently.
I'm not sure what was actually going on, but the bar did get a lot of negative publicity.
Sorry, guys, but in the metaphorical sense, you blew it. Your shameless conduct shows a lack of maturity not to mention discretion. There is a time and place for everything, including sex. But not out in public in full view on the balcony of a cruise ship. You confirm the worst fears of homophobes everywhere: gay men are sex-crazed and can't control their libido. A suggestion? Ease off the booze and drugs or whatever it was that impaired your judgment to commit such a stupid act. Cruises are fun, especially "gay" cruises. But they are NOT a license for sexual wantoness. Looking at the photo of you, I'd say you should be old enough to know better. Apparently not. Time to grow up, gents. You're not getting any younger. You're giving all gay men everywhere a bad name.
well I would have had sex on the balcony – but NOT with see-thru – slats…you'd really have to HONE in on what they're doing to Know what they're were doing……still, live and learn I guess…….. like most aspects of life
In retrospect, WTF did this couple tell their side of the story and even include their photo. Couple of exhibitionists for sure.