34 of the nicest men in the metro area, NOT...

[PennyQuilts]

It's fine to shoot a stranger, but not to have sex with them? I realize these are apples and oranges, but lets put this "crime" into perspective. I think I could sleep better after having had sex with a stranger than had I shot them, regardless of the circumstances.

Huh?

[BBatesokc]

Is it really?

I know i dont pay my bills by taking pictures of johns and this cuts into your revenue stream, but...

If two grown people want to have sex, and are both very willing participants why does it matter if they know each others name or not?


(Im not touching on prostitution, because i know the whole human trafficking side of it and all the drugs, etc)

Its a telling part of your (lack of) character that you routinely cannot try and make a point without making it personal (while at the same time hiding your personal details from scrutiny).

But back to the actual topic..... It may matter not to you if you know your sexual partner's name, character or (heaven forbid) sexual history but I feel pretty confident the majority of society falls within my camp of social norms in that regard so I really don't see a need to debate it.

That aside, I too don't see a 'problem' (beyond character) of two consenting adults 'hooking up' however they choose - as long as it is done 100% in privacy.

[BBatesokc]

It's fine to shoot a stranger, but not to have sex with them? I realize these are apples and oranges, but lets put this "crime" into perspective. I think I could sleep better after having had sex with a stranger than had I shot them, regardless of the circumstances.

That's such a bizarre statement I can only shake my head.

[betts]

I feel the same way about most of your comments, so clearly we are at different ends of some spectrum.

[soonerguru]

While I agree it is uncouth to have sex in public, I find FOX News's publication of the arrestees places of employment depressing and unnecessary.

It's true some of these folks are probably conflicted, or closet cases. That's too bad. I agree with Betts that this is a silly "crime." I also am willing to bet that were heteros involved, they might have gotten a stern warning instead.

[PennyQuilts]

When we start having heterosexuals chronically meeting to have sex with strangers in the park during the daylight hours, we might have some evidence, one way or the other, of how the police would handle it. Under those circumstances, I'm confident you'd get the same result. It isn't about orientation. It is about being a public nuisance.

[Just the facts]

Dirty Mike and the Boys

[mkjeeves]

Why should an employer and other employees be punished for something an employee did completely unrelated and off the clock, (essentially what the news people are doing)? Isn't that about the same as punishing a Chick fil worker for something the owners did?

[Bunty]

I don't know what they can do about the problem except to clear out some tree and bushes and/or make it a more appealing place for families to come to by putting in playground equipment, grills and stuff, but then maybe the offenders would only move on to a different, less developed part of the lake.

[kevinpate]

Why should an employer and other employees be punished for something an employee did completely unrelated and off the clock, (essentially what the news people are doing)? Isn't that about the same as punishing a Chick fil worker for something the owners did?

Not seeing it as a punishment to an employer or co-worker. In addition to the shaming factor of the authorities not hiding behind a bush that X was not quite hiding behind a bush, it's main purpose, in my opinion, is a deterrent factor to others. Sort of a one may think it's all fun and games to be anonymous and sexual in public, but be forewarned, if one gets busted, the anonymous sex in public may become way more public than one may prefer.

If folks want random hookups that are there and gone again, perhaps the old adage of hey, get a room really isn't asking all that much.

FWIW, the gender pairing of public coupling ought to be completely irrelevant. I'm not certain that is the case, and suspect it likely is not. But, it should not matter whether it's Joe/Joe, Josie/Joe or Josie/Jolene when public conduct is inappropriate.

[stick47]

I'm in favor of doing all they can to eliminate these goings on. Glad they published the extra information. This is the only way that decent family folks will feel they can safely use these public parks.

[mkjeeves]

Not seeing it as a punishment to an employer or co-worker. In addition to the shaming factor of the authorities not hiding behind a bush that X was not quite hiding behind a bush, it's main purpose, in my opinion, is a deterrent factor to others. Sort of a one may think it's all fun and games to be anonymous and sexual in public, but be forewarned, if one gets busted, the anonymous sex in public may become way more public than one may prefer.

If folks want random hookups that are there and gone again, perhaps the old adage of hey, get a room really isn't asking all that much.

FWIW, the gender pairing of public coupling ought to be completely irrelevant. I'm not certain that is the case, and suspect it likely is not. But, it should not matter whether it's Joe/Joe, Josie/Joe or Josie/Jolene when public conduct is inappropriate.

It's shaming an employer in an effort to cause the employer to do something against the employee when the employer had no stake in the issue at hand. I see no difference between that and shaming a drive-through employee for something they had no stake in, in an effort to put pressure on a CEO for something the CEO did unrelated to the company. Both are wrong.

[mkjeeves]

I don't know what they can do about the problem except to clear out some tree and bushes and/or make it a more appealing place for families to come to by putting in playground equipment, grills and stuff, but then maybe the offenders would only move on to a different, less developed part of the lake.

Put a bathhouse on the next MAPS projects list?

Just kidding!

[OKCTalker]

Sex between consenting, adult parties is legal. Doing so in public is not. Is that really asking too much?

[kevinpate]

It's shaming an employer in an effort to cause the employer to do something against the employee when the employer had no stake in the issue at hand. I see no difference between that and shaming a drive-through employee for something they had no stake in, in an effort to put pressure on a CEO for something the CEO did unrelated to the company. Both are wrong.

mkjeeves. I get what you're saying, but I am more inclined to see its deterrent effect, aimed at those on the fence about draping their clothes on the fence and having public sex. I don't have any interest in who puts what where when intertwined with a consensual adult partner. That lack of interest includes stumbling across folk if I'm out with the pup, my grandbabies, my lovely or just by myself propped against a tree with a book or a Nook. Conversely, knowing the reputation of certain locations, I don't go to those locations.

As for it impacting an employer to act on an employee, learning an employee exercises poor judgment off duty may indeed be reason to examine anew whether the employee's on duty judgment is up to the employer's expected standards. That doesn't much disturb me, irrespective of whether the employee was hooking up randomly in public for sex or was publicly engaging in private behavior with his or her long time and exclusive relationship partner.

[mkjeeves]

mkjeeves. I get what you're saying, but I am more inclined to see its deterrent effect, aimed at those on the fence about draping their clothes on the fence and having public sex. I don't have any interest in who puts what where when intertwined with a consensual adult partner. That lack of interest includes stumbling across folk if I'm out with the pup, my grandbabies, my lovely or just by myself propped against a tree with a book or a Nook. Conversely, knowing the reputation of certain locations, I don't go to those locations.

As for it impacting an employer to act on an employee, learning an employee exercises poor judgment off duty may indeed be reason to examine anew whether the employee's on duty judgment is up to the employer's expected standards. That doesn't much disturb me, irrespective of whether the employee was hooking up randomly in public for sex or was publicly engaging in private behavior with his or her long time and exclusive relationship partner.

Slippery slope. Maybe the NSA will just go ahead and give employers the files on their employees.

Besides, the point in publishing the employers was for the public to know to put pressure on the employers. It was not a service to the employers. It was a disservice to the employers.

[Just the facts]

I remember when my kids were in T-Ball, if our team was first to play on Saturday morning we had to pick up all the used condoms in the parking lot, in the dugouts, and behind the concession stands. Such a great way to start a Saturday morning.

[Rover]

This occurred in PUBLIC spaces. It doesn't matter if heterosexual or homosexual, it is inappropriate and all means to discourage future such activity in PUBLIC should be used. These are areas where families with small children can accidentally be exposed. This behavior in private areas is a matter for personal morality and safety unless the results incurs a public cost (increased public health problems and costs with sexually transmitted diseases, etc.). But, to do whatever is necessary to protect children from being exposed to this or other inappropriate behavior is the right thing to do. If these people were acting in a reckless and irresponsible way by participating in this activity in PUBLIC, then use whatever means necessary to keep it from happening again. Why do people keep defending adults who should know better rather than kids and others who might be damaged by their behavior? If we must err, let's err on the side of protecting those who should be protected. If these men lose their jobs, then it is a result of their wrong judgement and behavior, NOT because of the exposure. Somehow we have become a society that disassociates actions, responsibilities and accountability. Let's quit making perpetrators victims.

[Rover]

Slippery slope. Maybe the NSA will just go ahead and give employers the files on their employees.

Why is it that you think NSA will do this? This and most private data resides with corporations who SELL the information they collect (usually with people's agreement - they should read all the things they allow in getting programs, apps, browsers, etc.). To get all paranoid about the NSA and to give GOOGLE et al a pass is just naivety or ignorance.

[kevinpate]

Slippery slope. Maybe the NSA will just go ahead and give employers the files on their employees.

Besides, the point in publishing the employers was for the public to know to put pressure on the employers. It was not a service to the employers. It was a disservice to the employers.

Just gonna leave the NSA blip alone. If they wanna discuss it with you, that's between you and them I suppose.
As for who initiates pressure with an employer, potato/patatah. If someone's judgment is so skewed that daytime sex in a public park is a non-issue in the decision making process, an employer can act or not act as he or she sees fit. And again, so no one is confused, I'm fine with the outcome irrespective if the public behavior is random no strings hookups or folk in long term committed relationships.

It's just not that difficult to get a room, or at least exercise a modicum of discretion and get a concealed bit of shrub if the great outdoors is one's only option.

We basically disagree on how much privacy someone who doesn't seek out privacy for his or her private behavior ought to receive. I'm ok with affording less privacy after the fact than you appear to believe is appropriate. I doubt either of us will change the other's mind in that regard.

[mkjeeves]

This occurred in PUBLIC spaces. It doesn't matter if heterosexual or homosexual, it is inappropriate and all means to discourage future such activity in PUBLIC should be used. These are areas where families with small children can accidentally be exposed. This behavior in private areas is a matter for personal morality and safety unless the results incurs a public cost (increased public health problems and costs with sexually transmitted diseases, etc.). But, to do whatever is necessary to protect children from being exposed to this or other inappropriate behavior is the right thing to do. If these people were acting in a reckless and irresponsible way by participating in this activity in PUBLIC, then use whatever means necessary to keep it from happening again. Why do people keep defending adults who should know better rather than kids and others who might be damaged by their behavior? If we must err, let's err on the side of protecting those who should be protected. If these men lose their jobs, then it is a result of their wrong judgement and behavior, NOT because of the exposure. Somehow we have become a society that disassociates actions, responsibilities and accountability. Let's quit making perpetrators victims.

You did comprehend in none of my posts about publishing the employers' names did I defend those arrested and accused or their illegal behavior in public places? You and others seem to be confused about that.

If we should do whatever is necessary including shaming employers for something out of their control, why beat around the bush, maybe you would want to just shut the employers down. It would be about as fair to the employer, more direct and more effective. The ends justify the means, right?

[Rover]

That's quite a leap... from publishing where someone works to shutting down their employer. Improperly extrapolating anything is dangerous and illogical.

[mkjeeves]

That's quite a leap... from publishing where someone works to shutting down their employer. Improperly extrapolating anything is dangerous and illogical.

You are okay with impacting an employers' bottom line and reputation by public shaming the employer in mass media, even though the employer has really nothing to do with what happened. If they aren't strong enough to handle that, it doesn't matter right? Any means necessary.

[mkjeeves]

Why is it that you think NSA will do this? This and most private data resides with corporations who SELL the information they collect (usually with people's agreement - they should read all the things they allow in getting programs, apps, browsers, etc.). To get all paranoid about the NSA and to give GOOGLE et al a pass is just naivety or ignorance.

Right. We can all pay to learn pretty much anything about anybody. You support employers doing that and using all that information to make decisions about their employees? I don't.

That's all pretty far from the topic.

[BBatesokc]

... I also am willing to bet that were heteros involved, they might have gotten a stern warning instead.

Actually, the reality is the complete opposite. The identities of heteros soliciting public sex from prostitutes are routinely published in the paper and on news stations. Additionally, most often the gay stings result in city tickets while the straight prostitution arrests almost always result in far more serious and expensive state charges.