September 18, 2003
BENT KENT:
'Dogging' brings sex disease rise (Rebecca Allison, September 18, 2003, The Guardian)
A growing craze for al fresco sex with strangers has led to a serious rise in sexually transmitted diseases, a health chief warned yesterday.The practice, known as "dogging", where strangers gather to watch each other have sex outdoors, is causing so much concern for health officials in Kent that they have posted messages on the internet urging those involved to take better precautions.
Hundreds of semi-secluded sites around the country are advertised on websites as meeting places for Britain's doggers, who are understood to have more than doubled in number over the past two years.
One website, which lists dogging hotspots as well as providing a chat forum for aficionados, describes the practice as a combination of exhibitionism and voyeurism.
"Dogging is a broad term used to cover all the sexual outdoor activities that go on. This can be anything from putting on a show from your car, to a gangbang on a picnic table.
"The voyeurs are mainly men and the exhibitionists are mainly couples or women who love to attract attention and often invite people to join in," the host, Melanie, informs readers.
The physical diseases contracted are meaningless beside the moral disease afflicting a society where such things go on. Posted by Orrin Judd at September 18, 2003 10:48 AM
"Dogging." What a lovely name. Right up there with "fisting" and various other picturesque names for sexual practices which need no mention. The choice of name illustrates a revealing dichotomy: those who pursue perversion argue that there's nothing abnormal about what they're doing, that we who criticize are suffering from hang-ups, etc. -- but at the same time, they come up with lecherous or degrading names for their activities. The thrill of the vile is part of the pleasure. Sin beclouds the mind, but it has a way of betraying itself.
Posted by: R.W. at September 18, 2003 12:15 PMWell said, R.W. I wonder what our secularist colleagues would advise a friend who discovered his daughter was engaging in this charming new sport. Make sure she is protected from disease?
Posted by: Peter B at September 18, 2003 1:13 PMThat physical disease is the biggest concern
of the press indicates quite a moral vacuum.
What "moral disease" ?
Surely you don't intend to argue that Victorian prudery is the universal and historical sexual norm.
The only criticism I have, besides the evident carelessness with health issues, is that the practitioners should adjourn to COMPLETELY secluded spots, not just "semi-".
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at September 19, 2003 6:28 AMMichael:
Why? If disease is the only issue and morality isn't involved, why the need for privacy?
Posted by: Peter B at September 19, 2003 8:27 AMPeter:
To avoid inflicting their sport on innocent passers-by. It's simple good manners, as well as the law, in the US.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at September 19, 2003 9:53 AMMichael:
It sure is and thank goodness for that, but good manners have a basis in morality. My point is, if there isn't, or shouldn't be, any moral component to the public interest here, why is this any different than a neighbourhood baseball game where everyone is wearing appropriate protective gear. Where is the "harm" to observers you use as your standard for what is legitimate for the state to regulate?
Posted by: Peter B at September 19, 2003 10:00 AMPeter:
For one thing, the law would frown equally on a completely monogamous couple fervently engaged in the missionary position, should they do it in view of others. People outside equatorial climates seem pretty concerned about keeping clothes on in public.
This story seems like it belongs in the "If it bleeds, it leads" column. Pure sensationalism. Divide the number of people engaged in it by the number of Brits, and I'll bet most caculators don't store enough digits to produce a number other than zero.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at September 19, 2003 3:30 PMThe point being not the activity but the public officials response.
Posted by: oj at September 19, 2003 3:33 PMI was just wanted to ask if you had a very Merry Christmas / Holiday, and to wish you the very best for the New Year.
BTW, In saw something on another blog site I think it is a good idea to let as many people / bloggers know about. I was just organizing my vacation for later this year and stumbled across the above web site about Bali, where I was considering going. But just read what it says there and especially between the lines; unreal. A travel agent there Bali Discovery Tours of Sanur went to their friend the police chief and made trouble for someone visiting the island who had caught this travel agent offering unauthorized room rates on the Internet for the Hotel Santika Beach in Kuta, which is where I was going to stay, but thank God I am not now (I am not even going to Bali becuase of this) - seems to me like the hotel did not exactly help!
The poor guy was detained by the police for 4 days and had his passport illegally seized. He was not released until the British Embassy filed a formal complaint. Of course, there were no charges!! This is absolutely terrible. Please, please, please, join me in saying "Stuff Bali - I'm going somewhere where they treat people like guests, not enemies".