The Debate About Public Sex

public sex


People are having a debate about whether this is appropriate for air travel?  I can’t believe it.  The scene — a man pulling a woman on a leash — down the aisle of an airplane is so grossly inappropriate that a debate would be moronic.

Would this be appropriate on a public street?  That’s different.  Unlike an airplane, on a street you can turn away, step away, and refuse to be part of the scene.  In fact, this is a common porn trope:  public sex. It’s okay, as long as you aren’t actually in someone’s face. Not really a debate here.

The interesting issue in this s-and-m’y scenario is not appropriateness but arousal.  Is there something arousing — appropriate or not — in this airplane scenario?  In the s-m world, this kind of scene is arousing, as it is an expression of complete dominance.  You, as a top, are so completely in control of the bottom that you can make her risk public humiliation.  This is a much more forceful expression of dominance than forcing the “slave” to eat out of a dog bowl, or whatever.

There are forms of public sex that don’t involve domination and submission.  Just a boy and a girl having sex under a picnic table or behind the phone booth. This is known as exhibitionism, and a lot of women find the concept appealing — just as a way of breaking away from familiar sexual routines —  like every Saturday night at 11:00 just after teeth-brushing.  The s-m dimension introduces a bit of wildness.

So let’s get away from Miss Manners and talk about wild sex:  the more complete the dominance, and the vaster the submission, the wilder the sex.  I think Newsweek may have missed the point.  There’s no debate about sexual control.  Whatever ruffles your truffles.



Leave a Comment