The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
14 Points

Sex in Public Should Be Legalised

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 6/10/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,003 times Debate No: 76389
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)




Firstly, I would like to say that I am not judging whomever chooses to debate this topic. This is an unprejudiced and open discussion. Thank you and good luck!

It is simple. Sex is beautiful. It is a way of life. Why should we not present it in public, where the world can see how we feel about love and passion. Why should we be denied our desires simply because we're in a shopping mall, or a park?

Sex in public doesn't have to be awkward, or uncomfortable. Hey, we pee in public toilets, right? This is the opportunity we need, to have public sex legalised and release our real desires!


Thank you to PRO for initiating this debate! I will be using this round as an acceptance round as I'm not usually used to debating from the get-go. I ask that no new arguments to be brought up by either side in the final round and for common etiquette to be observed.

Once again, thank you to PRO for this opportunity!
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you Con, and good luck.

Sex should be allowed in public. No one should need to hide when they want to release themselves. Someone prove me wrong.


Thank you to the PRO side for their opening statement and substantives. In this round, I'll be talking about how a law that permits public sex is undemocratic to the public, but first, allow me to conduct a few rebuttals.


R1) "Sex is beautiful. It is a way of life."

PRO has made no correlation between something being a "way of life" and something that is fit for public exhibition. When we say that a certain act or behaviour is a way of life, we are only implying that said behaviour or act is one that is practiced by many people for various reasons or is recognised as an essentiality in our quotidian lifestyles. By no means does "way of life" mean that it can be or should be performed in the company of others.

R2) "Sex is a natural desire"

Once again, there exists no explanation in part of PRO to bridge the gap between a natural desire and the decency of said desire to be exercised in public or to be legalised. It is also a natural desire for homophobes to punch homosexuals and for the desperately poor to rob a bank, but does that give grounds for public display or legalisation?

R3) "Hey, we pee in public toilets, right?"

PRO's attempt at drawing a parallel with the analogy of peeing in public has failed in a number of ways. Urination, similar to eating and sleeping, is a bodily need and a necessity that cannot be denied or ignored. This is recognised by the general public and thus urinating in facilities such as public toilets is accepted. By contrast, sex, as PRO describes it him/herself, is a "desire" rather than something that has to be done. Thus, there exists no sexual equivalent for the public toilet, and no reason to legalise public sex either. PRO must also not forget that public toilets are very much regulated environments, with features such as cubicles and barriers between urinals, which contradicts PRO's own utopian scenario where sex in public is truly unrestricted, uncensored and done out in the open.


I shall now proceed to my deliver the first substantive of my case.

P1) Sex is stigmatised

Sex is pleasurable, but it is undeniably a guilty pleasure. The stigma attached to sex dictates that it is indecent and foul on various levels, such as talking about sex and engaging in intercourse before marriage. Said stigma is aptly represented by the controversiality of pornography, prostitution and sex education. Existing laws that act against public sex deem it illegal on the grounds of gross indecency, indecent exposure, and public lewdness among other titles [1], a good reflection of what gives rise to the stigma surrounding sex and pertaining topics. Sex is also a touchy subject in private environments, evidenced by parents' unwillingness to speak to their children about "the birds and the bees", and the overall 'awkward' nature as PRO mentions, among other examples.

If sex is something that is sensitive to handle even in a private environment, how well received will a law that allows public sex be by the public? Laws are drafted and enforced by the government, and principally speaking, it is upon the government to act in the interest of the public. Why is it, then, justified for the government to implement a law that goes against the perceptions and conscience of many on the topic of sex? Doing so will only create yet another source of public dissatisfaction towards the government, and brings no new benefits sufficient enough to outweigh the backlashes (that is, unless PRO justifies benefits brought about by this law further down the bench).

Please note that this substantive, nor this debate in broader terms, does not concern the legitimacy of public sex and whether it is moral to conduct sex in public by nature. This substantive/debate concerns the plausibiliy of legalising public sex which is why I have incorporated public opinion on sex. What is generally regarded to be moral may not necessarily be genuinely righteous, but the law has to cater to what the public thinks instead of what is "truly correct".


To conclude, I have addressed all claims made by PRO uphold the legal validity of public sex, and have proven that such a law plays no role in changing the public's view on sex (i.e. making it less awkward) as PRO wants to see happen, but will instead undermine public interest. Thank you and I look forward to PRO's response.
Debate Round No. 2


masterdrave forfeited this round.


cathaystewie forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


masterdrave forfeited this round.


Once again, my opponent has forfeited his/her round, nor has he responded to my comment, even though he is evidently active on DDO with him posting comments and engaging in new debates.

Please extend my previous arguments and rebuttals and vote CON.

On a side note, I forgot to post the source that I referenced in Round 2 under the [1] citation, here it is:

Thank you to my opponent and all audience members for your time.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by cathaystewie 3 years ago
Hi masterdrave,

It's rather bizarre that you wen't posted an argument given that you were consistently active on DDO during the 72 hours you were given to do so. I am willing to accept new arguments and substantives in the final round to make room for more debatable aspects.

I am genuinely interested in furthering this debate and I do hope you can return to the debate and contribute to a fruitful and informative discussion!
Posted by MakeSensePeopleDont 3 years ago
Dude, no. I don't want to be sitting at a restaurant enjoying dinner, look out the window and see a flash orgy. Flash mobs are annoying and disruptive enough.

Could you imagine the chaos that would ensue during flu season? Flu bug and stomach viruses going around, a bunch of people with teetering stomachs, suddenly a group resembling the offspring of the cast of honeyboo and an episode of Jerry Springer start bumping uglies on the sidewalk. The sick people start puking, now all the naturally weak stomached people start puking because they see other people puking, now the block is layered with puke creating a dangerous slip-n-slide of grossness that everyone starts slipping and falling in...eeewww. Well I guess we would need to hire workers to clean it up constantly so maybe it would put a dent in the unemployment rate....still no.

Lastly, come on man...think of the children and how that would scar them. How many serial killers and crap would we have? I guess it would quickly end the nature vs nurture argument....but still no.
Posted by ailishm99 3 years ago
Sex in public would be horrible and frightening for children. Children don't understand sex or anything about it.
Posted by BigIvan 3 years ago
masterdrave you are a god.
Posted by TheChristian 3 years ago
You are revolting. Plus, public nudity and indecency.
Posted by Emilrose 3 years ago
Would this include fat people?

Posted by cathaystewie 3 years ago
Hi masterdrave,

Is the first round used for acceptance or arguments?
Posted by Alexander_G 3 years ago
Dude, public sex is something dangerous that our self-protection mechanism denies. Biologically, during an intercourse both the man and the woman are in their most vulnerable state. It's even worse than public nudity because they're totally off guard. No way would they enjoy the sex when they are both fully aware of strangers' gaze at them.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Diqiucun_Cunmin 3 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: This is a clear Con win. Pro put forward a few arguments at the beginning, but failed to substantiate them to a degree that would convince the reader of the merits of legalising sex in public. He failed to show that sex being a beauty and a way of life correlates with the necessity of presenting it in public. These were duly pointed out by Con. That the public lavatory analogy is false was also made clear by Con, leaving no arguments by Pro unrefuted. By contrast, Pro presented a strong case against legalisation, namely the social stigma that sex carries and the far-reaching repercussions of such an act, which Pro unfortunately did not make an attempt to rebut. Thus Con wins.
Vote Placed by tejretics 3 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to present any proper arguments except restating the resolution, and then forfeiting. Con refuted Pro's public restroom analogy by showing that it's a necessity, rather than a desire. Con says Pro fails to establish a link between sex being "beautiful" resulting in it being legalized publically. Con also showed that stigmatization of sex would result in legalization of public sex being a net detriment. Pro fails to respond to this because of their forfeiture. Ergo. I vote Con.