Reproductive Health Groups Sponsor Documentary Screening

A question Didn’t the Minnesota AIDS Project once put out a magazine that counciled what to do if you are caught having sex in a public park and the proper use of methamphetimine?

It’s called Harm Reduction See, when you take things out of context, then you miss the point. If I recall correctly, the articles you are referring to included information that said something to the effect “If you use meth, it will likely kill you or make you otherwise very ill” and “if you engage in public sex in Minnesota, which is illegal, you could end up in jail or on a sex offender list.”

The articles talk about the dangers associated with these behaviors but also understands that getting someone to stop doing something harmful is a process not an instantaneous decision.

For instance, someone addicted to meth, is probably, um, addicted. If the only message is “stop,” then the addict will likely get no information about how to get clean needles so they don’t get infected with Hep C, or HIV, or ways to use that will be less dangerous in the long run. Addicts are not likely to stay sober with their first attempt to quit, but need support and health information throughout the process of becoming sober. It’s called harm reduction.

So yes, the magazine did talk about those issues, and probably helped save the lives of a few people who were addicted to meth, or kept a few people who didn’t know better off the sex offender list.

Harm to whom? you say: “or kept a few people who didn’t know better off the sex offender list.”

I respond: Or kept a few people who did know better off the sex offender list, ready to offend another day.

What kind of person does not know that having sex in public is wrong Mr. Birkey?

Worse, if I am not mistaken Mr. Birkey, the magazine provided advice from a lawyer that included something along the lines of “If you work with children and are caught having sex in publilc to not mention your occupation”

That is paraphrased as I read about this in the online Star Tribune and no longer have the story to refer to, but I think I have the gist of the message correct and in context.

So tell us Mr. Birkey, please, reduction of harm to whom?

MIsunderstanding You comment displays a huge lack of understanding of the phenomena of public sex and the realities of gay people. For centuries, gay people have been relegated to the bushes, seedy bars, and red light districts in order to meet other people like themselves. That is starting to change, thankfully, but if you look at the statistics of who is arrested in public sex settings, it is overwhelmingly people above age 50, a population that hasn’t had the benefit of a more accepting culture, one that has only existed for the past 20 or so years, and the majority are still closeted. They end up going to places they shouldn’t.

While the majority know it is wrong, they don’t know that it could cost them their jobs, or that they could end up on a sex offender list. If I recall, and I haven’t seen the article in years, that was the basic point of the article.

Further, in my opinion, arrests for people caught in this type of situation do not warrant sex offender status. Trespassing. Yes. Possibly public indecency. Sex offenses should be relegated to crimes against other people. Instead we trivialize the harms associated with rape, sexual assault, and sexual abuse. Two consenting adults having it off in the woods hardly approaches these more damaging and dangerous crimes. Surely you agree.

Even further, it’s a bit of a stretch to say that someone arrested because of this behavior should be barred from working in schools or what have you. Does it smack of poor judgement? Yes. Does it have anything to do with predatory behavior or harm toward children? No more than a man and woman who hook up in a night club.

That you automatically play the “won’t someone think of the children?” card demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of sexuality.

Words can not serve I started on a response Mr. Birkey. But upon re-reading what you have written I realized that I simply do not have the words to describe my astonishment.

I then reaized that I really don’t need to say anything, your words speak for themselves.

Frankly… I’m a little concerned about schools’ job teaching spelling these days.

It’s “horrified.”

As for Andy’s comments, I’m all for making public sex a registry offense — but all public sex.  From what I’ve seen, the people who are very, very, very concerned about gay people having sex in a park feel very, very, very differently if it’s Billy and Suzie hooking up.  The former is the Worst!  Thing!  Ever!  The latter…well, they shouldn’t have their lives ruined because of one mistake!  Why, they’re good kids!

Sauce for the goose, and all that.  I’m all for going after actual predators.  But I’m not concerned that someone who had public consensual sex is going to attack my daughter.  And I’d much rather the state focus its energies on those who could.

I remain horrorfied. To read the unabashed support of sexual deviance evidenced here, I was beyond horrified Mr. Fecke.

“From what I’ve seen, the people who are very, very, very concerned about gay people having sex in a park feel very, very, very differently if it’s Billy and Suzie hooking up.”

Note that it is you and Mr. Birkey who brought “gay people” into the discussion. I never wrote anything about sexual preference or even insinuated it.

Guilty consciences at work here gentlemen?

Feigning horrified You can be horrified all you like, but I will insist that there is a big difference between sex among consenting adults and the types of crimes that should be vigorously prosecuted. Public sex is bad, Ive said that numerous times at this site. But your reaction is out of proportion to the seriosness of the crime.

The article you referenced in your comment intended to slam the MN AIDS Project was targetting gay men, was written by a gay lawyer, and discussed gay men. You brought up homosexuality just by referencing it so its a bit disengenious to accuse anyone of bringing gay people into it.

Or, if you are so unfamiliar with the article in question, why bring it up?

The usefulness of this “discussion” has come to an end We are instructed each and every day that AIDS does not discriminate on sexual preference.

But now you are insinuating that only gay men advocate and engage in public sex and only gay lawyers give advice on how to shield ones self from being barred from contact with children after being caught having sex in a public place.

Are we to understand that it is only gay men that need instruction on “harm reduction” when it comes to methamphetimine as well Mr. Birkey?

I think you have said enough Mr. Birkey. I, and the people I have directed to read this conversation, get the message.

I’m referring to the article Mr. Anonymous. You are putting words in my mouth that I have not written.

I have not insinuated any such thing, and you are “not to understand” anything of the sort that you have presented. Those are your own words.

You brought up an article, and I explained the context and purpose of that one article as I recall it. I don’t understand why you are broadly applying one article to an entire population. There is no “only” when it comes to meth, or public sex, and I haven’t insinuated anything to that effect. Many fine organizations in the state provide harm reduction information for many populations gay and straight, young and old, and from many racial and ethnic backgrounds on a variety of topics that many people like yourself would not find useful and may even find offensive. But it’s not intended for you (unless you are a meth user or someone who has been arrested for public sex. Based on your comments I somehow doubt either is the case.) The context of the article that YOU introduced into discussion was pertaining to gay men, thus I approached your criticisms of it from that point off view.

I have not advocated that sex offenders be allowed to take employment in situations where working with children. I don’t even recall the article discussing employment with children, but if you remember that detail I find it hard to believe you don’t remember the article having specific application to gay men. Are you being dishonest, Mr. Anonymous? If you are, it certainly makes it more difficult to take the high road, as your friends who come to read this should agree.

I said that I don’t feel that this behavior should be prosecuted as a sex offense, and that it should be reserved for violent and predatory sexual offenses, the kind that hurt people and destroy lives. These are the crimes we should be focusing our attentions to.

Your friends are welcome to join the discussion as long as they do not follow your lead in purposefully misinterpreting my comments and attributing ideas to me that are not my own.

Of course, if they’d actually like to discuss the original topic of the post, so much the better.

Well… No, given that 1) I’m not gay (not that it would matter if I was), and 2) I’ve never had sex in a public place.  But thanks for playing.

A question Didn't the Minnesota AIDS Project once put out a magazine that counciled what to do if you are caught having sex in a public park and the proper use of methamphetimine?

It's called Harm Reduction See, when you take things out of context, then you miss the point. If I recall correctly, the articles you are referring to included information that said something to the effect “If you use meth, it will likely kill you or make you otherwise very ill” and “if you engage in public sex in Minnesota, which is illegal, you could end up in jail or on a sex offender list.”

The articles talk about the dangers associated with these behaviors but also understands that getting someone to stop doing something harmful is a process not an instantaneous decision.

For instance, someone addicted to meth, is probably, um, addicted. If the only message is “stop,” then the addict will likely get no information about how to get clean needles so they don't get infected with Hep C, or HIV, or ways to use that will be less dangerous in the long run. Addicts are not likely to stay sober with their first attempt to quit, but need support and health information throughout the process of becoming sober. It's called harm reduction.

So yes, the magazine did talk about those issues, and probably helped save the lives of a few people who were addicted to meth, or kept a few people who didn't know better off the sex offender list.

Harm to whom? you say: “or kept a few people who didn't know better off the sex offender list.”

I respond: Or kept a few people who did know better off the sex offender list, ready to offend another day.

What kind of person does not know that having sex in public is wrong Mr. Birkey?

Worse, if I am not mistaken Mr. Birkey, the magazine provided advice from a lawyer that included something along the lines of “If you work with children and are caught having sex in publilc to not mention your occupation”

That is paraphrased as I read about this in the online Star Tribune and no longer have the story to refer to, but I think I have the gist of the message correct and in context.

So tell us Mr. Birkey, please, reduction of harm to whom?

MIsunderstanding You comment displays a huge lack of understanding of the phenomena of public sex and the realities of gay people. For centuries, gay people have been relegated to the bushes, seedy bars, and red light districts in order to meet other people like themselves. That is starting to change, thankfully, but if you look at the statistics of who is arrested in public sex settings, it is overwhelmingly people above age 50, a population that hasn't had the benefit of a more accepting culture, one that has only existed for the past 20 or so years, and the majority are still closeted. They end up going to places they shouldn't.

While the majority know it is wrong, they don't know that it could cost them their jobs, or that they could end up on a sex offender list. If I recall, and I haven't seen the article in years, that was the basic point of the article.

Further, in my opinion, arrests for people caught in this type of situation do not warrant sex offender status. Trespassing. Yes. Possibly public indecency. Sex offenses should be relegated to crimes against other people. Instead we trivialize the harms associated with rape, sexual assault, and sexual abuse. Two consenting adults having it off in the woods hardly approaches these more damaging and dangerous crimes. Surely you agree.

Even further, it's a bit of a stretch to say that someone arrested because of this behavior should be barred from working in schools or what have you. Does it smack of poor judgement? Yes. Does it have anything to do with predatory behavior or harm toward children? No more than a man and woman who hook up in a night club.

That you automatically play the “won't someone think of the children?” card demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of sexuality.

Words can not serve I started on a response Mr. Birkey. But upon re-reading what you have written I realized that I simply do not have the words to describe my astonishment.

I then reaized that I really don't need to say anything, your words speak for themselves.

Frankly… I'm a little concerned about schools' job teaching spelling these days.

It's “horrified.”

As for Andy's comments, I'm all for making public sex a registry offense — but all public sex.  From what I've seen, the people who are very, very, very concerned about gay people having sex in a park feel very, very, very differently if it's Billy and Suzie hooking up.  The former is the Worst!  Thing!  Ever!  The latter…well, they shouldn't have their lives ruined because of one mistake!  Why, they're good kids!

Sauce for the goose, and all that.  I'm all for going after actual predators.  But I'm not concerned that someone who had public consensual sex is going to attack my daughter.  And I'd much rather the state focus its energies on those who could.

I remain horrorfied. To read the unabashed support of sexual deviance evidenced here, I was beyond horrified Mr. Fecke.

“From what I've seen, the people who are very, very, very concerned about gay people having sex in a park feel very, very, very differently if it's Billy and Suzie hooking up.”

Note that it is you and Mr. Birkey who brought “gay people” into the discussion. I never wrote anything about sexual preference or even insinuated it.

Guilty consciences at work here gentlemen?

Feigning horrified You can be horrified all you like, but I will insist that there is a big difference between sex among consenting adults and the types of crimes that should be vigorously prosecuted. Public sex is bad, Ive said that numerous times at this site. But your reaction is out of proportion to the seriosness of the crime.

The article you referenced in your comment intended to slam the MN AIDS Project was targetting gay men, was written by a gay lawyer, and discussed gay men. You brought up homosexuality just by referencing it so its a bit disengenious to accuse anyone of bringing gay people into it.

Or, if you are so unfamiliar with the article in question, why bring it up?

The usefulness of this “discussion” has come to an end We are instructed each and every day that AIDS does not discriminate on sexual preference.

But now you are insinuating that only gay men advocate and engage in public sex and only gay lawyers give advice on how to shield ones self from being barred from contact with children after being caught having sex in a public place.

Are we to understand that it is only gay men that need instruction on “harm reduction” when it comes to methamphetimine as well Mr. Birkey?

I think you have said enough Mr. Birkey. I, and the people I have directed to read this conversation, get the message.

I'm referring to the article Mr. Anonymous. You are putting words in my mouth that I have not written.

I have not insinuated any such thing, and you are “not to understand” anything of the sort that you have presented. Those are your own words.

You brought up an article, and I explained the context and purpose of that one article as I recall it. I don't understand why you are broadly applying one article to an entire population. There is no “only” when it comes to meth, or public sex, and I haven't insinuated anything to that effect. Many fine organizations in the state provide harm reduction information for many populations gay and straight, young and old, and from many racial and ethnic backgrounds on a variety of topics that many people like yourself would not find useful and may even find offensive. But it's not intended for you (unless you are a meth user or someone who has been arrested for public sex. Based on your comments I somehow doubt either is the case.) The context of the article that YOU introduced into discussion was pertaining to gay men, thus I approached your criticisms of it from that point off view.

I have not advocated that sex offenders be allowed to take employment in situations where working with children. I don't even recall the article discussing employment with children, but if you remember that detail I find it hard to believe you don't remember the article having specific application to gay men. Are you being dishonest, Mr. Anonymous? If you are, it certainly makes it more difficult to take the high road, as your friends who come to read this should agree.

I said that I don't feel that this behavior should be prosecuted as a sex offense, and that it should be reserved for violent and predatory sexual offenses, the kind that hurt people and destroy lives. These are the crimes we should be focusing our attentions to.

Your friends are welcome to join the discussion as long as they do not follow your lead in purposefully misinterpreting my comments and attributing ideas to me that are not my own.

Of course, if they'd actually like to discuss the original topic of the post, so much the better.

Well… No, given that 1) I'm not gay (not that it would matter if I was), and 2) I've never had sex in a public place.  But thanks for playing.