This disturbs me.
According to the signs I've seen posted in various areas throughout California, the "sex offenders" registry includes adults who are caught having consensual sex with each other in various public areas, inside their cars for instance. The signs I've seen state flat-out that if you're caught doing that, your name WILL be added to the sex offenders registry!
Now, don't mistake me. I'm not advocating such KINK!!! But doesn't this policy gravely undermine the whole point of having a sex offenders registry? Don't answer that. It was a rhetorical question. And the answer is YES, IT DOES GRAVELY UNDERMINE THE WHOLE POINT OF THE SEX OFFENDERS REGISTRY.
Don't buy it? Well I ask you: what is the point of the sex offenders registry?
Is it supposed to warn us of DANGEROUS PREDATORS?
Or is it supposed to serve as a means to cow more-or-less harmless citizens with a big-stick deterrent against their mildly titillating (or disgustingly perverted, if you prefer) activities?
I put it to you that these are mutually-exclusive uses. If the amount of outdoor hanky-panky that goes on is enough to even remotely warrant the expense on signage, then the registry must be positively clogged with non-predators by now. And the inclusion of non-predators on the registry renders it worthless as a warning.
No, I have not been nabbed by the law while doing the nasty in public. I'm just a concerned citizen, here.
10 comments:
Oh, come now. It's not the law, that does that! If it's the "fear of getting caught" jones you're talking about, that impulse goes much deeper and wider than mere law. What's being flouted for thrills is not law but propriety - law covers barely a scant portion of that tender pink expanse!
Have you ever read "The Imp of the Perverse" by Edgar Allen Poe? It gives a pretty vivid description of the urge involved. Also, quite possibly a window into the man himself, albeit, a bit fogged-up!
On the other hand, some might say it's nothing to do with any imp of the perverse - it's about a return to our innocent natures, untainted by the scourge of puritan tyranny! But those people are perverts. Hearken ye not unto them.
We're talking different kinds of law. As long as you're not saying that the civil statues are what is engendering sin, here...!
I was just saying that peoples' urge to go against what's considered acceptable goes way deeper and far beyond going against what is merely illegal.
Because, I'm a law-abiding citizen, come to the actual statutes. But come to propriety...if propriety is law, then I might be tempted to say I'm a sociopath!
If only for the shock value. Because people would be so surprised to hear it.
>...I haven't been shocked since "A Word About The Profanity" which did shock me but I was a goner after that...
Well, I hope you read the asterisk on that one!
I believe it's an important problem in society.
Don't get me runnin' the dozens on you.
Post a Comment