the war on sex

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/07/naked.twister.ap/index.html

Again with the no sex parties. What the hell people? I guess the hangup is not the noise generated but the money being spent for live sex performances. Which seems rather silly because the money probably isn't being provided for one of the 'performers' to have sex with someone other than who they want to have sex with. As opposed to prostitution, which very likely would be people who they would not want to have sex with otherwise.

What confuses me most is this line:
"We're not about infringing on the rights of the Cherry Pit patrons or owners," Lewis said. "But now your right to have fun has infringed on everyone else's. And now you have to draw the line".... What line is being crossed? The right to have 'fun' is infringing on everyone else's how? Much like the drug war in this country, the war on sexuality is pretty much a war against individuality. Not a war to provide decency or morality, but instead a way to infringe on individual rights. For all the whining free market capitalists have toward democrats on things like schools and health care (and I consider myself in this group most of the time), that there's not equal outrage involving the war on drugs or strip clubs strikes me as political hypocrisy. Instead there's indignation that there isn't more being done to proscribe some moral authority and decency, which isn't really the government's job. A community wants to shut down a strip club, stop going. Protest in front of it legally. And so on. It will move out of town as a matter of course if there is no longer any financial gain to be made. The same would be true here. There are legal reasons to harass noisy neighbours who happen to be having a sex party. Use them if people are so upset. Most people are liable to simply find another venue or amend their habits such that they do not impinge on their neighbours complicity. But again, I'd have to ask, aside from noise, what is being done that so offends the neighbours that a line has been crossed?

There was, tucked down at the bottom of the story, some legal recourse I can agree with. It's hard to say that a private party is being held when there are dozens of cars coming and going up and down the street and around 100 people in attendance. I would personally have a hard time coming up with 100 people I know, so I can imagine that this is providing a bit of annoyance. I don't see how it's going to 'reduce property value' as one neighbour whined. Property values are dipping of their own accord more than likely. But it is hard to imagine having a private party with a cast of hundreds which requires some fiscal management to provide refreshments and so on. That's a bit much.