o what is wrong with sex in public spaces?  We all know that people have sex and we all know that there is nothing at all immoral about sex per se.  Surely the moral status of the sex act does not change if the event between mutually consenting adults takes place in public rather than in private.  I am not thinking of discrete locations away from the public eye—a wooded area that affords complete privacy.  No, I am thinking about sex in plain view: in Time Square, on public transportation, and so on.  People sleep in all of these places.  Why isn’t it, then, that wherever people can sleep in public they can also have sex in public? 

This entry is occasion by “Masturbation: The Horror”, which offers some reflections on masturbating in public.  However, I shall primarily address the issue of sex between people in public. 

So what’s wrong with sex in public?  When people sleep in public, we typically leave them alone.  If the person has chosen a discrete spot for sleeping and we stumble upon the person, we are typically quiet and leave the individual alone.  And if a person falls asleep in the middle of Time Square, we are apt to be impressed that the individual could manage so much tranquility in the midst of so much chaos and noise.  In any case, though, we get on with our business.  In the typical case, we do not disturb the individual unless there is impending harm. 

So why isn’t sex like that?  If two people choose Time Square, we are rather impressed that they can get it on right there.  In the absence of impending harm, though, we would not disturb them and continue with our business.   

Interestingly, much of what I have said about sex can be said about defecation.  Yet, I doubt if anyone is advocating that.  Is this owing to sanitary considerations?  I mean couldn’t we just have toilet paper stands and flush buckets conveniently distributed throughout?  Persons would need only to place themselves adjacent to one of these public facilities, and then get on with defecating.  This is so much cheaper.  And defecation, like sex, is a part of life.  Indeed, more so.  There is no opting out of defecation for the sake of a higher moral calling.  Nor is age ever a relevant factor. 

Is prudishness alone the explanation for why we generally do defecate or have sex in public?  No doubt that may be part of it.  But I think that there is much more. 

A fundamental part of the explanation, I believe, has to do with our conception of privacy.  That explanation may have had its origins in concerns pertaining to prudishness, but over time considerations of privacy have come to have a life of their own.  As an aside, an independent reason for not having sex in public is that the behavior would be observed by children would do not at a very young age have the psychological wherewithal to interpret properly all the sounds and behavior that are characteristic of sex.  However, shall leave this potent consideration aside. 

Privacy is about two things that operate in tandem: what others have access to without seeking permission and what people can offer to others without seeking permission.  We use privacy in Western culture to mark degrees of intimacy (from friendship to romantic).  This can be seen with something as innocuous as eating habits.  If you offer me something off your plate, from which you have already been eating, that is apt to be an indication of closeness between us; otherwise, I am likely to think that what you did was rather inappropriate.  Likewise, I am apt to seek permission before I take something from your plate.  But only if, in the first place, I have the right kind of relationship with you.  Lovers pick from one another’s plates without thinking.  But then, lovers share a particularly high degree of intimacy. 

In Western culture, we think that sex is an intensely private matter.  It is not just about what people do between themselves.  It is also about the limits that people should have with regard to what they do before others.   So even if two people are more than willing to “go at it” in public, others should not have to contend with witnessing this intimate act.  This shall become more evident in the context of self-disclosure below.

One can hold this view without in any way being a prude about sex.  There need not be even a hint of shame involved here.  No doubt part of the explanation for this is that sex is rather unlike many other activities, in that sexual desire once aroused can be rather intrusive; and few things arouse sexual desire like witnessing the act before one’s very eyes.  For instance, suppose that I am away from my spouse owing to professional traveling.  So, as a healthy person, witnessing two people having sex right before my very eyes or on the floor in the restaurant, on the elevator of all places, is apt to occasion some very intense sexual desires that I had otherwise been able to keep in check.  Thus, witnessing sex is rather unlike witnessing someone downing a pint of whisky—unless one is an alcoholic.  But then by definition an alcoholic has a drinking problem.  A healthy sexual appetite is not as such a problem. 

Another reason why sex has become such a matter of privacy is that in Western culture personal ties are so freely formed.  In particular, arranged marriages are all but non-existent.  Given that sex is taken as part of the marriage package, arranged marriages turn sex into something that is required of one as opposed to something about which one—and no one else but one—makes the choice.  With arranged marriages, sex is first an obligation and then, if all goes well, a form of personal expression fulfillment.  In Western culture, sex has evolved into a quintessential form of personal expression and fulfillment. 

Designated public areas for sex do not present a problem for privacy as I am understanding it.  Such areas would be rather like going into a porn theater.  In both cases, one knows from the very outset what to expect.  People often go to porno theatres precisely because they are interested in being aroused by witnessing (in some fashion or the other) sex before their very eyes.

As an aside, it is worth noting that cultures that have a less private conception of the body also seem to be vastly more ritualistic, where the rituals regulate just about every aspect of life. 

At this juncture, I want to look at sex in public spaces from the standpoint of self-disclosure.  Suppose that two people were to vividly recount to me their sexual experience last night.  Needless to say, that would be way more information than I would want to know; and I can assure you that I would inform of this.  In fact, I would probably stop them at the outset.  It is worth pointing out here that people can be willing to do what is in fact inappropriate to do.  Self-disclosure is not appropriate merely because a person want to do so.  It is perfectly possible to regret having said one voluntarily and freely self-disclosed precisely because one later realizes how inappropriate the self-disclosure was.   

It is often supposed that if no one is in any way harmed by an activity, then there is nothing wrong with engaging in it.  But that is not quite right, as the above example of self-disclosure reveals.  To be sure, we do not have a moral wrong in the example.  But the absence of a moral wrong does not preclude the behavior—the self-disclosure, in this case—from being highly inappropriate.  Suppose that I should ask a nun (who is visibly dressed as such) to have a sexual tryst with me.  She declines; and I fully respect her decision.  Nothing morally wrong has transpired.  No one has been harmed.  Yet, my behavior merits considerable disapproval on the grounds that it is quite inappropriate.

Sex between two people is a form of self-disclosure between them, even if it is a one-night stand.  Sex between them in public space is a form of self-disclosure between them and, moreover, between them and others.  And I maintain that the character of that self-disclosure is inappropriate in the public realm, in precisely the way that a vivid account from my friends of their sexual encounter last night is inappropriate. 

In having sex, we share with our sexual partner things that we should not share with other individuals.  And sex in public undermines that very fundamental distinction between the couple participating in the sex act and others.  It would amount to conveying information to people that they would just as soon not have given to them—information that they would be better off not knowing.  Nothing good comes from knowing that Susie looks like she is bored out of her mind though Jack thinks (and, moreover, thinks that Susie thinks) that he is the Don Juan of the moment.  Or perhaps, she is under the delusion that she is performing like the Vixen that Jack always wanted.  But we can see nothing of the sort is true.  More than likely, witnessing two people have sex is apt to tell us much about their personal interactions to which we should not be privy; and the two people involved ought to feel the same way.  Necessarily, sex is a form of communication between two people.  That everyone participates in this form of communication does not itself constitute a reason why it should simply be private.  Lovers also say "I love you" to one another.  Yet, only a fool would think privacy is irrelevant to that utterance. 

The preceding remarks apply equally to masturbating in public, which we may liken to talking out loud in public.  A most important conversation with oneself at home is one thing.  That very same conversation with oneself in public would be inappropriate because one is disclosing things that one ought not disclose.  And a very clear indication that a person does not take himself sufficiently seriously is just the fact that the individual discloses way too much about himself.  Masturbation is not simply the elimination of a bit of bodily fluid.  It is one of the forms that the embodiment of sexual fantasy takes, with all that this involves in terms of sounds and bodily movements.  Necessarily, this is the description under which it would be witnessed in public.  Being unmindful of this bespeaks a profound level of immaturity.  For the record, none of this requires holding a Puritanical conception of masturbation, according to which it constitutes the sin of onanism.   

Of course, we could trivialize sex in fundamental ways.  That is, we could make it rather like sharing a piece of bread.  With rare exception, sharing a piece of bread occasions very little self-disclosure.  I make no predictions with regard to whether sex shall ever be like sharing a piece of bread.  What I do know, however, is that it would be a very, very different world if it were.  And it is far from clear that it would be preferable to the present one. 

In effect, I have argued that sex has a certain ontological status in Western culture, which makes sex in public inappropriate.  Undoubtedly, the springboard for that ontological status was a certain prudish mentality regarding sex.  But an explanation for not having sex in public can be given that has nothing whatsoever to do with being prudish about sex.  The ontological status of sex may change.  But its status most certainly will not change without a change in other things.  For instance, if folks in Western culture became much more robotic in their behavior, then sex would most certainly become more zombie like; and zombie like sex might not be much different from exchanging bread (except for intensity).  Indeed, the choice between extra slices of bread and sex might very well be a choice between things that are commensurate.  Nothing of the sort is true now. 

In the meantime, those of us who think sex in public is rather inappropriate need not suppose that we are haunted by the ghost of an outdated view of sex.  Quite the contrary, our opposition can be tied to the vivacity and meaningfulness of sex at its best—namely, sex as it is experienced in the fullness of the flesh and so that which is far from being a form of immature prudishness.