quote:Moscovites caught kissing in public places could be fined if city authorities pass a new law currently under consideration, according to a Russian newspaper.
The kissing ban could even extend to lawfully wedded spouses, Stolichnaya Vechernyaya Gazeta reported.
Quoting unnamed sources, it said the plan was aimed at raising levels of public morality in the Russian capital.
The newspaper added that "particularly blatant cases could even lead to a spell of temporary detention in jail".
quote:". . . if this is not a joke and the mayor's office is indeed drafting such a resolution, I will from now on spend my days kissing in public places - simply out of principle.
posted
I heard something about a US law going through legislature where two minors can be tried for rape if they do something even as small as kissing. I mean, really, I hope that's not a true rumor. . .
Posts: 767 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, society is based on rules. Without these rules, then we would have anarchy.
Society also has the right to determine what is and is not morally acceptable. You can't let the individual determine what is and is not morally acceptable because then--we would have anarchy!
Anarchy is bad for little kids, puppies, churches and families. So, we should all be glad that government takes a hand in defining morality, because if it didn't, kids, puppies, churches and families would all blow up, and no one wants that.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, yeah. And a hundred years a go, no right thinking individual would be caught dead kissing in public.
People one hundred years a go were wiser and smarter than people today. So, we should strive to live as our forebears did since we're just mental and moral midgets compared to them.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Rabbit, I'm with you! How unrussian to ban kissing! The very idea! Next thing you know they will try to ban public drukenness!
The tendency to impose more and more silly rules is an inherent one among those with power. If you obey them all too assiduously, you only encourage them to make more. Wouldn't you be proud to display a ticket written by the Russian police for public kissing? I wonder what is the fine? Whatever it is, I'm sure it's worth it.
posted
People one hundred years ago were just more prude.
So, take THAT! and THAT! And that, and that and that! And it goes on... No--I'm okay with public kissing---however, snogging is uncalled for in public places. But, peck on the cheek, kiss on the lips...What's so bad about that?
But full out, softcore, tongue-in-cheek kissing---rude, unkempt and disgusting to do in public, but it shouldn't be made illegal.
Posts: 463 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey! What about all those Russian men I saw kissing each other - on the lips - when the televised Brezhnev's funeral back in the 80s? Serious. I remember thinking, "Wow, the Russians are at least less inhibited about heterosexual men touching. How nice." And now this. ak is right - it's downright unRussian.
And as far as rules in general. Yeah, there are rules that are necessary. Things like stopping at stop signs. But it seems that these days making rules just for the sake of making them and for making people prove their loyalty by following them has just gotten out of hand.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think this is a law that, if passed, will be protested by mass kiss-ins.
I wouldn't be a bit surprised. Where I used to work, they passed out this thing about sexual harassment. One of the rules was that it was forbidden to greet a friend with a hug, because if someone random person saw it and was offended by it, they could charge the hugger (and the huggee, too) with sexual harassment. That was just part of what came to be known, not so affectionately, as the Random Third Party Rule.
Well, this hugging rule didn't go down too well with those of us who worked in our office - there were at least forty of us, staff and tutors. We were a pretty close group, and it actually wasn't unusual for us to greet with hugs. So, what did we do after this rule came down? Of course, we made it a point to greet each other with hugs as often as humanly possible.
Pretty soon, no one from administration was talking about enforcing the no-hug rule. They knew they'd lost.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quick poll - how many of you are offended or slightly uncomfortable at seeing someone kiss in public? I always found it fairly sweet and endearing (there are limits of what defines a tasteful kiss, of course.)
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since the question is about kissing in public, I don't find it offensive at all.
As for making out in public, that depends. If it's in a semi-private place, then I have no problem with it. But if it's just out in the open where it's hard not to look, I find it a tad bit offensive. But I would never actually do anything about it.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doesn't bother me at all. Well, I tend to not to want to look if they are, oh, how do I put this delicately, trying to tickle each other's tonsils with their tongues.
But garden variety kissing? Not a problem at all, as far as I can see.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Man. Even the self-righteous psychos in the US haven't proposed banning kisses. Except possibly homosexual kissing, but I'm not aware that they've ever been close to passing such laws.
Excepting those Puritan left-over laws still occasionally enforced in the South and Mideast. What were they called, Blue Laws?
posted
The idea sounds misguided. Keeping people from kissing in public would not raise morality very much, I don't think.
As for me, I don't really have any problem with people kissing in public unless it gets really racy (clothes coming off and all that); I think it's very cute and just a way for two people to display affection for each other.
Yes, they were called the Blue Laws, but they were primarily in effect in Conneticut only.
I used to kiss in public more than I would now feel comfortable with. Especially in church. With my husband. I remember a friend telling us she approved and she felt it was a shame when a couple sat five feet apart with their kids between them. But guess what we do now?
posted
It looks to me like this is just a rumor, reported by a Russian newspaper, and picked up by the BBC. I would be very suprised if there were any truth behind it.
Posts: 285 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
To answer the question, I think PDAs really dress up a park, especially in spring. I am all in favor of displays of mutual affection of any kind in all circumstances. Posts: 968 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, after hearing that Connecticut had all these anti-PDA laws, I went onto Google and searched for them.
Unfortunately, I couldn't find any. Or rather, I couldn't find any that weren't refuted on other websites. But I did find these, so enjoy
Weird Connecticut Laws:
According to state law, in order for a pickle to qualify as a pickle, it must bounce.
It is illegal to walk backwards after sunset.
It is against the law to walk across the street on your hands.
It is illegal to educate a dog.
And... 'A Connecticut man has been told to change the name of his Mexican restaurant because it spells the Spanish word for testicles.
Bob Potter wanted to call his new venture C.O. Jones, but local officials in West Hartford said that wouldn't be appropriate.
Mr Potter said another restaurant he co-owns has carried the name for four years without any problems, says the Hartford Courant.
Officials couldn't stop him from putting the name over his new eatery, but they "strongly encouraged" him to scrap it.
"It was clever. It was a wordplay," said Rob Rowlson, West Hartford's business development officer. "But it was just not appropriate for the standards this community espouses."
A third restaurant, set to open in about six weeks, also will carry the C.O. Jones name. "People really like the name. It's a great marketing tool," said Potter.
Meanwhile his West Hartford restaurant will now go by a less offensive name - it's called the Mexican Restaurant '
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I saw that website too. But I also saw several others naming Peters, the man mentioned on your site, made up many blue laws to make his "History of Connecticut" more interesting.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
The American expression blue law exists for any puritanical law that prohibits certain activities, especially on the Sabbath. In fact, it precedes the first use of blue in the sense of a thing that offends against morals by about 40 years. It seems to have been popularised by the Reverend Samuel Peters, in a work published in London in 1781, The General History of Connecticut. In it, he roundly criticises the ultra-strict puritan laws in that state. He called them blue laws because they were “bloody laws; for they were all sanctified with whipping, cutting off the ears, burning the tongue, and death.” Why this makes the laws blue rather than red isn’t clear. It is sometimes said that the original blue laws of Connecticut were so called because they were printed on blue paper or between blue covers, but as no example of the term has been found that precedes Peters’ book, it is suspected that he invented the term, and that this idea is a later rationalisation. No direct link has been established between this usage and the first example (from Scotland, remember) of the use of blue in the sense of something smutty, but it is not wholly improbable.
The laws of Connecticut are probably not formally known as the "Blue Laws" but that's the term for them nonetheless.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
