Is it OK to watch porn in public?

Cheers for the lively discussion. Is it legal here? Dunno. Bad form? Of course. Agreed.
Moreover, some cultures (Japan) don't demonize sex and porn to the extent that other countries do. So practice some cultural understanding.
Uh, you are aware that we live in a country where special, women-only train cars had to be implemented because of persistent groping on public transit. Parks and narrow side streets have warning signs about chikan/gropers. Rates of stalking, DV and assault against women are unacceptably high. I'm all for personal liberty. I'm also for the no-harm principle. Pollution, smoking, noise are all restricted activities. Porn is also a restricted form of media here (even the bad pixelated stuff). All that needs to be reconciled with cultural understanding. I can't speak for the ladies but I wouldn't shift the burden of discomfort onto them given the society we live in. Not saying you are either.

I agree Japan is, by degrees, more liberal toward sex. But go ahead and put a porno calendar up at work or chat about your favorite SP to the supermarket staff and see how that goes for you. Japan has a pretty strong sense of inside/outside appropriateness as well.

Anyways, here's what the train companies *are* worried about over here. Interesting to see the pushback too. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/37796036
 
Its not the train companies, thats a concern of the general public. Otherwise you make a reasonable point.
Right, they say they're just responding to what gets complained about. Nevertheless, they decided to go ahead with the advert. Oh well, more fodder, right?
 
It's a loaded term for sure. Still, to what extent does "minding one's business" excuse such behavior?

The whole thing makes me think of this:

Well regarding watching porn in public, I personally don't really think there's an "excuse" for it in terms of etiquette or common decency. Nothing against watching porn but I think there's a time and place for it.

However if we were to label such an act as "harassment", then there's got to be some "intent" involved. Using that Simpsons clip as an example (love it by the way!), both parties resorted to display violence in an attempt to show dominance and had every intention to get into a physical confrontation if there was any resistance. Even Homer afterwards used the same logic as he started to bite the air and inch closer to the pie with a clear motive of eating it.

I don't have kids but have had the experience of trying to explain porn to a children who were definitely too young to understand. Many kids are able to process "love scenes" in movies or other media because most already understand physical affection. They don't understand the stuff that isn't really shown though so when they encounter some media that shows this, even they know what an adult body looks like naked, it is in fact hard for them to process.

Even "regular" sex can look pretty violent to a kid. Lots of what goes on in porn will definitely look very violent to a kid, even a "young adult" past puberty but not having any sexual experience. Same goes for young people who have had some sexual experience but not much.

Don't act so amused until you have to deal with it yourself.
Yeah, the whole kid thing is a tough one. It is easy to say that parents should be teaching their children about "life" and not shielding them from it, but I think it's also up to the parent's discretion
when those life lessons are taught.
 
However if we were to label such an act as "harassment", then there's got to be some "intent" involved. Using that Simpsons clip as an example (love it by the way!), both parties resorted to display violence in an attempt to show dominance and had every intention to get into a physical confrontation if there was any resistance. Even Homer afterwards used the same logic as he started to bite the air and inch closer to the pie with a clear motive of eating it.
Imteresting...
I'm not saying it is or isn't. I'm not a fan of throwing bombs indiscriminately. My point is simply to not dismiss the idea of harassment so easily. I disagree that intent is a necessary requirement though. Plenty of people have been convicted of harassment for doing things the way they've always been done. I would argue that actions, impact on the other person, and social norms take precedent over intent.

As for the Simpsons (awesome, right?) it goes to show the no harm principle. You can't just swing wildly in public and tell people it's their fault they got hit. Homer would (should) be judged the same no matter how he ends up eating the pie. Ultimately, it's the impact on Marge and the family that determine the severity of the situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: faboo2001
Imteresting...
I'm not saying it is or isn't. I'm not a fan of throwing bombs indiscriminately. My point is simply to not dismiss the idea of harassment so easily. I disagree that intent is a necessary requirement though. Plenty of people have been convicted of harassment for doing things the way they've always been done. I would argue that actions, impact on the other person, and social norms take precedent over intent.

As for the Simpsons (awesome, right?) it goes to show the no harm principle. You can't just swing wildly in public and tell people it's their fault they got hit. Homer would (should) be judged the same no matter how he ends up eating the pie. Ultimately, it's the impact on Marge and the family that determine the severity of the situation.
Yeah there's a reason I put "intent" into brackets. I am certain that people have been charged for harassment even if it wasn't their intent, possibly due to their negligence or ignorance to the law, social norms or even culture/religion. However in those cases there was at least intent for those actions to purposely draw attention or affect someone else, but perhaps not necessarily in a negative way. I actually really don't agree with the idea of labelling such circumstances as "harassment", but at least one can justifiably define it as such.

With the case of watching porn in public, especially the one initially mentioned, not only was their no intention to affect his surroundings or people but most people were oblivious that he was even doing it. It was only when that writer invaded his personal space did she even find out what he was doing. One could argue she was harassing him to be quite honest.

As for the "no harm principle", I think that would just fall under the negligence/ignorance spectrum of the argument. Although with the Simpsons example, they all clearly knew what they were doing! :ROFLMAO:
 
  • Like
Reactions: AliceInWonderland
I'm a little surprised to see that it looks like I'm in the minority on this, but I don't think you should watch porn in public. I think its like being stinky in public, you hurt everyone around you.

That being said, I can imagine the people watching porn in public are the same people who could use deodorant...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gasse
Short answer is no. It is obviously bad manners.

Common courtesy aside, what I don't understand is who the hell would be in the mood to watch porn on a crowded train?

I don't think I'll ever understand that one.

I put it in the same category of eating an apple while sitting on the toilet. It just doesn't compute.
 
Simple acid test: Would there be any objection if you had sex with your preferred partner in that spot? If not, then go ahead and watch porn.
 
This is slightly off topic, but when I first moved to Tokyo I was struck by all the porn on sale in my neighborhood konbini. It is not that I was a prude, but rather I simply assumed that most people viewed porn online. Well, I guess some Japanese prefer it old school.

Granted, many of the mags have DVDs inside, but even that seems a bit old fashioned now.
 
Well, it's a slippery slope too....

So suppose porn on a train is bad, what about a biology / health sciences book that shows the naked form? I was re-reading a book called "She Comes First" that's all about giving oral sex to women, complete with diagrams, but it's largely text, sold on amazon with no 18+ only warnings. Should those be viewed in the same light? To a casual onlooker, they could be confused as porn and be offended. What if I'm reading in a coffee shop and a mother walking by with her child sees what I'm reading and gets offended, and I'm arrested for sexual harassment or something.

It's why stuff like this scares me.
 
Well, it's a slippery slope too....

So suppose porn on a train is bad, what about a biology / health sciences book that shows the naked form? I was re-reading a book called "She Comes First" that's all about giving oral sex to women, complete with diagrams, but it's largely text, sold on amazon with no 18+ only warnings. Should those be viewed in the same light? To a casual onlooker, they could be confused as porn and be offended. What if I'm reading in a coffee shop and a mother walking by with her child sees what I'm reading and gets offended, and I'm arrested for sexual harassment or something.

It's why stuff like this scares me.
Not a good example of slippery slope. That is to say that there are a variety of "reproductive health" type books for various age ranges and time/place/occasion applies here as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gasse
Not a good example of slippery slope. That is to say that there are a variety of "reproductive health" type books for various age ranges and time/place/occasion applies here as well.

Right, if a surgeon or a paramedic was studying a text book that had graphic images of gunshot wounds I would say it would be bad manners to read that on a train.

It wouldn't be illegal, but it would be bad manners.

I don't think looking at porn in public should be illegal, but it is most certainly bad manners.

I don't think we need ordinances, laws and police to protect us from getting offended.

However, there are socially accepted behaviors and behaviors that are by-in-large shunned.

Watching porn in public is shunned, except for those among us who think their shallow need to be sexual aroused on a public transport has priority.

Those people are in the minority, and let them be ridiculed, frowned at, and hopefully embarrassed by their stupid behavior.
 
Short answer is no. It is obviously bad manners.

Common courtesy aside, what I don't understand is who the hell would be in the mood to watch porn on a crowded train?

I don't think I'll ever understand that one.

I put it in the same category of eating an apple while sitting on the toilet. It just doesn't compute.
I sometimes read sex stories on my phone when i'm on the train. (its only text so not so bad i think) then if there is a good part i later reread it and masturbate to it.
 
Not a good example of slippery slope. That is to say that there are a variety of "reproductive health" type books for various age ranges and time/place/occasion applies here as well.

Perhaps it wasn't the best example but it still brings up an interesting point, in that who exactly decides what's "appropriate" to read or watch in public? And is it really necessary to accommodate for everyone's sensibilities?

Maybe a better example, what if for some reason I wanted to read "Mein Kampf" while I'm on the bus to learn how crazy Hitler really was (would never happen since I don't like to read!)? As far as I know it's not illegal to do so, but what if someone found such a thing to be anti-Semitic in nature?

And I think it should be point out again, but the original story was about a person watching porn privately in a public area. I would think that's far different than say playing it in plain sight with the sound on, or as others have akin it to as having sex in public or flashing ones privates.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gasse