“The law and their own safety demands that they be given a degree of respect, and the sleazy activities of Ronald and Megan Dible could not help but undermine that respect.

His activities were simply vulgar and indecent.”

This morality lesson comes to us from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, who apparently believes that a married man and woman having consensual sex, recording it, then displaying it on a paid website is “sleazy“, and the man (who happens to be a cop) should be fired for it.

While I won’t comment on whether I believe this is sleazy or not, or whether it’s vulgar and indecent or not, it’s not as if these consensual adults are out in a park having sex in front of anyone who might walk by.

• They have chosen to start their own business (isn’t that the American dream after the house and 2.3 kids?) and make a little supplemental income for their lives.
• They are both adults and in a consensual relationship.
• They don’t appear to be part of one of those religions that believe sex is only for procreation.
• They aren’t doing anything groundbreaking - pornography has been around for a LONG time.

What is the big deal? Is it because, heaven forbid, some of his coworkers at the police station subscribe to his porno site and will lose respect for their peer after seeing him fully naked? Is it because adults in the community who are interested in pornography subscribe to the site and might think differently knowing it’s a cop? Is it because he’s noticed when he’s out with his wife shopping at the grocery store and people say, hey I saw them online doing naughty things - yeah, I subscribed to it, but it was still naughty.

How many sites out there are specifically related to “men in uniform” anyway? Tons. It’s a fetish.

I just don’t get what the big deal is…

This sarcastic entry was posted on Thursday, September 6th, 2007 at 2:21 pm and is filed under Law, Work. You can follow any responses to this entry through the comments feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.