To think whoever organised this should be prosecuted?

[curiousgeorgie]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2679321/Mayor-demands-police-investigation-British-girl-filmed-performing-sex-act-24-men-two-minutes-win-3euro-bottle-Cava-Magaluf-bar.html

Apologies for the daily mail link and apologies if its already been done, I did have a quick look and couldn't see anything.

An old work friend posted the video of this on Facebook last night and it is horrendous... (And this absolutely doesn't excuse it) but she thought she was doing it for a holiday, but it turned out to be for a drink.

I feel so sorry for her parents (and for her actually)..

I think the rep who organised this 'game' should face prosecution...

Or "pearl clutching" :)

Why is sex immoral?

If it is carried out between consenting* adults and no-one gets hurt, why is it immoral?

Why does someone's sexual preferences and choices apparently define their character?

Why do the people who consider that sex should only be part of an emotional relationship get to set the rules of what is "im/moral behaviour"?

Why is it still socially acceptable for men to have more sexual partners than women without being judged in the same way?

Why do some people think they have the right to judge other people on their sexual behaviour, if that behaviour is legal, consensual and no one is being hurt?

Why do some people think someone else's sex life is their business in the first place?

Why does society still attempt to control women by passing judgement on their sexuality if they step outside narrowly-prescribed societal norms?

I'm genuinely interested in answers to these questions.

*I am going with the consensus that this was consensual; she was an active participant and the men, after some initial reluctance in a few cases, seemed happy to guide their penises towards her mouth which implies consent.

Why does society still attempt to control women by passing judgement on their sexuality if they step outside narrowly-prescribed societal norms?

^^^ this!

Sucking on 24 cocks in a crowded bar is hardly 'normal' behaviour for anyone - man or woman - but as the person in question happens to be a woman I'm judging a woman, & whilst it is entirely up to her how she conducts her sex life, in this instance she has chosen to have sex in public, therefore I know about it so I'm judging - & I judge her to be a slut of the highest order. & that isn't trying to control her, she can do what she likes ( & clearly does ) but you can't expect people not to judge.

I agreed with the article insofar that it pointed out the Sun's hypocracy. However, this point is as old as the hills.

The rest of the article was standard formulaic bollocks. This episode doesn't represent attempts to control women's sexuality at all. The point it illustrates is that it is a bad idea to get pissed, because if you do, you can do unwise things that have ramifications for your health and reputation. This point applies as much to the men involved in this sorry episode as the woman. Bear in mind also that this woman finds herself at the centre of all this because she was the main protaganist.

Saying "it's her right" or "they all consented" misses the point spectacularly. Having the right to do someting doesn't make it all right to do that thing. You do not get a free pass to do what you like when you're drunk. The things you do may have an effect on those around you at the time, your family, your friends, and your employment, and your reputation. This is the reason why her actions, and those of the men involved were bad - not only were they quite probably bad for them, but they set a bad example to others. Likewise, trying to work out who is the "victim" in all this, also misses the point spectacularly. They weren't victims. They were drunken louts who ought to have known better.

Finally, it's not anyone's right anyway if it breaks the law.

How do you know what is "normal"?

Do you know the amount and type of sex that everyone of your acquaintance partakes in?

Why do you feel the need to judge someone who has done something that has no actual impact on you or your life?

Why does "number of sexual partners > n" [where "n" is the number any individual who judges such things deems "acceptable"] = "slut"?

Why does something as irrelevant (in the sense of having no impact on the person making the judgement's life) as the number of sexual partners an individual chooses to have make it necessary or acceptable to place some sort of value judgement on that person's character? Does it make them more likely to steal from you? To be lazy at work? To be cruel to children or animals?

Why is a woman who has had a comparatively small number of sexual partners be considered "better" than one who has a larger number? Why should the number matter to anyone but the woman herself?

It's not about how many sexual partners a person has, it's about sucking 24 cocks in the hope of winning a holiday. I'm as open minded as the next person but come on!! Let's be realistic here......everyone involved should be ashamed of their behaviour.

If she did it in private, fine. But she did it in public and it definitely reflects on her morals and the males involved.

Signyourname

Why is sex immoral?

You tell me. I thought it wasn't.

If it is carried out between consenting* adults and no-one gets hurt, why is it immoral?

You are begging the question. One person, at least, has been hurt.

Why does someone's sexual preferences and choices apparently define their character?

Surely all the choices we make allow people to assess our character. Why should sex (or, for that matter, getting pissed) be excepted from this?

Why do the people who consider that sex should only be part of an emotional relationship get to set the rules of what is "im/moral behaviour"?

Who is saying that?

Why is it still socially acceptable for men to have more sexual partners than women without being judged in the same way?

In the context of this story, no one is saying that either.

Why do some people think they have the right to judge other people on their sexual behaviour, if that behaviour is legal, consensual and no one is being hurt?

Which people?

Why do some people think someone else's sex life is their business in the first place?

If it happens in public, it's everyone's business, just like everything else that happens in public. Perhaps the better question is, why do you think sex should be somehow exempt from this standard?

Why does society still attempt to control women by passing judgement on their sexuality if they step outside narrowly-prescribed societal norms?

I look at this episode, and I think the question most people are asking is why do people behave so badly in Ibiza.

I'm genuinely interested in answers to these questions.

Happy to oblige.

*I am going with the consensus that this was consensual; she was an active participant and the men, after some initial reluctance in a few cases, seemed happy to guide their penises towards her mouth which implies consent.

I bet at least some of them woke up the following day with a throbbing head, wishing they hadn't done it.

I agree. She is a slut by the definition of the word. A man doing the same would also be a slut as it's not actually a term for just females. By doing it in public she is offering herself up for judgment, I can't help but judge that 24 sexual partners in a few minutes is quite frankly rank.

I myself have had slutty periods in my life. I think a lot of people have. Not to this level and not in public so I was able to move on with my life in relative secrecy. In this day and age someone will have their camera at the ready. I hope she's able to brush it under the carpet, learn a lesson and grow up.

I think what she did was dangerous and disgusting. If that makes me a prude then I accept that label.

^Saying "it's her right" or "they all consented" misses the point spectacularly. Having the right to do someting doesn't make it all right to do that thing You do not get a free pass to do what you like when you're drunk. The things you do may have an effect on those around you at the time, your family, your friends, and your employment, and your reputation. This is the reason why her actions, and those of the men involved were bad - not only were they quite probably bad for them, but they set a bad example to others. Likewise, trying to work out who is the "victim" in all this, also misses the point spectacularly. They weren't victims. They were drunken louts who ought to have known better.^

Agree with the above.

I'd be surprised if half of you weren't fudding yourselves off with the amount of pleasure you are clearly getting from slagging off this young woman. It's like you are all salivating at the mouth to have her in your crosshairs!

Why, Merci? Because we expect grown women to behave in public?

Nope, I'm watching the World Cup with my dh & eating creme brûlée - all very civilised - perhaps I should be having sex in public with 2 dozen men instead? - I might go up in your estimation then. but I'll stick to my nice normal life thank you.

But it's only a "bad example" if you agree that having multiple sexual partners is inherently bad. Because that's what this is ultimately about. If she had sucked off one bloke in that bar it wouldn't even have been a story, regardless of whether it was in public. Before the internet age, the only people who would have known about this are the people who were in the bar - a bar in which sexual activity is commonplace, which has a reputation for same, and where the vast majority of its patrons could be expected to know that and not be offended or disgusted by it taking place. As a PP said, they'd be a fairly self-selecting audience. They weren't doing it in Trafalgar Square or at the WI or at Year 2 assembly.

People get pissed and indulge in risky or semi-public sex every single weekend in every town in this country without it making the Daily Wail. The only reason this example has been treated as news and is being huffed over to this extent is because of the male:female ratio involved, and anyone who disputes that is being disingenuous.

It will only have an effect on your employment if you think there is some intrinsic link between sexual preferences and performance at work.

It will only have an effect on your "reputation" if you believe that women shouldn't indulge in more sex, or sex with more people, than you/society judges "acceptable" - and who gets to set that standard?

If sex isn't fundamentally immoral, if oral sex isn't fundamentally immoral, then why does it matter how many people you choose to do it with? It's either wrong, in which case don't do it at all, ever, or it isn't, in which case it should make no difference whether you choose to do it with 1 or 100.

Poor girl. She will always be known as that girl now, People know who she is and this will follow her forever. Potentially life-ruining

But not grown men Nicknacky?

Actually, I acknowledge that there is an element of bad judgement in so far as she couldn't have known the sexual health of the men involved, nor they hers, and sex should be safe.

That doesn't change the general argument that the numbers involved should be irrelevant.

Aren't we predominately discussing the female involved? Fundamentally the men received a blow job from one female. She gave oral sex to 24 people. I expect adults of any sex to behave.

She can do whatever the hell she likes sexually afaic. Just not in public please. That's what this boils down to.

She is a slut by the definition of the word

If that makes me a prude then I accept that label

Slut. Prude. There we go again, putting women in boxes based on their sexuality. WHY? Why does it matter to anyone not intimately involved what a woman chooses to do with her own genitals?

A man doing the same would also be a slut as it's not actually a term for just females

When was the last time you heard a man routinely referred to as a "slut" for having sex with multiple partners? It's almost exclusively used to describe women. You're more likely to hear "stud", "player" or - probably as negative as you're likely to hear - "womaniser". Hardly in the same league, is it?

Sign, if you had been in the bar the night that this incident happened, would you think "good on her for being sexually confident"?

YY Sign your Name.

No, as I've already intimated, I'd be thinking "that's a bit risky, she can't possibly know all those men are 'clean'".

But since I'd only be in the bar in the first place if I was expecting / looking for some "typical Magaluf" sex-related action, given its reputation, it would be somewhat hypocritical of me to judge her any more negatively, wouldn't it?

And since I wasn't in the bar, or even the same country, and the only reason I know about it is because of the ubiquitous camera phone, I make no value judgements one way or the other beyond, because it's none of my business.

I'm not holding this girl up as some heroine of the modern age, nor am I vilifying her as the world's biggest slut. What she chooses to do sexually is her concern.

Ignore that stray "beyond"!

I don't think it's fair to say this is typical bar action in Magaluf. My husband goes there is 3 weeks but I'm not concerned about the general conduct in bars. This is extreme behaviour!