Now illegal to have sex with partner you don't live with?

[Sueannnnna]

Lots of newspapers/online articles announcing this today.
Being in a private place with partner and having sex can lead to a £100 fine if i've read correctly.

The world is going cuckoo.
But who cares about seeing my boyfriend, at least I can go shopping in Primark and go sit on a packed train (sarcasm)

@Floatyboat he's my partner of three years.. it's not unreasonable. We can't live together for logistical reasons.

Partners/spouses are clearly different from other people. But I'd also let single people living alone see others with the same low risk. As has been done in New Zealand and Canada.

Floatyboat well if someone wants a hug and a kiss from their dad/mum friend why not?!

Personally my mother is of little.physical comfort to me, we don't have that relationship. If she was then yes I'd want a hug from her., But maintaining 6ft between me and her is the norm.

Should that logic apply to friends and family? Ie you can go visit each other inside as long as you both consider yourself low risk?

Yes, it should. But surely that's something that people could work out for themselves? It's less risky than going to Tesco, but we're "allowed" to do that.

Makes no sense, and therefore it should be ignored. Avoid doing things that are obviously risky. Don't stop doing the things that aren't.

Or, even better, get on with life and learn to live with a degree of risk.

Yanbu. Loads of people have been breaking this rule and visiting girlfriends and boyfriends from the start. Anyone sane just turns a blind eye, sex and love are important.

Coming to this thread late and the fact that HQ have asked everyone to be civil suggests it may have moved on a bit. I’ve had a brief scroll through and it’s worth noting:

1. This issue was picked up by some lawyers yesterday and it’s clearly an unintended consequence of legislation that has been rushed through, without the normal drafting processes or the chance for Parliament to comment. BUT that doesn’t change the fact that it is now illegal to have a gathering of more than 2 people in your own home but not from your household (and thus it is illegal to have sex with someone in your own home if they are not part of your household). Some people are saying this has always been the case but it hasn’t - the previous legislation governed what you could do outside your house, not in it. It’s a slight nuance and I can see why some people don’t think it matters, but actually legally it’s huge. The government is telling us what we can do in our own houses (although from a practical point of view it’s pretty unenforceable).

2). I think it’s been pointed out already but those saying it’s illegal anyway because of the 2m rule are wrong. The 2m rule has never been more than guidance. It has never been written into legislation (can you imagine how long the list of exemptions would need to be if it was attempted - it just isn’t workable). The police absolutely cannot fine you for breaking the 2m rule as it is not against the law. You could be in a park with 5 friends who you don’t live with, sat right next to one another, and you are within the law (but morally dubious). However if you sat 2m away from 6 friends you are breaking the law and could be fined.

3. For those of you wanting to have sex with someone you don’t live with, you can do so legally outside as long as you don’t break common decency laws (a different bit of legislation). Basically this means make sure no one sees you. If it floats your boat, you can legally have sex with 5 people outside. But not 6. That is taking it just TOO FAR.

4. It’s already been noted that you can avoid committing a crime by paying your partner to have sex, as it then falls into the ‘for work’ exemption 7(2)(d)(1).

5. interestingly, the same exemption also applies if the gathering is for ‘charitable services’. I suspect (although I’m not a lawyer) this legally might mean that if, for example, you raised money, through sponsorship, for a registered charity (i.e sponsor me to have sex with my partner indoors to raise money for x charity) then you would also not be committing a crime. Whoever sets up the first Just Giving page dedicated to this cause will be my hero.

The absurdity of all the above clearly demonstrates these are unintended consequences of the rushed legislation I referred to earlier. But as I stated earlier that doesn’t change the fact that this is now the law.

Well if I hire DP for 10p for sex work we should be ok then 😂. If he does the dishes he can also be my domestic cleaner 😂

Coach. You joke. But legally, yes! What a time to be alive.

Absolutely mental

Isn’t this breaching the Equality Act? I am being treated differently because I am not married or have a civil partnership?

@Sunnydays that wouldn't mahe any difference if you didn't live with them!

I think it might be a human rights breach though.

Well I've just WhatsApped DP. He's game, but is a bit aggrieved I think he's only worth 10p....men, such sensitive souls. 😂

The OP epitomises what's wrong with our society, all for saying that something must be done... just so long as it doesn't impact them. For goodness sake we are in the middle of an outbreak and must implement some control measures. Yes we will make some errors and no one knows exactly what course of action to take but it's hardly and autocratic dystopian future... admittedly let gove and Rees Mogg have a go and it may get there!

OP epitomises what's wrong with our society, all for saying that something must be done... just so long as it doesn't impact them.

Well said. I honestly think lots of people think personal hardship is for other people. They are as bad as Dominic Cummings and it stinks.

People wanting comfort and love are not "as bad as Dominic Cummings" Jesus watch you don't fall off that horse of yours 🙄

@Floatyboat may I ask if you live alone?

What if you get pregnant and didn’t live with your partner at the time of conception? Will midwives be asking that and reporting people?

Mascot incoming answers

A) no, I have a live in partner
B) I am single and very happy that way
C) no my DP does not live in, but for the great good of humanity I am happy with my covid chastity. The WHO should post me a misery medal.

In 3.2.1....inbound.

@BirdieFriend then you'll be sent to the workhouse and made to wear sackcloth to demonstrate your badness and filthy devotion to sex

Brilliant. It's (legally speaking) more risky for me to spend time with my boyfriend who lives rurally and has been socially isolating and social distancing than it is for me to send my small children off to stay with their father who has not been socially distancing and has been going to work, spending time with his girlfriend and her children, who have been going to visit their father in a big city.

Not saying I should keep them from their father but which man is a bigger health risk to me and my children? It's not the one I'm apparently supposed to stay away from.

Isn’t this breaching the Equality Act? I am being treated differently because I am not married or have a civil partnership?

What? Being married or in a civil partnership makes no difference. No matter your relationship to the person you cant go inside their house or vice versa.

I honestly dont understand what's so bloody difficult to follow about this.

@Overrunwithlego

Great post!

It’s a bit late to clarify this point now isn’t it surely they should have elaborated more on this prior to releasing lockdown

@Overrunwithlego

Coming to this thread late and the fact that HQ have asked everyone to be civil suggests it may have moved on a bit. I’ve had a brief scroll through and it’s worth noting:

1. This issue was picked up by some lawyers yesterday and it’s clearly an unintended consequence of legislation that has been rushed through, without the normal drafting processes or the chance for Parliament to comment. BUT that doesn’t change the fact that it is now illegal to have a gathering of more than 2 people in your own home but not from your household (and thus it is illegal to have sex with someone in your own home if they are not part of your household). Some people are saying this has always been the case but it hasn’t - the previous legislation governed what you could do outside your house, not in it. It’s a slight nuance and I can see why some people don’t think it matters, but actually legally it’s huge. The government is telling us what we can do in our own houses (although from a practical point of view it’s pretty unenforceable).

2). I think it’s been pointed out already but those saying it’s illegal anyway because of the 2m rule are wrong. The 2m rule has never been more than guidance. It has never been written into legislation (can you imagine how long the list of exemptions would need to be if it was attempted - it just isn’t workable). The police absolutely cannot fine you for breaking the 2m rule as it is not against the law. You could be in a park with 5 friends who you don’t live with, sat right next to one another, and you are within the law (but morally dubious). However if you sat 2m away from 6 friends you are breaking the law and could be fined.

3. For those of you wanting to have sex with someone you don’t live with, you can do so legally outside as long as you don’t break common decency laws (a different bit of legislation). Basically this means make sure no one sees you. If it floats your boat, you can legally have sex with 5 people outside. But not 6. That is taking it just TOO FAR.

4. It’s already been noted that you can avoid committing a crime by paying your partner to have sex, as it then falls into the ‘for work’ exemption 7(2)(d)(1).

5. interestingly, the same exemption also applies if the gathering is for ‘charitable services’. I suspect (although I’m not a lawyer) this legally might mean that if, for example, you raised money, through sponsorship, for a registered charity (i.e sponsor me to have sex with my partner indoors to raise money for x charity) then you would also not be committing a crime. Whoever sets up the first Just Giving page dedicated to this cause will be my hero.

The absurdity of all the above clearly demonstrates these are unintended consequences of the rushed legislation I referred to earlier. But as I stated earlier that doesn’t change the fact that this is now the law.

Thank you @overrunwithlego and @wishfuldreamer for your informative posts. It's difficult to know the difference between "rules" and "laws" but there is one, and policing peoples' actions in their own homes is a big step.

@EveryDayIsADuvetDay

having sex did not count as a reasonable excuse

Can't you "interpret" it as childcare?
As in making sure they're conceived?

Childcare now not allowed either, apparently.

My local paper in Australia has reported it as “UK’s new coronavirus bonk ban”.

Ffs, I know people were angry but its going a bit far to actually ban cummings.