So now it's illegal to have sex if you're from 2 different households

[roe2002]

Just that really

I don't get the furore over this - separate households haven't been allowed to mix for the whole of lockdown, except with limited numbers and social distancing in a garden or outdoor space.

Surely it follows that no sex can happen with couples not living together

It's been illegal since March. Why are you posting now? Nobody's allowed to mix households indoors. Why are you specifying this aspect, which is a logical effect of the current restrictions, amongst all the other logical effects? There are no threads saying 'So now, my children can't go and play at their grandparents' house', because it's simply not news.

You could have posted on one of the other threads, multiple threads aren't going to change anything!

Besides as others have pointed out, it has been the case since March. Nowhere in the 'permitted reasons to leave the house' did it say 'to meet up with your partner/FB for sex'

This again!

Apologies..
It was just a news item on breakfast TV earlier on

Does it actually say that?

I thought it was just partners only allowed in the garden? Or for a walk in the local park? Apart from the 2m social distancing I think that still allows it

This was covered extensively yesterday on a separate thread.

Said it before and I'll repeat it: the posters who are saying this has always been the case are technically correct: its effectively been illegal since March.

But the point (for me) is that this is symbolic of this government's total lack of consistency in its approach to guiding people on coronavirus and the anger this is storing up for down the line. Which reflects how utterly out of touch they are about the lives of ordinary people.

It's ridiculous that people are gathering on beaches so tightly they can practically snog one another but people in long-term relationships who don't cohabit are not allowed to see one another.

Just adding to the sense of discombobulation and lack of trust really. And this will lead to law-breaking on an epic scale.

I'm at a loss as to why people need these things spelling out to them. If you're not from the same household you can meet outdoors, but have to keep within social distancing guidelines. I'm fairly sure, having sex means you need to get closer than 6 feet away. Even if you do decide to do it outdoors

copycopypaste I don't think its so much that people need it spelling out... its the glaring anomalies it reveals about the way the government is approaching this situation.

It's ridiculous that people are gathering on beaches so tightly they can practically snog one another but people in long-term relationships who don't cohabit are not allowed to see one another

I think this is being dramatised by the media with low angle photographs and big headlines. I live about 500 yards from one of the most popular beaches in the country, see it 3 times every day when I'm walking the dog, and people are largely sticking to the rules.

‘Just that really’ 😂😂 glad I live with my boyfriend!! I do feel sorry for those who can’t even hug their bf/gf :( or any fam member/friend!!! X

How are we supposed to know what we can and can't do when even BoJo doesn't seem to know what he's doing.
I was having this conversation yesterday.
In my opinion its all very fucking confusing 😂

Devastated to find out I broke the law several times this weekend just past.

Not.

Oh if it's illegal it makes it much more exciting then doesn't it?

This was a silly and dramatic headline yesterday and still is today. There’s an obvious difference between 6 people 2 m apart outdoors and a couple having sex or playing chess indoors.

If you want to express concern about the government priorities and exceptions then say so. For me the unfairness is allowing close contact sport as an exemption and a priority. Apparently not being able to watch a football match is more mentally distressing than people in single households not having physical contact for three months.

I would only urge that people who break this rule do not put others at risk, those they live or work with. That’s wrong and unfair.

Nobody's allowed to mix households indoors.

Thats not strictly true though is it? In the last hour I've seen 2 men in a royal mail van and 2 window cleaners sharing a van. Lots of work places open but not ensuring social distancing amongst staff, you can sit next to people for an hour on a bus if you're going to work or to spend money in the shops. Seems its OK if it involves making or spending money/paying taxes but not for sake of people's mental health and well being.
I would absolutely be seeing a live out partner if I were in that situation. The rules stopped making sense a long time ago.

The economy will suffer badly (and so will we all as a result) if people aren't allowed to go to work as much as possible. What will be the result for the nation as a whole if you don't get a screw?

People going back to work is a calculated risk with the R number. They probably could have said 'People can fuck again now', and increased the risk that way. The fucking benefits individuals. The working benefits us all.

They could making working much safer though if they actually gave a shit about people's health. Over 40 bus and tube drivers have died and they still don't make mask wearing on public transport mandatory, nor I imagine will they be the slightest bit interested in employers putting their staff at risk and thereby everyone they come into contact with. And I'm pretty sure it's not just about sex for those not allowed to see each other indoors, there are lots of people suffering with mental health issues who currently aren't 'allowed' to have their partner come and offer support and comfort, whatever form that may take.
None of it makes any sense, as said on the other thread you could have a non cohabiting couple both self isolating, working from home or furloughed and having shopping delivered who live in walking distance or drive, then you could have a cohabiting couple both out at work/shops using public transport, maybe working on the frontline. Which couple poses the most risk to public health?

But if they're both risks (couples getting together and sending people back to work), and we can only afford one risk and not both, which is more sensible to take? The one that most couples can manage without (although it's difficult), or the one that will destroy the economy for all of us?

Which risk would you take, TakeMe? The one that saves the mental health of a few (many of whom can be keeping in touch remotely, for support), or the one that supports all of us, and will save many mental health problems further down the road?

And those who's mental health is so poor that they are at risk would be classed as essential care, and should be speaking with the doctor anyway. Or their nearest and dearest should.

I understand it that although not correct under guidelines before, as of yesterday 1st June there is now a £100 fine each for householder and visitor and a dedicated reporting call line to police.

I do not know whether subsequent criminal mark/ record

As my father used to say in a slightly different context, "you can make it illegal, but you can't make it unpopular".

Nae rumpy pumpy!

It's ridiculous that people are gathering on beaches so tightly they can practically snog one another but people in long-term relationships who don't cohabit are not allowed to see one another

You are allowed to see each other in your garden though, they’re not singling out single people and saying “you can’t have sex”, it’s an unfortunate byproduct of the rules currently in place.

There is NO way of unlocking a wide and diverse society that will make linear sense of 100% of potential situations and permutations. There just isn’t. The world is too complex.